SY 2010-2011 - Prince George`s County Public Schools
advertisement
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Board of Education Verjeana M. Jacobs, Esq., Chair Ron L. Watson, Ph.D., Vice-Chair Donna Hathaway Beck Pat J. Fletcher Heather Iliff Rosalind A. Johnson R. Owen Johnson, Jr. Amber P. Waller Jonathan Harris II, Student Member William R. Hite Jr., Ed.D., Superintendent of Schools and Secretary/Treasurer TABLE OF CONTENTS INFORMATION Part I Submission Cover Sheet ............................................................................................................................... List of Local Planning Team Members .................................................................................................................... Part I: The Content ............................................................................................................................................... List of Tables, Charts, and Figures Part 1 ............................................................................................................... Summary of Revisions to October 15th Submission Resulting from Content Review .............................................. IA. Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... IB. Finance Section ............................................................................................................................................... IC. Data Section ..................................................................................................................................................... ID. Goal Progress .................................................................................................................................................. I.D.i Maryland School Assessment/High School Assessments ................................................................... Maryland School Assessment ...................................................................................................................... Reading ..................................................................................................................................................... Mathematics .............................................................................................................................................. Science ..................................................................................................................................................... High School Assessments (HSA) ................................................................................................................. English ...................................................................................................................................................... Algebra/Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................... Biology ...................................................................................................................................................... Government .............................................................................................................................................. HSA Graduation Requirement................................................................................................................... I.D.ii Limited English Proficient Students .................................................................................................... I.D.iii Adequate Yearly Progress .................................................................................................................. School Improvement .................................................................................................................................... I.D.iv Attendance Rates ............................................................................................................................... I.D.v Graduation Rates and Dropout Rates ................................................................................................ I.D.vi Highly Qualified Staff .......................................................................................................................... High Quality Professional Development ....................................................................................................... I.D.vii Schools that are Safe, Drug-free, and Conducive to Learning ............................................................ I.E. Addressing Specific Student Groups............................................................................................................ Career and Technology Education.................................................................................................................. Early Learning ................................................................................................................................................. Gifted and Talented Programs ........................................................................................................................ Special Education ........................................................................................................................................... I.F. Cross-Cutting Themes .................................................................................................................................... Educational Technology.................................................................................................................................. Education That Is Multicultural ........................................................................................................................ Appendix I .................................................................................................................................................... Appendix II ................................................................................................................................................... I.G. Local Goals and Indicators ............................................................................................................................ I.H. Clarifying Questions ....................................................................................................................................... Part II – Attachments ............................................................................................................................................ Part II – Submission Cover Page.......................................................................................................................... Attachments 4A – 6B............................................................................................................................................. Attachment 7: Title I, Part A.................................................................................................................................. Attachment 8: Title II, Part A................................................................................................................................. PAGE 5 8 9 10-14 15 16 34 39 84 85 85 85-93 94-100 101-107 108 108-115 116-121 122-125 126-128 129-132 133-138 139-147 148-166 167-174 175-187 188-203 204-231 232-246 247 248-260 261-264 265-275 276-285 286 287-296 297-304 305-307 308-311 312-321 322-343 344 348 350-371 372-383 384 INFORMATION C-125 ................................................................................................................................................................. Assurances ........................................................................................................................................................ Attachment 10: Title III, Part A .............................................................................................................................. C-125 ................................................................................................................................................................. Assurances ........................................................................................................................................................ Attachment 13: Fine Arts ...................................................................................................................................... C-125 ................................................................................................................................................................. Assurances ........................................................................................................................................................ Supplemental Reports: Additional Federal and State Required Reporting ..................................................... Victims of Violent Criminal Offenses Report ...................................................................................................... Achieving Equity in Teacher and Principal Distribution .................................................................................... Facilities to Support Master Plan Strategies....................................................................................................... Transfer of School Records for Children in State-Supervised Care ................................................................. Student Records Review and Update Verification Certification........................................................................ Other Requested Information Power Point Presentation (November 16, 2010)................................................................................................ PAGE 389 390 391-472 473 474 475-485 486-487 488 489 490-491 492-499 500-503 504 506 508 509-523 SUBMISSION COVER PAGE PART I 2010 Master Plan Annual Update Part I: The Content Due: October 15, 2010 Revised: November 22, 2010 Local School System Submitting This Report: PRINCE GEORGE‘S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Address: 14201 School Lane, Suite 205; Upper Marlboro, Maryland 20772 Local Point of Contact: Name: Dr. Sheila C. Gray Telephone: 301-952-6361 Fax: 301-952-6227 E-Mail: sheilag@pgcps.org WE HEREBY CERTIFY that, to the best of our knowledge, the information provided in the 2009 Annual Update to our Bridge to Excellence Master Plan is correct and complete. We further certify that this Annual Update has been developed in consultation with members of the local school system‘s current Master Plan Planning Team and that each member has reviewed and approved the accuracy of the information provided in the Annual Update. William R. Hite, Jr., EdD Signature (Local Superintendent of Schools) October 15, 2010 Date Sheila C. Gray, PhD Signature (Local Point of Contact) October 15, 2010 Date LOCAL PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS LOCAL PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS Name Office/Title William R. Hite, Jr., Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Bonita Coleman-Potter, Ph.D. Deputy Superintendent A. Duane Arbogast, Ed.D. Chief Academic Officer Helen Coley Assistant Superintendent, Area 4 Monica Goldson Assistant Superintendent, High School Consortium Sheila C. Gray, Ph.D. Director, Strategic Planning & Grants Development Tricia Hariston Acting Assistant Superintendent, Area 3 Karyn Lynch Chief Student Services Officer Debra Mahone Executive Director, School Leadership Marilyn Moreno, Ph.D. Assistant Superintendent, Area 1 Diane Powell, Ph.D. Director, Student Services Lisa D. Price, PMP Performance Officer Matthew Stanski Chief Financial Officer Synthia J. Shilling, Esq. Acting Chief of Human Resources Roger Thomas, Esq. General Counsel Wesley Watts Chief Information Officer Darrell Pressley Communications Officer Gladys Whitehead, Ph.D. Director, Curriculum & Instruction Andrew Zuckerman Assistant Superintendent, Area 2 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 8 PART I THE CONTENT PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 9 LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 10 LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS, AND FIGURES Part 1 Table # Table A Table B Table C Table D Table E Table F Table 2.3 Table G Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 2.6 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7 Table 3.8 Table 3.9 Table 3.10 Table 3.11 Table H Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table I Table J Table 5.5 Table 5.5A Table 5.5B Table 5.5C Table 5.6 Table 5.7 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table K Table 6.3A Table 6.3B Table L Table 6.3C Title MSA Elementary School Reading Proficiency Rates by Subgroup – 2007-2010 MSA Middle School Reading Proficiency Rates by Subgroup – 2007-2010 MSA – AYP Proficiency Data – Math - Elementary MSA - AYP Proficiency Data – Math - Middle MSA – Science – Elementary Grade 5 MSA – Science – Elementary Grade 8 Maryland School Assessment - AYP Proficiency Data - Reading - High (English II) PGCPS READ 180 Participants Performance on the English HSA HSA Test Participation and Status - English 2009 – Population: All 10th Grade Students HSA Test Participation and Status - English 2009– Population: All 11th Grade Students Maryland School Assessment - AYP Proficiency Data – Math – High – (Algebra/Data Analysis) HSA Test Participation and Status - Algebra/Data Analysis 2008– Population: All 10th Grade Students HSA Test Participation and Status - Algebra/Data Analysis 2008– Population All 11th Grade Students HSA Test Participation and Status – Biology 2009– Population: All 10th Grade Students HSA Test Participation and Status - Biology 2009– Population: All 11th Grade Students HSA Test Participation and Status - Government 2009– Population: All 10th Grade Students HSA Test Participation and Status -Government 2009– Population: All 11th Grade Students Graduates Who Met the High School Assessment (HSA) Graduation Requirement by Option Bridge Projects Passed Rising Seniors Who Have Not Yet Met the Graduation Requirement Percent of Students Scoring at Levels 4 and 5 Number and Percentage of All Schools Making Adequate Yearly Progress Number and Percentage of Title I Schools Making Adequate Yearly Progress Number of All Schools in Improvement Number of Title I Schools in Improvement PGCPS Elementary, K-8, and Middle Schools Not Meeting the AMO for Special Education Student Subgroup, SY2009-10 by Reading and Math Status and Level of School Improvement PGCPS Elementary, K-8, and Middle Schools Not Meeting the AMO for Special Education Student Subgroup, SY2009-10 by Reading and Math Status and Level of School Improvement Attendance Rates Elementary Attendance Rates Middle School Attendance Rates High School Attendance Rates Percentage of Students Graduating From High School Percentage of Students Dropping Out of School Percentage of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers Percentage of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers in Title I Schools Percent of Highly Qualified Teachers in 2009-10 Title Schools Number of Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified (NHQ) Teachers by Reason Percent of Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified (NHQ) Teachers by Reason Percentage of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers by Class Type Change in the Number of Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified (NHQ) Teachers by Reason, SY2008-09 to SY2009-10 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 11 Page 85 85 94 94 101 101 108 109 113 113 116 118 118 122 122 126 126 129 129 131 133 148 148 152 153 156 157 167 168 168 172 176 176 188 188 189 190 190 192 193 LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS, AND FIGURES Part 1 Table # Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 6.6A Table 6.6B Table 6.6C Table 6.7 Table M Table N Table O Table P Table Q Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 7.3 Table 7.4 Table 7.5 Table 7.6 Table 7.7 Table 7.8A Table 7.8B Table 7.9A Table 7.9B Table R Table S Table T Table 7.10 Table U Table U-1 Table V Table W Table X Table Y Table Z Table AA Table AB Table AC Table 8.1 Table 8.2 Table AD Title Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) In High Poverty and Low Poverty Schools by School Level Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) In High Poverty Schools by School Level and Experience Attrition by Subcategory, SY2006-07 through SY2009-10 Teacher Attrition Rates by Subcategory, SY2006-07 through SY2009-10 Teacher Attrition by Category, SY2007-08 through SY2009-10 Percentage of Qualified Paraprofessionals Working in Title 1 Schools Site-based Technical Assistance for Principals of High Schools Principals in Improvement Teacher Professional Development Planning Framework Training Schedule for School-Based Professional Development Staff, May through August 2010 Teacher Professional Development Planning Framework Training Schedule for Central Office and Area Office Staff, SY2009-10 and SY2009-11 ―Reviewing and Providing Feedback to School Based Teams‖ Alternative Governance Professional Development Assistance training Provided by Central and Area Office Staff Alternative Governance Professional Development Monitoring Activities, SY 2009-10 through SY2010-11 Number of Persistently Dangerous Schools Probationary Status Schools Schools Meeting the 2.5 Percent Criteria for the First Time Elementary Schools with Suspension Rates Exceeding Identified Limits Identified Schools That Have Not Implemented PBIS Incidents of Bullying, Harassment, or Intimidation Number of Suspensions/Expulsions for Sexual Harassment, Harassment, and Bullying Number of Students Suspended – In School – by Race/Ethnicity and Gender (Unduplicated Count) Percent of Students Suspended – In School – by Race/Ethnicity and Gender (Unduplicated Count) Number of Students Suspended – Out of School – by Race/Ethnicity and Gender (Unduplicated Count) Percent of Students Suspended – Out of School – by Race/Ethnicity and Gender (Unduplicated Count) PGCPS Enrollment and Suspensions: SY2006 through SY2010 PGCPS Enrollment and Suspensions by Race/Ethnicity: SY2007-2010 PGCPS Enrollment and Suspensions by Gender, SY2007-SY2010 In-School and Out-of-School Suspensions by Most Common Offense Category 2008-09 CTE-PQI Outcomes for PGCPS – (Percent of Students) Three-Year CTE-PQI Outcomes for PGCPS – (Percent of Students) PGCPS Technical Academy Enrollment by Career Cluster, 2006-07 through 2008-09 Enrollment in Work-Based Learning Activities, SY2006-07 through SY2008-09 Workplace Readiness Preparedness, SY 2006-07 through SY2008-09 Business Management and Finance Career Cluster Enrollment Data, SY2006-07 to SY2008-09 CTE Family and Consumer Sciences Programs Enrollment Data, SY2006-07 to SY2008-09 CTE PQI Performance Results for Special Populations, SY2008-09 FY2008-09 PQI Report Completer Discrepancies PGCPS PQI Indicators That Did Not Meet 90 Percent Threshold. SY2008-09 Percentage of All Kindergarten Students at Readiness Stages Percentage of Kindergarten Students with Previous Prekindergarten Experience Percent of Kindergarten Students at Fully Ready by Sub-Group, 2005—2010 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 12 Page 194 195 196 197 197 203 205 205 208 210 212 232 232 232 232 232 233 235 237 238 238 238 239 239 239 240 250 250 253 254 254 255 255 256 258 259 261 262 262 LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS, AND FIGURES Part 1 Table # Table AE Table AF Table AG Table AH Table AI Table AJ Table AK Table AL-A Table AL-B Table AM Table AN Table AO Table AP Table AQ Table AR Table AS Table AT Table AU Table AV Table AW Table AX Table AY Table AZ Table AAA Table AAB Table AAC Table AAD Table AAE Table AAF Title Summary of TAG Global Test Nominations Parent and Teacher Nomination Summary Number of Students Screened Number of Students Identified PGCPS TAG Population Data Summary PGCPS TAG Population by Race/Ethnicity, SY2009-2010 TAG Services by Service Type and School Type, SY2009-2010 Distribution of Students Receiving Gifted Services by School Type SY2009-2010 Percent Distribution of Students Receiving Gifted Services by School Type SY2009-2010 Summary of Elementary of Program Participation Summary of Secondary Program Participation TAG Professional Development Student Participation in Science Enrichment Program Budget Allocation SY2009-2010 PGCPS Proposed Allocations, SY2010-11 Percentage of Students Performing at Proficient or Advanced Levels on Reading MSA – SY2009-10 Percentage of Students Performing at Proficient or Advanced Levels on Math MSA – SY2009-10 Percentage of Students Performing at Proficient or Advanced Levels on Reading Mod-MSA – SY2009-10 Percentage of Students Performing at Proficient or Advanced Levels on Math Mod MSA – SY2009-10 Percentage of Students Performing at Proficient or Advanced Levels on Reading ALT-MSA – SY2009-10 Percentage of Students Performing at Proficient or Advanced Levels on Math ALT-MSA – SY2009-10 Percentage of Students Performing at Proficient or Advanced Levels on Science ALT-MSA – SY2009-10 Grade Configuration of STEP Participating Schools:SY2009-10 PGCPS Maryland Technology Literacy Assessment Results: SY2009-10 2010 MSDE Maryland Technology Measure for PGCPS Teachers, Administrators, and Students Data Quality Resource Allocations, SY2009-10 and SY2010-11 PGCPS SY2010-11 Portfolio of Initiatives The Partners for Success Parent Center – Data Monitoring – July 2009 through June 2010 Comparison Of Summary Data Report SY2008-09 and SY2009-10 Page 265 265 266 266 266 267 268 268 268 269 269 269 271 273 274 276 277 277 277 278 278 278 288 289 289 314 315 319 320 Charts Chart A Chart B Chart C Chart D Chart E Chart F Chart G Chart H Chart I Chart K Chart L Chart M Chart N Elementary Mathematics Scheduled Trainings 2010-2011 Secondary Mathematics Scheduled Training SY 2010-2011 State Assessment PGCPS LEP Data TimeLine Goal: High Student Achievement PGCPS School Improvement Changes and Adjustments for SY2010-11 Health Room Visits – Two Year Comparison Return to Class Rate – SY2008-09 and SY2009-10 SSR Project Teams Overview of PGCPS Teacher Induction Program Process for Expanding Training and Addressing Gaps in the PGCPS New Teacher Induction Program Student Interventions Plans to Work with Early Childhood Partners/Programs PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 13 99 99 135 135 141 159 170 170 179 216 219 256 263 LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS, AND FIGURES Part 1 Table # Title Page Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Teacher Separation by Years of Service, SY2004-05 through SY2009-10 Bullying, Harassment, and Intimidation Incidents by School Level, SY2009-10 Enrollment by Career Cluster – Prince George‘s County, SY2008-09 Technical Skill Attainment Rate by CTE Program, Prince George‘s County, SY2009 Placement Rate by CTE Program, Prince George‘s County, SY2009 Dual Completer Rate by CTE Program, Prince George‘s County, SY2009 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update 198 233 249 221 252 252 Page | 14 SUMMARY OF REVISIONS TO OCTOBER 15TH SUBMISSION RESULTING FROM CONTENT REVIEW SECTION/AREA Executive Summary I.D.i MSA – Reading I.D.i MSA – Math I.D.i HSA – English II I.D.i High School Graduation Requirements I.D.iii Adequate Yearly Progress School System Improvement I.D.vi Highly Qualified Staff I.F. Cross Cutting Themes CLARIFICATION Rationale for post traumatic stress disorder training Factors that contributed to decrease in reading performance of elementary special education students Factors that contributed to decrease in math performance of elementary and middle grades special education students Course sequence for LEP students PAGES 323 324 324 325 Relationship between curriculum modification and increased graduation rate Certification status of Bridge teachers Reason for large number of HSA non test-takers Explanation of non-participation of special education students on HSAs Description of how PGCPS monitors strategies and interventions at subgroup level Reconciliation of statements on pages 140 and 148 Reconciliation of number of elementary schools and Title I schools Description of how PGCPS monitors school-level interventions, particularly at subgroup level 326 326 326-327 327-328 329 139 329-330 Professional Development 333-344 Educational Technology 331-332 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 15 330 I.A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 16 THE 2010 MASTER PLAN ANNUAL UPDATE Authorization and Purpose Authorization Section 5-401, Comprehensive Master Plans, of the Education Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland Purpose The Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act of 2002 (BTE) requires that each local school system reassess and revise its Master Plan as necessary and submit an Annual Update to the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) for review. Each local school system should submit the Annual Update to the county council, and if applicable, county executive, or county commissioners at least 30 days prior to the final submission to MSDE.1 MSDE can request revisions to ensure that updated plans are having the effect of improving student achievement, eliminating achievement gaps, and increasing progress toward meeting State performance targets. Background In 2002, the State of Maryland strengthened its standards-based education reform model to ensure that Maryland public education was adequately and equitably funded. Perhaps the most important element of this reform effort was the enactment of The Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act (BTE), which resulted in a significant increase in State funding and gave school systems the flexibility to determine the best allocation of those resources. In exchange, school systems are held accountable for the performance of their schools and their students. As part of the standards-based education reform model, the State established content area and grade level standards for student achievement as well as performance standards to support student learning at high levels. These standards are designed so that all students are proficient or better in reading and mathematics, receive a high school diploma, are taught by highly qualified teachers, and attend schools that are safe, drug-free, and conducive to learning. Under the Bridge to Excellence Act, each school system was required to develop, adopt, and implement a five-year comprehensive Master Plan linking funding from federal, State, and local sources to strategies designed to improve student achievement and school performance. The plans are updated annually. 1 Local school systems are encouraged to convey to county government officials that the performance data included in this annual update submission are preliminary, used for planning purposes only, and amended when final. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 17 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The mission of Prince George‘s County Public Schools (PGCPS) is to prepare all students to graduate college and/or workforce ready. PGCPS has defined the term ―college and career ready‖ through the development of the Profile of a Graduate. To their fullest potential, PGCPS graduates will demonstrate specific skills as: An Effective Communicator and Collaborator, A Successful Problem Solver, A Responsible Person, and An Engaged Global and Domestic Citizen. They will also exhibit mastery in the Core Content Areas of Knowledge. To accomplish this mission, PGCPS must: 1) Improve the quality of teaching in every classroom; 2) Equip teachers with the requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities; and 3) Ensure that all facets of the system support teachers in this mission. PGCPS must be strategic, insightful, and effective in its approach to fulfilling this mission. In SY2009-10, PGCPS began implementing a performance management approach to clarify and communicate its strategic goals and objectives; establish corresponding key performance indicators and targets; establish processes and tools to empower staff to succeed; and monitor the efficacy of implemented strategies for increased student achievement. As a first step to clarifying its goals, PGCPS revisited the strategic goals which had guided the system‘s improvement efforts since 2003 with the development of the first Bridge to Excellence Master Plan. Those goals mirrored the five goals of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and addressed two additional local areas of focus—family/community engagement and efficiency of operations. As one outcome of extensive strategic planning in SY2009-10, Executive Cabinet re-aligned the seven goals into five comprehensive, distinct goals which now serve as a framework to pursue academic excellence and the organizational factors that impact it. The re-aligned and prioritized goals are described below (prior Goals 1, 2 and 5 were subsumed into new Goal 1). Re-aligned Goals Goal 1: High Student Achievement – Ensuring that all students graduate college and career ready. Goal 2: Highly Effective Teaching – Developing and maintaining a highly effective workforce. Goal 3: Safe and Supportive Schools – Ensuring a school environment that is conductive to teaching and learning. Goal 4: Strong Community Partnerships – Strengthening connections with constituents and stakeholders. Goal 5: Effective and Efficient Operations – Delivering high quality services to PGCPS customers. Alignment to Prior Goals Goal 1: All students will reach high standards in core curricular areas, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better for each ESEA subgroup in reading/language arts and mathematics. Goal 2: All Limited English Proficient students will become proficient in English and reach high standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading/language arts and mathematics. Goal 5: All students will graduate from high school. Goal 3: All students will be taught by highly qualified teachers. Goal 4: All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drugfree, and conducive to learning. Goal 7: Family, school, business, and community relationships will be strengthened to support student achievement. Goal 6: The quality of school system service delivery will be enhanced by improving management effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability. These goals are aligned with the system‘s mission and address current challenges and opportunities. In addition, the goals are well aligned with the system‘s core beliefs, which continue to undergird the system‘s improvement work: 1. Children are our business – and they come first; 2. Parents are our partners; 3. Victory is in the classroom; 4. Continuous improvement in teaching, leadership, and accountability is the key to our success; and 5. Every member of this community shares the responsibility for successful schools. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 18 Having clarified the system‘s goals, Executive Cabinet solicited input from instructional and administrative staff at various levels and worked diligently to develop, vet, approve, and communicate key performance indicators (KPIs) and corresponding performance targets within each of the five goals (See KPIs and performance targets for Goal 1 on page 137) Based on baseline data from SY2009-10, immediate (SY2010-11) and long-term (SY2016-17) performance targets were established. Selected targets require a longer time to achieve, hence the 2017 targets. In accordance with the system‘s Performance Management Analysis and Planning Process (PMAPP), each department, office, and area developed SY2010-11 Annual Performance Plans which detail strategies and metrics to support the five strategic goals, relevant key performance indicators, and other departmental or organizational objectives. Schools continue to develop school improvement pans, and also develop PMAPP reports which include instructional strategies, performance targets and actuals relative to the objectives of increased student achievement and attendance and reduced suspensions and discipline incidents. The system‘s school improvement planning process was refined to more closely integrate PMAPP objectives and reporting requirements, thereby reducing duplication of efforts by school administrators. Departments, offices and schools are held accountable for results through regular PMAPP performance reviews with leadership at various levels. PMAPP has significantly increased the district‘s focus on data – and has emphasized the need for increased staff capacity in the areas of data collection and analysis. Currently, data that are tightly aligned to the core mission of each school and department are regularly captured - from disparate data management systems - and reported by staff via PMAPP. In SY201011, comprehensive, consolidated performance data from these independent applications will be available via a robust data warehouse which will significantly increase the district‘s ability to make data-driven decisions. As a result of data analyses, systemic trends identified or confirmed during PMAPP, and Executive Cabinet‘s efforts to determine areas of greatest systemic need (and barriers to success), five priorities were identified. o fulfill its mission and goals, the district must: increase achievement in the special education subgroup and in middle school reading, math and science; build effective instructional leadership teams (to develop and support highly-effective teaching), and develop and implement human capital and process improvement strategies. In support of these priorities - and based on a criteria of strong alignment with the five strategic goals - the district has approved seven key initiatives for inclusion in its SY2010-11 portfolio. The initiatives and their objectives follow: PGCPS Portfolio of Initiatives – SY2010 – 11 Initiative 1 Secondary School Reform 2 HSA Reform 3 Special Education Reform 4 Human Capital Reform 5 Inception of Portfolio Schools Objective(s) To develop and implement strategies to increase student achievement and success in high school. To provide new opportunities, improve transition success for students, and empower school staff. Supports Goal 1 – High Student Achievement To increase the pass rate for students taking the HSA for the first time, thereby decreasing the number of Academic Validation Programs required to meet individual graduation requirements. Supports Goal 1 – High Student Achievement To improve the support provided to special education students from birth to postgraduate transition. Strategies will be developed and deployed to address stateidentified issues, resolve disproportionate suspension and expulsion rates, and improve overall processes. Supports Goal 1 – High Student Achievement To develop a strategic process for teacher recruitment, career development, and district-wide supports that create the conditions necessary to support effective human capital management, and sustained professional development and growth. Supports Goal 2 – Highly Effective Teaching To develop an office to assume responsibility for charter schools and alternative educational programming by aggressively seeking partnership opportunities with individuals and organizations that bring expertise and effectives educational programs to the district. Supports Goal 1 – High Student Achievement PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 19 PGCPS Portfolio of Initiatives – SY2010 – 11 Initiative 6 Capital Improvement Program Reform 7 Student-Based Budgeting Objective(s) To analyze the current CIP approach to better address and/or improve the Educational Facilities Master Plan, while being responsive to state funding priorities and state and county funding capacities. Supports Goal 5 – Effective and Efficient Operations To equitably allocate funds to students based on educational needs; to fairly and effectively allocate resources to support strategic priorities and reform efforts; to empower schools with increased flexibility in their budgetary and operational decisions. Supports Goal 5 – Effective and Efficient Operations The expectation is that the district‘s strategic approach to aligning mission, goals, objectives, strategies, metrics and accountability will result in steady improvement in these and other critical areas, thereby improving overall student achievement. BUDGET NARRATIVE ALIGNMENT OF FISCAL RESOURCES Funding increases provided by the State through the Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act of 2003, and resources provided by the Prince George‘s County government in excess of amounts required to meet State Maintenance of Effort provisions, combined with responsible and accountable fiscal management, have enabled the system to invest funds in programs to improve student achievement in many areas during SY2009-10. The additional resources have been instrumental in developing a shared vision of how to improve student achievement and school effectiveness, with an emphasis on distributing resources equitably and eliminating the achievement gap; preserving fiscal stability; providing management and information systems that effectively and efficiently support instruction while maintaining operational and fiscal integrity; and working in partnership with the public school stakeholder community to ensure that all students graduate prepared for college or postsecondary/career options. PGCPS will ensure that its resources, programs, and services are strategically and operationally focused to support learning and improve performance in all areas, while addressing any challenges that arise. As we enter the 2011 fiscal year with limited resources, the system must continue to build on the important progress made in student achievement. The decrease in funding for FY 2011 is considerable in comparison to FY 2010 primarily due to the slow economic growth in the County and State. The areas associated with slow growth were principally due to falling home prices, rising fuel cost and sharp increases in property foreclosures. These characteristic are not unique to Prince George‘s County or the state of Maryland, but are consistent throughout most states and across many regions in the United States. The limited financial resources require the system to strategically appropriate funding in areas that will maintain the successes achieved in prior years, and effectively manage existing resources to ensure continued success. The summary of the programmatic focus in the FY 2011 Operating Budget follows. The FY 2011 Operating Budget continues effective programs and services, including maintaining optimal class sizes and fullday kindergarten programs, and maintains services in other areas to help improve teaching and learning, and meet the goals of the Master Plan. The 2011 Operating budget includes very few new investments due to the reduction in revenue. Those improvements support secondary school reform, ESOL/ISCO testing locations, middle college, central garage services, pupil accounting, translation services, scheduler pay, and performance management. The economic outlook for subsequent years will require similar fiscal prudence with sound financial and instructional management to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to continue to improve the performance of our students. The FY 2011 Operating Budget totals $1,633,526,541. It is a decrease of ($77.7) million or (4.5 %) less than the FY 2010 Approved Budget. Mandatory changes for expenditures that are required by law, support contract commitments, provide essential health/safety services and support enrollment total $67.0 million. Resources redirected through reductions from amounts appropriated in FY 2010 for selected programs and services total ($111.9) million. These redirected resources PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 20 increase funds available for mandatory changes and program improvements by a like amount. They also reflect reductions in programs and services due to decreases in revenue. These reductions are not linked to any specific mandatory change or improvement, but instead are redirected to fund the total additional cost of mandatory changes and program improvements funded in the FY 2011 Operating Budget. Accordingly, additional resources budgeted for program and service improvements total $2.5 million, supporting the Master Plan goals to varying degrees based on need. These FY 2011 improvements seek to ensure that all students achieve high academic standards in reading and mathematics and graduate; improve the qualifications of all staff and help teachers gain certification; improve safety and security in our schools; and improve the system‘s relationship with parents and community members. Program improvements include support for secondary school reform, ESOL/ISCO testing locations, middle college, central garage services, pupil accounting, translation services, scheduler pay, and performance management. These FY 2011 improvements support the following school system goals: Goal 1: High Student Achievement – Improvements in this goal of $771,099 supports $500,000 for secondary school reform, $71,099 for ESOL/ISCO testing locations, and $200,000 for Middle College. Goal 2: Highly-Effective Teaching Goal 3: Safe and Supportive Schools. Improvements in this goal of $1.5 million include $1.4 million to support central garage services and $126,888 to support Pupil Accounting Goal 4: Strong Community Partnerships. Improvements in this goal of $136,000 include additional translation services. Goal 5: Effective and Efficient Operations. Improvements in this goal of $70,000 include funds for scheduler pay and performance management. These initiatives are critical to the system‘s efforts to achieve Bridge to Excellence Master Plan goals and ensure that our students, teachers and support staff have the tools and resources necessary to help children learn and achieve. USE OF ARRA FUNDS STATE FISCAL STABILIZATION FUNDS 1. How has having State Fiscal Stabilization (SFS) funds available influenced the school system's decisions regarding the master plan priorities for the year? How are specific ARRA grants (Title I ARRA Funds, IDEA ARRA Funds, National School Lunch Equipment Assistance, Homeless, other) being used to support the Master Plan priorities? The FY2011 Operating Budget, despite limited revenue growth, continues effective programs and services, focusing on the maintenance of core services directly related to the improvement of teaching and learning within classroom instruction, using a performance based budgeting approach in order to clearly define the core services and programs supporting student achievement, teacher effectiveness, secondary reform, customer service, and performance management to meet the goals of the Master Plan. Goals 1 and 3 of the Master Plan promote the continuance of high student achievement and ensure that all schools reflect a positive, nurturing and supporting educational climate that supports the academic, socio-emotional and health needs of all students. The State Fiscal Stabilization funds are being used to support district-wide utility costs as well as other general operating expenses of the school district that includes instructional supplies, textbooks, and testing materials as an indirect way of continuing to build academic progress, maintain successful instructional programs, and promote the improvement of student achievement and school effectiveness by preserving a degree of fiscal stability necessary to better prepare students for critical State assessments. 2. Please explain how the ARRA funding streams are being coordinated to support the law’s reform priorities: Increasing teacher effectiveness and addressing inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers (Recruiting, developing, and retaining effective teachers and principals); PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 21 N/A – State Fiscal Stabilization (SFS) Funds. Establishing and using a pre-K-through-college-and-career data system to track progress and foster continuous improvement (Building data systems that measure student success and inform teachers and principals how they can improve their practices); N/A – State Fiscal Stabilization (SFS) Funds. Making progress towards rigorous college- and career-ready standards and high-quality assessments that are valid and reliable for all students, including limited English proficient students and students with disabilities (Adopting internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the workplace); and N/A – State Fiscal Stabilization (SFS) Funds. Providing targeted, intensive support and effective interventions to turn around schools identified as developing needs (improvement year 1, improvement year 2, and corrective action) and priority needs (restructuring planning, restructuring implementation). N/A – State Fiscal Stabilization (SFS) Funds. 3. How has the potential “funding cliff” impacted current discussions and subsequent decisions regarding the most effective use of ARRA funds? It is anticipated that major state aid revenue levels will be restored to the degree that will enable the school system to realign the costs for district-wide utilities and other general expenses of LEA for instructional supplies, textbooks, and testing materials back to general fund to be supported by unrestricted resources that are necessary to support expenditures associated with sustaining mandatory operations of doing business within our school system. NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH EQUIPMENT ASSISTANCE GRANT 1. How has having State Fiscal Stabilization (SFS) funds available influenced the school system's decisions regarding the master plan priorities for the year? How are specific ARRA grants (Title I ARRA Funds, IDEA ARRA Funds, National School Lunch Equipment Assistance, Homeless, other) being used to support the master plan priorities? The National School Lunch Equipment Assistance ARRA funds align with Master Plan Goal 3, which ensures all schools reflect a positive, nurturing and supporting educational climate that supports the academic, socio-emotional and health needs of all students as well as providing nutritional meals that promote healthy eating to all families. These ARRA funds have been used to support the acquisition of food service equipment (steamers, milk coolers, warming cabinets, convection ovens) in 5 targeted schools to improve the efficiency of the lunch room, expand the lunch menus, offer more healthier choices to students, while improving the safety and sanitation practices in the school lunch room and kitchen areas. 2. Please explain how the ARRA funding streams are being coordinated to support the law’s reform priorities: Increasing teacher effectiveness and addressing inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers (Recruiting, developing, and retaining effective teachers and principals); N/A – National School Lunch Equipment Assistance Grant. Establishing and using a pre-K-through-college-and-career data system to track progress and foster continuous improvement (Building data systems that measure student success and inform teachers and principals how they can improve their practices); N/A – National School Lunch Equipment Assistance Grant. Making progress towards rigorous college- and career-ready standards and high-quality assessments that are valid and reliable for all students, including limited English proficient students and students with disabilities (Adopting PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 22 internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the workplace); and N/A – National School Lunch Equipment Assistance Grant. Providing targeted, intensive support and effective interventions to turn around schools identified as developing needs (improvement year 1, improvement year 2, and corrective action) and priority needs (restructuring planning, restructuring implementation). N/A – National School Lunch Equipment Assistance Grant. 3. How has the potential “funding cliff” impacted current discussions and subsequent decisions regarding the most effective use of ARRA funds? The National School Lunch Equipment Assistance ARRA Grant will not impact the district with the potential funding cliff as the funds were used for one-time costs that facilitated the purchase food service equipment to improve the efficiency of the lunch rooms in 5 targeted schools. HOMELESS ARRA GRANT 1. How has having State Fiscal Stabilization (SFS) funds available influenced the school system's decisions regarding the master plan priorities for the year? How are specific ARRA grants (Title I ARRA funds, IDEA ARRA funds, National School Lunch Equipment Assistance, Homeless, other) being used to support the Master Plan priorities? The Homeless Education ARRA funds align with Master Plan goal 4, which states and ensures that family, school, business, and community relationships will be strengthened to support academic achievement and career success for all students. Homeless ARRA grant funds were used to support the enhancement and expansion of services to homeless student population for uniforms, transportation assistance for students in transitional housing situations, school supplies and personal hygiene items by way of establishing partnerships with two major vendors/retailers in the community. These extended resources have produced results that reflect increased student attendance, improved academic performance, and positive parental involvement from parents and families of students identified in the homeless student population. 2. Please explain how the ARRA funding streams are being coordinated to support the law’s reform priorities: Increasing teacher effectiveness and addressing inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers (recruiting, developing, and retaining effective teachers and principals); N/A – Homeless Education ARRA Establishing and using a pre-k-through-college-and-career data system to track progress and foster continuous improvement (building data systems that measure student success and inform teachers and principals how they can improve their practices); N/A – Homeless Education ARRA Grant. Making progress towards rigorous college- and career-ready standards and high-quality assessments that are valid and reliable for all students, including limited English proficient students and students with disabilities (adopting internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the workplace); and N/A – Homeless Education ARRA Grant. Providing targeted, intensive support and effective interventions to turn around schools identified as developing needs (improvement year 1, improvement year 2, and corrective action) and priority needs (restructuring planning, restructuring implementation). N/A – Homeless Education ARRA Grant. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 23 3. How has the potential “funding cliff” impacted current discussions and subsequent decisions regarding the most effective use of ARRA funds? The Homeless Education ARRA Funds will not impact the district with the potential funding cliff as the funds are being used to expand the current services identified in the ongoing McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Grant to students classified and approved to receive benefits from the federal supplemental funding that mainly supports the acquisition of uniforms and school supplies. HEAD START 1. How has having State Fiscal Stabilization (SFS) funds available influenced the school system's decisions regarding the master plan priorities for the year? How are specific ARRA grants (Title I ARRA Funds, IDEA ARRA Funds, National School Lunch Equipment Assistance, Homeless, other) being used to support the master plan priorities? The Head Start ARRA funds have been able to provide an integrated system of quality services to participating families and eligible children. The program encourages self-sufficiency, growth, and development supported through family and community partnerships consequently; ARRA funding for the Head Start Program is aligned with Master Plan Goal 4 which ensures strong family-community-school partnerships that support academic and socio-emotional and career success for all students. Funds will support the continued expansion of Head Start services to children and families in center-based settings that will include more technical assistance training for teachers and paraprofessionals, in addition to other targeted support that addresses obesity and staff career development opportunities. The program will also facilitate the focus of comprehensive services to a diverse population of children and families located in economically disadvantaged communities while encouraging parents to become involved in policy and program decision-making as they work as volunteers. 2. Please explain how the ARRA funding streams are being coordinated to support the law’s reform priorities: Increasing teacher effectiveness and addressing inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers (Recruiting, developing, and retaining effective teachers and principals); N/A – Head Start Expansion ARRA Grant. Establishing and using a pre-K-through-college-and-career data system to track progress and foster continuous improvement (Building data systems that measure student success and inform teachers and principals how they can improve their practices); N/A – Head Start Expansion ARRA Grant. Making progress towards rigorous college- and career-ready standards and high-quality assessments that are valid and reliable for all students, including limited English proficient students and students with disabilities (Adopting internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the workplace); and N/A – Head Start Expansion ARRA Grant. Providing targeted, intensive support and effective interventions to turn around schools identified as developing needs (improvement year 1, improvement year 2, and corrective action) and priority needs (restructuring planning, restructuring implementation). N/A – Head Start Expansion ARRA Grant. 3. How has the potential “funding cliff” impacted current discussions and subsequent decisions regarding the most effective use of ARRA funds? The Head Start Program will be continuously discussing plans to make recommendations to sustain the services and personnel from the ARRA funding in lieu of the potential funding cliff by absorbing these processes through the school system‘s utilization of increasing the matching effort required for yearly discretionary Head Start Grant. As many of the children served with ARRA funds matriculate to Kindergarten, families, schools, business and community relationships will PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 24 continue to receive support to strengthen student achievement by providing Head Start services into targeted economically disadvantage communities. MARYLAND CLEAN DIESEL PROGRAM 1. How has having State Fiscal Stabilization (SFS) funds available influenced the school system's decisions regarding the master plan priorities for the year? How are specific ARRA grants (Title I ARRA Funds, IDEA ARRA Funds, National School Lunch Equipment Assistance, Homeless, other) being used to support the master plan priorities? The Maryland Clean Diesel Program ARRA funds have been able to provide the acquisition of diesel particulate filters and crankcase ventilation systems to retrofit diesel school buses through an initiative endorsed by the Maryland Department of the Environment. These AARA funds align with Master Plan Goal 3 which ensures strong family-community-school partnerships that support academic and socio-emotional and career success for all students in addition to providing a safe, efficient transportation system for all school district programs. 2. Please explain how the ARRA funding streams are being coordinated to support the law’s reform priorities: Increasing teacher effectiveness and addressing inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers (Recruiting, developing, and retaining effective teachers and principals); N/A – Maryland Clean Diesel Program ARRA Grant. Establishing and using a pre-K-through-college-and-career data system to track progress and foster continuous improvement (Building data systems that measure student success and inform teachers and principals how they can improve their practices); N/A – Maryland Clean Diesel Program ARRA Grant. Making progress towards rigorous college- and career-ready standards and high-quality assessments that are valid and reliable for all students, including limited English proficient students and students with disabilities (Adopting internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the workplace); and N/A – Maryland Clean Diesel Program ARRA Grant. Providing targeted, intensive support and effective interventions to turn around schools identified as developing needs (improvement year 1, improvement year 2, and corrective action) and priority needs (restructuring planning, restructuring implementation). N/A – Maryland Clean Diesel Program ARRA Grant. 3. How has the potential “funding cliff” impacted current discussions and subsequent decisions regarding the most effective use of ARRA funds? The Maryland Clean Diesel Program ARRA funds will not impact the district with the potential funding cliff as the funds are being used for one-time costs sanctioned by the Maryland Department of the Environment that facilitated the acquisition of diesel filters and crankcase ventilation systems to retrofit district-wide school buses. TITLE I ARRA GRANT 1. How has having State Fiscal Stabilization (SFS) funds available influenced the school system's decisions regarding the master plan priorities for the year? How are specific ARRA grants (Title I ARRA Funds, IDEA ARRA Funds, National School Lunch Equipment Assistance, Homeless, other) being used to support the master plan priorities? Title I ARRA funds are being used to continue a variety of services to meet the priorities established by the Superintendent and Board of Education that align with Master Plan Goals 1, 2, 4, and 5 which support high student achievement, highly PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 25 effective teaching, strong community partnerships, and effective and efficient operations. Several programs were implemented and identified in the approved ARRA application surrounding improving student achievement; building high performance leadership, management, and organization; and fostering parent and community partnerships. Extended learning opportunities in 60 Title I schools offered before and/or after-school interventions for students in reading and mathematics to improve student achievement; increase instructional time for struggling students; and reduce the achievement gap among all learners. The New Leaders for New Schools program provided full-time, full-year practical training experience for six aspiring principals in Title I schools to understand and apply key skills presented in foundation coursework. The focus New Leaders for New Schools principals competencies is based on increasing student achievement for a defined group of students; demonstrating proficiency in instructional leadership; demonstrating proficiency in operational and managerial leadership; and building relationships and involving the whole school community. In year two, Title I ARRA funds will be used to continue the implementation of strategies designed to improve student achievement through school improvement and reform projects and support early childhood interventions and school-based extended learning programs. Waivers were approved for the statutory grant set-asides for SES/Choice Option, system in improvement for professional development, and the per pupil calculation for SES to allow the program funds to support the implementation of a summer enrichment program, a student data repository system, to improve the ability to monitor student learning and achievement which will make appropriate linkages between existing data systems and identify best practices to address student learning needs and literacy summer program, installation of a data repository to track the progress of Title I students, and professional development for school leaders. 2. Please explain how the ARRA funding streams are being coordinated to support the law’s reform priorities: Increasing teacher effectiveness and addressing inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers (Recruiting, developing, and retaining effective teachers and principals); N/A – Title I ARRA Grant. Establishing and using a pre-K-through-college-and-career data system to track progress and foster continuous improvement (Building data systems that measure student success and inform teachers and principals how they can improve their practices); Funds will be used to continue the implementation of strategies designed to improve student achievement through school improvement and reform projects and support early childhood interventions and school-based extended learning programs. A Title I ARRA grant waiver was requested and approved for the statutory grant set-aside associated with the per pupil calculation for SES to allow the program funds to support the installation of a data repository system to monitor Title I students and staff that will allow the appropriate linkages between several data systems used in the district. The data warehouse and reporting system will improve the ability to monitor student learning and achievement. The system will also provide the ability to identify best practices to address student learning needs, engage in regular, sustained review of data, and use data for program planning and improvements. Making progress towards rigorous college- and career-ready standards and high-quality assessments that are valid and reliable for all students, including limited English proficient students and students with disabilities (Adopting internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the workplace); and N/A – Title I ARRA Grant. Providing targeted, intensive support and effective interventions to turn around schools identified as developing needs (improvement year 1, improvement year 2, and corrective action) and priority needs (restructuring planning, restructuring implementation). Funds will be used to continue the implementation of strategies designed to improve student achievement through school improvement and reform projects and support early childhood interventions and school-based extended learning programs. Year round extended learning opportunities for schools identified for corrective action or restructuring will continue to provide extended learning time and interventions before and after school for students in reading and mathematics that will improve student achievement in an effort to reduce the achievement gap among all learners. Title I ARRA grant waivers were requested and approved for the statutory grant set-asides for SES/Choice Option and the system in improvement for PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 26 professional development to allow the program funds to support the implementation of a summer enrichment program and professional development for school leaders. 3. How has the potential “funding cliff” impacted current discussions and subsequent decisions regarding the most effective use of ARRA funds? The Title I Department expects minimal impact from the potential funding cliff as positions created and supported by ARRA funds are classified for only two year terms. It is also anticipated that fiscal year 2012 Title I Part A., resources will be at such funding levels to absorb the sustainability of chosen activities and positions that would end as a result of the expiration of ARRA dollars. Discussions are ongoing to develop program transitional strategies within the Title I ARRA Grant and the preparation for the FY 2012 Attachment 7 Master Plan document. SPECIAL EDUCATION ARRA GRANT 1. How has having State Fiscal Stabilization (SFS) funds available influenced the school system's decisions regarding the master plan priorities for the year? How are specific ARRA grants (Title I ARRA Funds, IDEA ARRA Funds, National School Lunch Equipment Assistance, Homeless, other) being used to support the master plan priorities? The Special Education ARRA funds are being used to continue a variety of services to meet the priorities established by the Superintendent and Board of Education that align with Master Plan Goals 1, 2, and 3 which support high student achievement, highly effective teaching, and safe and supportive schools that promote the school districts Special Education ARRA district priorities: Building Systemic Staff Capacity for High Performance; Providing Interventions and Technology to Support Students with Disabilities; Improving Outreach and Support to Families of Students with Disabilities; Improving the Service Delivery and Resource Utilization of Program Initiatives; Providing Early Intervening Services for Students without Disabilities to Reduce Referrals to the Special Education Department. With the primary focus of Special Education ARRA funds centered on increasing the academic achievement of students with disabilities, as PGCPS reported last year having the lowest percentage of special education students who are removed from general education settings less than 20% of the day, less than half (47.68%) the students with IEPs in PGCPS are receiving services in this least restrictive environment, compared with a state-wide average of 62.87%. The data driven technology based reading intervention program will train special educators to use data driven technology aligned with NCLB and the recommendations of the National Reading Panel, which will teach students the appropriate skills essential for phonemic awareness, phonic vocabulary, and reading comprehension. Also in the second year of Special Education ARRA grant implementation, the program will continue to support the activities associated with: Increasing teacher effectiveness by providing ongoing training in secondary transition planning for students with disabilities and assessing and promoting post traumatic growth in children; Implementing coordinated early intervention services (Reading Recovery) to provide intensive support for struggling readers; Instituting technology support and interventions that are designed to reduce referrals to special education for students without disabilities and outreach to support families of students with disabilities; Improving the special education service delivery and resource utilization process. Panel clarifying question: Please clarify the trauma being referenced as ―post-traumatic growth‖ and how it is applicable to students and their educational performance. LSS Response to Clarifying Question: PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 27 The response to this question can be found on page 323. 2. Please explain how the ARRA funding streams are being coordinated to support the law’s reform priorities: Increasing teacher effectiveness and addressing inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers (Recruiting, developing, and retaining effective teachers and principals); Funds will continue to support increased teacher effectiveness by providing ongoing training in secondary transition planning for students with disabilities and assessing and promoting post traumatic growth in children. Expected outcomes from this activity are that students with disabilities will demonstrate increased engagement with school and improved academic achievement as a result of appropriate assessment, interventions, and support that focus primarily on promoting post traumatic growth in children. In addition, all school psychologists will receive training to enhance their professional knowledge base in high priority areas. Establishing and using a pre-K-through-college-and-career data system to track progress and foster continuous improvement (Building data systems that measure student success and inform teachers and principals how they can improve their practices); N/A – Special Education ARRA Grant. Making progress towards rigorous college- and career-ready standards and high-quality assessments that are valid and reliable for all students, including limited English proficient students and students with disabilities (Adopting internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the workplace); and N/A – Special Education ARRA Grant. Providing targeted, intensive support and effective interventions to turn around schools identified as developing needs (improvement year 1, improvement year 2, and corrective action) and priority needs (restructuring planning, restructuring implementation). Funds will continue to support coordinated early intervention services (Reading Recovery) to provide intensive support for struggling readers identified as at-risk to help them reach advanced and proficient levels. Additional support will be provided to students with disabilities by continuing comprehensive instructional interventions that will reflect increased performance for students taking the Maryland School Assessment (MSA) for Science as well as research and internet based reading intervention activities that will teach elementary students to read fluently with comprehension. 3. How has the potential “funding cliff” impacted current discussions and subsequent decisions regarding the most effective use of ARRA funds? The Special Education Department will be continuously discussing plans to make recommendations to sustain the services and personnel from the ARRA funding in lieu of the potential funding cliff. The special education program believes in a philosophy that sustainable system capacity to increase the achievement of students with disabilities is being built as a result of investments made in professional development, assistive technology, and academic interventions through the existing program created from the use of Special Education ARRA funding. ARRA FINANCIAL REPORTING TABLES – ANALYZING QUESTIONS Local school systems are asked to detail the plans that they have for the use of SFS funds by responding to the prompts in this section. (Refer to Tables 1.1.C and 1.1.D, ARRA Financial Reporting Tables, for the itemized expenditures by program or initiative.) PLANNED USE OF STATE FISCAL STABILIZATION (SFS) FUNDS 1. Please describe what the influx of flexible ARRA SFS funds has allowed the school system to accomplish this year, regardless whether or not the SFS funds were directly used to fund an initiative. (For example: A school PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 28 system plans to use SFS funds to pay for utilities, and that decision, in turn, is allowing the district to allocate funds to a different program or initiative.) Local and state revenues provide the majority of the funds supporting the Operating Budget for the Board of Education comprising 36% and 52% respectively of the total budget. With continued limited financial resources, the Board of Education establishes and maintains fiscal oversight and control for funds entrusted to PGCPS that responsibly and strategically appropriates funding in areas that will sustain academic successes in prior years, support high levels of learning and academic achievement for all students, and fulfill the mission and core values established by the Board of Education. In fiscal year 2011, state sources of revenue includes the second disbursements of a series of federal targeted restricted and unrestricted State Fiscal Stabilization pass-through funds initiated from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. These supplemental educational resources were awarded to stimulate the economy in the short term and invest in education and other essential public services to ensure long-term economic stability. The incursion of $46.5m dollars of State Fiscal Stabilization Funds in fiscal year 2010 and $51.2m dollars in fiscal year 2011, issued to restore State support for elementary and secondary public education, supported district-wide utility costs and textbooks in the prior year and will be used in a similar manor in fiscal year 2011, including the expansion of dollars to support other general expenses of the school district that includes instructional testing materials. This allows the school district to indirectly save and create jobs, eliminate the necessity of reducing or discontinuing educational services for students, while providing the opportunity for the school system to reduce the achievement gap and prepare students to be college and career-ready after graduation. Utilizing the (SFS) funds in fiscal year 2011 to support the aforementioned fixed costs is an essential contribution to the overall operational needs of the school system and has been able to minimize to a lesser degree the impact of a current district-wide employee furlough and possible elimination of activities and initiatives that threaten the preservation teaching and learning in the classroom. 2. If the State Fiscal Stabilization (SFS) funds are being used for specific construction projects, please provide a list of the specific construction projects (ARRA Division, A, Section 14008) and the corresponding resource allocations. N/A – State Fiscal Stabilization (SFS) Funds. 3. Please describe, if applicable, one-time uses of SFSF funds. Include individual activities and corresponding resource allocations in your description. After the ARRA funds run out, is there a plan of sustainability? If so, please briefly describe the plan. It is anticipated that major state aid revenue levels will be restored to the degree that will enable the school system to realign the costs for district-wide utilities and other general expenses of LEA for instructional supplies, textbooks, and testing materials Back to general fund to be supported by unrestricted resources that are necessary to support expenditures associated with sustaining mandatory operations of doing business within our school system and refrain from severely impacting the course of classroom instruction. 4. Please describe the steps that the school system proposes to take to permit students, teachers, and other program beneficiaries to overcome barriers that impede access to, or participation in, the program or activity. The Bridge to Excellence Master Plan provides a guide for all PGCPS personnel including the Board of Education, parents/guardians, community stakeholders, as well as elected and government officials to work in partnerships to ensure that all students are prepared to meet the challenges of an economically competitive, technologically advanced and culturally diverse 21st century society. It is imperative that the school system‘s personnel and resources are strategically and operationally focused on achieving a shared vision to improve student achievement and school effectiveness, with special emphasis on eliminating the achievement gap. Through identified goals, the Bridge to Excellence Master Plan is designed to do present a realistic and achievable roadmap for success within the context of the constraints identified in the Comprehensive Needs Assessment. Specifically, the Bridge to Excellence Master Plan also provides the organizing framework from which the administration will develop measurable standards and accountability measures for each school and the system as a whole. The Prince George's County Board of Education vows to close achievement gaps and raise PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 29 achievement for all students in Prince George‘s County by ensuring ―equitable access‖ to a high quality education that guarantees that every child graduating from the PGCPS is college and work ready. The chosen theory of action to execute the principles is the notion of managed performance/empowerment, which essentially embraces many partial theories of action, including adequate resources distributed through an equitable system, effective management, small learning communities, and highly qualified teachers. The managed performance/empowerment theory provides a framework to drive forward and align goals, strategic plans, policies, budget, administrative actions, and the Bridge to Excellence Master Plan to create a high performing school district that educates all children to high standards and eliminates the achievement gap and other potential barriers that could perhaps impede access to, or participation in academic programs or activities designed to endorse student achievement. Management of the district‘s core business, teaching, and learning by central administration using flexible parameters that balance accountability with empowerment according to the needs and performance of individual schools is a critical element of ensuring that each student and teacher has access to the required resources that will enable them to be efficient and effective in and out of the classroom. GOAL PROGRESS Maryland School Assessment PGCPS continued to see improvement in the performance of students on the MSA. In reading, 78.7% of elementary students and 73.1% of middle grade students scored proficient or advanced in SY2009-2010. The math proficiency rate for elementary students was 77.9%; while 56.4% of middle grades students scored at proficient or advanced. Sixty-nine elementary schools had 80 percent or more students scoring proficient or advanced in reading; while 60 elementary schools performed at the 80 percent or higher proficiency level in math. Limited English Proficient Students PGCPS continues to demonstrated its ability to assist LEP students attain English proficiency by the end of the school year. In SY2009-2010, the percent of ELL meeting AMAO 1 (72.77%) increased by 13.98 percentage points as compared to the percent of ELL meeting AMAO1 in SY2008-2009 (58.79%). The percent of ELL meeting AMAO2 showed a modest increase of 3.97 percentage points from SY2008-2009 to SY2009-2010. Growth in the performance of LEP students on the Reading MSA is also worthy of note. Elementary proficiency rates for this subgroup increased by 22.6 percentage points from SY2006-2007 to SY2009-2010; while the proficiency rates for ELL in the middle grades increased by 25.0 percentage points during the four-year period. Dropout Rate SY2009-2010 marked the third consecutive year that PGCPS students met the state standard for dropout rate in the aggregate. In addition, for the second consecutive year, all subgroups except Hispanic students met the standard. This continued progress is due to systems that have been put in place to ensure early identification of students who exhibit risk factors and the range of timely supports and interventions that are made available to them. Highly Qualified Staff PGCPS continues to increase the percentage of Core Academic Subject (CAS) classes taught by highly qualified teachers. In SY2008-2009, 82.0% of CAS were taught by highly qualified teachers as compared to 88.7% in SY2009-2010. Moreover, 94.4% of CAS classes was taught by highly qualified teachers in Title I schools. In SY2009-2010, 44 of the system‘s 60 Title I schools had 100% CAS classes taught by highly qualified teachers. This demonstrates the system‘s commitment to ensuring that qualified teachers are serving the district‘s neediest students. Schools that are Safe, Drug-free, and Conducive to Learning No PGCPS schools were identified as ―persistently dangerous, none met the 2½% criteria, and none are in probationary status. The implementation of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) expands to 77 schools in SY2009-2010. Rigorous Coursework The AP8 Initiative was launched in the 2006-2007 school year to provide equal access to rigorous coursework in all high schools across the district. Since the inception of the program, there has been a 10.4% increase in the number of students taking AP exams and an 18.3% increase in the number of AP exams taken. In addition, there have been significant increases PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 30 in the percent of AP exams taken for 2 groups of students who have historically had limited access to rigorous coursework: Hispanic students (+25.4% increase) and African American students (+9.7% increase). Specific Student Groups Early Learning Over the five-year period from SY2004-2005 to SY2009-2010, the percent of kindergarten students assessed at fully ready on the MMSR showed significant increases in the aggregate (20 percentage points) and for all subgroups except special education. Limited English Proficient students and Hispanic students made the greatest 5-year gains, at 29 and 28 percentage points, respectively. Gifted and Talented Students The system has made significant progress in the identification of gifted and talented students. In SY2006-07, 10.6% of students in grades 2 through 12 were identified as TAG; in SY2009-10, TAG students represented 11.5% of students in grade 2 through 12. In addition, TAG services were expanded to students in south-county through the establishment of the Accokeek Academy as a pre-K – 8 school, serving students in grades 2 through 8. Cross-cutting Themes The Education that is Multicultural (ETM) Steering Committee was created to guide the planning and systemic implementation of ETM. The committee met four times to establish its mission and vision and to develop action plans for the system as starting points for SY2010-2011. Educational Technology During SY2009-2010, Division of Information Technology staff successfully initiated a netbook pilot and Google mail, Google Sites, and Google Docs for students. Email for students is protected in that the accounts can only send or receive mail from accounts assigned to pgcps.org domain only. The Middle School Technology Literacy course for SY2010-2011 was updated to include added Web 2.0 content. Information Technology officially switched from Blackboard to Moodle Learning Management System (LMS)2 for delivery of online courses. Hardware was procured to provide teachers‘ space for student access utilizing course content for reinforcement of skills taught and enrichment activities. In the final year of Title II Part D, a total of 121 Sharing Technology with Educators Program (STEP) participants completed the program in SY2009-2010. Throughout the course of the school year, a total of 40,829 employees attended one or more technology training sessions sponsored and or conducted by the Technology Training Team. Local Goals Family and Community Engagement Progress in family and community engagement was observed in several areas. PGCPS schools increased PTA membership by 3,544 parents in SY2009-10. Parent liaisons reported that schools developed 242 partnerships to support the local schools. The district utilized the Parent Portal of SchoolMax, the student information software system, to provide parents with ―real time‖ information regarding students‘ grades, schedules, assignments, attendance, and transcripts. Outreach to the diverse PGCPS community improved through expanded translation services. Over 3,000 individual interpreting assignments were fulfilled by interpreters in up to 60 languages. This represents an increase of 1,795, as compared to the number of interpreting assignments that were fulfilled in SY2008-09. Effectiveness and Efficiency of Operations There is clear consensus within the district that the removal or improvement of inefficient processes helps eliminate barriers to optimal performance. The district aims to prioritize and address current processes which, after improvement, will have the highest potential for increased efficiencies and cost-savings (which help eliminate further fiscal impact to classrooms). Standardization, documentation, and improved communication around selected processes are also desired. An executive steering committee is currently focusing on three key areas for process improvement in SY2010-11: 1) cost reduction in Food and Nutrition Services, 2) improvements to student scheduling processes (for example, earlier communication of schedules to students and parents), 3) streamlining the process of filling position vacancies. Moodle is a Course Management System (CMS), also known as a Learning Management System (LMS) or a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). It is a Free web application that educators can use to create effective online learning sites. 2 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 31 Data Warehouse PGCPS has been working toward the implementation of a data warehouse since 2007. The data warehouse implementation project made significant progress in SY2009-10. The initial phase for assistant superintendents and principals will be implemented in two releases-one in October 2010 and the other in November 2010. The final 2 phases, for teachers, then central office staff, will follow. Challenges Although the system has continued to make improvements, growth has not been widespread. Several persistent challenges remain in the achievement of middle grades students, performance of the special education subgroup, graduation requirements, and increasing rigor. Middle School Achievement The performance of the district‘s middle schools continues to be a challenge. MSA data for SY2009-10 data indicate that none of the district‘s 24 middle schools made AYP. The school improvement status of middle schools is illustrated below. Year 1 3 SY2010-11 School Improvement Status of PGCPS Middle Schools Developing Needs Priority Needs Year 2 Corrective Action Restructuring Restructuring Planning Implementation 0 1 1 18 These data indicate that most PGCPS middle schools are in advanced stages of school improvement. Although middle school achievement is a national issue, improvement has been minimal in PGCPS middle schools. Achievement of Student with Special Needs Although there has been some growth in the achievement of special education students in PGCPS, most data points indicate that the pace of progress is far too slow and that the achievement gap that exists between special needs students and their non-disabled peers is widening. Moreover, MMSR data disaggregated by subgroup reveal that the percent of special needs students who entered kindergarten fully ready declined by 7 points in SY2009-10 (from 44% to 37%) and by 4 percentage points since SY2004-05 (41%). There is an urgent need to continue to develop expertise in understanding the diversity in learning needs within this group of students and differentiating instruction that meets their needs. Graduation Requirements Too many PGCPS students are meeting graduation requirements through the use of alternative options. There was a slight decline in the percent of students in the Class of 2010 who passed all four high school assessments when compared to the percent of the Class of 2009 who passed all HSAs (2.9 percentage points). Conversely, there was a 2.8 percentage point increase in the percentage of students meeting HSA graduation requirements through bridge projects from SY2008-09 (13.1%) to SY2009-10 (15.9%). In addition, the total number of bridge projects passed increased by 1,524 projects in SY2009-10. The system faces a similar challenge this year. At the start of SY2010-11, 33.5% of rising seniors had not yet met graduation requirements. This represents a 4.6 percentage point increase from the 28.9% of rising seniors who had not met graduation requirements at the start of SY2009-10. Increasing Rigor As we celebrate the improvements that we have seen in broader access to rigorous coursework through the increased number of students taking AP courses and exams and greater participation of minority groups in the AP program, data regarding the percent of AP exams that receive passing scores is of great concern. In SY2006-07, 35% of AP exams attained a passing score; in SY2009-10, that percentage decreased to 26.1%. The system faces the challenge of increasing student success on these rigorous exams. Highlights from 2010 Bridge to Excellence Master Plan The 2010 PGCPS Annual Update to the Bridge to Excellence Master Plan includes detailed analyses of student performance data, a summary of the strategies and programs that the system has implemented, and a discussion of programs and PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 32 initiatives that have been planned and implemented in SY2010-11. Key components of the system‘s plan for improvement are included below. Goals, Key Performance Indicators, Targets PGCPS has instituted a performance management system to gauge and improve the district‗s overall performance, both in instruction and administration. For each of the district's five strategic goals, leadership and staff have developed multiple key performance indicators (KPI) and related performance targets. Each KPI category includes one or more critical measures; and the FY11 and FY17 performance targets for each were developed based on the FY10 performance baseline. To achieve these and other performance targets, all schools and departments have developed specific performance goals and targets and are held accountable through regular performance reviews with leadership at various levels. Data that are tightly aligned to the core mission of each school and department will be collected through the use of a data warehouse and current data management systems. Schools and personnel are held accountable to results. The expectation is that this process improvement strategy will result in changes in structure and governance. Portfolio Management Executive leadership continued the implementation of portfolio management, using the processes and tools that have been developed to select and monitor key initiatives. As a result of executive review of the system‘s portfolio of initiatives in SY2009-10 and the conversion of several initiatives to operational activities, the PGCPS portfolio was reduced from thirty-two to seven initiatives (detailed above). Several of the twenty-two SY2009-10 initiatives were closed out or became a part of ongoing operations within the system. A limited set of highly strategic initiatives will benefit from ongoing leadership support and attention, and help focus the district‘s efforts and prioritize its human and fiscal resources. Summary PGCPS faces many challenges and is struggling, like so many other school districts, to balance student needs with declining fiscal resources. The outlook for future years holds little promise for economic improvement. Therefore, the school system must operate and make timely, data-driven decisions even more strategically and deliberately than in the past. The system must support and monitor its most critical initiatives, while holding staff accountable for successful execution and intended outcomes for students. The system must also continue to increase staff access to data of the highest quality, and increase its capacity to develop and implement effective strategies in response to those data. In addition, offices and departments must place schools and students as their first priority. The system is confident that operating under these imperatives will result in a more effective and efficient organization that achieves its mission and goals. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 33 I.B FINANCE SECTION PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 34 I.B FINANCE SECTION REVENUE ANALYSIS 1. Did actual revenue meet expectations as anticipated in the Master Plan Update for 2010? If not, identify the changes and the impact any changes had on the FY 2011 budget and on the system’s progress towards achieving master plan goals. Please include any subsequent appropriations in your comparison table and narrative analysis. Revenues received by the school system in FY 2010 totaled $1,640,561,672 plus $30,228,055 in prior year fund balance which brought the total revenue for FY 2010 to $1,670,789,727. This amount is ($40.1) million less than the original FY 2010 Approved Budget of $1,711,227,980. The ($40.1) million less than the original Approved Budget was primarily due to ($26.0) million in Targeted Stimulus funds for Title I and Special Education - ARRA moved from FY 2010 to FY 2011, a reduction of ($3.3) million in Interest Earned on Investments due to lower than expected interest rates, and adjustments of ($0.8) million in Special Education – Nonpublic Placements. The remaining variance was due to differences between actual and anticipated grant and other Board source revenues. The Board of Education‘s operating budget required $12,831,593 in supplemental appropriations to support a series of one-time and critical expenditure needs as well as a reduction of ($30,155,309) in appropriation. Reductions in revenue occurred in State aid supporting Special Education Nonpublic Placements ($832,031) and interest earned on investments fell short of budgeted amounts by ($3,282,805). Also included are reductions to the two-year Federal Targeted Stimulus aid amounts by ($26,040,473). This is aid for Title I and Special Education that was granted in FY 2010 but the district was given 24 months (or two fiscal years) to appropriate in FY 2011. The net effect of the supplemental and reduction in appropriations reduced the overall budget by ($17,323,716). The County appropriated an additional $6.0million in County Contribution to the school system due to additional Energy and Telecommunication tax revenue received throughout the year. The additional $ 6.0million supplemental raised total revenue appropriation to $1,699,904,264. The FY 2010 Approved Local Appropriation of $609,503,900 was $6,813,858 higher due to an additional county contribution of $6.0 million and additional restricted grants funds. The County appropriated an additional $6.0 million in County Contribution to the school system due to additional Energy and Telecommunication tax revenue received throughout the year. The school system also $ 813,858 in other restricted grant funds: $440,044 in DSS Child Care, $200,000 for the ASPP Panda Program, $72,546 in Even Start grant, and other county supported restricted funds. Board Sources funding levels budgeted at $18,814,916 were ($6,229,730) below budgeted levels primarily due to decreases of ($3.3) million in Interested Earned, lower than anticipated Reimbursement for Use of Buildings and Vehicles of ($695,195) million, a reduction of ($4.3) million in Nonresident Tuition and Textbooks, and an increase of $2.7 million in Other Miscellaneous revenue due to miscellaneous revenue and new restricted grants (Goals 2000 – Building Classroom Libraries Grant, TBC Management Grant, Gates Foundation – Intensive Partnership, and UMCP Confucius Institute. State funding levels budgeted at $866,808,937 were ($5,055,828) less than budgeted in FY 2010. The decrease is primarily due to an unexpended Head Start grant in the amount of ($151,519) as well as unallocated appropriations for future grants not realized in FY 2010 ($4,072,278). In addition, there was a ($832,031) short fall in Special Education due to the number of student serviced in nonpublic placements. Federal funding levels budgeted at $198,703,765 primarily supporting restricted grant funded programs were ($48,798,140) less than budgeted levels due to a difference between actual and anticipated grant awards. The unexpended funds occurred in Title I in the amount of ($6.6) million, Title I – ARRA ($5.9)million, Title II ($2.1) million, Title III Language Acquisition in the amount of ($1.5) million, Special Education – ARRA ($4.6) million, NSF – Minority Student Pipeline in the amount of ($0.8) million, and as unallocated appropriations for future grants not realized in FY-2010 ($1.2) million. Also included are reductions to the two-year Federal Targeted Stimulus aid amounts by ($26,040,473). These variances do not adversely affect strategies or actions outlined in the FY 2010 Master Plan. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 35 ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL EXPENDITURES 2. Please provide a comparison of the planned versus actual expenditures for each local goal provided in the Prior Year Variance Table. Indentify changes in expenditures and provide a narrative discussion of the impact of the changes. The Board of Education‘s FY 2010 Original Approved Operating Budget for Prince George‘s County Public Schools totaled $1,711,227,980. This represented an overall increase of $31,723,952 or 1.85 % above the FY 2009 Approved Budget. The total increase of $31,723,952 was comprised of Program Improvements totaling $63,126,752, Mandatory Changes totaling $88,873,396, and Redirected Resources totaling ($120,276,196). Program Improvements fund instructional programs, facilities and services that, consistent with the Bridge to Excellence Master Plan, enhance teaching and learning for all students and strengthen accountability and support systems. The FY 2010 budget included $63,126,752 in Program Improvements. Actual expenditures in fiscal year 2010 indicate that 52.4% or $33.1 million of the planned improvements were realized. Consequently, 47.6% or $30.0 million of the planned improvements were unexpended. Master Plan Goal 1: By 2013-2014, all students will reach high standards in core curricular areas, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better for each ESEA subgroup in reading/language arts and mathematics. The components of this area include the following: Special Education K-12 Autism Initiative; Targeted Stimulus Grant funding for Title 1, Special Education, Head Start and Technology; Teacher Incentive Fund; Textbooks – Consumables; and Textbooks ($8.2m via Lease Purchase). A savings of ($29.9) million occurred in Goal 1 in the following areas: Federal Targeted Stimulus aid supporting Title 1 and Special Education that was granted in FY 2010 was given 24 months (or two fiscal years) to spend; therefore, the system moved ($26,040,473) of the total $55.8 million to fiscal year 2011. Due to changes in the structure of the Teacher Incentive Fund Grant, Year 2 (FY09) was made an additional planning year. Therefore, the $1.5 million commitment originally required by the grant for Year 3 (FY10) was decreased. Those funds will be required for Year 4 (FY11) creating a savings of ($1.4) million in FY 10. Textbooks – Consumables ($2.5) million were realigned to support other instructional cost. Master Plan Goal 2: All English Language Learners will become proficient in English and reach high academic standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading/language arts and mathematics. N/A Master Plan Goal 3: All employees will be highly qualified, highly skilled, and effective. N/A Master Plan Goal 4: All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug free, and conducive to learning. The components of this area include the following: Homeless Education. A savings of ($11,180) occurred in Goal 4 in the following area: Funds allocated to upgrade the supervisor of homeless education did not occur in FY 2010. Master Plan Goal 5: All students will graduate from high school. N/A Master Plan Goal 6: The quality of school system service delivery will be enhanced by improving management effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability. The components of this area relate to the Financial Incentives and Rewards for Supervisors and Teachers (FIRST). PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 36 A savings of ($111,287) occurred in Goal 6 in the following area: FIRST has a savings of ($111,287) due to unexpended funds associated with the FIRST – Teacher Incentive Fund. The formative evaluation was completed along with the technical assistance associated with the evaluation; however, the summative evaluation will be completed in FY 2011. Master Plan Goal 7: Family, school, business and community relationships will be strengthened to support improved student achievement. N/A Although, $26.0 million of the Targeted Stimulus funds were moved to FY 2011, there were no significant changes to the FY 2010 Budget as a result of the changes in Program Improvements. Planned Program Improvements totaled $63.1 million; $33.0 million or 52.4% of the planned expenditures were spent. Of the remaining $33.1 million, $ 26.0 million was moved to 2011 and only $7 million went unspent. Program Improvements for FY 2010 are carried through to FY 2011 in the base budget and subsequently will be included in future budgets, subject to changes that could result through the annual budget development process. Mandatory changes reflect expenditures that are required by law, support contract commitments, and provide essential health/safety services. These expenditures support costs to cover employer obligations including social security, retirement and unemployment insurance; fund existing employee contracts covering compensation, employee and retiree benefits for health insurance and other employee benefits; manage risk for the school system through self-insured programs supporting workman‘s compensation, general liability and excess property claims and expenses; fund utilities; and fund internal services program supporting printing and vehicle maintenance operations, totaling $88,812,438 or 99.9% of the planned expenditures. A reduction of County and Board revenue of ($15,579,877), including 13.0 instructional/critical support positions at $1,084,187 were required. Other mandatory/cost of doing business changes required to maintain existing essential services and contract commitments include: $85,580,305 to support salaries and wages, and benefits for existing full-time and part-time employees; $7,658,174 to provide required unemployment and workman‘s compensation insurance coverage; 51.0 positions to support essential operating needs such as utilities, transportation, reorganization of area offices and the retirement of prior year lease agreements generated a savings of ($1,592,345); $11,661,994 and 155.0 positions to support three additional alternative governance schools, the consolidation and Pre-K – 8 conversion, as well as new schools that includes the opening of one new elementary school (Sub-region VI Elementary), addition and auditorium at Laurel High School, and renovation at Doswell E. Brooks and Benjamin Foulois elementary schools. Redirected Resources reflect reductions from amounts appropriated in FY 2010 for selected programs and services totaling ($130,778,117) or 108.7% of the planned ($120,276,196), including elimination of (915.27) positions. These reductions are redirected to fund mandatory/costs of doing business increases. A reduction of ($22,682,993) is the result of costs avoided through normal work force turnover. A reduction of ($9,726,210) is the result of the elimination of (90.0) non-classroom support positions. A reduction of ($2,780,700) is the result of the elimination of (23.0) assistant principal positions at small elementary schools. A reduction of ($2,370,579) is the result of the elimination of (25.0) instructional coaches. A reduction of ($15,716,600) is the result of the elimination of (200.0) staffing formula adjustment ―Pool.‖ A reduction of ($1,558,205) is the result of the elimination of (44.5) positions associated with prior year program consolidations. A reduction of ($7,593,826) is the result of the elimination of (144.0) parent liaison positions. A reduction of ($2,977,065) and (45.8) positions is the result of a reduction in school operating resources. A reduction of ($5,128,104) is the result of the elimination of (18.0) positions associated with America‘s Choice. A reduction of ($5,910,126) is the result of the termination of the Washington Plaza agreement. A reduction of ($903,403) is the result of the elimination of (10.0) positions associated with the New Leaders Program. A reduction of ($2,093,785) is the result of reducing nongrant related travel and food expenses system wide. A reduction of ($3,337,751) and (16.0) positions is the result of the reorganization of zone offices. A reduction of ($704,000) is the result of the reduction of cell phones throughout the system. A reduction of ($391,000) and (3.0) positions is the result of reduced positions in the Superintendent‘s Office. A reduction of ($759,289) and (2.0) positions is the result of reduced vacancies and contracted services in the office of the Board of Education. A reduction of ($2,058,542) and (16.0) positions is the result of reducing expenditures associated with the Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID®) Program. A reduction of ($677,741) and (6.0) positions PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 37 associated with the Music and Technology Program at Berwyn Heights and Owens Road Elementary. A reduction of ($5,866,471) and (109.57) positions is the result of the consolidation of eight under-enrolled schools. A reduction of ($2,689,866) and (44.0) positions is the result of abolishing the Title I cohort formally called Equity Based Funding. A reduction of ($1,199,301) is the result of the transfer of Aging Schools Program funds from the Operating Budget to the Capital Improvement Program Budget. A reduction of ($497,486) is the result of the elimination of the violence free zones program. A reduction of ($683,206) and 1.0 position is the result of the elimination of comprehensive special education program coordinators to purchase special education teachers to expand the middle school MEANS program. A series of reductions totaling ($32,471,868) and the elimination of (119.4) positions from existing program budgets for central administration and non-classroom support services were also necessary. Additional expenditures above planned expenditures includes a savings of ($2.4) million. This savings includes a series of one-time and critical expenditures as well as reductions and savings were needed to support the school system. An additional 23.0 teacher positions were added to support an increase in enrollment $1.8 million, 31.0 parent liaison positions at $1.8 million were reinstated, high school and middle school chemical cleanup and transportation for HB Owens $0.3 million was needed, reduction to travel, catering, and equipment ($1.4) million, additional legal fees for the Board Office $0.3 million, additional funding to support snow removal $2.8 million, payroll overtime cost of $ 0.1 million, a savings of ($0.5) million in self insurance, a decrease in the subsidy amounts supporting the Food and Nutrition Services Program in the amount of ($7.1) million, and a savings of ($ 0.5) million in Gas – Central Garage. A portion of the final expenditures were estimated for the above categories. The current financial system in which we operate does not capture all expenses by these specific defined activities. Final expenditures for full-time salary related changes were estimated based on the number of employees, actual salaries, and vacant positions for the fiscal year. Final expenditures for compensation improvements were based on preliminary estimates for negotiated increases and based on prior year history for increments provided to employees on an annual basis. The majority of all other areas, with the exception of salary related increases, reflect actual expenses derived from the Oracle General Ledger Financial Module. This was extracted from the system by using ―downloads‖ from specific program areas or actual financial reports. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 38 I.C DATA SECTION PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 39 TABLES: 1.1A – 1.3 1.1.A: Current Year Variance Table Local School System: ($ in Thousands) Revenues: Prince George's County Public Schools FY 2010 Original Approved Budget Local Appropriation Other Local Revenue State Revenue Federal Revenue ARRA Funds Other Federal Funds Other Resources/Transfers Total Revenue FY 2011 Original Approved Budget Change % Change $ $ $ 609,503,900 18,814,916 866,808,937 $ $ $ 599,014,400 14,289,488 832,132,117 $ (10,489,500) $ (4,525,428) $ (34,676,820) -1.7% -24.1% -4.0% $ $ $ $ 100,221,929 98,481,836 17,396,462 1,711,227,980 $ $ $ $ 77,835,432 104,255,104 6,000,000 1,633,526,541 $ (22,386,497) $ 5,773,268 $ (11,396,462) $ (77,701,439) -22.3% 5.9% -65.5% -4.5% Change in Expenditures: Local Goal 1: High Student Achievement NCLB: Item: Secondary School Reform ESOL/ISCO - Testing Locations Middle College Subtotal: Local Goal 2: Highly-Effective Teaching NCLB: Item: Subtotal: Local Goal 3: Safe and Supportive Schools NCLB: Item: Central Garage Services Pupil Accounting Subtotal: Local Goal 4: Strong Community Partnerships NCLB: Item: Translation Services Subtotal: Local Goal 5: Effective and Efficient Operations NCLB: Item: Scheduler Pay Performance Management Subtotal: Local goals and indicators PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Amount FTE $ $ $ $ 500,000 71,099 200,000 771,099 1.00 1.00 2.00 $ $ $ 1,432,559 126,888 1,559,447 20.00 1.00 21.00 $ $ 136,000 136,000 - $ $ $ 20,000 50,000 70,000 - Page | 40 1.1.A: Current Year Variance Table Local School System: ($ in Thousands) Revenues: NCLB: Prince George's County Public Schools FY 2010 Original Approved Budget FY 2011 Original Approved Budget Item: Subtotal: Subtotal Program Improvements: Change % Change $ 2,536,546 23.00 Mandatory/Cost of Doing Business (Not captured elsewhere)* NCLB: Item: Full-Time Salary/Wage Base Local 2250 Position Agreement Part-Time Salary/Wage Base Unemployment Insurance Leave Payout Health Insurance Workers' Compensation Insurance Utilities Retirement of Prior Year Lease Agreement FY 2011 New Lease Purchases Ridgley Bus Lot Buses & Non-Bus Vehicles Technology Refresh LP Lease Buildings New Schools Charter/Contract SEED School Special Education - MOE Requirement Nonpublic Placements Subtotal Mandatory/Cost of Doing Business: $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 25,426,223 9,976,285 15,647,380 4,000,000 250,000 8,775,098 (1,000,000) (1,039,263) (8,988,067) 2,538,393 105,288 346,461 2,199,760 219,110 1,659,092 4,376,368 414,304 918,815 1,196,253 67,021,500 180.99 - Redirect Resources: NCLB: Item: Prior Year Program Corrections Institute for Learning (IFL) America's Choice Parent and Community Engagement Catering Services Rental Buildings Non-Essential Non-Local Travel Grievance/Litigation Settlements $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ (2,675,597) (584,714) (1,735,435) (6,103,434) (75,000) (75,000) (44,564) (1,399,062) (80.17) (1.00) (121.00) - PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 41 10.50 43.00 38.00 272.49 1.1.A: Current Year Variance Table Local School System: ($ in Thousands) Revenues: Prince George's County Public Schools FY 2010 Original Approved Budget FY 2011 Original Approved Budget Winter Break Energy Savings - 3 days Tuition Reimbursement Staffing - Enrollment Adjustment FY 2011 decrease of 1300 Employees 12 to 10 months Employees 11 to 10 months Furloughs School Operating Resources Board Office Strategic Planning & Grants Development Academics Programs Chief of Academic Officer Creative Arts Special Instructional Programs Coordinating Supervisor Audit Testing Curriculum and Instruction Professional Development Special Education Chief of Human Resources Staffing & Certification Organizational Effectiveness Chief of Student Services Guidance Services Character Education Program Reduction Student Engagement and School Support Homeless Education Family and Community Outreach Health Services Technology Operations Instructional Technology Printing Services Chief of Supporting Services Plant Operations Maintenance Food & Nutrition Services Subsidy Planning & Architectural Services Transportation PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Change % Change $ (400,000) $ (1,500,000) $ 694,879 $ (188,804) $ (4,052,966) $ (24,027,751) $ (2,970,563) $ (121,664) $ (181,235) $ (398,566) $ (162,066) $ (534,945) $ (279,892) $ (222,903) $ (311,447) $ (140,340) $ (1,452,796) $ (1,007,127) $ (74,014) $ (434,581) $ (2,319,183) $ (74,445) $ (540,000) $ (573,127) $ (721,830) $ (71,278) $ (377,707) $ (290,370) $ (418,718) $ (83,743) $ (251,229) $ (188,002) $ (231,975) $ (147,020) $ (5,309,241) $ (2,422,851) $ (5,200,000) Page | 42 5.79 (2.00) (1.00) (4.00) (1.00) (3.00) (1.00) (3.00) (1.00) (12.00) (2.00) (1.00) (5.00) (9.00) (1.00) (6.00) (3.00) (3.00) (3.00) (5.00) (1.00) (3.00) (2.00) (4.00) (3.00) (2.00) (90.00) 1.1.A: Current Year Variance Table Local School System: ($ in Thousands) Revenues: Prince George's County Public Schools FY 2010 Original Approved Budget FY 2011 Original Approved Budget Purchasing and Supply Services Accounting Operations Fiscal Compliance Payroll High School Consortium School Improvement/Leadership Chief of Staff Publicity and Publications/Television Resources Character Education Pupil Personnel Workers Student Teacher Ratio Core Service Requirement Reductions Lunch and Recess Monitors Outdoor Education Summer School Student Personnel Services Stipends & Differential Custodians Subtotal Redirected Resources: Other (list items separately. Total must not exceed 10% of Change in Total Revenue)* Total (must equal the Change in Total Revenue) *Add additional lines where necessary PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Change % Change $ (308,173) $ (33,089) $ (128,235) $ (63,461) $ (1,030,492) $ (212,953) $ (641,160) $ (506,689) $ (46,000) $ (2,137,400) $ (26,453,230) $ (35,353,881) $ (4,420,468) $ (11,384) $ (360,188) $ (667,159) $ (4,565,046) $ (640,171) $ (147,259,485) (4.00) (1.00) (1.00) (8.00) (2.00) (4.00) (5.00) (23.00) (346.38) 10.00 (13.00) (764.76) $ (77,701,439) (469.27) Page | 43 1.1.B: Prior Year Variance Table (Comparison of Prior Year Expenditures) Local School System: Prince George's County FY 2010 Original FY 2010 Final Budget Budget % 7/1/2009 6/30/2010 Change Change Local Appropriation $ 609,503,900 $ 615,503,900 $ 6,000,000 1.0% State Revenue $ 866,808,937 $ 865,976,906 $ (832,031) -0.1% Federal Revenue $ 98,257,631 $ 98,257,631 $ 0.0% Other Resources/Transfers $ 17,396,462 $ 30,228,055 $ 12,831,593 73.8% Other Local Revenue $ 18,814,916 $ 15,532,111 $ (3,282,805) -17.4% Federal ARRA Funds $ 100,446,134 $ 74,405,661 $ (26,040,473) -25.9% Total $ 1,711,227,980 $ 1,699,904,264 $ (11,323,716) -0.7% NCLB Planned Goal Expenditure Description Expenditure Actual Expenditure FTE QSPSP Goal 1: By 2013-2014, all students will reach high standards in core curricular areas, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better for each ESEA subgroup in reading/language arts and mathematics. 1 Special Ed K-12 - Autism Initiative $ 1,199,621 $ 1,199,621 21.00 1 Stimulus Grant - Title 1, Special Ed, Head Start and Technology $ 55,828,613 $ 29,788,140 145.00 1 Teacher Incentive Fund $ 1,500,000 $ 93,550 1 Textbooks - Consumables $ 2,510,108 $ 1 Textbooks ($8.2 million via Lease Purchase) $ 1,803,804 $ 1,803,804 Subtotal Goal 1 $ 62,842,146 $ 32,885,115 166.00 QSPSP Goal 4: All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug free, and conducive to learning. 4 Homeless Education $ 11,180 $ QSPSP Goal 6: The quality of school system service delivery will be enhanced by improving management effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability. 6 Information Technology $ 53,426 $ 90,000 1.00 6 Research & Evaluation $ 220,000 $ 72,139 Subtotal Goal 6 $ 273,426 $ 162,139 1.00 Subtotal Program Improvement $ 63,126,752 $ 33,047,254 167.00 Mandatory/Cost of Doing Business Changes: FY-09 Additional Redirected Resources related to reduction of County $ (14,000,000) $ (14,000,000) 10 Revenue 10 FY-09 Additional Redirected Resources related to reduction of Board Sources $ (1,579,877) $ (1,579,877) 10 Additional Instructional and Critical Support Positions $ $ 1,084,187 13.00 10 Full-Time Salary/Wage Base $ 43,985,579 $ 45,370,550 10 Part-Time Salary/Wage Base $ 14,700,000 $ 25,765,731 10 Retirement $ (2,245,309) $ (5,745,309) 10 FICA $ 8,193,547 $ 3,895,850 10 Life Insurance $ 111,347 $ (56,009) 10 Health Insurance $ 9,565,336 $ 16,349,492 10 Unemployment Insurance $ 1,200,000 $ 4,952,142 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 44 1.1.B: Prior Year Variance Table (Comparison of Prior Year Expenditures) Local School System: Prince George's County 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Workers' Compensation Insurance Utilities Fund Balance - Debt Services Transportation Reorganization of Zones Lease Purchase New Schools and Enrollment Changes Alternative Governance Consolidations/Pre-K8 Conversions Subtotal Mandatory/Cost of Doing Business: Redirected Resources: 10 Salary Lapse / Workforce Turnover / Hiring Freeze 10 Non-Classroom Support Positions 10 Reduce Assistant Principals at small schools 10 Instructional Coaches 10 Staffing Formula Adjustment "Pool" 10 Prior Year Program Corrections 10 Parent and Community Engagement - Parent Liaisons 10 School Operating Resources 10 America's Choice - High Schools 10 Washington Plaza Rent 10 Eliminate New Leaders Program 10 Reduction of non-grant related travel and food expenses. 10 Reorganization of Zones 10 Cell Phones 10 Superintendent's Office 10 Board of Education Reduction of AVID® Program 10 10 Eliminate Music and Technology Program 10 Consolidation of 8 schools 10 Equity Based Funding 10 Aging Schools Program 10 Violence Free Zones 10 Student Services / Special Educations Middle School Means Expansion 10 System Wide reductions Subtotal Redirected Resources: Other Unplanned Changes: PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update FY 2010 Original Budget 7/1/2009 $ 4,531,204 $ 3,498,034 $ 11,814,300 $ 2,390,193 $ 390,887 $ (5,343,839) $ 785,573 $ 1,419,941 $ 9,456,480 $ 88,873,396 $ (10,222,291) $ (9,726,210) $ (2,780,700) $ (2,370,579) $ (15,716,600) $ (1,558,205) $ (7,593,826) $ (2,977,065) $ (5,128,104) $ (5,910,126) $ (903,403) $ (2,093,785) $ (3,337,751) $ (704,000) $ (391,000) $ (759,289) $ (2,058,542) $ (677,741) $ (5,866,471) $ (2,689,866) $ (1,199,301) $ (497,486) $ (683,206) $ (34,430,649) $ (120,276,196.00) $ $ $ $ $ FY 2010 Final Budget 6/30/2010 2,706,032 (3,527,152) 5,814,300 2,390,193 $ 390,887 $ (6,660,573) 785,573 $ 1,419,941 $ 9,456,480 $ 88,812,438 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ (22,682,993) (9,726,210) (2,780,700) (2,370,579) (15,716,600) (1,558,205) (7,593,826) (2,977,065) (5,128,104) (5,910,126) (903,403) (2,093,785) (3,337,751) (704,000) (391,000) (759,289) (2,058,542) (677,741) (5,866,471) (2,689,866) (1,199,301) (497,486) (683,206) (32,471,868) (130,778,117.00) Page | 45 Change 51.00 14.50 8.00 132.50 219.00 (90.00) (23.00) (25.00) (200.00) (44.50) (144.00) (45.80) (18.00) (10.00) (16.00) (3.00) (2.00) (16.00) (6.00) (109.57) (44.00) 1.00 (119.40) (915.27) % Change 1.1.B: Prior Year Variance Table (Comparison of Prior Year Expenditures) Local School System: Prince George's County FY 2010 Original Budget 7/1/2009 Classroom Teachers-Increase in Enrollment Reinstate Parent Liaisons High School & Middle School chemical cleanup/ Transportation HB Owens Reductions to Travel, Catering, and Equipment Legal Fees Maintenance/Snow Removal Payroll Self Insurance Food & Nutrition Board Subsidy Gas - Central Garage Subtotal Other Unplanned Changes: Total Change $ $ PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update 31,723,952 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ FY 2010 Final Budget 6/30/2010 1,807,398 1,809,718 300,000 (1,433,392) 354,000 2,839,912 106,000 (500,000) (7,188,927) (500,000) (2,405,291) $ (11,323,716) Page | 46 Change 23.00 31.00 54.00 (475.27) % Change 1.1.C: ARRA Funds Financial Reporting Table Local School System: PRINCE GEORGE'SS COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS ($ in Thousands) CFDA Grant Name 10.579 National School Lunch - Equipment Assistance 66.040 Maryland Clean Diesel Program 84.387 Homeless Children and Youth 84.389 Title I - Grants to LEAs, Neglected and Delinquent 84.391 IDEA Part B - Grants to States-Pass-Through IDEA Part B - Grants to States-Discretionary 84.392 IDEA Part B - Preschool Grants 84.393 IDEA Part C - Infants and Families 84.394 State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Education Program 93.708 Head Start ARRA COLA Quality Improvement Grant 93.708 Head Start ARRA Expansion Grant Other* Total FY 09 Budget $90,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $90,000 FY 10 Budget FY 11 Budget $0 $516,000 $113,824 $11,305,495 $14,303,296 $0 $421,800 $0 $46,542,234 $427,269 $505,835 $0 $74,135,753 $0 $0 $0 $11,305,495 $14,303,296 $0 $421,800 $0 $51,221,166 $0 $551,820 $0 $77,803,577 Total Arra Funds $90,000 $516,000 $113,824 $22,610,990 $28,606,592 $0 $843,600 $0 $97,763,400 $427,269 $1,057,655 $0 $152,029,330 Instructions: For each of the four assurances, please identify how ARRA funds will be used in FY 11 by itemizing expenditures for each assurance. Indicate the grant CFDA number as the source of the funds for the expenditure. Assurance 1: Increase teacher effectiveness and address inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers (recruiting, developing, and retaining effective teachers and principals). Amount Expenditures: Source FTE Funds to support increased teacher effectiveness by providing ongoing training in secondary transition planning for students with disabilities and 84.391 $4,301,613 0 assessing and promoting post traumatic growth in children. Assurance 2: Establish and use a pre-K through college and career data system to track progress and foster continuous improvement (building data systems that measure student success and inform teachers and principals how they can improve their practices). Amount Expenditures: Source FTE Funds will be used to continue the implementation of strategies designed to improve student achievement through school improvement and reform projects and support early childhood interventions and school-based extended learning programs. A waiver was approved for the statutory grant 84.389 $620,280 0 set-aside for the Per Pupil Calculation for SES to allow the program funds to support the installation of a data repository system to monitor Title I students and staff that will allow the appropriate linkages between several data systems used in the district. Assurance 3: Make progress towards rigorous college and career-ready standards and high quality assessments that are valid and reliable for all students, including limited English proficient students and students with disabilities (adopting internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 47 1.1.C: ARRA Funds Financial Reporting Table Local School System: PRINCE GEORGE'SS COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS success in college and the workplace). Expenditures: Source Amount FTE Assurance 4: Provide targeted, intensive support and effective interventions to turn around schools identified for corrective action and restructuring (turning around lowest performing schools). Expenditures: Funds will be used to continue the implementation of strategies designed to improve student achievement through school improvement and reform projects and support early childhood interventions and school-based extended learning programs. Waivers were approved for the statutory grant set-asides for SES/Choice Option and the LEA In Improvement for Professional Development to allow the program funds to support the implementation of a summer enrichment program and professional development for school leaders. Funds to support Coordinated Early Intervention Services (Reading Recovery) to provide intensive support for struggling readers. Other: Please itemize other uses of ARRA funds in this category. Source Amount FTE 84.389 $10,685,215 0 84.391 $2,378,264 0 Expenditures: Source Amount FTE Funds are supporting district-wide utilities, and other general expenses of LEA for instructional supplies, textbooks, and testing materials. 84.394 $51,221,166 0 Funds will support the continued expansion of Head Start services to 60 additional children and families in center-based settings that will include more technical assistance training for teachers and paraprofessionals. 93.708 $551,820 0 Funds to support activities and programs that provide technology support and interventions that are designed to reduce referrals to Special Education for students without disabilities and outreach to support families of students with disabilities. 84.391 $7,623,419 0 Funds to support the improvement of service delivery and resource utilization. 84.392 $421,800 0 *Indicate any other ARRA funds received by the school system, including the CFDA number. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 48 1.1D: Prior-Year ARRA Variance Report Prince George's County Public Schools 90,000.00 0.00 Adjustments to FY 09, FY 10 ARRA Budgets 0.00 Maryland Clean Diesel Program 0.00 516,000.00 0.00 516,000.00 84.387 Homeless Children and Youth 0.00 113,824.00 0.00 113,824.00 84.389 Title I - Grants to LEAs, Neglected and Delinquent 0.00 22,630,755.00 (11,325,260.00) 11,305,495.00 84.391 IDEA Part B - Grants to States-Pass-Through 0.00 28,606,592.00 (14,303,296.00) 14,303,296.00 84.392 IDEA Part B - Preschool Grants 0.00 843,600.00 (421,800.00) 421,800.00 84.393 IDEA Part C - Infants and Families 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 84.394 State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Education Program 0.00 46,542,234.00 0.00 46,542,234.00 93.708 Head Start ARRA COLA Quality Improvement Grant 0.00 427,269.00 0.00 427,269.00 93.708 Head Start ARRA Expansion Grant 0.00 1,057,655.00 (551,820.00) 505,835.00 90,000.00 100,737,929.00 (26,602,176.00) 74,225,753.00 CFDA Grant Name 10.579 National School Lunch - Equipment Assistance 66.040 TOTAL ARRA FUNDS Current FY 09 Budget Current FY 10 Budget Total Arra Funds 90,000.00 Instructions: For each of the four assurances, please identify how ARRA funds were used by itemizing expenditures for each assurance. Indicate the grant CFDA number as the source of the funds for the expenditure. Description CFDA Planned Amount Actual Planned Actual Amount FTE FTE 1. Increase teacher effectiveness and address inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers (recruiting, developing, and retaining effective teachers and principals). Funds to support increased teacher effectiveness by providing 84.391 8,603,226.00 2,746,476.78 52 40 ongoing training in secondary transition planning for students with disabilities. 4. Provide targeted, intensive support and effective interventions to turn around schools identified for corrective action and restructuring (turning around lowest performing schools). Funds will be used to implement strategies designed to improve 84.389 22,630,755.00 5,624,129.07 46 36 student achievement through school improvement and reform projects (America's Choice, New Leaders for New Schools), to support early childhood interventions for Head Start, and schoolbased extended learning programs for the 60 Title I schools. Funds to support Coordinated Early Intervention Services (Reading 84.391 4,756,528.00 3,291,574.38 28 28 Recovery) to provide intensive support for struggling readers. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 49 1.1D: Prior-Year ARRA Variance Report Prince George's County Public Schools * Other Funds are supporting the enhancement of the quality of services delivered to children and families in center based settings that will also be used for training to address obesity and diversity, career development opportunities for staff and the creation of 2 newly created bilingual family service workers. 93.708 427,269.00 52,088.76 2 2 Funds to support the improvement of service delivery and resource utilization. Funds are supporting the acquisition of diesel particulate filters and crankcase ventilation systems to retrofit diesel school buses through an initiative and federal ARRA funding provided by the Maryland Department of the Environment. 84.392 843,600.00 288,047.38 1 0 66.040 516,000.00 516,000.00 0 0 Funds are supporting the acquisition of food service equipment (steamers, milk coolers, warming cabinets, convection ovens) in 5 targeted schools to improve the efficiency of the lunch room. 10.579 90,000.00 89,764.30 0 0 Funds are supporting the expansion of Head Start services to 60 additional children and families in center based settings that will also include support for training and technical assistance and 8 newly created teacher and paraprofessional positions. 93.708 1,057,655.00 341,799.34 8 8 Funds to support activities and programs that provide technology support and interventions that are designed to reduce referrals to Special Education for students without disabilities and outreach to support families of students with disabilities. 84.391 15,246,838.00 ,632,603.68 11 11 Funds are supporting district-wide utility costs, textbooks, and other LEA instructional materials costs. Funds are supporting the enhancement and expansion of services to homeless student population for uniforms, transportation, and personal hygiene items. 84.394 46,542,234.00 6,542,231.70 0 0 84.387 113,824.00 27,966.11 0 0 100,827,929.00 63,352,681.50 Total PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 50 148.00 125.00 1.1: ATTACHMENT 1 - TOTAL REVENUE STATEMENT (Current Expense Fund) Local School System: Prince George's County Public Schools Original Approved FY 10 Budget Note: Do not include revenue for School Construction Fund, Debt Service Fund, or Food Service Fund. LOCAL APPROPRIATIONS 1.1.01.00 $ 609,503,900.00 OTHER REVENUE* 1.1.05.00 $ 18,814,916.00 STATE REVENUE Foundation 1.1.20.01 $ 495,325,861.00 Economically Disadvantaged (Comp Ed & EEEP) 1.1.20.02 $ 181,186,246.00 Special Education** 1.1.20.07 $ 66,518,974.00 LEP 1.1.20.24 $ 52,393,353.00 Guaranteed Tax Base 1.1.20.25 $ 6,792,172.00 Transportation 1.1.20.39 $ 34,121,987.00 Governor's Teacher Salary Challenge 1.1.20.56 $ Other (specify)*** See attached $ 30,470,344.00 TOTAL STATE REVENUE $ 866,808,937.00 FEDERAL REVENUE Title I-A - Local System Grants $ 52,023,674.00 Title I-A - School Improvement $ 1,458,115.00 Title I-B1 - Reading First $ 646,000.00 Title I-B3 - Even Start $ Title I-C - Migrant Education $ Title I-D - Neglected and Delinquent $ Title I-F - Comprehensive School Reform $ Title II-A - Teacher Quality $ 5,810,039.00 Title II-D - Education Technology $ 894,916.00 Title III-A - Language Acquisition $ 2,439,478.00 Title IV-A - Safe & Drug-Free Schools $ 498,815.00 Title IV-B - 21st Century Learning Centers $ Title V-A - Innovative Education $ Title VI-B2 - Rural & Low-Income Schools Prog. $ Title VIII - Impact Aid $ 424,900.00 REVENUES PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Final FY 10 Unaudited Actual Revenue Original Approved FY 11 Budget $ $ 616,317,758.00 12,585,186.00 $ $ 599,014,400.00 14,289,488.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 495,320,426.00 181,192,722.00 66,585,446.00 52,393,849.00 6,795,692.00 34,122,459.00 25,342,515.00 861,753,109.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 468,253,396.00 183,945,214.00 63,045,971.00 55,203,270.00 33,715,832.00 27,968,434.00 832,132,117.00 $ $ $ 33,755,712.00 1,874,726.00 1,042,144.00 $ $ $ $ 5,611,647.00 124,554.00 2,335,992.00 550,640.00 $ 49,339.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 40,783,683.00 1,439,451.00 5,958,142.00 2,626,402.00 126,927.00 Page | 51 1.1: ATTACHMENT 1 - TOTAL REVENUE STATEMENT (Current Expense Fund) Local School System: Prince George's County Public Schools Original Approved FY 10 Budget Note: Do not include revenue for School Construction Fund, Debt Service Fund, or Food Service Fund. Homeless Children and Youth $ 125,000.00 IDEA - Special Education $ 58,648,210.00 Perkins Career and Technology Education $ 1,509,997.00 Other (specify)*** See Attached $ 74,224,621.00 TOTAL FEDERAL REVENUE 1.1.30.00 $ 198,703,765.00 OTHER RESOURCES/TRANSFERS**** 1.1.99.99 $ TOTAL REVENUE $ 1,693,831,518.00 PRIOR BALANCE AVAILABLE 1.1.40.00 $ 17,396,462.00 TOTAL REVENUE, TRANSFERS AND FUND BALANCE $ 1,711,227,980.00 *Tuition, payments and fees, earnings on investments, rentals, gifts and other non-state, non-federal revenue sources. **Should include state revenues from formula funding as well as non-public placement funding. ***Add lines as needed for all other fund sources in the Current Expense Fund. ****Nonrevenue and transfers. REVENUES PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Final FY 10 Unaudited Actual Revenue Original Approved FY 11 Budget $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 143,738.00 42,028,203.00 1,423,904.00 60,965,020.00 149,905,619.00 1,640,561,672.00 30,228,055.00 1,670,789,727.00 66,000.00 40,635,009.00 1,496,952.00 88,957,970.00 182,090,536.00 1,627,526,541.00 6,000,000.00 1,633,526,541.00 Rev. 5/2007 Page | 52 NEw 1.1: ATTACHMENT 1 - TOTAL REVENUE STATEMENT (Current Expense Fund) - OTHER Local School System: Prince George's County Public Schools Original Approved FY 10 REVENUES Budget Note: Do not include revenue for School Construction Fund, Debt Service Fund, or Food Service Fund. OTHER STATE REVENUE GCEI $ 11,706,958 Out of County Living Arrangements $ Supplemental Grant $ 10,709,630 Other State Revenue $ Advanced Professional Certification Stipend $ 2,142,000 Fine Arts Initiative Grant $ 165,391 Fine Arts Initiative Grant - Schools $ 6,000 Head Start Supplemental $ 274,790 I-PAS Challenge $ JP Hoyer Enhancement Grant $ 105,000 JP Hoyer Grant Early Care & Education Grant $ 323,333 MMSR State Grant $ 174,433 MSDE Reassignments $ 526,271 National Board Certification Stipend $ 128,000 Recon Eligible / Schools in Improvement $ Signing Bonus Stipend $ 51,000 Students Against Starting Smoking $ 2,000 Teacher Academy Md (TAM) Grant $ 4,625 Tobacco Prevention Grant $ 8,000 Reserve for Future Grants $ 4,142,913 $ TOTAL OTHER STATE REVENUE $ 30,470,344 OTHER FEDERAL REVENUE Head Start Federal $ 5,375,220 Head Start - Other ARRA Stimulus $ 589,774 Project LINC $ MARCO Grant $ NASA IPA Reassignments $ Special Education - Preschool Passthrough $ Special Education - Infants & Toddlers $ Special Education - Medicaid Grant $ 3,200,000 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Final FY 10 Unaudited Actual Revenue Original Approved FY 11 Budget $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 11,707,062 10,688,422 994,500 65,139 13,354 105,000 323,333 85,796 132,804 161,000 1,066,105 25,342,515 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 11,552,016 11,753,906 2,578,000 126,479 2,000 187,407 105,000 323,333 140,938 535,199 208,000 52,000 8,000 396,156 27,968,434 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,537,725 593,888 4,225,489 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,537,725 213,635 - Page | 53 1.1: ATTACHMENT 1 - TOTAL REVENUE STATEMENT (Current Expense Fund) - OTHER Local School System: Prince George's County Public Schools Original Approved FY 10 REVENUES Budget Note: Do not include revenue for School Construction Fund, Debt Service Fund, or Food Service Fund. JROTC Federal Share $ 2,175,943 National Council of Math Teachers (NSA) Grant $ 45,000 Title I Carryover Grant $ 2,433,684 School Recognition Awards $ 103,635 GEAR Up Grant $ 339,212 Great Expectations (AP) Grant $ State Stabilization - Federal Stimulus $ 46,527,828 Food Service Equipment Grant $ 100,000 Race for the Top Competitive Grant $ 250,000 What Works Best Innovative Comp Grant $ 250,000 Reserve for Future Grants $ 12,834,325 $ TOTAL OTHER FEDERAL REVENUE 1.1.30.00 $ 74,224,621 OTHER RESOURCES/TRANSFERS Tuition and Textbooks, General $ 7,303,306 Reimbursement for Use of Building & Vehicles $ 4,356,645 Interest Earned $ 3,392,127 Other Miscellaneous $ 821,318 Restricted Grants $ 2,941,520 OTHER RESOURCES/TRANSFERS 1.1.99.99 $ 18,814,916 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Final FY 10 Unaudited Actual Revenue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,175,943 35,107 23,050 369,967 46,542,232 89,764 Original Approved FY 11 Budget $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,346,082 50,000 2,653,768 66,407 397,728 51,221,166 125,000 125,000 26,221,459 88,957,970 7,303,306 4,427,861 109,322 1,000,000 1,448,999 14,289,488 $ $ $ 1,371,855 60,965,020 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 4,301,016 3,661,449 238,794 921,042 3,462,885 12,585,186 $ $ $ $ $ $ Page | 54 1.2: ATTACHMENT 2 - TOTAL EXPENDITURE STATEMENT (Current Expense Fund) Local School System: Prince George's County Public Schools TOTAL SUMMARY BY CATEGORY Category 201 202 Original Approved* FY 10 Budget $ 51,606,256 Final FY 10 Unaudited Actual Expenditures $ 55,767,420 Original Approved FY 11 Budget $ 54,917,509 Administration Mid-level Administration Office of the Principal $ 82,506,389 $ 81,366,739 $ 76,407,183 Administration & Supervision $ 37,239,890 $ 33,569,509 $ 27,307,725 203 Instructional Salaries $ 588,022,146 $ 594,519,605 $ 556,922,050 204 Textbooks & Instructional Supplies $ 29,001,396 $ 20,746,441 $ 21,418,208 205 Other Instructional Costs $ 58,212,732 $ 43,176,636 $ 42,825,105 206 Special Education $ 256,955,742 $ 242,510,877 $ 263,897,762 207 Student Personnel Services $ 14,425,126 $ 17,727,360 $ 10,754,808 208 Health Services $ 15,180,715 $ 15,346,545 $ 14,750,661 209 Student Transportation $ 97,513,425 $ 95,222,014 $ 94,918,578 210 Operation of Plant $ 131,088,238 $ 114,550,728 $ 121,777,456 211 Maintenance of Plant $ 30,337,456 $ 34,292,941 $ 31,816,483 212 Fixed Charges $ 307,869,716 $ 307,446,576 $ 306,798,576 213 Food Service $ 7,188,927 $ $ 3,181,689 214 Community Services $ 3,097,074 $ 2,225,690 $ 5,617,748 215 Capital Outlay $ 982,752 $ 2,211,675 $ 215,000 Undistributed Restricted Funds TOTAL EXPENDITURES/FTE $ 1,711,227,980 $ 1,660,680,756 $ 1,633,526,541 * Does not reflect budget amendments approved by local jurisdictions during the fiscal year. **Include federal funds and federally funded positions in Budget (Original and Prior Year Budget AND Original Approved Current Year Budget) and FTE columns. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 55 FTE Staffing FY 11 Budget 466.50 1,032.66 339.34 8,518.40 2,785.23 116.00 255.00 1,302.35 1,524.63 301.00 4.00 16,645.11 1.3: ATTACHMENT 3 - TOTAL FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT STAFF STATEMENT Local School System: Prince George's County Public Schools FY 10 Budget FY 11 Budget POSITION TYPE Estimate Approved Superintendent, Deputy,Assc, Asst 15.00 14.00 Directors, Coord.,Superv.,Specialists 424.00 403.00 Principal 205.00 209.00 Vice Principal 278.00 282.00 Teachers 8,976.53 8,734.77 Therapists 172.60 182.10 Guidance Counselor 380.50 372.50 Librarian 183.00 185.00 Psychologist 106.00 101.00 PPW/SSW 85.00 68.00 Nurse 235.00 237.00 Other Professional Staff 289.00 266.00 Secretaries and Clerks 874.00 881.00 Bus Drivers 1,294.74 1,264.35 Paraprofessionals 1,576.00 1,432.38 Other Staff 2,026.01 2,013.01 TOTAL FTE STAFF 17,120.38 16,645.11 Rev. 5/2007 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 56 TABLES 2.1 – 2.8 Table 2.1: Maryland School Assessment - AYP Proficiency Data - Reading - Elementary 2007 Subgroup All Students African American American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic White (Not of Hispanic Origin) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) Limited English Proficient (LEP) Special Education # Tested 26,448 19,791 109 708 4,383 1,457 13,758 2,569 3,014 # Prof. 18,452 13,636 79 604 2,868 1,265 8,731 1,408 1,470 2008 % Prof. 69.8% 68.9% 72.5% 85.3% 65.4% 86.8% 63.5% 54.8% 48.8% # Tested 25,444 18,744 109 718 4,556 1,317 13,420 2,631 3,239 # Prof. 19,538 14,302 87 633 3,355 1,161 9,585 1,705 1,915 2009 % Prof. 76.8% 76.3% 79.8% 88.2% 73.6% 88.2% 71.4% 64.8% 59.1% # Tested 25,477 18,482 91 809 4,830 1,265 13,537 3,080 3,538 # Prof. 19,850 14,286 77 715 3,640 1,132 9,931 1,863 2,526 2010 % Prof. 77.9% 77.3% 84.6% 88.4% 75.4% 89.5% 73.4% 60.5% 71.4% # Tested 25,289 18,114 91 831 5,036 1,217 14,793 4,301 3,236 # Prof. 19,915 14,032 72 754 3,955 1,102 11,039 3,327 1,969 % Prof. 78.7% 77.5% 79.1% 90.7% 78.5% 90.6% 74.6% 77.4% 60.8% Table 2.2: Maryland School Assessment - AYP Proficiency Data - Reading - Middle 2007 Subgroup All Students African American American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic White (Not of Hispanic Origin) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) Limited English Proficient (LEP) Special Education # Tested 28,971 22,656 142 756 3,927 1,489 14,120 1,832 3,669 2008 # Prof. % Prof. 17,557 13,541 95 602 2,114 1,205 7,502 547 1,090 60.6% 59.8% 66.9% 79.6% 53.8% 80.9% 53.1% 29.9% 29.7% # Tested 27,823 21,377 112 728 4,289 1,317 13,688 1,749 3,747 2009 # Prof. % Prof. 18,731 14,327 81 601 2,619 1,103 8,260 621 1,331 67.3% 67.0% 72.3% 82.6% 61.1% 83.8% 60.3% 35.5% 35.5% PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update # Tested 27,178 20,609 96 716 4,512 1,244 13,723 2,061 3,385 # Prof. 19,467 14,744 79 606 2,960 1,078 8,952 916 1,490 2010 % Prof. 71.6% 71.5% 82.3% 84.6% 65.6% 86.7% 65.2% 44.4% 44.0% # Tested 26,434 19,784 87 767 4,605 1,191 14,668 2,373 3,537 Page | 57 # Prof. 19,333 14,371 69 663 3,186 1,044 9,935 1302 1,667 % Prof. 73.1% 72.6% 79.3% 86.4% 69.2% 87.7% 67.7% 54.9% 47.1% Table 2.3: Maryland School Assessment - AYP Proficiency Data - Reading - High (English II) 2007 2008 Subgroup # # # Prof. % Prof. # Prof. % Prof. Tested Tested All Students 9,516 5,527 58.1% 7,133 5,230 73.3% African American 7,620 4,338 56.9% 5,846 4,199 71.8% American Indian/Alaskan Native 37 22 59.5% 27 19 70.4% Asian/Pacific Islander 316 232 73.4% 243 210 86.4% Hispanic 963 462 48.0% 559 396 70.8% White (Not of Hispanic Origin) 580 473 81.6% 458 406 88.6% Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 3,030 1,556 51.4% 2,221 1,505 67.8% Limited English Proficient (LEP) 429 98 22.8% 142 70 49.3% Special Education 936 243 26.0% 749 250 33.4% 2009 # Tested 7,927 6,423 29 262 728 485 2,912 294 840 # Prof. 6,086 4,873 20 227 531 435 2,144 172 341 2010 % Prof. 76.8% 75.9% 69.0% 86.6% 72.9% 89.7% 73.6% 58.5% 40.6% # Tested # Prof. % Prof. Table 2.4:Maryland School Assessment - AYP Proficiency Data - Math - Elementary 2007 Subgroup All Students African American American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic White (Not of Hispanic Origin) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) Limited English Proficient (LEP) Special Education # Tested 26,403 19,761 108 707 4,370 1,456 13,752 2,565 3,002 2008 # Prof. % Prof. 18,657 13,709 80 612 2,982 1,274 8,909 1,461 1,317 70.7% 69.4% 74.1% 86.6% 68.2% 87.5% 64.8% 57.0% 43.9% # Tested 25,427 18,728 108 716 4,554 1,321 13,402 2,630 3,235 2009 # Prof. % Prof. 19,117 13,812 86 651 3,410 1,158 9,410 1,749 1,683 75.2% 73.8% 79.6% 90.9% 74.9% 87.7% 70.2% 66.5% 52.0% PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update # Tested 25,451 18,097 91 809 4,826 1,259 13,521 3,073 3,538 # Prof. 19,111 13,493 71 735 3,693 1,119 9,567 1,542 2,578 2010 % Prof. 75.1 73.1 78.0 90.9 76.5 88.9 70.8 50.2 72.9 # Tested 25,255 18,097 92 830 5,022 1,214 14,772 4,288 3,228 Page | 58 # Prof. 19,686 13,689 72 779 4,054 1,092 10,973 3,403 1,842 % Prof. 77.9% 75.6% 78.3% 93.9% 80.7% 90.0% 74.3% 79.4% 57.1% Table 2.5: Maryland School Assessment - AYP Proficiency Data - Math – Middle 2007 Subgroup All Students African American American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic White (Not of Hispanic Origin) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) Limited English Proficient (LEP) Special Education # Tested 28,913 22,609 142 758 3,918 1,486 14,078 1,828 3,657 2008 # Prof. % Prof. 14,623 10,975 72 596 1,883 1,097 6,220 592 947 50.6% 48.5% 50.7% 78.6% 48.1% 73.8% 44.2% 32.4% 25.9% # Tested 27,800 21,358 114 730 4,279 1,319 13,665 1,744 3,746 2009 # Prof. % Prof. 15,302 11,300 62 605 2,305 1,030 6,628 611 1,076 55.0% 52.9% 54.4% 82.9% 53.9% 78.1% 48.5% 35.0% 28.7% # Tested 27,094 20,538 96 713 4,501 1,246 13,678 3,357 2,059 # Prof. 14,920 10,844 59 591 2,467 959 6,720 1,143 844 2010 % Prof. 55.1% 52.8% 61.5% 82.9% 54.8% 77.0% 49.1% 34.0% 41.0% # Tested 26,370 19,731 87 767 4,593 1,191 14,624 2,369 3,524 # Prof. 14,872 10,634 55 631 2,625 927 7,483 1,121 1,346 % Prof. 56.4% 53.9% 63.2% 82.3% 57.2% 77.8% 51.2% 47.3% 38.2% Table 2.6: Maryland School Assessment - AYP Proficiency Data - Math - High (Algebra/Data Analysis) 2007 Subgroup All Students African American American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic White (Not of Hispanic Origin) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) Limited English Proficient (LEP) Special Education # Tested 9,880 7,854 39 301 1,161 525 3,296 551 874 2008 # Prof. % Prof. 5,130 3,805 21 224 661 419 1,659 234 168 51.9% 48.4% 53.8% 74.4% 56.9% 79.8% 50.3% 42.5% 19.2% # Tested 7,119 5,726 25 246 686 436 2,249 376 75 2009 # Prof. % Prof. 4,933 3,801 19 218 500 395 1,453 234 237 69.3% 66.4% 76.0% 88.6% 72.9% 90.6% 64.6% 62.2% 31.6% PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update # Tested 7,761 6,295 28 244 712 482 2,988 859 310 # Prof. 5,498 4,291 21 223 540 423 2,078 286 226 2010 % Prof. 70.8% 68.2% 75.0% 91.4% 75.8% 87.8% 69.5% 33.3% 72.9% # Tested Page | 59 # Prof. % Prof. Table 2.7: Maryland School Assessment - Science - Elementary (Grade 5) Subgroup All Students African American American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic White (Not of Hispanic Origin) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) Limited English Proficient (LEP) Special Education # Tested 9,109 6,721 38 252 1,648 450 4,744 847 1,035 2008 # Prof. 4,491 3,202 21 176 732 360 1,907 222 255 % Prof. 49.3 47.6 55.3 69.8 44.4 80.0 40.9 26.2 24.6 # Tested 8,787 6,490 28 277 1,597 395 4,744 828 949 2009 # Prof. 4,372 3,119 19 202 712 320 1,939 207 215 % Prof. 49.8 48.1 67.9 72.9 44.6 81.0 41.2 25.0 22.7 # Tested 8,573 6,205 30 281 1,631 422 4,910 830 983 2010 # Prof. 4,566 3,234 15 213 771 332 2,216 214 258 % Prof. 53.3 52.1 50.0 75.8 47.3 78.7 45.1 25.8 26.2 % Prof. 36.0 34.5 36.4 65.5 28.0 68.0 26.4 5.8 9.9 # Tested 9,229 7,062 35 266 1,489 377 4,561 494 911 2009 # Prof. 3,677 2,660 17 196 527 277 1,412 62 112 % Prof. 39.8 37.7 48.6 73.7 35.4 73.5 31.0 12.6 12.3 # Tested 9,149 6,823 25 265 1,604 428 4,953 435 974 2010 # Prof. 4,039 2,904 15 196 596 326 1,733 55 126 % Prof. 44.1 42.6 60.0 74.0 37.2 76.2 35.0 12.6 12.9 Table 2.8 Maryland School Assessment - Science - Middle (Grade 8) Subgroup All Students African American American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic White (Not of Hispanic Origin) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) Limited English Proficient (LEP) Special Education # Tested 9,853 7,574 55 281 1,474 469 4,578 485 1,177 2008 # Prof. 3,551 2,615 20 184 413 319 1,209 28 117 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 60 Table 2.9: Biology Subgroup # Tested 2007 # Prof. % Prof. All Students African American American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic White (Not of Hispanic Origin) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) Limited English Proficient (LEP) Special Education PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update # Tested 7,575 5,628 26 245 648 433 2,223 270 555 2008 # Prof. 4,957 3,463 16 206 376 380 1,232 101 146 % Prof. 65.4% 61.5% 61.5% 84.1% 58.0% 87.8% 55.4% 37.4% 26.3% # Tested 2009 # Prof. % Prof. 14,871 11,435 62 355 1,735 515 5,990 854 6,500 4,641 31 236 738 372 2,259 315 43.7% 40.6% 50.0% 66.5% 42.5% 72.2% 37.7% 36.9% 2,105 384 18.2% Page | 61 TABLES: 3.1 -3.11 Table 3.1: HSA Test Participation and Status - English 2009 Population: All 10th Grade Students Total % Taken Number and Taken Passed All Students 7219 59.5 American Indian/Alaskan Native 37 62.5 African American 5856 60.4 Asian/Pacific Islander 224 70.2 White (non-Hispanic) 361 82 Hispanic 741 43 Special Education 55 10.3 Limited English Proficient (LEP) 165 6.6 Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) 2578 49.7 Number Taken and Passed 4800 25 3831 184 318 442 6 36 1515 % Taken and Not Passed 30 30 31.9 15.3 11.1 29.1 84.5 23.6 34.9 Number Taken and Not Passed 2419 12 2025 40 43 299 49 129 1063 Table 3.2: HSA Test Participation and Status - English 2009 Population: All 11th Grade Students Total % Taken Number and Taken Passed All Students 6874 69.1 American Indian/Alaskan Native 29 70 African American 5444 68.9 Asian/Pacific Islander 257 78.7 White (non-Hispanic) 374 87.9 Hispanic 770 58.6 Special Education 37 15 Limited English Proficient (LEP) 338 23.9 Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) 2301 62.2 Number Taken and Passed 4990 21 3931 210 340 488 6 90 1497 % Taken and Not Passed 26.1 26.7 26.5 17.6 8.8 33.9 77.5 65.8 33.4 Number Taken and Not Passed 1884 8 1513 47 34 282 31 248 804 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update % Not Taken Number Not Taken 10.5 7.5 7.7 14.5 7 28 5.2 69.8 15.4 843 3 487 38 27 288 3 382 470 % Not Taken Number Not Taken 4.8 3.3 4.5 3.7 3.4 7.6 7.5 10.3 4.3 346 1 259 10 13 63 3 39 104 Page | 62 Table 3.3: HSA Test Participation and Status - Algebra/Data Analysis 2009 Population: All 10th Grade Students Total % Taken Number Number and Taken and Taken Passed Passed All Students 7248 62.5 5002 American Indian/Alaskan Native 35 67.6 25 African American 5683 61.6 3881 Asian/Pacific Islander 231 76.4 198 White (non-Hispanic) 354 82.4 319 Hispanic 945 56.3 579 Special Education 48 15.5 9 Limited English Proficient (LEP) 492 36.8 201 Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) 2773 57.3 1741 % Taken and Not Passed 28 27 28.6 12.7 9 35.6 67.2 53.3 34 Number Taken and Not Passed 2246 10 1802 33 35 366 39 291 1032 Table 3.4: HSA Test Participation and Status - Algebra/Data Analysis 2009 Population: All 11th Grade Students Total % Taken Number Number and Taken and Taken Passed Passed All Students 6724 71 5047 American Indian/Alaskan Native 28 73.3 22 African American 5317 69.4 3902 Asian/Pacific Islander 238 82.7 210 White (non-Hispanic) 356 87 329 Hispanic 785 70.6 584 Special Education 39 15 6 Limited English Proficient (LEP) 351 55.7 209 Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) 2269 67.9 1615 % Taken and Not Passed 23.6 20 25.2 11 7.1 24.3 82.5 37.9 27.5 Number Taken and Not Passed 1677 6 1415 28 27 201 33 142 654 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update % Not Taken 9.5 5.4 9.8 10.8 8.5 8.2 17.2 9.9 8.7 % Not Taken 5.4 6.7 5.4 6.3 5.8 5.1 2.5 6.4 4.6 Page | 63 Number Not Taken 761 2 614 28 33 84 10 54 265 Number Not Taken 386 2 304 16 22 42 1 24 110 Table 3.5: HSA Test Participation and Status - Biology 2009 Population: All 10th Grade Students Total % Taken Number and Taken Passed All Students 7051 55.3 American Indian/Alaskan Native 36 64.1 African American 5697 54.9 Asian/Pacific Islander 229 72.4 White (non-Hispanic) 365 82.7 Hispanic 724 42.4 Special Education 52 12.1 Limited English Proficient (LEP) 181 13.7 Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) 2524 46.2 Number Taken and Passed 4445 25 3475 189 321 435 7 75 1406 % Taken and Not Passed 32.4 28.2 35.1 15.3 11.3 28.1 77.6 19.4 36.8 Number Taken and Not Passed 2606 11 2222 40 44 289 45 106 1118 % Not Taken 12.3 7.7 9.9 12.3 5.9 29.5 10.3 66.8 17 Number Not Taken 989 3 628 32 23 303 6 365 517 Table 3.6: HSA Test Participation and Status - Biology 2009 Population: All 11th Grade Students Total % Taken Number and Taken Passed All Students 6745 62.7 American Indian/Alaskan Native 28 63.3 African American 5350 60.7 Asian/Pacific Islander 252 80.6 White (non-Hispanic) 374 87.6 Hispanic 741 58.4 Special Education 39 12.5 Limited English Proficient (LEP) 298 36.3 Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) 2250 56.1 Number Taken and Passed 4506 19 3452 212 340 483 5 134 1345 % Taken and Not Passed 31.1 30 33.4 15.2 8.8 31.2 85 44.4 37.8 Number Taken and Not Passed 2239 9 1898 40 34 258 34 164 905 % Not Taken 6.2 6.7 5.9 4.2 3.6 10.4 2.5 19.2 6.1 Number Not Taken 447 2 334 11 14 86 1 71 147 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 64 Table 3.7: HSA Test Participation and Status - Government 2009 Population: All 10th Grade Students Total % Taken Number and Taken Passed All Students 6948 61.9 American Indian/Alaskan Native 35 67.5 African American 5639 62.5 Asian/Pacific Islander 207 67.9 White (non-Hispanic) 362 86.1 Hispanic 705 47 Special Education 51 22.4 Limited English Proficient (LEP) 114 10.2 Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) 2477 53.1 Number Taken and Passed 4993 27 3969 178 335 484 13 56 1619 % Taken and Not Passed 24.2 20 26.3 11.1 6.9 21.5 65.5 10.6 28.1 Number Taken and Not Passed 1955 8 1670 29 27 221 38 58 858 % Not Taken 13.9 12.5 11.1 21 6.9 31.6 12.1 79.2 18.8 Number Not Taken 1119 5 707 55 27 325 7 433 574 Number Taken and Passed 5682 26 4500 227 360 569 8 135 1747 % Taken and Not Passed 16.7 10 17.3 8.9 4.1 20.7 77.5 34.2 21.6 Number Taken and Not Passed 1221 3 1004 24 16 174 31 129 526 % Not Taken 5.7 3.3 5 6.7 4.1 11.4 2.5 30 6.7 Number Not Taken 419 1 288 18 16 96 1 113 164 Table 3.8: HSA Test Participation and Status -Government 2009 Population: All 11th Grade Students All Students American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Asian/Pacific Islander White (non-Hispanic) Hispanic Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) Total Number Taken 6903 29 5504 251 376 743 39 264 2273 % Taken and Passed 77.6 86.7 77.7 84.4 91.8 67.8 20 35.8 71.7 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 65 Table 3.9 Graduates Who Met the High School Assessment (HSA) Graduation Requirement by Option HSA Graduation Requirement Options Passing Scores Bridge 1602 Option on Four HSAs Projects Total 2008-2009 2009-2010 # 7,496 8,345 # 4,013 4,219 % 53.5% 50.6% # 2,203 2,442 % 29.4% 29.3% # 983 1,323 % 13.1% 15.9% Total Waivers # 211 153 Met % 2.8% 1.8% # 7,410 8,158 Not Met % 98.9% 97.8% # 86 104 % 1.1% 1.2% Table 3.10 Bridge Projects Passed Algebra/Data Analysis # 1,925 2,493 2008-2009 2009-2010 Biology English Government Total # 1,701 2,035 # 2,605 2,804 # 1,230 1,671 # 7,461 9,003 Table 3.11 Rising Seniors Who Have Not Yet Met the Graduation Requirement Enrolled 2009-2010 2010-2011 Met Needing to Pass 4 Needing to Pass 3 Not Yet Met Needing to Pass 2 Needing to Pass 1 Total # # % # % # % # % # % # % 7,329 8,313 5,210 5,652 71.1% 68.0% 775 1,183 10.6% 14.2% 642 788 8.8% 9.5% 450 515 6.1% 6.2% 252 298 3.4% 3.6% 2,119 2,784 28.9% 33.5% PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 66 TABLES 4.1 – 4.3 Table 4.1 System AMAO 1, 2009-2010 LEP Student Progress toward Attaining English Proficiency n # Meeting Target % Meeting Target 12,487 9,088 72.8 Table 4.2 AMAO 2, 2009-2010 Student Attainment of English Proficiency n # Meeting Target 14,017 2,387 % Meeting Target 17.0 Table 4.3: System AMAO 3, 2009-2010 AYP Status for Limited English Proficient Students Reading Mathematics % Proficient Participation Rate % Proficient Participation Rate 2008 Not Met Met Not Met Met 2009 Not Met Met Not Met Met Indicate MET or NOT MET for each column. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 67 TABLES: 5.1 – 5.7 Table 5.1 Number and Percentage of All Schools Making Adequate Yearly Progress Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Elementary Schools Total # Making AYP of Schools # % 138 62 44.9 139 99 71.2 140 83 59.3 136 87 64.0 140 106 75.7 142 124 87.3 139 85 61.1 126 75 59.5 Elementary/Middle Schools Total # Making AYP of Schools # % 10 5 50 Total # of Schools 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 25 Middle Schools Making AYP # % 3 11.1 7 26.9 7 26.9 4 14.8 4 14.8 4 14.8 2 7.4 1 4.0 Total # of Schools 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 High Schools Making AYP # % 2 9.5 2 9.5 3 14.2 3 14.2 3 13.6 9 40.9 14 63.6 5 22.7 Special Placement Schools Total # Making AYP of Schools # % 1 0 0 1 1 100 1 1 100 13 TBD TBD *source: mdreportcard.org 10.12.10 Table 5.2 Number and Percentage of Title I Schools Making Adequate Yearly Progress Elementary Elementary/Middle Middle Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total # of Title I Schools 48 47 48 49 50 50 50 53 Title I Schools Making AYP 6 26 19 23 34 38 24 29 12.5 55.3 39.6 46.9 68.0 76.0 48.0 54.7 Total # of Title I Schools 3 Title I Schools Making AYP 0 0.0 Total # of Title I Schools High Title I Schools Making AYP 2 3 3 3 1 2 3 4 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total # of Title I Schools N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Special Placement Title I Schools Making AYP N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total # of Title I Schools N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Page | 68 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Title I Schools Making AYP N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A CA Restructuring Planning Restructuring Implementation 2 1 0 1 0 1 5 4 0 1 0 0 0 5 4 0 1 0 0 0 5 2 0 2 2 0 0 6 7 0 16 5 0 0 28 Restructuring Planning Restructuring Implementation Restructuring Implementation 6 2 0 0 8 4 2 0 0 6 1 1 3 0 5 8 17 4 0 29 2010-2011 Level of Improvement (based on 2010 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 12 0 3 1 0 0 16 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 5 0 1 0 0 0 6 3 0 1 2 0 0 6 8 0 14 5 0 0 27 *source – mdreportcard.org 10.12.10 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 69 Exiting in 2006 CA 4 1 0 0 5 Exiting in 2008 Year 2 11 0 7 0 18 4 1 0 0 5 14 0 3 0 17 Exiting in 2010 Year 2 Elementary Schools PreK-8 Middle Schools High Schools Special Placement Schools Public Charter Total Year 1 2009-2010 Level of Improvement (based on 2009 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs 2008-2009 Level of Improvement (based on 2008 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs Restructuring Implementation 3 7 0 0 10 4 7 0 0 11 Restructuring Planning 6 10 5 0 21 2 0 0 0 2 Restructuring Planning Restructuring Implementation 4 1 7 0 12 9 10 10 0 29 CA Restructuring Planning 9 3 0 0 12 12 2 8 0 22 CA CA 12 1 0 0 13 14 2 1 0 17 Year 2 Year 2 Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Special Placement Schools Total Year 1 2007-2008 Level of Improvement (based on 2007 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs 1 0 0 0 1 Year 2 2 5 0 0 7 Year 1 3 2 0 0 5 Year 1 Restructuring Implementation 4 0 0 0 4 Year 1 Restructuring Planning 12 10 18 0 40 Exiting in 2007 CA 9 2 1 0 12 2006-2007 Level of Improvement (based on 2006 AYP) Exiting in 2009 Year 2 Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Special Placement Schools Total Year 1 2005-2006 Level of Improvement (based on 2005 AYP) Exiting in 2005 Table 5.3: Number of All Schools in Improvement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Restructuring Planning Restructuring Implementation 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 6 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Restructuring Planning Restructuring Implementation Restructuring Implementation 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 5 2010-2011 Level of Improvement (based on 2010 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 4 0 0 0 7 Page | 70 Exiting in 2006 CA 3 0 0 0 3 Exiting in 2008 Year 2 8 0 0 0 8 4 0 0 0 4 11 0 0 0 11 Exiting in 2010 CA 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2008-2009 Level of Improvement (based on 2008 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs Restructuring Implementation Year 2 Elementary Schools PreK-8 Middle Schools High Schools Special Placement Schools Public Charter Total Year 1 2009-2010 Level of Improvement (based on 2009 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs 3 1 0 0 4 Restructuring Planning 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Restructuring Planning 3 2 0 0 5 5 1 0 0 6 CA Restructuring Implementation 3 0 0 0 3 9 0 0 0 9 CA Restructuring Planning 6 0 0 0 6 10 0 0 0 10 Year 2 CA 9 0 0 0 9 1 0 0 0 1 Year 2 Year 2 Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Special Placement Schools Total Year 1 2007-2008 Level of Improvement (based on 2007 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs Year 1 1 0 0 0 1 Year 1 1 0 0 0 1 Year 1 Restructuring Implementation 2 0 0 0 2 Exiting in 2005 Restructuring Planning 8 1 0 0 9 Exiting in 2007 CA 11 0 0 0 11 2006-2007 Level of Improvement (based on 2006 AYP) Exiting in 2009 Year 2 Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Special Placement Schools Total Year 1 Table 5.4: Number of Title I Schools in Improvement 2005-2006 Level of Improvement (based on 2005 AYP) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 5.5: Attendance Rates Annual Measurable Objective (AMO): Subgroups by Level Elementary All students Middle High Elementary African American Middle High Elementary American Indian/Alaskan Native Middle High Elementary Asian/Pacific Islander Middle High Elementary Hispanic Middle High Elementary White (Not of Hispanic Origin) Middle High Elementary Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) Middle High Elementary Limited English Proficient (LEP) Middle High Elementary Special Education Middle High 94% 2002-2003 94.9 94.0 91.0 94.8 92.8 90.3 94.6 94.1 92.2 95.9 95.5 94.3 95.2 94.5 91.9 94.9 91.2 89.1 94.2 93.1 90.6 95.7 95.1 93.4 92.9 92.4 88.7 94% 2003-2004 95.1 93.6 89.5 95.0 92.4 88.4 94.9 92.9 87.9 96.0 95.3 92.7 95.5 93.9 89.4 94.7 89.4 87.1 94.4 92.7 88.7 96.0 94.5 91.9 93.1 91.8 86.8 94% 2004-2005 93.2 93.3 89.8 93.2 92.0 89.0 93.3 91.4 89.6 94.5 94.7 92.4 93.4 93.5 88.3 92.5 88.2 86.0 92.3 92.2 88.9 93.8 94.3 90.0 91.1 90.8 87.0 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update 94% 2005-2006 94.3 93.0 88.1 94.3 91.7 86.4 93.1 92.6 87.9 95.3 94.5 91.1 94.3 93.4 87.6 93.4 88.2 84.4 93.6 92.0 86.7 94.4 94.4 89.0 92.4 91.0 84.3 94% 2006-2007 94.6 94.6 91.5 94.5 94.6 91.5 94.6 94.5 90.1 95.9 96.5 94.1 94.7 94.7 90.4 94.2 94.2 92.5 93.9 93.9 90.4 95.0 95.3 91.9 92.6 92.5 88.8 94% 2007-2008 95.2 94.3 89.0 95.1 94.2 89.0 93.5 93.1 90.9 96.4 96.5 92.7 95.4 94.6 87.5 94.6 93.5 91.0 94.7 93.5 87.5 95.7 95.6 90.4 94.3 92.9 87.5 94% 2008-2009 95.5 95.3 91.4 95.4 95.3 91.7 95.3 94.5 91.7 96.7 96.8 94.2 95.8 95.7 88.6 95.2 94.1 92.2 95.1 94.8 90.2 96.2 96.6 91.0 94.0 93.3 88.8 Page | 71 90% 2009-2010 95.4 95.3 90.0 95.3 95.3 90.3 94.6 94.8 88.8 96.6 96.9 93.7 95.4 95.2 87.0 95.1 94.5 91.5 94.8 94.6 88.5 95.8 96.0 89.6 93.8 93.4 86.5 Table 5.6: Percentage of Students Graduating From High School Annual Measurable Objective (AMO): 80.99% 80.99% Subgroup 2002-2003 2003-2004 All students (Counts toward AYP) 89.54 86.72 African American 90.22 88.25 American Indian/Alaskan Native 81.82 88.46 Asian/Pacific Islander 95.86 90.19 Hispanic 82.83 79.17 White (Not of Hispanic Origin) 86.65 79.67 Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 90.73 90.20 Limited English Proficient (LEP) 97.62 100.00 Special Education 95.17 92.60 Female 92.36 90.14 86.63 83.08 Male 83.24% 2004-2005 86.82 87.74 89.13 91.99 80.44 82.72 90.60 100.00 96.08 89.91 83.55 83.24% 2005-2006 86.56 87.95 83.33 89.58 76.68 82.62 89.98 0.00 94.88 89.78 83.22 83.24% 2006-2007 84.88 85.89 85.37 90.65 76.07 82.03 86.92 100.00 91.84 88.92 80.74 85.50% 2007-2008 83.09 84.96 80.00 87.85 69.26 82.17 86.90 99.04 83.83 86.89 79.34 85.50% 2008-2009 84.56 85.77 78.95 87.83 74.82 85.51 85.73 96.30 68.72 87.81 81.19 85.50% 2009-2010 84.42 85.18 85.37 91.81 77.72 84.03 86.31 89.53 86.65 88.14 80.69 Table 5.7: Percentage of Students Dropping Out of School State satisfactory standard: 3.00% 3.00% Subgroup 2002-2003 2003-2004 All students 2.34 2.92 African American 2.15 2.76 American Indian/Alaskan Native 3.43 3.33 Asian/Pacific Islander 1.56 2.11 Hispanic 3.74 3.96 White (Not of Hispanic Origin) 2.99 3.57 Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 1.71 2.06 Limited English Proficient (LEP) -0.21 0.00 Special Education 0.45 0.81 Female 1.78 2.24 Male 2.87 3.58 3.00% 2004-2005 3.57 3.16 3.86 2.08 7.11 3.90 2.26 -0.18 3.54 2.73 4.39 3.00% 2005-2006 3.96 3.58 1.90 2.47 7.21 4.04 3.20 -0.18 1.92 3.16 4.73 3.00% 2006-2007 3.82 3.70 3.94 2.45 5.07 3.67 3.15 0.40 1.07 3.17 4.44 3.00% 2007-2008 2.42 2.22 2.96 2.28 3.68 2.4 1.96 2.32 3.36 1.85 2.95 3.00% 2008-2009 1.34 1.39 1.60 0.39 1.34 1.10 1.46 1.34 0.39 0.94 1.72 3.54% 2009-2010 2.64 2.52 2.59 1.49 3.73 1.90 2.46 0.20 2.57 1.84 3.39 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 72 TABLES: 6.1 – 6.7 Table 6.1: Percentage of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers % of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught % of Core Academic Subject Classes Not School Year by Highly Qualified Teachers Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers 2003-2004 48.60 51.40 2004-2005 62.00 38.00 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 62.10 66.30 73.00 82.00 88.70 2009-2010 37.90 33.70 27.00 18.00 11.30 Table 6.2: Percentage of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers in Title I Schools Total Number of Core Academic Subject Classes in Title I Schools Core Academic Subject Classes in Title I Schools Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers % of Core Academic Subject Classes in Title I Schools taught by HQT 2008-2009 1,540 1,411 91.6% 2009-2010 5,592 5,280 94.4% Table 6.3: Number of Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified (NHQ) Teachers by Reason School Year Expired Certificate Invalid Grade Level(s) for Certification Testing Requirement Not Met Invalid Subject for Certification Missing Certification Information Conditional Certificate Total # % # % # % # % # % # % NHQ Classes All Classes 2005-2006 648 9.60% 161 2.40% 445 6.60% 1,542 23.00% 1,453 21.70% 2,455 36.60% 6,704 17,684 2006-2007 802 17.10% 79 1.70% 181 3.80% 810 17.20% 1,332 28.30% 1,499 31.90% 4,703 13,954 2007-2008 583 17.00% 67 1.90% 274 8.00% 647 18.80% 842 24.50% 1,026 29.80% 3,439 12,728 2008-2009 216 266 9.18% 56 119 2.38% 207 445 8.79% 657 1673 27.91% 349 302 14.83% 869 199 36.92% 14.80% 2,354 3,004 13,052 26,583 2009-2010 8.90% 4.00% PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update 55.70% 10.10% 6.60% Page | 73 Table 6.4: Core Academic Subject Classes Taught By Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) in High Poverty and Low Poverty Schools By Level Total Classes # 2005-2006 Elementary Secondary 2006-2007 Elementary Secondary 2007-2008 Elementary Secondary 2008-2009 Elementary Secondary 2009-2010 Elementary Secondary Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by HQT High Poverty Low Poverty Taught by HQT Total Classes Taught by HQT # % # # % 1,672 3,496 1,091 1,890 65.3 59.1 127 0 89 0 70.1 0.0 1,379 3,900 1,001 2,249 72.6 57.7 62 0 50 0 80.6 0.0 1,500 3,800 1,200 2,660 80.0 70.0 65 0 59 0 90.0 0.0 1,286 2,970 1,188 2,531 92.4 85.2 46 112 41 89 89.1 79.5 4,412 5,447 4,200 4,894 95.2 89.8 135 194 125 166 92.6 85.6 Table 6.5: Core Academic Subject Classes Taught By Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) in High and Low Poverty Schools By Level and Experience Core Academic Subject Classes High Poverty* Low Poverty Classes Taught by Classes Taught by Classes Taught by Classes Taught by Experienced HQT* Inexperienced HQT Experienced HQT* Inexperienced HQT School Year Level # % # % # % # % 2008-2009 Elementary 1,031 86.8 157 13.2 37 90.2 4 9.8 Secondary 2,430 87.2 358 12.8 78 87.6 11 12.4 2009-2010 Elementary 3,735 89.4 445 10.6 121 96.8 4 3.2 Secondary 4,353 89.4 516 10.6 162 97.6 4 2.4 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 74 Table 6.6: Attrition Rates Attrition Due To (Category): 2006-2007 Retirement Resignation Dismissal/Non-renewal Leaves Total Numerator Denominator % Numerator Denominator % Numerator Denominator % Numerator Denominator % Numerator Denominator % 185 8,955 2.07 778 8,955 8.69 254 8,955 2.84 241 8,955 2.69 1,458 8,955 16.3% 2007-2008 191 9,200 2.08 750 9,200 8.15 240 9,200 2.6 220 9,200 2.39 1,401 9,200 15.2% 2008-2009 186 9,077 2.05 700 9,077 7.7 240 9,077 2.6 190 9,077 2.09 1,316 9,077 14.5% (projected) 191 8,976 2.1 383 8,976 4.3 70 8,976 0.8 218 8,976 2.4 862 8,976 9.6% 2009-2010 Use the data available as of September 1st following each of the school years to be reported. Report data for the entire teaching staff or for teachers of Core Academic Subject areas if those data are available. Indicate the population reflected in the data: _X__ Entire teaching staff or ___ Core Academic Subject area teachers Table 6.7: Percentage of Qualified Paraprofessionals Working in Title I Schools Total Number of Paraprofessionals Working in Title I Schools 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011* 395 442 398 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Qualified Paraprofessionals Working in Title I Schools # 395 442 398 % 100 100 100 *As of July 1, 2010 Page | 75 TABLES: 7.1 – 7.10 Table 7.1: Number of Persistently Dangerous Schools 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # of Schools Table 7.2: Probationary Status Schools School* NA 9/30/2009 Enrollment NA Table 7.3: Schools Meeting the 2½ Percent Criteria for the First Time School* 9/30/2009 Enrollment NA NA # of Suspensions and expulsions NA # of Suspensions and Expulsions NA Percentage of Enrollment NA Percentage of Enrollment NA Table 7.4: Elementary Schools with Suspension Rates Exceeding Identified Limits # of Schools 2004-2005 Number With a Suspension Rate that Exceeded 18% 0 2005-2006 Number With a Suspension Rate that Exceeded 18% 0 2006-2007 Number With a Suspension Rate that Exceeded 16% 1 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update 2007-2008 Number With a Suspension Rate that Exceeded 14% 0 2008-2009 Number With a Suspension Rate that Exceeded 12% 0 2009-2010 Number With a Suspension Rate that Exceeded 10% 0 Page | 76 Table 7.5: Identified Schools That Have Not Implemented PBIS School* NA * Add rows when necessary School year in which the suspension rate was exceeded NA Table 7.6 Incidents of Bullying, Harassment, or Intimidation 2005-2006 Number of Incidents 52 Provide reason for noncompliance NA 2006-2007 24 2007-2008 54 2008-2009 77 Provide a timeline for compliance NA 2009-2010 562 Table 7.7: Number of Suspensions/Expulsions for Sexual Harassment, Harassment, and Bullying Offense Sexual Harassment Harassment Bullying TOTAL 2003-2004 100 0 100 2004-2005 76 0 76 2005-2006 155 0 52 207 2006-2007 144 0 60 204 2007-2008 143 0 63 206 2008-2009 126 48 120 294 2009-2010 199 74 500 773 Table 7.8: Number of Students Suspended School Year 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 Enrollment African American 1,101 2,447 2,455 # 912 2,116 1,946 % 82.8 86.5 79.3 4,235 3,311 78.1 American Indian/Alaskan Native # % 5 0.5 17 0.7 6 0.2 21 0.49 Asian Hispanic White Multiple Races Male Female # 9 20 22 % 0.8 0.8 0 # 127 248 401 % 11.5 10.1 16.3 # 48 46 80 % 4.4 1.9 3.3 # NA NA NA % NA NA NA # 755 1,435 1,592 % 68.6 58.6 64.8 # 346 1,012 863 % 31.4 41.4 35.2 37 0.87 734 17.3 96 2.26 36 0.85 2,599 61.3 1,636 38.6 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 77 Table 7.9: Number of Students Suspended - Out of School - by Race/Ethnicity and Gender (Unduplicated Count) School Year 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 Enrollment 13,598 14,104 13,014 7,720 10,426 African American # 11,856 12,178 11,155 6,693 8,963 % 87.2 86.3 85.7 86.7 85.9 American Indian/Alaskan Native # 54 65 48 24 40 % 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.38 Asian # 117 137 102 48 74 % 0.9 1 0.8 0.6 0.7 Hispanic # 1,141 1,378 1,396 798 1,060 % 8.4 9.8 10.7 10.3 10.1 Table 7.10: In-School and Out-of-School Suspensions by Most Common Offense Category In-School Suspensions School Year #1 #2 #3 Refusal to Obey 2007-2008 Classroom Disruption Fighting School Policies Loitering/Cutting 2008-2009 Classroom Disruption Disrespect Class/Truancy Refusal to Obey School 2009-2010 Classroom Disruption Insubordination Policies PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Multiple Races White # 430 346 313 157 189 % 3.2 2.5 2.4 2.0 1.81 # NA NA NA NA 98 % NA NA NA NA 0.93 #1 Insubordination Loitering/Cutting Class/Truancy Refusal to Obey School Policies Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander # % NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 0.01 Male # 9,056 9,263 8,686 5,086 6,888 Female % 66.6 65.7 66.7 65.9 66 # 4,542 4,841 4,328 2,634 3,538 % 33.4 34.3 33.3 34.1 33.9 Out-of-School Suspensions #2 #3 Refusal to Obey Classroom Disruption School Policies Fighting Insubordination Insubordination Disrespect Page | 78 TABLES: 8.1 – 8.3 Table 8.1: Percentage of All Kindergarten Students at Readiness Stages Composite 48 33 44 43 52 50 31 29 43 10 16 17 22 16 6 4 10 51 33 42 43 51 47 28 25 33 9 15 16 22 17 5 4 9 59 30 39 38 46 44 25 23 34 8 13 14 14 12 5 4 8 63 30 39 39 45 43 24 21 33 7 11 12 10 8 3 3 5 71 26 32 30 35 33 19 15 24 7 9 8 8 7 3 2 4 68 24 33 31 36 34 20 16 26 8 10 9 10 8 4 3 5 Domain Abbreviations: SP – Social and Personal; LL – Language and Literacy; MT – Mathematical Thinking; ST – Scientific Thinking; SS – Social Studies; TA – The Arts; PD – Physical Development Table 8.2: Percentage of Kindergarten Students with Previous Prekindergarten Experience % Fully Ready 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 PD TA SS ST MT LL SP % Developing Readiness Composite PD 67 71 73 76 82 81 TA 64 67 69 73 78 76 SS PD 34 36 44 49 60 58 ST TA 25 27 40 44 57 54 MT SS 39 41 49 49 62 59 LL ST 41 44 48 50 59 57 SP MT 57 58 61 63 67 68 Composite LL 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 % Approaching Readiness SP % Fully Ready % Approaching Readiness % Developing Readiness LL MT LL MT LL MT 48 51 56 57 66 63 46 51 56 56 69 65 43 39 36 36 29 30 43 39 35 37 27 29 10 9 8 6 5 7 12 11 9 7 4 6 Domain Abbreviations: LL – Language and Literacy; MT – Mathematical Thinking PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 79 School Adelphi Allenwood Andrew Jackson Apple Grove Ardmore Arrowhead Avalon Baden Barnaby Manor Beacon Heights Beltsville Bladensburg Bond Mill Bradbury Heights Brandywine Calverton Capitol Heights Carmody Hills Carole Highlands Carrollton Catherine T Reed Chapel Forge Cherokee Lane Chillum Clinton Gove Columbia Park Concord Cool Spring Cooper Lane Cora L. Rice Deerfield Run District Heights Dodge Park Doswell E. Brooks Ferguson/Burroughs Table 8.3: September 30 Prekindergarten Enrollment Prince George's Prekindergarten Enrollment Data 9.30.09 Income Eligible Students half/full day Total Students Enrolled 9.30.09 (Priority 1) Full 22 22 Full 33 33 Full 25 25 Full 44 44 Full 45 45 Full 23 23 Full 17 17 Full 21 21 Full 34 34 Full 44 44 Full 33 33 Full 69 69 Full 18 18 Full 24 24 Full 22 22 Full 43 43 Full 12 12 Full 35 35 Full 76 76 Full 44 44 Full 22 22 Full 10 5 Full 22 22 Full 37 37 Full 16 16 Full 44 44 Full 42 42 Full 102 102 Full 56 56 Full 44 44 Full 44 44 Full 40 40 Full 45 45 Full 21 21 Full 15 15 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Students Enrolled Under Other Criteria (Priority 2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 (Special Ed.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page | 80 School Flintstone Forest Heights Fort Foote Francis Fuchs Francis S. Key Francis T Evans Ft Washington Forest Gladys N. Spellman Glassmanor Glenarden Woods Glenridge Greenbelt Children's Center Greenbelt High Bridge H. Winship Wheatley Hillcrest Heights Hollywood Hyattsville Indian Queen James Harrison James McHenry James Ryder Randall John Bayne Judge S. Woods Judith P. Hoyer Early Childhood Center Kenilworth Kenmoor Kettering Kingsford Lake Arbor Lamont Langley Park McCormick Laurel Lewisdale Longfields Magnolia Table 8.3: September 30 Prekindergarten Enrollment Prince George's Prekindergarten Enrollment Data 9.30.09 Income Eligible Students half/full day Total Students Enrolled 9.30.09 (Priority 1) Full 22 22 Full 19 19 Full 18 18 Full 73 65 Full 54 54 Full 31 31 Full 13 13 Full 44 44 Full 22 22 Full 22 22 Full 62 62 Full 20 20 Full 44 44 Full 17 10 Full 58 45 Full 44 44 Full 39 39 Full 21 21 Full 22 22 Full 22 22 Full 66 66 Full 31 19 Full 44 44 Full 117 117 Full 40 40 Full 16 16 Full 20 20 Full 31 31 Full 42 42 Full 28 28 Full 64 64 Full 64 64 Full 44 44 Full 82 82 Full 20 20 Full 43 43 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Students Enrolled Under Other Criteria (Priority 2) 0 0 0 8 (Special Ed.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 (Special Ed.) 13 (Special Ed.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 (Special Ed.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page | 81 School Marlton Mary Harris ―Mother‖ Jones Mattaponi Melwood Montpelier Mt. Rainier North Forestville Northview Oakcrest Oakland Overlook Oxon Hill Paint Branch Panorama Patuxent Perrywood Phyllis E. Williams Pointer Ridge Port Towns Potomac Landing Princeton Ridgecrest Riverdale Robert Frost Robert Gray Rogers Heights Rockledge Rosaryville Rosa Parks Rose Valley Samuel Chase Samuel Massie Scotchtown Hills Seabrook Seat Pleasant Skyline Table 8.3: September 30 Prekindergarten Enrollment Prince George's Prekindergarten Enrollment Data 9.30.09 Income Eligible Students half/full day Total Students Enrolled 9.30.09 (Priority 1) Full 22 22 Full 69 69 Full 10 10 Full 32 32 Full 44 44 Full 36 36 Full 18 18 Full 44 44 Full 32 32 Full 44 44 Full 21 21 Full 29 29 Full 63 63 Full 32 32 Full 21 21 Full 22 22 Full 17 17 Full 19 19 Full 94 94 Full 19 19 Full 33 33 Full 65 65 Full 66 66 Full 22 22 Full 44 44 Full 65 65 Full 21 21 Full 21 21 Full 44 44 Full 20 20 Full 41 41 Full 32 32 Full 39 39 Full 41 41 Full 22 22 Full 20 20 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Students Enrolled Under Other Criteria (Priority 2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page | 82 School Suitland Tayac Templeton Thomas Claggett Thomas S Stone Tulip Grove University Park Valley View Waldon Woods William Beanes William Hall William Paca Woodmore Woodridge Yorktown Vansville TOTAL Table 8.3: September 30 Prekindergarten Enrollment Prince George's Prekindergarten Enrollment Data 9.30.09 Income Eligible Students half/full day Total Students Enrolled 9.30.09 (Priority 1) Full 43 43 Full 23 23 Full 64 64 Full 21 21 Full 44 44 Full 20 20 Full 28 28 Full 22 22 Full 40 40 Full 38 38 Full 27 27 Full 19 19 Full 25 25 Full 44 44 Full 20 20 Full 41 41 4466 4421 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Students Enrolled Under Other Criteria (Priority 2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 Page | 83 I.D GOAL PROGRESS PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 84 I.D.i MARYLAND SCHOOL ASSESSMENT(MSA)/HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENTS (HSA) MARYLAND SCHOOL ASSESSMENT READING Based on the Examination of AYP Reading Proficiency Data for Elementary Schools (Table 2.1) and Middle Schools (Table 2.2): 1. Describe where progress is evident. In your response, identify progress in terms of grade band(s) and subgroups. Table A – MSA Elementary School Reading Proficiency Rates by Subgroup – 2007-2010 Subgroup 2007 2008 2009 2010 All Students African American American Indian/ Alaskan Native Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic White Free/Reduced Meals Limited English Proficient Special Education Change Change (2009-2010)* 2007-2010)* 69.8 76.8 77.9 78.7 0.8 9.0 68.9 76.3 77.3 77.5 0.2 8.6 72.5 79.8 84.6 79.1 -5.5 6.6 85.3 88.2 88.4 90.7 2.4 5.4 65.4 73.6 75.4 78.5 3.2 13.1 86.8 88.2 89.5 90.6 1.1 3.7 63.5 71.4 73.4 74.6 1.3 11.2 54.8 64.8 60.5 77.4 16.9 22.5 48.8 59.1 71.4 60.8 -10.5 12.1 Based on MSDE Table 2.1 *The calculation of the changes is based on more precise data and varies slightly due to rounding. Elementary Reading MSA data for SY2006-7 through SY2009-10 are presented in Table A. Two subgroups met the reading AMO in SY2009-10 (81.2%): Asian/Pacific Islander (90.7%) and white (90.6%). From SY2008-9 to SY2009-10, reading proficiency rates increased in the aggregate and for five of the eight subgroups. LEP students made the greatest gains—a 16.9 percentage point increase. Reading proficiency rates increased in the aggregate and for all subgroups between SY2006-7 and SY2009-10. The percentage point increases were as follows: all students (9.0), African American (8.6), American Indian/Alaskan Native (6.6), Asian/Pacific Islander (5.4), Hispanic (13.1), White (3.7), FARMS (11.2), LEP (22.5), and special education (12.1). Middle school Reading MSA data for SY2006-7 through SY2009-10 are presented in Table B. White and Asian/Pacific Islander students met the 2010 AMO, at 87.7% and 86.4%, respectively. Between SY2008-9 and SY2009-10, middle school reading proficiency rates increased in the aggregate and for seven of the eight subgroups. Again, LEP students made the greatest gains, posting a 10.4 percentage point increase. Reading proficiency rates increased in the aggregate and for all middle school subgroups between SY2006-7 and SY2009-10. The percentage point increases were as follows: all students (12.5), African American (12.9), American Indian/Alaskan Native (12.4), Asian/Pacific Islander (6.8), Hispanic (15.4), White (6.7), FARMS (14.6), LEP (25.0), and special education (17.4). Table B – MSA Middle School Reading Proficiency Rates by Subgroup – 2007-2010 SUBGROUPS 2007 2008 2009 2010 Change (2009-2010)* Change (2007-2010)* All Students 60.6 67.3 71.6 73.1 1.5 12.5 African American 59.8 67.0 71.5 72.6 1.1 12.9 American Indian/ Alaskan Native 66.9 72.3 82.3 79.3 -3.0 12.4 Asian/Pacific Islander 79.6 82.6 84.6 86.4 1.8 6.8 Hispanic 53.8 61.1 65.6 69.2 3.6 15.4 White 80.9 83.8 86.7 87.7 1.0 6.7 Free/Reduced Meals 53.1 60.3 65.2 67.7 2.5 14.6 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 85 Table B – MSA Middle School Reading Proficiency Rates by Subgroup – 2007-2010 SUBGROUPS 2007 2008 2009 2010 Change (2009-2010)* Change (2007-2010)* Limited English Proficient 29.9 35.5 44.4 54.9 10.4 25.0 Special Education 29.7 35.5 44.0 47.1 3.1 17.4 Based on MSDE Table 2.2 * The calculation of the changes is based on more precise data and varies slightly due to rounding. 2. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies to which you attribute the progress. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations. Elementary Reading/English Language Arts (RELA) Collaboration The steady, gradual progress for the Limited English Proficient subgroup can be attributed to increased collaboration between staff in the ESOL Office and the Elementary Reading Office. Throughout the year, ESOL teachers, special educators, Reading Recovery teachers, and reading specialists participated in a voluntary book study of Why do English Language Learners Struggle with Reading? Distinguishing Language Acquisition from Learning Disabilities by Janette Klingner, John Hoover, and Leonard M. Baca (Corwin Press, 2008). There was also increased collaboration among ESOL and general educators in supporting reading strategy and skill instruction across all elementary curricula, the Comprehension Toolkit, and America’s Choice. Additional Staffing The progress in the special education subgroup from SY2008-09 can be attributed to the FTE that was allocated to the Reading/Special Education Office. In addition to providing training to special educators throughout the district on curriculum updates, adaptations for special needs students, and a series of balanced literacy workshops for emergent and struggling readers, the instructional specialist assisted with the creation of supplemental resources and training in the effective use of interventions (Voyager, SPIRE, I-Station, Edmark). Professional Development Professional development was provided to all administrators, reading specialists, and literacy coaches on collaborative planning in reading/English language arts. Through collaborative planning, grade level teams discussed and planned scaffolding skill and strategy lessons and adapting lessons so that students would gain greater understanding. During these sessions, teachers utilized lessons from the PGCPS curriculum framework, lesson seeds from www.mdk12.org, and supplemental support resources. Professional development was also provided in both skills and comprehension strategies from the state curriculum in the following ways: Passage mapping for state curriculum skills; Title I demonstration lessons and workshops for Comprehension Toolkit; Development of demonstration teachers through Title I Comprehension Toolkit; Emergent literacy workshops for special educators and teachers in grades 2-5; Intervention/supplemental resources (Soar to Success/Wildcats); Reading Specialists‘ meetings and workshops to address MSDE updates of the state curriculum; Writing workshop book studies; and MSA observations from range-finding. Formative Assessments Ongoing analysis of the Formative Assessment Systemic Test (FAST) and the Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) continued throughout the year during data utilization meetings and collaborative planning sessions. Through the use of test reports from Edusoft, teachers were able to identify student strengths and weaknesses and to use these results to plan instruction. The tests were created by the Testing Office and were reviewed by the R/ELA Office for alignment to the state curriculum before administration. Allocation: $30,678 (Substitutes and Stipends only) PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 86 Middle School Reading/English Language Arts (RELA) Professional Development The objectives of middle schools R/ELA workshops were to provide curriculum support for all R/ELA teachers and to offer opportunities for participants to increase their instructional capacity, thus increasing student performance on MSA. Middle school R/ELA Leadership Workshops provided training for teacher leaders (department chairpersons, reading specialists, instructional literacy coaches), who, in turn, lead their individual schools in collaborative planning sessions and departmental meetings. Through the use of the ―trainer of trainers‖ model, relevant information and training was passed to school staffs on such topics as effective use of the MSA reading rubric and range-finding/scoring, reading strategy work, and the use of resources from www.MDK12.org. Grade 6 R/ELA teachers (including general, ESOL, and special educators) attended professional development that provided curriculum framework support and modeling of instruction, with a particular focus on reading strategies and BCR anchoring/range-finding. The Middle Grades Reading/English Language Arts Summer Institute provided participants with training on critical reading and writing strategies for improved achievement on the MSA. Focus workshops were offered to special educators and ESOL teachers addressing the instructional needs of students relative to the general curriculum as well as MSA. This further strengthened the content knowledge of the educators who attended, enabling them to provide R/ELA instruction appropriate to the needs of these learners. Allocation: $58,450 (Substitutes and Stipends only) Formative Assessments The analysis of summative data assisted teachers with pinpointing areas in need of additional support and instruction for students. Data sources include the FASTs and the SRI. Collaborative Planning/Lesson Design The implementation of collaborative planning has removed teachers from their individual silos as they address reading and writing strategies and skills to be taught. The collaboration fosters a more complete understanding of standards, objectives, and indicators, whether gained through examination of the Maryland State Curriculum (MSC) clarification documents, discussion, and/or modeling by peers. The collaborative lesson design process better enables educators to examine, discuss, and plan instruction based on data sources. This also ensures that all educators are teaching their students in rigorous and respectful ways so that students will be successful life-long learners and will perform successfully on the MSA. Strategies That Work (S. Harvey and A. Goudvis) This seminal work on reading strategy instruction has been embedded into the middle grades curriculum frameworks so that students have a stronger foundation from which to utilize the reading skills they learn and practice, based on the MSC. The twofold goal of this infusion is to increase student meta-cognition about their reading and, thus, to increase scores on the MSA. 3. Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of grade band(s) and subgroup(s). At both the elementary and middle school levels, only Asian/Pacific Islander students and White students met the 2010 reading AMOs. Special education students were the lowest performing subgroup at both the elementary and middle school levels: only 60.8% of elementary and 47.1% of middle school special education students scored at proficiency in SY2009-10. Special education students scored 17.9 percentage points below the district‘s SY2009-10 aggregate proficiency rate (78.7%) and 20.4 percentage points below the AMO (81.4%). Middle school special education students scored 26.0 percentage points below the district‘s SY2009-10 aggregate proficiency rate (73.1%) and 33.7 percentage points below the AMO (80.8%). Elementary proficiency rates for special education and American Indian/Native Alaskan subgroups declined between SY20089 and SY2009-10. The special education proficiency rate (60.8%) declined by 10.5 percentage points from SY20008-09 to SY2009-10. The proficiency rate for the American Indian/Alaskan Native subgroup decreased by 5.5 percentage points from SY2008-9 to SY2009-10, and it was 2.1 percentage points below the AMO. The American Indian/Alaskan Native subgroup was the only middle school subgroup that reflected a decrease in the percent of students proficient in reading between SY2008-9 and SY2009-10. The reading proficiency rate for middle school American Indian/Alaskan Native was 79.3% in SY2009-10 – 3.0 percentage points lower than the SY2008-09 proficiency rate. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 87 Panel clarifying question: To what factors would you attribute the noticeable drop in reading performance of elementary special education students? LSS Response to Clarifying Question: The response to this question can be found on page 324. 4. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made to ensure sufficient progress. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations, and incorporate timelines where appropriate. Elementary Reading/English Language Arts (RELA) The following adjustments in the elementary reading/English language arts instructional program are designed to improve the achievement of all students. The curriculum guides continue to reflect the state curriculum and provide additional instructional resources. In addition to the supplemental supports for ESOL and special education students, explicit book club lessons that incorporate strategy and skill instruction mini-lessons and a variety of rigorous independent activities that address multiple learning styles are being implemented in the Extensions for Advanced Learners. Lessons have been developed for grades 2-4. During SY2010-11, additional lessons will be created for advanced readers in grade 5. Reading and writing are part of a reciprocal process. The reading component of the curriculum framework has been strengthened to include strategy and skill instruction aligned to the state curriculum. The writing component of the comprehensive curriculum needs further revision to include a consistent writing genre focus for grades K-5. Reading specialists have studied the Writing Workshop model as part of a book study during each reading specialists‘ meeting for the past two years and have worked with students in their schools on various genre studies. An afterschool book study will be scheduled for interested reading specialists, special educators, and K-2 classroom teachers in comprehensive schools. During SY2008-09, four comprehensive schools participated in a pilot for Grade 1 Writing Fundamentals Units of Study, and twenty Title I schools participated in a grades 3-5 Writing Fundamentals Units of Study. In SY2010-11, Title I schools have expanded their use of Writing Fundamentals Units of Study to include grades K-5. During SY2010-11, a selected group of teachers will participate in a University of Pittsburgh research study. The focus is on improving teacher capacity in providing effective instruction in writing. Instructional logs and work samples will be collected and will be used to monitor growth and to support teachers in becoming reflective practitioners. To support reading specialists with the implementation of the Leveled Literacy Intervention, ongoing opportunities will be available to network, analyze data to inform teaching, and observe and discuss lesson implementation. Reading specialists and literacy coaches will also participate in training on MSDE updates and MSA Observations and rangefinding for brief constructed response analysis. Middle School Reading/English Language Arts (RELA) The following adjustments in the middle grades reading/English language arts instructional program are designed to improve the achievement of all students. Middle school curriculum frameworks continue to incorporate the MSC, ensuring that all students receive state mandated instruction, as well as the system‘s support programs. In addition to incorporating flexible grouping and differentiation into regular instruction to provide support and rigor to all students, an emphasis has been placed on daily grammar and academic vocabulary instruction. The writing component of the curriculum has been further strengthened and enhanced by inclusion of an instructional module for developing and writing an essay of literary analysis. Revisions were made to curriculum documents for honors/talented and gifted students received revisions to make them even more rigorous and to provide further enrichment. Allocation: $9,000 Teachers continue to use FASTs and the Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) to modify instruction. In addition, Testing Office staff incorporated BCRs into the FASTs, particularly in the assessment of the challenge MSC objectives. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 88 Additionally, staff in the Secondary R/ELA Office will work with all middle schools to administer at least one BCR per quarter. The BCRs will be reviewed at the Middle School Leadership Workshops and the discussions will include rangefinding and scoring. It is expected that participating leaders will share what they learned with teachers in their schools. This will result in teachers being able to practice these same review skills with students so that they have a better understanding of how to develop strong brief constructed responses. Professional development opportunities will continue for middle school R/ELA Leadership to increase their capacity as building level leaders who can support teachers and students in instruction that meets the rigors of MSA and college and career readiness. Similarly, workshops will be held for grade 6 R/ELA educators to provide them the opportunity to hone their teaching skills and to network with colleagues. PGCPS is beginning a systemic initiative to address the instructional challenges of middle school educators, with a concerted focus on grade 8. For grade 8 R/ELA educators, this is an opportunity to receive professional development that will sharpen their knowledge of middle grades R/ELA content and the research-based instructional tools necessary to help students succeed on the MSA and begin the transition to high school and beyond. Allocation: $73,150 (Substitutes and Stipends); $6,500 (Materials) Four turnaround schools receive focused curriculum enhancements and professional development, including demonstration lessons through the Comprehension Toolkit and reading strategies infusion with consultant and author Anne Goudvis. Regular collaborative planning sessions on infusing the Comprehension Toolkit are held with instructional lead teachers in each of these schools. This instructional enhancement is implemented through collaboration between staff in the Special Instructional Programs Office and the Turnaround Office, with the specific goal of improving performance on the Reading MSA. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 89 DIVISION OF ACADEMICS READING MSA System Target: By 2017, 100% of PGCPS students will score proficient or advanced on the MSA Reading assessment. By 2017, 75% of PGCPS students will score advanced on the MSA Reading assessment. Annual Target – Elementary 86.1% of elementary school students will score proficient or advanced in reading in SY2010-11. 35% of elementary school students will score advanced in reading in SY2010-11. Annual Target – Middle Grades 85.1% of middle school students will score proficient or advanced in reading in SY2010-11. 35% of middle school students will score advanced in reading in SY2010-11. Data-Based Challenge Changes or Adjustments to be Made – Practice, Department Leading Indicators Timeline Strategy, Initiative (Resource Allocation) Responsible Elementary special education student Increase professional development opportunities for Elementary and An increase of 5 percentage points in the Begins 9/20/2010 and performance was the lowest of all subgroups on special educators, provide instructional strategies to Secondary R/ELA, proficiency rate for special education continues throughout the reading MSA, at 60/8% proficiency. support emergent readers. Offices; students was established as an annual the year objective. Therefore, there should be a 5 Implement Voyager Passport Reading Journeys, a percentage point increase in special high interest reading intervention that blends print and Special Education Department education students performing at or above technology by combining differentiated instruction proficiency on the third quarter FAST. with web-based activities. Through Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) funding from the Special Education Office, all comprehensive elementary reading specialists and selected Reading Recovery teachers will receive materials and ongoing training on the Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI). This K-3 small group reading intervention is designed to bring students to grade level performance in an average time of fourteen to eighteen weeks. The lessons include systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, and comprehension. LLI lessons also provide opportunities for writing and are designed to expand vocabulary and develop oral language. Student progress will be monitored by the RELA and SPED departments throughout the school year. (Funded by Special Education CEIS funds) In collaboration with the Department of Special Education, professional development opportunities will be provided for classroom teachers on instructional strategies and lesson adaptations for special needs students. Additional professional development will include emergent literacy practices, Wildcats-supplemental small group resources, Title I Comprehension Toolkit and Writing Fundamentals Special Education Department; 10/31/2010 and ongoing thereafter Elementary R/ELA Office Special Education Department; Elementary and Secondary R/ELA, Offices PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Ongoing Page | 90 DIVISION OF ACADEMICS READING MSA System Target: By 2017, 100% of PGCPS students will score proficient or advanced on the MSA Reading assessment. By 2017, 75% of PGCPS students will score advanced on the MSA Reading assessment. Annual Target – Elementary 86.1% of elementary school students will score proficient or advanced in reading in SY2010-11. 35% of elementary school students will score advanced in reading in SY2010-11. Annual Target – Middle Grades 85.1% of middle school students will score proficient or advanced in reading in SY2010-11. 35% of middle school students will score advanced in reading in SY2010-11. Data-Based Challenge Changes or Adjustments to be Made – Practice, Department Leading Indicators Timeline Strategy, Initiative (Resource Allocation) Responsible demonstration lessons. Although elementary ELL posted a significant one-year increase in SY2009-10 (16.9 percentage points), trend data show unsteady progress. There is a need to continue to strengthen the instructional program. Middle school special education student performance was the lowest of all subgroups on the Reading MSA, at 47.1% proficiency. In collaboration with the ESOL Office, professional development opportunities will be provided for classroom teachers on instructional strategies and lesson adaptations for special needs students. Additional professional development will include emergent literacy practices, Wildcats-supplemental small group resources, Title I Comprehension Toolkit and Writing Fundamentals demonstration lessons. Staff in the Secondary R/ELA Office will strengthen their collaboration with Department of Special Education staff to provide year-long content training for special educators, especially a summer institute exclusively for these educators. Elementary and Secondary R/ELA Offices; Increase the push for special educator attendance at middle school content trainings so that they increase capacity in R/ELA content. Special Education Department The Middle School R/ELA Office will continue to work with the Department of Special Education to ensure that curriculum frameworks provide instructional guidance and scaffolding to meet student needs. Secondary R/ELA, Office; Special Education Department Secondary R/ELA, Office; Special Education Department An increase of 5 percentage points in the proficiency rate for ELL was established as an annual objective. Therefore, there should be a 5 percentage point increase in ELL performing at or above proficiency on the third quarter FAST. Ongoing An increase of 5 percentage points in the proficiency rate for special education students was established as an annual objective. Therefore, there should be a 5 percentage point increase in special education students performing at or above proficiency on the third quarter FAST. Ongoing June 2010 and June 20011 Special Education Department PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 91 DIVISION OF ACADEMICS READING MSA System Target: By 2017, 100% of PGCPS students will score proficient or advanced on the MSA Reading assessment. By 2017, 75% of PGCPS students will score advanced on the MSA Reading assessment. Annual Target – Elementary 86.1% of elementary school students will score proficient or advanced in reading in SY2010-11. 35% of elementary school students will score advanced in reading in SY2010-11. Annual Target – Middle Grades 85.1% of middle school students will score proficient or advanced in reading in SY2010-11. 35% of middle school students will score advanced in reading in SY2010-11. Data-Based Challenge Changes or Adjustments to be Made – Practice, Department Leading Indicators Timeline Strategy, Initiative (Resource Allocation) Responsible Although the performance of middle school ELL Staff in the Secondary R/ELA Office will continue to Secondary R/ELA An increase of 5 percentage points in the October 31, 2010 and continues to improve, there is a need to collaborate with ESOL Office staff to support the and ESOL Offices proficiency rate for ELL was established as ongoing accelerate their progress. The proficiency rate instructional needs of educators and the learning needs of an annual objective. Therefore, there should for this subgroup was 25.9 percentage points ELL. Utilizing Educational Leadership (April 2009) as a be a 5 percentage point increase in ELL below the AMO. resource, ESOL Office staff will lead middle school performing at or above proficiency on the department leaders (department chairpersons, reading third quarter FAST. specialists, literacy coaches) in a study of various topics related to effective instruction for ELL. This will better enable middle school leaders to support the teachers in their respective buildings as they guide the learning of this growing population of students. Due to changes in personnel, Secondary R/ELA Ongoing Office staff will work more closely with colleagues in the ESOL Office to provide training opportunities for teachers and to respectfully and rigorously meet the needs of these student groups, especially in regard to curriculum, professional development, and other instructional needs. The Middle School R/ELA Office will continue to work Ongoing with staff in the ESOL Office to ensure that curriculum frameworks provide instructional guidance and scaffolding to meet student needs. The American Indian/Alaskan Native subgroup Review curriculum frameworks to ensure that Secondary R/ELA An increase of 5 percentage points in the Throughout the year was the only subgroup that decreased the students in this subgroup are represented in the Office proficiency rate for American Indian/Alaskan percent of students scoring proficient in reading curriculum and in literature selections. Native students was established as an between SY2008-09 and SY2009-10 at both the annual objective. Therefore, there should be elementary and middle school levels. a 5 percentage point increase in American Indian/Alaskan Native students performing at or above proficiency on the third quarter FAST. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 92 DIVISION OF ACADEMICS READING MSA System Target: By 2017, 100% of PGCPS students will score proficient or advanced on the MSA Reading assessment. By 2017, 75% of PGCPS students will score advanced on the MSA Reading assessment. Annual Target – Elementary 86.1% of elementary school students will score proficient or advanced in reading in SY2010-11. 35% of elementary school students will score advanced in reading in SY2010-11. Annual Target – Middle Grades 85.1% of middle school students will score proficient or advanced in reading in SY2010-11. 35% of middle school students will score advanced in reading in SY2010-11. Data-Based Challenge Changes or Adjustments to be Made – Practice, Department Leading Indicators Timeline Strategy, Initiative (Resource Allocation) Responsible Although the performance of middle school An increase of 5 percentage points in the Ongoing Staff in the Secondary R/ELA Office will continue to utilize a Hispanic students continues to improve, the proficiency rate for Hispanic students was variety of literature and informational texts written by authors proficiency rate for this subgroup was 11.6 established as an annual objective. of many heritages, including those of Hispanic cultures, in percentage points below the AMO. Therefore, there should be a 5 percentage order to validate students‘ need to see themselves in what point increase in Hispanic students they are asked to read, discuss, and analyze in performing at or above proficiency on the assignments. third quarter FAST. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 93 MARYLAND SCHOOL ASSESSMENT MATHEMATICS 1. Describe where progress is evident. In the response, identify progress in terms of grade bands and subgroups. Table C: Maryland School Assessment - AYP Proficiency Data - Math - Elementary Subgroup 2007 2008 2009 2010 Change (2009-10) Change (2007-10) All Students 70.7 75.2 75.1 77.9 2.8 7.2 African American 69.4 73.8 73.1 75.6 2.5 6.2 American Indian/Alaskan Native 74.1 79.6 78.0 78.3 0.3 4.2 Asian/Pacific Islander 86.6 90.9 90.9 93.9 3.0 7.3 Hispanic 68.2 74.9 76.5 80.7 4.2 12.5 White (Not of Hispanic Origin) 87.5 87.7 88.9 90.0 1.1 2.5 Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 64.8 70.2 70.8 74.3 3.5 9.5 Limited English Proficient (LEP) 57.0 66.5 50.2 79.4 29.2 22.4 Special Education 43.9 52.0 72.9 57.1 -15.8 13.2 Based on MSDE Table 2.4 Elementary Schools As indicated in Table 2.4, four elementary student subgroups met or exceeded the 2010 math AMO (79.4%): Asian/Pacific Islander (93.9%), white (90.0%), Hispanic (80.7%), and LEP (79.4%). The elementary LEP student subgroup made significant improvement in math proficiency between SY2008-2009 and SY2009-2010, increasing by 29.2 percentage points. Over a four-year period (from 2006-2007 to 2009-2010), the LEP elementary subgroup‘s math proficiency showed the largest gain, increasing by 22.4 percentage points. It should be noted that the LEP subgroup made the AMO target for the first time in 2010 after failing to do so for three consecutive years. The math proficiency rate for the elementary Hispanic subgroup showed significant improvement over the four-year time period, increasing by 12.5 percentage points (from SY2006-2007 to SY2009-2010) and by 4.2 percentage points from SY2008-2009 to SY2009-2010. Three elementary subgroups have consistently met the math AMO for the past four years: Asian/Pacific Islander, White, and Hispanic students. Table D: Maryland School Assessment - AYP Proficiency Data – Math- Middle Subgroup 2007 2008 2009 2010 Change (2009-10) Change (2007-10) All Students 50.6 55.0 55.1 56.4 1.3 5.8 African American 48.5 52.9 52.8 53.9 1.1 5.4 American Indian/Alaskan Native 50.7 54.4 61.5 63.2 1.7 12.5 Asian/Pacific Islander 78.6 82.9 82.9 82.3 -0.6 3.7 Hispanic 48.1 53.9 54.8 57.2 2.4 9.1 White (Not of Hispanic Origin) 73.8 78.1 77.0 77.8 0.8 4.0 Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 44.2 48.5 49.1 51.2 2.1 7.0 Limited English Proficient (LEP) 32.4 35.0 34.0 47.3 13.3 14.9 Special Education 25.9 28.7 41.0 38.2 -2.8 12.3 Based on MSDE Table 2.5 Middle Schools Math MSA proficiency data for middle school students are displayed in Table 2.5. Only two subgroups met the middle school 2010 math AMO (71.4%): Asian/Pacific Islander (82.3%) and white (77.8%). The Asian/Pacific Islander subgroup exceeded the 2010 AMO by 10.9 percentage points and the white subgroup exceeded the AMO by 6.4 percentage points. These two subgroups have also consistently met the middle school math AMO annually for the past four years. 2. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies to which you attribute the progress. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations. The following programs contributed to improved student achievement: Modifications to Curriculum Framework PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 94 The curriculum framework for grades K-12 is the foundation of the PGCPS mathematics program and is the major contributor to growth from SY2006-07. The curriculum framework is based on the Maryland state curriculum which is derived from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards and Principles. The curriculum framework is designed to provide clear expectations for student learning. System funds allow for an annual review and modifications to curriculum frameworks to support enhanced teaching and learning for all students. The extension lessons provide activities that are designed to develop understanding from concrete and representational to symbolic models have aided instruction, and have been particularly beneficial for ELL. Specifically, extensions for advanced learners were added to provide activities that require students to create products that display deeper understanding of concepts taught in grade 3. The plan is to provide similar extensions for subsequent grade levels each year through grade 5. Professional Development/IFL strategies Expectations for curriculum delivery include developing mathematical concepts for implementing a student centered model. Teacher capacity for content and pedagogy was addressed with trainings that focused on infusion of Principles of Learning through the system partnership with Institute for Learning (IFL). The third year of this partnership highlighted strategies to access student thinking and learning via Accountable Talk among students and having instruction focused on ―big ideas.‖ Both educators and school administrators participated in the trainings to promote consistent expectations within the building for developing mathematical thinking and reasoning. As a result of the shift in instructional delivery, the number of students performing at the advanced level has increased for grades 3 and 4. Grade 5 experienced a program shift which would account for the resulting modest gains. Grade 5 Core Text Change Grade 5 core text materials were changed to mirror the texts in the middle grades. With this alignment, content for grades 5, 6, and 7 is presented in the same format and provides more rigorous instruction for grade 5. The grade 5 text was originally the grade 6 core text. The percent of students demonstrating proficiency is expected to increase beyond the modest 4 percentage point increase as program familiarity stabilizes. Math Solutions Title I funding supported supplemental training from the Marilyn Burns Math Solutions program. Math Solutions is a program that emphasizes building mathematical concepts through the use of concrete models and minimizes rote procedural knowledge. Teacher exposure to and implementation of the structures of this program contributed to the progress as well. First in Math First in Math is an online program that is designed to motivate student participation and develop fact fluency and number sense, while providing problem solving practice. The program was made available to all 4th and 5th grade students. Program implementation was most notable, including a nationally ranked school, in the northern portion of the county, Area 1, which has a high percentage of ESOL students. Assistance from Area offices aided in an increase of over 30% in program implementation. 3. Describe where challenges are evident. In the response, identify progress in terms of grade bands and subgroups. Elementary Schools Elementary students did not meet the 2010 math AMO (79.4%), failing to meet the standard in the aggregate by 1.5 percentage points. This represents the first time in the last four consecutive years that the district has failed to meet the AMO in the aggregate. In addition, four elementary subgroups failed to attain the AMO: American Indian/Native Alaskan (78.3%), African American (75.6%), FARMS (74.3%), and special education (57.1%). The performance of the special education subgroup in SY2009-10 is the lowest of all subgroups, at 20.8 percentage points below the aggregate passing rate (77.9%) and 22.3 percentage points below the AMO. The special education subgroup is 36.8 percentage points lower than the highest performing group (Asian-93.9%). The special education subgroup also had a significant one-year decrease in performance from 72.9% proficiency (2009) to 57.1% proficiency (2010), resulting in a 15.8 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 95 percentage point reduction. The district failed to meet the AMO for the African American and FARMS subgroups for the past two years and for the special education subgroup for the past four years. Middle Schools Seven middle school subgroups and all students in the aggregate failed to meet the math AMO (71.4%): American Indian/Alaskan Native (63.2%), Hispanic (57.2%), all students (56.4%), African American (53.9%), FARMS (51.2%), LEP (47.3%), and special education (38.2%). The American Indian/Alaskan Native subgroup failed to meet the AMO by 8.2 percentage points, while the proficiency rate for Hispanic students was 14.2 percentage points below standard. The district‘s middle school aggregate proficiency rate fell 15.0 percentage points below the AMO. The other subgroups that failed to attain the middle school 2010 Math AMO were significantly below standard by: 20.2 percentage points (FARMS); 24.1 percentage points (LEP); and 33.2 percentage points (special education). Only two subgroups have consistently met the AYP standard each year between 2007 and 2010; Asian/Pacific Islander and White. Panel clarifying question(s): To what factors would you attribute the noticeable drop in math performance of elementary and middle school special education students? LSS Response to Clarifying Question(s): The response to this question can be found on page 324. 4. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made to ensure sufficient progress. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations, and incorporate timelines where appropriate. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 96 Division of Academics Math MSA System Target: By 2016-17, 100% of PGCPS students will score proficient or above on the Math MSA. By 2016-17, 75% of PGCPS students will score advanced on the Math MSA. Annual Target: Elementary Grades - 79.4% of elementary school students will score proficient or above on Math MSA in SY2010-11. 27% of middle school students will score advanced on Math MSA in SY2010-11. Annual Target: Middle Grades - 71.4% of middle school students will score proficient or above on Math MSA in SY2010-11. 27% of middle school students will score advanced on Math MSA in SY2010-11. Data-Based Challenge Changes or Adjustments to be Made – Practice, Strategy, Initiative Department Leading Indicators Timeline Responsible Elementary students in the aggregate scored Continue to build teacher capacity in the planning and delivery of the Mathematics An increase of 5 percentage points in (77.9%) on math proficiency AMO, failing to mathematics instructional program through a series of professional Office proficiency rate for all students was meet the 2010 math AMO (79.4%) by 1.5 development opportunities. established as an annual target. percentage points. Therefore, there should be a 5 percentage point increase for all students January 2011 Middle school students scored (56.4%) on performing at or above proficiency on the math proficiency, failing to meet the 2010 second quarter FAST over the AMO (71.4%) by 15.0 percentage points. percentage scoring at or above proficiency on the first quarter FAST. Special education student performance was Increased collaboration between the Mathematics and Special Elementary An increase of 5 percentage points in the the lowest of all subgroups on the Education to increase teacher capacity in the special needs of all and proficiency rate for special education mathematics MSA in SY2009-10. The sub-populations, but especially those who struggle to achieve AMO Secondary students was established as an annual elementary proficiency rate was 57.1; while on MSA, including: Mathematics; target. Therefore, there should be a 5 January 2011 the middle school proficiency rate was 38.2. percentage point increase in special Aid with selection of materials to support students with special Department education students performing at or needs. of Special above proficiency on the second quarter Review and revise (as needed) CFPG modifications for June 2010 Education FAST over the percentage scoring at or students with special learning needs. above proficiency on the first quarter Train teachers, coaches and administrators to ensure FAST. January 2011 knowledge of available resources and improved instructions and test administration. Increase professional development opportunities for special Ongoing educators; and the push for special educator attendance at middle school content trainings so that they increase capacity in mathematics content. Data from systemically administered FAST Fractional concepts will be the content focus for trainings and Mathematics FAST assessment administered in August 2010assessments indicates a need to strengthen supplemental materials provided. Office January should reflect additional February 2011 instructional delivery of fractional concepts and Training Coaches and grade level Booster Sessions to focus on supports computation. fractions. Winter-break packet will be modified to have a content focus on fractional concepts. Schools with lower achievement rates will be targeted for PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 97 Division of Academics Math MSA System Target: By 2016-17, 100% of PGCPS students will score proficient or above on the Math MSA. By 2016-17, 75% of PGCPS students will score advanced on the Math MSA. Annual Target: Elementary Grades - 79.4% of elementary school students will score proficient or above on Math MSA in SY2010-11. 27% of middle school students will score advanced on Math MSA in SY2010-11. Annual Target: Middle Grades - 71.4% of middle school students will score proficient or above on Math MSA in SY2010-11. 27% of middle school students will score advanced on Math MSA in SY2010-11. Data-Based Challenge Changes or Adjustments to be Made – Practice, Strategy, Initiative Department Leading Indicators Timeline Responsible additional trainings. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 98 Chart A: Elementary Mathematics Scheduled Training 2010-11 Date Booster Sessions December 2 Grades (4-5) (4:00 pm-7:30) Booster Sessions December 7 Grades (1-3) (4:00 pm-7:30) EC/IFL Trainings October 6,7,12,19 EC/IFL Trainings January 6, 11, 12, 13 May 12, 2011 Meet the Author November 16, 2010 Coaches Training October 26, 2010 December date as needed Audience Topic 4th and 5th grade teachers Strategies for current weeks of instruction 1st , 2nd, and 3rd grade teachers Strategies for current weeks of instruction 90 classroom teachers, including special educators Elementary Teams, including: administrator, math leader, and 4th grade teacher EC only IFL-Cohorts 120 participants per session Mathematics EC Supporting Mathematics via Visual Literacy 120 participants Elementary Mathematics Coaches Strategies for adding and comparing fractions decimal representations and Special Education accommodations 30 participants Mathematics Content Conceptual Understanding Chart B: Secondary Mathematics Scheduled Training 2010-2011 Date Projected Attendance 60 classroom teachers, including special educators Audience August 12, 2010 8:30am – 4pm August 30, 2010 4:30pm – 7:30pm September 1, 2010 8:30am – 4pm September 2, 2010 8:30am – 4pm DC Meeting September 3, 2010 8:30am – 4pm 8th Grade Training Areas 3 & 4 September 16, 2010 8:30am – 4pm September 22, 2010 8:30am – 4pm October 6, 2010 8:30am – 4pm October 9, 2010 9:00am – 12:30pm KEMS/KEAS Training October 28, 2010 8:30am – 4pm November 16, 2010 8:30am – 4pm KEMS/KEAS Training TC Meeting 6th Grade Training 8th Grade Training Areas 1 & 2 Geometry Training 1 MS teacher per school DC/TC Meeting 8th Grade Saturday Booster Session 8th Grade Training Areas 1 & 2 Topic Training with the vendor on new 8th grade text and resources Review data, instructional strategies and mathematics updates Strategies for current weeks of instruction Projected Attendance 30 participants 30 participants 120 participants Training with the vendor on new 8th grade text and resources by looking at strategies for current weeks of instruction Training on new Text and resources by looking at strategies for current weeks of instruction Training on interventions strategies and content for current weeks of instruction Strategies for current weeks of instruction 120 participants Review data, instructional strategies and mathematics updates Training with the vendor on new 8th grade text and resources by looking at strategies for current weeks of instruction Training on interventions strategies and content for current weeks of instruction Training with the vendor on new 8th grade text and resources by looking at strategies for current weeks of instruction 70 participants PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update 120 participants 100 participants 100 participants 40 participants 100 participants 120 participants Page | 99 Chart B: Secondary Mathematics Scheduled Training 2010-2011 Date Audience November 17, 2010 8:30am – 4pm 8th Grade Training Areas 3 & 4 December 15, 2010 8:30am – 4pm January 12, 2011 8:30am – 4pm DC/TC Meeting January 13, 2011 8:30am – 4pm 8th Grade Training Areas 3 & 4 February 2, 2011 DC/TC Meeting February 12, 2011 8th Grade Saturday Booster Session March 9, 2011 AP Calculus, Stat and Computer Science Teacher Training DC/TC Meeting May 4, 2011 8th Grade Training Areas 1 & 2 Topic Training with the vendor on new 8th grade text and resources by looking at strategies for current weeks of instruction Review data, instructional strategies and mathematics updates Training with the vendor on new 8th grade text and resources by looking at strategies for current weeks of instruction Training with the vendor on new 8th grade text and resources by looking at strategies for current weeks of instruction Review data, instructional strategies and mathematics updates Training with the vendor on new 8th grade ext and resources by looking at strategies for current weeks of instruction Strategies for current weeks of instruction, review AP midterm data Review data, instructional strategies and mathematics updates PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Projected Attendance 120 participants 70 participants 120 participants 30 participants 70 participants 30 participants 40 participants 70 participants Page | 100 MSA SCIENCE Based on the Examination of 2009 Maryland School Assessment Science Data for Grade 5 (Table 2.7) and Grade 8 (Table 2.8): 1. Describe your school system’s results. In your response, identify the successes in terms of grade level(s) and subgroup(s). Table E: Maryland School Assessment - Science - Elementary Grade 5)* Subgroup All Students African American American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic White (Not of Hispanic Origin) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) Limited English Proficient (LEP) Special Education 2008 Proficiency Rate % Proficient 2009 Proficiency Rate % Proficient 2010 Proficiency Rate % Proficient 49.3 47.6 55.3 69.8 44.4 80.0 40.9 26.2 24.6 49.8 48.1 67.9 72.9 44.6 81.0 41.2 25.0 22.7 53.3 52.1 50.0 75.8 47.3 78.7 45.1 25.8 26.2 1 - Year Change 2 - Year Change (2010 -2009) (2010 -2008) Percentage Point Difference 3.5 4.0 -17.9 2.9 2.7 -2.3 3.9 0.8 3.5 4.0 4.5 -5.3 6.0 2.9 -1.3 4.2 -0.4 1.6 * Based on data presented in Table 2.7: Maryland School Assessment – Science – Elementary (Grade 5) Table F: Maryland School Assessment - Science - Middle (Grade 8)* Subgroup All Students African American American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic White (Not of Hispanic Origin) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) Limited English Proficient (LEP) Special Education 2008 Proficiency Rate % Proficient 2009 Proficiency Rate % Proficient 2010 Proficiency Rate % Proficient 36.0 34.5 36.4 65.5 28.0 68.0 26.4 5.8 9.9 39.8 37.7 48.6 73.7 35.4 73.5 31.0 12.6 12.3 44.1 42.6 60.0 74.0 37.2 76.2 35.0 12.6 12.9 1 - Year Change 2 - Year Change (2010 (2010 -2009) -2008) Percentage Point Difference 4.3 4.9 11.4 0.3 1.8 2.7 4.0 0.0 0.6 8.1 8.1 23.6 8.5 9.2 8.2 8.6 6.8 3.0 * Based on data presented in Table 2.8: Maryland School Assessment – Science – Middle (Grade 8) Grade 5 PGCPS proficiency rates on the science MSA improved for 5th grade students from SY2008-2009 to SY2009-2010 (see Table E) The SY2009-2010 proficiency rates for two subgroups (White – 78.7% and Asian/Pacific Islander – 75.8%) exceeded the system‘s aggregate proficiency rate for 5th grade (53.3%). Fifth grade proficiency rates increased in the aggregate and for five subgroups from SY2007-2008 to SY2009-2010: all students (4.0 percentage points); African American (4.5 percentage points); Asian/Pacific Islander (6.0 percentage points); Hispanic (2.9 percentage points); FARM (4.2 percentage points) and special education (1.6 percentage points). PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 101 Grade 8 At the eighth grade level, the percent proficient on the Science MSA improved in the aggregate and for all subgroups from SY2008-2009 to SY2009-2010 (see Table F). The SY2009-2010 proficiency rates for three subgroups (White – 76.2%, Asian/Pacific Islander – 74.0% and American Indian/Alaskan Native – 60.0%)) exceeded the system‘s average for 8th grade (44.1%). Over the two-year period from SY2007-2008 to SY2009-2010, the science proficiency rates increased in the aggregate and for all subgroups. The greatest percent difference was observed for the American Indian/Native Alaskan subgroup that increased by 23.6 percentage points. Grade 8 science students improved their performance on the Science MSA from SY2007-2008 to SY2009-2010 by: 8.1 percentage points (all students); 8.1 percentage points (African Americans); 23.6 percentage points (American Indian/Alaskan Native); 8.5 percentage points (Asian/Pacific Islander); 9.2 percentage points (Hispanic); 8.2 percentage points (White); 8.6 percentage points (FARMS); 6.8 percentage points (LEP); and 3.0 percentage points (special education). 2. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies that are designed to ensure progress. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations. MSA Lizard Project The MSA Lizard Project was developed as a result of data collected from the grade 5 Formative Assessment Systemic Test (FAST) scores, grade 5 science MSA results, STEM Fair observations, and discussions held with science elementary teachers in SY2009-2010. The project activities included engaging students in a two-to-four week task that required daily observations of a polymer-based lizard, along with review and use of metric tools, concepts, and content assessment limits in preparation for the grade 5 Science MSA. Additionally, the project provided teachers and students with an instructional technology platform that addresses 21st century learners. This platform, known as a wiki site, provided an opportunity for teachers and students to post results from investigations and questions, participate in interactive science websites, view science video clips, and view posted data from at least thirty-four 5th grade classrooms across PGCPS. Students were able to review for the Science MSA via online communication, data analysis, and electronic interaction. Online tasks also offered teachers alternative instructional tools for differentiating instruction for kinesthetic, auditory, and visual learners. Several workshops took place that provided science coordinators and participating 5th grade teachers with an awareness of the project and understanding of several Web 2.0 tools, including wikis. Teacher surveys completed prior to the workshop attendance indicated little to no knowledge of Web 2.0 tools but the desire to learn. Teacher evaluations completed at the end of the training sessions supported teacher growth in acquiring knowledge of technology tools for classroom use and interest in pursuing application of the tools through classroom activities, including the Lizard Project. The initial interest in the MSA Lizard Project generated a list of 80 participating schools. However, by the close of the collaborative project, thirty-four schools had posted their observations, lizard growth data, and responses to questions posed in discussion forums. Ultimately, 42% of individuals with written commitments actually participated in the project. Of all elementary schools in PGCPS, 26% remained active online for two-to-four weeks and engaged in the wiki. In creating an online platform, teachers were provided with a project that addressed different learning modalities, supported science inquiry, introduced instructional technology, and reviewed MSA assessment limits. The intended outcomes for the participating 5th grade students were to review basic skills and processes necessary for success on the science MSA and to communicate discoveries and results throughout PGCPS. Survey results and follow-up discussions with elementary science teachers indicated a great interest in the project; however, challenges included a lack of instructional time for science, scarcity in measurement tools, and problems with technology. As a result, the aforementioned factors caused some 5th grade teachers to decline participation. Curriculum Development Revisions of all seventeen elementary and middle PGCPS science curriculum frameworks and student unit assessments have been closely aligned to the six science standards provided by MSDE. All 172 elementary and middle schools are expected to use the science curriculum frameworks and the student unit assessments in science. The curriculum documents also provide sample lesson plans that incorporate instructional strategies such as targeted reading skills, technology integration, investigations, required laboratory and hands-on activities, for the general and special education populations, as well as graphic organizers and the use of student audio textbooks for ELL. Appendices for advanced learners have been inserted into PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 102 the second, third, and fourth grade curriculum frameworks. The appendices provide alternative activities for students who need the challenge of more rigorous assignments. In the fourth grade science curriculum, multicultural education strategies include the use of folklores, biographies of international scientists, and highlighted scientific careers that demonstrate diversity in science for all students. Ultimately, the revisions of curriculum documents are based upon classroom observations, feedback from science teachers, monitoring of unit assessments, FAST data, and MSA scores. Professional Development Quarterly professional development sessions have been offered to 136 elementary and 36 middle school science leaders in order to maintain and/or improve science lesson planning, inquiry based instruction, and assessments. The sessions modeled 5E lesson planning, as well as the integration of technology, investigations, and writing in science. It is expected that the science leaders train the remaining science teachers in the schools and make all science teachers aware of the best practices (i.e. inquiry based instruction, foldable use, active art or laboratory simulations, small/whole group instruction) learned during the sessions. Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) strategies are modeled and explained for implementation with middle school ESOL and students with special needs. The strategies focus on the use of language and content objectives, as well as student practice with listening and English fluency in science. Other professional development has been offered to elementary school science teachers that reinforce and support the implementation of curriculum changes. For instance, the third grade curriculum document was revised to insert an appendix to address the needs of advanced learners. The activities included a Tic-Tac-Toe board that required students to select independent activities to acquire a deeper understanding of life, physical, and earth and space science topics. The third grade science teachers received professional development on strategies presented in the appendix for advanced learners, as well as follow up sessions on integrating Web 2.0 tools into science instruction. The overall purpose of the student-led independent projects and the integration of technology was to increase rigor in the science instructional program. On average, 72% of the middle school science department chairs attended the quarterly professional development sessions. During these meetings, professional development for middle school department chairs, research on the use of Institute for Learning (IFL) principles (i.e. the effects of collaborative planning and assessment on teacher and student performance) was demonstrated and discussed. The expectation of the department chair was that all strategies and research-based practices would be shared with the remaining members of the school-based science departments. The PGCPS middle school program has been comprised of sixth, seventh and eighth grade students and teachers. Although some sixth grade students and teachers have been assigned to elementary school buildings, the middle school curriculum has remained a requirement for sixth grade classroom instruction, learning, and assessment. Without PGCPS science FAST or MSA scores for sixth grade students, great consideration has been given to first quarter feedback from seventh grade science teachers. Seventh grade science teachers have emphasized the lack of student knowledge for basic science skills (i.e. identification and/or proper management of science tools, recognition of the essential components of experimental design). Thus, professional development, outside of the middle school department chairs workshops, focused on the sixth grade science curriculum. Approximately 74 sixth grade science teachers attended professional development sessions that focused on the use and implementation of the sixth grade science curriculum framework and unit assessment. Sixth grade teachers were trained to use required laboratory activities included in the curriculum frameworks to help students write a response to a BCR question that is included in the unit assessment. The teachers also rotated through sessions that addressed integration of technology and strategies for assembling student stations for investigations. Professional development sessions for the sixth grade science teachers were facilitated by three-to-six middle school science curriculum writers and teachers. Assessments Quarterly Formative Assessment Systemic Tests (FAST) have been administered to provide practice and to monitor student performance on state science standards. The FAST may also provide data on standards, objectives, and indicators that have been featured during the teacher professional development sessions. Each FAST assesses the skills and process standard as outlined in the MSDE standards. All elementary schools participated in the FAST in October, January, and May. The grade 5 FAST 1 contained 31 selected response questions that focused on the Life Science Unit. Grade 5 FAST 2 included 67 selected response questions that assessed Life and Earth and Space Science, while grade 5 FAST 3 contained 61 selected response questions that assessed PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 103 Life, Earth and Space, and Physical Sciences. Of 7,700 fifth graders, 64% scored proficient and/or advanced on FAST 1, 80% and 64% scored proficient and/or advanced on FAST 2 and FAST 3, respectively. All PGCPS middle schools participated in the FAST in October, January, and May. The grade 8 FAST 1 had 44 selected response questions that focused on the Life Science standard and objectives. Grade 8 FAST 2 had 61 selected response questions that assessed the objectives from the Life Science and Chemistry standards, while grade 8 FAST 3 had 63 selected response questions that assessed the Life, Earth and Space, Chemistry, Physics and Environmental Science standards. Out of 8,038 eighth grade students, approximately 33% of the students scored proficient and/or advanced on FAST 1, FAST 2, and FAST 3, collectively. Additionally, unit assessments are used to monitor student progress and to inform teachers of modifications needed for classroom instruction. The grade 8 science unit assessment was revised to more closely align to the MSDE science standards and objectives. The grade 8 science student unit assessment data include a pre and post assessment on five different units that are taught during daily classroom instruction. From the pre-assessment to the post-assessment, data showed a 37% increase in student performance out of 2,677 assessed eighth grade students. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Grant The STEM Education initiative has been used to purchase the Discovery Education Science (DES) license for one year. Four pairs of feeder schools have been provided access to the interactive, web-based program. The elementary and middle school teachers and students have access to simulations, virtual labs, interactive videos, explorations, and electronic books. It also offers a unique formative assessment tool and content recommendations based on student results. The DES Program is intended to provide instructional opportunities for students in grades five and eight to engage in a deeper understanding of science content. As a result, it is expected that the population of traditionally underrepresented minority students will become more aware and prepare for enrollment in challenging STEM courses. The impact of the DES Program will measure student achievement based upon the science quarter grades, science MSA scores, the PGCPS pre- and post- science unit assessments, and the FAST for grades five and eight. Professional development was provided for seven elementary and ten middle school teachers who returned to their schools to train additional science teachers. Of 1,405 logins for the DES for middle schools, 65% of the logins involved the use of assessments. Virtual labs and interactive videos both accounted for 6% of the use, while simulations and explorations accounted for 17% and 5% of the usage. Of 1,441 logins for the DES for elementary schools, virtual labs and assessments both had 32% of the usage, while 40% of the logins involved simulations. Less than one percent of the login usage was for both interactive videos and the explorations. National Science Foundation funded Minority Student Pipeline, Math Science Partnership (MSP)2 Grant Selected science teachers of grades four through eight attended Summer Science Institutes in life, earth and space science, chemistry, physics, environmental science and inquiry, facilitated by staff at Prince George‘s Community College and the University of Maryland College Park. The institutes are designed to provide teachers with experience in inquiry application and/or science content knowledge in order to increase teacher capacity and subsequently student achievement. A total of 99 participating teachers, representing 22 elementary schools and 16 middle schools, were afforded the opportunity to develop stronger content knowledge and inquiry skills. During the fall and spring, instructional coaching and professional development sessions supported the work that participants began in the Summer Science Institutes. Follow-ups help participants to bridge curriculum, inquiry, and science content. Three science instructional coaches visited teacher participants to observe, coteach, and model lessons. The science instructional coaches also conduct professional development offered to teacher participants throughout the school year. A series of workshops entitled Are you INquiry? is offered for Summer Science Institute participants on evenings during the school year. This series of workshops represents a 300% increase from the number of professional development workshops offered in SY2009-10. The increase in workshops resulted from participant request and feedback. The purpose of the professional development is to help teachers integrate concepts, activities, and inquiry strategies learned in the Summer Science Institutes into the instructional program. The (MSP)2 Grant also afforded opportunities for students entering grades six through eight to attend a residential program at Bowie State University, known as the Future STEM Scholars program. The Bowie State University-Future STEM Scholars Program (BSU-FSS) is open to PGCPS students who are rising 6th, 7th or 8th graders. The purpose of the BSU-FSS program is to provide middle school students with exposure and experiences in science technology, engineering, and math in a PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 104 residential setting. The BSU-FSS Program received over 300 applications for the first summer 2010 program. A total of 30 participants, representing 28 schools were selected. During the fall and spring, student participants will be invited to Saturday workshops where they will participate in STEM related activities and competitions. 3. Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of grade level(s) and subgroup(s). Although MSA science proficiency rates increased from SY2007-2008 to SY2009-2010 for both 5th and 8th grade students, there is a need to increase science proficiency rates in the aggregate and for all subgroups in both grades 5 and 8. Grade 5 With just over half (53.3%) of fifth grade students demonstrating proficiency on the science MSA in SY2009-2010, the district is challenged to substantially increase student mastery of science. The science proficiency rates of the LEP (25.8%) and special education (26.2%) subgroups on the SY2009-2010 science MSA were the lowest of all subgroups. In addition, four other subgroups had proficiency rates that were below the district‘s SY2009-2010 proficiency level of 53.3%: African American (52.1%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (50.0%); Hispanic (47.3%), and FARMS (45.1%). In addition, over the two-year period from SY2007-2008 to SY2009-2010, the proficiency rates for three subgroups declined: American Indian/Native Alaskan (-5.3 percentage points); White (-1.3 percentage points); and LEP (-0.4 percentage points). Grade 8 Only 44.1% of PGCPS 8th grade students performed at proficiency on the science MSA in SY2009-2010. The proficiency performance rates of LEP (12.9%) and special education (12.6%) students on the SY2009-2010 science MSA were again the lowest of all subgroups. The following subgroups also had proficiency rates that were below the district‘s SY2009-2010 proficiency level of 44.1%: African American (42.6%), Hispanic (37.2%), and FARMS (35.0%). 4. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made to ensure sufficient progress. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations, and incorporate timelines where appropriate. Science Office staff will continue to focus on the components of curriculum development, professional development, assessments, and grant funded activities in science. Student and teacher opportunities will be offered to improve instruction and learning. Assessments will be used to monitor and modify instruction and learning. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 105 DIVISION OF ACADEMICS SCIENCE MSA Annual Target – 5th Grade - 60% of students will score proficient or above on the Science MSA Annual Target – 8th Grade 50% of students will score proficient or above on the Science MSA Data-Based Challenge Changes or Adjustments to be Made – Practice, Strategy, Initiative (Resource Allocation) 53.3% of 5th grade students scored at Collaborative planning workshops for 5th and 8th grade science proficiency on the 2010 science MSA. leaders/teachers according to Areas will be organized to provide an opportunity for teachers of feeder schools to 44.1% of 8th grade students scored at discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the curriculum proficiency on the 2010 science MSA. implementation for all students, as well as strategies for science lesson planning, instruction, and assessment for improvement. Follow up will include classroom observations and review performance data from student assessments. Teachers will modify lessons to re-teach and reinforce content. As a result of surveys issued to 134 fifth grade science teachers, the MSA Lizard Project is being considered as an addition to the fifth grade curriculum. Also, earlier implementation, possibly several weeks prior to the winter break, may involve use of templates for student data collection and loans of digital balances to measure lizard growth. Improvement in communication may occur through direct emails to fifth grade teachers and reminders/updates posted on the elementary science Google site. Additionally, follow-up technology sessions and science coordinator lizard project training will be offered during the fall semester. These workshops will be the focus on evaluation tools to measure student progress on assessment limits addressed by the project. 26.2% of 5th grade special education students Science Office staff will collaborate with staff in the Special scored at proficiency on the 2010 science Education Department to provide professional development for MSA teachers to address the needs of students. 25.8% of 5th grade limited English proficient Science Office staff will collaborate with ESOL Office staff to students scored at proficiency on the 2010 provide professional development on Sheltered Instruction science MSA Observation Protocol (SIOP) strategies. The SIOP strategies include language and performance objectives for teaching and student learning in science. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Department Responsible Science Office Leading Indicators Timeline Six (6) or more percentage point improvement in student proficiency on the second 5th and 8th grade science Formative Assessment Systemic Tests (FAST) over performance on first 5th and 8th grade science FASTs February 2011 December 2010 for evidence of Lizard Project implementatio n; February 2011 for comparative FAST results Science Office; Special Education Department Science and ESOL Offices Six (6) or more percentage point improvement in student proficiency on the second 5th grade science Formative Assessment Systemic Test (FAST) over performance on first 5th grade science FAST Page | 106 February 2011 12.9% of 8th grade special education students scored at proficiency on the 2010 science MSA 12.6% of 8th grade limited English proficient students scored at proficiency on the 2010 science MSA 42.6% of 8th grade African American students scored at proficiency on the 2010 science MSA 37.2% of 8th grade Hispanic students scored at proficiency on the 2010 science MSA 35.0% of 8th grade Free and Reduced Meals (FARM) students scored at proficiency on the 2010 science MSA The integration of Web 2.0 tools (WallWisher, Word Sift) into science professional development workshops will assist teachers with implementing more differentiated instruction for diverse learners. Wallwisher is a digital word wall or communication tool for students; whereas, Word Sift is a reading and writing electronic tool that allows students to analyze informational text into graphic organizers and vocabulary or subject content associations. Select schools from each area will receive direct coaching from Science Office personnel. The coaching will model short and long term lesson planning and include teacher assessment of science data in order to match interventions and instructional strategies for low performing students. On-line professional development sessions will be offered via a Google Site. The Google site features science instructional videos to model best practices with respect to managing Hispanic students in a science classroom. Also, the use of SIOP strategies and follow up with trainings for new teachers will continue. Title I Science Coaches are assigned to Title I middle schools. Coaches offer support and/or professional development in long/short range science planning, instruction, and assessment. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Science Office; Special Education Department Science and ESOL Offices Six (6) or more percentage point improvement in student proficiency on the second 8th grade science Formative Assessment Systemic Test (FAST) over performance on first 8th grade science FAST Science Office Science Office Title I Office Six (6) or more percentage point improvement in student proficiency on the second 8th grade science Formative Assessment Systemic Test (FAST) over performance on first 8th grade science FAST in Title I middle schools. Page | 107 February 2011 HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENT ENGLISH II 1. Describe where progress is evident. In your response, identify progress in terms of subgroups. Subgroup Table 2.3: Maryland School Assessment - AYP Proficiency Data - Reading – High (English II) 2007 2008 All Students African American Amer. Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic White (Not of Hispanic Origin) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) Limited English Proficient (LEP) Special Education # Tested 9,516 7,620 # Prof. 5,527 4,338 % Prof. 58.1 56.9 # Tested 7,133 5,846 # Prof. 5,230 4,199 % Prof. 73.3 71.8 37 316 963 580 3,030 429 936 22 232 462 473 1,556 98 243 59.5 73.4 48.0 81.6 51.4 22.8 26.0 27 243 559 458 2,221 142 749 19 210 396 406 1,505 70 250 70.4 86.4 70.8 88.6 67.8 49.3 33.4 # Tested 7,927 6,423 2009 # Prof. 6,086 4,873 % Prof. 76.8 75.9 29 20 69.0 262 227 86.6 728 531 72.9 485 435 89.7 2,912 2,144 73.6 294 172 58.5 840 341 40.6 Based on MSDE Table 2.3 The data displayed in Table 2.3 indicate that PGCPS met the English AMO in the aggregate and for all subgroups except for LEP (58.5%) and special education (40.6%). The SY2008-09 subgroup proficiency rates for the English HSA ranged from a low of 40.6% (special education) to a high of 89.7% (White). The proficiency rates for the LEP and special education student subgroups were 7.3 and 25.2 percentage points below the SY2008-09 AMO, respectively. English HSA reading proficiency rates increased in the aggregate and for all subgroups in the one-year period between SY2007-08 and SY2008-09, with the exception of the American Indian/Alaskan Native student subgroup. Reading proficiency for the American Indian/Alaskan Native subgroup (a very small subgroup of the district‘s student population) declined by 1.4 percentage points between SY2007-08 and SY2008-09. The aggregate reading proficiency rate increased by 3.5 percentage points from SY2007-08 to SY2008-09. The LEP subgroup showed the largest one-year gain, an increase of 9.2 percentage points--from 49.3% proficient in SY2007-08 to 58.5% proficient in SY2008-09. The second largest one-year gain – an increase of 7.2 percentage points – was observed for the special education subgroup. Reading proficiency rates increased both in the aggregate and for all subgroups over the three-year period (SY2006-07 to SY2008-09). For all students, the proficiency rate increased by 18.7 points over the three-year period (SY2006-07 to SY200809). The LEP subgroup showed the highest three-year gain (35.7 percentage points), from 22.8% in SY2006-07 to 58.5% in SY2008-09. The second largest three-year gain – an increase of 25.0 percentage points – was noted for the Hispanic student subgroup. The Hispanic subgroup proficiency performance increased from 48.0% (SY2006-07) to 72.9% (SY2008-09). The proficiency rates for FARMS students increased by 22.2 percentage points over the three-year period. 2. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies to which you attribute the progress. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations. In SY2009-10, the following strategies were employed to improve performance on the English HSA. Professional Development Professional development included training in Disciplinary Literacy (DL) rituals and routines as well as best practices in language/grammar/writing instruction. Training included curriculum writing sessions as well as modeling of lessons/units that teachers would be implementing. Special educators continued to be included in all professional development opportunities offered to general educators. This training was differentiated so that part of each session was devoted to increasing the content knowledge of special educators. Training in DL strategies was also provided to ESOL teachers. This was a collaborative effort between the ESOL office and the Reading/English Language Arts (R/ELA) office, and was provided by the PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 108 ELL consultant affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh/Institute for Learning (IFL). An interactive Google site dedicated to ESOL Level 2, was posted on the R/ELA site. This site included curriculum documents, shared lesson plans, discussions, and resource materials and references. Resource Allocation: Estimated cost for professional development expenses incurred in SY2009-10 (including IFL consultant services, venue, meals, materials, substitute funds, and stipends): $160,000. Interventions High schools in improvement received an additional teacher position to focus on secondary literacy through the implementation of READ 180®, a research-based reading intervention program that enables readers entering high school below grade level to make significant reading and literacy gains. The Department of Special Education initiated a pilot of the READ 180® program for students with IEPs through a three-step phase-in process. Phase I engaged pilot schools in the implementation of READ 180® in the spring of 2007. Phase II, which included ten additional high schools, was conducted in SY2007-08. The fourteen participating schools had a full-time teacher for READ 180®, who participated in ongoing training. Special Educational Instructional Specialists and Itinerant Resource Teachers visited schools to monitor and support program implementation. All high schools participated in full implementation of the READ 180® special education initiative in SY2008-9 as part of Phase III. READ 180® continued to be implemented in high schools in SY2009-10. Standard Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic Total Table G. PGCPS READ 180® Participants Performance on English HSA August 2008 – June 2010 Last Test in SY2008-9 Last Test in SY2009-10 Students Percent* Students Percent * 5 1 14 2 39 6 74 11 367 53 382 55 283 41 224 32 694 100 694 100 * -- Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number. As reflected in Table G, the percentage of students scoring at proficient or advanced increased from 7% to 13% in the two years, from August 2008 to June 2010. There was a five percentage point increase in the percentage of students scoring at proficiency between SY2008-09 and SY2009-10. The percentage of students scoring below the basic level declined by 9 percentage points from 41% (SY2008-09) to 32% (SY2009-10). In addition, the percent of students performing at the basic proficiency level increased by two percentage points from 53% (SY2008-09) to 55% (SY2009-10). Curriculum Modifications Modified curriculum frameworks for grades nine through twelve continued to be used for developing comprehension skills of struggling students (inclusive of students with disabilities). The modified curriculum frameworks integrated content area software, assistive technology applications, graphic organizers applications, and reading strategies. Additional modifications were developed for the Disciplinary Literacy units for Grade 9. ELL suggested practices were included in existing English 10 curriculum documents. In designing curriculum modifications for the DL unit, the R/ELA office staff collaborated with the ESOL Office staff and received guidance from an ELL consultant from the University of Pittsburgh/Institute for Learning. Throughout SY2009-10, benchmark/unit assessments, aligned with the state curriculum, were developed and administered to all English 10 students to determine mastery of skills measured on the English HSA. The assessments included a MODassessment version for the students preparing to take the Mod-HSA. Resource Allocation: Estimated cost for SY2009-10 for curriculum writing expenses (substitute funds/stipends, materials): $70,000 3. Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of subgroups. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 109 Out of all subgroups, special education student performance was the lowest on the English HSA; only 40.6% of the special education subgroup performed at the proficiency level in SY2008-09. This was 36.2 percentage points below the district‘s SY2008-09 aggregate proficiency rate (76.8%) and 25.2 percentage points below the AMO (65.8%). The SY2008-09 special education proficiency rate on the English HSA (40.6%) was 49.1 percentage points lower than the highest performing subgroup (White-89.7%). The LEP subgroup was the next lowest performing subgroup on the English HSA, with 58.5% performing at the proficiency level in SY2008-09. This was 18.3 percentage points below the district‘s SY2008-09 aggregate proficiency rate and 7.3 percentage points below the AMO. Over the three-year time period between SY2006-07 and SY2008-09 there were increases in the English HSA proficiency rates for the special education and LEP subgroups, yet these two subgroups failed to attain the AMO. The special education subgroup increased by 14.6 percentage points (from 26.0% to 40.6%) and Limited English Proficient increased by 35.7 percentage points (from 22.8% to 58.5%) over three year period, however, as noted both subgroups performed below the SY2008-09 AMO. The reading proficiency for the American Indian/Alaskan Native subgroup declined by 1.4 percentage points between SY200708 and SY2008-09. Although the American Indian/Alaskan Native subgroup is small (i.e., less than forty students in SY20062007 and less than thirty students in SY2007-08 and SY2008-09) and met the SY2008-09 AMO, it was the only subgroup that reflected a decrease in the AYP reading proficiency rate as measured by the English II HSA for the one-year period between SY2007-08 and SY2008-09. 4. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made to ensure sufficient progress. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations, and incorporate timelines where appropriate. Reading intervention programs have been implemented in high schools. Students who need support with language comprehension and concept imagery have access to Visualizing and Verbalizing, an intervention implemented in collaboration with speech language pathologists. AMP, an adaptive multimedia reading intervention created in collaboration with the Center for Applied Special Technologies, will be made available in all PGCPS middle and high schools in SY2010-11. This program incorporates the principles of Universal Design for Learning in an attractive, highly interactive environment that provides scaffolding, text-to-speech capabilities, and online progress monitoring. Voyager Passport Reading Journeys, a high interest reading intervention that blends print and technology by combining differentiated instruction with web-based activities, will also be available in all PGCPS middle and high schools beginning in SY 2010-11 PGCPS will continue to increase collaboration between ESOL and R/ELA offices, receiving guidance from IFL. Modifications will continue to be written into English 9 and English 10 curriculum documents for ELL, and IFL will provide on-site and off-site guidance to ESOL office staff to support this effort. Pearson's ELL Toolkit will be purchased for use in targeted schools with high percentage of ELL. Professional development will be provided to English 9 teachers (in the targeted schools) on aligning the components of Pearson's ELL Toolkit to the DL curriculum. For a more complete response to this question, see Chart A below. Resource Allocation: The Special Education office is funding the reading intervention programs. The ESOL office is funding the Pearson’s ELL Toolkit intervention. The SY2011 contract with IFL for consultant services is for $28,700. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 110 Division of Academics Reading AYP System Target: By 2017, 100% of PGCPS students will earn Proficient or Advanced scores in HSA Reading. Annual Target: 79.5% of high school students will score proficient or advanced in reading at the end of SY2010-2011. Data-Based Challenge Changes or Adjustments to be Made – (Resource Allocation) Department Responsible Leading Indicators Timeline Only 40.6% of special education students performed at the SY2008-9 proficiency level on the English HSA, failing to meet the state AMO of 65.8% by 25.2 percentage points. Reading intervention programs will be implemented in middle and high schools as part of the instructional day, and a reading intervention program will be implemented in high schools as an after-school program. Students who need support with language comprehension and concept imagery will have access to Visualizing and Verbalizing, an intervention implemented in collaboration with speech language pathologists. AMP, an adaptive multimedia reading intervention created in collaboration with CAST, will be made available in all PGCPS middle and high schools in SY2010-2011. This program incorporates the principles of Universal Design for Learning in an attractive, highly interactive environment that provides scaffolding, text-to-speech capabilities, and online progress monitoring. Voyager Passport Reading Journeys, a high interest reading intervention that blends print and technology by combining differentiated instruction with web-based activities, will also be available in all PGCPS middle and high schools beginning in SY2010-2011. Special Education Department An increase of 5 percentage points in the proficiency rate for special education students was established as an annual objective. Therefore, there should be a 5 percentage point increase in special education students performing at or above proficiency on the second quarter FAST. September 2010 For program implementation; Only 58.5% of Limited English Proficient students performed at the SY2008-2009 proficiency level, failing to meet the state AMO of 65.8% by 7.3 percentage points. Increased collaboration between ESOL and R/ELA offices. ELL modifications will be written into English 9 and English 10 curriculum documents. Pearson’s ELL Toolkit will be purchased for use in 10 targeted high schools with relatively high percentages of ELL students Professional development will be provided to English 9 teachers on aligning the components of Pearson's ELL Toolkit to the DL curriculum and instruction. ESOL and Secondary R/ELA Offices An increase of 5 percentage points in the proficiency rate for Limited English Proficient students was established as an annual objective. Therefore, there should be a 5 percentage point increase in Limited English Proficient students performing at or above proficiency on the second quarter FAST Beginning summer 2010 and ongoing throughout SY20102011 Although Hispanic students exceeded the SY2008-2009 AMO for the English HSA (65.8%) by 7.1 percentage points, the Hispanic student subgroup is only the fifth (5th) highest performing subgroup on the English HSA. The following practices were in place in SY2009-2010 to support the Hispanic subgroup and will continue in SY2010-2011: To provide validation of the Hispanic culture, the curriculum was examined with sensitivity to multi-cultural issues to ensure representation of all ethnic/gender/cultural groups, and particular attention was made to include Hispanic representation. In addition, any letters to parents/guardians included in the curriculum documents were provided in both English and Spanish. ESOL and Secondary R/ELA Offices An increase of 5 percentage points in the proficiency rate for Hispanic students was established as an annual objective. Therefore, there should be a 5 percentage point increase in Hispanic students performing at or above proficiency on the second quarter FAST. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 111 January 2011 for FAST results August 2010 Ongoing Division of Academics Reading AYP System Target: By 2017, 100% of PGCPS students will earn Proficient or Advanced scores in HSA Reading. Annual Target: 79.5% of high school students will score proficient or advanced in reading at the end of SY2010-2011. Data-Based Challenge Changes or Adjustments to be Made – (Resource Allocation) Where language acquisition was an issue, the ELL modifications that are included in the curriculum guides provided appropriate differentiation for the Hispanic students. Differentiation for all students is recommended for R/ELA instruction. The R/ELA instructional block includes flexible small-group instruction so teachers can provide appropriate support to students needing additional guided practice, individual instruction, or enrichment/extension activities. For SY2010-2011, the R/ELA office will collaborate with the testing office to track data of Hispanic subgroup to monitor progress and provide intervention as needed. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Department Responsible Leading Indicators Secondary R/ELA and Testing Offices Timeline October 2010 and January 2011 Page | 112 HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENT ENGLISH II - continued Table 3.1: HSA Test Participation and Status - English 2009 Population: All 10th Grade Students Total % Taken Number and Taken Passed All Students 7,219 59.5 American Indian/Alaskan Native 37 62.5 African American 5,856 60.4 Asian/Pacific Islander 224 70.2 White (non-Hispanic) 361 82 Hispanic 741 43 Special Education 55 10.3 Limited English Proficient (LEP) 165 6.6 Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) 2,578 49.7 Number Taken and Passed 4,800 25 3,831 184 318 442 6 36 1,515 % Taken and Not Passed 30 30 31.9 15.3 11.1 29.1 84.5 23.6 34.9 Number Taken and Not Passed 2,419 12 2,025 40 43 299 49 129 1,063 Table 3.2: HSA Test Participation and Status - English 2009 Population: All 11th Grade Students Total % Taken Number and Taken Passed All Students 6,874 69.1 American Indian/Alaskan Native 29 70.0 African American 5,444 68.9 Asian/Pacific Islander 257 78.7 White (non-Hispanic) 374 87.9 Hispanic 770 58.6 Special Education 37 15.0 Limited English Proficient (LEP) 338 23.9 Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) 2,301 62.2 Number Taken and Passed 4,990 21 3,931 210 340 488 6 90 1,497 % Taken and Not Passed 26.1 26.7 26.5 17.6 8.8 33.9 77.5 65.8 33.4 Number Taken and Not Passed 1,884 8 1,513 47 34 282 31 248 804 % Not Taken Number Not Taken 10.5 7.5 7.7 14.5 7 28 5.2 69.8 15.4 843 3 487 38 27 288 3 382 470 % Not Taken Number Not Taken 4.8 3.3 4.5 3.7 3.4 7.6 7.5 10.3 4.3 346 1 259 10 13 63 3 39 104 Panel clarifying question(s): Please clarify the reason for the large overall number of non-test takers. Please clarify for LEP students, if the course sequence has been modified (as indicated on page 130), what is the reason for the large number of non-test takers? LSS Response to Clarifying Question(s): The response to this question can be found on page 325. Based on the Examination of 2009 High School Assessment (HSA) Results for English (Tables 3.1 and 3.2): 1. Identify any additional challenges that are evident. The aggregate passing rate for 11th grade students (69.1%) exceeded the 2009 AMO of 65.8% by 3.3 percentage points; however, the passing rate for 10th grade students (59.5%) did not meet the AMO—failing to do so by 6.3 percentage points. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 113 At both the 10th and 11th grade levels, a number of students did not take the English HSA. In the aggregate, 4.8% of 11th grade students in SY2008-9 did not take the English HSA. The three subgroups that exceeded the 11th grade aggregate percentage of students not having taken the English HSA were: LEP (10.3%), Hispanic (7.6%), and special education (7.5%). Similarly, 10.5% of all 10th grade students did not take the English HSA in SY2008-9. Four subgroups were below the 10th grade aggregate percentage: special education (5.2%), White (7.0%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (7.5%), and African American (7.7%). Many LEP students have not taken the test, since their enrollment in English II is delayed. In 9th grade, newcomer ESOL students earn English credit with the ESOL 1 course. In 10th grade these students earn English credit with the ESOL 2 course, while 11th grade students earn English credit through the ESOL 3 course. ESOL students enroll in the English 10 course in 12th grade. In SY2008-9, 37.8% of FARMS students, 76.1% of LEP students, and 85.0% of special education students had either taken and not passed, or had not taken the English HSA by the end of their 11th grade year. Similarly, 50.3% of FARMS students, 93.4% of LEP students (93.4%), and 89.7% of special education students had either taken and not passed, or had not taken the English HSA by the end of their 10th grade year. These numbers present a disheartening situation for the three lowest performing subgroups: special education, LEP and FARMS. These three subgroups have the lowest passing rates on the English HSA and each has passing rates that are considerably lower than the system‘s overall passing rate at the respective grade levels. Students in these subgroups are at the highest risk of not meeting graduation requirements. 2. Describe the interventions that the school system has in place to support students in passing the English HSA. How effective are they? What evidence do you have of their effectiveness? Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations. Curriculum Modifications for Special Education Students and English Language Learners Curriculum modifications for special education and ELL were included in the English 9 curriculum documents used in SY2009-10 and English 10 curriculum documents to be used in SY2010-11. Professional development was provided to train teachers on the implementation of these modifications. Evidence of effectiveness of this intervention is positive, as reflected by a customer satisfaction survey in which 83% of respondents reported satisfaction with the modifications and the training provided; 12% of respondents reported increased participation of ELL, and 30% of respondents reported increased participation of special needs students. Because the curriculum was implemented in English 9 and FAST were not administered for that course, data to document the effect of the modifications are not available at this time. Baseline data will be established in SY2010-11 as students take the English FAST and as they continue to receive instruction using the modifications included in the English 10 curriculum documents. Resource Allocation: Estimated cost for professional development/curriculum writing sessions incurred in SY2010 (inclusive of IFL consultant services, venue, meals, materials, substitute funds, and stipends): $160,000. Disciplinary Literacy Disciplinary Literacy (DL) was implemented in English 9 to increase the rigor of the curriculum. Special educators and teachers of ELL received professional development to support their delivery of the DL units. The DL initiative was implemented in English 9 with the expectation that the instructional practices would prepare students for increased academic rigor in English 10, and, thus increase student performance on the English HSA. Initial evidence indicates that the program was effective. Evidence of effectiveness of the implementation of this initiative was measured by teacher surveys administered at the end SY2009-10. Surveys were sent to all schools, and there was a response rate of over 80%. Results of the survey are as follows: 58% of respondents observed increased engagement and peer interactions; 12% of respondents observed increased participation by ELL; 30% of respondents noted increased participation by students with special needs; and 85% of respondents noted evidence of student learning as a result of students engaging in discussions. Because the curriculum was implemented in English 9 and FASTs were not administered in that course, data are not available to determine the impact of the curriculum modification. We will be establishing baseline data in SY2010-11 as PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 114 students take the English FAST and as they continue to receive instruction using the modifications included in the English 10 curriculum documents. Resource Allocation: Included in item above. Formative Assessment System Tests Staff in the Reading/English Language Arts (R/ELA) Office collaborated with the Testing Office staff to develop Formative Assessment System Tests (FAST). Teachers used the resulting data to determine Maryland State Curriculum (MSC) objectives needing further support and to plan instruction accordingly. The R/ELA office collaborated with the High School Consortium staff to adjust the pacing and the English 10 curriculum in order to allow for the necessary re-teaching of concepts not mastered by the majority of students. Teachers were encouraged to use the mdk12 website for appropriate resources. Evidence of success was determined by feedback from schools regarding the adjustments. Feedback was provided by the teacher coordinators that indicated satisfaction with the recommendations provided by R/ELA office staff. The informal feedback was that the recommendations were considered appropriate and were implemented. Further evidence of success will involve examining student performance on the HSA. Since the request for curriculum adjustments was a result of the final FAST administration, and since curriculum adjustments did not occur until the last quarter, as students prepared for the HSA, no other data are available to determine the success of the curriculum adjustments. 3. Describe what, if anything, the school system will do differently than in past years to address the challenges identified. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations. Increased Collaboration Collaboration is occurring, and will continue to occur, between the R/ELA Secondary Team, the Division of Information Technology, the Special Education Department, and the ESOL office. Representatives from both the Department of Special Education and the ESOL Office will continue to be included in curriculum writing projects and professional development opportunities. The R/ELA Office and ESOL Office staff are collaborating further through the implementation of the Pearson’s ELL Toolkit project in targeted high schools with a high percentage of ELL. Professional development on aligning the components of the ELL Toolkit with the Disciplinary Literacy (DL) curriculum will be provided as a joint effort between the two offices. The R/ELA office will require increased collaboration with and support from the Division of Technology as the technology standards are addressed in the curriculum documents and the curriculum is revised to prepare students more adequately to be college and career ready for the twenty-first century. There are initial plans to include technology specialists in both the curriculum writing and professional development for SY2010-11, focusing on the incorporation of student Google sites within the DL units as teachers implement the units in English 9 and English 10. Academic Rigor Efforts continue to be made to increase the academic rigor of the R/ELA curriculum. Working in partnership with IFL fellows, R/ELA Office staff are providing professional development to English 9 and English 10 teachers on the effective use of formative and summative feedback in the assessment of student writing. Annotated student work samples from students in PGCPS high schools is being used for professional development and to guide writing instruction. R/ELA Office staff will collaborate with Testing Office staff to collect writing assessment data using Edusoft which will be used to inform both instruction and curriculum development. Plans are also in place for the R/ELA department to partner with the IFL fellows to work with English teacher coordinators to encourage them to take on coaching roles through formative observation and reflection protocols. The emphasis in SY2010-11 is on increasing the cognitive demand/academic rigor of classroom instruction by focusing on effective questioning techniques and other strategies to extend student thinking. Observation protocols will thus target the cognitive demand/academic rigor of the lesson, and reflection protocols focus on ways to increase the rigor of instruction. Resource Allocation: Estimated costs for professional development and curriculum writing expenses (inclusive of consultant services, venue, substitute funds/stipends, meals, and materials): $160,000. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 115 HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENT (HSA) ALGEBRA DATA ANALYSIS Subgroup All Students African American American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic White (Not of Hispanic Origin) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) Limited English Proficient (LEP) Special Education Table 2.6: Maryland School Assessment - AYP Proficiency Data - Math - High (Algebra/Data Analysis) 2007 2008 2009 2010 % # # # % # # Tested # Prof. % Prof. # Prof. # Prof. Prof. Tested Prof. Tested Prof. Tested 9,880 5,130 51.9% 7,119 4,933 69.3% 7,761 5,498 70.8% 7,854 3,805 48.4% 5,726 3,801 66.4% 6,295 4,291 68.2% 39 21 53.8% 25 19 76.0% 28 21 75.0% 301 224 74.4% 246 218 88.6% 244 223 91.4% 1,161 661 56.9% 686 500 72.9% 712 540 75.8% 525 419 79.8% 436 395 90.6% 482 423 87.8% 3,296 1,659 50.3% 2,249 1,453 64.6% 2,988 2,078 69.5% 551 234 42.5% 376 234 62.2% 859 286 33.3% 874 168 19.2% 75 237 31.6% 310 226 72.9% % Prof. 1. Describe where progress is evident. In your response, identify in terms of subgroups. Data presented in Table 2.6 indicates that the aggregate passing rate on the Algebra HSA increased by 1.5 percentage points from SY2007-08 to SY2008-09 and by 18.9 percentage points from SY2006-07 to SY2008-09. Math proficiency rates for all subgroups increased; with Special Education and African American students posting the largest three-year increases, 53.7 and 19.8 percentage points, respectively. All subgroups met the 2009 AMO (56.1%), with the exception of LEP students. The passing rate for Hispanic students increased by 18.9 percentage points during the three-year period. Special education students posted a significant gain of 41 percentage points from SY2006-07 to SY2008-09 while the passing rate for FARMS students increased by 19.2 percentage points. 2. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies to which you attribute the progress. Include a discussion or corresponding resource allocation. Professional Development Two mathematics high school coaches continue to provide support to teachers in selected schools with collaborative planning, teaching demonstration lessons, and collaborative teaching. Coaches also provide professional development on best practices during after school training sessions. The Mathematics Team provided professional development on Institute for Learning (IFL) model for Disciplinary Literacy (DL). Algebra data analysis teachers, Algebra 1 teachers and teacher coordinators received bi-monthly training on the tools used for DL lessons in mathematics. The current secondary curriculum documents have been revised to embody the model for DL. The Department of Curriculum and Instruction staff continue to partner with all Departments, (i.e., High School Consortium, School Improvement, etc.) as needed to provide quality professional to all new algebra data analysis, Algebra 1, academic validation plan (AVP) teachers, and other teachers in need of additional support in the implementation of best practices in algebra instruction. The Mathematics Office staff provided professional development opportunities for all teachers. Areas of training include IFL/DL, curriculum frameworks for grades 6-8 algebra data analysis and Algebra 1, technology integration, collaborative planning, and differentiated instruction. Support was also provided to special educators and teachers of PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 116 ELL. The focus was mathematics curriculum content and the selection of effective interventions for struggling students and dual language learners. Monthly training sessions were held that focused on technology integration, best practices, and content as it related to upcoming lessons. Intervention Programs Understanding Math is used as an intervention for secondary special education students and ESOL students. Understanding Math is a software program containing interactive slides that offer multiple ways of learning math content to accommodate various teaching and learning styles. The program is correlated to the state curriculum and the core learning goals. Special Education Support The Secondary Special Education Instructional Specialist for mathematics serves as the link between departments working with both general and special education teachers. Using the curriculum frameworks, 5Es lesson format, and various differentiation strategies, the specialists provides professional development appropriate to address the instructional needs of all learners, including students with various learning challenges. 3. Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of subgroups. The passing rate of LEP students decreased significantly, by 9.2 percentage points from SY2007-08 to SY2008-09 and by 28.9 percentage points from SY2006-07 to SY2008-09. There was also a decline in the passing rate of White students (8 percentage points) during the three-year period. Although LEP students continue to make progress over the past three years, this subgroup did not meet 2009 AMO (56.1%). Their passing rate was 33.3%, which was 22.8 percentage points below the 2009 AMO. 4. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made along with the corresponding resource allocations to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate. Due to the need to build teacher capacity for diverse learners, the Mathematics Department in collaboration with Department of Special Education, with funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Grant (ARRA) are selecting intervention programs for intensive and co-taught Algebra 1 classes. In addition, the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, working in collaboration with the Special Education Department, has been awarded AYP and HSA grants from the State of Maryland. These grants were written to assist teachers with: 1) improving the academic performance of students with disabilities and; 2) increasing the number of students obtaining proficiency and above on the MSA and passing rates on HSA. Professional Learning Communities for sharing research-based strategies with co-teachers and special educators are held bi-monthly throughout the school year to assist teachers in applying accessibility strategies to quarterly algebra goals. Math facilitators/coaches visit each high school weekly to support co-teachers and special educators with proper implementation of algebra content and intervention strategies. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 117 ALGEBRA DATA ANALYSIS (HSA) Table 3.3: HSA Test Participation and Status - Algebra/Data Analysis 2009 Population: All 10th Grade Students Total % Taken Number Number and Taken and Taken Passed Passed All Students 7248 62.5 5002 American Indian/Alaskan Native 35 67.6 25 African American 5683 61.6 3881 Asian/Pacific Islander 231 76.4 198 White (Non-Hispanic) 354 82.4 319 Hispanic 945 56.3 579 Special Education 48 15.5 9 Limited English Proficient (LEP) 492 36.8 201 Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) 2773 57.3 1741 % Taken and Not Passed 28 27 28.6 12.7 9 35.6 67.2 53.3 34 Number Taken and Not Passed 2246 10 1802 33 35 366 39 291 1032 Table 3.4: HSA Test Participation and Status - Algebra/Data Analysis 2009 Population: All 11th Grade Students Total % Taken Number Number and Taken and Taken Passed Passed All Students 6724 71 5047 American Indian/Alaskan Native 28 73.3 22 African American 5317 69.4 3902 Asian/Pacific Islander 238 82.7 210 White (Non-Hispanic) 356 87 329 Hispanic 785 70.6 584 Special Education 39 15 6 Limited English Proficient (LEP) 351 55.7 209 Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) 2269 67.9 1615 % Taken and Not Passed 23.6 20 25.2 11 7.1 24.3 82.5 37.9 27.5 Number Taken and Not Passed 1677 6 1415 28 27 201 33 142 654 Number Not Taken 761 2 614 28 33 84 10 54 265 % Not Taken 9.5 5.4 9.8 10.8 8.5 8.2 17.2 9.9 8.7 % Not Taken 5.4 6.7 5.4 6.3 5.8 5.1 2.5 6.4 4.6 Number Not Taken 386 2 304 16 22 42 1 24 110 Based on the Examination of 2008 High School Assessment Results for Algebra/Data Analysis (Tables 3.3 and 3.4): 1. Identify any additional challenges that are evident. Algebra HSA – Grade 10 Table 3.3 summarizes PGCPS Algebra/Data Analysis HSA performance for SY2008-09. Tenth grade students in the aggregate performed above the 2009 AMO (56.1%) with 62.5% passing the assessment. The following six subgroups met or exceeded the AMO: white (82.4%), Asian/Pacific Islander (76.4%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (67.6%), African American (61.6%), FARMS (57.3%) and Hispanic (56.3%). Two student subgroups failed to meet the AMO: LEP (36.8%) and special education (15.5%). The passing rate for the LEP subgroup was 19.3 percentage points under the AMO, while the passing rate for the special education subgroup was 40.6 percentage points below the AMO. Five subgroups performed under the district‘s aggregate passing rate on the HSA (71%): special education, LEP, Hispanic, FARMS, and African American. Three subgroups exceeded the district‘s aggregate passing rate: white (82.4%), Asian/Pacific Islander (76.4%), and American Indian/Alaskan Native (67.6%). Algebra HSA – Grade 11 Data presented in Table 3.4 reflect that 71% of 11th grade students in the aggregate passed the Algebra/Data Analysis HSA in SY2008-9. This exceeded the 2009 AMO (56.1%) by 14.9 percentage points. Two subgroups failed to attain the AMO: special education (15%) and LEP (55.7%). The special education subgroup was 41.1 percentage points below the AMO, while the LEP subgroup was only 0.4 percentage points below the AMO. Five subgroups performed PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 118 below the system‘s aggregate passing rate (71%): Hispanic (70.6%), African American (69.4%), FARMS (67.9%), LEP (55.7%) and special education (15%). The performance of the special education subgroup was fifty-six percentage points below the district‘s aggregate level. Three subgroups performed above the system‘s aggregate: White ( 87%), Asian/Pacific Islander (82.7%), and American Indian/Alaskan Native (73.3%). 2. Describe the interventions that the school system has in place to support students passing the Algebra/Data Analysis HSA. How effective are they? What evidence do you have of their effectiveness? Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations. Curriculum Modifications Curriculum modifications for special education students and ELL were included in the Algebra Data Analysis and Algebra 1 curriculum documents, and professional development was provided to train teachers on the implementation of these modifications. During SY2009-10, approximately 300 general and special education teachers were trained on the use of the curriculum frameworks. Disciplinary Literacy (DL) Disciplinary Literacy in Algebra Data Analysis (ADA) and Algebra 1 were implemented to increase the rigor of the curriculum. The DL curriculum was developed as part of the systemic collaboration with the Institute for Learning. The goal of the DL curriculum is to improve instructional practices that would increase academic rigor, and, thus, increase student performance on HSA. The expected outcome is an increase in the number of first time test-takers who pass the assessment, which would reduce the number of students meeting graduation requirements via the Academic Validation Plan. According to the initial data from the teacher survey, the strategy was effective. Surveys were distributed at the end of year teacher training, and there was a response rate of approximately 75%. Survey results are as follows: 55% of respondents observed increased engagement and peer interactions; 10% of respondents observed increased participation by ELL; 40% of respondents noted increased participation by students with special needs; and 85% of respondents noted evidence of student learning as a result of students engaging in discussions. Preliminary indications from FAST data show that students are trending upward. We will continue to gather data and monitor student performance. Formative Assessments Mathematics Office staff collaborated with Testing Office staff to develop Formative Assessment System Tests (FAST) and unit assessments. Teachers used the resulting data to determine how to inform instruction based on student strengths and weaknesses. FAST data can be accessed by central office staff and school personnel to be used during collaborative planning and professional development. During bi-monthly math workshops, middle and high school department chairs and coordinators review and analyze FAST data for the purpose of discussing instructional strategies to address student weaknesses. In collaboration with staff in the High School consortium, Mathematics Office staff provided supplemental student activities to accommodate the re-teaching of concepts not mastered by students. Teachers were encouraged to use the mdk12.org website for appropriate resources. Evidence of success was determined by feedback from schools regarding the adjustments. Feedback was provided by the High School Consortium staff who expressed satisfaction with the recommendations provided by Mathematics Office staff. Further evidence of success will be determined upon a review of results from the next testing cycle. Support for Targeted Subgroups The software, Understanding Math Plus, was introduced as an intervention for secondary special education students and ESOL students. The Understanding Math software was made available to approximately 150 Algebra 1, special education, ESOL, and general education teachers via laptop. It is a tiered software program containing slides that offer teachers multiple ways of introducing math content to accommodate the various learning styles of students. The program was used by teachers to enhance the delivery of instruction through explicit modeling of concepts. It is a highly interactive, multi-dimensional intervention with a very strong visual component. The program is correlated to the state curriculum and the Core Learning Goals. The program also helps to build special education teacher capacity-especially for those teachers who have special education certification, but who have weak mathematics content PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 119 background by providing alternative strategies for presenting material to students. The Math Team is in the process of developing a monitoring tool whereby each school can report data on software usage. This tool will be distributed to math coordinators and chairs and collected annually. The Key Elements to Algebra Success (KEAS) program is designed specifically to support special education teachers and students with content and pedagogy. This model consists of research based strategies that vertically align to Algebra 1 and is aligned to the state standards. There is a need to build teacher capacity in delivering the content, analyzing student work, and developing rich tasks for student use. A strong professional development training model, supported by ongoing site based coaching, is essential to helping teachers enhance their practice. Approximately 60 educators and about 1800 students used the KEAS intervention program. Coaches provided weekly support to coteachers and special educators at 15 middles schools and all high schools. Coaches focused primarily on algebra content with the use of intervention strategies. The Math Team is working with the ESOL Office staff to include support for teachers of English language learners. Capacity Building As part of an ongoing effort to increase teacher capacity, five instructional workshops were conducted for algebra teachers. The workshops focused on various intervention strategies that could be used to make algebra data analysis skills and concepts more accessible to students with mathematical delays and language acquisition needs. Strategies included graphic organizers, calculator support, and manipulatives. 3. Describe what, if anything, the school system will do differently than in past years to address the challenges identified. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations. Increased Collaboration It is clear that more collaboration is needed with both the Department of Special Education and ESOL Office, especially for professional development that is targeted toward content, instructional strategies, and curriculum implementation. A large percentage of special education teachers lack teaching skills related to content, and general education math teachers lack the ability to select strategies to reach at-risk learners, especially at the secondary level, and more so in math than in other subjects. To improve instructional practices and improve student learning, special education and general education co-teachers will be provided with more opportunities to model collaboration, share strategies, and receive feedback and assistance with instructional practices. This will be accomplished through bi-monthly training sessions offered through the collaborative efforts of staff in the Mathematics Office, the Department of Special Education, and the ESOL Office. Special education and ELL supervisors, along with the secondary mathematics supervisor, attend monthly supervisor forums where they plan professional development and share teaching strategies to maximize the learning of these student groups. Capacity Building To improve instructional practices, and, consequently, to improve student learning: Special education and general education co-teachers participate in training on the types of intervention strategies to use with students with math delays at bi-monthly professional learning communities sessions. Training sessions are open to all teachers at all schools. Special educations and general education co-teachers receive re-training of concepts, feedback, and suggestions from Key Elements to Algebra Success (KEAS) coaches during weekly classroom visits. As part of the KEAS intervention program, one-on-one coaching is provided to support teachers with strategies and current best practices for meeting the needs of all students. Math facilitators and the secondary instructional specialist will visit each school weekly to support teachers with proper implementation and methodology using the Key Elements to Algebra Success (KEAS) intervention program. Every month, every algebra co-teacher will receive an e-communication containing instructional strategies regarding lessons scheduled for the coming month, based on the pacing guide. Intervention Programs The strategies in the intervention program are to be integrated into the algebra course of study at strategically selected points to enhance the connection of key algebraic concepts and skills necessary for mathematical success in the core PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 120 textbook. The KEAS intervention program is being supported by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Grant (ARRA) grant in collaboration with the Departments of Special Education and Curriculum and Instruction. The National Training Network‘s KEMS and KEAS programs were chosen to support special needs students and teachers with content and pedagogy. Additionally, the mathematics department provides bi-monthly professional development opportunities for all eighth grade mathematics and Algebra 1 teachers. These sessions are designed to build teacher capacity with respect to content, technology, and differentiated instruction Mathematics intervention programs are reviewed and discussed by staff in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, the Department of Special Education, and the ESOL Office before purchasing. Information is shared about initiatives, curriculum materials, and resources. All professional development is provided to all high school department chairs, teacher coordinators, special education instructional specialists, High School Consortium generalists, and Universal Design Specialists within the schools. The Department of Special Education, ESOL Office, and Department of Curriculum and Instruction staff have also joined forces to provide funds for curriculum writing, the purchase of interventions, and professional development for co-teachers and classroom teachers. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 121 HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENTS (HSA) BIOLOGY Table 3.5: HSA Test Participation and Status - Biology 2009 Population: All 10th Grade Students Total % Taken Number and Taken Passed All Students 7051 55.3 American Indian/Alaskan Native 36 64.1 African American 5697 54.9 Asian/Pacific Islander 229 72.4 White (non-Hispanic) 365 82.7 Hispanic 724 42.4 Special Education 52 12.1 Limited English Proficient (LEP) 181 13.7 Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) 2524 46.2 Number Taken and Passed 4445 25 3475 189 321 435 7 75 1406 % Taken and Not Passed 32.4 28.2 35.1 15.3 11.3 28.1 77.6 19.4 36.8 Number Taken and Not Passed 2606 11 2222 40 44 289 45 106 1118 % Not Taken 12.3 7.7 9.9 12.3 5.9 29.5 10.3 66.8 17 Number Not Taken 989 3 628 32 23 303 6 365 517 Table 3.6: HSA Test Participation and Status - Biology 2009 Population: All 11th Grade Students Total % Taken Number and Taken Passed All Students 6745 62.7 American Indian/Alaskan Native 28 63.3 African American 5350 60.7 Asian/Pacific Islander 252 80.6 White (non-Hispanic) 374 87.6 Hispanic 741 58.4 Special Education 39 12.5 Limited English Proficient (LEP) 298 36.3 Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) 2250 56.1 Number Taken and Passed 4506 19 3452 212 340 483 5 134 1345 % Taken and Not Passed 31.1 30 33.4 15.2 8.8 31.2 85 44.4 37.8 Number Taken and Not Passed 2239 9 1898 40 34 258 34 164 905 % Not Taken 6.2 6.7 5.9 4.2 3.6 10.4 2.5 19.2 6.1 Number Not Taken 447 2 334 11 14 86 1 71 147 Based on the Examination of 2009 High School Assessment Results for Biology (Tables 3.5 and 3.6): 1. Identify the challenges that are evident. Biology HSA – Grade 10 Approximately 55.3% of the district‘s tenth grade students passed the Biology HSA. Subgroup passing rates continue to present challenges for PGCPS. The passing rate for African American 10th grade students (54.9%) lagged significantly behind that of the highest-performing subgroup (White students-82.7%) by 27.8 percentage points. The passing rate for Hispanic students (42.4%) was 12.9 percentage points below the system‘s average for tenth grade students, while the passing rate for FARM students (46.2%) fell below the system average by 9.1 percentage points. The 10th grade biology passing rates for LEP students (13.7%) and special education students (12.1%) were 41.6 and 43.2 percentage points below the district‘s average, respectively. Biology HSA – Grade 11 Slightly less than 63% of 11th grade students passed the Biology HSA. Passing rates for the following subgroups were below the system‘s average (62.7%): African American (60.7%), Hispanic (58.4%), FARMS (56.1%), LEP (36.3%), and special education (12.5%). Only the performance of White (87.6%), Asian/Pacific Islander (80.6%) and, American Indian/ Alaskan Native student subgroups exceeded the district‘s aggregate passing rate for 11th grade biology performance. The passing rate for African American students fell 2 percentage points below the PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 122 system average and 26.9 percentage points below the highest performing subgroup (White). The passing rate for the special education subgroup fell by just over 50 percentage points below the system average. 2. Describe the interventions that the school system has in place to support students in passing the Biology HSA. How effective are they? What evidence do you have of their effectiveness? Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations. Curriculum Development and Formative Assessments Curriculum documents were developed that include a student lab manual, review guide and access to virtual labs. All 120 Biology teachers and their 8895 students used the review guide. Over 90% of the teachers‘ evaluations of these documents indicated that they were effective in serving as valuable resources with respect to instructional strategies. Institute for Learning/Disciplinary Literacy (IFL/DL) Professional Development Biology HSA curriculum writers and science teacher coordinators attended several workshops on infusion of IFL/DL instructional strategies in the revised Biology HSA curriculum. The Institute for Learning‘s research based program has a proven track record of increasing student achievement on state standards when the DL principles are infused in curricula and taught accordingly. Revision of the Biology HSA Curriculum Frameworks The current curriculum framework is limited in its Goal 1offerings throughout the year. PGCPS students are not performing at proficiency on these Skills and Processes indicators, as indicated by FAST 1 and 2 data. Below, are some of the Goal 1 and 3 indicators on which students failed to score at the proficient level. Indicators 1.1.5 1.4.1 1.5.4 1.2.6 3.1.1 % Basic 66 80 70 79 66 Description Bias in data, incomplete data, conflicts of interest and using data Organizing data, dependent and independent variables, axis labeled appropriately Using tables and graphs to support arguments and claims Conducting an experiment, dependent variables, independent variables, controls, trials, sample size Unique characteristics of chemical substances and macromolecules in organisms To improve student performance on these indictors, more real world examples were incorporated in last year‘s 9th grade Integrating the Sciences (ITS) curriculum and in this year‘s HSA Biology curriculum. The new curriculum framework addresses all Goal 1 indicators in multiple concepts throughout the year using real world examples and local resources such as the Chesapeake Bay. Thematic, inquiry-based units are organized as interdisciplinary modules. In addition, most lessons are supported with several opportunities for teachers to differentiate difficult concepts. This strategy is designed to increase the achievement of subgroups. FAST items were aligned to the new pacing calendar. Fourteen teachers are piloting this new curriculum framework with approximately 1200 students during SY2010-11. During the pilot, teachers will meet twice per quarter to share and analyze student work, reflect on best instructional practices of lessons taught, and make modifications of the current lessons based on these reflections. FAST items will also be analyzed in order to re-teach difficult indicators. The FAST data of pilot schools will be compared to FAST data of non-pilot schools to determine the effectiveness of this strategy. Once all the data driven modifications are made to the new Biology HSA curriculum framework, it will then be rolled out systemwide in SY2011-12. Professional Development Several professional development sessions are planned for SY2010-11 on the infusion of IFL/DL principles and the best instructional strategies to include differentiation for all learners, especially underachieving subgroups for use of the new curriculum framework. An IFL fellow is working collaboratively with Science Office staff to design and deliver 8 professional development sessions. Selected sessions are summarized below. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 123 Participants Biology HSA Teachers Intended Learning Introduction of DL Science Principles and Accountable Talk Understanding the infusion of DL instructional strategies in the new Biology HSA curriculum framework Activities Interacting with the new Biology HSA curriculum Opportunities for assessing and advancing student learning Modeling upcoming activities Biology HSA Teachers Introduction of DL Science Principles and Accountable Talk Understanding the infusion of DL instructional strategies in the new Biology HSA curriculum framework Learning as an Apprenticeship Observing Classrooms DL Core Team 9th Grade ITS and Biology HSA Teachers 10th Grade Biology Teachers, AP‘s, and Teacher Coordinators. Continuing to develop an understanding of the curriculum and student SelfManagement of Learning Relating academic rigor to student work in the classroom Introduction of the plan for the implementation the new DL Biology HSA curriculum document in the fall of 2011. Understanding the new units for next fall Studying student work Protocol to review student work samples Pros and Cons: Feedback from activities in the Introduction to Apprenticeship framework Learning Walks to observe the level of implementation in DL classrooms Studying student work protocol to review student work samples Discussion and collaboration with 9th grade teachers on lessons learned from last year‘s professional development‘ Feedback from activities in curriculum framework Self Management of Learning Tying academic rigor to student work Participants will work individually and small group sessions to understand the new DL infused Biology curriculum. Hands-on activities will also be included. Tools Utilizing Instruction Driven Assessment Formative Assessment Student Work Protocol I Student Work Protocol Formative Assessment Examples of Learning as an Apprenticeship Learning Walk Protocol Student Work Protocol Formative Assessment Examples of Learning as an Apprenticeship Examples of Self- Management of Learning Utilizing Study Groups Examples of Academic Rigor in the 9th Grade ITS and Biology HSA Curricula New Units of DL infused Biology Formative Assessment Accountable Talk in the Biology Curriculum Study Groups Academic Rigor in Biology Curriculum All biology teachers and all curriculum writers will be involved in these professional development sessions. 90% of teachers surveyed indicated that this revision of the Biology HSA curriculum framework will contribute to increased student achievement on the Biology HSA. In addition, findings from brain research (NSTA, 2010) suggests that teaching inquiry science through scenario based activities( e.g. Chesapeake Bay) with which students can identify is an effective model in increasing student achievement on assessments. National Science Foundation funded Minority Student Pipeline, Math Science Partnership (MSP)2 Grant Seventeen high school biology teachers were placed as interns in research laboratories in July 2009.The teachers met during the summer in cohort groups and continued their meetings during SY2009-10. The participants were tasked with modifying their teaching styles to allow for more inquiry and exploration of the nature of science in their daily lessons. These teachers will be monitored and assisted in their instruction during SY2010-11. The effectiveness of this program will be evidenced by the HSA data collected at the end of the school year. 2009-10 Governor‘s Academy Biology Teachers‘ Cohort Nineteen biology teachers followed up with several all day professional development sessions during SY2009-10 to develop and share inquiry based lessons with the cohort. This is a very effective program across the state. PGCPS PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 124 teachers who successfully completed this program show gains of 20% in their students‘ passing rates. Of approximately, 2850 students, 600 more students achieved at the proficient level from their previous year counterparts. Teachers developed an electronic portfolio that they will share with other Biology HSA teachers in their schools. Participating teachers also have priority access to the mobile MD-BioLab which will come to their schools for a week and perform inquiry based HSA Labs. The effectiveness of this year‘s cohort of participating teachers (including special education HSA Biology teachers) will be determined by the HSA data collected in SY2010-11. Revision of the ninth Grade Integrating the Sciences (ITS) Curriculum The Integrating the Sciences curriculum was revised to reflect a more coherent bridge between the eighth grade science course and the biology course. IFL strategies and pedagogy were infused into the curriculum. Real word scenarios and inquiry activities drive this integration. Skills and Processes (Indicators Goal 1), Biology HSA, and environmental concepts are addressed in several units and modules throughout the year; hence, students will have a greater probability of success in mastering these concepts in their 10th grade biology course. The evidence to show that this intervention is working will be seen in the projected increase (60%) in student achievement in the 2010-11 Biology HSA results. 3. Describe what, if anything, the school system will do differently than in past years to address the challenges identified. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations. Increased Collaboration with Special Education Department Professional development activities for Biology HSA include strategies for creating effective inclusive environments. The curriculum framework was specifically developed to include academic supports for struggling learners and students with disabilities. Special education teachers are on the HSA Biology curriculum writing team and are tasked with infusing differentiation strategies for difficult concepts throughout the year. These differentiation strategies include the use of technology for enhancing instruction, resource transparencies and graphic organizers for improving comprehension, reading strategies for understanding difficult concepts and comprehending text, and Power Point presentations for enhancing biology instruction. In SY2009-10, Science Office staff collaborated with Special Education Department staff to generate RFP‗s for the use of more virtual labs and interactive technologies in the HSA Biology curriculum. These technologies do increase student achievement. In a meta-analysis (Marzano, 1998)3 that summarized findings from over 100 research studies involving 4000 + experimental/control group comparisons, the following instructional strategies were shown to have an average effect size greater than 1 (i.e., a percentile gain of more than 34% in students‘ achievement): 1. Representing new knowledge in graphic/nonlinguistic formats; 2. Using manipulatives to explore new knowledge and practice applying it; 3. Generating and testing hypotheses about new knowledge; and 4. Direct presentation of new knowledge, followed by application. These technologies will be available to all students, including historically underperforming subgroups--special education, LEP, Hispanic, and FARMS. Once the contracts are awarded, professional development will be planned for 9th grade ITS and Biology HSA teachers that addresses the diverse needs of these learners. Once the teachers are trained, data from FAST will also be used to drive instruction and to determine the effectiveness of these interventions. Modified FAST aligned to the indicators taught per quarter were also developed to address some of the above challenges. Increased Collaboration with ESOL Office Staff Specific strategies and support have been identified for ELL and are reflected in extensions to the Biology HSA curriculum framework. Strategies for reaching this subgroup are the focus of ongoing professional development. ESOL Office staff train secondary ESOL coaches who partner with content area teachers who work with ELL. Additionally, these coaches collaborate with core content area staff and participate in training in effective strategies for ESOL students. ESOL Office staff, in collaboration Secondary Science Office staff, are developing a modified ninth grade science course utilizing the rewritten ITS curriculum. 3 A Theory –Based Meta- Analysis of Research on Instruction (Marzano, 1998) PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 125 HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENTS (HSA) GOVERNMENT Table 3.7: HSA Test Participation and Status - Government 2009 Population: All 10th Grade Students Total % Taken Number Number and Taken and Taken Passed Passed All Students 6948 61.9 4993 American Indian/Alaskan Native 35 67.5 27 African American 5639 62.5 3969 Asian/Pacific Islander 207 67.9 178 White (non-Hispanic) 362 86.1 335 Hispanic 705 47 484 Special Education 51 22.4 13 Limited English Proficient (LEP) 114 10.2 56 Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) 2477 53.1 1619 % Taken and Not Passed 24.2 20 26.3 11.1 6.9 21.5 65.5 10.6 28.1 Number Taken and Not Passed 1955 8 1670 29 27 221 38 58 858 % Not Taken 13.9 12.5 11.1 21 6.9 31.6 12.1 79.2 18.8 Number Not Taken 1119 5 707 55 27 325 7 433 574 % Taken and Not Passed 16.7 10 17.3 8.9 4.1 20.7 77.5 34.2 21.6 Number Taken and Not Passed 1221 3 1004 24 16 174 31 129 526 % Not Taken 5.7 3.3 5 6.7 4.1 11.4 2.5 30 6.7 Number Not Taken 419 1 288 18 16 96 1 113 164 Table 3.8: HSA Test Participation and Status -Government 2009 Population: All 11th Grade Students All Students American Indian/Alaskan Native African American Asian/Pacific Islander White (non-Hispanic) Hispanic Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) Total Number Taken 6903 29 5504 251 376 743 39 264 2273 % Taken and Passed 77.6 86.7 77.7 84.4 91.8 67.8 20 35.8 71.7 Number Taken and Passed 5682 26 4500 227 360 569 8 135 1747 Based on the Examination of 2009 High School Assessment Results for Government (Tables 3.7 – 3.8): 1. Identify the challenges that are evident. Government HSA – Grade 10 Just under 62% of tenth grade students passed the Government HSA in SY2008-9. The four subgroups that failed to reach the district‘s aggregate passing rate were: free and reduced meals – FARMS (53.1%), Hispanic (47.0%), special education (22.4%) and LEP (10.2%). The passing rate for African American 10th grade students (67.5%) lagged behind that of white students (86.1%) by 18.6 percentage points. The passing rate for FARM students fell below the system average by 8.8 percentage points. The passing rate for Limited English Proficient students was 51.7 percentage points below the district average and 75.9 percentage points below the highest performing subgroup (White). The 10th grade special education student passing rate was 39.5 percentage points below the district average and 63.7 percentage points below the White student subgroup. Hispanic students had a proficiency rate of 47.0%, which was 14.9 percentage points below the system average. Government HSA – Grade 11 The eleventh grade passing rate on the Government HSA was 77.6% in SY2008-9. The four subgroups that failed to reach the district‘s aggregate passing rate were: FARMS (71.7%), Hispanic (67.8%), LEP (35.8%), and special education (20.0%). The passing rate for African American 11th grade students (77.7%) lagged behind that of white students (91.8%) PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 126 and American Indian/Alaskan Native (86.7%) and Asian/Pacific Islander (84.4%), by 14.1, 9.0, and 6.7 percentage points respectively. The passing rate for FARMS students (71.7%) fell below the system average by 5.9 percentage points. The passing rate for the LEP subgroup (35.8%) fell below the system average by 41.8 percentage points, and it was 56.0 percentage points below the passing rate for the highest performing subgroup (White students). The proficiency rate for 11th grade special education students (20.0%) was 57.6 percentage points below the district average and 71.8 percentage points below the passing rate for White students. The passing rate for Hispanic students (67.8%) lagged behind the district average by 9.8 percentage points and 24.0 percentage points below that of the White student subgroup. 2. Describe the interventions that the school system has in place to support students in passing the Government HSA. How effective are they? What evidence do you have of their effectiveness? Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations. Professional Development Opportunities The Social Studies Office staff facilitated two full-day professional development sessions for 77 teachers of the grade 10 Local, State and National (LSN) Government Course during the fall (November 17, 2009) and winter (February 2, 2010) to strengthen teacher capacity and support student achievement through implementation of best practices in financial literacy, monetary fiscal policy, and the incorporation of differentiated instructional strategies. The Maryland Council for Economic Education provided additional support with presenters and a wealth of resources to assist teachers in accomplishing the goals of the workshop experiences. According to professional developments surveys distributed by Social Studies Office staff, 98% of the government teachers who attended strongly agreed that the sessions were engaging and provided useful materials and strategies to implement with students, as well as opportunities to network with colleagues. Additional opportunities will be made available and increased participation is encouraged. Local, State and National Government Course Unit Examinations Unit tests were developed and made available for LSN Government teachers as an instructional tool and a method of assessing student progress. The Social Studies Office staff will utilize the Edusoft Assessment Management System to determine the efficacy of the use of unit exams. Professional development sessions focus on guiding teachers in the effective use of data. 3. Describe what, if anything, the school system will do differently than in past years to address the challenges identified. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocation. When examining Government HSA data, it was noted that there has been a steady increase in the number of students successfully passing the examination from 31% in SY2004-5 to 68% in SY2007-8. However, Government HSA passing rates declined from 68% in SY2007-8 to 56% in SY2008-9, while the number of Government AVP projects increased from 632 in SY2007-8 to 1,650 in SY2008-9. Through debriefing within the Social Studies Office and analysis of specific data and professional development surveys, a number of strategies have been implemented to support increased passing rates on the Government HSA. Teachers of LSN Government (including teachers of special education and ESOL students) have opportunities to participate in the MSDE online government training sessions. The online course provides differentiated instruction for students and can be incorporated into regular instruction. It supplements intervention and remediation efforts and extends regular instruction for students who are absent, need additional practice, or need extended learning time. Substitute funds are available to allow teachers to attend the training sessions. SY2008-09 data indicate that 22.4% of 10th grade and 35.8% of 11th grade special education students have taken and passed the Government HSA. The Social Studies Office staff is initiating more collaboration with Department of Special Education staff to increase Government HSA passing rates by 5 percentage points by June 2011. SY2008-09 data indicate that at the 10th grade level, 10.2% of LEP and 47% of Hispanic subgroups have taken and passed the Government HSA, and at the 11th grade level, 35.8% of LEP and 67.8% of Hispanic subgroups have done so. The Social Studies Office is collaborating with the ESOL Office to increase Government HSA passing rates by 5 percentage points by June 2011 by monitoring implementation of ESOL strategies. SY2008-09 data indicate that 53.1% of the 10th grade FARMS subgroup have taken and passed the Government HSA. Social Studies Office staff are encouraging the use of the MSDE online government modules, which provide differentiated instruction to students, and monitor the implementation of the online course to increase PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 127 passing rates by five percentage points. Collaborative sessions focus on how the online tool addresses key intervention strategies such as implementing graphic organizers, embedded flash cards for academic vocabulary development, and accessing informal assessment tools to monitor student progress. Office of Social Studies staff provide analysis of the LSN Government unit examinations through utilization of the Edusoft Assessment Management System. The more frequent analytical data assists teachers and administrators in identifying specific areas of student need in order to plan and implement modified instruction in support of increased student success on the Government HSA. Office of Social Studies personnel have increased classroom visits to observe implementation of the LSN Government instructional program. Supervisors and specialists provide feedback and additional support, as appropriate, to correct any instructional issues at school sites. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 128 HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENTS (HSA) HSA GRADUATION REQUIREMENT Class of 2010 Based on the Examination of Data for 2010 Graduates Who Met the High School Assessment Graduation Requirement by Option and Bridge Projects Passed (Tables 3.9 and 3.10): Table 3.9 Graduates Who Met the High School Assessment (HSA) Graduation Requirement by Option Total 2008-2009 2009-2010 # 7,496 8,345 HSA Graduation Requirement Options Passing Scores Bridge 1602 Option on Four HSAs Projects # 4,013 4,219 % 53.5% 50.6% # 2,203 2,442 % 29.4% 29.3% # 983 1,323 % 13.1% 15.9% Total Waivers # 211 153 % 2.8% 1.8% Met # 7,410 8,158 % 98.9% 97.8% Not Met # 86 104 % 1.1% 1.2% 1. Describe your school system’s results. In your response, please report on the implementation of the Bridge Plan for Academic Validation. In SY2009-10, 8,158 seniors met HSA graduation requirements compared to 7,410 seniors in SY2008-9. Yet, as illustrated in Table 3.9, the percentage of seniors meeting the HSA graduation requirement decreased from 98.9% (SY2008-9) to 97.8% (SY2009-10), a 1.1 percentage point reduction. Data in Table 3.9 also reflect a decrease in the percentage of students who passed all four high school assessments--from 53.5% in SY2008-09 to 50.6% in SY2009-10, a difference of 2.9 percentage points. There was an increase in the number of students meeting the HSA requirement via the 1602 option or through the completion of bridge projects. In SY2009-10, 3,765 graduates met the HSA requirements via the 1602 option or bridge projects compared to 3,186 in SY2008-9, an increase of 579 students. The percentage of students meeting the HSA graduation requirements via the 1602 option remained virtually the same from SY2008-09 (29.4%) to SY2009-10 (29.3%). There was a 2.8 percentage point increase in the percentage of students meeting the HSA graduation requirements through bridge projects from SY2008-09 (13.1%) to SY2009-10 (15.9%). There was a decrease in the number of waivers for SY2009-10, with 153 graduates meeting HSA requirements through waivers. This was down from 211 graduates who met HSA requirements through this option in SY2008-9. The expectation is that the number of waivers will continue to decrease each year. The decrease in waivers can be attributed to the systemic push to increase the number of students who complete bridge projects and early identification of students who would be eligible for waivers. Students are informed early in the year that they are not eligible for waivers, which causes them to complete their bridge projects before the end of the school year. Table 3.10 Bridge Projects Passed Algebra/Data Biology Analysis # # 2008-2009 1,925 1,701 2009-2010 2,493 2,035 English Government Total # 2,605 2,804 # 1,230 1,671 # 7,461 9,003 As reflected in Table 3.10, 9,003 bridge projects were passed in SY2009-10, as compared to 7,461 in SY2008-9. This represents an increase of 1,542 projects passed. The largest concentration of passed projects for both SY2008-9 (2,605) and SY2009-10 (2,804) was for English, followed by Algebra/Data Analysis (1,925 in SY2008-9 and 2,493 in SY2009-10). Biology bridge projects ranked third (1,701 projects passed in SY2008-9 and 2,035 in SY2009-10), while Government bridge projects ranked last (1,230 projects passed in SY2008-9 and 1,671 projects passed in SY2009-10). PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 129 Strategies The school system has made performance on the HSA graduation requirement a priority by implementing the following strategies. It is expected that this increased focus on instructional delivery will yield a greater number of students passing the HSA at its initial administration, thereby decreasing the number of AV Projects submitted to meet the graduation requirement. After each quarterly benchmark, supervisors in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction will review the prescribed curriculum to identify the shortfalls to determine whether content modifications are needed to increase the number of students who pass all four high school assessments. Recommendations on additional resources to use to meet the content of the specific learning indicators that were missed are shared with schools within two weeks after the quarterly benchmark is given. Quarterly data analysis sessions are held with high school principals and staff of the High School Consortium to monitor the success of first time test takers, a greater emphasis has been placed on the HSA core content classes. During these meetings, instructional implications and strategies are discussed to ensure that there is an increase in student achievement from one quarter to the next. Quarterly benchmark assessments are provided and the data from the assessments are analyzed to determine next steps for instructional strategies. Due to the large numbers of students who pass the content courses but fail the exam, teachers are using the collaborative planning process to examine student work and compare the work to the expectations of the exam. Department of Curriculum and Instruction staff works with Team Coordinators (TCs) monthly to develop skills in student work examination, rigor, cognitive demand, and standards-based assessments Through collaboration with the Breakthrough Center at MSDE, three principals will receive direct coaching support in monitoring the instruction in the HSA content courses and providing targeted feedback. The Breakthrough Center is also providing in-service to 10 principals in informal classroom reviews and facilitating collaborative planning. Schools are infusing content standards into courses that precede the HSA tested content course. Schools are scheduling support groups for students who fail the HSA exams with intense remediation of the content standards. Panel clarifying question: How does modifying the curriculum help the graduation rate? LSS Response to Clarifying Question: The response to this question can be found on page 326. 2. Identify the strategies to which you attribute the results. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations. There was an increase in the number of bridge projects due to the decrease of HSA waivers and a change in the sequence of English courses for ESOL students. There was a decrease of 58 waivers (1 percentage point) in SY2009-10, while the number of bridge projects increased by 1,542. Having fewer waivers required students to meet the HSA graduation requirement using another route--meeting 1602, passing all four assessments, or completing bridge projects. Based on the increase in bridge projects, it can be concluded that many students met their graduation requirement for HSA through this route. In addition, in an effort to ensure that ESOL students experienced English 10 content before their senior year, the course sequence for English was modified. The change in the course sequence also caused an increase in the number of bridge projects and decreased the need for ESOL students to request a waiver. In SY2009-10, the district implemented a Performance Management Analysis and Planning Process (PMAPP), whereby principals and staff analyzed HSA benchmark data quarterly and determined next steps related to instructional strategies and content. This was implemented to ensure an increase in the percentage of first time test-takers. The district anticipates that SY2010-11 data will reflect an increase in the number of students passing all four HSAs. There was also an increase in the number of students who met the composite score of 1602. Students were closely monitored and required to sit for each HSA during the testing window. If a student was absent, the PPW contacted the parent to find out why, and to make sure the student took the exam on the make-up date. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 130 3. Describe where challenges were evident. Because there was an increase in the number of projects, scoring became a challenge. Also, many students waited until the last minute to submit projects, even though parents, students, and school personnel knew well in advance that bridge projects were due monthly. In SY2010-11, all projects will be completed by the end of January for regular education students and by the end of March for special education students. Monthly bridge project targets were given to principals in August. Bridge project targets were created by calculating the total number of projects each school will need to ensure their seniors meet the HSA graduation requirement and divided by 5. Creating this monthly target will allow school and Consortium staff to ensure that seniors in the regular education program have met the graduation requirement for HSA by the end of January and that students in special education programs have met graduation requirements for HSA by March. Monthly project submissions will be monitored closely to ensure that the January and March targets are met for SY2010-11. This will be done by requiring that schools conduct monthly HSA Team Meetings. The following staff members sit on each team: Principal, Senior Class Assistant Principal, Testing Coordinator, AVP Coordinator, Professional School Counselors, Special Education Teacher Coordinator, and a representative from the High School Consortium. In addition, the two schools with the largest number of projects will receive technical assistance from MSDE through the participation of Mr. Pfeifer and Mr. Sandusky at HSA Team meetings during SY2010-11. Panel clarifying question: Are Bridge instructors certified in the appropriate content area? LSS Response to Clarifying Question: The response to this question can be found on page 326. Class of 2010 Based on the Examination of Data for Juniors (Rising Seniors) Who Have Not Yet Met the High School Graduation Requirement as of June 30, 2010 (Table 3.11): Table 3.11 Rising Seniors Who Have Not Yet Met the Graduation Requirement Enrolled 2009-2010 2010-2011 Met Needing to Pass 4 Needing to Pass 3 Not Yet Met Needing to Pass 2 Needing to Pass 1 Total # # % # % # % # % # % # % 7,329 8,313 5,210 5,652 71.1% 68.0% 775 1,183 10.6% 14.2% 642 788 8.8% 9.5% 450 515 6.1% 6.2% 252 298 3.4% 3.6% 2,119 2,784 28.9% 33.5% 1. Identify the challenges that persist. The data displayed in Table 3.11 reflect that there continues to be a large percentage of rising seniors who have not yet met the graduation requirements. In SY2009-10, 33.5% of rising seniors had not yet met the graduation requirement. This represents a 4.6 percentage point increase from the 28.9% of rising seniors who had not yet met graduation requirements in SY2008-9. The percentages of rising seniors not yet meeting graduation requirements and needing to pass one or more exams was higher for every category of exams for rising seniors in SY2010-11. Based on the analysis of the quarterly benchmark results for SY2009-10 conducted by each school‘s Instructional Team, students taking Biology continue to miss the same learning indicators each quarter. To address this need, an extensive analysis of current curriculum documents is planned by staff in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction to determine the extent to which the appropriate learning indicators have been identified in the curriculum. Curriculum modifications will then be made, as indicated. In addition to the support that is needed in, the district‘s Algebra curriculum will need to be revised to ensure an increase in the number of students that pass the HSA in this content area. A team of administrators has been created to review the sequence of middle school mathematics courses to determine how to best support 9th grade students in algebra. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 131 2. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made to support those juniors (rising seniors) who have not yet met the HSA graduation requirement in passing the High School Assessments. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations. All rising seniors who did not meet the HSA graduation requirement have been placed in an AVP course which is offered during the school day. All high schools have been allocated one dedicated full-time equivalent (FTE) teacher position for this course. While students are working to complete the required bridge projects, they will also prepare for the HSA. All students will be required to sit for HSA exams during each administration. PPWs will make sure that all seniors sit for their HSA exams. In the event that the student is absent, the parent will be contacted, and the student will be required to sit for the make-up exam. Panel clarifying question: Please clarify the reason for the large overall number of HSA non-test takers. LSS Response to Clarifying Question: See response to this same question on pages 326 and 327. Panel clarifying question: In 2009, the school system reported that special education students represented 9.8% of the total high school population. On the HSA Test Participation and Status Tables (3.1-3.8) for English II, Algebra/Data Analysis, Biology and Government, special education students represent less than 1% of the tested students at each grade level. Please provide an explanation for the non-participation of special education students on those tests and the steps Prince George's County staff will take to ensure that all special education students have access to HSA coursework and participate in Maryland's HSA Program. LSS Response to Clarifying Question: The response to this question can be found on pages 327 and 328. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 132 I.D.ii LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENTS Based on the Examination of AMAO 1, AMAO 2, and AMAO 3 Data (Tables 4.1- 4.3): 1. Describe where progress is evident. AMAO 1: Progress is evident in the percentage of students who are progressing toward English proficiency. In 2009, 58.79% of ELL met AMAO 1. In 2010, 72.77% of ELL met AMAO 1. This is an increase of 13.98 percentage points. AMAO 2: Progress is evident in the percentage of students who have attained English proficiency. In 2009, 13.06% of ELL met AMAO 2. In 2010, 17.03% of ELL met AMAO 2. This is an increase of 3.97 percentage points. 2. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies to which you attribute the progress of Limited English Proficient students towards attaining English proficiency. The elementary ESOL instructional program, Language-Based Instructional Supplement for Teaching Reading Comprehension Strategies and Skills to English Language Learners Across the Content Areas, is in the third year of implementation. This program supports the language acquisition of ELL‘s in the mainstream and the ESOL classrooms with skills and strategies of reading instruction in kindergarten through fifth grades. In all grades, additional instructional models, such as plug-in, co-teaching, and structured immersion, were implemented to include students in the mainstream classroom. Quarterly assessments were administered in speaking and writing, wherein teachers administered prompts and used the LAS Links rubrics to score them. Elementary ESOL students were assessed three times each grading period in speaking and writing. In the winter of 2010, all ESOL teachers at the elementary and secondary levels were retrained in the speaking and writing rubrics for LAS Links. All teachers, including those who had been administering the test since 2006, were required to attend training on the rubrics to resolve inconsistencies in scoring the speaking test and targeting instruction for speaking and writing that is consistent with the LAS Links scoring tools. 3. Describe where challenges are evident in the progress of Limited English Proficient students towards attaining English proficiency by each domain (Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing). Table H: Percent of Students Scoring at Levels 4 and 5 Area 2006 2007 2008 Listening Speaking Reading Writing 31% 22% 27% 22% 35% 31% 30% 28% 48% 43% 45.5% 39% 2009 2010 46% 49% 42% 52% 43% 48% 36% 40.5% LAS Links Assessment Data, 2006-10 Listening: Students continue to make progress, with 49% scoring at the high intermediate (4) or advanced (5) level in the Listening domain in 2010. This represents a 3 percentage-point increase from 2009 and an overall increase of 18 percentage points from sY2005-06, the beginning of LAS Links testing. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of the 14,017 ELL started SY2010-11 at beginning proficiency levels (Level 1 or 2). Not all English Language Learners will score at the higher proficiency levels during their first year in an English language development program. Speaking: In the Speaking domain, students made a 10 percentage-point gain, from 42% in SY2008-09 to 52% in SY2009-10. Thirty-nine percent of the 14,017 English Language Learners started SY2010-11 at the beginning proficiency levels (Level 1 or 2). Reading: Students made progress in Reading, with 48% scoring at Levels 4 or 5. This represents a 5 percentage-point increase from SY2008-09, and a 21 percentage-point increase since SY2005-06. The challenge is to continue to align ESOL reading instruction with the state curriculum by implementing Language-Based Instructional Supplement for Teaching Reading Comprehension Strategies and Skills to English Language Learners Across the Content Areas in the PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 133 elementary grades and closely aligning the ESOL/English course curriculum with the state reading/English language arts curriculum in the secondary grades. Writing: Students made progress in the Writing domain, with 40.5% scoring at Levels 4 or 5. This is a 4.5 percentagepoint increase from SY2008-09 and an 18.5 percentage-point increase since SY2005-06. The challenge is the LAS Links test for kindergarten students. The LAS Links K – 1 test requires kindergarten students to complete a 20-question, multiple-choice grammar, mechanics, and conventions section independently. An overwhelming majority of kindergarten students have not acquired the reading or test taking skills to complete this section. Many students are not able to attempt this section at all. The 20 points accumulated on this section overshadow the 15 points that these students can gain on the constructed writing section. Overall scores and Writing Test scores are affected by this anomaly. The largest ESOL student enrollment in PGCPS is in kindergarten. 4. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made to ensure sufficient progress of Limited English Proficient students towards attaining English proficiency. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations and incorporate timelines where appropriate. The following changes have been put in place for SY2010-11 to ensure sufficient progress of Limited English Proficient students toward attaining English proficiency. ESOL Office staff will: Emphasize student-centered classroom instruction and reading of informational text in professional development; Implement language-based quarterly assessments in elementary (continued) and secondary (new); Provide intensive coaching support at the schools with the greatest instructional needs; Engage newcomer families in parent involvement trainings; Pilot elementary newcomer language-support program; Increase extended learning opportunity support; and Provide additional instructional software. No Child Left Behind requires that corrective actions are taken in local school systems that failed to make progress on the AMAOs: If applicable, describe the corrective action plan specifying action to be taken for not meeting AMAO 3 for two or three consecutive years: Local school systems not making AMAO 3 for two or three consecutive years must provide an update on how the school system has revised the applicable components of the Master Plan to ensure progress of Limited English Proficient students toward attaining reading and math proficiency. In the report, school systems should describe what challenges are evident and what changes or adjustments will be made so that the school system will make Adequate Yearly Progress. You may refer to other sections of this update as appropriate. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 134 English for Speakers of Other Languages/Title III Corrective Action Plan 2010-2012 AMAO III: To meet AYP in the LEP subgroup (including ELLs) in reading for elementary and high schools; in reading and math for middle school CHART C: STATE ASSESSMENT PGCPS LEP DATA Levels Elementary Middle High ESOL Proficiency Count 3,327 1,302 313 Test Takers (including Reclassified English Language Learners) 4,301 2,373 436 Reading LEP Subgroup 77.4% 54.9% 41.1% % to Meet 81.2% 85.6% 79.5% CHART D: TIMELINE Action And Grade-Level Impact K-12 Target online professional development for mainstream teachers K-12 Target ESOL professional development for principals Year 1: 2010-2011 January – Provide Teacher Development Interactive ―Fundamentals of English Language Teaching‖ online professional development December – Workshop: Look For presentation; lesson plan guide; roles of an effective ESOL teacher May – Scheduling and grouping; ESOL models; planning session December- ESOL Teachers Workshop: Error analysis and improving students‘ writing; intervention plan and instructional implications; multi-level/multi-skill grouping K-12 Provide training and establish conversations around data analysis K-12 Provide evening workshops through ESOL parent training nights and family academies K-12 Continue to fund three family literacy programs through the Prince George‘s County Literacy Council Starting in January – ESOL central office will visit target schools to discuss data, grouping and instructional implications October through May- Begin monthly workshops, including how to help your child with reading Fall and spring – Family literacy programs will be provided to ESOL families at three school sites Throughout school year, ESOL teacher and leadership team use instructional book study funded by Title III K-12 Provide book study opportunities K-12 Revisit the ESOL hiring process Year 2: 2011-2012 September – Identify new cohort January- Begin new cohort August- Overview planning for the year December- ESOL Framework for Teaching; data analysis May- Scheduling and grouping; ESOL Models; planning session August (staff development day) – Data analysis, grouping and instructional analysis for all ESOL teachers October – Begin visits to schools that did not make AYP in the reading LEP subgroup Monthly parent trainings throughout the school year To be determined Continue to provide Title III funded book study May- provide ESOL schools with a list of books to select for the ESOL book study December – Meet with human resources leadership regarding HR hiring process of ESOL teachers PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update July – Implement new strategies in the hiring process to include review of coursework and an assessment of English language proficiency assessment Page | 135 Action And Grade-Level Impact K-12 Identify funding for the ―Language Line‖ K-12 Present ESOL scheduling guidelines to instructional leadership and school schedulers K-12 Maximize accommodations in daily instruction and in assessments for ELLs and R-ELLs K-12 Train all PGCPS staff on cultural awareness Year 1: 2010-2011 Fall- identify funding that can be used to purchase the ―Language Line‖ to enable communication between parents and PGCPS staff in multiple languages February – Ensure that ESOL instructional program model is present in the master schedule by presenting to schedulers and communicating with chairs and principals Year 2: 2011-2012 August/September – Work with the Office of Communications to provide information about the phone line and train highly-impacted staff February – Ensure that ESOL instructional program model is present in the master schedule by presenting to schedulers and communicating with chairs and principals Summer – Monitor ESOL scheduling August – Review accommodations with ESOL chairs August – Review accommodations with ESOL chairs September – Review accommodations with testing coordinators September – Review accommodations with testing coordinators October – Collect all accommodations for the capture sheet November – Collaborate with Multicultural Office to develop a working plan on how to provide a cultural awareness training to all school –based employees and staff in Academics and Student Services. October – Collect all accommodations for the capture sheet Monthly, September through June Monthly, September through June July and August – Train all PGCPS staff on cultural awareness K-12 Collaborate with Student Services to track ESOL suspensions, attendance and drop-out rates December – Connect with Special Ed team to develop RTI strategy for ELLs and R-ELLs K-12 Implement Response to Intervention with a focus on English Language Learners and R-ELLs Elementary Targeted professional development for Classroom Teachers Elementary Targeted support for ESOL students in the reading interventions (Reading Recovery and Fountas and Pinellereading intervention for upper grades) Elementary January and February – Train ESOL chairs and principals in using RTI for ELLs and R-ELLs in their schools February/March – Train teachers in the Language-based Instructional Supplement for Teaching Reading Comprehension Strategies and Skills to English Language Learners across the Content Areas and supplemental support trainings October/November – Memo to principals and area leaders about participation of ESOL students in intervention programs January/February – Meet with reading department to work on a plan to help include ELLs in interventions April/May – Memo to principals and area leaders about ESOL retention and advancement October - Continue Reading Together at 14 schools Target after school programs for PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update To be determined September/October – ESOL Language-based Instructional Supplement and supplemental support trainings January/February – Provide additional trainings August- Train ESOL staff in system-wide intervention strategies Continue with after school programs at 75+ schools. Page | 136 Action And Grade-Level Impact ESOL students Elementary Train ESOL and kindergarten teachers using the Focused Kindergarten model Elementary Continue to develop audio lending libraries in schools to increase family literacy Year 1: 2010-2011 November/December – Begin Champions and Imagine Learning after school cohorts at 65 ESOL schools in conjunction with Title Inn October 28 – Train ESOL teachers in effective kindergarten/ESOL strategies and collaborative planning October 26 – Train 10 new schools with the lending library; May 19 - follow up training Middle School Mainstream all ESOL 3 middle school students into ESOL/Reading English Language Arts co-taught classes in SY2012 August/October - New training for kindergarten teachers September/October - Train 10 new schools with the lending library; follow up training in May August/September – ESOL teacher training staff development day Elementary and Middle Targeted training for ESOL Teachers in reading strategies; Partner with the reading department on reading interventions Year 2: 2011-2012 May – Train department chairs on reading interventions and reading strategies January – follow up training April – follow up training November- Begin revision of new ESOL 3/RELA curricula with RELA February- Identify teachers of ESOL 3/RELA and schedule all ESOL 3 into a co-taught ESOL RELA course August - Train all ESOL 3 teachers and their RELA co-teachers in strategies for successful co-teaching December – Follow up training August – Review intervention plans Middle School Incorporate ESOL intervention plan for ESOL students who have been in U.S. Schools for five years or more and need support in reading and writing Middle School Host and train middle school teachers and administrators of ESOL at the Middle Years Summer Conference Elementary & High Schools Pilot Newcomer materials January – ESOL chairs review the intervention plan February – Begin to identify students who need the intervention April – Work with Professional School Counselors to engage parents to develop the RTI (Response to Intervention) plans January – ESOL chairs review the intervention plan February – Begin to identify students who need the intervention November – Establish conference committee, theme and dates April – Work with Professional School Counselors to engage parents to develop the RTI (Response to Intervention) plans November – Establish conference committee, theme and dates March – Distribute conference information March – Distribute conference information June/July – Summer conference September – Provide two choices of materials and training to six elementary schools with large newcomer populations June/July – Summer conference October - Select high school materials PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update July – Order materials for the schools that have a newcomer population September – Train teachers using the materials for the schools using newcomer programs Page | 137 Action And Grade-Level Impact Year 1: 2010-2011 Year 2: 2011-2012 December 17 – Meet and discuss elementary findings January – Pilot newcomer materials at a few high schools May 31 – Meet and discuss findings and choose preferred newcomer program Middle and High Schools Service middle and high school ESOL students with International Student Counseling Outreach counselors directly at the schools twice a month Middle and High Schools Provide summer professional development in SIOP (Sheltered Instructional Observation Protocol) for content area teachers of ESOL students Middle and High Schools Provide summer reading materials to secondary ESOL students October through June – ISCO counselors will collaborate with Professional School Counselors and ESOL teachers every two weeks for college-readiness and to provide workshops geared toward newcomers, at-risk ESOL students March – Provide information about training to targeted schools May – Complete sign ups for August training March – Order summer reading materials August through June – ISCO counselors will continue to support ESOL middle and high schools August – Train 150 teachers from targeted middle and high schools October, January and April- follow up SIOP trainings August - follow up activities for summer reading March- Order summer reading materials May – Distribute materials May – Distribute materials October – Training of trainers in ELL Toolkit Middle and High Schools Provide training to content area secondary teachers of ESOL students through STEP-T and ELL Toolkit Training High School Collaborate with IFL (Institute for Learning) to update the ESOL high school course sequence High School Provide reading courses to support ESOL high school students reading below grade level November – Begin school-based trainings December – Train secondary math chairs in using ESOL strategies through Toolkit To be determined November – Develop STEP-T timeline October – Follow an ESOL student through a day of instruction and informally interview teachers about the instructional challenges impacting the ESOL students November/December – Review the ESOL course sequence and curricula January through May – Develop a team to align the course sequence and curricula with the common core standards in preparation for the high school assessment August – Provide ESOL critical reading and ESOL advanced critical reading courses to ESOL students at participating schools To be determined August – Train teachers in the ESOL high school reading courses January and May – Review EduSoft SRI data PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 138 I.D.iii ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS School System Improvement This section must be completed ONLY by local school systems in improvement or corrective action.4 Instructions: 1. Local school systems in corrective action must provide an update on how the school system has revised the applicable components of the Master Plan to execute the corrective actions taken by the State Board of Education. In the report, school systems should describe what challenges are evident and what changes or adjustments will be made so that the school system will exit corrective action status. You may refer to other sections of this update as appropriate. Panel clarifying question: Please reconcile the narrative statements on pages 140 and 148 with the data listed in Table 5.1. LSS Response to Clarifying Question: PGCPS remains in corrective action because the school system has not made AYP for several years. Over the past four years (SY2006-07 through SY2009-10), the school system has registered modest annual improvement in both reading and math MSA performance from grades three through eight; however, the improvement has not been sufficient to keep pace with the state‘s escalating AMOs. The most substantial gains have been in 5th, 6th, and 8th grade reading and in 4th grade math – all double digit increases – with 5th grade reading being the only grade level/content area combination registering gains that exceeded the escalating state AMO target. Thus, while slightly increasing percentages of students score at the proficiency or higher level in MSA reading and math testing, an increasing number of schools have failed to make AYP. The challenge for the school system is to accelerate the pace of progress across grade levels and content areas. The challenge is most acute at the middle school level where the pace of system improvement in math is more than 10 percentage points behind the pace of AMO escalation across all three grade levels (see Table below). Double digit improvement deficits are also manifested in reading at grades 4 and 7. (Compare Table below with Table 5.1 on page 143.) PGCPS MSA PROGRESS, SY2007 THROUGH SY2010 (Percent Proficient or Advanced) 4 Grade SY2007 SY2008 SY2009 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 69.5% 76.5% 61.8% 69.7% 67.7% 53.0% 71.5% 80.0% 77.1% 74.5% 69.7% 56.8% 74.3% 77.2% 81.0% 75.9% 70.7% 67.3% Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 68.5% 71.2% 64.5% 66.1% 46.0% 37.6% 72.5% 81.4% 69.3% 67.0% 53.7% 42.4% 74.2% 81.3% 68.7% 67.5% 53.1% 43.2% Grade 5 Grade 8 N/A N/A 49.3% 36.0% 49.7% 39.8% SY2010 1 Yr. Change Reading 74.7% +0.4 79.3% +2.1 81.1% +0.1 81.1% +5.2 71.1% +0.4 66.9% -0.4 Math 77.5% +3.3 83.4% +2.1 71.6% +2.9 73.4% +5.9 53.8% +0.7 41.2% -2.0 Science 53.3% 3.6 44.1% 4.3 3 Yr. System Change 3 Yr. AMO Change 3 Yr. System Change +/3 Yr. AMO Change +5.2 +2.8 +19.3 +11.4 +3.4 +13.9 +14.0 +14.0 +14.0 +14.5 +14.5 +14.5 -8.8 -11.2 +5.3 -3.1 -11.1 -0.6 +9.0 +12.2 +7.1 +7.3 +7.8 +3.6 +15.5 +15.5 +15.5 +21.4 +21.4 +21.4 -6.5 -3.3 -8.4 -14.1 -13.6 -17.8 4.0 8.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Section 13A.01.04.08 of the Code of Maryland Regulations. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 139 Data for SY2010-11 indicate that in terms of AYP for elementary and middle schools, 75 elementary schools met AYP, while 51 did not. All 24 middle schools failed to make AYP. For the 11 K-8 schools, 6 made AYP and 5 did not. This is considerably less than the previous two years. In 2009, 3 schools exited improvement: two elementary and one middle school, and in SY2008-9 when 17 schools exited school improvement: 14 elementary and three high schools. Based on AYP data for SY2009-10, no elementary or middle schools exited school improvement for SY2010-11. In SY2009-10, the system closed six schools because of declining enrollment and turned this into an opportunity to create six K-8 model to increase opportunities for specialty choice schools for students. In addition, four middle schools were designated for turnaround schools, replacing the administration and most of the staff. Finally, 5 schools (3 middle and 2 elementary schools) moved into alternative governance, which required some staff replacement. For SY2010-11, the district instituted short range initiatives and a comprehensive 7 year plan. The system has adopted a rigorous set of goals focused on high student achievement for the next seven years. The basis of the goals is that all students will graduate college and career ready. The district has developed and adopted the Profile of a Graduate5, with emphasis on student problem solving, flexibility, reflection and collaboration. This requires a renewed emphasis on Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, world languages, advanced mathematics, and additional science courses. The key performance indicators for Goal 1 are listed below. Panel clarifying question(s): Given that PG County has not met AYP in several years for all three levels in both content areas, how are you addressing/ monitoring the effectiveness of each listed strategy and intervention particularly at the subgroup level? LSS Response to Clarifying Question(s): The response to this question can be found on page 329. The PGCPS "Profile of A 21st Century Graduate" identifies the skills and abilities our students need to be college and workforce ready. To their fullest potential, a PGCPS graduate will demonstrate specific skills in the following areas: An Effective Communicator and Collaborator, A Successful Problem Solver, A Responsible Person, and An Engaged Global and Domestic Citizen. They will also exhibit mastery in the Core Content Areas of Knowledge. 5 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 140 CHART E: Goal 1: High Student Achievement SY10 Baseline 2011 Target 2017 Target 43.3% 50% 100% % of students scoring proficient or above (Reading, Math) Reading 77.5%; Math 68.1% Reading: 82% Math: 73% 100% % of students scoring advanced or above (Reading, Math) Reading: 25.8%; Math: 17.2% Reading: 35%; Math: 27% 75% 47% 54% 90% 15.9% 13% 5% 26.1% 85% (lever); 70% (cohort) 38.9% 31% 30% 50% 87% 95% 41% 35% 50% 75% CR-438; M-425; W-433 22.2% 25% 50% English: 43.7% Algebra: 13.6% Social Studies: 25.9% Science: 7.1% 50% 75% 68% 75% 100% 59% 66% 85% 2010 Elem MS: 51.5% 58% 100% TBD TBD 75% 38.3% ES-95.5%; MS - 95.3%; HS - 91.4% 35% ES: 96%; MS: 96%; HS 94% 5% Key Performance Indicator College/Career Readiness % of graduates who are college and/or career ready (based on participation in AP or IB courses OR technical assessments/ certification OR Senior Capstone/Portfolio) M.S.A. H.S.A AP Courses Graduation Rate IB SAT % of Graduates who pass all four H.S.A. assessments % of graduates who meet H.S.A. requirements through the AVP pathway % of tests with a score of 3+ % of students graduating within four years (based on a 4year adjusted cohort) % of tests with a score of 4+ % of students enrolled in an IB program achieve a diploma % of students who achieve the National SAT average based on highest overall combined score in Reading(496), Math(510) and Writing(487) % of test-taking students who meet benchmark scores in 1+ subject areas ACT Kindergarten Readiness Reading Readiness AYP School Performance Attendance Attendance % of students who attended PGCPS Pre-school or Head Start and are fully ready for Kindergarten % of second graders who score on or above grade level on the SRI % of Schools meeting AYP % of schools who increase in SPI. Reduce the percent of students with 10 or more absences % of students who meet AYP attendance requirements of 94% 96% The seven year key performance indicators drive planning both in the short and long term. Long term initiatives include the Secondary School Reform (SSR) initiative with an emphasis on academies and special programs that allow for equity, geographically balanced across the district. SSR requires the development of a college-going culture throughout the grades, strong academic and technical programs, a robust student tracking system, and a strong transitional program from elementary to middle and middle to high school. Program outcomes include increasing participation and performance in AP, IB, world languages, STEM, advanced mathematics courses, and technical certifications. Rigor in the elementary and middle schools is needed to achieve these goals. Immediate focus for SSR involves: 1. Pursue STEM initiatives by utilizing the following: a. National Science Foundation Grant to train science teachers in an inquiry approach; b. National Commission on Teaching for America‘s Future for STEM modules in the high school; c. Bowie State University Grant for providing STEM opportunities to high and middle school students in the summer; d. University of Maryland partnership for developing STEM curricula that will provide University of Maryland credit to students; PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 141 e. Partnership with Robert Goddard/NASA; and f. Expansion of biotech Project Lead the Way. 2. Pursue or expand academies at each high school. SY2010-11 will be a planning year to determine locations for academies. The proposed academies ar: a. Law and Public Service (SY2011-12) b. Global Studies (SY2011-12) c. Finance (SY2012-13) d. Engineering and Science (SY2012-13) e. Visual and performing arts (SY2013-14) f. Technology (SY2011-12) g. Architectural Design (SY2011-12) h. Hospitality and Tourism (SY2011-12) i. Health and Biosciences (SY2012-13) j. Transportation Technologies (SY2012-13) 3. Create a college going culture through: a. Mandatory advisories in high school; b. GEAR-UP, AVID®, and Jump Start; and c. Talent Search with the University of Maryland. 4. Create a pipeline for college readiness: a. Expansion of world languages in the middle school; b. Preparation for algebra by 8th grade; c. Development of advanced mathematics in grade six; d. Mathematics and reading/English language arts courses that are aligned to the common core standards; and e. Development of a focus on first time test-taker performance on HSAs. This includes technical assistance from the Breakthrough Center at MSDE. To achieve the seven year plan, Executive Cabinet has identified five priorities for SY2010-11. They are: a. Increase achievement in special education; b. Build effective instructional leadership teams; c. Increase achievement in middle school reading, mathematics and science; d. Develop and implementing a human capital strategy; and e. Develop and improving a process improvement strategy. These priorities are in the planning and beginning implementation stages. Detailed descriptions follow. I. Increase Achievement in Special Education The Special Education initiative is the result of two streams: a corrective action plan from the State of Maryland and persistently low achievement by special education students. The corrective action is based on noncompliance with a Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE), a disproportionate number of disabled students being suspended from school, and violations in timeline processes and providing transitional services to disabled students graduating from high school. A. Disproportionality will be addressed through: 1. Increased accountability and data monitoring of suspensions at the school level; 2. Increased use of PBIS strategies to mitigate suspensions; 3. Concerted effort to decrease suspensions for disabled and non-disabled students; and 4. Development of a continuum of services to address behavior concerns before suspension, including time-out rooms and interventions with dedicated staff. B. FAPE, timeline and transitional violations will be addressed by the redeployment of central office staff to: 1. Monitor and participating in the IEP process; and 2. Create a problem-solving approach to special education that replaces the current compliance approach by developing problem solving skills and technical knowledge around interventions and strategies. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 142 C. Student achievement will be increased by: 1. Creating a pre-referral process that is based on a problem solving and Response To Intervention (RtI) model; 2. Expanding RtI options in reading, mathematics, and behavior across all grade levels; 3. Creating a response team of psychologists to drive the RtI initiative; 4. Creating an electronic tracking system for students in intervention; and 5. Redeploying central office and area staff to address differentiation in the classroom, as well as the fidelity of implementation of interventions. Challenges to Special Education Reform 1. The monitoring of compliance and instruction is separated by different job expectations. These need to be rolled into one process. It is our belief that strong compliance is the result of solid instructional practice and the creation of a problem-solving culture, which by nature is proactive and not reactive. The creation of a problem solving culture promotes proactive instructional decision-making at all levels of the organization. This will be a change in how the district does business. 2. Disproportionality in suspensions can be related to several factors: inadequate training in de-escalation strategies, a lack of a continuum of services, and a lack of wrap-around services for families and students in need. a. In terms of training in de-escalation practices, targeted audiences include principals, assistant principals and teachers at every level. b. A continuum of services requires appropriate staffing to offer time-out rooms and real time interventions before students escalate and small group/therapeutic environments to address instructional and behavioral issues. c. Wrap around services include both district and community service providers to collaborate to address students and families in crisis. The district is actively seeking partnerships with community service providers to sustain support. II. Building Effective Instructional Leadership Teams The theory of action around improving schools is that building effective leadership teams within schools is the key to success. PGCPS believes that student achievement is directly related to the leadership capacity within schools. The forum for instructional improvement is collaborative planning time under the leadership of content and pedagogy experts. Collaborative planning is enhanced through supports provided by the following departments: A. Department of School Leadership 1. Train principals on the use of the ―fishbowl approach‖6 to running a meeting; 2. Provide principals with opportunities to visit other schools; 3. Provide assistant principal training; and 4. Include collaborative planning in the Administrator University preparation program for aspiring administrators. B. Department of Curriculum and Instruction 1. Develop content knowledge with department chairs, team leaders, and core content teachers with a particular emphasis on 8th grade; 2. Demonstrate the examination of student work; 3. Develop cohorts of schools for collaborative planning by content and grade area; and 4. Develop a cognitive demand foundation as it relates to academic rigor to underlie all curriculum work in the district. C. Department of School Improvement 1. During the June 2010 Leadership Institute, DSI staff provided three levels of training to Principals and Assistant Principals to strengthen their knowledge base and capacity for collaborative planning (CP) implementation and teambuilding in their schools: Emerging CP Implementation, Proficient CP Implementation, and Advanced CP Implementation; 6 The fishbowl conversation can be effective when discussing topics within large groups. No distinction is made between speakers and the audience. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 143 2. During July and August 2010, DSI staff conducted several school-based training sessions to teams on effectively implementing CP protocols based upon the differentiated levels of training to meet school needs; 3. During August 2010, DSI staff conducted several ―back to school‖ professional development sessions that focused on teambuilding/community building and implementing collaborative planning protocols; 4. DSI staff held several meetings, inclusive of supervisors, instructional specialists, resource teachers and data/content coaches, to establish plans for supporting the CP protocol during SY2010-11; 5. DSI staff provide technical assistance and coaching on-site by attending schools‘ collaborative planning meetings for each grade level and provide technical assistance and coaching by attending schools' School Planning and Management Team meetings; offering professional development as needed/requested. D. Department of Testing 1. Provide item review workshops in editing and finalizing items for the item bank with content teams in collaboration with Curriculum and Instruction staff; 2. Provide FAST meetings to review each item for the tests, make necessary changes, and approve a final version of the test; and 3. Provide support and training to school instructional teams with FAST data through the use of data coaches. This year, a focus is given to middle school mathematics. E. Office of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development (TLPD) 1. Instructional coaches lead or co-lead collaborative planning sessions with teachers at their assigned schools on a minimum bi-weekly basis; 2. Pre-planning of the collaborative sessions includes instructional coaches, data coaches, and/or other schoolbased instructional leaders as appropriate to ensure sessions are meaningful, on target, and address the identified needs of teachers and students; 3. Monitor instructional coaches‘ weekly communication logs, TLPD staff visits to school planning sessions, feedback from instructional coaches, teachers, and principals; 4. TLPD staff explore additional resources for instructional coaches, including Powerful Designs for Professional Learning (NSDC, 2008), to provide a variety of strategies in support of their work with teachers; and 5. Alternative Teacher Program (ATP) Mentors participate in bi-weekly collaborative planning sessions according to their school cohort; sessions facilitated by TLPD team. F. Department of Title I 1. Provide training on collaborative planning for all staff in mid September, with follow-up sessions throughout the year; 2. Differentiate support for staff based on capacity and needs. Three staff members have been identified as leads/subject matter experts (SMEs) to coach and mentor staff, where appropriate; and 3. Restructure instructional teams to better support the system‘s collaborative planning protocol. G. Area Assistant Superintendent Offices 1. Monitor school based teams; 2. Deploy staff to schools with poor performance based on the School Performance Index (SPI)7; 3. Include collaborative planning as part of principal evaluation. Challenges to Building Effective Leadership Teams The challenges to collaborative planning include adequate planning time, monitoring of the process, structure for collaboration, and the sheer volume of issues to be addressed. 1. Elementary collaborative planning time continues to be a challenge. Staffing allocations in the elementary school make it difficult to find collaborative planning time and still adhere to the negotiated agreement for 7 The SPI is a two year average of percent of students "proficient or above" on the Reading and Math MSA compared to a standard of 100%. This enables us to generate an Annual Performance Rank for all elementary and middle schools. A similar model is followed for high school. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 144 individual planning time. Principals have become creative in building schedules that allow for collaborative planning time. 2. Collaborative planning time requires effective leadership. This cannot be dependent on the building principal. Therefore, teacher leadership needs to be developed. The strategies listed above seek to develop both administrative and teacher leadership. 3. Structures for collaborative planning require schedules that allow for the participation of key players, including staff who work with specialized populations such as ESOL and special education. Principals must be creative in building schedules that allow for grade, content, and student support personnel to participate in the planning. 4. The agenda for collaborative planning can cross several domains including content expertise, the review and analysis of formative data, disciplinary specific pedagogy, and individual student needs. This presents challenges in setting the agenda for collaborative planning and in the subsequent monitoring. Schools must prioritize and focus on key elements and not try to address all domains. III. Increased Achievement in Middle School Reading, Math, and Science Instructionally, the focus for SY2010-11 is on improving instruction around high expectations, with a particular focus on middle school performance. To accomplish this, the Department of Curriculum and Instruction and the Area Assistant Superintendent Offices will work collaboratively to increase student performance. A. The Department of Curriculum and Instruction 1. Revise the curriculum for Algebra and Data Analysis in Grade 8 to ensure tight alignment to the state curriculum; 2. Use Algebraic Thinking as a differentiated instructional approach in co-taught and ESOL classes; 3. Increase the emphasis on thinking skills in the content area through the use of the Institute for Learning and the adoption of the core curriculum; 4. Continued collaborations with the University of Pittsburgh in mathematics instruction and literacy in the elementary school, as well as algebra in the middle and high schools; 5. Use the strategy of ―Big Ideas‖ to thematically represent critical standards and to assist schools in developing common assessments around the big ideas; 6. Focus on critical strategy instruction in the language arts classrooms; 7. Create and implement a stronger writing program that reflects content knowledge; 8. Enhance scientific inquiry through the National Science Foundation grant; 9. Increase STEM opportunities through the developing collaboration with the Goddard Space Center, the University of Maryland, and Bowie State University; 10. Implement a cognitive demand framework based on the work of Webb and Porter that combines cognition and content specificity. The roll out began at the June leadership conference with administrators and continues with roll outs to department chairs, instructional lead teachers and continued professional development with principals using video-taped lessons; 11. Provide professional development for teachers on the Comprehension Toolkit and America’s Choice in selected Title I and turnaround schools; and 12. Work with high schools on improving the HSA scores for first time test takers by examining student work and ensuring that grading expectations match the expectations of the state exam. This includes technical assistance from MSDE with selected schools. B. Area Assistant Superintendent Offices 1. Using the SPI and the previous year‘s performance on district assessments, Area Assistant Superintendents will deploy resources to schools at the low end of the continuum to provide technical support to content teams and to monitor improvements around common assessments and district quarterly benchmarks. 2. Use quarterly assessments to assess growth; and 3. Tie principal evaluations to quarterly growth. C. Turnaround School Office Monitor and support the four identified turnaround schools. Most of the staff in these schools have been replaced and programs of support and rigor have been instituted. The MSDE Breakthrough Center will provide technical PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 145 assistance to content expertise and collaborative planning. The following changes in structure and governance have been instituted to provide adequate support to turnaround schools. Governance changes include the restructuring of the district organization to provide more support to struggling schools. This support includes: 1. The creation of steering committees to oversee schools in alternative governance; 2. The creation of a director level position in charge of the turnaround schools; 3. The creation of academic deans as assistant principals in the turnaround schools, solely focused on instruction; and 4. Restructuring to allow the Area Assistant Superintendent Offices to broker support for schools from all supporting departments, depending on the needs of the school. Support can be aligned and targeted to the specific needs of the school. Specific attention will be given to schools with lagging School Performance Indicators as determined by state and local assessments. D. Three middle schools entered the alternative governance level of school improvement. Alternative governance schools will monitored by district oversight committees and focus on Universal Design for Learning as a differentiated approach to instruction. Challenges to Improving Middle Grades Student Achievement Improving student achievement at the middle school require the convergence of adequate staffing, a highly effective workforce, adequate collaboration time, an alignment of the curriculum, the development of disciplinary expertise, and close monitoring and feedback. 1. Adequate staffing requires placement practices that put the most effective teachers with the most challenging students. Transfer and hiring policies, as well as budget shortfalls interfere with matching the right teachers with the neediest students. 2. The district is implementing a strong teacher effectiveness appraisal system. However, this system has not reached the point of systematically dismissing or reassigning staff based on performance. 3. Time for in-depth, job embedded professional development is a challenge. This requires the restructuring of staff responsibilities to allow for professional development expertise to reside within each school. 4. Curricular alignment is strong, but the fidelity of the delivery remains challenging. This requires both the understanding of the content and the development of pedagogical skills to deliver aligned curricula effectively. 5. The development of strong disciplinary expertise requires close monitoring and frequent feedback. This requires a change in how teachers interact within the structure of a lesson. IV. Developing and Implementing a Human Capital Strategy The system is committed to revising and improving the human capital strategy. A consulting firm has been identified to assist in attracting, retaining and promoting highly effective professionals across all levels of the district. This includes: A. An aggressive recruitment campaign for teachers and administrators through the use of the Resident Teacher program, Teach for America, the New Teacher Project, New Leaders for New Schools, and several ventures with local universities. B. The Office of School Leadership is sponsoring several professional development opportunities to enhance leadership and teaching skills including the Administrator University, NISL, School Leaders Network, New Principals‘ Academy, and Leadership Education for Aspiring Principal Program (LEAPP); C. The expansion of the FIRST program, which is a teacher incentive program tied to teacher effectiveness and student achievement funded by the Gates Foundation; D. Professional development to increase teacher and principal capacity includes the Framework for Teaching model developed by Charlotte Danielson; E. Summer Leadership Institute focusing on district initiatives; F. Collaborations with the University of Maryland to train teachers in special education and mathematic certification; G. A differentiated model of professional development for principals based on principal performance; H. Move from highly qualified to highly effective teachers through the use of an evaluation system that records teacher performance; I. A review of compensation packages focusing on effectiveness; and PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 146 J. Develop multiple measures to assess student achievement growth. Challenges to Developing and Implementing a Human Capital Strategy Challenges to develop Human Capital include changes in budgeting for external partnerships, appraisal systems that promote effectiveness, and a change in culture moving from a system of longevity to a system of effectiveness. 1. There are excellent human development organizations that prepare both leaders and teachers, but they require funding, such as New Leaders for New Schools and Teach for America. 2. Prince George‘s County is a leader in financial incentives around teacher performance, but there is more work to be done around multiple measures for growth and the validity of appraisal systems. 3. Schools have long rewarded experience without an eye to effectiveness. This is a culture change to attract, retain and develop of the workforce. V. Developing a Process Improvement Strategy In July 2010, the Division of Performance Management conducted an informal survey of executive leadership and corresponding direct reports through which participants rated the district on key characteristics of high-performing organizations. Among the collective feedback was a clear consensus that district processes require review and improvement. As a result, process improvement was identified by Executive Cabinet as one of the five priorities for SY2010-11. The ultimate objective of this process improvement is to address current processes which, after improvement, will have the highest potential for cost-savings and increased efficiencies. Standardization, documentation, and improved communication around selected processes are also desired. The selected areas of focus for SY2010-11 are Food and Nutrition Services, Student Scheduling, and Position Fills. PGCPS has enlisted as a participant in American Productivity Quality Center (APQC)‘s North Star transformation effort. APQC will conduct training for PGCPS staff on the effective use of DMAIC approach (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control) that will guide the process improvement work. Challenges to Develop a Process Improvement Strategy The biggest challenge to process improvement is learning to reframe the work in a different way to allow for different solutions. It requires different reporting systems and accountability systems and a complete focus on teaching and learning from every department in the district. These initiatives are instituted in an era of declining budgets. PGCPS has cut 150 million dollars from the budget in the last three years and reduced the overall staff by 10%. The district minimized the impact on classrooms by continuing to provide for programs that directly support instruction and by cutting services that do not have a direct link to the classroom. The system depends heavily on grant opportunities to fund initiatives. School improvement and performance remain at the core of the work in the district. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 147 SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT A. Based on the Examination of School-level AYP Data (Tables 5.1 and 5.2): 1. Identify the challenges, including those specific to Title I schools, in ensuring that schools make Adequate Yearly Progress. Describe the changes or adjustments, and the corresponding resource allocations, which will be made to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate. Table 5.1 Number and Percentage of All Schools Making Adequate Yearly Progress Elementary Elementary/Middle Middle High Schools Schools Schools Schools Total # Total # Total # Total # Year Making Making Making Making of of of of AYP AYP AYP AYP Schools Schools Schools Schools # % # % # % # % 2003 138 62 44.9 27 3 11.1 21 2 9.5 2004 139 99 71.2 27 7 25.9 21 2 9.5 2005 140 83 59.3 27 7 25.9 21 3 14.3 2006 136 87 64.0 27 4 14.8 21 3 14.3 2007 140 106 75.7 27 4 14.8 22 3 13.6 2008 142 124 87.3 27 4 14.8 22 9 40.9 2009 139 85 61.2 27 2 7.4 22 14 63.6 2010 126 75 59.5 10 5 50% 25 1 4.0 22 5 22.7 Special Placement Schools Total # Making of AYP Schools # % 1 0 0 1 1 100 1 1 100 13 TBD TBD SY2009-10 data presented in Table 5.1 reflect that 75 elementary schools out of 126 schools (59.5%) made AYP. This represents a decline of 1.7 percentage points from SY2008-9 when 85 out of 139 elementary schools (61.2%) made AYP. The highest percentage of the district‘s elementary schools attaining AYP was observed for SY2007-8 when 87.3% of PGCPS elementary schools met the standard. The performance of the district‘s middle schools in making AYP has been more disappointing than that of elementary schools. Table 5.1 indicates that only 50.0% of the district‘s K-8 middle schools and only one of the district‘s middle schools met AYP in SY2009-10. In SY2008-9, only two middle schools made AYP. Of the 25 middle schools in SY2009-10, four were identified as turnaround schools for SY2010-11 and will utilize ARRA funding to support school reforms. In the last eight years (i.e., since SY2002-3 through SY2009-10) the highest percentage of middle schools making AYP was 25.9% which occurred in SY20034 and SY2004-5. This trend is also reflected in the district‘s K-8 schools. In SY2009-10 the district operated ten elementary/middle school academies (i.e., K-8 Academies) of which only half (50.0%) met AYP. As a result of SY2009-10 MSA, there are 58 schools in improvement (29 elementary, 19 middle, 9 high schools, and 1 charter). Four (4) middle schools were classified as turnaround schools and are not formally considered as schools in improvement. Table 5.2 Number and Percentage of Title I Schools Making Adequate Yearly Progress Elementary Elementary/Middle Middle High Title I Title I Title I Title I Total # Total # Total # Total # Year Schools Schools Schools Schools of Title I of Title I of Title I of Title I Making Making Making Making Schools Schools Schools Schools AYP AYP AYP AYP 2003 48 6 12.5 2 0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 2004 47 26 55.3 3 0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 2005 48 19 39.6 3 0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 2006 49 23 46.9 3 0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 2007 50 34 68.0 1 0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 2008 50 38 76.0 2 0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 2009 50 24 48.0 3 0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 2010 53 29 54.7 3 0 0.0 4 0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Special Placement Title I Total # Schools of Title I Making Schools AYP N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Page | 148 Title I The district‘s profile of Title I designated schools for SY2009-10 consisted of 60 schools: 53 elementary schools, 3 K-8 schools, and 4 middle schools. Between SY2008-9 and SY2009-10, there was a 6.7 percentage point gain in the percent of Title I elementary schools making AYP, 48.0% (SY2008-9) to 54.7% (SY2009-10). None of the district‘s Title I middle schools or K-8 schools made AYP in SY2009-10. Of the schools in improvement for SY2010-11, 20 are Title I: 16 are elementary schools and 4 are middle schools. The trend data displayed in Table 5.2 indicates that the percentage of Title I elementary schools making AYP has increased from 12.5% to (SY2002-3) to 54.7% (SY2009-10), an increase of 42.2 percentage points. Although the district has improved the AYP performance of Title I elementary schools since SY2002-3, the progress has not been steady. Over the eight-year period from SY2002-3 to SY2009-10, the highest percentage of Title I elementary making AYP was observed in SY2007-8 (76%). Based on a review of the district‘s monitoring tools, Performance Management Analysis and Planning Process (PMAPP), Action Item Logs, end-of-year reports, and feedback from executive staff, principals, and school teams, the challenges that schools in improvement experienced during SY2009-10 are as follows: Challenge 1: There has been a sharp decline in the achievement of middle grades students. Only 4% of the district‗s middle schools met AYP in SY2009-10. The system is in the process of developing and implementing a plan for Secondary School Reform (SSR) to address this challenge. Through the SSR initiative, the district will transform the educational experience of middle and high school students to ensure they are provided with the skills and competencies needed to compete in the 21st Century. SSR is based on four levers of change: (1) Raise Expectations, (2) Expand Options and Opportunities, (3) Student Transition Success, and (4) Empowered Teachers, Leaders and Schools. During the interim, middle schools continue to implement and monitor the school improvement/alternative governance plans that have been developed with the support of central and area offices. The plans focus on increasing teacher capacity in content and pedagogy utilizing the collaborative planning protocols for data inquiry, planning, and monitoring for results. Under the leadership of Area Assistant Superintendents, collaborative on-site technical assistance and support was designed and coordinated to ensure that adjustments in schools were based upon need assessments (coordinated by Area Assistant Superintendents and directors via walk through reports). Based on analyses of schools‘ performance data during quarterly PMAPP meetings, adjustments to school improvement plans were made, as necessary, to better align subgroup needs to research-based strategies. In addition, the following adjustments are being implemented: Continue to provide on-site technical assistance from all areas of the school system with a renewed focus on improving teaching and learning. The collaborative planning protocols will be the vehicle for data analysis, emphasizing identification of strengths and weaknesses, and ensuring that teachers are supported with high quality professional development. Ensure on-going communication with executive level staff, the area offices, and all departments (school improvement, ESOL, special education, mathematics, reading, and others as appropriate) regarding data inquiry/collaborative planning to ensure appropriate levels of teacher efficacy. Provide direction and guidance to principals to maximize personnel placement and effectiveness by monitoring and evaluating staff performance to ensure that classroom and non-classroom-based staff (including coordinators, department chairs, etc.) are providing appropriate and effective support to students. Increase the on-site, hands-on presence and participation of staff from the Departments of Curriculum and Instruction, School Improvement, and Title I, when applicable, to assist schools in increasing teacher efficacy. Provide training for the annual update of plans for SY2010-11 that specifically target strategies for exiting improvement. Provide support via differentiated workshops based upon schools‗ areas of concern for effective data-driven school improvement planning during the Bridge to Excellence School Improvement Institute in June 2011. After the institute, PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 149 provide additional on-site work sessions to schools in improvement to enable school teams to enhance plans based on current qualitative and quantitative data prior to the August 20, 2011 submission date. Provide school-specific technical support via workshops, meeting facilitation, classroom assistance, and coaching and monitoring during June 2011 to assist schools in the development, implementation, and monitoring of their school improvement plans. Challenge 2: Ensure that all schools implement effective collaborative planning protocols, for the purpose of lesson planning, data analysis, and monitoring implementation protocols to improve the effectiveness of each school‗s collaborative planning efforts. Adjustments Provide professional development to school-based leaders (principals and assistant principals) and instructional leaders (inclusive of coaches, department chairs, specialists, and teacher leaders) to facilitate collaborative planning meetings using data inquiry to improve teaching and learning. Develop, provide, and monitor implementation of a collaborative planning rubric for quarterly assessment and monitoring of the implementation of the collaborative planning/data inquiry protocols. Expand training in the collaborative planning protocols to include all school-based staff. During August, September, and October, 2010, training in the collaborative planning protocols was further expanded to include school-based staff, including department/grade level chairs, team leaders, and reading specialists, to promote teacher buy-in. Title I The following three challenges have contributed to the lack of greater progress for Title I schools. Challenge 1: There is a lack of internal structures to build instructional capacity of Title I staff to support teaching and learning. Adjustments Establish collaborative instructional teams within the department inclusive of supervisors, specialists, budget technicians, parent service coordinators, content coachers, and resource teachers. Implement the collaborative planning protocol across the department. Reorganize staff into interdepartmental teams (supervisors, specialists, budget technicians, parent service coordinators, content coachers, and resource teachers). Collaborate with area staff and principals to establish annual measurable objectives and identify strategies for increased student achievement. Conduct monthly collaborative planning/staff/team meetings to assess the impact of Title I programs, initiatives, and professional development on instructional practice to adjust school-specific support for improving teaching and learning. Identify and provide differentiated professional development (aligned to the Maryland State Standards) based on student achievement and the needs of the schools. Create a Title I service log for coordination of services and monitoring of support to Title I schools to avoid duplication of services. Challenge 2: There is limited capacity of Title I staff to create a culture that supports shared decision-making among parents, teachers, administrators, and community stakeholders at the school level. Adjustments Assign parent coordinators to work collaboratively with area teams to provide guidance and technical support. Develop internal structures for increasing staff capacity to engage parents as equal partners in addressing full range of student needs. Provide opportunities for reciprocal professional development among parents, school personnel, and Title I staff. Create a vehicle for two-way communication between parents and Title I Department (i.e., quarterly advisory board). PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 150 Title I staff will meet with PTA/PTO officers and principals to establish parent empowerment academies at each school site. Conduct semi-annual parent surveys, present findings, and solicit possible next steps during PTA/PTO meetings. Challenge 3: Title I budgets need to be loaded earlier in the school year to enable schools to begin instructional programs from the beginning of the year. Adjustments The following plan will be implemented in SY2010-11: Identify the Title schools for SY2011-12 by May 2011. Disburse the budget worksheets to schools with full-time salaries and request that they collaborate with area offices, school improvement specialists, resource teachers and coaches to assess the needs in their schools. Provide one-on-one review of school budgets with the principal to ensure the budget is balanced and all set-aside obligations are met. Create a journal in the Budget Office, as the budgets are approved. Complete the entire process for all schools to load all budgets by September 30. Each month the Program Accounting Technician will conduct a review of the budget to assess the spending levels. Conduct quarterly site audits consistent with the MSDE program review components. Specialists, resource teachers, and coaches will: a. Facilitate discussions during collaborative planning and/or School Planning and Management Team (SPMT) meetings on the effectiveness and appropriate use of funds; and b. Ensure funding and allocations for activities and materials are appropriately aligned to student and school needs. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 151 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update 8 0 14 5 0 0 27 Page | 152 Exiting in 2008 3 0 1 2 0 0 6 Restructuring Implementation Restructuring Impleme n-tation 5 0 1 0 0 0 6 Restructuring Planning Restructuring Planning 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 CA 12 0 3 1 0 0 16 Year 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 6 4 1 8 2 2 1 17 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 8 6 5 29 2010-2011 Level of Improvement (based on 2010 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs 4 1 0 0 5 14 0 3 0 17 Exiting in 2010 Restructuring Implementation Restructuring Planning CA Year 1 Year 2 Exiting in 2005 4 1 0 0 5 CA 7 0 16 5 0 0 28 11 0 7 0 18 Year 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 6 12 9 2 4 2 10 0 7 8 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 29 2 11 2008-2009 Level of Improvement (based on 2008 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs Year 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 5 14 2 1 0 17 Year 1 Restructuring Impleme n-tation 4 0 1 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 1 Exiting in 2007 Restructuring Implementation Restructuring Planning Restructuring Planning 2 1 0 1 0 1 5 2006-2007 Level of Improvement (based on 2006 AYP) Exiting in 2009 Restructuring Implementation Restructuring Planning CA CA 9 4 6 3 3 1 10 7 0 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 21 10 2009-2010 Level of Improvement (based on 2009 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs Year 2 Elementary Schools PreK-8 Middle Schools High Schools Special Placement Schools Public Charter Total 12 1 0 0 13 Year 1 Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Special Placement Schools Total CA 12 4 3 2 10 0 2 5 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 4 5 7 2007-2008 Level of Improvement (based on 2007 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs Year 2 9 2 1 0 12 Year 1 Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Special Placement Schools Total Year 2 Year 1 2005-2006 Level of Improvement (based on 2005 AYP) Exiting in 2006 Table 5.3: Number of All Schools in Improvement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update 3 0 4 0 0 0 7 Page | 153 Exiting in 2008 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Restructuring Implemen -tation Restructuring Implementation 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Restructuring Planning Restructuring Planning 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CA 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 Year 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 5 2010-2011 Level of Improvement (based on 2010 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs 4 0 0 0 4 11 0 0 0 11 Exiting in 2010 Restructuring Implemen -tation Restructuring Planning CA Year 1 Year 2 Exiting in 2005 3 0 0 0 3 CA 2 1 3 0 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 8 Year 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 5 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 6 0 4 2008-2009 Level of Improvement (based on 2008 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs Year 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 10 Year 1 Restructuring Implemen -tation 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 Exiting in 2007 Restructuring Implemen -tation Restructuring Planning Restructuring Planning 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2006-2007 Level of Improvement (based on 2006 AYP) Exiting in 2009 Restructuring Implemen -tation Restructuring Planning CA CA 6 3 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 5 1 2009-2010 Level of Improvement (based on 2009 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs Year 2 Elementary Schools PreK-8 Middle Schools High Schools Special Placement Schools Public Charter Total 9 0 0 0 9 Year 1 Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Special Placement Schools Total CA 8 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2 1 1 2007-2008 Level of Improvement (based on 2007 AYP) Developing Needs Priority Needs Year 2 11 0 0 0 11 Year 1 Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Special Placement Schools Total Year 2 Year 1 2005-2006 Level of Improvement (based on 2005 AYP) Exiting in 2006 Table 5.4: Number of Title I Schools in Improvement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Panel clarifying question(s): Please reconcile the number of elementary schools and Title 1 schools listed on page 148 with Table 5.3 on page 152. LSS Response to Clarifying Question(s): The response to this question can be found on pages 329 and 330. B. Based on the Examination of Schools in Improvement Data (Tables 5.3 and 5.4): 1. Describe the actions that the school system is taking including the changes or adjustments, and the corresponding resource allocations to ensure that the No Child Left Behind and Title I requirements for schools identified for Developing Needs (Improvement-Year 1; Improvement-Year 2; and Corrective Action) and Priority Needs (Restructuring-Planning and Restructuring-Implementation) are being addressed (Tier III schools). Describe actions that the school system took during the 2009-2010 school year. Describe the actions that the school system will take once school improvement status is determined for the 2010-2011 school year. Table 5.3 summarizes the number of PGCPS schools in improvement. It indicates that for SY2009-10 the district had three schools to exit improvement: two elementary and one middle school. This is down substantially from SY2008-9, when 17 schools exited school improvement: 14 elementary and three high schools. Further analysis of SY2009-10 data (see Table 5.3) shows that of the 49 schools in improvement, 15 schools were in the developing needs level of improvement with 5 schools each in Year 1 and Year 2 and 5 schools in corrective action; and 34 schools were in the priority needs level of improvement with 6 in restructuring planning and 28 in restructuring implementation. Approximately one third (30.6%) of the district‘s schools in improvement in SY2009-10 were at the developing needs level and more than two thirds (69.4%) were at the priority needs level. More than three-fourths of the schools at the priority needs level were in restructuring implementation (82.3%) and 57.1% of these schools were middle schools. Data for SY2010-11 indicate that no schools exited school improvement. For SY2010-11, there are 58 schools in improvement: 25 in developing needs and 33 in priority needs. As noted in Table 5.3 for SY2009-10, 29 elementary schools are in school improvement: 18 elementary schools are in developing needs (12 in Year 1, 1 in Year 2 and 5 in corrective action) and 11 elementary schools are in priority needs (3 are in restructuring planning and 8 are in restructuring implementation). There are 23 middle schools in improvement: 4 middle schools are in developing needs (3 in Year 1 and 1 in corrective action) and 19 middle schools are in priority needs (1 middle school in restructuring planning and 18 middle schools in restructuring implementation). At the high school level, there are 11 schools in improvement: 2 high schools are in developing needs (one each in Year 1 and Year 2) and 7 high schools are in priority needs (2 high schools are in restructuring planning and 5 high schools are in restructuring implementation). For SY2010-11 no PreK-8 or special placement schools were classified in improvement and one public charter school is classified in Year 2 school improvement. Table 5.4 presents data on PGCPS Title I schools in improvement. No Title I schools exited school improvement in SY2009-10. Of the Title I schools in improvement in SY2010-11, 11 (57.9%) were in the developing needs category and 8 (42.1%) were in the priority needs classification. Of the Title I ―developing needs‖ schools in improvement for SY2010-11: 8 (or 72.7%) were in Year 1; 1 (or 9.1%) was in Year 2; and 2 (or 18.2%) were in corrective action. Of the Title I priority needs schools: 1 (or 12.5%) was in restructuring planning and 7 (87.5%) were in restructuring implementation. Table 5.4 further indicates that only one Title I school exited school improvement in SY2008-9 (i.e., one elementary school). In SY2009-10, eleven Title I schools were in improvement with 5 (or 45.5%) in developing needs and 6 (or PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 154 54.5%) in priority needs. Twenty percent of the Title I developing needs schools were in Year 1 and 40% each were in Year 2 and corrective action. All of the six priority needs Title I schools were in restructuring implementation. In SY2009-10 there was reorganization of the Department of School Improvement (DSI) which resulted in a newly appointed director and four additional Comer trained coordinators. In order to maximize direct support to schools, all school improvement specialists have been assigned to schools and work as liaisons to area administrative offices. This is a shift from the previous service delivery model, wherein some specialists were assigned to schools and some were assigned to central offices. The restructuring has resulted in doubling the number of staff assigned per area. There have also been changes in the responsibilities of school improvement specialists and coordinators. The three DSI focus areas are outlined below: Collaborative Planning/Data Inquiry DSI provides systemic guidance and training in effective implementation of research-based protocols for the implementation of a collaborative planning and data inquiry process in all schools with focused support in schools that are in improvement. These protocols help schools establish a culture of collaboration driven by effective analysis of student work and assessment data in order to improve teacher capacity to engage all learners. P-MAPP for Monitoring of Instruction and Student Achievement DSI drives implementation of the ―PMAPP Schools‖ process throughout the school system by designing and providing training in the development of PMAPP schools templates, as well as assisting and coaching school teams to effectively analyze the captured student achievement and psycho-social data in order to monitor progress of the school in achieving desired student outcomes. Providing Professional Development Differentiated for Each School DSI offers professional development designed to build the knowledge base and capacity of teachers, administrators, support staff, parents and community partners in order to increase student achievement. DSI creates, facilitates, and delivers targeted research-based professional development differentiated by school improvement level and identified school need(s). DSI also incorporates the implementation of the Comer School Development Program (SDP) in targeted schools, as well as, provides the professional development opportunities within the Comer SDP Regional Training Center in partnership with Yale University Child Study Center. Special Education and Limited English Proficient Subgroups A continuing challenge for the district is the persistent underperformance of special education and LEP student subgroups. The information that follows highlights specific concerns that the district has with enhancing student performance of these two subgroups. Tables I and J summarize AYP data for SY2009-10 for special education and LEP student subgroups, by grade bands, level of school improvement and reading and math status. Action items in support of improving the performance of each subgroup are presented following the analysis of the data. Alert Schools In SY2009-10, 19 schools were placed in alert status of which 79% were elementary schools, 16% were K-8 schools and 5% were middle schools. Only 26% of these alert schools met the reading AMO and 32% met the math AMO for the special education subgroup. Also in SY2009-10, four elementary schools were placed in alert status due to LEP student subgroup performance. Only 25% of these schools met the reading AMO while 75% met the math AMO. Special Education Table I indicates that in SY2009-10, 44 elementary and middle schools in improvement did not meet the AMO for the special education subgroup; 13 schools were in year 1; 2 schools were in year 2; 4 schools were in corrective action; 3 schools were in restructuring planning; 22 schools were in restructuring implementation; and no schools were classified as turnaround schools. Table I indicates that 26 elementary, 1 K-8, and 17 middle schools were in some level of improvement for not meeting the making AMO in SY2009-10 with respect to special education. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 155 For SY2009-10, of the schools in improvement that failed to meet the AMO for special education subgroup, 95% did not meet the standard in reading and 98% did not meet the standard in math. Panel clarifying question: Given the growing number of schools not making AYP and entering school improvement, how are you addressing/ monitoring the effectiveness of school level interventions, particularly at the subgroup level? LSS Response to Clarifying Question: The response to this question can be found on page 330. Table I: PGCPS Elementary, K-8, and Middle Schools Not Meeting the AMO for Special Education Student Subgroup, SY2009-10 by Reading and Math Status and Level of School Improvement Number of Reading AYP Status Math AYP Status Schools Met Not Met Met Not Met Level of Improvement # % # % # % # % # % Elementary Schools Year 1 11 42 1 4 10 38 0 0 11 42 Year 2 1 4 0 0 1 4 1 4 0 0 Corrective Action 3 12 0 0 3 12 0 0 3 12 Restructuring Planning 3 12 1 4 2 8 0 0 3 12 Restructuring Implementation 8 31 0 0 8 31 0 0 8 31 Turnaround School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 26 100 2 8 24 92 1 4 25 96 K-8 Schools Year 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Year 2 1 100 0 0 1 100 0 0 1 100 Corrective Action 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Restructuring Planning 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Restructuring Implementation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turnaround School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1 100 0 0 1 100 0 0 1 100 Middle Schools Year 1 2 12 0 0 2 12 0 0 2 12 Year 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corrective Action 1 6 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 6 Restructuring Planning 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Restructuring Implementation 14 82 0 0 14 82 0 0 14 82 Turnaround School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 17 100 0 0 17 100 0 0 17 100 Elementary, K-8 and Middle Schools Year 1 13 30 1 2 12 27 0 0 13 30 Year 2 2 5 0 0 2 5 1 2 1 2 Corrective Action 4 9 0 0 4 9 0 0 4 9 Restructuring Planning 3 7 1 2 2 5 0 0 3 7 Restructuring Implementation 22 50 0 0 22 50 0 0 22 50 Turnaround School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 44 100 2 5 42 95 1 2 43 98 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 156 To support schools that did not meeting the reading and math AMOs for the special education subgroup, the Department of School Improvement (DSI) will: Focus on collaborative planning and data inquiry in order to ensure that special educators attend and participate in the CP meetings, and that the data reviewed, monitoring system, and subsequent plans increase achievement for special needs students. Continue to support special education instructional initiatives – i.e. differentiation by providing resources for professional development, and participating in activities (i.e., walk-through, observations) to collect data and monitor implementation of identified best practices. Collaborate with the specialists in each area to align those schools that have been identified by special education as high priority schools in improvement to ensure coordinated efforts of support. o Resource Allocations: Staffing and material support via templates, training materials, etc. o Departments Responsible: DSI, Enterprise Project Management Office, Area Offices Limited English Proficient (LEP) Table J summarizes the elementary and middle schools failing to meet the reading and math AMOs for the LEP subgroup in SY2009-10 by level of improvement. Twenty-six schools did not meet the AMO from the LEP subgroup, 10 elementary and sixteen middle schools. Of the 10 elementary schools, only 20% met the reading standard and 50% met the math standard. For the middle schools, only 19% (or 3 schools) met the reading standard and 6% (one school) met the math standard. Table J: PGCPS Elementary, K-8 and Middle Schools Not Making Annual Yearly Progress for the Limited English Proficient Student Subgroup, SY2009-10 by Reading and Math Status and Level of School Improvement Number of Reading AYP Status Math AYP Status Schools Met Not Met Met Not Met Level of Improvement # % # % # % # % # % Elementary Schools Year 1 6 60 2 20 4 40 2 20 4 40 Year 2 1 10 0 0 1 10 1 10 0 0 Corrective Action 1 10 0 0 1 10 1 10 0 0 Restructuring Planning 2 20 0 0 2 20 1 10 1 10 Restructuring Implementation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turnaround School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 10 100 2 20 8 80 5 50 5 50 Middle Schools Year 1 1 6 1 6 0 0 0 0 1 6 Year 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corrective Action 1 6 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 6 Restructuring Planning 2 13 1 6 1 6 0 0 2 13 Restructuring Implementation 11 69 1 6 10 63 1 6 10 63 Turnaround School 1 6 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 6 Total 16 100 3 19 13 81 1 6% 15 94 Elementary and Middle Schools Year 1 7 27 3 12 4 15 2 8 5 19 Year 2 1 4 0 0 1 4 1 4 0 0 Corrective Action 2 8 0 0 2 8 1 4 1 4 Restructuring Planning 4 15 1 4 3 12 1 4 3 12 Restructuring Implementation 11 42 1 4 10 38 1 4 10 38 Turnaround School 1 4 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 4 Total 26 100 5 19 21 81 6 23 20 77 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 157 To support schools that did not meet the AMO for the LEP subgroup, the Department of School Improvement will: Focus support on school‗s collaborative planning and data inquiry sessions to ensure that teachers of ELL participate in the planning meetings and that the data reviewed and plans developed address the needs of ELL. Participate in informal walk-through to assist in the observation, collection of data and monitoring of student learning and teacher using strategies specifically designed to support ELL students. Collaborate with ESOL Office staff to ensure that professional development is provided, based on recommendations and action plans developed through data analysis. Chart F on the following pages outlines the changes and adjustments being implemented for SY2010-11. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 158 1. Chart F: PGCPS School Improvement Changes and Adjustments for SY2010-11 Actions Changes/Adjustments from 2009-10 Resource Allocations School Improvement Planning, Implementation, and Monitoring Provide technical assistance for understanding In SY2010-11 school improvement plans, the NCLB Title I General funds and Title and implementing the NCLB Title I School-wide School-wide Program Components and the NCLB Requirements I funds, as appropriate Program Components and the NCLB for School Improvement are flushed out with directions provided Requirements for School Improvement. Past on the DSI Google sites as well. collaboration of this project led to the 10 Approved research-based materials and professional components and 10 requirements being development training will be provided to teachers to address the embedded into the 2009-10 school improvement learning needs of subgroups not achieving at the proficient level. plan template and guidelines. Persons Responsible DSI specialists and coordinators and Title I school instructional specialists, in collaboration with staff in Curriculum & Instruction and Human Resources 2. Provide support for school staffs new to improvement or new principals assigned to schools in improvement through training modules, technical resources, and other resources. Bridge to Excellence School Improvement and Title I Institute June 2010 (elementary, middle, and high schools) Alignment and integration of the PMAPP process to the SIP process (August 2010 – June 2011) Provide on-site training to individual principals/school teams as follows: Orientation to School Improvement (September. 2010) Developing the Federal Two-Year Plan (September 2010) Developing Effective Teams through the Comer SDP Team Retreat – (September 2010) Curriculum and Instruction Vendor Fair (September 2010) Developing Measurable Outcomes (Sept. – Nov. 2010) Developing Accountability Portfolios (Oct – Nov. 2010) General funds and Title I funds as appropriate DSI specialists and coordinators and Title I school instructional specialists, in collaboration with staff in Area Offices and Curriculum and Instruction 3. Develop, implement and monitor School Improvement Plans Collaborative peer reviews were held to enable schools in improvement and Title I schools to receive feedback from partner school teams and central office reviewers prior to final submission of school improvement plans. On-site reviews of school improvement plans will be scheduled with school improvement designees and Title I specialists, and resource teachers to ensure the Tile I components were addressed in school plans. Further support through on-site technical assistance during the year will be provided to monitor the implementation of the activities that addressed the NCLB Title I school-wide components and the school improvement requirements. Staffing and material support via templates, training materials from general funds and Title I funds as appropriate DSI specialists and coordinators and Title I school instructional specialists, in collaboration with staff in Area Offices, Human Resources, and Curriculum and Instruction PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 159 4. Chart F: PGCPS School Improvement Changes and Adjustments for SY2010-11 Actions Changes/Adjustments from 2009-10 Resource Allocations Systemic Supports Align systemic support to the Differentiated DSI and Title I staff are assigned to area offices and schools to Staffing and material Accountability Pilot (DAP). provide technical assistance based upon the DAP. support via templates, Priority Needs schools will receive funds for data coaches, training materials from specific personnel per alternative governance plans, funds for general funds and Title I extended learning opportunities (ELOs) and materials to support funds, as appropriate ELOs. Developing and Priority Needs Schools will receive training on completing the quarterly monitoring tools embedded in the PMAPP schools process and other support in the school improvement planning process, as needed, from the school improvement designee and area office staff. Supplemental models for school reform such as, America’s Choice, AVID®, Comer SDP, Small Learning Communities, READ 180®, and Positive Behavior and Intervention Strategies, will continue to be implemented in schools in Alternative Governance/Restructuring Implementation and Title I to support at-risk students. Support will also include achievement coaches and funding to support the models in schools in Alternative Governance/Restructuring Implementation. 5. Continue to expand the work of three merged central offices (the Departments of School Improvement, Title I, and School and Teacher Leadership) into one unit to provide more focused, coordinated and centralized support to schools. 6. Fund position for Coordinating Supervisor/Executive Administrative Assistant for Alternative Governance. The new unit, under the leadership of an Executive Director, will ensure ongoing collaboration, cohesiveness, and seamless service delivery to schools in building leadership capacity and meeting the needs of students. Support for Alternative Governance Schools This administrator will continue to provide the following intensive support to AG schools: Conduct focus walks in AG schools to determine needs and assistance; Hold monthly principal meetings to discuss monitoring steps and coordinate services; Develop a monitoring notebook to capture support provided to schools from system providers; PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Persons Responsible DSI specialists and coordinators and Title I school instructional specialists, in collaboration with staff in Area Offices, Human Resources, and Curriculum and Instruction General funds Staff from DSI, School and Teacher Leadership, and Title I Staffing and material support via templates, training materials from general funds DSI Staff Page | 160 Chart F: PGCPS School Improvement Changes and Adjustments for SY2010-11 Changes/Adjustments from 2009-10 Resource Allocations Make school visits that include debriefing sessions with school leadership teams and zone representatives to discuss challenges and successes encountered during the implementation of the action steps; Provide on-site assistance to include; data analysis, leadership meetings, collaborative planning budgetary concerns, and professional development; and Provide training in order to develop SIP plans that are aligned to AG plans. Actions 7. Provide additional support to AG schools. Continued frequent and ongoing collaboration between the Maryland State Department of Education and all AG schools. On-site visitations to review the AG plan, discuss the Top Five Action Steps and plans for monitoring implementation, to identify next steps and key persons responsible for implementation. Continue the focused training for the AG schools from the Comer SDP DSI staff office to include quarterly workshops designed to help schools build team consensus and improve school climate and organizational management. Collaborative Decision-Making/Making Parents Our Partners (September 2010) Developing the Alternative Governance Proposal and Understanding the Teacher Needs Capacity Assessment (October-November 2010) Understanding and Embracing Change: ―The Change Game‖ (December 2010) Building A Cohesive and Collaborative Team (February 2011) Managing and Sustaining Change in the Organization (April 2011) Staffing and material support via training materials from general funds 8. Enhance the process of priority staffing for all AG schools. Facilitate the hiring process and provide a staffing specialist to all AG and Title I schools, granting these schools priority in choosing teacher candidates. Material support via training materials, from general funds 9. Move ownership of the operation of the guiding principles of PMAPP Schools to the Department of School Improvement to ensure alignment and integration of PMAPP with the SIP process. PMAPP Training for all school based administrators to focus on template development and correct usage, setting goals, expectations aligned to performance, collaborative planning, executing, and monitoring performance while using data-driven metrics to Staffing and material support via templates, training materials from general funds PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 161 Persons Responsible DSI staff in collaboration with Area Office staff and from Curriculum and Instruction personnel DSI, Enterprise Project Management Office, Area Offices Chart F: PGCPS School Improvement Changes and Adjustments for SY2010-11 Changes/Adjustments from 2009-10 Resource Allocations identify outcomes Provide through the PMAPP protocol, on-site monitoring of implementation of the school improvement plan activities/strategies by school improvement specialists and data coaches. Opportunities for feedback are built in to the process as well. Actions 10. Expand the Principals‘ Leadership Institute. 11. Expand the Wave I principals‘ cohort to include a new cohort of Wave II principals and expand opportunities for principals to understand the Performance Management protocol. 12. Developed and provide professional development opportunities for schools in improvement during SY2010-11. Leadership Development The system will provide differentiated opportunities for experienced and newly assigned administrators to engage in collaborative ongoing coaching and mentoring. The system will deepen implementation of performance management protocols and ensure its application and alignment to employee performance and student achievement. Professional Development School-based (3-day) work sessions were provided for school improvement planning in Title I schools (June – September 2010). The following training opportunities will be offered: Collaborative Planning Protocols (August – October 2010) Orientation for New Schools & Principals New to School Improvement (September 2010) Developing the Federal Two-Year Plan (September 2010) Using the Key Steps in the School Improvement Planning Process (September 2010) Essential Questions for Data Inquiry (September 2010) Aligning Systemic Initiatives to Priority Needs in Schools September (October 2010) Developing Accountability Portfolios (November 2010) Budget/Grants Training (November 2010) Employing PMAPP as an Effective Monitoring Tool (October 2010) Annual School Improvement Plan Training on Google Sites (May - June 2011) School Improvement Plan Training for Facilitators and Reviewers PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Persons Responsible Staffing and material support via templates, training materials, from general funds Department of School and Leadership Development Staffing and material support from general funds Department of School and Leadership Development Staff and material support via training materials from general funds and Title I funds, as appropriate DSI staff, in collaboration with Area Office staff Page | 162 Actions Chart F: PGCPS School Improvement Changes and Adjustments for SY2010-11 Changes/Adjustments from 2009-10 Resource Allocations (May - June 2011) Bridge to Excellence School Improvement and Title 1 Institute for Elementary, Middle and High Schools (June 2011) Developing the Federal Two-Year Plan (September 2009) Persons Responsible 13. Continue to provide training and support to school-based personnel on collaborative planning protocols. Focused technical support and training will be given to schools in improvement and local attention through regularly scheduled school visits. Staffing and material support via templates, training materials from general funds and Title I funds, as appropriate DSI and Title I specialists and coordinators 14. Build capacity among staff, parents and community stakeholders through School Planning and Management Team meetings. The system will provide on-site and systemic training/coaching, utilizing a model of best practices and guiding principles to enhance the effectiveness of school teams. Staffing and material support via templates, training materials from general funds DSI staff Staffing and material support via templates, training materials from general funds and Title I funds, as appropriate DSI specialists and coordinators and Title I school instructional specialists, in collaboration with staff in Area Offices, Human Resources, and Curriculum and Instruction. Staffing and material support via training materials from general funds DSI staff, in collaboration with Human Resources staff and Curriculum and Instruction personnel. 15. Provide enhanced support for middle schools. 16. Continue the coaching model for middle schools Support for Middle Schools All middle schools will receive school-based coaches to deliver professional development and provide instructional support. Funding continues for school-based data coaches to support the analysis of achievement data and planning for improvement. Support for ongoing training, inclusive of the data inquirycollaborative planning process (i.e., clarify purpose and goals, analyze data, create an action plan, implement the action plan, monitor progress, and identify next steps). PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 163 C. Based on your review of "persistently low-performing Tier I and Tier II schools" in your system (affected school systems only): 1. Describe the system's plan for improving student performance at the identified schools, including the programs, practices, and strategies, and corresponding allocations that will be used. Refer to relevant portions of your School Improvement Grant (SIG) application if applicable and as appropriate. Tier I No Tier I schools in PGCPS have been identified by MSDE. Tier II MSDE has identified four Tier II schools: Benjamin Stoddert MS, Drew-Freeman MS, G. James Gholson MS, and Thurgood Marshall MS. The 2010-2013 School Improvement Grant (SIG) under Title I 1003(g) allows PGCPS an opportunity to create an innovative structure that will ensure student achievement and success. PGCPS has selected the Turnaround Model which allows these four schools to significantly focus on the following priorities: a. Governance; b. Attraction and selection of staff; c. A focus on rigor and not on intervention; and d. School climate. Priority 1: Governance District Governance: This grant allows PGCPS to create a district Turnaround Director whose sole focus is on the four schools in turnaround. The position acts as the lead on principal evaluations and actively directs and monitors the school improvement plans. The director‘s office will be physically located in one of the schools. Additionally, PGCPS will create a multi-disciplinary team to serve as a steering committee to meet monthly with the school team to monitor progress and provide logistical and content expertise. Members will represent curriculum and instruction, student support, and operational divisions. This multi-disciplinary team will provide each school with district level support. School Governance: While all four school plans look similar, the plans allow for a great deal of autonomy by the individual school teams. The newly appointed principals, under the direction of the Turnaround Director, will assemble leadership teams. In addition to the traditional role of a principal, the leadership team will comprise the following: a. An assistant principal (School Operation Manager) position focused exclusively on school operations and management (in three of the four schools only: Benjamin Stoddert, Drew-Freeman, Thurgood Marshall)8. b. Two assistant principal positions will be reclassified as Academic Deans. One Academic Dean will focus on literacy and social studies and the other will focus on math and science. Their major responsibilities will be to plan and coordinate instructional activities. They will lead collaborative planning sessions with a focus on summative, formative and common assessments. c. Four teachers will be assigned the role of Instructional Lead Teachers (ILTs). These teachers will have a modified teaching load with additional planning time. The expectation for this position is that the ILTs will model effective content practices and lead content discussions. d. The school system will assign a data coach to each school as support, but the expectation is that the Academic Deans will lead the data analysis and reporting process. This model of school governance will allow for internal control and monitoring, thereby, enhancing coherence within the school. Priority 2: Attraction and selection of Staff In each case, the existing principal will be removed from the school and all instructional staff will need to reapply for positions with the expectation that up to 50% of the staff can be rehired. All content teachers must agree to participate in the FIRST program, a performance incentive-based which rewards teachers for effective teaching if the school meets its targets. Teachers outside of the parameters of the FIRST grant will also receive stipends through the SIG 1003(g) grant if the school meets its target. If the turnaround school reaches its FIRST target, staff members will be eligible for an additional 1003(g) In response to the unique needs of G. James Gholson Middle School, PGCPS has decided that Gholson will operate under a bold, new turnaround model with the addition of a co-principal to the staff. Under direct supervision of the turnaround director, the co-principals will each have equal authority and accountability as leaders of the school. They will also have the autonomy to determine the division of their responsibilities for student discipline, academic oversight, staff supervision, and the day-to-day operations of the school. 8 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 164 achievement-based stipend. Stipends for instructional staff will be based on a percentage of individual growth and achievement while administrative and support staff stipends will be based on overall school wide improvement in student achievement. PGCPS is currently in negotiations with local associations to determine percentage targets and dollar amounts. Priority 3: Rigor Modification to the School Day: Currently, PGCPS runs a five period day in the middle schools. The planning committee felt that to achieve rigor, another period needed to be added to the day, instead of shortening each period to create a six or seven period day. The extended day increases the opportunity for more electives in the creative and cultural arts and foreign language areas while also providing interventions without the opportunity cost to the variety of electives that students prefer in middle school. In order to lengthen the school day for students, principals will need to employ a flex-time schedule for teachers allowing some to arrive at the beginning of the student day and others to arrive later. Focus on Rigor: In the past, PGCPS has focused on interventions to address deficiencies. While acknowledging this need, the SIG 1003(g) plan focuses on high level outcomes as demonstrated by the goal of 75% of students finishing 8th grade with algebra and a high school foreign language credit. a. Mathematics – Mathematics instruction will be redesigned to meet the expectation that (by 2013) 75% of students will matriculate to high school with an algebra I credit. In order to meet this goal, the extended school day will afford additional opportunities for remediation and intervention for students who struggle to reach grade level proficiency. Pre-Algebra will be added for 7th grade. Two proposed supplemental programs are Key Elements to Mathematics Success (KEMS) and Key Elements to Algebra Success (KEAS). These programs include lessons aligned to the state content standards, support the use of the county‘s adopted textbook as a resource, and encourage connections among concepts and the development of skills necessary for higher level math. b. Foreign Language - A world languages model will be phased in over three years. In SY2010-11, an Introduction to Foreign Language course will be scheduled for 7th graders so that foreign language classes (for high school credit) can be added for 8th grade by SY2011-12. In addition to the current PGCPS foreign language staffing allocation, one additional foreign language teacher will be added to each school staff for SY2011-12; two additional foreign language teachers will be added in SY2012-13. Principals will select the languages from the ten offered in PGCPS (including French, Italian, Chinese, and Latin) based on the interest of the communities and the languages supported in the feeder high schools. The outcome is for 75% of 8th graders to matriculate to high school with a foreign language credit (by SY2012-13). c. Reading – Approximately one-half of the feeder elementary schools for the Turnaround Schools currently utilize the Comprehension Toolkit. To enhance the vertical alignment from one grade to the next and ensure that students do not lose ground in middle school, each school will receive resources and professional development to utilize the Comprehension Toolkit in order to enhance reading strategies. After the initial phase of professional development and application of the Comprehension Toolkit with Reading English Language Arts (RELA) teachers, the reading strategies will be shared across teams. Emphasis will be placed on transferring the habits of mind that students are developing in RELA classes to other contents, especially mathematics. d. The America‘s Choice design implementation provides a gradual release to the school as the reform takes hold. While PGCPS will not enter into another year‘s contract with America‘s Choice, the strategies and best practices will continue to be implemented through teacher cohorts who will share and model best practices that have become part of the school‘s instructional culture (i.e., role of a leadership team; the workshop model; protocols for examination of and feedback on student work; etc.). Priority 4: School Climate In order to engage all stakeholders in addressing the needs of the whole child, several strategies and interventions will be implemented: 1. School-based student services personnel, in conjunction with community representatives, will organize monthly parent meetings and training sessions to engage parents and teachers about appropriate social-emotional supports for students and families. 2. Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) will be implemented to address chronic behavioral and climate issues throughout the school. PBIS is a systems approach for schools to design, implement, and evaluate effective school-wide, classroom, non-classroom, and student specific discipline plans. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 165 3. Provide appropriate socio-emotional support for students and their families, a full-time social worker will be added to the school staff of each school. In addition to the coordination and coverage of after-school and evening activities, the social worker will collaborate with site-based professional school counselors and with community organizations to coordinate the ―hub‖ of community services that will be available to the school families. 4. In response to the wide-ranging and diverse needs of G. James Gholson Middle School (13 feeder elementary schools and 13 individual communities), a school-based Bilingual Parent & Community Outreach Assistant position will be created to provide additional support to the students and their parents. In addition to being involved with dayto-day parent support and the training of parents (working on School Planning and Management Team, parent compact, parent/student school social events, attendance, etc.), the Bilingual Parent & Community Outreach Assistant will work collaboratively with the social worker and professional school counselors to develop appropriate and relevant parent and family workshops/activities. 5. Ongoing professional development will be held with staff members in all four schools to improve skills related to: team building; whole-child development; behavior management; non-violent physical confrontation (de-escalation strategies); PBIS point system and incentives; the Code of Student Conduct and effective parent/family/community engagement. 6. Create a college-preparatory culture, the plan includes the addition of AVID®. AVID® teaches study skills, using writing as a learning tool, collaboration, and inquiry to insure that children, including those who may not yet have a college-going tradition in their families, are not excluded from the college track. 7. Increase parent engagement in all school activities and support parental understanding of and involvement in all curriculum areas, the proposed parent engagement program includes: Relevant parent workshops – parenting skills, nutrition, money management, job-seeking skills, resume writing, computer training, etc; Parent-members on school committees and teams; Greater participation of parents on Parent Teacher Association (PTA) committees and School Planning and Management Team (SPMT); Parent contributions to school newsletter; Development of parent database; Parent-developed and produced projects correlated with monthly units of study projects developed and produced by their children. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 166 I.D.v ATTENDANCE RATES 1. Describe where progress in increasing attendance rates is evident. In your response, identify progress in terms of grade band(s) and subgroups. During SY2009-2010, Prince George‘s County students in the aggregate met or exceeded the SY2009-2010 modified 90% attendance standard at each of the three grade bands. At the elementary and middle school levels, students in the aggregate exceeded the regular 94% standard, while at the high school level, students in the aggregate met the modified standard (90%). See Table 5.5. African American and White students also met or exceeded the modified attendance standard across all three grade bands, while Native American, Latino, FARMS, LEP, and special education students missed the modified 90% standard only at the high school level. Table 5.5: Attendance Rates Annual Measurable Objective (AMO): Subgroups by Level Elementary All students Middle High Elementary African Middle American High Elementary American Indian/Alaskan Middle Native High Elementary Asian/Pacific Middle Islander High Elementary Hispanic Middle High Elementary White (Not of Middle Hispanic Origin) High Elementary Free/Reduced Middle Meals (FARMS) High Elementary Limited English Middle Proficient (LEP) High Elementary Special Middle Education High 94% 2002-2003 94.9 94.0 91.0 94.8 92.8 90.3 94.6 94.1 92.2 95.9 95.5 94.3 95.2 94.5 91.9 94.9 91.2 89.1 94.2 93.1 90.6 95.7 95.1 93.4 92.9 92.4 88.7 94% 2003-2004 95.1 93.6 89.5 95.0 92.4 88.4 94.9 92.9 87.9 96.0 95.3 92.7 95.5 93.9 89.4 94.7 89.4 87.1 94.4 92.7 88.7 96.0 94.5 91.9 93.1 91.8 86.8 94% 2004-2005 93.2 93.3 89.8 93.2 92.0 89.0 93.3 91.4 89.6 94.5 94.7 92.4 93.4 93.5 88.3 92.5 88.2 86.0 92.3 92.2 88.9 93.8 94.3 90.0 91.1 90.8 87.0 94% 2005-2006 94.3 93.0 88.1 94.3 91.7 86.4 93.1 92.6 87.9 95.3 94.5 91.1 94.3 93.4 87.6 93.4 88.2 84.4 93.6 92.0 86.7 94.4 94.4 89.0 92.4 91.0 84.3 94% 2006-2007 94.6 94.6 91.5 94.5 94.6 91.5 94.6 94.5 90.1 95.9 96.5 94.1 94.7 94.7 90.4 94.2 94.2 92.5 93.9 93.9 90.4 95.0 95.3 91.9 92.6 92.5 88.8 94% 2007-2008 95.2 94.3 89.0 95.1 94.2 89.0 93.5 93.1 90.9 96.4 96.5 92.7 95.4 94.6 87.5 94.6 93.5 91.0 94.7 93.5 87.5 95.7 95.6 90.4 94.3 92.9 87.5 94% 2008-2009 95.5 95.3 91.4 95.4 95.3 91.7 95.3 94.5 91.7 96.7 96.8 94.2 95.8 95.7 88.6 95.2 94.1 92.2 95.1 94.8 90.2 96.2 96.6 91.0 94.0 93.3 88.8 90% 2009-2010 95.4 95.3 90.0 95.3 95.3 90.3 94.6 94.8 88.8 96.6 96.9 93.7 95.4 95.2 87.0 95.1 94.5 91.5 94.8 94.6 88.5 95.8 96.0 89.6 93.8 93.4 86.5 At the elementary level, students in the aggregate and across all subgroups, except special education, met the regular 94% attendance standard. At 93.8%, special education students missed the regular standard by a mere two-tenths (0.2) of a percentage point. On the other hand, Asian students met the regular attendance standard across each of the eight years of the current Master Plan cycle, while students in the aggregate, African American students, Latino students, and LEP students met the 94% regular attendance standard in seven of the eight years of the cycle. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 167 Table 5.5A: Elementary Attendance Rates Annual Measurable Objective (AMO): Subgroups All Students African American American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic White (Not of Hispanic Origin) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) Limited English Proficient (LEP) Special Education 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 90% 90% 94% 20022003 94.9 94.8 20032004 95.1 95.0 20042005 93.2 93.2 20052006 94.3 94.3 20062007 94.6 94.5 20072008 95.2 95.1 20082009 95.5 95.4 20092010 95.4 95.3 SY2010 +/- 90% 5.4 5.3 SY2010 +/- 94% 1.4 1.3 94.6 94.9 93.3 93.1 94.6 93.5 95.3 94.6 4.6 0.6 95.9 95.2 96.0 95.5 94.5 93.4 95.3 94.3 95.9 94.7 96.4 95.4 96.7 95.8 96.6 95.4 6.6 5.4 2.6 1.4 94.9 94.7 92.5 93.4 94.2 94.6 95.2 95.1 5.1 1.1 94.2 94.4 92.3 93.6 93.9 94.7 95.1 94.8 4.8 0.8 95.7 96.0 93.8 94.4 95.0 95.7 96.2 95.8 5.8 1.8 92.9 93.1 91.1 92.4 92.6 94.3 94.0 93.8 3.8 -0.2 The picture is similar at the middle school level with students in the aggregate and for all subgroups, except special education, meeting the regular 94% attendance standard. Middle school special education students fell six-tenths (0.6) of a percentage point below the standard. Meanwhile, Asian and LEP students met the regular 94% attendance standard each of the eight years of the current Master Plan cycle. No other subgroup met the regular standard in more than five of the eight years. Table 5.5B: Middle School Attendance Rates Annual Measurable Objective (AMO): Subgroups All Students African American American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic White (Not of Hispanic Origin) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) Limited English Proficient (LEP) Special Education 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 90% 90% 94% 20022003 94.0 92.8 20032004 93.6 92.4 20042005 93.3 92.0 20052006 93.0 91.7 20062007 94.6 94.6 20072008 94.3 94.2 20082009 95.3 95.3 20092010 95.3 95.3 SY2010 +/- 90% 5.3 5.3 SY2010 +/- 94% 1.3 1.3 94.1 92.9 91.4 92.6 94.5 93.1 94.5 94.8 4.8 0.8 95.5 94.5 95.3 93.9 94.7 93.5 94.5 93.4 96.5 94.7 96.5 94.6 96.8 95.7 96.9 95.2 6.9 5.2 2.9 1.2 91.2 89.4 88.2 88.2 94.2 93.5 94.1 94.5 4.5 0.5 93.1 92.7 92.2 92.0 93.9 93.5 94.8 94.6 4.6 0.6 95.1 94.5 94.3 94.4 95.3 95.6 96.6 96.0 6.0 2.0 92.4 91.8 90.8 91.0 92.5 92.9 93.3 93.4 3.4 -0.6 2. Identify the practices, programs or strategies and the corresponding resource allocations to which you attribute the progress. The Division of Student Services continued an integrated approach to providing coordinated services to maintain attendance standards for elementary and middle school students, and to increase the rate of attendance for students in high schools. Due to the collaborative practices and programs implemented by multiple departments, students in the aggregate met or exceeded modified attendance standards. The practices and programs to which gains can be attributed include foundational components, whereby consistent and uniform efforts are performed, and more intensive strategies. Administrative Procedure 5113 Administrative Procedure 5113, Student Attendance, Absence, and Truancy, includes many of the graduated strategies utilized to ensure regular attendance. If a parent had not notified the school when a child was absent, school personnel, either PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 168 personally or via an automated calling system, notified the parent of the absence and the need for documentation of the absence by the parent upon the student‘s return. Parent liaisons who were fluent in Spanish were able to make this contact and form bonds with parents in the Spanish-speaking community to increase parent-school communication and student attendance. Continued lawful absence may be due to a number of factors, but strategies at the school help to promote school attendance. For instance, if there are health issues, the school nurse is notified to help the family with resources and, often with others, develop plans to ensure that the student‘s medical needs do not impede school attendance. In other situations with lawful absences, strategies documenting procedures for truancy are utilized appropriately to increase attendance. If a student has a medical appointment weekly during the school day, a lawful absence, the school may suggest to the parent that the appointment be made for before or after school hours to ensure that the student is present for instruction. Such interventions are individual, based upon student and family needs, and, therefore, effective in combating absenteeism. Pupil Personnel Workers (PPWs) continually ensure that staff, administration, students, and parents are aware of the importance of attendance through annual training on Administrative Procedure 5113 to these groups. Such training takes place at faculty meetings, PTA/PTO meetings, and large and small student groups. Throughout the year, PPWs support the implementation of all components of the procedure by school staff. Components implemented to ensure improvement in and maintenance of good attendance include: 1) Ensuring that all parents are informed regarding lawful and unlawful absences; 2) Requiring documentation of excused absences by parents when students return to school; 3) Maintaining and updating attendance records at the school by designated staff; 4) Maintaining contact with the family at the onset of unexcused absences as well as extended lawful absences; 5) Maintaining and regularly convening a school Attendance Committee to identify students with a high rate of absenteeism and develop strategies to increase attendance; 6) Continually monitoring identified students to ensure that strategies to increase attendance are effective, and modifying strategies when necessary; and 7) Referring students and parents, as appropriate, to Interagency Council, Truancy Court, or District Court for habitual truancy. To build staff capacity to comply with the Administrative Procedure, school registrars received SchoolMax training on how to change ―unexcused‖ absences to "excused", when provided approved documentation by parents. The PPW also developed a clear process to investigate incidents of residency non-compliance for students frequently absent due to them residing outside of the attendance area. PGCPS maintained a partnership with the Local Management Board which provided two Truancy Reduction Case Managers for the third year, both of whom served ten elementary schools with unsatisfactory attendance. Through this partnership, the Attendance Matters Handbook for students and parents was developed, and PPWs utilized this tool with specific families during attendance conferences to provide guidance and to plan for improvement. Interventions The Office of the Court Liaison received from PPWs all attendance referrals for students who were habitually truant. All such referrals were brought by the PPW before the Interagency Attendance Council for screening and to develop strategies for attendance improvement after the school‘s efforts have been exhausted. The Interagency Attendance Council, chaired by the Court Liaison, includes agency representation from the Department of Social Services, Child Protective Services, Public Defender‘s Office, Prince George‘s County Police Department, Department of Juvenile Services, State‘s Attorneys Office and representatives from the Division of Student Services. The Interagency Attendance Council met monthly for the first semester of the school year and expanded to twice monthly for the second semester to accommodate the increase of PPW referrals for habitually truant students. Nine hearings in SY2008-09 increased to 14 hearings in SY2009-10. Truancy Reduction Court was used to address the attendance issues of middle school students. Although middle school students met the AMO for the past four years, high school students failed to meet the standard. Middle school students with chronic absenteeism often continue those patterns of behavior in high school and are at risk of possibly dropping out of school if the patterns persist over time. PGCPS reports a total of 7,609 students who were habitually truant for SY2009-10. According to internal data, by January 2009, over 1500 middle school students had missed 30 or more days of school unexcused. Therefore, in order to maintain the current level of success in middle schools and to increase the efforts with PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 169 middle school students with poor attendance as they progress to high school, the Truancy Reduction Court was utilized. This mechanism focused on habitually truant students in grades 6 through 8 whose parents were active, but unsuccessful in resolving attendance issues. The parent and student appeared before a judge. The underlying causes of poor school attendance were ascertained, and a tailored program of services was put into place to improve attendance. Services provided by the court are incentive-based and may include family assessment, mentoring, tutoring, educational or psychological evaluation, individual counseling, and family counseling. Through the program, over 75 students were referred (maximum capacity), of which 61 percent increased their rates of attendance. Health Services Collaborative efforts launched by various offices extended additional support for student attendance. For example, Health Services ensured schools had highly qualified registered nurses who provided services to students who would otherwise be sent home or are non-attending for medical reasons. PGCPS employed 192 registered nurses during SY 2008-09 and 205 nurses in SY 2009-10. Health services staff were available to serve 444,700 students in SY 2009-2010 and 401,559 were returned to class (Chart G). This represented an increase in the number of students served in SY 2008-09, (184,615) by 206,085. (This spike in the number of students served in SY2009-10 reflected the influenza epidemic - H1N1). Students who felt ill were able to visit the school nurse and receive services that supported their continued attendance. Consequently, as a result of these services, the rate of return to the classroom for students who would have been sent home without the intervention of the school nurse was 91% in SY2008-09 and 90% in SY2009-10 (Chart H). Chart G – Health Room Visits – Two Year Comparison Chart H – Return to Class Rate – SY 2008-09 and SY2009-10 Return to Class Rate 100.00% 91.00% 90.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% SY 08 - 09 SY 09 -10 The Office of Home and Hospital Teaching increased its efforts to promptly enroll students into an instructional program who were non-attending for extensive health reasons. These students, previously marked absent, would be marked present during the length of their home instruction. Lastly, the Homeless Education Office supported student attendance by ensuring the immediate enrollment of homeless students. They provided training to school staff, and identified shelters and community agencies to provide consistent information and practices in support of these students. Gift cards, clothing, school uniforms, Metro cards, and vouchers were provided to families to eliminate economic reasons for non-attending. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 170 Supports to High Schools Increased support was provided to high school students in an effort to see gains in their attendance rate through increased availability of staff, new laws, and partnerships. PPWs were redeployed to ensure that experienced staff whose years of experience would yield a greater level of skilled intervention were assigned to high schools. Additionally, during SY2009-10, House Bill 660 prohibited students from being suspended out of school for attendance related issues, such as class cutting. There were 3627 out-of-school suspensions for loitering, class cutting and truancy during SY2008-09, which resulted in further non attendance. This year, due to the new law, additional loss of instructional time from school was prohibited. Additionally, high school students received a total of 11,340 out of school suspensions, which resulted in 44,660 days of student absence. High schools had a total of 4,953,427 member days for students, and suspension days reflected .9% of the total member days. Suspensions were not proportional across all high schools, and the effect of suspensions on attendance at individual high schools was greater or lesser, depending upon the number of suspensions imposed at individual schools. PGCPS continued to engage external stakeholders in assisting with the identification, referral and servicing of high school students and families. Partnerships such as the Suitland Truancy Reduction Task Force involved the Chief of Police, Adam‘s House, PPWs, Court Liaison‘s Office, Chief of Student Services, State Attorney‘s Office, Department of Juvenile Justice, Law Enforcement, and District Court Judges. Through this partnership, students who were truant during the school day were returned to school by law enforcement. At this time, parents were required to attend a meeting with school personnel. In addition, counseling services for the families were made available through Adam‘s House. Communication and collaboration between the school system, law enforcement, and community agencies supported attendance in the school community as a whole. Special Education Students Special education chairpersons worked collaboratively with Pupil Personnel Services staff to identify and track students with disabilities who had patterns of excessive absence. In order to determine the reasons behind poor attendance, Special Education case managers were asked to take the following steps: (1) contact parents or guardians; (2) review academic achievement data and IEP progress reports to identify instructional issues contributing to the excessive absences; and (3) review existing Behavior Intervention Plans and revise (or develop) if necessary. In instances where a low level of engagement was identified as a contributing factor, the instructional program was reviewed. 3. Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of grade band(s) and subgroups. Although the school system met the modified attendance target for students in the aggregate across grade bands for SY200910, there are four areas where the system faces significant challenges in its efforts to meet the regular attendance standard. These areas are special education, high school, FARMS, and Latino student attendance. Special Education Although special education students met the modified SY2010 attendance standard at both the elementary and middle school levels, attendance failed to meet the modified (90%) standard at the high school level, missing the standard by 3.5 percentage points. Moreover, special education students are the only student subgroup that failed to meet the regular 94% attendance standard at any of the three grade bands. Over the eight-year Master Plan cycle, special education students met the state‘s regular attendance standard (94%) only twice at the elementary level, and never at either the middle or high school levels. In addition, at the high school level, special education student attendance failed to even approach the SY2010 modified (90%) standard over the current eight-year Master Plan cycle (see Tables 5.5A, 5.5B, and 5.5C). High School High school attendance has been a persistent challenge for PGCPS. Throughout the Master Plan cycle, PGCPS never met the 94% regular attendance standard for students in the aggregate. In only half the years of the cycle, high school students met the SY2010 modified (90%) standard. Although high school students in the aggregate met the modified attendance standard in SY2009-10, five of the eight student subgroups (i.e., Native American, Latino, FARMS, LEP, and Special Education) failed to meet the modified standard. Moreover, neither students in the aggregate, nor any of the eight student subgroups met the regular (94%) attendance standard in SY2009-10. In fact, over the eight years period of the current Master Plan cycle, Asian students are the only subgroup that have met the regular attendance standard, and they have only met the standard three times (see Table 5.5C). PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 171 At the high school level, attendance is particularly challenging for Latino students, FARMS students, and special education students. Each of the three student subgroups failed to meet even the modified SY2009-10 (90%) attendance standard in more than half of the years in the eight-year Master Plan cycle. Of the student subgroups, special education student attendance creates the greatest challenge in that the attendance rate for these students has never reached even the modified SY2009-10 standard (see Table 5.5C). Table 5.5C: High School Attendance Rates Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) Subgroups All Students African American American Indian/ Alaskan Native Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic White (Not of Hispanic Origin) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) Limited English Proficient (LEP) Special Education 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 90% 90% 94% 20022003 91.0 90.3 92.2 94.3 91.9 89.1 90.6 93.4 88.7 20032004 89.5 88.4 87.9 92.7 89.4 87.1 88.7 91.9 86.8 20042005 89.8 89.0 89.6 92.4 88.3 86.0 88.9 90.0 87.0 20052006 88.1 86.4 87.9 91.1 87.6 84.4 86.7 89.0 84.3 20062007 91.5 91.5 90.1 94.1 90.4 92.5 90.4 91.9 88.8 20072008 89.0 89.0 90.9 92.7 87.5 91.0 87.5 90.4 87.5 20082009 91.4 91.7 91.7 94.2 88.6 92.2 90.2 91.0 88.8 20092010 90.0 90.3 88.8 93.7 87.0 91.5 88.5 89.6 86.5 SY2010 +/- 90% 0.0 0.3 -1.2 3.7 -3.0 1.5 -1.5 -0.4 -3.5 SY2010 +/- 94% -4.0 -3.7 -5.2 -0.3 -7.0 -2.5 -5.5 -4.4 -7.5 4. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made along with the corresponding resource allocations to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate. PGCPS will continue to employ the following strategies that are proven to be non-negotiable principles of a strong attendance program. Schools must: Maintain correct contact information for all students; Ensure that all teachers accurately record daily and/or period-by-period attendance in SchoolMax; Update all ―unexcused‖ absences to ―excused‖ when documentation is presented; Follow the attendance procedure; Identify students early and implement interventions that address barriers to attendance such as economic, medical, school failure, cultural, social, or emotional factors; Maintain frequent contact with the home to alert parents of student absences and to solicit their support; Utilize internal/external resources and judiciary methods to intervene in habitual truant cases; Develop best practices that are germane to their unique school community to improve student attendance; (Check and Connect, mentoring, buddy system, etc.) Ensure an orderly environment whereby students feel safe in school; Work with community agencies, law enforcement, neighborhood businesses, and housing complexes to curtail students being truant during the school day; and Develop incentive programs that reward students who show improvement. Intervention Task Force The Intervention Task Force is currently reviewing the system‘s Proactive Student Services Intervention procedure, AP 5124, to assess and then ensure our school-based infrastructure continues to support the policy‘s implementation, due to the elimination of school-based positions in the Division of Student Services. This procedure provides guidelines for the implementation and organization of the P-Team, the School Instructional Team (SIT), the Supplemental Services Team (SST) and Response to Intervention (RtI). These teams serve as the primary vehicle whereby strategies and plans to support students‘ school adjustments occur. After necessary updates are made, a training module and schedule will be developed and implemented for teachers and SIT/ SST teams to build their capacity in both identifying students whose attendance are impacting their academic success; strengthen the referral process of these students, and provide the appropriate interventions to be utilized to improve student attendance and overall school engagement. After school personnel and teams have been trained, ongoing technical assistance will be provided, upon request, to ensure consistent practices occur district-wide. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 172 DIVISION OF STUDENT SERVICES ATTENDANCE System Target (SY2016-17): 94% of students will meet the AYP attendance requirement. Annual Target (SY2009-10): The 94% AYP attendance requirement will continue to be met at the elementary and middle school levels, and will increase to 92% at the high school level. Data-Based Challenge Changes or Adjustments to be Made – Practice, Strategy, Initiative Department Leading Indicators Timeline (Resource Allocation) Responsible Frequency Throughout the Master Plan cycle, An intervention task force has been established to address the issues of Department of the district has never met the 94% high school students who are experiencing little to no school success. The Student Services, 100% of all students absent 25 or regular attendance standard for high task force consists of representatives from the Division of Academics, Pupil Personnel more days unexcused will be referred school students in the aggregate, and Special Education, Student and School Engagement, Pupil Personnel Monthly Services, to SIT or SST. in only half the years of the cycle has Services, and the Office of School Counseling. Students experiencing Academics and the district met even the SY2010 difficulty in academic or behavioral domains will be referred for evaluation Special Education modified (90%) standard. and services. High schools are required to establish an attendance objective and include 100% of high schools include an Department of appropriate programs and strategies in their school improvement plans. attendance strategy with a monitoring November School Progress will be reported and monitored through the quarterly PMAPP component in their school 2010 Improvement meetings. improvement plans. At the high school level, attendance is Latino Students particularly challenging for Latino Staff in Pupil Personnel Services and the International School Counseling ISCO will partner with PPWs to students. This student subgroup Office (ISCO) will collaborate to provide a seamless approach in interacting support Latino students who are failed to meet even the modified with Latino families identified early as needing support for regular school absent 15 days unexcused to provide Monthly SY2009-10 (90%) attendance attendance. This support will include explaining school policies, a home visit, parent conference standard in more than half of the conducting parent and student conferences, making home visits, building and/or referral to SIT. years in the current eight-year Master community partnerships, developing student plans, and linking families ESOL Office – Plan cycle. with transitional resources. International School Counseling Office The system will maintain partnerships with agencies that encourage (ISCO), Pupil 100% of Latino students who are Latinos to attend school, such as the Maryland Multicultural Youth Center Personnel Services absent 30 days or more will be linked and Crossroads. These agencies provide the services of Social workers and School with community agencies which Bi-monthly who work closely with students, and offer counseling, advocacy, and Counseling provide aid to students and families recreational activities that serve as a deterrent to crime and leaving school according to need. early. The ESOL Office, International Student Counseling Office, and PPWs and One cultural sensitivity training per Monthly, School Counselors will collaborate to develop and implement cultural month will be conducted at each of starting in sensitivity training for students and staff to foster a tolerant and accepting the five high schools that have the September environment for Latino students within the PGCPS school community. highest Latino student populations. 2010 At the high school level, attendance is FARMS Students Pupil Personnel 100% of FARMS students who are particularly challenging for FARMS Student Services will increase its identification and utilization of programs Services, School absent 30 days or more will be linked Bi-monthly students. This student subgroup and community resources such as Strengthening Families Program, Counseling, and with community agencies which failed to meet even the modified Family Tree, and MD Parental Information Resource Center (MD PIRC) Homeless provide aid to students and families PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 173 DIVISION OF STUDENT SERVICES ATTENDANCE System Target (SY2016-17): 94% of students will meet the AYP attendance requirement. Annual Target (SY2009-10): The 94% AYP attendance requirement will continue to be met at the elementary and middle school levels, and will increase to 92% at the high school level. Data-Based Challenge Changes or Adjustments to be Made – Practice, Strategy, Initiative Department Leading Indicators Timeline (Resource Allocation) Responsible Frequency SY2009-10 (90%) attendance that offer numerous services to address familial needs that impact school Education according to need. standard in more than half of the connectedness. The Office of Pupil Personnel Services will invite years in the current eight-year Master community agencies to provide training at its monthly meetings on the Plan cycle. services they offer, how they can be accessed, and the referral process. Improve the attendance of FARMS students by assisting with the quality of 10 training sessions by agency Monthly, their home life through offerings to their parents through literacy programs, resources will be provided to Student starting in Office of Pupil employment/resume workshops, and information about Prince George‘s Services Staff that support the August 2010 Personnel Services County services which are available to them. increase attendance of low income families. The attendance of special education A powerful new data tool, the MD IDEA Scorecard, will enable Special 100% of all middle school students students at both the middle (93.4%) Education staff to identify students with disabilities who are at-risk based who receive special education and high school (86.5%) levels has on four categories: (1) absenteeism; (2) academic performance; (3) Special Education, services who miss 5 days unexcused failed to reach the state standard for suspension; and (4) mobility (attending two or more schools in one year). in a given month will be referred to Pupil Personnel the past seven years. MD IDEA Scorecard alert reports will be downloaded regularly and used to SIT. Services, School Monthly design individualized interventions for students who have absent five (5) or Counseling, and 100% of Special Education students more days in a given month. Homeless who are absent 30 days or more will Education be linked with community agencies which provide aid to students and families according to need. Increasing staff capacity to meet individual academic and social/emotional needs is critical to improving the attendance of students with disabilities. Training will be provided to increase teacher effectiveness at differentiating instruction and embedding accommodations and modifications in classroom instruction. Life Space Crisis Intervention training will be provided to give staff in the Emotional Impairment (EI) Transition programs advanced intervention skills to support students with chronic patterns of self-defeating behavior. It is anticipated that as students experience increased success in the school environment, attendance will improve. Crisis Intervention Resource Teachers (CIRTS) will support case managers by focusing intensively on attendance issues. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Monthly training is provided to all secondary schools that have special education student attendance rates that fall below 92% in a given month September 2010 – March 2011 Special Education Special Education and Pupil Personnel Services Monthly Page | 174 I.D.v GRADUATION RATES AND DROPOUT RATES No Child Left Behind Goal 5: All students will graduate from high school. No Child Left Behind Indicator 5.1: The percentage of students who graduate each year with a regular diploma. No Child Left Behind Indicator 5.2: The percentage of students who drop out of school. Graduation rate is an additional measure used in Maryland‘s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) calculations. Based on the Examination of Graduation and Dropout Rate Data (Tables 5.6 and 5.7): PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 175 Table 5.6: Percentage of Students Graduating From High School Annual Measurable Objective (AMO): 80.99% 80.99% Subgroup 2002-2003 2003-2004 All students (Counts toward AYP) 89.54 86.72 African American 90.22 88.25 American Indian/Alaskan Native 81.82 88.46 Asian/Pacific Islander 95.86 90.19 Hispanic 82.83 79.17 White (Not of Hispanic Origin) 86.65 79.67 Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 90.73 90.20 Limited English Proficient (LEP) 97.62 100.00 Special Education 95.17 92.60 Female 92.36 90.14 86.63 83.08 Male 83.24% 2004-2005 86.82 87.74 89.13 91.99 80.44 82.72 90.60 100.00 96.08 89.91 83.55 83.24% 2005-2006 86.56 87.95 83.33 89.58 76.68 82.62 89.98 0.00 94.88 89.78 83.22 83.24% 2006-2007 84.88 85.89 85.37 90.65 76.07 82.03 86.92 100.00 91.84 88.92 80.74 85.50% 2007-2008 83.09 84.96 80.00 87.85 69.26 82.17 86.90 99.04 83.83 86.89 79.34 85.50% 2008-2009 84.56 85.77 78.95 87.83 74.82 85.51 85.73 96.30 68.72 87.81 81.19 85.50% 2009-2010 84.42 85.18 85.37 91.81 77.72 84.03 86.31 89.53 86.65 88.14 80.69 Table 5.7: Percentage of Students Dropping Out of School State satisfactory standard: 3.00% 3.00% Subgroup 2002-2003 2003-2004 All students 2.34 2.92 African American 2.15 2.76 American Indian/Alaskan Native 3.43 3.33 Asian/Pacific Islander 1.56 2.11 Hispanic 3.74 3.96 White (Not of Hispanic Origin) 2.99 3.57 Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 1.71 2.06 Limited English Proficient (LEP) -0.21 0.00 Special Education 0.45 0.81 Female 1.78 2.24 Male 2.87 3.58 3.00% 2004-2005 3.57 3.16 3.86 2.08 7.11 3.90 2.26 -0.18 3.54 2.73 4.39 3.00% 2005-2006 3.96 3.58 1.90 2.47 7.21 4.04 3.20 -0.18 1.92 3.16 4.73 3.00% 2006-2007 3.82 3.70 3.94 2.45 5.07 3.67 3.15 0.40 1.07 3.17 4.44 3.00% 2007-2008 2.42 2.22 2.96 2.28 3.68 2.4 1.96 2.32 3.36 1.85 2.95 3.00% 2008-2009 1.34 1.39 1.60 0.39 1.34 1.10 1.46 1.34 0.39 0.94 1.72 3.54% 2009-2010 2.64 2.52 2.59 1.49 3.73 1.90 2.46 0.20 2.57 1.84 3.39 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 176 1. Describe where progress in moving toward the graduation/dropout target is evident. In your response, identify progress in terms of subgroups. Graduation Rate The following subgroups exceeded the 2010 AMO for graduation rate in SY2009-10: Asian/Pacific Islander (91.81%), LEP (89.53%), special education (86.65%), FARMS (86.31%), and American Indian/Alaskan Native (85.37%). This represents an increase in the number of subgroups meeting the standard from five subgroups in SY2008-9 (African-American, Asian/Pacific Islander, White, FARMS, and LEP) to six subgroups in SY2010 (American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, FARMS, LEP, and special education). Although the Hispanic student subgroup has not met the AMO since SY2002-3, this subgroup‘s graduation rate has steadily increased from 69.26% (SY2007-8) to 77.72% (SY2009-10). Dropout Rate For the last three years, PGCPS in the aggregate has performed under the state satisfactory standard (3.00% prior to SY2008-9 and 3.54% for SY2009-10). Except for the special education student subgroup in SY2007-8 and the Hispanic student subgroup in SY2007-8 and SY2009-10, all suboups met the standard for three consecutive years. Special education students met the standard for dropout rate for the past 2 years. 2. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies and the corresponding resource allocations to which you attribute the progress. PGCPS is committed to graduating students who are college and workforce ready. The following programs have been instituted to enhance the learning environment and to provide early identification and remediation of student academic weaknesses. Grant Programs PGCPS is implementing two federal grants designed to establish ―a college going culture‖ in secondary schools and to increase the percent of students participating in post-secondary educational options. GEAR UP, which began with four cohorts of seventh grade students from the most impacted middle schools in the district, has transitioned to the high school level. The AVID® program has been implemented school-wide, and 125 selected students in each school participate in the AVID® elective course. The PGCPS GEAR UP Program consists of three components: 1) student academic preparation, 2) student support and development, and 3) parent awareness and engagement. Partners include Howard University, St. Mary‘s College, University of Maryland, Explore Colleges, and First Priority Trailways. Over 1,400 students were served in SY200910. The Smaller Learning Communities grant was awarded to support school reform and student achievement in five high schools. Key program components include: Summer bridge programs – Program for rising 9th graders to transition students from middle school to high school, both socially and academically. Students engage in accelerated and enrichment activities in math and English, learn embedded study skills, explore college and career awareness strategies, and begin building relationships with their teachers and peers. Freshman and Sophomore Institute – Enables students to focus on grade-level proficiency in all core classes by the end of the tenth grade. Reading and mathematics interventions were provided to assist struggling students. Junior and Senior Institute – Students are enrolled in a theme-based career academy; students participated in a rigorous series of courses through the expansion of Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs to prepare for postsecondary education and careers. Advisories – Students participate in advisories to provide an adult advocate for each student and create a sense of community and belonging. This year schools are utilizing the College Ed materials published by the College Board® to ensure all schools have a college going focus. Interdisciplinary Teams National and district studies consistently indicate that ninth grade is the ―make or break‖ year for high school students. To support students in their transition to high school, each principal has established a Freshmen Institute, which is similar to the organizational structure used in middle schools. Interdisciplinary teams of teachers (English, math, science and social studies) are assigned a group of students. During common planning time, these teachers address both curriculum issues and student issues. The team approach allows teachers to better meet the needs of students and parents. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 177 Early Warning System Another strong support for students is the early warning system implemented by school and HSC staff. Freshmen Watch List Reports are created for incoming ninth grade students based on attendance records, suspension data, course grades and MSA scores. These students receive early attention and support form school staff in an attempt to support engagement and success. In addition, Freshman Success Reports are generated each quarter to provide school personnel with current information on students. This enables staff to provide timely academic and behavioral interventions. 3. Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of subgroups. Graduation Rate For the third consecutive year, PGCPS failed to meet the AMO for graduation rate for all students, falling below the standard by 1.08 percentage points in SY2009-10. Students in the aggregate and for the following three subgroups did not meet the AMO: African American, Hispanic, and white. Male students have consistently failed to meet the AMO for five consecutive years. Although the white student subgroup met the AMO in SY2008-9, there was a decline in their graduation rte in SY2009-10, failing to achieve the AMO by 1.47 percentage points. Only three subgroups have met the AMO for the past two consecutive years: Asian/Pacific Islander, FARMS, and LEP. The Hispanic and white student subgroups had the lowest graduation rates in SY2009-10, at 77.72% and 84.03%, respectively. However, the district‘s most significant challenge is the Hispanic subgroup which has not met AMO for the past seven years. Dropout Rate The Hispanic student subgroup was the only subgroup that did not met the state satisfactory standard for SY2009-10. With a dropout rate of 3.73% (SY2009-10), the subgroup missed the standard by 0.19 percentage points. 4. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made along with the corresponding resource allocations to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate. Personal Learning Plan This year, professional school counselors will ensure that all students in grades 1, 4, 7, 9 and 11 will actively engage in completing a Personal Learning Plan (PLP). At each identified grade level, students will participate in age appropriate guided discussions, accompanying guidance lessons and individual supplemental opportunities that result in self and career awareness and exploration. According to state and national career competencies, students will engage in discussions and activities that support the connection between their academic tenure and their career goals and aspirations. The PLP will ultimately record a student‘s community service and work experience, awards, resume and their four-year plan to produce a ―portfolio‖ that chronicles the student‘s strategic steps towards graduating college and work force ready. The goal of this tool is to shape the attitudes and behavior of students early enough to influence their academic decisions through to graduation. Metrics, focused on the completion of the PLP and the success of students engaged in academic and career opportunities, will be developed to report the benefit of the PLP. Professional School Counselors will provide frequent data to supervisors to reflect the progress on implementation of the PLP district-wide. Additionally, beyond the grade levels identified, students who have been suspended and who are newly enrolled in PGCPS will also develop PLPs to ensure they have the support in making positive and productive choices for the duration of their tenure in PGCPS. Academic Advising Professional school counselors have always been vital in providing academic advisement for students toward meeting the requirements for completing high school. Professional School Counselors will use the PLP as a tool to provide students with a road map that ensure that they are supported through to graduation with frequent consultation and guidance. Students who are not performing well will be provided with opportunities to recover credits loss and advised on tutoring and academic supports to preclude decisions that see dropping out as an option. Professional School Counselors will continue to recommend appropriate placement for over-aged students who have not been successful in the traditional school setting. Through the Graduation Notification/Agreement, as mandated in the Administrative Procedure 5123.2, (Promotion and Retention of Students), all seniors will be notified of their graduation status within the first eight weeks of school. Consequently, all schools must have a School Instructional Team whereby students who exhibit course failure will be referred and supported. Students who score well on the PSAT will be encouraged to enroll in rigorous Advanced Placement courses PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 178 available within their schools. Professional School Counselors will continue to advise students on key tenets that lead to aggressive preparatory practices that ensure that graduation and college admission are possible. Detained Students To increase support to students at risk of dropping out due to involvement with law enforcement, the Department of Student Services, the Office of the Court Liaison, and Pupil Personnel Services formed a new alliance with the Department of Juvenile Justice to establish an articulation for students released from Cheltenham to ensure their transition back into the school setting. Prior to this alliance, PGCPS had no formal method of knowing when students who were detained were being released and often students re-engaged in their neighborhood schools at varying rates. This year, the Office of Pupil Personnel Services is alerted upon each exit. After receiving notification, staff make contact with the student and family to ensure that students are enrolled and regularly attending school. The district seeks to see gains by increasing the rate of attendance for this population of high school students. Drop Out Prevention Task Force To address the dropout rate and continue to increase the number of students who graduate high school, PGCPS established a Dropout Prevention Task Force.. The goal of the committee is to reduce the dropout rate by .5% over a three year period and to increase the graduation rate by 5.5% over the next three years. The committee is comprised of various stakeholders; elementary, middle and high school principals, members of the High School Consortium, pupil personnel workers, court liaison, guidance services, special education, alternative education and staff from the technology office. The committee has identified priorities based on a review of dropout trend data. One priority was to decrease the disparity between male and female graduates. Additionally, school level data were analyzed to identify schools with the highest dropout rate and those with the lowest. The dropout prevention committee identified the characteristics of a dropout based on multiple sources of data (assessment, grades, and suspension). The characteristics of a potential dropout in PGCPS are unsuccessful in English 9, reading below grade level, retention in any grade, failing 8th grade math or Algebra I and suspension of more than 10 days. Responses from students were also compiled regarding the reasons they drop out of school. The identification of causal factors provided the committee with issues that need targeted support, professional development for staff, and interventions. This work has helped Student Services staff better understand the factors that contribute to dropping out and to identify students who fit that profile. The High School Consortium and the Division of Student Services are working collaboratively to implement interventions and provide support to decrease dropout rates and increase graduation rates. Strategies utilized at schools with the lowest dropout rate will be reviewed for replication of effective practices across PGCPS high schools. PGCPS will continue its emphasis on engendering a college-going culture in all district schools by continuing work previously discussed pertaining to the GEAR UP and smaller learning communities grant programs. This work is supported by the district‘s Secondary School Reform plans, briefly summarized in the next section. Secondary School Reform (SSR) The goal of SSR is to transform the educational experience of PGCPS middle and high school students to ensure that 100% of PGCPS graduates are college and workforce ready and competitive in the 21st century economy. By 2017, evidence of the achievement of the goal will be measured by attaining the following: 75% of students graduating with an Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate course and/or; 25% of students graduating with a certificate/license from the applicable awarding agency or satisfactorily completing a senior project. SSR planning began in late 2009 through a series of community stakeholder meetings. SSR is managed by the district‘s Chief Academic Officer and is comprised of fifteen Project Teams, some of which contain sub-committees. See Chart I for a list and description of the SSR Project Teams. SSR includes specific projects in order to raise student expectations, expand learning opportunities, and enhance students‘ experience. # Initiative SECONDARY SCHOOL REFORM CHART I: - SSR PROJECT TEAMS Description SSR is focused on strategies for increasing success in middle and high schools, including raising expectations for students, expanding learning opportunities, and enhancing students‘ experience. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 179 # Initiative Strategy Team 1 3 High School Program Redesign Policy and Administrative Procedures Profile of A Graduate 4 Curriculum Development 5 STEM Design 6 7 Writing Design Middle School Task Force 8 9 ILP Redesign World Languages 10 11 Communications and Change Management Student Transition Design 12 College Going Culture 13 14 Portfolio Development GEARUP 15 Smaller Learning Communities Dropout Prevention Turnaround Schools 2 16 17 CHART I: - SSR PROJECT TEAMS Description Develop the vision and implementation plan for SSR. Remove program obstacles and make critical program decisions. Development and implementation of high school specialty programs using the high school cluster model. Development of SSR Board Policies and Administrative Procedures. Develop the profile of a PGCPS graduate and provide recommendations on high school credit and course requirements. Manage the curriculum development process and deliverables for SSR, including the High School Academies. STEM curriculum development, professional development, assessments, standardization, and middle school and high school expansion. Writing curriculum development, professional development, assessments, and standardization. Promote middle school academic growth by: researching best-practices, evaluating existing programs and instructional practice, assisting students transition to middle school, providing highly effective teachers and building staff capacity. Develop an online, interactive, ILP tool that is linked to graduation requirements and career planning. World Languages curriculum development, professional development, assessments and standardization. Develop and implement a strategic communications plan for SSR. Develop and implement a strategies to assist students with transitioning between grade levels and courses. Develop and implement a strategic plan to create a college-going culture that is centered around the augmentation of the advisory period and capstone projects. Increase school options by expanding charter and contract schools. Steps to Excellence by Preparing for Success (STEPS) is a program designed to provide rigorous secondary preparation that will ultimately lead to success in college and beyond for our students. GEAR UP will provide students in select schools early access to and engagement in post-secondary goals for the students in this cohort. Increase student achievement and graduate students college and career ready through personalized learning environments that offer rigorous and relevant instruction at selected schools. Implementation of the Dropout Prevention Plan Implementation, management, and oversight of the Turnaround Schools. Raising Expectations PGCPS graduated 8,250 students in SY2009-10, yet only 11.5% (or only approximately 985 students) met the University of Maryland course requirements for admission. In order to raise student expectations, PGCPS must revise its current course and credit requirements. Among other things, the SSR Team has recommended an increase in the mathematics graduation requirement from three to four credits with an emphasis on students taking courses beyond Algebra 2. In addition, the team has recommended that two credits of a world language become a requirement for graduation. To support the work at the high school level and to increase rigor in elementary and middle school, PGCPS will increase world language course offerings and redesign the mathematics courses in grades 6 through 8. Foreign language is a critical component of the turnaround strategy in four middle schools. Students will be scheduled in Intro courses (non-credit bearing) in grade 7 and the credit course in grade 8. Staffing is supported by the Title I 1003G grant. All middle schools have a goal to increase foreign language enrollment. The redesign of grade 8 began in the summer of 2010. The Algebra/Data Analysis course was realigned to focus on MSA standards in the first three quarters, and HSA standards from March to June. A new textbook was approved. Principals and department chairs were briefed in August 2010. Team leaders were briefed on the changes in September. Eighth grade math is the subject of two middle school principal meetings during the year. Department of Curriculum and Instruction staff will begin to write an advanced math six course in the spring for roll-out in SY2011-12. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 180 As part of the district‘s effort to increase rigor in middle school, PGCPS is supporting with operating funds, the International Baccalaureate (IB) – Middle Years Programme at one middle school. In addition, PGCPS has introduced the program at one high school for SY2010-11. Furthermore, in iY2010-11, Crossland HS offered its first IB class. Current IB programs are supported through general funds with an emphasis on increasing participation through an aggressive recruiting campaign, increasing the number of diplomas through advisement and monitoring, and increasing performance on IB tests through coaching and summer support programs. Expanding Opportunities According to MSDE data for SY2008-9 documented student decisions, only 69 of the 369 students going directly into employment following graduation (18.7%) were entering employment in a field related to their high school program. Collectively less than 1% of SY2008-9 documented grade 12 decisions for post-graduation involved entering employment in a program related to the student‘s high school program. Currently, there are few opportunities for high school students to engage in courses of study that are relevant to them, rigorous academically, and provide preparation for the workforce. High school redesign expands opportunities for students to participate in the district‘s successful programs while also providing new opportunities directly related to growing industries. PGCPS has created an ―Academy‖ structure enabling students to selfselect a course of study based on their interests, while simultaneously engaging students in rigorous academic coursework. Under this structure, PGCPS high schools will be grouped into five geographic clusters. Once the high school redesign is fully implemented (SY2016-17), students will be afforded access to any program within their cluster of 4-to-5 high schools. In most instances, the ―Academies‖ will be offered in all five clusters. The district is providing professional development to secondary teachers on the various high school Academies. To increase opportunities for students at the elementary and middle school level, PGCPS is seeking and supporting innovative schools of choice. For example, in SY2010-11 Possibility Charter School opened to serve middle school boys in grades 6 thru 8 offering a STEM curriculum. Enhancing Experiences of Students According to SY2008-9 documented student decisions for twelfth grade students, less than half (3,517) of PGCPS graduates plan to attend a four-year college after graduation. PGCPS intends to encourage all students to see college as a viable option after graduation. Therefore, in SY2010-11, SSR will develop a strategic plan for creating a systemic college-going culture that begins in pre-kindergarten. The district must also continue to monitor and adjust its high school advisory program. Students and teachers need to utilize the advisories to focus on post-graduation goals and planning action steps necessary to accomplish student goals. In SY2009-10, a curriculum guide was developed for the advisory period. Additionally, PGCPS is enhancing the educational experience of district students by supporting them as they transition to middle and high school. On August 19, 2010, PGCPS implemented a systemic orientation day for all incoming middle and high school students as a part of the district‘s Secondary Student Transition Plan. Transition Program for Middle and High Schools As one of the district‘s strategies for preparing students for college and career, PGCPS implemented a Transition Program for Middle and High Schools for SY2010-11. The one-day orientation program was presented system-wide for rising sixth, seventh, and ninth grade students entering middle or high school for the first time. All district middle and high schools provided students with a three-hour early dismissal schedule that enable students to become familiar with school requirements and course schedules prior to the beginning of the school year. Middle School Transition Program: Middle school students were provided an: agenda book (includes Student Handbooks), PowerPoint presentations, class schedules, map of the school, and a listing of school–based extracurricular activities. The day began with a forty-minute assembly led by the school principal along with introductions of staff and the staff. The remaining time is organized into seven twenty-minute sessions. Each of the seven sessions was designed to equip the student with basic information that facilitated adjustment to their new learning environment. High School Transition Program: The high school student orientation began with a thirty-minute assembly led by the principal. The students are introduced to staff and student guides and received an overview of the agenda for the day. The remaining transition day activities were organized into seven twenty-minute sessions with exception of the thirty-minute homeroom session. The students received their course schedules, reviewed the school‘s daily routines and received their Lifetouch Identifications (IDs) during the homeroom session. Other pertinent information provided included student handbook; strategies PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 181 for success (includes information on homework assignments, goal setting, maintaining a positive attitude, handling peer pressure, and student rights and responsibilities), who’s who, and where to go for assistance, and the PGCPS Profile of a Graduate. Accomplishments The significant accomplishments of SSR in SY2009-10 include: Developed PGCPS Profile of a Graduate (See Exhibit 1 below); Developed a systemic curriculum for high school advisories; Developed a systemic dropout prevention plan; Provided tuition-based summer school for 7th and 8th graders; Implemented a system-wide transition day for all students entering middle or high school for the first time (August 19, 2010); Expanded school choice options; Held stakeholder meetings that included parents, community members, and teachers; Established a Parent Advisory Team for SSR. SY2010-11 Key activities planned in connection with SSR for SY2010-11 include: Designing new high school academies; Introducing expanded high school academy options to stakeholders; Developing curriculum for the academies to be implemented in SY2011-12; Developing a 5-year plan for the implementation of the new academies; Training teachers in applicable schools on the new academies; and Finalizing the Secondary Student Transition Plan. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 182 Exhibit 1 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 183 Exhibit 1 -continued PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 184 Exhibit 1 -continued PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 185 Exhibit 1 -continued PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 186 Exhibit 1 -continued PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 187 I.D.vi HIGHLY QUALIFIED STAFF No Child Left Behind Goal 3: By 2005-2006, all students will be taught by highly qualified teachers. No Child Left Behind Indicator 3.1: The percentage of classes being taught by ―highly qualified‖ teachers, in the aggregate and in ―high-poverty‖ schools. No Child Left Behind Indicator 3.3: The percentage of paraprofessionals working in Title I schools (excluding those whose sole duties are translators and parental involvement assistants) who are qualified. A. Based on the Examination of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teacher Data (Tables 6.1 6.3): 1. Describe where progress is evident. The highly qualified teacher trend data displayed in Tables 6.1 - 6.3 reflect a consistent upward trend in the percentage of core academic subject (CAS) classes taught by highly qualified teachers. During the 2009-10 school year, the percentage of CAS classes taught by a highly qualified teacher increased by 6.7 (88.7%) percentage points over the 2008-09 percentage. This marks the sixth consecutive year that the percentage has increased (see Table 6.1). Moreover, the three-year increase (i.e. SY2007-08 through SY2009-10) remained the same 15.7 percentage points as manifested for the SY2006-07 through SY2008-09 three-year period. Meanwhile, the percent of CAS classes taught by highly qualified teachers in Title I schools increased from 88.4% to 94.4% over the SY2007-08 through SY2009-10 three-year period (see Table 6.2). Table 6.1: Percentage of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers % of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught % of Core Academic Subject Classes Not School Year by Highly Qualified Teachers Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers 2003-2004 48.60 51.40 2004-2005 62.00 38.00 2005-2006 62.10 37.90 2006-2007 66.30 33.70 2007-2008 73.00 27.00 2008-2009 82.00 18.00 2009-2010 88.70 11.30 Table 6.2: Percentage of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers in Title I Schools Total Number of Core Academic Core Academic Subject Classes in Title I % of Core Academic Subject Classes Subject Classes in Title I Schools Schools Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers in Title I Schools taught by HQT 2008-2009 1,540 1,411 91.6% 2009-2010 5,592 5,280 94.4% HQT data for Title I schools are displayed in Table N. The data conclusively illustrate the substantial progress the school system has made over the past three years in staffing Title I schools with highly qualified teachers. For the 2009-10 school year, in 44 of the school system‘s 60 Title I schools (or almost three-in-four), 100% of the teaching staff in core academic subjects was highly qualified. In the previous school year (SY2008-09), only 22 of the 53 (or 41.5%) Title I schools had a full complement of highly qualified teachers. Just three years ago (SY2007-08), only 25% of Title I schools had a 100% highly qualified teaching staff, and in SY2006-07, none of the Title I schools had a full complement (100%) of highly qualified teachers. In addition to the rapidly increasing percentage of Title I schools with a full complement of highly qualified teachers, in all but nine Title I schools at least 95% of CAS teachers were highly qualified, and in all but two Title I schools, 90% of teachers were highly qualified. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 188 Table K: Percent of Highly Qualified Teachers in 2009-10 Title I Schools School Priority School Status 2007-08 2008-09 Adelphi ES Title I 100.0 100.0 Andrew Jackson Academy* Title I 59.2 93.0 Beacon Heights ES Title I 80.0 91.3 Bladensburg ES Title I 100.0 100.0 Bradbury Heights ES Title I 76.2 94.7 Calverton ES Title I 100.0 100.0 Carmody Hills ES – TNTP Title I/School Improvement 2 – CD 100.0 100.0 Carole Highlands ES Title I 96.2 100.0 Carrollton* Title I 89.3 100.0 Cesar Chavez ES Title I 90.0 87.5 Chillum ES* Title I 88.9 100.0 Columbia Park ES Title I 84.6 100.0 Concord ES Title I 93.3 93.7 Cool Spring ES Title I 100.0 96.0 Cooper Lane ES Title I 90.9 100.0 Dodge Park ES Title I 89.5 94.7 Doswell E. Brooks ES Title I 86.7 90.4 Flintstone ES Title I 100.0 100.0 Gladys Noon Spellman ES Title I 95.0 95.2 Glenridge ES Title I 100.0 100.0 Highland Park ES* Title I 68.8 84.5 Hyattsville ES Title I 86.4 96.0 James McHenry ES* Title I 76.0 100.0 Judge Sylvania Woods, Sr. ES Title I/Restructuring Implementation 90.3 97.1 Kenmoor ES* Title I 62.5 100.0 Lamont ES Title I 89.7 93.3 Langley Park-McCormick ES Title I 89.5 95.4 Mary Harris ―Mother Jones‖ ES Title I 96.7 100.0 Oaklands ES* Title I 77.0 100.0 Overlook ES-TNTP Title I 86.7 93.3 Princeton ES* Title I 80.0 100.0 Ridgecrest ES Title I/School Improvement – CA 89.3 100.0 Riverdale ES Title I 93.1 97.2 Robert Gray ES Title I/School Improvement – CA 92.9 100.0 Rogers Heights ES Title I 100.0 96.6 Rosa L. Parks ES Title I 83.9 97.1 Samuel P. Massie Academy Title I 85.2 96.9 Seat Pleasant ES Title I 90.0 89.4 Springhill Lake ES Title I 82.4 97.8 Suitland ES Title I 92.0 100.0 Thomas Claggett ES Title I/Restructuring Implementation 88.9 100.0 William Beanes ES* Title I 72.7 81.2 William W. Hall Academy Title I 91.3 96.0 Woodridge ES Title I 100.0 100.0 Buck Lodge MS-TNTP Title I/Restructuring Implementation 83.3 86.9 Templeton ES Title I/School Improvement I 83.3 96.2 Charles Carroll MS* Title I/Restructuring Implementation 74.1 78.0 Lewisdale ES Title I 88.9 100.0 Port Towns ES Title I 92.9 92.8 Cherokee Lane ES* Title I 100.0 100.0 Mount Rainer ES Title I 93.8 100.0 Glassmanor ES-TNTP Title I 92.3 94.1 William Paca ES Title I 80.0 100.0 Thomas Stone ES Title I 76.5 82.2 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update 2009-10 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.0 98.9 97.5 97.0 97.0 95.0 95.0 94.7 93.7 93.0 Page | 189 Table K: Percent of Highly Qualified Teachers in 2009-10 Title I Schools School Priority School Status 2007-08 2008-09 Nicholas Orem MS-TNTP Title I/Restructuring Implementation 74.8 92.5 Gaywood ES* Title I/Restructuring Implementation 73.3 100.0 Forest Heights ES Title I 100.0 100.0 Paint Branch ES* Title I 80.0 100.0 Robert Frost ES Title I 100.0 100.0 William Wirt MS-TNTP Title I/Restructuring Implementation 77.3 88.8 *New Title I Schools for SY2009-10 2009-10 91.9 91.0 90.7 90.0 89.0 84.3 CAS Classes Not Taught by a Highly Qualified Teacher (NHQT) In SY2009-10, although the number of CAS classes not taught by a highly qualified teacher (NHQT) increased by 650 over the number of such classes in SY2008-09, the percentage of such classes decreased by 6.7 percentage points (see Tables 6.3A and 6.3B). The increase in the overall number of classes reflects a change in the method used by the state to count classes.9 Significant progress in reducing the percentage of CAS classes not taught by a highly qualified teacher occurred primarily in two areas: ―conditionally certified teachers‖ and ―missing certification information‖. Not only were there reductions in these two areas as percentages of the overall number of NHQTs (see Table 6.3B), but there were also significant decreases in the actual numbers of NHQTs (see Table 6.3A). In SY2009-10, the number of NHQTs resulting from ―conditional certification‖ declined by 670 (or 77.1%) from the number of NHQTs for this reason in SY2008-09. Over the same time period, the number of NHQTs resulting from ―missing certificate information‖ declined by 47 (or -13.5%). As such, the reduction in the numbers of NHQTs in these two subcategories more than offset the increase in the numbers of NHQTs in the other four subcategories (see Tables 6.3A and 6.3B). The ―expired certificate‖ subcategory was the only category in which the number of NHQTs increased (50), while the categorical percentage of the overall number of NHQTs declined (0.3 percentage points). (See Tables 6.3A and 6.3B.) Table 6.3A: Number of Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified (NHQ) Teachers by Reason School Year Expired Certificate 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 648 802 583 216 266 Invalid Grade Level(s) for Certification 161 79 67 56 119 Testing Requirement Not Met 445 181 274 207 445 Invalid Subject for Certification 1,542 810 647 657 1,673 Missing Certification Information 1,453 1,332 842 349 302 Conditional Certificate 2,455 1,499 1,026 869 199 Total NHQ Classes 6,704 4,703 3,439 2,354 3,004 All Classes 17,684 13,954 12,728 13,052 26,583 Based on MSDE Table 6.3 Table 6.3B: Percent of Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified (NHQ) Teachers by Reason School Year Expired Invalid Testing Invalid Missing Conditional Total Certificate Grade Level(s) Requirement Subject for Certification Certificate for Certification Not Met Certification Information 2005-06 9.6 2.4 6.6 23.0 21.7 36.6 37.9 2006-07 17.1 1.7 3.8 17.2 28.3 31.9 33.7 2007-08 17.0 1.9 8.0 18.8 24.5 29.8 27.0 2008-09 9.2 2.4 8.8 27.9 14.8 36.9 18.0 2009-10 8.9 4.0 14.8 55.7 10.1 6.6 11.3 Based on MSDE Table 6.3 2. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies, and the corresponding resource allocations, to which you attribute the progress. What evidence does the school system have that the strategies in place are having the intended effect? Thus, while the overall number of CAS classes more than doubled (+103.7%), the number of CAS classes not taught by a HQT increased by only 27.6% (see Table 6.3C on page _). 9 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 190 Practices, Programs, and Strategies In SY2007-08, PGCPS established a priority staffing system to ensure that all Title I schools and all schools in school improvement receive priority consideration for the placement of highly qualified teachers. This system is a collaboration among DHR staff, Title I Office staff, and staff from the Department of School Improvement (DSI) that analyzes and monitors the certification and qualification status of all teachers in priority schools and provides teachers in those schools with the support necessary to meet and/or maintain their standard or professional certification and/or their highly qualified designation. Assignment Monitoring Staff from DHR‘s Department of Teaching, Staffing, and Certification (DTSC) closely screens and monitors teacher placements in priority schools using a combination of three validation tools. One tool is the establishment of school placement agreements with principals at priority schools. Under these agreements, principals agree to assign all fully certified, highly qualified teachers, who are referred by DHR to the school for placement, to CAS classes that are consistent with their certification and qualification status. In return, to the extent possible, DHR agrees to refer only fully certified, highly qualified new hires, and voluntary and involuntary transfers to priority schools. In addition, DHR staff provides all teachers of core academic subject classes at these schools with individualized plans, supports, and resources, along with specific timelines to meet or maintain the desired certification and highly qualified designation. Staffing specialists monitor the implementation of these agreements through quarterly school visits. Any teacher who was found to be NHQ for her/his assigned classes was either reassigned, if an appropriate classroom match could be found at the school, or identified for an involuntary transfer to a non-Title I school that was not in school improvement. Another tool is the analysis of reports generated by the Human Resource Information System (HRIS) which specify individual teacher qualifications in each school by certification and HQ status. Information in this format allows principals and master schedulers to assign teachers to core academic subject classes that match their area(s) of certification and qualification. Staffing specialists compare these reports with school placement agreements to determine if there are any discrepancies in teacher placement that might need to be resolved. The third tool is the examination of staffing allocation sheets. These sheets are maintained by DTSC staffing specialists who compare the contained documentation with school placement agreements and HRIS staffing reports. Again, discrepancies that surface from the use of these three analytic tools can be reconciled at the individual school when the staffing specialist makes her/his quarterly visit. Targeted Recruitment Targeted recruitment efforts for staffing SY2009-10, began in December 2008 with a local recruitment fair, and continued into spring of 2009 with PGCPS‘s participation at the Towson University Education Fair and at the Maryland Education Recruitment Consortium (MERC). Over the past several years, Towson University has been the largest producer of teacher education graduates in the state, and meeting the state‘s full certification requirements is a condition of graduation. Moreover, recruiters confirm that a significant number of PGCPS graduates who attend Towson and who major in Education approach the school system expressing interest in returning to the county to teach and to give back to the school system. Over 2,000 persons attended the first statewide, MSDE-supported, recruitment event MERC). PGCSP staffing specialists conducted screening interviews and returned with over 600 resumes of interested applicants. Emphasis was placed on attracting applicants of gender and ethnic diversity as well as seeking bilingual applicants. Additional recruitment efforts focused on attracting applicants from historically black colleges and universities. Collectively, these efforts provided an excellent pool of prospective teachers, but due to budget constraints and a February 2009 hiring freeze, the ability to offer early contracts was constrained. Alternative Certification Programs (MAAPP) PGCPS combined Title II-Part A funding with local funding to support a number of alternative certification programs in an effort to increase the number of fully certified, highly qualified teachers working in the school system. Title II-Part A funding continued to support robust efforts to increase (as projected) various Maryland Approved Alternative Preparation Programs (MAAPP). Such programs included the College of Notre Dame Dual Certification Program in special education and content areas, the UMCP Masters Certification programs in ESOL, and a new UMCP SMaRT Middle School Math and Science Program, which was in the planning stage during SY2009-10. Title II, Part A funding also supported the Washington Adventist College Paraprofessional to Teacher Dual Certification Program. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 191 Local funding supported the 10th year of the PGCPS/RTC Program, Teach for America, and the New Teacher Center Teaching Fellows Alternative Certification Program, and Title III funding supported a GWU ESOL teacher education program. Collectively, these alternative programs provided 306 certified and highly qualified teachers to PGCPS schools in SY2009-10. The majority of MAAPP placements occurred in Title I, hard-to-staff schools and schools in improvement. The 306 newly certified and highly qualified teachers represented an increase of 47 over the number produced by these programs in SY2008-09. Conditional Teachers For the third consecutive year, the DHR terminated all conditionally certified teachers whose conditional certificates expired at the end of the school year (June 30) and who had not acquired either a standard or an advanced professional teaching certificate. In addition, renewal notices for all expiring standard and advanced professional certificate holders were mailed one year in advance, and follow up notices were provided so teachers would have ample time to complete renewal requirements. Of the more than 950 teachers who received initial renewal notices on July 1, 2009, all but 17 teachers were able to renew their professional certificates before the expiration date. This represents an improvement from SY2008-09 when 40 previously certificated teachers lost their certification due to non compliance with renewal requirements. Prior to separation, both the DHR and TLPD provided support and counseling to these conditional teachers in the form of individual appointments held at their schools. In the interim, DHR sponsored a first ever Certification and Related Services Fair on March 6, 2010, attracting over 300 teachers to a day devoted to promoting awareness of Maryland certification requirements, options to achieve the Highly Qualified designation, and promoting ongoing professional development through cooperative efforts with the Department of School Leadership, the Office of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development, and the Wellness Center. An exit survey found an overwhelmingly positive response from event attendees. During SY2009-10, the number of conditional certificate holders in PGCPS was at an all time low – i.e. less than 150 staff. This achievement is the result of a multi-year commitment to hiring and staffing schools only with certified, highly qualified teachers, while supporting any contracted conditional teachers toward certified status. The school system was able to achieve this progress in certification acquisition and renewal despite the lack of tuition reimbursement support for coursework which not available during SY2009-10 due to budget constraints. 3. Describe where challenges are evident. Although PGCPS continues to make steady progress in its effort to staff all CAS classes with a highly qualified teacher, progress staffing classrooms with special education students lags behind the school system‘s general pace in HQT staffing. Whereas in SY2009-10, 88.7% of core academic subject classes system-wide and 94.4% of CAS classes in Title I schools were staffed with a HQT, only 85.8% of classes with special education students were so staffed. The inability of the school system to further accelerate the pace of HQT staffing in special education classes is of particular concern because the persistent failure of these students to meet state academic performance standards. School Year 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Table L: Percentage of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers by Class Type System-wide Title I FARMS Special Education 48.6 62.0 62.1 66.3 73.0 82.0 88.7 42.6 63.0 61.9 72.1 88.4 91.6 94.4 48.7 62.1 62.1 66.2 73.0 81.9 88.8 47.1 60.6 59.4 63.6 69.5 78.4 85.8 In addition to the challenge of staffing classrooms with special education students with a HQT, there were three subcategories – i.e. ―invalid subject for certification‖, ―testing requirement not met‖, and ―invalid grade level(s) for certification‖ – in which the percentage increase in the number of CAS classes not taught by a highly qualified teacher (NHQT) exceeded the percentage increase in the overall number of CAS classes. Whereas the overall number of CAS classes increased by 103.7%, the number of NHQTs because of ―invalid subject for certification‖ increased by 154.6%, the number due to ―unmet testing requirement‖ increased by 115.0%, and the number as a result of ―invalid grade level(s) for certification‖ increased by 112.5% (see Table 6.3C.) PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 192 Because the percentage increases in these subcategories exceeded the overall percentage increase in the number of overall classes (due to the change in state‘s accounting method), these subcategories are areas of particular concern. School Year 2008-09 Table 6.3C: Change in the Number of Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified (NHQ) Teachers by Reason, SY2008-09 to SY2009-10 Expired Invalid Testing Invalid Missing Conditional Certificate Grade Level(s) Require Subject for Certification Certificate for Certification ment Certification Information Not Met 216 56 207 657 349 869 Total NHQ Classes All Classes 2,354 13,052 2009-10 266 119 445 1,673 302 199 3,004 26,583 % Change ‘08‘09 to ‘09-‗10 +23.1% +112.5% 115.0% +154.6% -13.5% -77.1% +27.6% +103.7% Based on MSDE Table 6.3 Invalid Subject for Certification DHR surmises that a significant number of the NHQT placements for ―invalid subject for certification‖ can be attributed to either the misassignment of teachers to classrooms for which they are not highly qualified, or to shortages of highly qualified teachers in hard-to-staff subjects/areas. DHR also contends that most of the misassignment cases occur at the middle school level or with newly configured K-8 schools. The division has set in place a mid-year course correction to address the misassignment challenge. During planned school visits, DHR staffing specialists will focus on K-8 school configurations and CAS assignments relative to acceptable assignment/certification matches dictated in the NCLB/MSDE Crosswalk. In addition, DHR, along with principals and school schedulers, may require refresher training in SchoolMax®10 as it relates to the identification of special education ―teachers of record‖ and appropriate classroom assignments based on teacher HQ status, particularly in K-8 and middle school configurations. Invalid Grade Level(s) for Certification Problems in this subcategory can also be attributed to misassignment. This problem is particularly prevalent with the assignment of early childhood-certified teachers to elementary level classes above grade three. In addition, in a smaller number of cases, teachers of foreign language classes offered in elementary grades may be classified as NHQ because the MSDE foreign language certification is limited to grades 7-12, and as such, does not pertain to grades 1 through 6. Also problematic are teachers who are special education certified, but who teach at the secondary level which also requires content area certification for the HQ designation. DHR has selected this subcategory to focus efforts designed to increase special education teacher understanding and compliance. By completing the Maryland HOUSSE documentation, or by adding a content area by Praxis II testing or content endorsement, special educators can acquire HQ status. Testing Requirement Not Met The opportunity for regular early childhood and elementary CAS teachers to use Maryland‘s HOUSSE to receive the highly qualified designation has expired. Now, only teachers who are not new to the profession and who have creditable service earned before the end of the 2006-07 school year can become highly qualified through HOUSSE. Therefore, the only remaining option available for new- to-the-profession early childhood and elementary staff to become highly qualified is through testing. New-tothe-professions secondary CAS teachers continue to have the ―30 semester hours of content‖, the ―content major‖, or the ―Praxis II testing‖ options to pursue highly qualified status.11 Special Education Certification Special education teachers who are classroom teachers of record continue to need additional requirements to be designated HQ in the content areas they teach. Teachers with creditable service prior to the end of SY2006-07 school year may use HOUSSE until 2013, but new- to-the-profession special educators must meet HQ designations using the full 30 credit load option or by adding an endorsement via the testing option. 10 SchoolMax® is the school system‘s student information system. Because COMAR-approved ―routes to certification‖ allow teachers to be exempt from testing based upon an out of state certificate and two (2) years of teaching, examination of new hire documents and verifications requires careful inspection to make accurate HQ decisions. And considering that both the State of Maryland and PGCPS continue to be teacher import jurisdictions, this challenge will continue to be prevalent. 11 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 193 4. Describe the changes or adjustments and the corresponding resource allocations that were made to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate. In SY2010-11, DHR will continue to enhance and refine its data collection, storage, and analysis capacity, particularly in those areas that have continuously presented the system with challenges over the past several years. The division intends to create more finite data fields associated with defining certification and HQ status. For example, DHR currently provides data on the number of cases across state-designated non-HQT subcategories such as ―invalid grade level for certification,‖ ―invalid subject for certification,‖ or ―testing requirement not met‖; however, the division cannot readily provide data on how the number of cases is distributed across grade levels (e.g. elementary, middle, or high) or subject areas. As the percentage of CAS classes not taught by a highly qualified teacher continues to decline, it will be increasingly difficult to maintain recent rates of progress without developing strategies that target specific grade bands or subject areas. DHR will also increase its staff capacity to use multiple internal data systems that can provide staffing specialists with a more comprehensive picture of the system‘s certification and HQ status at any given point in time. o this end, staffing specialists will receive additional training in the use of SchoolMax®, which will allow them to electronically link teacher placement to both school and CAS classroom. In addition, specialist will receive enhanced training in the system‘s Human Resource Information System (HRIS) which allows them to link and analyze data from multiple sources simultaneously. B. Based on the Examination of the Equitable Distribution of Highly Qualified Teacher Data (Tables 6.4 - 6.5): 1. Describe where progress is evident. The school system continued to make steady progress staffing high poverty schools with highly qualified teachers during sY200910. The 92.2% of CAS classes in high poverty schools that were taught by a HQT represents a 4.8 percentage point increase over the percentage of such classes/schools staffed by a HQT during the previous school year, and HQT staffing in high poverty schools exceeded the overall system-wide percentage (88.7%) by 3.5 percentage points. SY2009-10 marks the fourth consecutive year in which HQT staffing in high poverty schools has increased (see Table 6.4). The increased staffing of HQTs in CAS classes in high poverty schools was manifested at both the elementary and secondary levels. At the elementary level, HQT staffing increased 2.8 percentage points from 92.4% in SY2008-09 to 95.2% in SY2009-10, while at the secondary level, HQT staffing increased 4.6 percentage points from 85.2% in SY2008-09 to 89.8% in SY2009-10 (see Table 6.4). In addition, the HQT staffing percentages in high poverty schools exceeded the percentages in low poverty schools at both the elementary and secondary levels (see Table 6.4). The school system also made slight progress in its effort to staff CAS classes in high poverty schools with an experienced HQT. The SY2009-10 system-wide percentage of HQT-CAS classes in high poverty schools taught by an experienced HQT (89.4%) represents an increase of 2.4 percentage points over the SY2008-09 percentage (87.0%), and the increase was manifested at both the elementary (2.6) and secondary (2.2) levels (see Table 6.5). At the same time, the presence of experienced HQTs in HQT-CAS classes in low poverty schools increased substantially – i.e. from 88.5% in SY2008-09 to 97.3% in SY2009-10, an 8.8 percentage point increase. All but eight HQT-CAS classes in low-poverty schools were staffed with an experienced HQT in SY2009-10 (see Table 6.5). Table 6.4: Core Academic Subject Classes Taught By Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) in High Poverty and Low Poverty Schools By Level Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by HQT High Poverty Low Poverty Total Classes Taught by HQT Total Classes Taught by HQT # # % # # % 2005-2006 Elementary 1,672 1,091 65.3 127 89 70.1 Secondary 3,496 1,890 59.1 0 0 0.0 2006-2007 Elementary 1,379 1,001 72.6 62 50 80.6 Secondary 3,900 2,249 57.7 0 0 0.0 2007-2008 Elementary 1,500 1,200 80.0 65 59 90.0 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 194 Table 6.4: Core Academic Subject Classes Taught By Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) in High Poverty and Low Poverty Schools By Level Secondary 3,800 2,660 70.0 0 0 0.0 2008-2009 Elementary 1,286 1,188 92.4 46 41 89.1 Secondary 2,970 2,531 85.2 112 89 79.5 2009-2010 Elementary 4,412 4,200 95.2 135 125 92.6 Secondary 5,447 4,894 89.8 194 166 85.6 Table 6.5: Core Academic Subject Classes Taught By Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) in High and Low Poverty Schools By Level and Experience Core Academic Subject Classes High Poverty* Low Poverty Classes Taught by Classes Taught by Classes Taught by Classes Taught by School Experienced HQT* Inexperienced HQT Experienced HQT* Inexperienced HQT Level Year # % # % # % # % 2008-2009 Elementary 1,031 86.8 157 13.2 37 90.2 4 9.8 Secondary 2,430 87.2 358 12.8 78 87.6 11 12.4 2009-2010 Elementary 3,735 89.4 445 10.6 121 96.8 4 3.2 Secondary 4,353 89.4 516 10.6 162 97.6 4 2.4 2. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies and the corresponding resource allocations to which you attribute the progress. Your response must include examples of incentives for voluntary transfers, the provision of professional development, recruitment programs, or other effective strategies that low-income and minority students are not taught at higher rates than other students by unqualified, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers. What evidence does the school system have that the strategies in place are having the intended effect? The DHR makes every attempt to refer certified and highly qualified applicants to CAS vacancies in priority/high poverty schools. These schools tend to be Title I schools and schools in the restructuring planning or restructuring implementation stages of school improvement. The teacher applicant pool, of which a majority is either new to the profession or which has less than five (5) years of experience, included 16 retired/rehired teachers who were placed at high poverty schools. Exclusive of the 306 MAAPP teachers, 31% of the new teaching staff hired in SY2009-10 had five (5) years or more years of experience. The entire school system benefited from this ratio. High poverty/priority schools reaped the largest benefit as evidenced in tables 6.4 and 6.5. Ninety-eight percent (98%) of all MAAPP new teachers are assigned to priority schools where the majority of vacancies occur because of the annual removal of non-certified/not highly qualified staff. FIRST The Financial Incentive Rewards for Supervisors and Teachers (FIRST) Program, which began implementation in SY2008-09, was created to provide a financial incentive for teachers and administrators to work in hard-to-staff schools and in critical shortage areas. Funded with a USDOE Teacher Incentive Fund grant, the program continues to provide for the planning and implementation of a voluntary, performance-based, financial incentive compensation system for teachers and administrators who assist students in meeting achievement standards in tested areas, participate in professional development, and undergo a rigorous evaluation process. Since its inception, program enrollment has increased from 12 schools and 244 participants in SY2008-09 to 20 schools and 404 participants in SY2009-10. For SY2010-11, the program is projected to operate in 32 schools with a potential of 700 participants. 3. Describe where challenges are evident. Although the school system continues to make progress in staffing CAS classes with a HQT, the pace of progress slowed considerably during SY2009-10. Whereas the percentage of CAS classes in high poverty schools taught by a HQT increased by 12.4 and 15.2 percentage points at the elementary and secondary levels respectively between SY2007-08 and SY2008-09, the percentage point increases slowed to 2.8 and 4.6 respectively between SY2008-09 and SY2009-10. The pace of progress was even slower with regard to staffing CAS classes in high poverty schools with an experienced HQT. At the elementary level, the PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 195 percentage of such classes in high poverty schools increased by only 2.6 percentage points, while at the secondary level, the increase was a mere 2.2 percentage points. On the other hand, the pace of progress in staffing CAS classes in low poverty schools was much more robust – i.e. increasing at the elementary level by 6.6 percentage points and at the secondary level by 10 points -- between SY2008-09 and SY2009-10 (see Table 6.5). The school system will have to improve its efforts to provide incentives for highly qualified teachers to seek and maintain placement in high poverty schools. 4. Describe the changes or adjustments and the corresponding resource allocations that were made to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate. Use of Title II, Part A Funding In SY2009-10, the percentage of Title II, Part A funding devoted to strategies and programs designed to increase and enhance recruitment and retention goals increased by five percentage points from 65% of the budget in SY2008-09 to 70% of the budget. Programs such as the College of Notre Dame MAAPP Dual Certification Program, which prepares resident teachers for certification in special education and the content area of their choice; the UMCP Master‘s Certification Resident Teacher Program (SY2009-10) and the Masters Program for Math and Science Teachers (SY2010-11), which prepare participants to teach math and science at the middle school level; the Washington Adventist College Accelerated Dual Certification Program for Paraprofessionals, which prepares paraprofessionals to become certified special education teachers at the elementary level; the Employee Referral Program; and the Employee Relocation Program collectively contribute to a overall positive effect on retention. Collectively, these college/university partnership programs yielded 39 fully certified and highly qualified teachers in SY2009-10. Support for Conditional Teachers Staff members from the Department of Teacher Staffing and Certification and the Office of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development (TLPD) provided support to approximately 100 conditional teachers who were seeking to acquire their standard teaching certification. Of these teachers, 40 had previously held a standard teaching certificate, but were converted down to conditional status because they had failed to meet the state‘s recertification requirements. This failure resulted in them receiving a conditional salary/contract and loss of tenure. Of the 60 remaining conditional teachers, 38 advanced to full certification status, while the remaining 22 were released from their conditional contracts on June 30, 2010. Conditional teachers who became certified during SY2009-10 did so without benefit of tuition reimbursement. C. Based on the Examination of Highly Qualified Teacher Retention Data (Table 6.6): 1. Describe where progress is evident. In SY2009-10, PGCPS significantly reduced teacher attrition from the levels and rates experienced in recent years. Overall, the school system reduced attrition by 454 teachers from the SY2008-09 total, while the system reduced its overall teaching staff by only 101 teachers. The subcategories driving overall reduction were ―resignations‖ (-317) and ―dismissals/non-renewals‖ (-170). The reductions in these two attrition subcategories more than offset slight increases in the numbers of teacher ―retirements‖ and ―leaves of absence‖ (see Table 6.6A). Equally – if not more – significant as the substantial reduction in the number of teachers leaving the school system is the reduction in the attrition rate. For SY2009-10, the teacher attrition rate was 9.6%, a 4.9 percentage point reduction from the 14.5% rate of the previous school year. Moreover, the almost five percentage point reduction attrition from SY2008-09 to SY2009-10 is more than twice reduction rate from the previous three years combined (see Table 6.6B). The most significant attrition rate reductions occurred in the ―dismissal/non-renewal‖ (-70.83%) and the ―resignation‖ (-45.29%) subcategories. School Year 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Table 6.6A: Attrition by Subcategory, SY2006-07 through SY2009-10 Retirement Resignation Dismissal/ Leaves of Total Non-Renewal Absence Num. Denom. Num. Denom. Num. Denom. Num. Denom. Num. Denom. 185 8,955 778 8,955 254 8,955 241 8,955 1,458 8,955 191 9,200 750 9,200 240 9,200 220 9,200 1,401 9,200 186 9,077 700 9,077 240 9,077 190 9,077 1,316 9,077 191 8,976 383 8,976 70 8,976 218 8,976 862 8,976 Based on MSDE Table 6.6 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 196 Table 6.6B: Teacher Attrition Rates by Subcategory, SY2006-07 through SY2009-10 Attrition Subcategories School Year Retirement Resignation Dismissal/ Leaves of Total Non-Renewal Absence 2006-07 2.07% 8.69% 2.84% 2.69% 16.3% 2007-08 2.08% 8.15% 2.60% 2.39% 15.2% 2008-09 2.05% 7.70% 2.60% 2.09% 14.5% 2009-10 2.13% 4.27% 0.78% 2.43% 9.6% Based on MSDE Table 6.6 Progress was also made in the distribution of teacher attrition across attrition subcategories. In the three-year period from SY2007-08 through SY2009-10, teacher attrition due to ―resignations‖, which had accounted for more than half (or 53.5%) of teacher attrition in SY2007-08, decreased by 9.1 percentage points (to 44.4%) by SY2009-10 and attrition due to ―dismissal/nonrenewal‖, which had accounted for approximately one-in-six (or 17.1%) of teacher attrition in SY2007-08, decreased by 9.0 percentage points (to 8.1%) by SY2009-10 (See Table 6.6C). The reductions in both the numbers and the distribution of teachers leaving the school system in these attrition subcategories is significant because it indicates that the school system is doing a better job of providing both assistance and incentives to retain teachers in whom it has invested considerable resources. Table 6.6C: Teacher Attrition by Category, SY2007-08 through SY2009-10 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Change 2007-08 to 2009-10 Category Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percentage Point Retirement 191 13.6% 186 14.1% 191 22.2% 0 +8.6 Resignation 750 53.5% 700 53.2% 383 44.4% -367 -9.1 Dismissal/ Non-Renewal 240 17.1% 240 18.2% 70 8.1% -170 -9.0 Leaves 220 15.7% 190 14.4% 218 25.3% -2 +9.6 Total 1,401 100.0% 1,316 100.0% 862 100.0% -539 Based on MSDE Table 6.6 One final area of progress is in the distribution of teacher separations by years of service. In SY2009-2010, the percentage of separations from the school system by teachers with less than three years of service (36%) decreased by 12 percentage points from the percentage of such teachers the previous two school years (48%). Moreover, as recently as SY2006-2007, three-in-five teachers (61%) who left the school system had less than three years teaching experience (see Figure 1). These separations – largely due to ―resignations‖ or ―non-renewal of contracts‖ – placed a significant drain on the school system as significant fiscal and human resources have historically been invested in assisting non-tenured teachers achieve both the standard teacher certification and highly qualified teaching status only to see them leave the system after a very short period of time. Much of the reduction in the percentage of new teachers leaving the school system was achieved by substantial reductions in the overall numbers of resignations (-367) and of dismissals/non-renewals of contracts (-170). (See Table 6.6C). These reductions can also be explained in part by the substantial reduction in the number of conditional teachers (-670) from the number of such teachers in SY2008-09 (see Table 6.3A). The Division of Human Resources has made great strides in recent years hiring teachers who were certified and highly qualified prior to becoming formally employed with PGCPS. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 197 Figure 1: Teacher Separation by Years of Service 100% 75% 61% 56% 50% <3 Years 50% 48% 3-5 Years 48% 6-10 Years 11-15 Years 36% 25% 15+ Years 23% 23% 20% 17% 19% 17% 12% 12% 3% 14% 14% 13% 3% 12% 12% 11% 4% 11% 5% 19% 17% 10% 5% 5% 0% 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies and the corresponding resource allocations to which you attribute the progress. What evidence does the school system have that the strategies in place are having the intended effect? By providing effective supports, systematic interventions, and instructional leadership opportunities to teachers, PGCPS creates an environment that incentivizes all educators to remain and prosper in the school system, and become highly qualified and highly skilled in their profession. The school system believes that a strong professional development program is a cornerstone of maintaining a highly effective teacher corps. The system also believes that teacher professional development must be a driving force of the school system's improvement efforts if students are to achieve at high levels. The interdivisional Teacher Professional Development Calendar Review Committee continued to review all professional development requests to ensure that the activities are based on student needs and achievement data. The committee also ensured that professional development proposals specify how training will migrate from the system level to the school, are developed using standards for effective teacher professional development, and reflect priorities articulated in the Master Plan and in state and system-wide initiates. Many of the practices, programs, and strategies for teacher professional development that were implemented in SY2007-08 and SY2008-09 were continued during SY2010-11 to further the improvement and progress towards retaining highly qualified teachers. The supports, systematic interventions, and instructional leadership opportunities to PGCPS teachers during SY2009-10 are as follows: Instructional Coaching Support Instructional coaches support and facilitate change in instructional practices that enable schools to support students to reach high standards. School-based literacy and mathematics coaches continued to provide support to teachers in high needs schools by modeling lessons, co-teaching, conducting book studies, and collaboratively planning with teachers to support teacher understanding and implementation of the state curriculum. Coaches provided job-embedded professional development through one-on-one conferences, and in small group sessions by grade or content level, by departments, or by skill level. In SY2009--10, sixty-three (63) instructional coaches provided services in 29 elementary and middle schools. This work was supported through the following allocations: Salaries for 63 instructional coaches: $5,821,000 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 198 Materials, training, technology and other supports: $23,000 plus the support of one specialist in the Department of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development. Program for International Educators (PIE; formerly International Teacher Professional Development Network) This critical component of new teacher induction was continued in SY2009-10 to address the unique needs of foreigncredentialed teachers who are in the first two years of teaching in PGCPS. Teachers participating in the professional development offerings provided in this program had the opportunity to continue to develop the skills and competencies necessary to acculturate into an American urban school setting. The network also provided linkages through collaboration, communication, and common language and practice to meet the need of PGCPS students. Professional development opportunities for these educators was based on a needs assessment survey and the goal of developing skills, competencies, and understandings to close the student achievement gap and bridge cultural differences throughout the entire school community. Frequent feedback and idea exchange along with in-depth discussions facilitated by experienced professional developers and teacher leaders scaffolded participants‘ professional growth. In SY 2010, a total of six training sessions were provided for 65 international teachers, assisted by 10 teacher leader facilitators. Allocation: $6250 plus the support of one specialist in the Department of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development. National Board Certified Teacher-Leadership Development (NBCT-LD) The NBCT–LD program helps to ensure teacher success by focusing on improving teaching quality and learning experiences for students in the classroom. This is accomplished through various professional development opportunities, including the TakeOne! Program, Full National Board Certification, and site-based professional development at targeted high needs schools. Since the program‘s inception in 2007, there has been a concerted effort to inform teaching practice of PGCPS teachers by supporting the candidacy of the National Board Full and Retake Candidates as well as the Take One! participants. In SY 2010, eighty-nine (89) PGCPS teachers participated in the TakeOne! Program and 23 PGCPS teachers who were partial candidates (TakeOne! participants) advanced to full candidacy. Twenty-two (22) teachers participated in the PGCPS/George Washington University Certificate Program, and 180 teachers received the National Board Scholarship of $2,500 scholarship to pursue National Board Certification. Currently there are 159 candidates in the PGCPS cohort and 171 National Board Certified Teachers in PGCPS. PGCPS was selected by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) in SY2010 to serve as a Targeted High Need Initiative for Comprehensive Candidate Support Center (THNICCSC). The PGCPS National Board Certified TeachersLeadership Development (NBCT-LD) office was awarded a $370,000 grant for the project, plus an additional $30,000 grant for teachers to provide teacher leadership opportunities. Additionally, support has been provided to teachers not pursuing National Board Certification by providing job-embedded professional development that integrates the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Five Core Propositions into Prince George‘s County Public School System initiatives. The alignment of National Board Professional Teaching Standards with the PGCPS curriculum frameworks strengthens teaching and provides a platform for reflective teaching practice. Allocation: $883,658 and grants from National Board, as well as one supervisor and three teacher coordinators at central office, and three school-based teacher coordinators (supported partially by an MSDE grant). The Provisional Teacher Advisory Program The Provisional Teacher Advisory Program continued in SY2009-10 and provided yearlong support to all conditional teachers seeking initial Maryland professional certification and acquiring the NCLB highly qualified designation. The program included opportunities for teachers to participate in face-to face advisement, online and face-to face Praxis I program support, and support in locating course work with partnership colleges and universities. PGCPS‘ Continuing Professional Development (CPD) program assisted 32 non-certified teachers by offering CPD courses that lead to certification. Teachers with Praxis I requirements were provided access to PLATO and Praxis I/II, ETS books. In SY2009-10, seventy-eight (78) school-based one-on-one advisements were conducted, with follow up through emails and phone communication. Additionally, group meetings were held with provisional teachers and teachers with renewal certification requirements. Thirty-nine (39) teachers participated in Praxis I, and Plato sessions. Approximately 51 conditional teachers achieved, or were in process of achieving standard professional certification status before 7/1/2010. Additionally, the Praxis Study Program continued and supported conditional teachers needing to pass Praxis tests. Sessions were held for Praxis I – reading, writing, and math – as well as several Praxis II content and pedagogy tests. Study materials and access to the PLATO online learning environment were free of charge. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 199 Professional Development Schools The Professional Development Schools (PDS) network continues to establish strong partnerships with local universities to prepare highly qualified teachers. A significant focus of the PGCPS PDS partnerships is improved student performance through research-based teaching and learning. Professional development opportunities offered through the PDS program are a result of PGCPS and the universities engaging in planning that aligns university criteria for training interns with the mission of the division as it relates to teacher effectiveness and student learning. Interns as well as mentor teachers are engaged in action research, professional learning communities, and instruction-based workshops that target school improvement areas. In SY2009-10, thirty (30) PDS schools were operational and contributed to the professional growth and development of 62 Professional Development School interns who were hired as fully certified, highly qualified teachers Allocation: $368,000 from Title II Part A funding and a specialist from the Department of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development. Professional Educator Induction Program (PEIP) The Professional Educator Induction Program facilitated the entry of over 700 new teachers into PGCPS in SY2009-10. Through this required program, new teachers participated in professional development activities designed to assist with more fully developing their skills, and to provide them with an understanding of the program implementation and curricula required by the school system. Training focuses on the school system‘s instructional programs, on best practices for getting off to a good start, and is differentiated by content area, grade band, and/or program. The 2009 initial PEIP experience was supplemented and reinforced by continuous workshops and seminars which were held at school sites throughout the school year and offered by the administrative area office staff and by specific content area departments that oversee curricula. Additionally, new and experienced teachers participated in the "Classroom Organization and Management Program" and "Cooperative Discipline" Continuing Professional Development courses throughout the school year. Allocation: $110,000 and one specialist from the Department of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development. Teacher Mentors The Job-alike Mentor Program, which is a component of PEIP, pairs school-based master teachers with new teachers to support their early professional growth. School-based teacher leaders provide one-on-one assistance and support to novice teachers teaching in the same content area, department, or at the same grade level. Job-alike mentors' work includes collaborative planning, modeling, co-teaching, book studies, and facilitation of New Teacher Academies. Job-alike mentors are selected by their principals, receive a compensatory emolument, and are eligible to use this professional development activity for renewal credits at the Advanced Professional Certificate level. In SY2009-10, Job-Alike mentors provided support for first and secondyear teachers in 92 schools. The Job-Alike Mentoring Program includes: One-on-one mentoring and advisement (25 hours of targeted support); Customized training for Job-Alike Mentors; Resources, materials, and an online network of support for mentors and new teachers; and Substitute funds for collaboration, visitations and observations of best practices. Allocation: $240,341 and one specialist from the Department of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development. Maryland Approved Alternative Preparation Program (MAAPP) Additionally, mentoring support for new resident teachers continued through the Maryland Approved Alternative Preparation Program (MAAPP). Upon entry into the program, participants are provided with immediate standard professional certification and highly qualified teacher status in exchange for a two- to three-year commitment to teach in the school system. PGCPS partnered with the following five alternative certification programs, all which focused on high needs areas: 1) the PGCPS Resident Teacher Program; 2) Teach for America; 3) the New Teacher Project; 4) the College of Notre Dame Dual Certification Program; and 5) the University of Maryland Master‘s Certification Program. A cross-program steering committee met quarterly to provide oversight and guidance to the overall work of alternative teacher preparation support. In SY2009-10, a total of 26 MAAPP mentors provided services for over 300 resident teachers. With 85% of MAAPP teachers over the past three years still teaching in PGCPS, the programs contribute significantly to teacher retention. Allocation: $780,317 local funding plus Title II A Grant funding and one specialist from the Department of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development. Education That is Multicultural Teacher Leadership Program (This is described further in the ETM section of the Master Plan.) PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 200 The Office of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development (TLPD) established the Education That is Multicultural (ETM) Teacher Leadership Program in SY2009-10 to address the COMAR 13A.04.05 Regulation and to engage teachers around the work of culturally proficient instruction. Culturally proficient instruction includes the teacher practices and skill sets that provide equitable outcomes for all learners. As part of this initiative, 114 teachers were selected by their administrators to serve as schoolbased ETM Teacher Leaders. During collaborative planning meetings and other school-based professional development opportunities, these teacher leaders were responsible for leading and mentoring colleagues on matters related to ETM and culturally proficient instruction as it applies to achievement across the student population. Additionally, a Continuing Professional Development ETM course was created to clarify concepts and share strategies to ensure the infusion of MSDE‘s Education That Is Multicultural (COMAR 13A.04.05.01-07) into curriculum and instruction, professional development, assessment, school climate, and instructional resources with the goal of enhanced achievement for all students. Allocation: $152,000 and one specialist from the Department of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development. 3. Describe where challenges are evident. Although significant progress was made in reducing the teacher attrition rate from 14.5% to 9.6% in SY2009-10, there is still room for further progress. Resignations decreased by 45 percent from the previous year, but at nearly 400, further reductions can still be achieved. Also, after two consecutive years of declines, the number of teachers taking a leave of absence increased by 28 (see Tables 6.6A and 6.6B). Another ongoing challenge for PGCPS and for all Maryland school systems is the chronic shortage of teacher candidates from the state‘s colleges and universities, particularly in critical subject areas (see Maryland Teacher Staffing Report, 2008-2010). This forces school systems throughout the state to import teacher candidates from out of state, and they do so by offering higher starting salaries than do school systems in neighboring states. But doing so can lead to a retention problem down the road as states such as Pennsylvania, for example, will counter by offering a far more generous teacher pension plan than Maryland‘s. Thus, young Pennsylvania-educated teachers who begin their teaching careers in Prince George‘s County often leave the school system after a few years to return to their home state as openings become available. As such, they become more attractive applicants after acquiring a few years of successful teaching experience. In SY2009-10, slightly more than one-quarter (i.e. 102 of 383 or 26.6%) of the teachers who resigned from PGCPS did so because they either moved or they indicated that they were teaching in another state. Although all teachers who moved did not necessarily leave the state and/or go into teaching, it is quite probable that a considerable percentage of them moved out-of-state and continued to teach. Finally, the school system‘s perilous fiscal situation poses significant retention risks in the near future. SY2009-10 marked the second straight year that system teachers had their salaries frozen, and salaries will continue to be frozen for a third year (SY2010-11). Moreover, the Board of Education no longer provides tuition reimbursements to teachers for courses taken to meet certification requirements. In addition, the Board was forced to eliminate stipends for National Board Certified teachers for SY2010-11. 4. Describe the changes or adjustments and the corresponding resource allocations that were made to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate. To provide more comprehensive support to teachers and schools, the Department of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development (TLPD) was placed into the Department of School Leadership (DSL) in SY2010-11. The work of TLPD will continue but with increased emphases on collaboration regarding services to be provided, and uniformity of training and information provided to both principals and teachers. Professional development activities will continue to be guided by national and state teacher professional development standards. In meeting the needs of educators and ensuring that professional learning opportunities are high-quality, the Teacher Professional Development Calendar Committee continues to convene bi-weekly to review, approve, and monitor all systemic offerings. Professional learning opportunities continue using a variety of models, including: embedded experiences through mentoring, coaching, and professional learning communities; turnkey training by instructional coaches, mentors, department chairs, teacher coordinators, elementary contacts; and Continuing Professional Development (CPD) course work for certification and recertification. PGCPS is committed to providing meaningful professional development and ongoing support systems for aspiring teacher leaders to build the knowledge base and the capacity to successfully navigate the challenges of leadership within or PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 201 outside of the classroom. Professional development activities that are high-quality and provide pathways for teacher leadership have been refined and will continue for PGCPS teachers. Continuing Professional Development Program (CPD) During SY 2010, the number of CPD courses increased from 29 to 44, and a total of 2,064 teachers participated in the course offerings. Through interdepartmental collaboration, additional CPD courses will be piloted and offered in SY2010-11 to support the instructional needs of PGCPS teachers. A critical component of the CPD program is its support of new teachers by offering all of the MSDE-approved reading and special education certification courses that are required for certification. These courses are taught by certified reading specialists or special education staff. The program continually updates its course offerings. The coordinator monitors and assists program/content supervisors in the development of new courses according to the MSDE specifications. Allocation: This program is self supporting with revenue raised by course charges. Instructor stipends for coursework for c onditional and resident teachers are provided through local funding: $98,000. Instructor Academy The Instructor Academy is part of the annual training for all teacher leaders who are charged with the responsibility of delivering teacher professional development and/or teaching CPD coursework for PGCPS. This training, conducted by national consultants and PGCPS staff, includes strategies and skill building on topics related to adult learning, presentation skills to actively engage adult learners, as well as how to use best practice research to improve instruction. Part of the training includes sessions on enhancing technology skills. In SY2009-10, twenty-three (23) teacher leaders participated in the Instructor Academy. Allocation: $12,900 National Board Certified Teacher-Leadership Development Program A new cohort of 159 National Board Certified Teacher candidates has begun its orientation and professional development for certification. Additionally, 60 Take One!® Candidates have begun their orientation and candidacy support. The Take One!® Candidates will have the opportunity to become National Board Certification candidates in the next school year. Providing early intensive training to support the portfolio work needed to achieve National Board Certification will lead to an increase in the retention of candidates. National Board cohorts in over a dozen schools participate in professional learning communities. Expanded opportunities for school-based teacher leadership roles include: Providing bi-weekly Candidate Support Training for 159 candidates; Assisting 319 teachers in submitting full portfolio applications to become Board Certified; Participating in quarterly workshops targeted to enhance teacher leadership skills; and Supporting 25 teachers who participate in the George Washington University (GWU) Teacher Leadership Certificate Program. Allocation: $883,658 Education That is Multicultural Teacher Leadership Program The ETM Teacher Leadership Program continues to provide opportunities for teacher leaders to assist in infusing ETM goals and strategies into instruction, curriculum, professional development, instructional resources, and school climate. Training for these teachers leaders will continue in the form of customized workshops and the ETM CPD course. Allocation: $152,000 Teacher Mentoring The Job-Alike Mentor Program continues to provide support for new teachers in SY2010-11. With additional funding from Title IIA, the program is expanding to offer mentoring support to second year teachers, including those who are teaching under resident teacher certificates. Allocation: $216,380 plus an additional $107,000 from Title IIA grant. Alternative Teacher Preparation (ATP) Mentors Alternative Teacher Preparation (ATP) Mentors, formerly known as Maryland Approved Alternative Preparation Program (MAAPP) Mentors, continue to assist resident teachers to successfully integrate into the PGCPS learning community by supporting their professional growth and development. These full-time master teachers work with close to 150 resident teachers from five currently operating and state-approved MAAPPs. ATP Mentors receive continued training throughout the year in systemic instructional initiatives as well as the Mentor Academy facilitated by New Teacher Center, Santa Cruz. The customized PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 202 training provides a sequenced curriculum that focuses on building the knowledge, skills, and understandings critical for new teacher mentors. Additional training for mentors includes coaching and observation strategies, analysis of student work, and planning and designing professional development for new teachers. Allocation: $1,249,000 Instructional Coaching Instructional coaches continue to provide high-quality, job-embedded professional development for teachers. Supported by local funding, Title I ARRA funding, and Alternative Governance allocations, literacy, mathematics, special education, science, and ESOL coaches will provide ongoing teacher professional development and support for schools in improvement in SY2010-11. Instructional coaches have received training in cognitive demand, the Framework for Teaching, and Performance Management as a means to work collaboratively with teachers and other instructional leaders in schools. Through the collaborative planning process, coaches will work with teachers in various ways to identify student needs and adjust instruction accordingly, including examination of student work, analysis of root causes of student performance, and participation in lesson studies. Allocation: Salaries for 63 instructional coaches: $5,821,000 Materials, training, technology and other supports: $23,000 plus the support of one specialist in the Department of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development. Professional Development Schools (PDS) In SY2010-11, partnerships will continue with schools and universities in the PDS network, and guidance for the partners continues through signed Memoranda of Understanding which articulate the work of the various partnerships. The PDS Steering Committee representing all partners will continue to meet and provide oversight to the workings of the partnerships. Thirty (30) schools and four (4) universities are part of the PDS network. Allocation: $368,000 from Title II, Part A E. Based on the Examination of Qualified Paraprofessional Data (Table 6.7): 1. Describe the strategies that the local school system will use to ensure that all paraprofessionals working in Title I schools continue to be qualified. Table 6.7: Percentage of Qualified Paraprofessionals Working in Title I Schools Total Number of Paraprofessionals Working in Title I Schools 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011* Qualified Paraprofessionals Working in Title I Schools 395 442 398 # 395 442 398 % 100 100 100 *As of July 1, 2010 In SY2009-10, 442 paraprofessional educators were assigned to Title I schools. As of July 1, 2010, that number has decreased to 398 (See Table 6.7) largely due to the 2010-2011 reduction in force. Even with the reductions, this marks the sixth consecutive school year that all paraprofessionals assigned to Title I schools met the ―highly qualified‖ requirement. The responsibility for supervising paraprofessional educators' qualifications rests with the Division of Human Resources. The Human Resources Support Staffing Office ensures that all new hires, transfers, and recalled paraprofessional resulting from any reduction in force meet the ‗highly qualified‖ requirement before being assigned to a Title I school. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 203 HIGH QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Schools that have been in improvement for four (4) or more consecutive years are implementing an Alternative Governance Plan (AGP) that is aligned with their School Improvement Plan (SIP). These schools are required to integrate the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Standards into the professional development component of their plans. In order to prepare schools to implement high quality professional development that is reflective of state professional development standards, the Department of School Improvement (DSI) received training on the process, revised reporting templates, developed reference documents, and facilitated training to assist school teams as they created and/or revised their professional development plans. 1. Has the district integrated the teacher professional development planning framework into school improvement planning guidance? The Department of School Improvement (DSI) and the Office of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development (TLPD) integrated the teacher professional development planning framework into the School Improvement Plan (SIP) template in March 2009. The revised SIP template reflects the six elements of teacher professional development planning as outlined in the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Planning Guide, and the accompanying guidance provided by DSI and TLPD included an explanation of each of the six elements. Guidelines and templates for completing professional development calendars for SIPs were posted to the DSI Google site during the month of May 2010. (See Attachment A.) 2. Has the district implemented a program to prepare principals, other school leaders, school improvement teams, and school-based professional development staff to use the teacher professional development planning framework? If so, describe the program, clearly specifying (a) who participated and whether all of the intended participants did, in fact, participate, (b) the schedule (e.g., the number of sessions, the length of each session), (c) the topics covered, and (d) the professional learning activities (e.g., presentations, opportunities for practice and feedback). Also, attach copies of any materials developed for the training session. If the district has not implemented a program to prepare principals and others to use the planning framework, discuss the reasons for not doing so and describe how such a program will be completed during the 2010-2011 school year. The district implemented a program to prepare principals, other school leaders, school improvement teams, and other school-based professional development staff to use the teacher professional development planning framework. The program began in late SY2008-09 with training for elementary and middle school principals during May and June of 2009. High school principals received school-based technical support, training, and assistance during the months of October and November as they completed school improvement plans due November 30, 2009. Technical support and assistance for high school principals occurred as follows from late SY2008-09 through early SY2010-11. Performance Management Analysis and Planning Process (PMAPP) - PMAPP occurred quarterly in order to monitor students‘ academic performance so that instruction can be adjusted to ensure student success. The process enabled educators to focus on areas of need; develop and monitor implementation of Alternative Governance (AG) and school action plans for improvement (SIP); document best practices; and share critical information among staff. School improvement specialists worked with school teams through collaborative planning meetings both in preparation for, and during, PMAPP meetings to identify needed professional growth opportunities and to develop, monitor, and follow up on high quality professional development activities. Professional Development Calendar - Sessions were held with school improvement specialists to assist schools in the development of professional development plans using the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Planning Guide. Specialists provided guidance and feedback to schools during the development of each school‘s improvement plan, incorporating the six elements for planning high quality professional development. Accountability Portfolios - Meetings facilitated by school improvement specialists assisted schools as they planned professional growth opportunities for teachers, and prepared school personnel to collaboratively monitor and follow up on the professional development sessions and activities in which teachers participated. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 204 The following table lists the dates of the meetings in which the school improvement specialists provided on site technical support for high schools in improvement. Table M Site-Based Technical Assistance for Principals of High Schools Principals in Improvement, 4/1/2009 – 8/11/2010 School Bladensburg Central Crossland Duval Fairmont Heights High Point Largo Northwestern Oxon Hill Suitland PMAPP/SIP/AG 8/12/09, 6/3/10 9./0/09, 6/4/10 5/14/09, 9/1/10 5/27/09, 9/29/09 8/6/09, 8/12/10, 10/15/09 6/5/09, 5/27/10 10/30/09, 5/4/10, 6/2/10 4/1/09, 5/20/09, 10/15/09, 3/2/10 10/1/09, 10/19/09, 9/25/10 9/22/09, 3/3/10 PD Calendar 9/9/09 6/4/09 8/25/09 4/29/09 9/9/09 10/30/09 8/26/09 9/11/09 Accountability Portfolios 3/15/10 3/22/10 3/23/10 2/23/10, 3/25/10 10/15/09, 3/3/10, 4/8/10 3/24/10 3/24/10 4/15/10, 4/21/10 1/29/10, 4/9/10 3/3/10, 4/13/10 In order to prepare schools for the development of the school improvement plan for SY2010-11, a series of training sessions were held in May and June of 2010 for all schools in improvement. Participants included principals, schoolbased coaches, SIP coordinators and facilitators, and School Improvement and Area office staff. This training prepared instructional leaders at all levels to use the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Planning Guide during the development of school improvement plans. Training was then provided to elementary, middle and high school teams at the annual Bridge to Excellence Institute on June 23, 2010. Additionally, DSI specialists provided school-based professional development and assistance to support school teams as they developed their plans and enhanced their understanding of how to integrate the six elements of high quality teacher professional development into the plans. School teams used this information to revise and edit their plans in preparation for peer review, and ultimately, for final submission. Participating school teams (totaling 122 persons) included principals, assistant principals, School Planning and Management Team (SPMT) chairpersons, and other staff from each of the 23 alternative governance elementary and middle schools. Other participants included area assistant superintendents, area instructional specialists, achievement coaches, SIP and AGP reviewers, and DSI specialists. Following is the schedule of training sessions and activities designed to prepare principals, school leaders, school improvement teams, and other school based professional development staff to use the teacher professional development planning framework from May- August 2010: Table N Teacher Professional Development Planning Framework Training Schedule for School-Based Professional Development Staff, May through August 2010 Timeline Activity/Description Audience Responsible Department(s) May, 2010 Facilitator and Reviewer Training: DSI and The Participants: Department of Office of Professional Development staff. Coaches and specialists from all School schools. Improvement (DSI) Participants received training on the Maryland and Office of Teacher Professional Development Standards and Also in attendance were 3 area directors, 6 area achievement Teacher how to integrate the six elements of the coaches, 21 DSIA staff members, and Leadership and professional development process into each 81 SIP reviewers. Professional school‘s professional development plan. Development No. of Sessions: 2 (TLPD) Length of Sessions: 3.5 hours Topics Covered: Integrating the Professional Development Standards into the SIP PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 205 Table N Teacher Professional Development Planning Framework Training Schedule for School-Based Professional Development Staff, May through August 2010 Timeline Activity/Description Audience Responsible Department(s) Professional Learning Activities: Work sessions offered practice with integrating the six elements of the professional development process and standards into the school‘s professional development plan. June 23, 2010 Annual Bridge To Excellence Institute Facilitators: DSI and The Office of Professional Development staff. Participants received training on the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Standards and how to integrate the six elements of the professional development process into each school‘s professional development plan. No. of Sessions: 2 Length of Institute: 9.25 hours Topics Covered: Determining need for PD; integrating the Teacher PD standards into the professional development plan; creating a professional development calendar for schools. Professional Learning activities: Whole group discussions and school team work sessions to review school needs and begin to draft PD calendar using MD Teacher PD Standards and teacher needs assessment data. Participants: 26 elementary, middle, and high schools implementing Alternative Governance plans. School Teams consisting of principals, school-based leaders, instructional coaches, and school improvement teams. Also in attendance were 3 area directors, 6 area achievement coaches, 21 DSIA staff members, and 81 SIP reviewers. June, July, August, 2010 DSI specialists provided school-based professional development and assistance designed to support school teams as they developed their plans and enhanced their understanding of how to integrate the six elements of high quality teacher professional development into those plans. School teams used this information to revise and edit their plans in preparation for peer review, and ultimately, for final submission. No. of Sessions: Varied; site-based technical assistance upon request Length of Sessions: 3.0 to 3.5 hours Topics Covered: Developing and Revising SIPs; incorporating standards-based professional development aligned with students‘ needs. Professional Learning activities: Data/needs analysis; writing SIP strategies aligned to data; identifying professional development needs; developing professional development activities aligned to the standards; and SIP strategies and activities. Participants: All AG school teams comprised of the principal, assistant principal, school improvement team, instructional coaches, and other school-based leaders PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Department of School Improvement (DSI) and Office of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development (TLPD) DSI, Area Instructional Specialists and Coaches and TLPD Page | 206 Panel clarifying question: Are all of the activities included in response to question 2 provided for all schools, or just for the schools in improvement? Please elaborate. LSS Response to Clarifying Question: The response to this question can be found on pages 333 and 334. 3. Has the district implemented a program to prepare district staff for reviewing and providing feedback on professional development plans? If so, describe the program, clearly specifying (a) who participated and whether all of the intended participants did, in fact, participate, (b) the schedule (e.g., the number of sessions, the length of each session), (c) the topics covered, and (d) the professional learning activities (e.g., presentations, opportunities for practice and feedback). Also, attach copies of any materials developed for the training session. If the district has not implemented a program to prepare district staff for reviewing and providing feedback on the professional development plans, discuss the reasons for not doing so and describe how such a program will be completed during the 2010-2011 school year. Selected central office and area administrative office staffs are responsible for reviewing and providing feedback to AG schools throughout the year as these schools create, implement, and monitor their professional development plans. Central offices providing such services include the Area Administrative Offices, the High School Consortium, the departments of School Improvement, Curriculum and Instruction, and Title and the Teacher Leadership and Professional and Testing Offices. Schools often include central office staff in their plans as partners in their school improvement efforts. Staff who can articulate and recognize high quality professional development and its impact on a teacher‘s instructional practices can provide invaluable support to the schools they serve. The Department of School Improvement and the Office of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development work collaboratively to provide training for central office staff so that they can serve as session facilitators during the annual Bridge to Excellence School Improvement Institute and as reviewers of submitted SI and AG plans during the early months of the following school year. Central office staff training consists of a comprehensive overview of pertinent documents, including the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Planning Guide and the PGCPS Redesign of Teacher Professional Development (Attachment B), as well as selected alternative governance plans and professional development calendars. Table O lists and describes the activities that have been and are being implemented to prepare central office staff to be reviewers of SI and AG plans and to enable them to provide continual feedback to schools on professional development planning and implementation. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 207 Table O: Teacher Professional Development Planning Framework Training Schedule for Central Office and Area Office Staff, SY2009-10 and SY2010-11 ―Reviewing and Providing Feedback to School Based Teams‖ Timeline Activity Participants Personsesponsible October 6, Using the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Participants TLPD 2009 Planning Guide 86 Instructional coaches assigned to schools in improvement Facilitators: Nancy Carey, MSDE; Teacher Leadership and Professional Development Staff. Selected school-based teacher This half-day training session engaged selected central leaders, central office supervisors and office staff, including instructional coaches, in the specialists from the divisions of examination of high quality teacher professional Academics and Accountability development through the exploration and use of the MD attended this session. Teacher Professional Development Planning Guide. No. of Sessions: 2 Length of Sessions: 3.0 hours Topics Covered: Redesign of Teacher Professional Development; Using the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Planning Guide Professional Learning Activities: Whole group and small group discussion and review of the components of highquality professional development and MD Teacher PD Planning Guide October 8, 2009 January, February, March, April, May, 2010 Using the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Planning Guide Facilitators: Department of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development Staff. Participants examined the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Planning Guide and its components. An overview of the PGCPS Redesign of Teacher Professional Development document was also provided. No. of Sessions: 1 Length of Sessions: 1.5 hours Topics Covered: Redesign of Teacher Professional Development; Using the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Planning Guide Professional Learning Activities: Whole group overview of planning guide components and sample school professional development calendar; group discussion and reflection Participants 8 specialists from the Department of School Improvement office who work with school teams to review collected performance data TLPD Accountability Portfolio Review Training Conducted by DSI to prepare school teams on how to monitor implementation of the SIP plan and the PD activities and follow up. No. of Sessions: 23 Length of Sessions: 3.5 hours Topics Covered: Reviewing and Providing Feedback to school based teams relative to the implementation of the SIP/AG plan Participants Staff and principals from new AG Schools and from schools new to school improvement, and Area Office staff DSI PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update All AG Schools Page | 208 Table O: Teacher Professional Development Planning Framework Training Schedule for Central Office and Area Office Staff, SY2009-10 and SY2010-11 ―Reviewing and Providing Feedback to School Based Teams‖ Timeline Activity Participants Personsesponsible Professional Learning Activities: Ongoing review and discussion around the implementation of professional development activities through analysis of portfolio documentation May 2010 June 2010 August 31, 2010 September 2010 Facilitator/Reviewer Training for the Bridge to Excellence School Improvement Institute Facilitators: School Improvement Staff Training to prepare participants to serve as session facilitators and/or reviewers of school plans at the annual Bridge to Excellence School Improvement Institute in June 2010. No. of Sessions: 9 Length of Sessions: 3.5 hours Topics Covered: Facilitating and Reviewing School Improvement Plans Aligned with the Professional Development Planning Process Professional Learning Activities: Whole and small group discussions and review of sample professional development plans Participants Central Office Staff Title 1 Staff Instructional Coaches Area Office Staff DSI SY 2010-2011 Training Developing the Corrective Action (CA) Plan Intended Audience 5 schools new to Corrective Action Conducted by DSI in collaboration with MSDE to prepare school leaders and teams to develop an AG plan and PD Area Office Staff activities aligned to the needs of the school. Central Office Staff No. of Sessions: 2 Length of Sessions: 4.5 hours Topics Covered: Developing the CA Plan and Developing PD to support the needs of the school. Professional Learning Activities: Schools teams working to identify components of the CA plan, best practices and strategies, and review of professional development plan to support the CA plan. Reviewer Training for the School Improvement Plan Facilitators: School Improvement Staff Training to prepare area office staff to review school plans for approval and to ensure alignment with the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Standards and planning process. No. of Sessions: 5 Length of Sessions: 2.0 hours Topics Covered: Professional Development Planning Process Professional Learning Activities: Whole group review of planning guide components; review of sample school professional development calendar; group discussion, planning and reflection PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Intended Audience Central Office Staff Title 1 Staff Area Office Staff DSI TLPD Page | 209 Table O: Teacher Professional Development Planning Framework Training Schedule for Central Office and Area Office Staff, SY2009-10 and SY2010-11 ―Reviewing and Providing Feedback to School Based Teams‖ Timeline Activity Participants Personsesponsible October Accountability Portfolio Review Training Intended Audience DSI 1-15, Alternative Governance Schools Conducted by DSI to prepare school teams to monitor 2010 implementation of the SIP plan and PD activities and provide follow up. No. of Sessions: TBD based on identified needs Length of Sessions: 2.0 hours Topics Covered: Implementing Your School’s Professional Development Plan Professional Learning Activities: School teams plan review and discussion; coaching and feedback for teams with opportunity for reflection and collaborative planning of follow-up actions October 2010 Developing the Alternative Governance Plan Conducted by DSI in collaboration with MSDE to prepare school leaders and teams on how to develop an AG plan and PD activities aligned to the needs of the school. No. of Sessions: 2 Length of Sessions: 4.0 hours Topics Covered: Developing the AG Plan and Developing PD plan to support the AG plan Professional Learning Activities: School teams work together to identify components of the AG plan, best practices and strategies and reforms, and a school wide professional development plan to support the AG plan. Intended Audience New Restructuring Planning Schools DSI Table P below provides a detailed description of the school improvement and professional development training and technical assistance provided by central office and selected area office staff to schools. The training and assistance provided is based on the training received from DSI and TLPD. See Table C (above) for the timetable and topics of the trainings provided to central and area office staff. Selected Central Offices Area Offices Areas 1-4 High School Consortium Department of School Improvement Table P: Alternative Governance Professional Development Assistance Training Provided by Central and Area Office Staff Selected Training Highlighted Assistance Provided in Support Participants of Schools‘ Alternative Governance Plans Area Instructional /Special Education Specialists: Instructional Specialists provide direct content-focused support to teachers in their assigned regional Special Education area; Instructional Specialists meet and plan with principals, teachers and teaching teams; conduct classroom observations with feedback; and participate in school-based monitoring and work sessions for review and updating of SIP-AG plans through PMAPP sessions. Instructional Specialists: Supervisors provide onsite technical assistance to schools as they complete the Instructional Specialists professional development activities and calendar; Resource Teachers participate in school-based monitoring and work sessions for review and Data Coach updating of AG plans. Resource Teachers: PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 210 Selected Central Offices Title I Office Department of Curriculum and Instruction Office of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development Testing Office Table P: Alternative Governance Professional Development Assistance Training Provided by Central and Area Office Staff Selected Training Highlighted Assistance Provided in Support Participants of Schools‘ Alternative Governance Plans provide non-evaluative, content-focused support to teachers in their assigned schools. Data Coach: collects and analyzes cumulative and summative data from AG schools; disaggregate data according to subgroups. Instructional Coaches Supervisors provide non-evaluative, content-focused support to teachers in assigned Title Instructional Coaches I schools. Content Supervisors: Content Supervisors provide professional development and monitor implementation of curriculum in schools; and Instructional Specialists conduct site visits and work with teachers in support of schools‘ instructional improvement programs. Instructional Specialists: conduct site visits in support of schools‘ instructional improvement programs; and provide support for teachers in their understanding and use of curriculum documents and materials. Instructional Specialists: Instructional Specialists coordinate, implement and monitor systemic teacher development programs Instructional Coaches available to all teachers; Alternative Teacher conduct site visits in support of schools participating in various programs; and Preparation Mentors visit selected schools to monitor the work of school-based instructional coaches. Instructional Coaches: work in schools identified in various stages of school improvement; provide non-evaluative, content-focused support to teachers in their classrooms on a daily basis; and serve as on site professional developers, leaders of collaborative planning, members of the School Improvement Team, and supporters of their school‘s instructional improvement programs. Alternative Teacher Preparation Mentors: provide non-evaluative instructional support to resident teachers in their classrooms. Supervise: Selected Test Administration supervise the work of school-based data coaches and provide professional Specialists development and technical assistance in support of the coaches‘ work in schools; and Data Coaches Data Coaches (Assigned to Middle Schools): collect and analyzes students‘ cumulative and summative data, and share results with instructional staff; and disaggregate data according to subgroups to assist teachers in making informed instructional decisions. 4. How is the district monitoring implementation and impact of the school based professional development activities? The district monitors the implementation of the school based professional development activities in AG schools in the following manner: PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 211 Peer, DSI, and TLPD review of AG and school improvement plans to ensure the presence of all six components of high quality teacher professional development. Schools provide documentation for each professional development activity prescribed in each school‘s improvement plan using sign-in sheets, agendas, notes, and evaluations. Area office staff and DSI specialists monitor the implementation of strategies and activities taught during the professional development training by conducting informal observations, walk throughs, and follow up debriefings. School-based coaches provide differentiated support and follow up with teachers based on the teacher‘s demonstrated expertise and level of implementation of specific professional development strategies documented by coaches‘ logs and subsequent observations. Schools participate in a quarterly Performance Management Analysis and Planning Process (PMAPP) meeting with their Area Assistant Superintendent to discuss quarterly monitoring tools, analysis, and results. This process monitors student achievement data (formative assessments, attendance, suspensions) as they align with specific activities and strategies identified and supported by the professional development plans. Area offices provide feedback, recommendations, and resources to ensure alignment of professional development and appropriate strategies and next steps to increase student achievement. School district monitoring of professional development activities is a fluid, overlapping process that begins with peer review of preliminary school improvement plans at the annual Bridge to Excellence School Improvement Institute in June of year one and culminates with the submission of Action Step reports to MSDE in August of the subsequent school year. Among the items screened at the initial peer review of school improvement plans is the presence of all six components of high quality teacher professional development. These preliminary plans are then reviewed by DSI and TLPD and representatives from area offices during the summer to ensure that plans were appropriate to the needs of the school and student population and that the plans reflected the six standards for high quality teacher professional development. Reviewers then submit the Final School Improvement Plan Checklist to DSI with either a recommendation for approval or with a listing of specific items in need of revision. If revisions are needed, the school has until September 30 to resubmit the plan with required revisions for review and subsequent approval. During this time – i.e. July through September -- schools receive onsite technical assistance to ensure that plans are ready for re-submission and approval. Once school improvement plans are approved, area office staff and DSI specialists conduct site-based monitoring of planned professional development activities periodically throughout the year. In addition, accountability portfolios are examined to determine the extent to which planned, non-observed professional development activities are being implemented with fidelity. Based on assessments from observed activities, school-based coaches provide differentiated support to teachers in need of further assistance. Impact is monitored largely through quarterly performance management review sessions (PMAPP) conducted by Area Assistant Superintendents. This process focuses on analyses of student achievement data (e.g. formative assessments, attendance, suspensions), and recommendations for enhanced professional development are made for schools that are not meeting student achievement targets. The monitoring process concludes with the submission of Action Step reports to MSDE in August of the subsequent school year. These reports compile the results of site-based, portfolio, and PMAPP reviews of teacher professional development activity implementation and corresponding student achievement growth. (See Table Q below for the school system‘s schedule for monitoring professional development activities.) Time June 2009 October 2009 Table Q: Alternative Governance Professional Development Monitoring Activities, SY2009-10 through SY2010-11 Activity Peer Reviews were conducted by participating AG schools. Schools reviewed each other‘s plan to provide feedback and recommendations, and to ensure that SIPs reflected the use of the six elements of high quality teacher professional development. Plans were due to DSI on September 30. DSI specialists completed an on-site review of each school‘s improvement plan in order to provide feedback and recommendations, and to ensure that the SIP reflects the use of the six elements of high quality teacher professional development. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Responsible All 26 AG schools All 26 Alternative Governance School teams Page | 212 Time Table Q: Alternative Governance Professional Development Monitoring Activities, SY2009-10 through SY2010-11 Activity December 2009 Final revised plans were submitted to DSI on December 30, 2009 and uploaded to the School Improvement electronic organization. January – May 2010 Accountability portfolios were reviewed to monitor and document evidence of professional development implementation and follow up activities. Student achievement, participation, and observational data were used to determine impact and help schools identify next step activities. Instructional coaches‘ logs, surveys, and evaluations were also reviewed to determine impact on teacher practice. SY2009-10 MSDE Action Step reports were completed and submitted to MSDE. These reports provided a tool for documenting the impact of the AG activities and PD plans. It included evidence of school improvement plan implementation and data analysis of student achievement to determine the impact of teacher professional development activities*. SIP Reviews (SY2010-11) are conducted by participating Area offices, DSI, and TLPD. During this review, a scoring rubric provides feedback on the extent to which the six elements of the high quality teacher professional development are reflected in each school‘s proposed professional development activities. August 2010 – October 2010 September October 2010 September 2010 – June 2011 September 2010 – June 2011 Assistant Superintendents monitor student achievement data (formative assessments, attendance, suspensions) at quarterly PMAPP meeting to ensure that as they align with specific activities and strategies identified and supported by the professional development plans*. Monthly AG Board will monitor implementation of the AG Plans and identified professional development activities, impact and next steps. Responsible All 26 Alternative Governance School teams All AG Schools All AG Schools DSI DSI, Area Offices AG Board * Schools in advancing years of Restructuring Implementation (AG Schools +3 years), the AG Board will conduct a critical review of their AG plans for additional data analysis (with root cause analyses) and possible revisions. Panel clarifying question: Provide artifacts used to review PD plans (i.e. the scoring rubric used to provide feedback on the extent to which the six elements, or any other relevant artifacts). LSS Response to Clarifying Question: The response to this question can be found on page 334. Responses to Question 4 on pages 211 and 212 Panel clarifying question: Results are provided for the 26 AG schools, only. Please respond to the guiding question regarding all LSS schools. LSS Response to Clarifying Question: The response to this question can be found on page 334. Panel clarifying question: Provide Summary description of the strengths and weakness of the plans as reflected in how they addressed each of the six elements of the planning framework. LSS Response to Clarifying Question: PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 213 The response to this question can be found on pages 334 and 335. Panel clarifying question: Provide a discussion of lessons learned about the need for additional training and support for school and district staff LSS Response to Clarifying Question: The response to this question can be found on page 335. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 214 TEACHER INDUCTION PROGRAM In the 2010 Master Plan updates, districts should submit an overview of their Teacher Induction Program. For the overview, districts should describe how their program addresses the Induction Program COMAR in: 1. The content, structure and participant outcomes of the following elements: a. Orientation program before the school year begins; b. Support from a mentor; c. Regularly scheduled opportunities to observe or co-teach with skilled teachers; d. Ongoing professional development sessions; and e. Ongoing formative review of new teacher performance based on clearly defined teaching standards. Overview of Teacher Induction Program The Professional Educator Induction Program (PEIP) facilitates the professional development of teachers during the induction period. Through this program, new teachers in PGCPS receive guidance and training designed to assist them in developing their skills and facilitating understanding in implementing programs and curricula required by the school system. An integral component of PEIP is the August pre-service induction program for teachers new to teaching in PGCPS. During this three-day training, new teachers are introduced to school system leaders and fellow educators, and receive information regarding curriculum, systemic initiatives and priorities. Sessions are led by master teachers and content supervisors and are differentiated according to instructional level and/or content area. In addition to the initial August training, follow-up sessions will be available during the year to further assist new teachers with their professional development needs and to encourage reflection upon their practice. As the program currently stands, induction activities are limited to first- and selected second-year teachers. Beginning in the summer of 2011, induction activities will be expanded to include third-year non-tenured teachers. During SY201011, plans for year three of teacher induction, which will include mentoring, opportunities for observation of master teachers, and ongoing professional development, will be discussed and developed in preparation for 2011-12 implementation. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 215 1) Content, structure and participant outcomes: Element a. Orientation program before the school year begins (1st year teachers) b. Support from a mentor (1st and selected 2nd year teachers) c. Regularly scheduled opportunities to observe or co-teach with skilled teachers Content CHART J: Overview of PGCPS Teacher Induction Program Structure The pre-service August orientation for new teachers includes the following sessions: Welcome to Prince George‘s County Public Schools Getting Off to a Good Start! Enhancing Professional Practice: An Introduction to the Framework for Teaching Classroom and Organization and Management – Infant and Toddler and Early Childhood Programs Content-specific Training Mentor support includes: Strategies for effective classroom management and organization Collaborative lesson planning and feedback Review of student work and assessment data Additionally, ATP mentor and instructional coach support includes: Demonstration lessons in new and experienced teachers‘ classrooms Classroom visits with pre- and postconferencing ATP mentors also provide: Professional portfolio guidance and feedback for new resident teachers Observation and co-teaching episodes are planned on a bi-weekly basis, at minimum, and include the following elements: Pre-conferencing and planning opportunities (includes goal-setting and Participant Outcomes Three-day pre-service orientation with whole group, small-group and differentiated sessions; Sessions taught by master teachers, content supervisors, and central office personnel in model classrooms; Supporting texts distributed to new teachers: Enhancing Professional Practice: a Framework for Teaching (Danielson) The Teacher’s Guide to Success (Kronowitz) Discipline Survival Kit for the Secondary Teacher (Thompson) New teachers are provided mentor support as follows: Alternative Teacher Preparation (ATP) Mentors: Full-time mentor support of 1st year and identified 2nd year resident teachers; mentors to interact with new teachers at a minimum of one (1) 45-minute visit per week Instructional Coaches: collaborate with principal and other school-based instructional leaders to support new and experienced teachers in identified schools: Coaches to provide content-based support to identified new and experienced teachers at a minimum of one (1) 90-minute visit per week School-based ―job-alike‖ mentors‖: provide a minimum of 25 hours of mentoring support to new teachers during course of the school year. To provide new teachers opportunities to observe or coteach with skilled teachers, mentors and coaches will be assigned as follows: Alternative Teacher Preparation Mentors to first-year and identified second-year resident teachers PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Develop awareness of systemic organization and structure, priorities and processes; Access and examine PGCPS curriculum and principles of learning and teaching that form the framework for planning, implementing and assessing instruction; Acquire and practice strategies for effective classroom management; and Plan and prepare for successful opening of school year Practice effective instructional and classroom management strategies; Make instructional decisions based on student data; Complete successful year of teaching and return for another year of service Implement effective instructional and classroom management strategies using a variety of resources Participate in collaborative lesson planning with colleagues Page | 216 Element (1st and selected 2nd year teachers) Content d. Ongoing professional development (1st and selected 2nd year teachers) e. Ongoing formative review of new teacher performance based on clearly defined teaching standards (1st and 2nd year teachers) CHART J: Overview of PGCPS Teacher Induction Program Structure look-fors); Observation or co-teaching episode; and Post-conferencing, reflections, and next steps. Professional Educator Induction Program follow-up sessions to include a minimum of two (2) in area of Framework for Teaching Continuing Professional Development coursework, with emphasis on classroom management and organization, available in a three semester format Monthly New Teacher Academies led by job-alike mentors and assigned school-based instructional leaders with emphasis on classroom management, instructional strategies, and collaborative planning Periodic content-based trainings led by curriculum supervisors Formal and informal observations by school-based administrators, including walkthroughs Classroom visits and observations by coaches and mentors with debriefing and feedback Comprehensive portfolios created by identified resident teachers organized around domains in Danielson Framework. Instructional coaches to new and experienced teachers in high-needs schools and/or schools in improvement School-based ―job-alike‖ mentors to support first-year and identified second-year teachers in like content/grade levels Ongoing support through professional development to include: Professional Educator Induction Program Follow-up Sessions Continuing Professional Development Courses School-based New Teacher Academies and Collaborative Planning Sessions Content-based Sessions (Systemic) Observation and feedback from school-based administrators Coaching and Mentoring Professional portfolios PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Participant Outcomes Make instructional decisions based on student data Implement effective instructional and classroom management strategies using a variety of resources Plan collaboratively with colleagues Make instructional decisions based on student data Increase curriculum content knowledge and improve lesson instruction Enhance reflective teaching practices Page | 217 2. Their staffing plan, including who coordinates the program, the number of new teachers and the number of mentors and how many new teachers they each serve. The Recruiting, Staffing, and Certification team in the Division of Human Resources coordinates hiring and staffing for PGCPS. Priority areas for hiring and staffing include mathematics, science, special education, and ESOL. Due to a reduction in force, the number of new hires for SY2010-11 approximately 300 teachers. PGCPS continues to partner with area colleges and universities, as well as PGCPS‘s own state-approved resident teacher program, to provide a wide range of options for hiring and staffing, including career changers interested in becoming certified teachers. For SY2010-11, 157 new teachers were hired through Maryland Approved Alternative Preparation Programs (MAAPP). Once hired, these certified teachers were placed in high-needs priority staffing schools and are being provided support through the services of a full-time Alternative Teacher Preparation (ATP) Mentor Teacher. Fourteen (14) ATP mentors support newly hired resident teachers at a ratio of approximately 1:12, as compared to the 1:15 mentor-to-teacher ratio during SY2009-10 – the first year full-time mentors were assigned specifically to resident teachers. The remaining SY2010-11 new hires have support available through the services of school-based job-alike mentors. 3) The process of mentor recruitment, screening, selection and training Providing mentoring support for teachers entering PGCPS is integral to new teacher induction. Full-time Alternative Teacher Preparation (ATP) Mentors support the work of teachers hired through the various MAAPP programs. Remaining new hires are supported through school-based mentoring. ATP mentors are master teachers hired specifically to work with new resident teachers. The teachers who train and mentor resident teachers have not only successfully worked with students in high-needs schools, but also receive specialized training in strategies for working with beginning teachers. The mentor assigned to each resident teacher monitors her/his progress during weekly visits throughout the school year. The mentor observes and conferences with the resident teacher, guiding her/him in such areas as classroom management, instructional design and delivery, lesson planning, time management, parent relationships, student concerns, and district policies, regulations, and procedures. The mentor confers on a regular basis with the principal to ensure cohesive support and to determine strategies for the resident teacher‘s continued classroom and/or professional growth. To further support the professional growth of the resident teachers, collaboration among PGCPS support providers and resident teacher program personnel is essential. Monthly meetings comprised of representatives from Human Resources, Teacher Leadership and Professional Development, and each respective resident teacher program focuses on issues relevant to the professional growth of resident teachers. Additionally, a cross-program steering committee comprised of representatives from each resident teacher program, Human Resources, School Leadership, Teacher Leadership and Professional Development, Curriculum and Instruction, and the Maryland State Department of Education meets quarterly. This committee, which also includes a school principal, collaborates to discuss the progress of new teachers and determine where additional support is needed. This ongoing collaboration serves to inform the work of the mentors and to identify professional development opportunities that address real-time needs experienced by resident teachers. ATP mentors participate in ongoing training designed to help them work more effectively with their new teachers. Biweekly training sessions target professional development strategies and provide an opportunity for mentors to debrief their experiences with new teachers and problem solve in collaborative groups. Mentors are also given the opportunity to dialog with MAAPP program coordinators to ensure that the needs of the new resident teachers are being met. In addition to the bi-weekly training sessions, in SY2010-11, ATP mentors participate in quarterly training on the Danielson Framework for Teaching. Mentor training in the Danielson Framework is aligned with the systemic goal of Highly Effective Teaching, and will provide a foundation for the critical support afforded to new resident teachers. As the school system moves toward teacher evaluations reflective of practices outlined in the Danielson Framework, trained mentors can provide models of effective teaching practice and prepare resident teachers for eventual participation in the system‘s pilot teacher evaluation model. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 218 Identified first- and second-year teachers will have mentor support available through the school-based job-alike mentor program. Job-alike mentor support is offered to first-year, non-resident teachers and all second-year resident teachers, based on available funding provided to Teacher Leadership and Professional Development. Job-alike mentors are experienced master teachers selected by their principals to provide a minimum of 25 hours of onsite support for up to two (2) of their new colleagues. These mentors help new teachers transition to their new school assignment, and provide additional support that includes lesson planning and delivery and classroom management. Teachers selected to serve as job-alike mentors participate in training provided by TLPD and receive an emolument for their support. Jobalike mentors attend the Induction Institute, a module-based training that prepares the school-based mentor to work collaboratively with a new colleague. Goals of the Induction Institute include: a) improving the quality of support for the new teacher at the building level; and b) fostering professional learning communities, inclusive of New Teacher Academies, to assist novice teachers in their transition to school settings. Follow-up training for school-based mentors is provided at a minimum of one session per semester, with ongoing communication via a dedicated online site for job-alike mentors. 4) The training provided to Central Office and School-Based Administrators regarding the New Teacher Induction Program. During SY2010-11, a focused effort will be made to expand the scope of the current Teacher Induction Program to serve selected third-year teachers who have yet to acquire their standard teaching certification and highly qualified status. The expansion process will involve an intensive collaboration within TLPD, other selected representatives from the Division of Academics, selected central and regional office staff including representatives from the Division of Human Resources, and selected school-based administrators. This collaboration will take the form of a New Teacher Induction Work Group under the leadership of the Office of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development. The process for expanding training and addressing gaps in the school system‘s current Teacher Induction Program is outlined in Chart K below. CHART K: Process for Expanding Training and Addressing Gaps in the PGCPS New Teacher Induction Program Timeline Action Audience September 2010New Teacher Induction Work Group to review the New Teacher Chief of Academics, Area Assistant October 2010 Induction COMAR with Division of Academics at scheduled Superintendents, Executive Directors, and Council meeting and discuss implications for training and Supervisors, Human Resources Representatives providing support to new teachers, including modified assignments during first year of teaching. Chief of Academics to encourage executive level participation Team assigned by Chief of Academics in the forum on ―Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction.‖ October 2010Include New Teacher Induction COMAR in Teacher Evaluation Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent, Division January 2011 Reform Project discussions regarding teacher professional Chiefs, Area Assistant Superintendents, development. General recommendations from these Executive Directors, Selected Central Office discussions will be presented to the New Teacher Induction Staff, Selected Principals Work Group for further refinement and customization for thirdyear of teaching. November 2010Share New Teacher Induction COMAR with school-based Principals, Assistant Principals, Resident January 2011 administrators at area administrative meetings and/or via the Principals online professional development site. Solicit recommendations for program refinements for school-based support and training for teachers in their first three years in the profession. February 2011New Teacher Induction Work Group to refine recommendations Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent, Division April 2011 from Executive Staff, to consider recommendations from Chiefs, Area Assistant Superintendents, school-based administrators, and to finalize draft modifications Executive Directors, Selected Central Office to the New Teacher Induction Program. Draft program Staff, Selected Principals modifications are then presented to Executive Cabinet for final modification and approval. May 2011Review and share approved New Teacher Induction Program Executive, Central and Area Office Staff, June 2011 modifications, with emphasis on providing training and support Principals for third-year, non-tenured teachers, with principals and selected central and areas office staff. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 219 5) To the extent practicable given staffing and fiscal concerns, if any of the following options were adopted for new teachers: f. A reduction in the teaching schedule; g. A reduction or elimination of responsibilities in non-instructional duties; and/or h. Sensitivity to assignment to teaching classes that include high percentages of students with achievement, discipline or attendance challenges. Due to systemic budgetary concerns and limited hiring this year, the following options for modifications to new teacher assignments were not be implemented this year: A reduction in the teaching schedule; A reduction or elimination of responsibilities in non-instructional duties; and/or Sensitivity to assignment to teaching classes that include high percentages of students with achievement, discipline, or attendance challenges. Through continued interdivisional collaboration, the system will examine options that best support student learning and provide the opportunity for the greatest instructional impact. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 220 Addendum - Attachment A Training Documents School Improvement Plan Professional Development Calendar Guidelines for completing the Professional Development Calendar Section V: Professional Development Calendar Activities should align with the Top Five TCNA Action Steps from the AG Plan. Professional development activities must be aligned to Evidence of Need (Section II) and Activities for Improved Subgroup Performance (Section IIIB). When completing the professional development calendar, use the following “Think About”: How will it be determined that the professional development activities will lead to increased student achievement? A. Complete the calendar as indicated by the appropriate column headings. Note: The professional development calendar has been updated to reflect the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Standards. 1. Identify the Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Goal(s). Include the professional development standard/indicator. Refer to the 20082009 Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Goals (available in the Supporting Documents folder on Bb). 2. Name the professional development activity. Be sure to include: Under Justification, data or evidence from Section II B, Evidence of Need, or Section III B Subgroups identified in Section III B Specific date(s) on which the activity will occur 3. Identify the person(s) responsible and the participants. Differentiate professional development opportunities, i.e., years of experience, grade levels, etc 4. Identify the skill or knowledge to be acquired, measurable and/or observable outcome(s), timeline, and follow-up activity. Refer to Maryland Teacher Professional Development Standards and/or the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Evaluation Guide. Be sure to include: Follow-up activities, i.e., action research, study groups, discussions at team and departmental meetings, focus groups, and feedback or outcomes of informal observations/checklists Specific dates for follow-up activities 5. Describe the plan for evaluation. Refer to Maryland Teacher Professional Development Standards and/or the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Evaluation Guide. Be sure to include: Person(s) responsible for the evaluation Evaluation timeline 6. List funding sources and expenditures for each activity. Refer to Section VI, Budget Plan Worksheet. Be sure to change the title of the last column from “Other” to “AG Funds.” PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 221 Addendum - Attachment A, continued Training Documents School Improvement Plan Professional Development Calendar Goal 3: All employees will be highly qualified, highly skilled, and effective. (Title I Component # 4 – High Quality and Ongoing Professional Development for Teachers, Principals, and Paraprofessionals) Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Goal(s): Professional Development (PD) Activity Identify student learning needs (Justifications from Section III B) Master Plan Goal(s): Topic/Title: Person(s) Responsible/ Participants (Audience) 1. Identify person(s) responsible for providing professional development 2. Identify participants(audience) Person(s) responsible: 1. 2. 3. 4. Learning Outcomes of Participants Identify acquired professional knowledge or skills Identify measurable and/or observable outcomes Develop a timeline for achieving outcomes Provide a follow-up activity Evaluation Plan Describe the plan for evaluation 2. Identify person(s) responsible 3. Develop a timeline for evaluation 1. Budget Implications 1. List funding sources 2. List expenditures (dollar amount for the PD) Funding Source: Justification(s)/Need(s): Participants: Expenditure amount : Person(s) responsible: Funding Source: Participants: Expenditure amount: Person(s) responsible: Funding Source: Targeted subgroups: Master Plan Goal(s): Timeline: Topic/Title: Justification(s)/Need(s): Targeted subgroups: Master Plan Goal(s): Timeline: Topic/Title: Justification(s)/Need(s): Expenditure amount: Participants: Targeted subgroups: Master Plan Goal(s): Timeline: Topic/Title: Person(s) responsible: Funding Source: Justification(s)/Need(s): Expenditure amount: Participants: Targeted subgroups: Timeline: PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 222 Addendum – Attachment B Training Document B FullAddendum document –isAttachment located at http://www1.pgcps.org/professionaldevelopment/ Agenda Maryland Teacher Professional Development Planning Guide Training Maryland Teacher Professional Development Planning Guide Training October 6, 2009 October 6, 2009 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 223 Addendum – Attachment B Training Document Full document is located at http://mdk12.org/share/pdf/MarylandTeacherProfessionalDevelopmentPlanningGuide.pdf ) Maryland Teacher Professional Development Planning Guide Training October 6, 2009 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 224 Addendum – Attachment B Agenda Maryland Teacher Professional Development Planning Guide Training October 6, 2009 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 225 Addendum – Attachment B Agenda Maryland Teacher Professional Development Planning Guide Training October 6, 2009 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 226 Addendum – Attachment C Memo Clinics for New School Improvement Plan June 1, 2010 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 227 Addendum – Attachment C Agenda School Improvement and Title 1 Clinic – Area 1 June 2, 2010 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 228 Addendum – Attachment D Agenda Bridge to Excellence School Improvement and Title I Institute Training June 23, 2010 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 229 Addendum – Attachment D Training Groups Addendum – Attachment D Bridge to Excellence School Improvement and Title I Institute Training JuneTraining 23, 2010Groups, continued Bridge to Excellence School Improvement and Title I Institute Training June 23, 2010 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 230 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 231 I.D.vii SCHOOLS THAT ARE SAFE, DRUG-FREE, AND CONDUCIVE TO LEARNING Schools that are Safe, Drug-free, and Conducive to Learning No Child Left Behind Goal 4: All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug-free, and conducive to learning. No Child Left Behind Indicator 4.1: The number of persistently dangerous schools, as defined by the state. A. Based on the Examination of Persistently Dangerous Schools Data (Table 7.1 – 7.5): Where first-time schools are identified, what steps are being taken by the school system to reverse this trend and prevent the identified school(s) from moving into probationary status? Annually, local school systems are required to report incidents of bullying, harassment, or intimidation as mandated by the Safe Schools Reporting Act of 2005.12 As reflected in Tables 7.1 through 7.5, there are currently no schools in PGCPS whose status was identified as ―persistently dangerous‖. As noted in Table 7.1, this data trend has been consistent over the past seven years. Table 7.1: Number of Persistently Dangerous Schools # of Schools 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 School* NA Table 7.2: Probationary Status Schools # of Suspensions 9/30/2009 Enrollment and expulsions NA NA Percentage of Enrollment NA Table 7.3: Schools Meeting the 2½ Percent Criteria for the First Time # of Suspensions Percentage of School* 9/30/2009 Enrollment and Expulsions Enrollment NA NA NA NA # of Schools Table 7.4: Elementary Schools with Suspension Rates Exceeding Identified Limits 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 Number With a Number With a Number With a Number With a Number With a Suspension Rate Suspension Rate Suspension Rate Suspension Rate Suspension Rate that Exceeded that Exceeded that Exceeded that Exceeded that Exceeded 18% 18% 16% 14% 12% 0 0 1 0 0 School* NA * Add rows when necessary Table 7.5: Identified Schools That Have Not Implemented PBIS School year in which the Provide reason for suspension rate was exceeded noncompliance NA NA 2009-2010 Number With a Suspension Rate that Exceeded 10% 0 Provide a timeline for compliance NA B. Based on the Examination of Data on Incidents of Bullying, Harassment, or Intimidation (Table 7.6): 1. How would you characterize the prevalence of bullying, harassment, and intimidation in the schools in your system? If you have seen an increase or decrease in reports over the past three school years, explain those in terms of programs and/or procedures that you have implemented. 12 Section 7-424 of the Education Article of the Annotated Code. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 232 Table 7.6 Incidents of Bullying, Harassment, or Intimidation 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 Number of Incidents 52 24 54 2008-2009 77 2009-2010 562 Based on a review of the data in Table 7.6, the number of reported incidents increased significantly since SY2005-06 and more than tripled from SY2008-09 to SY2009-10, increasing by 394 (or 234.5%). These data trends strongly suggest that there was significant under-reporting of these incidents prior to the state mandate for the development of a formal policy to address bullying, harassment or intimidation in July 2009. Reasons for increased reporting in recent years may also be attributed to the following factors: Clear guidance in Administrative Procedure 5143 on reporting, investigating, and addressing these allegations; Public awareness campaign launched to inform the school system and community-at-large of the reporting requirements; Participation of key district stakeholders in meetings to discuss issues, develop strategies, and review best practices to heighten awareness of reporting, investigating, and intervening in these issues; Ongoing training and support of key staff inclusive of, but not limited to Professional School Counselors, pupil personnel workers, principals and assistant principals; Awareness sessions conducted with students and parents to ensure that they were provided information on reporting and investigation procedures; and Anti-bullying classroom and small group guidance lessons provided to students by professional school counselors. Of the 562 incidents reported in the SchoolMax®13 discipline module, 488 of the allegations (or 86.8%) were documented on MSDE‘s Bullying, Harassment, or Intimidation Reporting Form and corresponding investigations were documented on the MSDE Bullying, Harassment, or Intimidation School Investigation Form. The remaining 74 reported incidents of bullying, harassment, or intimidation that were logged into the SchoolMax® discipline module were not documented on the required state forms. By school level, a disproportionately high concentration of bullying, harassment, and intimidation incidents occurred at the middle school level. Of the 488 reported incidents in SY2009-10, 163 (or 33.4%) occurred in grades six, seven, and eight even though middle school students comprise only 21.4% of the school system‘s total student population (see Figure 2). Figure 2 Bullying, Harassment, and Intimidation Incidents by School Level, PGCPS, SY2009-10 13 SchoolMax® is PGCPS‘ Student Information System and the school system‘s official source for discipline data. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 233 Procedures to Document Incidents of Bullying, Harassment, and Intimidation Administrative Procedure (AP) 5143 was developed in collaboration with a team of stakeholders including students, teachers, parents, and administrators, and outlines the procedures for reporting, investigating, and intervening in alleged incidents of bullying, harassment, or intimidation. In addition, a process to track and monitor all incidents in the discipline module of SchoolMax® was developed and implemented. This process consisted of a monthly download of incident data that was further categorized by area and school. Each Area Assistant Superintendent received a copy of their schools‘ incident reports and was asked to provide assistance if there were delays in the submission of reports and the investigation of documented incidents. Additionally, a major public awareness campaign was launched and included publications in both English and Spanish. Anti bullying, harassment, or intimidation posters were distributed to all schools. These posters focused on reporting incidents, cyber bullying, and information for parents on reporting and addressing the social emotional needs of victims and offenders. Bulletins, memoranda, and emails were sent to principals and other stakeholders as reminders to report and investigate all allegations and to submit the completed documents to the Office of the Court Liaison for tracking. Workshops were conducted for the Local Management Board, the Board of Education, professional school counselors, school staff, parent liaisons, and students to ensure that stakeholders were made aware of the procedures for reporting these incidents, the impact of bullying, harassment and intimidation on the victim and the offender, and strategies to support both based on a review of the literature. Bullying, Harassment, or Intimidation Reporting Forms were made available to parents, students, and staff online via the school system‘s home page. Web cast training on cyber bullying was made available through MSDE to key stakeholders in the school district, including Professional School Counselors, pupil personnel workers, school security, court liaison, area staff, nurses, parent involvement coordinators, and staff from the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. The Division of Student Services also worked closely with schools requesting support to identify interventions and provided consultation and assistance to parents to ensure that complaints were officially reported and investigated. Schools identified staff to assist victims and increased vigilance by providing supervision in identified hot spots within school buildings. 2. What methods has your school system used to make staff, parents, and students aware of the Bullying, Harassment, and Intimidation Form? In order to make staff, parents, and students aware of the Bullying, Harassment, and Intimidation Form, several procedures have been put in place. First, principals were directed to include information on the school‘s web page and to discuss bullying during parent teacher meetings. Second, information has been widely shared online through a link on the PGCPS home page. Third, posters have been developed for parents and are posted throughout each school. Fourth, principals and staff receive clear direction from the Office of the Superintendent via bulletins requiring school staff to inform parents of their right to report allegations without fear of reprisal or retaliation. Students attend awareness sessions on anti-bullying, harassment, or intimidation semi-annually as a part of the review of the Code of Student Conduct with the professional school counselors and pupil personnel workers. Professional School Counselors conduct anti-bullying, harassment or intimidation lessons with students as a part of the Bully-Free Classroom guidance curriculum. Students, staff, and parents are informed of the location of the reporting forms and their right to report suspected incidents of bullying, harassment, or intimidation. The schools also held activities and discussions about this topic during anti-bullying awareness week in May. Administrative Procedure 5143 is posted on the school system‘s web page and linked to the Department of Student Engagement and School Support. In addition, information was posted on the Parent Portal providing parents with information on what to do if they suspect that their child is being bullied, as well as what to do if they suspect that their child is a bully. The school system branded the slogan, Enough is Enough: Bullies Beware, as a part of the anti-bullying awareness campaign. C. Based on the Examination of Suspension and Expulsion Data for Sexual Harassment, Harassment, and Bullying (Table 7.7): PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 234 Table 7.7: Number of Suspensions/Expulsions for Sexual Harassment, Harassment, and Bullying Offense Sexual Harassment Harassment Bullying TOTAL 2003-2004 100 0 100 2004-2005 76 0 76 2005-2006 155 0 52 207 2006-2007 144 0 60 204 2007-2008 143 0 63 206 2008-2009 126 48 120 294 2009-2010 199 74 500 773 1. Identify the system-wide strategies that are being used to prevent/reduce suspensions and expulsions for sexual harassment, harassment, and bullying. During SY2009-10, the number of suspensions for bullying and harassment (574) exceeded the number of reported incidents (562). See Tables 7.6 and 7.7. This apparent discrepancy – i.e. more suspensions than reported incidents – occurred because in many instances, multiple participants (offenders) are involved in a given disciplinary incident, and each offender is recorded in the SchoolMax® discipline module. During SY2010-11, staff will review alternatives to suspension and expulsion. Emphasis will be placed on both prevention and intervention strategies. Best practices strategies that will be considered for use at both the elementary and secondary levels are outlined by Olweus in Understanding Children’s Worlds, Bullying at School (1993), and include: Holding training sessions for adults in the school on the topic of bullying; Surveying students to identify ―hot spot‖ locations in the school where bullying, intimidation, or harassment are most likely to occur; Increasing staff supervision in identified hot spots; Minimizing time-off-task during instructional blocks; Limiting students independent movement in areas where offenses may occur; Establishing clear rules and consequences within the school for these behaviors; Counseling victims and offenders separately; Ensuring that staff intervenes whenever bullying, harassment, or intimidation is observed; Talking about the issues and integrating discussions about these issues into the curriculum; Meeting with parents to solicit their support in monitoring their child‘s use of social networking sites; and Creating a systemic awareness campaign to publicize the process for getting assistance if a student, staff, or other by-stander sees bullying taking place. In addition, Professional School Counselors are encouraged to make use of strategies listed in the Code of Student Conduct which include parent meetings, behavioral probation, parent, administrator, teacher, and student conferences, detention, parent shadowing, exclusion from extracurricular activities, behavior contracts, class change, in-school suspension, restitution, and mediation.14 These strategies are to be employed prior to the use of suspension for behavioral infractions including bullying, harassment or intimidation; however, if a student is a repeat offender, the consequences become more stringent over time and may lead to suspension. One of the prevention supports that has been emphasized is individual counseling. Each professional school counselor has received a copy of the Stop Bullying Now Video Toolkit and lesson guide to support staff and student training. Schools also continue to infuse character education across the curriculum. Health educators have received a MSDE Harassment and Assault Prevention Grant to focus their efforts on prevention of bullying and harassment in the middle grades. This grant supports their efforts to train students on tolerance of differences, sexual harassment, discrimination, and self-protection, and ways to stay safe in the presence of bullying behavior. In addition, through the use of the Aggressors, Victims, and By-Standers curriculum, students are given the tools to avoid situations that may lead to bullying and to disciplinary actions. This curriculum also promotes and reinforces empathy for It is important to note that since bullying, harassment and intimidation are characterized as an imbalance of power, mediation is a strategy that is not deemed effective unless the aggression is two-way or relational. 14 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 235 others. As a result, students are less prone to exhibit anti-social behaviors, thus reducing the likelihood of incidents that could potentially lead to disciplinary infractions. Sexual Harassment Equity Assurance Compliance and Programs (EACP) conducted an examination of suspension and expulsion data related to alleged incidents of sexual harassment. In keeping with the guidelines outlined in Administrative Procedure 4170, Discrimination and Harassment, schools submitted copies of Appendices D, E, and F15 of the procedure to EACP after school-based administrative action had been taken, in response to allegations of student-to-student sexual harassment. During SY2009-10, EACP received 21 AP 4170 student-student incident reports of alleged sexual harassment. Of the 21 reports submitted, 13 were resolved through counseling and seven resulted in suspension. No reports of expulsion were submitted. In addition, 13 reports came from elementary schools, four came from middle schools, and four were submitted from high schools. Of the seven reported suspensions, 2 were elementary, 2 were middle school and 3 were high school. The Equity Officer was asked to intervene for only two mediations, of which one was at the elementary level, and one was at the high school level. In both instances, resolution was achieved without suspension or expulsion. Sexual harassment identification, prevention, and intervention training is provided to area assistant superintendents and principals. Presentations include a review as well as clarification of the scope of AP 4170. Five sessions are conducted for each of the four (4) administrative areas and for the High School Consortium. Additional in-service presentation topics include a summary of the findings from sexual harassment incident reports, a review of preventative measures that have been successfully implemented at elementary, middle, and high schools in each area and tips on current trends in sexual harassment prevention and intervention, including peer to peer mediation. School-based Administrative Supports To prepare for the upcoming school year, the systemic strategy to support schools in addressing bullying, harassment or intimidation included a mandatory training session for al principals during summer 2010.16 This training focused on reporting, investigating, and intervening in incidents of bullying, harassment, or intimidation, and included strategies that can be used as alternatives to suspension. The training also included a discussion on the need to consistently review student discipline data in order to keep track of the number of incidents and to determine the extent to which strategies listed in the Code of Student Conduct are impacting student behavior. In addition, an anti-bullying, harassment, and intimidation Google site has been developed to provide principals with continuous updates on best practices (beyond those listed in the Code of Student Conduct), information that principals can share with parents in English and Spanish, and resources for teachers and students. A glossary of terms related to bullying will also be provided on the Google site, as will links to articles on critical topics such as teacher bullying that can be downloaded. Web announcements providing updates on critical dates for schoolbased events, webinars, and other current information to address this topic will be posted on this site. This site also lists disciplinary alternatives for offenders in bullying allegations. Staff Supports A systemic calendar is being developed to ensure that critical stakeholders such as school security investigators, school psychologists, pupil personnel workers (PPWs), and school transportation staff are provided with training on the topic of bullying, harassment, and intimidation. In addition, principals were asked to identify additional training needs related to the topic so that site based training can be offered to staffs throughout the school year. During staff training, information will be provided directing teachers to free print resources, and to links to web sites such as the Colorado Blue Prints, that identify research- and evidenced-based practices and interventions that support both victims and offenders. Semi-annual training will be conducted with PPWs on alternatives to suspension for incidents of bullying harassment or intimidation. These strategies will focus on individual counseling supports for offenders, social skills training, training to support school staffs in problem solving approaches to respond to the needs of both victims and offenders, and the use of procedures such as the School Instructional Team (SIT) and Supplemental Services Team (SST)to determine if the behaviors may be masking other educational and/or behavioral concerns. 15 Appendices 16 D, E, and F of AP 4170 are a parent notification letter, a student-student incident form, and an administrative disposition form. Olweus (1993) has identified principal support and knowledge as one of the important prerequisites to appropriately intervening in these cases and a core component to a successful school-based intervention program. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 236 Parent Supports Bullying awareness posters to provide parents information on the topic of bullying, harassment, and intimidation were distributed to all schools in August so that parents know what to do if their child is bullied or if their child has bullied other students. Posters on cyber bullying were also sent to every school to alert parents to the dangers inherent in the use of social networking sites, such as cyber slander and sexting. These posters support the systemic public awareness campaign and provide information on the immediate impact of cyber bullying and bullying at school. Each principal was provided a letter to send to parents on free bullying resources. This resource includes articles, links to video clips, on line workshops, community forums, and quick facts, all of which are available free of charge. In addition, training was conducted for the Prince George‘s County Parent Teacher Association Council on Saturday, October 2, 2010. In conjunction with the training, a two-hour module has been developed to address the concerns of parents and youth participants. Parent information has been provided to principals to disseminate to parents during back-to-school nights in both Spanish and English. This information will include free online resources and books on this topic. Student Supports The March 31, 2010 review of SY2008-09 bullying incidence data by MSDE identified middle school students as the predominant group of victims and offenders across the state. These state-wide findings are consistent with both local and national research findings. To this end, the system is collecting data from students and staff in selected middle schools regarding their perceptions of areas in the school (―hot spots‖) where bullying occurs most frequently. This information will help middle school administrators increase surveillance in the identified areas and become more sensitive to the needs of these students concerns about bullying in school. These data should also help the schools reduce the number of incidents that lead to suspension. Also, the newly elected county-wide student government association (SGA) president will participate on the Anti-Bullying, Harassment, and Intimidation Work Group in an effort to help identify areas in which students continue to need support around this issue. Through the SGA, information will be distributed on developmentally appropriate web sites for children and youth that students can visit to find out about this topic, the role of bystanders, and cyber safety. Professional School Counselors continue to provide supplemental lessons on bullying and cyber bullying in classroom sessions and conduct individual and small group counseling with victims and offenders. Professional School Counselors also work with students and their parents to address these issues, identify strategies, and monitor support plans for these students. Finally, at the beginning of the school year, every student transported on a PGCPS school bus received a Bully Free Zone Sticker as a part of the expansion of the primary prevention efforts from the schoolhouse to the school bus. Bus drivers received an overview on bullying issues through a web cast at the beginning of the school year so that they could address bullying concerns on the school bus. Systemic Support The Anti-Bullying, Harassment, and Intimidation Work Group, which includes system personnel, community representatives, and agency stakeholders, continues to meet to develop strategies to abate bullying in the schools to ensure that allegations are reported and investigated throughout the school year. This group will also monitor discipline data and work closely with the pupil personnel worker supervisor to ensure that the range of interventions outlined in the Code of Student Conduct is applied as strategies to reduce the number of suspension for such incidents. D. Based on the Examination of Suspension Data (Tables 7.8 - 7.10): 1. Identify the system-wide strategies that are being used to prevent/reduce suspensions. If applicable, include the strategies that are being used to address the disproportionate suspensions among the race/ethnicity subgroups and between genders. School Year 2006-2007 2007-2008 Table 7.8A: Number of Students Suspended - In School - by Race/Ethnicity and Gender (Unduplicated Count) Enrollment/(Total African American Asian Hispanic White Multiple Male Suspended) American Indian/Alaskan Native Races 1,101 912 5 9 127 48 N/A 755 2,447 2,116 17 20 248 46 N/A 1,435 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Female 346 1,012 Page | 237 2008-2009 2009-2010 School Year 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 School Year 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2,455 4,235 1,946 3,311 6 21 22 37 401 734 80 96 N/A 1,592 863 36 2,599 1,636 Based on MSDE Table 7.8 Table 7.8B: Percent of Students Suspended – In- School - by Race/Ethnicity and Gender (Unduplicated Count) Enrollment/(Total African American Indian/ Asian Hispanic White Multiple Male Female Suspended) American Alaskan Native Races 1,101 82.8 0.5 0.8 11.5 4.4 N/A 68.6 31.4 2,447 86.5 0.7 0.8 10.1 1.9 N/A 58.6 41.4 2,455 79.3 0.2 0.9 16.3 3.3 N/A 64.9 35.2 4,235 78.1 0.49 0.87 17.3 2.26 0.85 61.3 38.6 Based on MSDE Table 7.8 Table 7.9A: Number of Students Suspended – Out-of- School - by Race/Ethnicity and Gender (Unduplicated Count) Enrollment/ African American Asian Hispanic White Multiple Native Hawaiian Male Female (Total American Indian/Alaskan Races or Other Pacific Suspended) Native Islander 13,598 11,856 54 117 1,141 430 N/A N/A 9,056 4,542 14,104 12,178 65 137 1,378 346 N/A N/A 9,263 4,841 13,014 11,155 48 102 1,396 313 N/A N/A 8,686 4,328 7,720 6,693 24 48 798 157 N/A N/A 5,086 2,634 10,426 8,963 40 76 1,060 189 98 2 6,888 3,538 Based on MSDE Table 7.9 Table 7.9B: Percent of Students Suspended – Out-of- School - by Race/Ethnicity and Gender (Unduplicated Count) School Year 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 Enrollment/ (Total Suspended) 13,598 14,104 13,014 7,720 10,426 African American 87.2% 86.3% 85.7% 86.7% 86.0% American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% Asian Hispanic White Multiple Races 0.9% 1.0% 0.8% 0.6% 0.7% 8.4% 9.8% 10.7% 10.3% 10.2% 3.2% 2.5% 2.4% 2.0% 1.8% N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.9% Native Hawaiian Male Female or Other Pacific Islander N/A 66.6% 33.4% N/A 65.7% 34.3% N/A 66.7% 33.3% N/A 65.9% 34.1% 0.01% 66.1% 33.9% Based on MSDE Table 7.9 Because of the questionable accuracy of the data collected for SY2008-09, comparisons between student suspensions in SY2008-09 and SY2009-10 cannot be made with confidence. In lieu of a one-year comparison, four-to-five year comparisons of in-school and out-of-school suspensions will be made. Between SY2006-07 and SY2009-10, the number of in-school suspensions increased by 3,134. This almost four-fold increase (284.7%) is the result of a shift in emphasis of school system policy, which, beginning in SY2007-08, emphasized in-school suspensions as an alternative to out-of-school suspensions. During the same time period, the number of out-of-school suspensions declined by 3,678 (or 26.1%). Overall, total suspensions (i.e. in-school and out-ofschool) declined by 544 (or by-3.6%). (See Table R.) African American students and male students have consistently represented disproportionately large percentages of the suspended student population (see Tables S and T). For example, in SY2009-10, while African American students comprised 72.2% of the school system‘s student population, they accounted for 83.7% of student suspensions and 86.0% of more serious out-of-school suspensions. Parallel rates were evident in SY 2008-2009 when African Americans represented 73.4% of the overall enrollment, yet accounted for 79.3% of all in-school suspensions and 86.7% of all out of school suspensions. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 238 Similarly, while male students comprised slightly more than half (51.2%) of the PGCPS student population in SY2009-10, they accounted for almost two-thirds (64.7%) of all student suspensions and 66.1% of out-of-school suspensions. No other ethnic student group received a disproportionately high percentage of suspensions. Year 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2006-07 to 2009-10 Year 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07 Year 2009-10 2008-09 Table R: PGCPS Enrollment and Suspensions, SY2006 through SY2010 Suspensions In School Out-of-School Change Change Out-ofEnrollment In-School Total No. Pct. No. Pct. School 133,325 N.A. 13,598 13,598 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 131,014 1,101 14,104 15,205 1,101 N.A. 506 3.7 129,752 2,447 13,014 15,461 1,346 122.3 -1,090 -7.7 127,977 2,455 7,720 10,175 8 0.3 -5,294 -40.7 127,039 4,235 10,426 14,661 1,780 72.5 2,706 35.1 -3,975 3,134 -3,678 -544 3,134 284.7 -3,678 -26.1 Total Change No. Pct. N.A. 1,607 256 -5,286 4,486 -544 N.A. 11.8 1.7 -52.0 30.6 -3.6 Table S: PGCPS Enrollment and Suspensions by Race/Ethnicity, SY2007 through SY2010 Enrollment In-School Out-of-School Suspensions Suspensions Race/Ethnicity No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. Native American 526 0.4 21 0.5 40 0.4 Asian 3,995 3.1 37 0.9 76 0.7 African American 91,671 72.2 3,311 78.2 8,963 86.0 White 5,898 4.6 96 2.3 189 1.8 Latino 24,949 19.6 734 17.3 1,060 10.2 Multiple Races N/A N/A 36 0.9 98 0.9 Total 127,039 100.0 4,235 100.0 10,426 100.0 Native American 506 0.4 6 0.2 24 0.3 Asian 3,848 3.0 22 0.9 48 0.6 African American 93,893 73.4 1,946 79.3 6,693 86.7 White 6,047 4.7 80 3.3 157 2.0 Latino 23,683 18.5 401 16.3 798 10.3 Total 127,977 100.0 2,455 100.0 7,720 100.0 Native American 550 0.4 17 0.7 48 0.4 Asian 3,804 2.9 20 0.8 102 0.8 African American 96,230 74.2 2,116 86.5 11,155 85.7 White 6,615 5.1 46 1.9 313 2.4 Latino 22,553 17.4 248 10.1 1,396 10.7 Total 129,752 100.0 2,447 100.0 13,014 100.0 Native American 605 0.5 5 0.5 65 0.5 Asian 3,805 2.9 9 0.8 137 1.0 African American 98,774 75.4 912 82.8 12,178 86.3 White 7,261 5.5 48 4.4 346 2.5 Latino 20,569 15.7 127 11.5 1,378 9.8 Total 131,014 100.0 1,101 100.0 14,104 100.0 Total Suspensions No. Pct. 61 0.4 113 0.8 12,274 83.7 285 1.9 1,794 12.2 134 0.9 14,661 100.0 30 0.3 70 0.7 8,639 84.9 237 2.3 1,199 11.8 10,175 100.0 65 0.4 122 0.8 13,271 85.8 359 2.3 1,644 10.6 15,461 100.0 70 0.5 146 1.0 13,090 86.1 394 2.6 1,505 9.9 15,205 100.0 Table T: PGCPS Enrollment and Suspensions by Gender, SY2007 through SY2010 Enrollment In-School Out-of-School Suspensions Suspensions Race/Ethnicity No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. Male 64,987 51.2 2,599 61.4 6,888 66.1 Female 62,052 48.8 1,636 38.6 3,538 33.9 Total 127,039 100.0 4,235 100.0 10,426 100.0 Male 65,579 51.2 1,592 64.8 5,086 65.9 Female 62,398 48.8 863 35.2 2,634 34.1 Total 127,977 100.0 2,455 100.0 7,720 100.0 Total Suspensions No. Pct. 9,487 64.7 5,174 35.3 14,661 100.0 6,678 65.6 3,497 34.4 10,175 100.0 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 239 Year 2007-08 2006-07 Table T: PGCPS Enrollment and Suspensions by Gender, SY2007 through SY2010 Enrollment In-School Out-of-School Suspensions Suspensions Race/Ethnicity No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. Male 66,557 51.3 1,435 58.6 8,686 66.7 Female 63,195 48.7 1,012 41.4 4,328 33.3 Total 129,752 100.0 2,447 100.0 13,014 100.0 Male 67,096 51.2 755 68.6 9,263 65.7 Female 63,918 48.8 346 31.4 4,841 34.3 Total 131,014 100.0 1,101 100.0 14,104 100.0 Total Suspensions No. Pct. 10,121 65.5 5,340 34.5 15,461 100.0 10,018 65.9 5,187 34.1 15,205 100.0 The primary reason for both in-school and out-of-school suspensions in SY2009-10 was ―refusal to obey school policies‖. During the previous school year (SY2008-09), this represented the second highest offense category. ―Classroom disruption‖ moved from the highest in-school suspension offense category in SY2008-09 to the second highest category in SY2009-10, while ―insubordination‖ advanced from the third highest offense category for out-of-school suspensions in SY2008-09 to the second highest category in SY2009-10. ―Insubordination‖ and ―disrespect‖ were the third highest offense categories for inschool and out-of-school suspensions respectively in SY2009-10 (see Table 7.10). Table 7.10: In-School and Out-of-School Suspensions by Most Common Offense Category In-School Suspensions Out-of-School Suspensions School Year #1 #2 #3 #1 #2 #3 Classroom Refusal to Obey Refusal to Obey Classroom 2007-2008 Fighting Insubordination Disruption School Policies School Policies Disruption Classroom Loitering/Cutting Loitering/Cutting 2008-2009 Disrespect Fighting Insubordination Disruption Class/Truancy Class/Truancy Refusal to Obey Classroom Refusal to Obey 2009-2010 Insubordination Insubordination Disrespect School Policies Disruption School Policies Suspension and Expulsion Reduction Task Force As requested by the Board of Education, the Superintendent empanelled a Suspension and Expulsion Reduction Task Force in the spring of 2009 to review the data, policies, and practices around student discipline. The comprehensive task force included board members, community representatives (including a state delegate), parents, students (including the Student Board Member), principals (one each from elementary, middle, and high school), a teacher, the president of the teachers‘ union (PGCEA), the PPW instructional supervisor, a counselor specialist, Office of Appeals staff, and the Chief of the Student Services Division. Three subcommittees worked on specific tasks for the committee as a whole. These subcommittees were Administrative Procedure 10101: Code of Student Conduct; discipline review; and research/model programs. As a result of task force recommendations, AP 10101: Code of Student Conduct was revised to reflect the system‘s commitment to reduce suspensions – i.e. particularly out-of-school suspensions – and the accompanying disproportionate loss of instructional time for students. This revision resulted in a significantly reduced number of days that comprised a shortterm suspension and a halving of the number of days that initiate a long-term suspension. Short-term suspensions were redefined as those comprising five or fewer days, and instead of extending for 10 or more days, long-term suspensions now begin at five (5) or more days and require the approval of the Superintendent or her/his designee. Thus, the recent downward trend in the number of out-of-school suspensions and the corresponding increase in in-school suspensions should continue for the foreseeable future. Additional changes in policy which would address a frequent or excessive disciplinary removal of students included the following: Group fights, which are potentially expellable offenses, were redefined to represent two or more students fighting two or more students. Previously, only one student needed to be attacked by more than one student to comprise a group fight; Disrespect, fighting, gambling and trespassing were moved to a lower level of offense, thus resulting in a standard discipline less than suspension; More severe fights would receive corresponding punishments versus automatic long-term periods of suspensions; Bullying and harassment language was added to coincide with the new AP 5143 as well as reduced the severity of the prescribed punishment for students to a Level II offense; and PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 240 In accordance with House Bill 660, the policy was revised to prohibit all out-of-school suspensions for attendance-related offenses. Systemic Awareness Prior to the beginning of the school year, principals received training on these policy adjustments to ensure their awareness and compliance with all provisions. Additionally, the long-term suspension and expulsion investigative reporting forms were revised to incorporate the documentation of interventions implemented for students prior to requesting their removal. PPWs were trained on all policy revisions to ensure that all students continued to receive due process. PPWs were charged to conduct semi-annual grade level sessions with all students regarding the Code of Student Conduct to establish the system‘s expectations of student behavior. These sessions also encouraged students to avoid situations that would result in the loss of instructional days, and students were provided with appropriate avenues for handling disruptive situations. Additionally, students signed behavioral contracts and staff solicited the signature of parents to strengthen the home-school partnership in support of a safe learning environment. Behavioral contracts were filed in students‘ cumulative folders and parents were provided a copy of the document. The behavioral contract has been standardized across the system to ensure consistency. As the Superintendent‘s designees for long term suspensions, PPWs were required to thoroughly investigate each long-term suspension request and to determine an appropriate number of suspension days based on the nature of the offense. Monthly training was provided to staff on topics that would build staff‘s capacity to adequately advocate for students, collaborate at the school level with staff providing direct interventions, and to link community and internal support systems with students and families needing intensive supports. Staff also received training on the updated (January 2009) Administrative Procedure 5124: Proactive Student Services Intervention. This procedure provides guidelines for the implementation and organization of school-based P-Teams (professional school counselor, PPW, professional school nurse, psychologist), School Instructional Teams (SIT), Supplemental Services Teams (SST), and Response to Intervention (RTI). Outlined in this procedure are explicit roles of each SST member for participation in their schools‘ coordinated program of pupil services. The Pupil Services Program may use preventive and remedial approaches to meet student needs as well as alternative and supplemental programs for students at risk. Professional School Counselors, parent liaisons, and psychologists received this training, as all pupil services members are listed and therefore maintain specific roles for interacting and intervening with students. Principals were also trained during this summer‘s mandatory ―Tips for Principals‖ training at one of the four dates of their choice. This training reviewed areas of non-compliance regarding due process for students in accordance with the Code of Student Conduct as well as provided suggested interventions for use with repeat offenders. Data Utilization Realizing the importance of accurate data in order to define our challenges and to determine our progress, the Division of Student Services became increasingly involved in the system‘s efforts to record and report discipline data. To this end, PPWs were trained to operate the newest reporting system, APEX, in order to compare suspension forms received with the number of discipline incidents entered into the SchoolMax® system. Monthly reports are generated and given to administrators. The reports include the names of students for whom suspension forms have been filled out, but that either had not been entered, or had been improperly entered into SchoolMax®. Authority has been granted to the Instructional Supervisors of PPWs to delete incorrect and/or duplicate cases once the discrepancies has been reconciled with the concurrence of the building principal. Periodically, district level reports are generated by PPW Instructional Supervisors and provided to Assistant Superintendents for the schools within their respective administrative areas. After review by area assistant superintendents, these reports are given to principals to reconcile any remaining discrepancies. After corrections are made and reviewed by PPW Instructional Supervisors, updated reports are given to principals. This ongoing process ensures data integrity. 2. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made, along with the related resource allocations, to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate. Discipline Review Committee A Discipline Review Committee has been developed to drive the work of analyzing existing practices and policies within PGCPS to determine best practices that support student outcomes. This team (consisting of the Office of Appeals, Pupil Personnel Services, School Counseling, the Board of Education (BOE) Attorney, General Counsel, building principals, the PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 241 Chief of the Student Services Division, Alternative High School and student representatives) meets bi-weekly. To date, this taskforce has developed the new cell phone administrative procedure with measures for progressive discipline to match the BOE‘s new policy. The review of data for short- and long-term suspensions is a priority to determine the system‘s position on the definition of suspension days in the best interest of children. The appeal process and the most appropriate personnel to determine the length of long-term suspension days are being reviewed. Lastly, AP 10101 will be converted into a handbook that is user-friendly for parents and students and will provide meaningful information about the school system‘s expectations, parents‘ rights, and disciplinary processes that will be utilized when infractions occur. Electronic Tools A student discipline Google site has been developed by the Office of Pupil Personnel Services to be utilized for the first time during SY 2010-11. This site is intended to serve as a warehouse of resources easily accessible by teachers and administrators with links to research- and evidenced-based practices for preventing, intervening, and handling student discipline issues. All administrative procedures (e.g. the Code of Student Conduct ,as well as the new cell phone policy) that provide information that would ensure due process for students have been posted to the site. Steps for referring students to the School Instructional Team (SIT) found in Administrative Procedure 5124 are published to encourage early conversations and strategies for students exhibiting disruptive behavior. Forms that capture the action plan developed at the SIT meeting are available as well as the actual referral form. This site provides multi-year discipline data published by Maryland State Department of Education and local school data. Additionally, a committee reviewed all discipline forms for In-School Suspension, Short-Term Suspension, and Request for Long-Term Suspension, Notification of Short Term Suspension and Behavioral Referrals. These forms were revised to include vital special education and 504 information. The forms were then vetted by a group of pupil personnel transition workers and then converted to electronic Adobe ―type-in‖ forms that could be saved, printed, distributed to the student, parent/guardian and then filed. All PGCPS staff has been granted access to the site in order to utilize information available. African American and Males PGCPS will launch focus groups led by P-Team members to develop school-wide strategies on ways to address the underlying root causes for which African American and male students are being disproportionately suspended. These strategies must include establishing positive adult partners with students who exhibit behaviors that pose a perceived threat to the learning environment as noted by the teacher. It must also include diversity training for all staff interacting with students who are frequently suspended. Additionally, training in classroom management in de-escalating potentially volatile situations by enhancing one‘s ability to handle this student population should be provided. Community resources that include mentoring for students who show little interest in school and who act out in ways that result in separation from school will provide an avenue of interest and connection to school. Interventions and other alternatives to suspensions will be provided and preferred to in or out of school suspensions. Students who show history of being suspended will receive counseling, sessions on resolving conflicts, aggression, career interest inventories and service learning opportunities that provide enrichment and connect academics with the real world. These students must also be referred to the SIT at the onset of self-destructive patterns that will lead to suspensions so that schools can provide academic and emotional supports early. Schools will be required to utilize and document the implementation of the alternatives to suspensions such as those outlined in the Code of Student Conduct as interventions. Staffing Budgetary constraints resulting in substantial cuts to the proactive school-based pupil personnel program, reduced the number of school-based PPWs from 105 in SY2009-10 to 56 for SY2010-11 – a reduction of 49 positions. Staff who would have previously been assigned to one high school or to particular grade levels at more than one high school are now be responsible for servicing students, parents, and staff at a secondary school and several elementary schools. Moreover, all PPWs assigned to elementary schools also have a secondary school added to their case loads. Roles and Responsibilities Due to budget-driven staff reductions, the role of the PPW has been streamlined to eliminate responsibilities that overlap with other student services staff. Therefore, the services offered will be as itinerant, rather than full time, staff members. They will continue to participate in committees, but will not be as available to chair such groups. PPWs will continue to monitor student attendance, but will be unable to provide an every morning ―check in‖ with students, as their time will be divided among several schools. Professional school counselors will take over individual and group counseling duties. The PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 242 rewritten job description for PPWs focuses on reducing barriers to learning, ensuring due process for students regarding educational and disciplinary rights, and identifying and referring students and their families to needed social services. Reporting and Documenting Services The monthly reporting protocol for PPWs has changed. The previous protocol consisted only of a listing of student names and reasons for services provided, but did not allow PPWs to tally the services provided by category. Additionally, although PPWs serve as the Superintendent‘s designee for long-term suspension requests, the number and the disposition of the requests was not tracked. The new reporting protocol, the Active Case List, records services for students on an ongoing spreadsheet. Each student serviced has one of six associated reasons for service (behavioral issues, absenteeism, learning problems, health, economic needs, or miscellaneous) as well as the service provided (e.g. student, parent, or school staff contact; suspension or expulsion investigation; long term suspension tracking; transfers; special education; referral for attendance; alternative education program; residency investigation; home visit; or emergency medical, food, clothing/shoes, other concerns). In this way, documentation of the frequency of services provided to students by type of service is available in an electronic format. The Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) requires that each local school system provide a coordinated program of pupil services for all students (13.A.05.05.01.A)17, 18, 19 and that the program of pupil services focus on the health, personal, interpersonal, academic, and career development of students (13A.05.05.01B). E. Based on the Examination of Programs and Services Coordinated with Community Mental Health Providers and Agencies to Support Students with Emotional and Behavioral Needs: 1. Describe how the local school system coordinates programs and services with community mental health providers and agencies that provide services for students with personal and/or interpersonal needs (i.e., emotional and/or social needs) in order for these students to progress in the general curriculum. The Prince George‘s Schools Mental Health Initiative (PGSMHI) is one means of providing an integrated model of mental health supports for students with emotional and/or behavioral needs who are at risk of requiring more restrictive service placement options, and for students who have returned to public school from nonpublic schools with therapeutic supports. PGSMHI is a partnership that includes the Maryland State Department of Education, the University of Maryland‘s Center of School Mental Health and the PGCPS Department of Special Education. The PGSMHI staff of five clinicians and three case managers is assigned to targeted schools to maintain students with significant emotional and behavioral IEP needs in the least restrictive environment to ensure that these students access and successfully participate in the general education curriculum. The PGSMHI provides the following services: Individual and group therapy, crisis intervention, family therapy, case management, and psychiatric consultation. The Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 13A.08.06.01-02 requires that for each elementary school with a suspension rate20 of 10 percent or higher, the local school system must implement Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports (PBIS) or another behavior management system. If a school reaching the 10 percent threshold has already been trained in PBIS or another behavior management system, the local school system, in collaboration with the Maryland State Department of Education, must ensure that additional training is provided to expand the school's capacity to handle behavior challenges. COMAR 13A.08.06.01-02 also requires that in each school with a habitual truancy rate21 that exceeds the state‘s designated limit – i.e. 6 percent or higher in SY2009-10, 4 percent or higher in SY2010-11, 2 percent or higher in 17 COMAR 13A.05.05.03 (A). The Pupil Personnel Program is a systematic approach to programs and services that use the resources of the home, school, and community to enhance the social adjustment of students. 18 COMAR 13A.05.05.13 (E). Health services provided in school shall be coordinated with other health services within the community. 19 COMAR 13A.05.05.06B (12). "Special health needs" means temporary or long-term health problems arising from physical, emotional, or social factors or any combination of these. 20 The calculation for suspensions is an offender rate: The unduplicated number of suspended students divided by Sept. 30-student enrollment. 21 Habitually truant means a student that meets all of the following criteria: (a) The student was age 5 through 20 during the school year; (b) The student was in membership in a school for 91 or more days; and (c) The student was unlawfully absent from school for more than 20% of the days in membership. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 243 SY2011-12, and 1 percent or higher in SY2012-13 – the local school system must implement PBIS or another behavior management system. As is the case with behavior management, if a school meeting or exceeding the threshold percentage has already been trained in PBIS or another behavior management system, the local school system, in collaboration with MSDE, musts ensure that additional training is provided to expand the school's capacity to intervene. The district also supports five Walk-In Student Counseling and Family Support Centers that provide intervention services such as anger management, decision-making, alcohol/drug assessment, bullying prevention, and alcohol, tobacco, and other drug prevention/intervention to students and their families. The centers are open in the evenings and on Saturdays, and services are free of charge to students and their families. Parents may also attend workshops on topics such as alternatives to television, handling stress, preventing alcohol, tobacco and other drug use, effective discipline, and strategies for helping your ADD/ADHD child. Students are generally referred to the centers by school staff, parents, or the school-based Student Assistance Program (SAP) team for a recommended six- to eight-week counseling process. Counseling is brief-solution focused, and is provided in a non-therapeutic setting, and appropriate referrals are made for students with psychotherapeutic needs. In SY 2009-10, the centers saw 498 clients for a total of 1,089 sessions. Two-thirds of the student clients were male. Although services were provided to students from all grade levels, the highest percentages of students serviced were in grades 7 through 11, with the two largest groups being 9th (14.3%) and 10th (14.8%) grades. F. Based on the number of schools in the LSS currently implementing PBIS, please describe the district‘s capacity to provide ongoing support and training to the school teams and coaches in your system. Where does responsibility for PBIS sit in your system? Is there an FTE (or a portion of an FTE) assigned to provide local support, sustain the initiative and attend statewide activities. With the conclusion of the PBIS Maryland Summer Institute 2010, the district currently has 77 schools implementing PBIS. There are also eight elementary schools participating in the PBISPLUS study. Historically, the PBIS initiative has been funded through the Title IV, Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities grant, which is assigned to the Student Affairs/Safe and Drug Free Schools Office, within the Department of Student Services. Using Title IV funding, the district has been able to provide ongoing support and training to school teams and coaches, including the purchase of School Wide Information System (SWIS), the recommended PBIS data collection component. Although not officially titled PBIS Coordinator, there is currently a full-time staff member who provides direct oversight of PBIS in the district‘s schools. This person provides PBIS booster sessions, plans the summer returning team trainings, attends PBIS Maryland State Leadership Team Meetings, and has a trained cohort of SET evaluators and SWIS users. This staff member makes routine visits to schools implementing PBIS and provides assistance to schools that may be planning to implement PBIS in the future. It should be noted that with the elimination of Title IV as a funding stream, it is critical that district and individual schools look at any and all available sources of funding to sustain and provide the capacity for growth and continue to build momentum of PBIS in the district‘s schools. Sustaining the PBIS efforts in the district can support the strategies described above to stop bullying and harassment because once the PBIS framework is in place, bullying prevention and intervention strategies can be implemented and monitored when the data approaches identified thresholds. G. Based on the examination of suspension data: 1. Identify how many elementary schools have a suspension rate of 10% or higher, how many of those schools have already been formally trained in PBIS, and how many have not. The district has not identified any elementary schools with a suspension rate that meets the threshold of the legislation for mandatory PBIS implementation. 2. For those schools previously trained, please describe strategies to support/improve the implementation of the PBIS framework in those schools. Finally, please project the number of elementary schools that will require New Team PBIS Training in the summer of 2011 based on this regulation. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 244 The district has had no elementary schools trained in PBIS as a result of the legislation‘s mandate. There are no elementary schools projected to require New Team PBIS Training in the summer of 2011, based on the regulation‘s mandate. 3. Please identify other district level strategies to address the needs of schools that meet the target for suspension. Do they need additional training? Are there Technical Assistance needs to ensure fidelity of implementation? It is strongly recommended that schools that meet the state‘s suspension threshold, or that are implementing PBIS voluntarily, have their staff trained in Cooperative Discipline and Non-Violent Crisis Intervention, when appropriate, for overall improved classroom management. The school should also be linked with a PPW who has been formally trained in Check In/Check Out (CICO), or Check and Connect; both programs are designed to provide support and monitoring for students at-risk of developing serious or chronic behavior problems. Components of the programs include clearly defined goals and expectations, instruction on behavioral expectations and appropriate social skills, daily student check-in and check-out with an appointed advisory teacher, a data system to monitor student progress, and constant analysis of student behavior trends. Technical assistance and monitoring will be provided to ensure fidelity of implementation as it is with PBIS. H. Based on the examination of Habitual Truancy10 data: 1. Identify how many schools have a habitual truancy rate of 6% or higher, how many of those schools have already been formally trained in PBIS, and how many have not. The district had identified 27 schools that had a truancy rate of six (6%) percent or more for SY2008-09. Included in the 27 identified schools were four alternative schools and two elementary schools. If these schools were not already implementing PBIS, the schools were contacted and preparations began for PBIS implementation. As of the 2010 PBIS Maryland Summer Institute, all but three of the identified schools have been trained in PBIS. A plan of action for the remaining three mandated PBIS schools was submitted to MSDE in late spring, and it has been approved. This plan requires that these schools work closely with the Student Affairs/Safe and Drug Free Schools office to ensure that they are prepared for the 2011 PBIS New Teams Summer Institute. This preparation will include establishing the schoolbased PBIS Team, identifying a team leader, identifying a coach, identifying funding to sustain implementation, and establishing administrative and staff buy-in for the initiative. 2. For those schools previously trained, please describe strategies to support/improve the implementation of the PBIS framework in those schools. Finally, please project the number of schools that will require New Team PBIS Training in the summer of 2011, based on this regulation. Schools currently trained in PBIS will be monitored by the staff member acting as district PBIS coordinator to ensure fidelity of implementation. This monitoring will include instruction in using SWIS, PBIS booster sessions for the school PBIS team and coach, monthly staff overviews and review of data, close monitoring of suspension rates and completion of SETs and SET reports as needed. Schools will also be encouraged to apply for PBIS Recognition Award status and Character Education Awards and grants. 3. Please identify other district level strategies to address the needs of schools that meet the target for Truancy. Do they need additional training? Are there Technical Assistance needs to ensure fidelity of implementation? It is strongly recommended that schools that meet the truancy threshold have their staffs trained in Cooperative Discipline and Non-Violent Crisis Intervention in an effort to promote improved classroom management. Research suggests that students‘ avoidance of unsafe and disorderly classrooms can lead to class cutting and truancy. At the same time, an improved classroom environment is likely to result in increased student engagement, improved safety, and increased opportunities for learning. Truancy challenged schools will also be linked with a PPW that has been formally trained in Check and Connect and Check-in /Check-out (CICO) as described in section G.3. Technical assistance and monitoring will be provided by PPWs to ensure fidelity of implementation of these programs as with PBIS. Secondary schools should continue to use the school‘s Student Assistance Program (SAP) and the Walk-In Student Counseling and Family Support Centers as PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 245 prevention and intervention resources for students and parents. The district will also work closely with PBIS Maryland on specific interventions for high-risk students. These interventions may include: student point cards, mentoring, individual student data collection, academic supports (i.e. tutoring, after school programming), referrals to appropriate agencies for alcohol and other drug use counseling, home visits, and parent conferencing. PGCPS will continue to employ the following strategies that are proven to be non-negotiable principles of a strong attendance program, including the following: Maintain correct contact information for all students; Accurately record daily and/or period-by-period attendance in SchoolMax; Update all ―unexcused‖ absences to ―excused‖ when documentation is presented; Follow attendance procedure; Create processes for early student identification and implementation of interventions that address barriers to attendance (e.g. economic, medical, school failure, cultural, social or emotional); Maintain frequent contact with the home to alert parents of student absences and to solicit their support; Work with students who show disinterest in attending school; Utilize internal/external resources and judiciary methods to intervene in habitual truant cases; Develop best practices that are germane to their unique school community to improve student attendance (e.g. Check and Connect, mentoring, buddy system, etc.); Ensure an orderly environment wherein students feel safe at school; Work with community agencies, law enforcement, neighborhood businesses, and housing complexes to curtail students being truant during the school day; and Develop incentive programs that reward students who show improvement. Specialized strategies will also be implemented to support the attendance of high school, Latino, Special Education, and low-income students (i.e. those subgroups that have not met the 94 % annual measurable objective for attendance). PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 246 I.E ADDRESSING SPECIFIC STUDENT GROUP CAREER AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION, EARLY LEARNING, GIFTED AND TALENTED PROGRAMS, SPECIAL EDUCATION PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 247 ADDRESSING SPECIFIC STUDENT GROUPS CAREER AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION (2010) The Bridge to Excellence Act requires that the Master Plan ―shall include goals, objectives, and strategies‖ for the performance of students enrolled in Career and Technology Education (CTE) programs. 1. Describe the school system’s progress on the implementation and expansion of CTE Programs of Study within Career Clusters as a strategy to prepare more students who graduate ready for entry into college and careers. PGCPS has a goal that 100% of its seniors graduate college and/or career ready. Partial evidence of readiness is securing a technical certification for a career. CTE‘s mission is to assist high schools in the development and implementation of rigorous, state–of-the-art programs of study that prepare students to pursue post secondary education and/or high-wage, high-demand employment opportunities after graduation. Students within all high schools are afforded the opportunity to participate in programs of study primarily beginning in grades 11 and 12. Within PGCPS, CTE options are offered through the implementation of 25 programs of study within nine of the 10 Career Clusters established by MSDE. Along with these programs of study, students are also afforded an opportunity to participate in work-based learning activities. The 25 programs of study afford students a tremendous opportunity to combine academic rigor with career readiness as they prepare to transition from high school to either post-secondary education or the world of work. PGCPS offers CTE programs of study within the following MSDE-approved career clusters: 22 Arts, Media and Communication Business, Management, and Finance Construction and Development Health and Biosciences Consumer Services, Hospitality, & Tourism Human Resource Services Information Technology Manufacturing, Engineering, and Technology Transportation Technologies In SY2008-09, 13,900 (34%) of the system‘s 41,184 high school students were enrolled in one or more CTE programs of study. Of these 13,900 students, 12,856 (or 92.5%) were enrolled in programs within MSDE‘s career clusters, and the remaining 1,044 students (7.5%) were enrolled in the Career Research Development (or Cooperative Education) program. Sixty-five percent (65%) of CTE program enrollees (9,000 students) were enrolled in Business, Management, and Finance programs of study, 18% (2,571 students) were enrolled in Human Resource Services programs, and another eight percent (8%) (1.004 students) were enrolled in Cooperative Education. Student enrollment in other Career Cluster programs of study comprised a mere nine percent (9%) of all CTE program enrollments. This lack of balance in student enrollment across cluster programs of study is a major concern. Particularly disappointing is the low student enrollment in programs tied to projected high growth industries such as Information Technology (150 students); Manufacturing, Engineering, and Technology (132 students), Construction Trades (155 students), and Health and Biosciences (45 students). (See Figure 3.) 22 No programs are offered from the Environmental, Agricultural, and Natural Resources Systems Career Cluster. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 248 Figure 3 Enrollment by Career Cluster -- Prince George's County, SY2008-09 TT MET 1% 1% IT 1% AMC 0% COOP 8% HRS 18% H&B 0% CSHT 5% BMF 65% C&D 1% While business programs are well represented in all 25 high schools, there is a need to increase the promotion of and access to other programs throughout the district. Future expansion of high-demand, high-growth programs are also an integral part of the Secondary School Reform initiative. These strategies are expected to increase student enrollment within many often overlooked programs. CTE Program Effectiveness CTE program effectiveness is based on the percentage of program-enrolled students – i.e. in most cases concentrators – who meet a series of nine performance indicators that collectively comprise MSDE‘s Program Quality Index (PQI). Year-to-year progress is measured in part by the extent to which students meet state-established annual performance targets, and in part by the extent to which student performance on specific indicators improves from the previous years or over a period of years. In SY2008-09, Prince George‘s County CTE students made substantial improvement on CTE-PQI academic performance indicators, modest improvement in completion percentage, placement, and non-traditional participation and completion. Substantial slippage occurred in the percentage of dual completers and in the percentage of students who passed their respective program‘s technical assessment, however. In SY2008-09, PGCPS CTE students far-exceeded the annual academic performance targets while making substantial progress towards meeting state performance goals. For example, at 78.6% proficiency, CTE students exceeded the SY2008-09 English HSA performance target (52.55%) by 26.09 percentage points. More impressively, at 75.02% proficiency, these same students exceeded the SY2008-09 Algebra HSA performance target (37.19%) by 37.83 percentage points. At the current pace of improvement, county students will surpass the state‘s SY2011-12 performance goals in English (83%) and Algebra (87.5%) HSA proficiency in SY2009-10. In addition to academic performance, PGCPS CTE students met or exceeded state performance goals in ―completion rate‖ (96.99%), ―graduation rate‖ (99.59%), ―non-traditional participation‖ (49.66%), ―nontraditional completion‖ (41.45%), and ―technical skill attainment‖ (38.18%).23 (See Table U.) Data provided by MSDE that were used to calculate the technical skill attainment percentage included 930 concentrators from CTE programs in the Business, Management, and Finance Cluster. MSDE has not approved a technical skill assessment for any program in this particular cluster, however. Thus, the inclusion of these students in the success rate calculation of non-existing assessments artificially drives down the system‘s attainment percentage. The narrative in this subsection excludes the 930 students from the success calculation. If these students were to remain in the calculation, the success percentage would be reduced from the cited 38.18% to 14.5%. 23 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 249 Table U: 2008-09 CTE-PQI Outcomes for PGCPS - (Percent of Students) SY2009 5-Year SY2009 Outcomes (SY2007Annual SY2009 Performance Standard +/- Perf. SY2012) Performance Outcomes MSDE Goal Target Target24 Academic Attainment - HSA English 83.00 52.55 78.64 +26.09 Academic Attainment - HSA Algebra 87.47 37.19 75.02 +37.83 Dual Completion 48.32 48.32 28.76 -19.56 Technical Skill Attainment 35.17 42.27 38.18 -4.09 Completion 94.95 99.51 96.99 -2.52 Graduation Rate 98.54 99.57 99.59 +0.02 Placement 75.62 73.15 65.75 -7.40 Non-Traditional Participation 42.40 50.91 49.66 -1.25 Non-Traditional Completion 37.37 34.64 41.45 +6.81 SY2009 Outcomes +/- MSDE Goals* -4.36 -12.45 -19.56 +3.01 +2.04 +1.05 -9.87 +7.26 +4.08 On the other hand, school system performance failed to meet the annual targets on the ―dual completion‖ (-19.56 percentage points) and ―placement‖ (7.40 percentage points) performance standards (see Table U). The failure of the school system to meet the annual targets on these two standards is a cause for concern as they are two of the three standards – along with technical skill attainment – that are the key indicators of career and college readiness.25 Three-Year Performance Patterns An analysis of CTE student performance over a three-year period (SY2006-07 through SY2009) finds that student academic performance has improved substantially – i.e. in English HSA testing (+59.18 percentage points) and Algebra HSA testing (+51.48 percentage points), while non-traditional student program completion (+21.99 percentage points) and general program completions (+13.45 percentage points) improved more moderately. Post graduation placements (+4.45 percentage points), non-traditional student participation (+3.7 percentage points), graduation rate (+0.77 percentage points), and technical skill attainment (+0.61 percentage points) improved modestly. Dual completion (-23.99 percentage points) was the one performance standard on which student performance/attainment declined over the three-year period (See Table U-1). Table U-1: Three-Year CTE-PQI Outcomes for PGCPS - (Percent of Students) PGCPS Performance 5-Year (SY2007-SY2012) Performance Standard SY2007 SY2008 SY2009 MSDE Goal Academic Attainment – HSA English 83.00 19.46 45.70 78.64 Academic Attainment – HSA Algebra 87.47 23.54 32.34 75.02 Dual Completion 48.32 53.42 57.05* 29.43 Technical Skill Attainment 35.17 N/A 37.57* 38.18 Completion 94.95 83.54 99.01 96.99 Graduation Rate 98.54 98.82 99.32 99.59 Placement 75.62 61.30 72.07 65.75 Non-traditional Participation 42.40 45.96 50.28 49.66 Non-traditional Completion 37.37 19.46 32.44 41.45 **One-year change instead of two-year change. Percentage Point Change SY2007 to SY2009 +59.18 +51.48 -23.99 +0.61** +13.45 +0.77 +4.45 +3.70 +21.99 Career and College Readiness Indicators by CTE Program The performance standards most indicative of career and college readiness are program completion, technical skill attainment, placement, and dual completion. The first three of these standards are indicators of career readiness, while dual completion is an indicator of college readiness. With regard to program completion, district students not only improved by 13.45 percentage points since SY2006-07, but at a rate of 96.99%, they have already exceeded the state‘s SY2011-12 target Percentage point differences between SY2009 PGCPS Outcomes and SY2009 Annual Performance Target, and between SY2009 PGCPS Outcomes and SY2012 MSDE Goals. 25 ―Technical skill attainment‖ and ―placement‖ are the key indicators of career readiness, while ―dual completion‖ is the key indicator of college readiness. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 250 percentage (94.95%)by two percentage points. On the other hand, student performance on other career and college readiness indicators was mixed, varying substantially by CTE program of study. For example, with regard to technical skill attainment, more than 80 percent of students in cosmetology, nursing, masonry, electrical, and carpentry passed their technical skill assessments, while no students in four programs of study passed their respective technical skill assessments. With regard to dual completion, 65.9% of students in business systems networking were dual completers, while only 10% of automotive body repair students and no carpentry students were dual completers. The placement rates for CTE program high school graduates ranged from 80% for general office clerk students to 50% for automotive mechanic students (see Figures 4, 5, and 6).26 The placement rate is based on a survey of graduates conducted by MSDE six months after graduation and the scanning of the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulations employment data base. Figure 4 100% Technical Skill Attainment Rate by CTE Program Prince George's County, SY2009 100.0% 92.3% 81.8% 81.8% 81.3% 80% 60% 40% 40.0% 39.1% 20% 33.5% 14.4% 7.5% 3.3% 0% 26 0.0% Programs analyzed and graphed in this subsection are those with at least 10 students in the indicator base. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 251 Figure 5 Placement Rate by CTE Program, Prince George's County, SY2009 100.0% 80.0% 80.0% 76.9% 75.0% 75.0% 70.8% 67.1% 65.9% 61.5% 60.0% 59.1% 50.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% Figure 6 Dual Completer Rate by CTE Program Prince George's County, SY2009 100% 80% 65.9% 60% 42.1% 40% 33.3% 28.8% 28.0% 25.0% 20% 0% 20.8% 16.7% 14.3% 10.0% 0.0% The Structure of Career and Technical Education in PGCPS The PGCPS CTE programs of study and services were delivered through five distinct programmatic areas in SY2008-09: Technical Academy Programs Experiential Learning Program Business and Computer Management Services (formerly Business Education Programs) Family and Consumer Sciences Programs PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 252 Career Support Services (formerly Vocational Support Services) Technical Academy Programs PGCPS offers 11th and 12th grade students 12 Technical Academy programs of study within six of MSDE‘s 10 Career Clusters across nine high schools. Academy programs offer a rigorous course of study, have established benchmarks, quarterly and summative assessments, and provide students with experiences working in and out of lab settings. Enrollment is dictated by staff availability and program guidelines. Over the past three years, student enrollment in Technical Academy programs has increased by 164 (or 34.1%), with the largest increases occurring in the Construction Trades (+70 students or +82.4%) and in Information Technology programs (+51 students or +51.5%). The Project Lead the Way Program (+32 students) in the Engineering and Technology Cluster and the Printing and Graphics Program (+21 students) in the Arts, Media, and Communications Cluster also experienced student enrollment growth. (See Table V.) Table V: PGCPS Technical Academy Enrollment by Career Cluster, 2006-2007 through 2008-2009 Career Cluster 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Inc. 2007-09 % Inc. 2007-09 Arts, Media & Communications (Printing & Graphics) 34 55 55 +21 61.8% Construction Trades (Masonry, Carpentry, HVAC, Electrical, 85 143 155 +70 82.4% Drafting/CAD) Environmental & Natural Resources 0 0 0 n/a 0.0% Health and Biosciences (Nursing/Medical) 45 41 45 0 0.0% Information Technology (CISCO and IT Essentials) 99 149 150 +51 51.5% Engineering & Technology (PLTW) 100 125 132 +32 32.0% Transportation Technologies (Automotive Body and Automotive 118 106 108 -10 -8.5% Technician) Total 481 619 645 +164 34.1%* SY2008-09 marked the first year in which technical skill assessments were required among all eligible CTE programs for which MSDE had identified an approved assessment. Ninety-one (91) of 234 (or 38.9%) Technical Academy students passed technical skills assessments. This success rate was slightly below the school system‘s SY2008-09 target passing rate of 42.3%, but exceeded the state‘s SY2012 goal of 35.2%. At the same time, 52 of 153 (or 34.0%) SY2008-09 Technical Academy high school graduate completers received dual completion certification, and 46 of 76 (or 62.2%) SY2007-08 graduate completers found employment placements or attended a postsecondary education institution in the State of Maryland.27 In SY2008-09, CTE staff continued to upgrade software and purchase materials of instruction for Technical Academy programs in the Construction and Development, Information Technology, Transportation Technology, Health and Biosciences, and the Arts, Media, and Communications Clusters. In addition, CTE staff continue to collaborate with industry advisory members to assist with the enforcement of standards that lead to licensure or industry certifications. Also, partnerships continue to be established with representatives from labor in an effort to enable more students to gain access to apprenticeship opportunities. Experiential Learning (Work-based Learning) Experiential Learning continues to provide CTE students with work-based learning experiences that connect their high school classroom experiences to workplace skills and competencies. CTE student participants are required to develop a Training Plan that includes a job description, to provide a list of tasks to be performed, to specify competencies relevant to each task, and to have their supervisors complete a quarterly evaluation of their work performance. Many students work in large companies that hire large numbers of students to work on jobs that span a variety of career clusters across the organization. Other students work in individually developed placements where they have the opportunity to explore specific career interests such as culinary arts, engineering, or technology. The calculations of PQI percentages are based on SY2008-09 performance; however, the calculation of the placement rate is based on SY2007-08 data. 27 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 253 In SY2008-09, 1,600 CTE students were placed in paid and unpaid experiential learning experiences across the 10 Maryland career clusters, an increase of 350 (or 28%) student placements over the number of placements in SY2006-07. (See Table W) Students who were able to secure paid work-based learning opportunities earned a total of $2,194,450 in gross earnings. Increased efforts are made each year to expose as many students as possible to paid work experiences; however, the number of actual paid placements is often dictated by the state of the economy and the extent of employer support. 2006-07 1,250 Table W: Enrollment in Work-Based Learning Activities, SY2006-2007 through SY2008-2009 2007-08 2008-09 Inc. 2006-07 – 2008-09 % Inc.2006-07 – 2008-09 1,579 1,600 +350 +28% In SY2008-09, approximately 827 employers from private industry and government agencies completed a survey designed by MSDE to determine, in part, the extent to which students who enrolled in CTE-based experiential learning activities were workplace ready. Employers rated participating CTE students 98% workplace ready in their capacity to learn new job skills, to meet or exceed minimum job requirements, to meet or exceed minimum workplace readiness skills at the time of employment, and to meet or exceed minimum Skills for Success at the time of employment. SY2008-09 survey results were consistent with or slightly exceeded results from the previous two years‘ surveys (see Table X). Table X: Workplace Readiness Preparedness, SY2006-2007 through SY2008-09 MSDE Work-Readiness Survey 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Students learned new job skills with average or less than average instruction. Students met or exceeded minimum job requirements at the time of employment/placement Students met or exceeded minimum job requirements for workplace readiness skills at the time of employment/placement Students met or exceeded minimum job requirements for Skills for Success at the time of employment/placement 98.1% 97.5% 98.4% 2007-09 Average 98.0% 97.7% 97.4% 98.4% 97.3% 98.2% 97.7% 98.4% 98.1% 98.3% 97.9% 98.8% 98.3% Finally, in SY2008-09, PGCPS completed the MSDE-mandated transformation of the Cooperative Career Education program to a new Career Research and Development (CRD) model. Instead of developing a Training Plan as was required with Cooperative Career Education Experiential Learning, starting in SY2009-10, students were required to complete a career portfolio, a senior project, and a paid or unpaid 270-hour work-based learning experience. The newly conceptualized CRD program will provide students who are not CTE concentrators an opportunity to obtain career readiness skills. Business and Computer Management Services (formerly Business Education) In SY2008-09, the Business, Management, and Finance Cluster had the highest student enrollment (9,000) of the nine clusters of programs offered by PGCPS. Despite this distinction, BMF Cluster enrollment actually declined by 3,239 students (or by 26.5%) from SY2007-08 enrollment, and by 3,523 students (or 28.1%) from SY2006-07 enrollment. This enrollment decline was primarily the result of a realignment of the business career cluster programs, as required by MSDE in SY2007-08. As a result, several high enrollment courses in the Business Administrative Services program of study (e.g. Keyboarding and General Office Clerk) are no longer classified as CTE courses. In SY2009-10 school year, a series of courses under a new Business Management and Finance Program was offered.28 In SY2008-09, each of the BMF Cluster‘s programs of study experienced an enrollment decline from the previous year‘s level and from enrollment levels two years prior. The largest decline occurred in the Business Administrative Services Program, which experienced an enrollment decline of 2,987 (or 84.8% of the BMF Cluster‘s enrollment decline). Meanwhile, there was a 475 student enrollment decline in the Accounting Program, a 53 student enrollment decline in the Academy of Finance Program, and an eight (8) student enrollment decline in the Marketing Management Program (see Table Y). Despite this substantial enrollment decline, business cluster programs of study produced the highest number of CTE program completers For example, Keyboarding will be replaced with a course entitled, Introduction to Business, and the General Office Clerk course will be replaced with a more rigorous Accounting course. 28 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 254 (909 of 943 students or 96.4%), and the highest graduation rate among the school system‘s CTE Career Clusters (906 of 912 students or 99.3%). For SY2008-09, no technical assessments had been approved by MSDE for BMF Cluster programs. On the other hand, 53 of the cluster‘s 69 SY2007-08 graduate completers (76.8%) found either a cluster-related employment placement or enrolled in a postsecondary institution within two quarters after graduation. Meanwhile, MSDE provided no data for calculating the percentage of BMF Cluster students who qualified as dual completers. Table Y: Business Management and Finance Career Cluster Enrollment Data, SY2005-2006 to SY2008-2009 20062007Change 2007-08 Change 2006-07 % Change 2006-07 Program of Study 2008-09 07 08 to 2008-09 to 2008-09 to 2008-09 Academy of Finance 382 368 329 -39 -53 -13.9% Accounting 1,164 1,037 689 -348 -475 -40.8% Business Administrative Services 10,837 10,661 7,850 -2,811 -2,987 -27.6% Business Management and Finance 0 0 0 0 0 n/a (New Program of Study for 2009-10) Marketing Management 140 173 132 -41 -8 -5.7% Total 12,523 12,239 9,000 -3,239 -3,523 -28.1% Family and Consumer Sciences Family and Consumer Sciences programs afford students an opportunity to prepare for possible careers in cosmetology, barbering, culinary arts, hospitality management (ProStart), early childhood education, and the Teacher Academy of Maryland. In SY2008-09, a total of 3,211 students participated in these programs resulting in a slight decline of 291 students from the SY2007-08 enrollment. The decline was primarily attributed to decreased enrollment in the Early Childhood Education Program (-171 student enrollments) and the phasing out of the Dietician Assistant Program (-229 student enrollments). Since SY2006-07, overall cluster enrollment has declined by 245 (or by -7.1%). On the other hand, student enrollment in cosmetology and culinary arts has remained relatively stable over the past two years, while enrollment in hospitality management (ProStart) has increased by 156 (or by +66.7%). See Table Z. Table Z: CTE Family and Consumer Sciences Programs Enrollment Data, SY2006-2007 to SY2008-2009 Career Cluster/ 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Change 2007-08 Change 2006-07 % Change 2006-07 Program of Study to 2008-09 to 2008-09 to 2008-09 Cosmetology 159 168 169 1 10 +6.3% Barbering 66 49 50 1 -16 -24.2% Culinary Arts 26 43 31 -12 5 +19.2% Dietician Assistant 229 0 0 0 -229 -100.0% Hospitality Management (ProStart) 234 368 390 22 156 +66.7% Early Childhood Education 2,742 2,849 2,571 -278 -171 -6.2% Teacher Academy of Maryland n/a 25 0 -25 n/a n/a Total 3,456 3,502 3,211 -291 -245 -7.1% Barbering and Cosmetology Combined student enrollment in cosmetology and barbering has remained fairly consistent over the past three years, declining by just six students. Moreover, concentrators in these two programs are most likely to complete the program as 96.3% of the cosmetology concentrators (i.e. 77 of 80) and all 23 barbering concentrators (100%) became program completers in SY200809. In addition, cosmetology students seem to be well on their way to craft proficiency as 65 of 80 (or 81.3%) of program concentrators passed the technical skill assessment in SY2008-09. At the same time, only nine of 23 barbering students (39.1%) passed the barbering skill assessment. Four of the six graduating barbering students found a post-graduation work placement; however the school system has no data on placement status of SY2008-09 graduating cosmetology students. Seventy-five percent (19 of 76) of cosmetology graduate completers and 14.3% (3 of 21) barbering graduate completers qualified as dual completers. Hospitality Management PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 255 Hospitality Management and culinary arts are the two Family and Consumer Sciences programs that have experienced enrollment growth since SY2006-07. In SY2008-09, a total of 421 students participated in these programs of study, an increase of 161 students from the number enrolled in SY2006-07. All concentrators in these programs graduated as program completers; however, technical skill assessments were not administered in SY2008-09 because schools opted not to pass the cost of taking the assessments on to students even though 49 students were eligible to take the assessment.29 No SY200708 placement data, nor SY2008-09 dual completer data, are available for hospitality management students. Teacher Academy of Maryland The Maryland Academy for Teacher Education Program did not function in SY2008-09 due to the loss of a key staff person at the one high school that hosted the academy program. This vacancy was not filled due to program guidelines that require staff to complete MSDE-sponsored professional development to gain approval to deliver curriculum. Thus, the 25 students who were enrolled in the program during SY2007-08 could not complete the program. Once the program is re-established, an articulation agreement with Towson University is in place whereby students who complete the program of study will earn three college credits. A similar agreement is pending with Prince George‘s Community College which will provide students with four credits upon program completion in SY2009-10. As of this writing, no plans have been put in place to re-establish the program. Early Childhood Education Some 2,571 students were enrolled in the early childhood education program of study in SY2008-09. This reflected a 278 student enrollment decline from the SY2007-08 enrollment level, and 171 student enrollment decline (or -6.2%) from the SY2006-07 enrollment level. A total of 149 (96.13%) out of 155 students became program completers, and one-third of program concentrators – i.e. 52 of 155 (or 33.5%) – passed the program‘s corresponding technical skill assessment. In addition, three of five (or 59.1%) graduating program completers found an employment or postsecondary placement, but none of the graduating completers met the qualifications for a dual completer. Career Support Services (formerly Vocational Support Services—VSS) The Career Support Services (CSS) program consists of two components: 1) Academic and Technical Enhancement; and 2) Transition Services. The Academic and Technical Enhancement component is primarily responsible for providing instructional support to special populations enrolled in CTE programs, identifying learning strengths and challenges, and developing instructional strategies that enhance student achievement and career readiness skills. The Transition Services component is a support service for high school seniors enrolled in CTE or special education programs that assists seniors in transitioning from high school to postsecondary placements. Students who are referred to receive these services have been identified as needing additional support with their transition, as well as needing additional assistance meeting their career goals. CSS staff also provides support services to teachers, special educators, professional school counselors, local colleges, the business community, parents, and other stakeholders to ensure that special populations have equitable access to enroll and succeed in CTE programs. Disaggregated data show special populations (special needs, disadvantaged, LEP) overall exceeded state averages in graduation rates and under-represented non-traditional completions (see Table AA). Further analysis shows that students identified as economically disadvantaged (FARMS) and LEP exceeded state-wide average levels of performance on most performance indicators or were slightly below the state average levels except in technical skill attainment. Special needs students performed well below the state-wide average performance levels in English and Math academic attainment, technical skill attainment, and post-secondary placement (see Table AA). Table AA: CTE PQI Performance Results for Special Populations, SY2008-09 Indicators 2009 State Average Special Needs Academic Attainment—HSA (English) 59.00 43.42 Academic Attainment—HSA (Math) 71.82 39.47 Technical Skill Attainment 27.00 7.81 Secondary Completion 89.20 91.36 FARMS 74.93 71.45 12.84 96.04 LEP 57.50 78.75 0.00 84.95 MSDE now permits school systems to use grant funds to pay for student assessments. School system officials indicate that they will absorb the cost of taking the technical assessment in Hospitality Management starting in 2011. 29 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 256 Table AA: CTE PQI Performance Results for Special Populations, SY2008-09 Indicators 2009 State Average Special Needs Graduation 97.31 98.63 Post-Secondary Placement 78.29 59.26 Under-represented students/non-traditional programs55.76 64.51 enrolled Under-represented students/non-traditional programs 37.70 48.00 completed FARMS 99.01 72.88 48.13 LEP 97.50 87.50 54.64 41.33 59.65 The Department of Career and Technology Education is also actively involved in the school system‘s ongoing Secondary School Reform Initiative. The purpose of the initiative is to ensure that all students who graduate from PGCPS are college and/or career ready. The initiative involves restructuring high schools into career academies aligned with CTE programs of study. As a result of this initiative, the CTE Department expects to significantly increase the number of students who enroll in and complete CTE programs of study, and who attain technical skill certification over the next three to five years. 2. What actions are included in the Master Plan to ensure access to CTE programs and success for every student in CTE Programs of Study, including students who are members of special populations? CTE supports the PGCPS Master Plan goal to prepare all students to graduate career or workforce ready. A total of 25 CTE Programs of Study are administered through a combination of 24 comprehensive high schools, 5 Evening High Schools, and 5 Regional Technical Academy Centers. Each program of study has a strong collaborative relationship with business, industry, and postsecondary education. Hence, 16 programs lead to industry recognized professional certifications and/or licenses. Equally important, 13 programs also enable students to earn articulated college credit while in high school. A variety of strategies are used to ensure students have access and succeed once enrolled in a program of study. Students do not transition directly into CTE programs upon entry into the ninth grade, rather, they primarily participate in CTE programs during grades 11 and 12. The strategies below have been implemented and/or are under consideration to increase student awareness of CTE programs at the high school level: a. Information about CTE programs of study is made available to all students, faculty, Professional School Counselors, and support staff through access to and selected distribution of Administrative Procedure 6150 (4-year academic plan), Choices (course description), and the CTE Guide (technical skills and college credit). These documents provide a brief description of programs of study, course descriptions, and enrollment requirements at the high school level. In addition, CTE Department staff make informational presentations at back-to-school nights and career awareness events at middle schools for parents and students. Brochures, quarterly newsletters, and other promotional materials are made available to students at both the middle and high school levels, and further information can be obtained by accessing the CTE website. b. A communications advertising plan was launched in SY2008-09 to include the distribution of a new Programs of Study Guide to both middle and high school Professional Guidance Counselors; and the CTE website was upgraded to highlight selected programs of study, course requirements, and to provide access to the new Programs of Study Guide. c. The application for acceptance into Technical Academy programs was made available online and was distributed through Professional Guidance Counselors at schools. Community ―open house‖ recruitment sessions were held at select high schools to promote programs. CTE staff participated in middle school information nights. d. Students from special populations (special needs, LEP, disadvantaged, teen parents, etc.) are afforded the opportunity to excel in all programs of study. CTE staff established linkages with interdepartmental stakeholders (Alternative Education, Special Education, Professional School Counselors, and Support Services) to ensure students from diverse populations are directed and encouraged to enroll in CTE programs of study. Students also receive assistance through Career Support Services as mentioned above. e. Students from under-represented populations are aggressively pursued to enroll in non-traditional programs of study. In particular, efforts were made to attract more females into non-traditional career fields to include engineering, construction trades, culinary arts, and information technology. As such, CTE sponsored a non-traditional Career Expo for females. Approximately, 225 females attended this event at Prince George‘s Community College (PGCC). PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 257 PGCPS was recognized by MSDE for having the highest enrollment of females (55%) in the engineering program of study (Project Lead the Way) in the state. A variety of strategies are used to help ensure students successfully complete a CTE program of study and transition to viable postsecondary option. The expectation is that students succeed in both core academic and technical skills courses that prepare them for college and/or a career. Strategies below are utilized to support CTE student success. a. Solicit teachers and Professional School Counselors to encourage students to complete both academic and technical skills requirements in order to graduate as dual completers (i.e. meeting both industry entrance requirements and the University of System of Maryland admissions requirements). All programs are a sequence of courses that are aligned with both industry and postsecondary entry requirements; b. Review and monitor student academic performance on a quarterly basis to identify deficient and/or low performing students in these core subject areas. CTE staff will review English and Algebra HSA results of CTE concentrators and use the data to encourage students to take advantage of available HSA preparatory assistance; c. Administer the Accuplacer exam to determine students‘ academic strengths and weaknesses, particularly in mathematics. Accuplacer is also used to determine student readiness to engage in a regular college curriculum or remediation courses upon entry into college. Those students scoring below proficient levels will participate in a pilot Math intervention initiative co-sponsored by PGCC; d. Encourage students to participate in extended learning opportunities that are offered at their schools, such as after school and/or Saturday classes that provide targeted instruction in core academic areas, as well as enrichment opportunities that prepare students for postsecondary experiences; e. Further integrate technical skills attainment preparation into classroom curricula to ensure students are adequately prepared for their respective assessments at the conclusion of their programs of study. Technical skills assessments are available in all CTE programs where an assessment has been approved by MSDE; f. Expose students to diverse postsecondary options that will enable them to transition into a 2- or 4-year college, apprenticeship, professional school, or gainful employment in a field related to their respective program of study. Results of the follow up survey, letters of acceptance prior to graduation, and workforce placements are used to substantiate student transition. The Individual Learning Plan will be converted into a six-year Career Development System as a means to identify, recruit, and retain students within CTE programs of study. It is anticipated that this tool will have a significant impact on the transition of students into postsecondary education or meaningful career opportunities; and g. Collaborate with postsecondary institutions throughout the region to develop and/or renew articulation and/or transcript credit agreements on a system-wide level. As a result, students may earn credit at Prince George‘s Community College, Montgomery College, Towson University, and Community College of Baltimore County. 3. Describe the school system’s strategies for increasing CTE enrollees to become completers of CTE programs of study. Data points should include the number of enrollees, the number of concentrators and completers. For SY2008-09, PQI data indicated that only 299 students out of a possible 2,262 CTE concentrators (or only 13.2%) successfully completed their respective CTE courses of study to become program completers. This reflects a tremendous decline in both the number and percentage of program completers from the previous year – i.e. 1,646 completers out of 1,650 concentrators (or 99.6%) in SY2007-08. This drastic reduction in the reported number of completers is attributed to a data transmission error between PGCPS and MSDE. According to PGCPS records, 1,687 completers across 13 programs of study were omitted from the MSDE count (see Table AB). The inclusion of these omitted cases would increase the number of CTE program completers for SY2008-09 to 1,986 of 2,262 (or 87.8%). PGCPS has notified MSDE of these discrepancies in the PQI data; however, as of this submission, changes have yet to be made to the original report. Table AB. FY2008-09 PQI Report Completer Discrepancies Programs Actual Business Management 172 Administrative Services 308 NAF – Academy of Finance 30 Marketing 101 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update PQI Report 0 0 0 0 Page | 258 Table AB. FY2008-09 PQI Report Completer Discrepancies Programs Actual Masonry 11 Carpentry 20 Electrical 26 Plumbing 4 Nursing Academy 35 Child Care and Guidance 190 Cisco Networking Academy 35 Project Lead The Way 103 Coop Vocational Education 652 Total 1,687 PQI Report 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In accordance with MSDE guidelines, each program of study is required to have a designated concentrator identifier course within each sequence of courses. Students become completers based on the successful completion of the next course beyond the designated concentrator course. CTE staff do not have the authority to select courses or facilitate student enrollment; therefore, it must depend on having a collaborative relationship with schedulers, Professional Counselors, as well as teachers to ensure that students transition into the completer course. It must also be taken into consideration that students often have scheduling conflicts between the need to enroll in a required course for graduation versus a CTE elective course that would be needed for the student to qualify as a CTE completer. The following strategies will be adopted to enhance the transition of students from concentrator to completer status: a. Issue program planners to student concentrators, Professional School Counselors, and parents to inform them of course sequence; b. Provide schedulers with a list of program concentrators to ensure students are enrolled within completer course sequence; and c. Encourage teachers to engage in the recruitment of students for both their concentrator and completer courses within their programs of study. 4. CTE improvement plans are required if a local school system does not meet at least 90% of the negotiated performance target for a Core Indicator of Performance under the Perkins Act. If your school system did not meet one or more Core Indicators of Performance, please respond to the following: 1) Identify the Core Indicator(s) of Performance that did not meet the 90% threshold. Dual completion and placement were the two PQI performance indicators on which PGCPS did not meet the 90 percent of the annual target threshold. At 28.75%, the system‘s dual completion percentage fell 14.72 percentage points below the 90 percent of the annual target threshold, and at 65.75%, the school system‘s placement percentage fell less than one percentage point (-0.08) below the 90 percent of the annual target threshold (see Table AC). Table AC. PGCPS PQI Indicators That Did Not Meet 90 Percent Threshold. SY2008-09 SY2008-09 SY2008-09 Performance Performance Indicator 90% Threshold Annual Target Performance +/- 90% Threshold HSA – English 52.55 47.29 78.64 +31.34 HSA – Algebra 37.19 33.47 75.02 +41.54 Dual Completion 48.32 43.48 28.76 -14.72 Technical Skill Attainment 42.27 38.04 38.18 +0.13 Completion 99.51 89.55 96.99 +7.43 Graduation Rate 99.57 89.61 99.59 +9.97 Placement 73.15 65.83 65.75 -0.08 Non-traditional Participation 50.91 45.81 49.66 +3.84 Non-traditional Completion 34.64 31.17 41.45 +10.27 2) Analyze why the indicator was not met, including any disparities or gaps in performance between any category of students and performance of all students. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 259 a. Placements: Failure to meet the system-wide placement threshold for placements can be attributed to poor placement percentages in the following program areas: CISCO networking (55%); Automotive Technicians (50%); Printing and Graphics (50%); Drafting (25%); and HVAC (0%). The relatively low performance of these programs has had a severe impact on the overall placement outcome. Another potentially contributing factor to the low placement percentage is that many students attend postsecondary institutions outside of the State of Maryland, or may elect not to respond to survey. b. Dual Completion: Failure to meet the 90 percent threshold in this category reflects low performance on this indicator across almost all CTE programs of study. It also reflects the need to make a concerted effort to emphasize the importance of college readiness among all CTE concentrators. Of all CTE programs, only masonry (66.7%) and Business Systems Networking (65.9%) met or exceeded either the dual completion annual performance target or even the 90 percent threshold. Starting in SY2010-11, the CTE Office staff will work with Guidance Services in an effort to encourage CTE concentrators to enroll in more college preparatory courses as well as higher level technical skills courses. 3) For FY2011, indicate the section/subsection in the CTE Local Plan for Program Improvement where the improvement plan/strategy is described. Below are the locations of proposed improvement strategies within SY2011 CTE Local Plan for Program Improvement: Strategy Worksheet A A A A A A A A A B-1 B-2 B-4 Page # 18, 20 21, 22, 23 24, 25, 26 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34 35, 36 38, 40, 41 43, 44, 45 46, 47, 48 49.50 53, 56, 57 61 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Program Area AMC BMF C&D CSHT HBM HRS IT MET TT Transportation and Alignment Career Development Services to Special Populations Page | 260 ADDRESSING SPECIFIC STUDENT GROUPS EARLY LEARNING A. Based on the examination of 2009-2010 MMSR Kindergarten Assessment Data (Tables 8.1 and 8.2): 1. Describe the school system’s plans, including any changes or adjustments that will be made, for ensuring the progress of students who begin kindergarten either not ready or approaching readiness as determined by the Maryland Model for School Readiness Kindergarten Assessment. Please include a discussion of the corresponding resource allocations and include timelines for use of allocations where appropriate. In SY2009-2010, 68.3% of kindergarten students enrolled in PGCPS were fully ready for school across all learning domains (see Table 8.1). This represents a slight dip (3 percentage points) in readiness from SY2008-09. The drop notwithstanding, the trend in school readiness among children starting their formal schooling in PGCPS has been in the upward direction. Since SY2004-05, PGCPS has seen a 20-point increase in the percent of students entering kindergarten who are fully ready (from 48% to 68%). Table 8.1: Percentage of All Kindergarten Students at Readiness Stages Composite PD TA SS ST MT LL SP % Developing Readiness Composite PD 67 71 73 76 82 81 TA 64 67 69 73 78 76 SS PD 34 36 44 49 60 58 ST TA 25 27 40 44 57 54 MT SS 39 41 49 49 62 59 LL ST 41 44 48 50 59 57 SP MT 57 58 61 63 67 68 Composite LL 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 % Approaching Readiness SP % Fully Ready 48 33 44 43 52 50 31 29 43 10 16 17 22 16 6 4 10 51 33 42 43 51 47 28 25 33 9 15 16 22 17 5 4 9 59 30 39 38 46 44 25 23 34 8 13 14 14 12 5 4 8 63 30 39 39 45 43 24 21 33 7 11 12 10 8 3 3 5 71 26 32 30 35 33 19 15 24 7 9 8 8 7 3 2 4 68 24 33 31 36 34 20 16 26 8 10 9 10 8 4 3 5 Domain Abbreviations: SP – Social and Personal; LL – Language and Literacy; MT – Mathematical Thinking; ST – Scientific Thinking; SS – Social Studies; TA – The Arts; PD – Physical Development At the individual learning domain level, the degree of school readiness varies from a high of 81% for the Physical Development domain to a low of 54% for the Scientific Thinking domain. The levels of school readiness for the other learning domains are as follows: Arts—76%; Personal and Social Development—68%; Mathematical Thinking—59%; Social Studies— 57%; Language and Literacy—57%. Performance across the seven readiness domains decreased slightly for all domains from SY2008-9 to SY2009-10 with the exception of the Social and Personal domain, which increased by one percentage point. Over the six-year period, the Physical Development domain increased by 14 percentage points from 67% (SY2004-5) to 81% (SY2009-10). During the same period, there was an increase of 16 percentage points in the Language and Literacy domain, from 41% to 57%. The second highest six-year gain was in the Arts domain, which increased by 12 points from 64% (SY2004-5) to 76% (SY2009-10). Although the percentage of students evaluated as fully ready in the Social Studies domain decreased by 2 percentage points between SY2008-9 and SY2009-10; there was a 24 percentage point increase from SY2004-5 to SY2009-10. The percent of students assessed as fully ready for kindergarten has consistently been the lowest in the Scientific Thinking domain, yet the greatest increase in readiness from SY2004-5 to SY2009-10 was observed for this domain (29 percentage points). Data on children who attended PGCPS pre-kindergarten programs before entering kindergarten is displayed in Table 8.2. In SY2009-10, 63% of the kindergarteners with pre-kindergarten experience were evaluated as fully ready in the Language and Literacy domain – a three percentage point reduction from SY2008-9 (66%), and 65% were assessed as fully ready in the Mathematical Thinking domain – a four percentage point decrease from 69% (SY2008-9). There was a 15 percentage point increase in the percentage of students fully ready in the language and literacy domain from SY2004-5 (48%) to 63% (SY200910). There was a 19 percentage point increase in the percentage of students fully ready in the Mathematical Thinking domain, from 46% (SY2004-5) to 65% (SY2009-10). PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 261 Table 8.2: Percentage of Kindergarten Students with Previous Prekindergarten Experience % Fully Ready 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 % Approaching Readiness % Developing Readiness LL MT LL MT LL MT 48 51 56 57 66 63 46 51 56 56 69 65 43 39 36 36 29 30 43 39 35 37 27 29 10 9 8 6 5 7 12 11 9 7 4 6 Domain Abbreviations: LL – Language and Literacy; MT – Mathematical Thinking The percentage of kindergarten students fully ready decreased in the aggregate and for all student subgroups between SY2008-9 and SY2009-10 with the exception of two subgroups: LEP and White (see Table AD). The LEP subgroup increased from 47% (SY2008-9) to 62% (SY2009-10), an increase of fifteen percentage points, while the White student subgroup increased from 73% (SY2008-9) to 78% (SY2009-10), a difference of five percentage points. In SY2009-10, only three subgroups exceeded the aggregate percent of kindergarten students fully ready (68%): White (78%), Asian/Pacific Islander (70%) and African American (70%). The percentage of kindergarten special education students assessed as fully ready decreased by 7 percentage points from SY2008-09 to SY2009-10. Table AD: Percent of Kindergarten Students at Fully Ready by Sub-Group, 2005 – 2010 Subgroup 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 All Students American Indian Asian African American White Hispanic Special Education Limited English Proficient FARMS 48 43 53 50 57 35 41 33 43 51 66 57 54 56 39 34 39 46 59 70 64 61 64 49 32 45 55 62 73 69 64 69 54 34 52 58 71 81 79 73 73 65 44 47 69 68 64 70 70 78 63 37 62 65 1 – Year Percentage Point Change -3.0 -17.0 -9.0 -3.0 5.0 -2.0 -7.0 15.0 -4.0 5 – Year Percentage Point Change 20.0 21.0 17.0 20.0 21.0 28.0 -4.0 29.0 22.0 Over the five-year period, the percentage of kindergarten students assessed as fully ready increased students in the aggregate and for all subgroups, with the exception of the special education subgroup. In SY2004-5, 41% of special education students were rated as fully ready, while in SY2009-10 only 37% demonstrated full readiness, a reduction of 4.0 percentage points. Chart L outlines interventions that the district will implement to ensure the progress of students who begin kindergarten either not ready or approaching readiness as determined by the MMSR. Chart L: Student Interventions Support for Special Needs Students Collaborate with the Special Education Department to ensure that all kindergarten special education teachers are fully trained on MMSR assessment procedures. Increase collaboration with Early Childhood Special Education to support at-risk preschoolers through consultation, observation, and participation in team meetings Professional Development Provide professional development trainings linked to program and systemic initiatives that directly impact instruction and student achievement. Professional development will target all domains, providing strategies to differentiate instruction and link instruction to exemplars, state curriculum, and individual child needs. Develop training protocol for all preschool teachers to utilize the Work Sampling Assessment and initiate Work PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 262 Chart L: Student Interventions Sampling Assessment tool for all four-year olds. Deliver new MMSR training to kindergarten teachers to increase skills in administration of the tool and accountability in data collection. Provide system-wide professional development on areas of need. as determined by previous MMSR results, staff survey results, and instructional support team observations. Enhanced Assessments Utilize a newly developed pre- and post- test to measure growth. The implementation of professional development content will be monitored through on-site visits and the early childhood monitoring tool. Implement Work Sampling System preschool assessment that aligns with the MMSR to monitor progress and impact instructional decision making. Program Activity Increase use of instructional strategies and behavioral interventions with preschool children through the expansion of the Social Emotional Foundations for Early Learning Program, which promotes positive social emotional development and behavior management in young children. Provide more intensive levels of instructional and behavioral supports to address the increased number of students with disruptive behaviors. Supports include visual strategies, environmental modifications, behavior action plans, and counseling. Implement Response to Intervention, promoting a tiered approach of pre referral strategies, to support increased school readiness in all schools. Maintain/increase participation in before and after care sites that have less than 60 students to provide adequate fiscal support. This program is self supporting. Program Logistics Continue to identify and place income eligible children in programs throughout the school year. Continued provision of transportation services to all income eligible students within their school boundaries. Realign prekindergarten class locations in areas of the county where there is high enrollment. Enhanced Collaboration Increase Judy Center collaboration and coordination of services for families and young children, age birth to five, as mandated by the MSDE grant. Services can include educational and health care services. Increase collaboration with PGCPS academic programs partners and the Early Childhood Office staff to support training for kindergarten teachers on kindergarten curriculum, data gathering, and MMSR assessment procedures. 2. What are the school system’s plans to work with other early childhood partners/programs (i.e., Preschool Special Education; Head Start; Child Care programs) to ensure that children are entering school ready to learn? The district‘s plan to work with other early childhood partners/programs (i.e., Preschool Special Education; Head Start; Child Care programs) to ensure that children are entering school ready to learn is described in Chart M. Chart M: Plans to Work with Early Childhood Partners/Programs Professional Development Provide joint training opportunities for general education and special education providers that promote understanding and skill development in the areas of differentiated instruction and behavioral support for all types of learners. Enhance the social emotional foundations for early learning training for instructional staff and school teams, to include community and parent trainings. Expand parent and community training opportunities through increased public awareness and advertising. Provide parent and community trainings that are linked to school readiness, literacy, and personal social skills. Data Analysis Develop parent survey to measure accessibility and quality of resources provided, along with educational impact of training strategies. Surveys will be implemented in SY2010-11. Analyze survey data documenting the positive educational impact as observed by parents, validating the effectiveness of parent training topics, strategies, and PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 263 Chart M: Plans to Work with Early Childhood Partners/Programs resources shared. Partnerships/Collaboration Collaborate with the Partners for Success and the Early Childhood Program to offer a variety of parent and community trainings related to school readiness, IEP process, and development of positive personal social skills. Collaborate with the Prince George‘s County Resource Center and the Early Childhood Program to offer a variety of parent and community trainings related to parenting skills, child development, and behavior management. Initiate new partnership between the Judy Center and the University of Maryland School of Public Health to address heath and fitness concerns in young children. Continue collaboration with Curriculum and Instruction, ESOL, Teacher Leadership and Professional Development, Office of Legal Council, and Information and Technology to ensure an integrated approach to the delivery of early intervention services. Continue partnership with Area offices and school administrative teams to ensure continued support of school teams and instructional programming. B. Based on the examination of 2009-2010 Public Pre-kindergarten Enrollment Data (Table 8.3) 1. Please verify the accuracy of the Public Pre-kindergarten enrollment data for school year 2009-2010. Prekindergarten enrollment as of September, 2009 consisted of 4,421 income eligible children and 45 above income children. All above income students were children receiving IEP services. Enrollment is monitored monthly through direct communication with school records secretaries. Figures are also compared with the Office of Pupil Accounting. Enrollment of income eligible students continues throughout the school year. Enrollment increased through the school year to 4,559 in June, 2010. 2. Describe the policies and practices put in place to ensure the enrollment of all eligible children into the Public Pre-kindergarten Program as described in COMA 13A.6.02. Policies and procedures are reviewed annually by staff in the Early Childhood Program and the Pupil Accounting and School Boundaries Office to maintain alignment with COMAR regulations for program implementation. Information is also shared with administrative staff, including the Superintendent, executive staff, and the Office of General Counsel, to ensure that policies and procedures meet the requirements of COMAR 13A.6.02. Training is provided to school registrars on approved policies and procedures to ensure that all eligible children have access to the prekindergarten program. Trainings are provided regionally, and all schools are asked to send their records secretaries and an additional school representative to these trainings. Early childhood instructional staff is assigned to individual schools to support accurate implementation of registration procedures. Early Childhood Program staff partners with Food and Nutrition Services staff to share prekindergarten information with eligible families through the joint distribution of program information. Two mass mailings to identified community partners are done in July and August, requesting that they share program information, as appropriate. Registration and program information is posted on the PGCPS website at www.pgcps.org. Parents can directly access eligibility guidelines, program locations, an application, early entrance procedures, and other helpful information on the website. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 264 ADDRESSING SPECIFIC STUDENT GROUPS GIFTED AND TALENTED PROGRAMS 1. List the goals, objectives, and strategies for the Gifted and Talented Program student identification and services along with the progress made in 2009-2010 toward meeting those goals, objectives, and strategies. Include supporting data as needed to document progress. Goal 1: Address the academic and social-emotional needs of Talented and Gifted (TAG) students Objective 1.5: Provide programs and services which enrich, modify, or replace regular classroom curricula and instruction to meet the unique needs of Talented and Gifted students. Strategy 1.5.1 Continue to meet the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) standards in the exemplary range for identification of talented and gifted students. According to the National Association for Gifted Children standards, PGCPS met Goal 1: Student Identification in all areas, except for one area (providing testing in multiple languages). Progress in TAG testing, screening, and identification is documented below. Evidence of meeting the standard include: TAG global test nominations; parent and teacher nominations; screenings; identification records; professional development evaluations; participation records; TAG program review forms; and anecdotal evidence collected in SY2009-2010. The data below demonstrate that TAG identification procedures are effectively identifying students from diverse racial, ethnic, linguistic, and socio-economic backgrounds. Programs are inclusive of all populations, including gifted students with special learning needs/learning disabilities, gifted students on Free and Reduced Meals, and gifted English language learners. PGCPS continues to make progress in addressing the academic and social-emotional needs of talented and gifted students. Identification of TAG Students Student assessment data come from multiple sources, include multiple assessment methods, and represent an appropriate balance of quantitative and qualitative measures. Each grade level includes several paths to identification in designated areas of giftedness. Global Test Nominations All first and third grade students in PGCPS were globally tested with the Otis Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT). All students scoring in the 80 percentile and above were screened using a balance of quantitative and qualitative measures for inclusion in the TAG program. Overall, based on OLSAT, TAG identification has increased from 7.5% in SY2004-2005 to 10.7% in SY2009-2010. The increase in identification can be attributed to monitoring and accountability of global screening of all testnominated students; ongoing professional development opportunities focusing on the characteristics of gifted students (including students with learning disabilities); gifted English language learners and gifted students from disadvantaged backgrounds; and implementation of non-verbal assessment for students with significant discrepancies in verbal and nonverbal sub-test scores. SY 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 Table AE: Summary of TAG Global Test Nominations First Graders* Third Graders* 986 1,008 1043 902 1078 904 *Students who are test-nominated are automatically screened for TAG services. Additional students may be screened by Teacher, Parent, or self-nomination. The decrease shown in Table AE for SY2009-2010 third grade test nominations can be attributed to the wider identification of the SY2007-2008 first graders; therefore, more third grade students were already TAG-identified. Teacher, Parent, Administrator, Self-Nominations, and Newly Registered Students/Off-level testing. Table AF: Parent and Teacher Nomination Summary SY Off-level Testing 2007-2008 461 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 265 Table AF: Parent and Teacher Nomination Summary SY Off-level Testing 2008-2009 575 2009-2010 558* * This includes 94 Early Entrance into First Grade OLSAT Tests. In addition to global testing and screening, students in grades 2 and 4-7, nominated by teachers, parents, administration, or self-nominated, were tested with appropriate ability (OLSAT) and achievement tests (SCAT) and screened for participation in the TAG program. Students new to PGCPS are tested and screened for participation in the TAG program with parental request. Table AF documents the total number of students tested off-level. The off-level test numbers for (SY2009-2010) are slightly down because more students are being identified during global years. TAG Screening and Identification Table AG: Number of Students Screened Nonpublic 2007-2008 105 2008-2009 132 2009-2010 150 Table AH: Number of Students Identified Non-public TAG identified 2007-2008 33 2008-2009 49 2009-2010 48 PGCPS re-screenings 171 180 168 PGCPS screenings 3303 3311 3292 PGCPS re-screenings TAG identified 69 60 55 PGCPS TAG identified 1792 1732 1896 Non-Public Testing and Screening TAG Office staff provides opportunities for non-public (private school) students to be tested and screened for participation in the TAG program. The tables above indicate that in SY2009-2010, 150 non-public students participated in non-public testing, and 48 students met the criteria for participating in the TAG program. The increase in the number of students screened reflects an increased interest in TAG identification from parents in private settings. The number of private school students who meet the criteria varies from year to year based on the applicant pool. Re-screen Nominations All students screened in SY2008-2009 for the TAG program who met the quantitative test data criteria requirement, but not the qualitative criteria, were nominated for re-screening by TAG Office staff. Re-screening nominations were distributed to TAG Coordinators in September 2009. The SY2009-2010 re-screening list was generated in May 2010 for distribution in September 2010. TAG identification paperwork was updated to differentiate between an initial screening and re-screening. Overall Screening and Identification The cumulative number of student who met the criteria for TAG identification in SY2009-2010 was 1,896, including global testnominations, parent and teacher nominations, and non-public screenings. Data in Table AI reflect that 11.5% of the PGCPS grades 2-12 student population was identified as TAG in SY2009-2010, demonstrating ongoing progress in identification of this exceptional population of students. 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 Table AI: PGCPS TAG Population Data Summary Grades 2-12 Student Population Number of TAG students 108,542 11,476 105,784 11,641 104,346 11,987 102,796 11,867 % of TAG Students * 10.6% 11.0% 11.5% 11.5% Screening and identification data change daily. *Percentage and the number of TAG students are based on identified TAG students in grades 2-12. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 266 It is the goal of PGCPS to identify students for the TAG program in such a manner that the composition of the TAG population reflects the diverse composition of the general population. Table AJ: PGCPS TAG Population by Race/Ethnicity, SY2009-2010 TAG PGCPS African American 69% 72% Asian 7% 3% Caucasian 14.6% 5% Hispanic or Latino 10% 20% Native American .004% .004% Data in the table above reflect the diversity of the PGCPS gifted population in SY2009-2010. The TAG population in PGPCS includes all racial, cultural, and linguistic sub-groups that are represented in the total student population. However, there were disparities in the identification of African American and Hispanic students in the TAG program. African-American students are slightly underrepresented by 3 percentage points. Although, Hispanic students represent 20% of the PGCPS student population; only 10% of Hispanic students had been identified as TAG students. Data reflect an over representation of Caucasian students and an under representation of Hispanic students. Efforts will continue to address these discrepancies in identification procedures and practices. Naglieri Non-verbal Assessment The coordinators are trained in analyzing grade 1 OLSAT test data for significant discrepancies in verbal and non-verbal scores. Students who have non-verbal score in the 8th and 9th stanine with a discrepancy of at least 2 stanines were considered for additional non-verbal assessments (NNAT) on a case-by-case basis. Management of Data Through establishing electronic databases and monitoring the screenings on a school-by-school basis, an effective system of checks and balances has been implemented to ensure that all test- nominated students are screened for participation in the TAG program. Beginning in SY2009-2010, a new feature was implemented through SchoolMax and APEX that facilitate identification of TAG students. These tracking systems provide immediate TAG enrollment data by school to facilitate the continuation of TAG services as students move from one school to another. Professional Development – Identification Several trainings on TAG Identification Screening Procedures and Characteristics of Gifted Students were presented to elementary TAG Coordinators and middle school TAG Coordinators in September 2009. In addition to screening procedures, TAG Coordinators received training in analyzing OLSAT test data to recognize significant discrepancies in verbal and nonverbal scores for potential re-assessment and identification via optional pathways, including a path for gifted students with special learning needs (twice-exceptional) and ESOL. Professional development for TAG Coordinators was differentiated for novice elementary coordinators, experienced elementary coordinators, middle school coordinators, TAG Center coordinators, and TAG Title I coordinators. TAG Office staff provided ongoing research, and technical and screening support to TAG Coordinators, as well as Pull-out, TRC, and TAG Center teachers throughout the school year via site visits, email, phone, fax, inter-office pony, and monthly bulletins. Strategy 1.5.2: Continue to implement a talented and gifted program which provides all identified students with access to comprehensive instructional services that develop and nurture outstanding talents and high levels of accomplishment in intellectual, creative, and/or leadership areas. Comprehensive Instructional Services Every PGPCS elementary school provides TAG identified students with gifted services (per COMAR). The three program models are TAG pull-out program; TAG in the regular classroom program; and the TAG Center program. Historically, school districts across the nation have under-identified or excluded students from economically disadvantaged households in gifted programs. In SY2009-2010, PGCPS successfully identified and served gifted students in 52 Title I schools of the 129 schools receiving services. Table AK below demonstrates that gifted services were distributed across all school levels. However, only two out of 24 middle schools offered gifted services. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 267 Table AK: TAG Services by Service Type and School Type, SY2009-2010 Gifted Services Offered School Type Center Pull Out TRC Pull Out/ No TRC Implementation Elementary 7 88 20 3 6 Middle 2 0 0 0 22 K-8 Schools 1 5 1 0 4 ECC 0 1 0 0 5 Charter 0 0 0 1 3 Total 10 94 21 4 40 Center = Full-day Talented and Gifted program; placement via lottery TRC = TAG in the Regular Classroom (cluster grouping and differentiation within a mixed-ability classroom) TAG Pull-out = Interdisciplinary enrichment program, meets 2 hours a week Total 124 24 11 6 4 169 Source: The Total number of school types for PGCPS district was cited from Maryland Public School Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity and Gender and Number of Schools, September 30, 2009. In addition to gifted services being distributed across all school types, Table AL-A indicates that 81.4% or TAG-identified students are elementary; 8.3% are middle grades students; 10.2% attend K-8 combination schools; and less than 1% are enrolled in early education centers and/or charter students. Table AL-B shows the number of students served at each of the school type and the total number of students served in SY2009-2010. It indicates that system-wide 20.9% of the students received gifted services in centers; 49% of the students received pullouts; 26.5% of the students received TRC; and remaining students received a combination of pullout and TRC services. Service Centers Pullouts TRC Pullout/TRC Total Percentage Service Centers Pullouts TRC Pullout/TRC Total Table AL-A: Distribution of Students Receiving Gifted Services by School Type SY2009-2010 Elementary Middle K-8 Schools EEC Charter 549 495 204 0 0 2,574 0 355 5 0 1,538 0 49 0 0 208 0 0 0 6 4,869 495 608 5 6 81.4% 8.3% 10.2% 0.1% 0.1% Table AL-B: Percent Distribution of Students Receiving Gifted Services by School Type SY2009-2010 Elementary Middle K-8 Schools EEC Charter 11.3 100 33.6 0.0 0.0 52.9 0.0 58.4 100 0.0 31.6 0.0 8.1 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 100 100 100 100 Total 1,248 2,934 1,587 208 5,983 100% Total 20.9 49.0 26.5 3.5 99.9 TAG Programs – 2006-2010 Gifted students participate in a variety of programs. Tables AM and AN below illustrate the percentage of TAG identified students participating in TAG programs at the elementary and secondary levels. Elementary TAG services are offered through center specialty programs; other specialty programs (French Immersion, Montessori, Creative Performing Arts); and neighborhood TAG programs. Specialty programs are lottery-based and have a maximum capacity for enrollment. In SY20092010, the TAG middle schools were full to capacity due to high parent demand. As noted in Table AN, there are no TAG center programs at the high school level. However, TAG students in the secondary program had opportunities to participate in general courses, honors courses, AP, IB, and other choice/specialty programs. In SY2009-2010, 89.2% of secondary gifted students participated in TAG programs. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 268 Table AM: Summary of Elementary Program Participation 2006-2007 2007-2008 TAG Center Specialty Program (placement via lottery) 18.9% 19% Other Choice/Specialty Program (French Immersion, Montessori, 22.5% 22.9% Creative Performing Arts Neighborhood TAG Program 58.5% 58.8% Table AN: Summary of Secondary Program Participation 2006-2007* 2007-2008* TAG Center Choice/Specialty Program (2 Middle School Programs) 7% 7% General courses, Honors courses, AP, IB, and Other Choice/Specialty Program (French Immersion, Montessori, Creative Performing Arts) 93% 93% 2008-2009 18% 22.6% 2009-2010 18.5% 22.7% 59% 59% 2008-2009 12.6% 2009-2010 10.8% 87.4% 89.2% *SY 2006-2007 and SY 2007-2008 TAG Middle School Centers were under capacity. Professional Development In SY2009-10, TAG Office staff sponsored or facilitated 30 professional development opportunities for 715 TAG Coordinators, teachers of gifted students, Professional School Counselors, and principals. This is a decrease from previous years as demonstrated in Table AO. This decrease can be attributed to decreased funding and limited TAG Central Office staff to deliver the high-quality professional development. Trainings were differentiated for the targeted audiences based on their roles, responsibilities, program model, and levels of expertise. A variety of opportunities included state and national conferences, presentations by educational consultants, in-house trainings, continuing professional development course, and Johns Hopkins Masters in Elementary Education with a concentration in gifted education. The TAG professional development plan provided staff with ongoing opportunities to develop an understanding and needs of gifted learners and appropriate instructional strategies to meet those needs. Each training increased awareness of the characteristics of gifted students and of their unique academic, social, and emotional needs. Through follow-up site visits, anecdotal surveys, discussions with principals, and evaluations, participants in these trainings have more effectively implemented the TAG programs and services and strengthened the programs at their respective schools. Highlights of SY2009-10 TAG Professional Development TAG professional development opportunities highlighted in Table AO are designed to address specific areas of needs and topics which vary from year to year based on instructional needs of educators, scheduling considerations, and financial resources. Junior Great Books training was increased to 3 sessions to meet the demand. Scheduling issues did not allow presentations to the elementary and middle school principals or middle school Professional School Counselors in SY20092010. Table AO: TAG Professional Development Topic/s Characteristics of gifted students, identification procedures, and TAG Program services Teaching the Gifted (3 CPD credits, 45 hours of instruction* Smart Kids with Learning Difficulties (3 CPD credits, 45 hours of instruction)* Junior Great Books Shared Inquiry (13 hours of training) Maryland State Gifted Conference National Association of Gifted Children Conference 2008-2009 Participants 175 32 175 2009-2010 Participants 149 NA NA 41 69 Elementary and Secondary classroom teachers 16 37 2008-2009 - Middle School Honors 2009-2010 – Elementary and Middle School Teachers Elementary and Secondary classroom teachers Elementary, Middle, Special Education Specialist 32 89 56 13 84 9 Target Audience Elementary and Middle School TAG Coordinators Middle School Professional School Counselors Elementary and Middle School Principal Zone meetings Elementary and Secondary classroom teachers PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 269 Table AO: TAG Professional Development Topic/s Grade 3 TAG – Creative Thinking Pull-out Enrichment Curriculum Independent Study TAG Center RELA Critical Thinking Models – Paul’s Wheel of Reasoning and Kaplan’s Depth and Complexity Target Audience 2008-2009 – Grade 2 teachers 2009-2010 - Grade 3 teachers Elementary Pull-out TAG teachers Elementary Pull-out teachers TAG Center Reading Language Arts TAG in the Regular Classroom Teachers 2008-2009 Participants 185 2009-2010 Participants 151 147 NA NA NA 140 12 45 12 * TAG Professional Development – Continuing Professional Development The TAG Office has sponsored MSDE approved, 3 credit, 45 hour Continuing Professional Development Courses, Teaching the Gifted and Smart Kids with Learning Difficulties, for PGCPS teachers, coordinators, Professional School Counselors, and administrators during the summer, spring, and fall semesters for a total of 6 courses. These courses provided opportunities for in-depth study of the gifted population. Johns Hopkins Title I/Talented and Gifted Cohort, SY2009-10 Teachers in Title I schools were offered the opportunity to earn a Masters Degree in Elementary Education with an endorsement in Gifted Education. In February 2009, the cohort of 16 teachers from Title I schools began classes offered by the Johns Hopkins University (JHU). Title I funds were used to pay for tuition, and participants agreed to continue service in Title I schools for a minimum of three years after completing the 3 year Masters program. The JHU Title I TAG cohort consists of 11 graduate courses and is scheduled to be completed fall 2011. Participants completed the following courses in SY200910: Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment I, Summer 2009 (16 participants) Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment II, Summer 2009 (16 participants) Research Practicum, Gifted, Fall 2009 (16 participants) Gifted/Learning Disabled Student, Spring 2010 (16 participants) Seminar in Gifted Education, Spring 2010 (15 participants) The purpose of this program is to increase teachers‘ awareness of best practices for gifted students and improve teachers‘ capacity in Title I schools to enhance the TAG services at Title I schools for gifted students. The cohort was limited to the 16 teachers that applied and accepted to the Masters program. As a result of this program and other TAG Office initiatives, there has been in an increase in the identification of TAG students in 75% of Title I schools. Data Collection/Monitoring Tools Various monitoring tools, databases, surveys, and reports have been created and disseminated to guide program management and decision making. The monitoring tools include: TAG program beginning-of-the-year report; TAG review report form; professional development evaluations; and follow-up surveys; and TAG identified student database and TAG Center database. Data utilized from these tools provided needed support to transitioning four schools from the TAG pull-out model to the TAG in the regular classroom model. In addition, these monitoring tools help to identify needed professional development and supplemental advanced resources. Accokeek Academy TAG CENTER Expansion (Formerly Ferguson ES/Burroughs MS) PGCPS expanded the TAG Center Middle School Program to a third middle school in southern Prince George‘s County while combining an adjacent elementary school and the middle school into a Pre-K – 8 Academy. The combined Henry Ferguson Elementary and Eugene Burroughs Middle Schools became a grade 2-8 TAG Center in SY2009-10. In SY2010-11, grade 7 will be added, and 8th grade will be added the following year. The TAG staff at Accokeek Academy has participated in all professional developments (18 staff members attended 12 trainings, including the College of William and Mary Summer Institute, MSDE/MEGS State Gifted Conference, and NAGC Conference). Instructional materials were provided to support the program. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 270 TAG Office staff developed a comprehensive 3-year roll-out plan to establish a successful full-day TAG Center Program. Throughout spring 2009, the plan was disseminated to multiple stakeholder groups and updated and revised based on feedback. Implementation of the plan is in progress. Detailed plans for professional development, curricular modifications, instructional resources, and extra-curricular opportunities were outlined. During summer 2009 through spring 2010, middle school teachers participated in a variety of trainings, including attending the College of William and Mary Summer Institute, Teaching the Gifted CPD, Junior Great Books, and grade level collaborative planning sessions. Materials to support the expansion were provided. Site visits and walk-through were completed throughout the year, the year 1 plan was successfully completed, and the year 2 plan is underway. The TAG Center program offers a full-day accelerated, enriched, and intensive instructional program to meet the unique and specialized needs of highly able students. Specially selected and trained teachers provide the instruction. Students who qualify for the program using PGCPS identification criteria are accepted through the Center‘s Lottery application on a spaceavailable basis in accordance with lottery guidelines. Curriculum Development Curriculum Alignment – TAG Pull-out Enrichment Curriculums Primary pull-out curricula for 2nd and 3rd graders, ―Sensational Sagas‖, were aligned to grade three Maryland State Reading, Math, Science, Social Studies, and Technology Standards. The intermediate pull-out unit, ―Forces From Within and Without‖ is in the process of being aligned to MSDE standards. The aligned curricula were distributed at TAG pull-out trainings and available on TAG Google site to download. Curriculum Alignment – William and Mary Language Arts Curriculum, Grades 6 and 7 The College of William and Mary Language Arts Curriculum for Highly Able Learners implemented in grades 6 and 7 were aligned to the Maryland reading standards one year above grade level. These curricula are used in the TAG Center programs. Alignment and suggested scope and sequence were shared at trainings and made available on the TAG Google site to download. Enrichment PGCC Science Enrichment Program The PGCPS TAG Office, in partnership with Prince George‘s Community College, continued to offer TAG/honors middle school students the opportunity to participate in advanced science courses. Seventh graders studied biology, and eight graders studied forensics. Each course is 15 hours of instruction on the community college campus during the school day. Data illustrated in Table AP reflect that program enrollment is at or over capacity each semester. Waiting lists are established for any last minute cancellations. Due to the time constraints and need for the TAG Specialist‘s direct supervision of this program, increasing the program offerings is currently not an option. Table AP: Student Participation in Science Enrichment Program 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 th 7 Biology Fall Semester 22 23 22 7th Biology Spring Semester 22 24 24 8th Forensics Fall Semester 23 24 24 8th Forensics Spring Semester 22 24 22 Total Participation 89 95 92 2009-10 23 22 24 25 94 Strategy 1.5.3: Increase the identification of students with disabilities in the TAG program and address their special instructional, learning, and social-emotional needs to ensure their academic achievement through Gifted Students with Special Learning Needs (GSLN) services. GSLN Nominations and Screenings In collaboration with the Department of Special Education, students who exhibited gifted characteristics and special education needs were reviewed at monthly GSLN meetings. Multi-confirming data, record review, IEP documentation, 504 plans, student work samples, and creativity assessments were reviewed to complete the screening process. Information from these assessments were used to identify in services for special education students. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 271 Dr. Susan Baum, a national expert in twice-exceptional students, presented a district-wide training in October, 2009, for Professional School Counselors, TAG teachers and coordinators, and special educators. Site-based trainings were offered through consultations and presentations given by the SEIS for GT/LD Students, IEP Team participation, Secondary Academic Resource Support Class - Honors Trainings, and a Collaborative Elementary School Team Training. In addition to the sitebased trainings, model lessons were provided to site schools throughout the year. The identification and services for GSLN students were monitored and maintained by monthly GSLN review meetings; trainings for classroom teachers, special educators, Professional School Counselors, and TAG Coordinators; on-site visits; and demonstration lessons. During site and non-site visits, recommendations by the GSLN specialist were made to the site team supporting the need to implement either interventions or acceleration on a case-by-case basis. Information gleaned from state and national conferences was incorporated into the ongoing district-wide and site-based trainings and Teaching the Gifted CPD Course. In SY2009-10, 287 TAG identified students received special education services. Strategy 1.5.4: Increase program awareness through the establishment of ongoing parent communication designed to facilitate the dissemination of information and encourage community input and recommendations. Parent Community Awareness In an effort to increase parent and community awareness and understanding of PGCPS TAG programs and services, the TAG website was updated and parent information packets were distributed to all newly identified TAG students. TAG related presentations to parents and community members included: three Destination Imagination Parent Information Nights; Hopkins Center for Talented Youth Parent Nights; the annual PGTAG Back-to-School Night; and TAG program model presentation to the parents of non-public testing applicants. TAG Office staff distributed the following information and materials to TAG Coordinators for direct distribution to parents in all schools: TAG Parent Information Packet Specialty Programs Lottery Applications (available, paper and on-line) Maryland Summer Center flier and applications distributed to all elementary and middle schools Jack Kent Cooke Foundation Young Scholars information and application distributed to all middle schools Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth eligibility lists, information, and application distributed to all students scoring Advanced on MSA test Nicholas Green NAGC Scholarship information and application distributed to all elementary schools Destination Imagination Parent Information Nights – 3 events Center for Talented Youth Information Night – 3 events (one on-line webinar) PGTAG Parent Night – 185 parents attended TAG Advisory Council – 3 annual meetings Parents and community members were invited and participated in the PGCPS Talented and Gifted Advisory Committee and stakeholder meetings. The major accomplishment of this stakeholder committee was updating the PGCPS Administrative Procedure 6142.2 Talented and Gifted Student Program, ratified September 2009. This procedure provides direction to staff and community and places special emphasis on addressing unique instructional, social, and emotional needs of TAG identified students in grades 2-12. When approved, this procedure will be placed on-line for parents, administrators, and staff members. 2. Identify the strategies, including resource allocations that appear related to SY2009-2010 progress. Table AQ: Budget Allocation SY2009-2010 TAG Budget Admin./Prof/Specialist Temporaries Substitute Classroom Teacher Supplies Staff Development PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update $793,751 296,380 164,354 164,354 109,216 11,599 Page | 272 Table AQ: Budget Allocation SY2009-2010 TAG Budget Misc/Instructional Supplies Registration Travel Mileage Printing $793,751 6,907 14,855 3,599 4624 20,120 Strategy 1.5.1: Continue to meet the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) standards in the exemplary range for Identification of Talented and Gifted Students. Talented and Gifted office staff including, Supervisor of Talented and Gifted Programs (12 month position) and Talented and Gifted Program Specialist (11 month position). Professional development to train TAG Coordinators in nomination, identification policies and procedures included: substitute funds, resource manuals, materials, conference registration fees, and non-local travel fees. Testing administration includes materials and scoring costs for global testing (1st and 3rd grade) and off-level assessments (2nd and 4th-7th grades). Strategy 1.5.2: Continue to implement a Talented and Gifted program which provides all identified students with access to comprehensive instructional services that develop and nurture outstanding talents and high levels of accomplishment in intellectual, creative, and/or leadership areas. Funds were used for implementation of the TAG in the regular classroom model, TAG Center model, and TAG Pullout model by purchasing classroom instructional materials; advanced libraries; First in Math/Math 24 subscriptions; hands-on resources; professional development libraries; professional journals; Grade 7 and 8 TAG advanced reading materials; and instructional materials for the Accokeek Academy TAG Center expansion. Thirty professional development opportunities were sponsored and facilitated by the TAG Office including: six Continuing Professional Development Courses (Teaching the Gifted and Smart Kids with Learning Difficulties); a state conference; two national conferences; two educational consultants; and numerous site-based; and systemic trainings and meetings. Professional development expenses included: substitute funds; workshop funds; training/consultant fees; resource and instructional materials; non-local travel; registration fees; use of facilities; and catering. Over 700 PGCPS TAG teachers, coordinators, and administrators participated in these professional development opportunities. Funds were allocated for facility use for TAG Non-Public Testing and Destination Imagination Regional Competition. Strategy 1.5.3: Increase the identification of students with disabilities in the TAG Program and address their special instructional, learning, and social-emotional needs to ensure their academic achievement through GSLN services. Allocations were used for the Special Education Instructional Specialist for Gifted and Talented Students with Learning Disabilities to work in collaboration with TAG Office staff to identify GSLN students and design and implement professional development opportunities for teachers, Professional School Counselors, and TAG Coordinators. Professional development opportunities included: five half-day trainings; one full-day training (educational consultant Dr. Susan Baum); conference registration and non-local expenses for National Association for Gifted Children Conference; registration fees for attendance to Maryland State Gifted Conference; and facility use fees. Strategy 1.5.4: Increase program awareness through the establishment of ongoing parent communication designed to facilitate the dissemination of information and encourage community input and recommendations. In an effort to increase parent awareness of TAG programs and services, allocations were used for human resources including PGCPS TAG teachers and temporary employees, materials and resources to design and host parent information orientations, and update the TAG website. Funding was also used to print TAG Parent Information Packet. 3. Describe where challenges are evident in meeting the Gifted and Talented Program goals, objectives, and strategies. (See response to question #4.) PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 273 4. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made, along with the corresponding resource allocations to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate. Table AR: PGCPS Proposed Allocations, SY2010-11 TAG Budget Admin./Prof/Specialist Temporaries Substitute Classroom Teacher Supplies Building Rental Registration Travel Mileage Printing $572,062 182, 570 139,354 36,737 94,246 5,000 10,000 4,500 5,000 10,000 Strategy 1.5.1: Continue to meet the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) standards in the exemplary range for Identification of Talented and Gifted Students. Challenges Minimal central office human resources/support staff; Increasing the identification of under-represented populations, especially ELL, students from poverty (Free and Reduced Meals), and gifted students with special learning needs Strategies to address challenges Increase efforts to identify students for the Talented and Gifted program from across all cultural groups and economic strata by professionally qualified individuals utilizing multiple criteria, including non-verbal assessment data (Naglieri Non-verbal Assessment, Creativity Assessment) by encouraging broader utilization of the NNAT and designing a Coordinator training specifically for Title I schools. Include ESOL and special education with an emphasis focusing on alternate pathways to identification in providing annual district-wide, regional trainings on the behaviors and characteristics of gifted children, gifted ELL, twice exceptional students, screening procedures for identification, and interpreting data discrepancies. Training for TAG Coordinators from Title I schools will be differentiated to focus on the characteristics of gifted students from poverty and Ell. Representatives from Department of Special Education and ESOL Office are invited to present. Provide follow up identification training, as needed, to ensure that all elementary schools complete the screening process for nominated students and re-screen viable candidates recommended from the previous grade. Strategy 1.5.2: Continue to implement a Talented and Gifted program which provides all identified students with access to comprehensive instructional services that develop and nurture outstanding talents and high levels of accomplishment in intellectual, creative, and/or leadership areas. Challenges Minimal central office human resources/support staff; Transitioning to new student information database and maintaining integrity of record keeping; Utilization of teachers with other full-time positions, in addition, to implement quality TAG pull-out and TAG in the regular classroom gifted programs and/or serve as TAG Coordinators, responsible for all aspects of TAG screening and identification paperwork; Developing appropriate services for gifted ELL; Retaining teachers that have specific training in meeting the unique academic, social and emotional needs of gifted students; Maintaining administrative support and accountability for defined program model implementation and curriculum differentiation; Training teachers and administrators in best practices for gifted students; Providing appropriately challenging advanced, above grade resources; and Accessing federal funds to support gifted services. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 274 Strategies to address challenges Monitor and support the implementation of enriched and accelerated activities for gifted students through differentiated instruction using assessment data to modify content, process, product, and/or the learning environment. Target transitioning schools (pull-out to TRC programs) and new TAG center teachers to provide ongoing professional development on the implementation of enriched and accelerated activities for gifted student through differentiated instruction that focuses on individual differences in readiness, interest, and learning styles. Offer Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Course, Teaching the Gifted, 2 sessions in summer 2010, 1 session in fall 2010, and 1 session in spring 2011 to increase awareness of gifted students and provide instructional strategies for meeting their academic, social, and emotional needs. Work to ensure that every school, with the support of its instructional leadership, will define its level of service and implement a program (TAG center, pull-out, and TAG in the regular classroom) that meets the instructional needs of its gifted population. Collaborate with ESOL Office staff to explore services and professional development opportunities to meet the instructional needs of an increased TAG identified ESOL population. Strategy 1.5.3: Increase the identification of students with disabilities in the TAG Program and address their special instructional, learning, and social-emotional needs to ensure their academic achievement through GSLN services. Challenges Increasing the identification of underrepresented populations, especially ELL, students from poverty (Free and Reduced Meals), and gifted students with special learning needs Elimination of the Special Education Instructional Specialist for Gifted/Learning Disabled students position Strategies to address challenges Despite the elimination of the Special Educational Instructional Specialist for Gifted/Learning Disabled students position, establish a process to maintain the development and implementation of interventions and acceleration strategies for GSLN including: additional time to focus on task for individual student‘s needs, flexible grouping, authentic problem-based curriculum, and activities that address multiple intelligence strengths. Provide annual district-wide and building specific professional development trainings on the behaviors and characteristics of GSLN and procedures for identification. Monitor the enrollment and achievement of GSLN students through data collection in order to provide necessary interventions and instructional modifications when appropriate. Offer Continuing Professional Development Course (CPD), Smart Kids with Learning Difficulties, in summer 2010 and spring 2011 to increase awareness of this special population and provide instructional strategies for meeting their academic, social, and emotional needs. Strategy 1.5.4: Increase program awareness through the establishment of ongoing parent communication designed to facilitate the dissemination of information and encourage community input and recommendations. Challenges Minimal central office human resources/support staff; Parent awareness of programs and services Strategies to address challenges Address requests to facilitate and support increased parent information meetings based on community needs and interests. Update the PGCPS TAG program website to include TAG Coordinator contact information, program features, advanced reading lists, and extra-curricular activities. Translate additional TAG program documents into Spanish and post on the PGCPS TAG website. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 275 ADDRESSING SPECIFIC STUDENTS SUBGROUPS SPECIAL EDUCATION Introduction At the beginning of SY2009-10, Department of Special Education made a commitment to undertake a comprehensive review of resource allocation and service delivery in order to determine how to construct a plan of reform to improve outcomes for students with disabilities in PGCPS. This review addressed the following areas: Academic achievement of the special education subgroup Participation of students with disabilities in the general education curriculum Compliance with federal and state requirements for special education Parent/family involvement and satisfaction; and Alignment of resources to meet identified needs. Data related to all of these aspects and indicators of service delivery have been analyzed with the objective of constructing a comprehensive plan for special education reform. Academic Achievement of the Special Education Subgroup Despite consistent progress over the past several years, PGCPS has lagged behind most other school systems in Maryland in terms of the academic achievement of the special education subgroup, as measured by proficiency against grade level standards. Substantial gains have been made. For example, in 2003 only 9.1% of the special education subgroup performed at the proficient or advanced level on the Reading MSA, and by 2010, performance in reading had increased by 43.7 percentage points to 52.8%. In 2003 only 12.6% of the special education subgroup performed at the proficient or advanced level in math, and by SY 2010 that percentage had increased by 34.4 percentage points to 47%. Gains such as these represent hard work and significantly improved outcomes for students since the Maryland School Assessment program was instituted seven years ago. However, it has proven very challenging for schools that started with low percentages of students at proficient and advanced levels to achieve AYP as time moves on and targets continue to rise. The special education subgroup has met AYP only once, in SY 2008 elementary students (K-5) grade met the AMO in both math and reading. Results on the 2010 administration of the MSA demonstrated areas of improvement. As is the case across the State of Maryland, the elementary students in PGCPS have shown stronger performance than the middle school students (grades 68). In SY2009-10, the special education subgroup in only one middle school met the AMO. In reading, SY2009-10 performance at the elementary level ranged from a low of 52.8% at grade 3 to a high of 59.1% at grade 5. The strongest result in reading was at grade 6, where 59.9% of students with disabilities performed at proficient or advanced levels, which is 0.3 percentage points above the State average of 59.6%. As was the case statewide, PGCPS performance in reading was much lower at grades 7 and 8. Percent of Students Performing at Proficient or Advanced Levels on Reading MSA – SY2009-10 Grade PGCPS Systemwide % at Proficient or Advanced PGCPS Special Education Subgroup Performance (%) TABLE AS Comparison of SPED to PGCPS System Performance Maryland State Special Education Subgroup % at Proficient or Advanced Comparison to of PGCPS SPED Subgroup to State % at Proficient or Advanced 3 4 5 6 7 8 74.7 79.3 81.1 81.1 71.1 66.9 52.8 58.2 59.1 59.9 35.6 37.4 -21.9 -21.1 -22.0 -21.2 -35.5 -29.5 65.4 66.7 70.0 59.6 49.9 51.3 -12. -8.5 -10.9 +0.3 -14.3 -13.9 In mathematics, SY2009-10 performance at the elementary level ranged from a low of 47.0% at grade 5 to a high of 59.4% at grade 4. As was the case with reading, PGCPS students with IEPs exceeded the grade 6 State average. The percentage of PGCPS sixth graders at proficient or advanced levels was 50.2%, which exceeds the State average of 48.5% by 1.7 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 276 percentage points. Again, both State and PGCPS performance at grades 7 and 8 was significantly lower than at other grade levels. Eighth grade math, at 18.4% proficiency, is a matter of particular concern. Percent of Students Performing at Proficient or Advanced Levels on Math MSA – SY2009-10 Grade PGCPS Systemwide % at Proficient or Advanced PGCPS Special Education Subgroup Performance (%) TABLE AT Comparison of SPED to PGCPS System Performance Maryland State Special Education Subgroup % at Proficient or Advanced Comparison to of PGCPS SPED Subgroup to State % at Proficient or Advanced 3 4 5 6 7 8 77.5 83.4 71.6 73.4 53.8 41.2 52.0 59.5 47.0 50.2 33.1 18.4 -25.5 -23.9 -24.6 -23.2 -20.7 -22.8 62.3 67.6 56.3 48.5 42.6 30.7 -10.3 -8.1 -9.3 + 1.7 -9.5 -12.3 Results for PGCPS students who took the Modified MSA (Mod-MSA) were much closer to statewide averages. The Mod-MSA is the State test for students who are unable to participate in the MSA with accommodations as indicated on their IEP and whose access to the general education curriculum is based on participation in modified academic content and achievement standards. Reading scores in 2010 ranged from 8.2 percentage points below the State average at grade 8 to 6.7 percentage points above the State average at grade 6. Percent of Students Performing at Proficient or Advanced on Reading Mod-MSA – SY2009-10 Grade PGCPS Performance on MODMSA Reading (%) TABLE AU Maryland State Performance on MOD-MSA Reading (%) Comparison to of PGCPS Performance to State Performance 3 4 5 6 7 8 36.5 40.0 38.1 50.4 25.5 37.0 37.9 39.3 38.7 43.7 31.1 45.2 -1.4 +0.7 -0.6 +6.7 -5.6 -8.2 Mod-MSA results for math in 2010 were even stronger than those for reading when compared with statewide averages. PGCPS performance on the Mod-MSA for math ranged from a low of 22% at proficient or advanced at grade 8 to a high of 39.6% at grade 4. PGCPS Mod-MSA math results exceeded the State averages at grades 3, 5, and 6. Percent of Students Performing at Proficient or Advanced Levels on Math Mod MSA – SY2009-10 Grade PGCPS Performance on MODMSA Math (%) TABLE AV Maryland State Performance on MOD-MSA Math (%) Comparison to of PGCPS Performance to State Performance 3 4 5 6 7 8 45.9 45.1 36.6 36.8 32.7 15.2 37.4 39.6 37.8 27.7 37.4 22.0 +8.5 +5.5 -1.2 + 9.6 -4.7 -6.8 SY2009-10 results for students who participated in the ALT-MSA were, likewise, closer to State averages than were results for the regular MSA. The ALT-MSA is an alternative portfolio-based assessment designed to enable students with significant cognitive disabilities to participate in Maryland‘s assessment program as mandated by the federal No Child Left Behind and Individuals with Disabilities Education Acts. ALT-MSA scores for reading were at or above the State averages at four of the seven grade levels assessed (3, 4, 6, and 10) and were within 5 percentage points at the other three grade levels. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 277 Percent of Students Performing at Proficient or Advanced Levels on Reading ALT-MSA – SY2009-10 Grade PGCPS Performance on ALTMSA Reading (%) TABLE AW Maryland State Performance on ALTMSA Reading (%) Comparison to of PGCPS Performance to State Performance 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 96.4 94.6 89.9 85.8 84.7 83.8 87.7 89.5 89.9 90.6 85.8 86.8 88.4 85.4 + 6.9 + 4.7 -0.7 --2.1 -4.6 +3.3 As in the case of reading, at grades 3, 4, and 6 ALT-MSA math performance exceeded the State averages in SY2009-10. Results for grades 5 and 10 were within 5 points of average State performance. However, the students in the middle grades had lower rates of success, with grade 7 at 10.2 and grade 8 at 6.3 percentage points below average State performance. Percent of Students Performing at Proficient or Advanced Levels on the Math ALT-MSA – SY2009-10 Grade PGCPS Performance ALT-MSA Math (%) TABLE AX Maryland State Performance on ALT-MSA Math (%) Comparison to of PGCPS Performance to State Performance 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 86.7 87.0 82.6 85.8 69.4 76.3 75.4 84.1 86.1 85.1 81.4 79.6 82.8 80.0 + 2.6 + 0.9 -2.5 + 4.4 -10.2 -6.3 -4.6 PGCPS performance on the SY2009-10 ALT-MSA for science (administered at grades 5, 8, and 10 only) mirrored results across the State insofar as fewer students achieved at proficient or advanced levels. Prince George‘s percentages were above State averages at grades 5 and 10 and slightly below at grade 8. Percent of Students Performing at Proficient or Advanced Levels on Science ALT-MSA – SY2009-10 Grade 5 8 10 PGCPS Performance ALT-MSA Math (%) 68.0 60.0 62.4 TABLE AY Maryland State Performance on ALT-MSA Math (%) 61.3 62.9 59.6 Comparison to of PGCPS Performance to State Performance +6.7 - 2.9 + 2.8 Bringing about significantly improved academic outcomes for PGCPS students with disabilities in SY2010-11 will require coherent and disciplined efforts on the part of all staff in the Department of Special Education. Intense concentration on data collection, analysis, and utilization is the place to begin. Targeted professional development is occuring. Special Education staff are accountable for strategic utilization of data from multiple sources, including: Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Literacy Skills (DIBELS), Early Childhood Accountability System (ECAS), Edusoft, Formative Assessment System Testing (FAST), HSA Monitoring Tool, Maryland IDEA Report, Maryland Model for School Readiness (MMSR), Maryland Online IEP, Maryland Report Card, Performance Matters, School Max, Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI), Teaching Pyramid Observation Tool (TPOT), and all instructional intervention tracking systems. Reform also requires an increase in meaningful and purposeful collaboration. In March 2010, the Department of Special Education was transferred to the Division of Academics, a realignment that facilitates opportunities for collaboration and that enables the Department of Special Education to focus on teaching and learning using a team problem-solving approach. Special Education staff serve on Area Office problem solving teams deployed to bring expertise and support to schools that have needs identified through data. Special Education instructional and related service specialists contribute expertise in the areas of collaboration, co-teaching, and differentiating instruction, as well as the provision of accommodations, modifications, PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 278 assistive technology, and other supplementary aids and services, as needed. Special Education has at times operated in relative isolation, and this has diluted the effectiveness of support provided to principals and classroom teachers. Operating within the context of problem solving teams is expected to enable Special Education staff to be more efficient and effective in terms of providing support that brings about improved student outcomes in a timely manner. Research has shown (and local experience confirms) that higher levels of engagement with the general curriculum correlate with higher levels of academic achievement for students with disabilities. Expanding inclusive learning opportunities for students is an important topic that will be discussed in more detail in the section that follows. The extent to which inclusive learning communities are successful is heavily dependent on the knowledge and skills of the professionals and paraprofessionals in the classroom. Increasing teacher effectiveness is an essential element of Special Education reform. ARRA funds have made it possible to make a significant investment in professional development to increase teacher effectiveness. For special education teachers, this means expanding not only pedagogical expertise, but also content area knowledge, particularly in math. Understanding Math support materials are used at the elementary level to improve student learning by increasing the mathematics expertise of teachers. In SY2010-11, the National Training Network will roll out Year 2 of a $3.5 million job-embedded training initiative to improve math instruction in selected middle and high schools. The Department of Special Education is also partnering with the University of Maryland Center for Mathematics Education to provide 50% tuition support for a cohort of special education teachers to become highly qualified in middle school mathematics. For general education teachers, professional development offered in SY2010-11 focuses on selecting strategies to support struggling learners, differentiating instruction, and implementing accommodations and modifications during instruction. Both groups receive high quality professional development in ―Boundless Learning‖ best practices for effective collaboration and co-teaching. Supported by a discretionary Supplementary Aids and Services grant from MSDE, the Center for Applied Special Technologies (CAST) provides training in Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles in two PGCPS middle schools. At the conclusion of the one-year UDL pilot project, these schools may serve as models for UDL applications that can be replicated in other schools. An additional element of reform to be implemented this school year is the provision of instructional interventions to support specialized instruction for students with disabilities. Major investments in this area are being made utilizing ARRA funds. Imagination Station, a data-driven, research-based online reading intervention, is now in place in all elementary schools. SPIRE and Sounds Sensible have been purchased for elementary students in need of a multisensory approach to reading. Students who need support with language comprehension and concept imagery have access to Visualizing and Verbalizing, an intervention implemented in collaboration with speech language pathologists. AMP, an adaptive multimedia reading intervention created in collaboration with CAST will be made available in all middle and high schools in SY2010-11. This program incorporates the principles of Universal Design for Learning in an attractive, highly interactive environment that provides scaffolding, text-to-speech capabilities, and online progress monitoring. Voyager Passport Reading Journeys, a high interest reading intervention that blends print and technology by combining differentiated instruction with web-based activities, is also available in all PGCPS middle and high schools this year. Several math interventions are also in use. Understanding Math, a computer-based program designed to align with the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, has been implemented in selected elementary schools. Fluency and Automaticity through Systematic Teaching with Technology (FASST Math) is in available in 60 schools, including all middle schools, all elementary schools with specialized special education programs, and all high schools with CRI programs. Additional math interventions will be purchased in SY2010-11. Participation of Students with Disabilities in the General Education Curriculum A review of Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) data reveal that PGCPS lags behind nearly all Maryland school systems with respect to provision of specialized instruction and related services for students aged 6-21 inside general education 80% or more of the day. From SY2005-06 to SY2997-08, only Baltimore City reported a lower percentage than PGCPS. As measured by the standards of the State Performance Plan (SPP), PGCPS has been classified as ―Significantly Below the Target‖ every year, despite incremental improvements. Percentages of PGCPS students aged 6-21 removed from class less than 21% of the day were 41.06% in SY 2006 (State target 57.75%); 45.32% in SY 2007 (State target 60.11%); 47.68% in SY 2008 (State target 60.61%); and 48.46% in SY 2009 (State target 61.11%). The overall rate of improvement in PGCPS, 7.4 percentage points over three years, has not been sufficient to close the gap between PGCPS LRE performance and the annual State targets for LRE. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 279 The Department of Special Education is very aware that improving outcomes for students with disabilities depends in part on increasing their access to the general curriculum. Aggressive measures to improve the LRE profile in PGCPS began in SY2006-07, when a discretionary grant from the MSDE was used to move elementary children from ―cluster classes‖ to general education classes with appropriate supports. To implement this change in service delivery, PGCPS turned to Johns Hopkins University‘s Center for Technology in Education (JHU/CTE) for consultation and training in Boundless Learning best practices for inclusive learning communities. SY2007-08 saw the beginning of the MEANS (Making Education Accessible in Neighborhood Schools) initiative, which continued the collaboration with JHU/CTE and facilitated the movement of 674 second grade students formerly served in Comprehensive Special Education Programs (CSEPs) to general education classes. In SY2007-08, 674 students received services in second grade MEANS classrooms established in 42 schools, and 126 staff members received Boundless Learning training provided by JHU/CTE. In SY207-08, the second year of the MEANS initiative, third grade classes were added and the program expanded to 64 classrooms in 48 schools. The number of students served grew to 1,027 second and third graders. In SY2009-10, fourth grade classes were added and the program expanded to 72 classrooms in 52 schools. Analysis of the MEANS initiative over a three-year period (SY2006-07 through SY-2009-10) revealed that although the overall data for PGCPS students aged 6-21 in LRE A (inside general education ≥ 80% of the day) had increased only slightly, when LRE A data were disaggregated for elementary grades, the improvement was significant. In SY2006-07, the percentage of PGCPS special education K-5 students who received services in LRE A was above the State target at 63%. In SY2007-08, the percentage of PGCPS special education K-5 students who received services in LRE A exceeded the State target by 7.87 percentage points, rising to 68.48%. In SY2008-09, the PGCPS percentage of K-5 students in LRE A rose to 69.80%, exceeding the State target by 8.69 percentage points. In terms of academic achievement, results of the implementation of inclusive practices appear promising. On the SY2008-09 MSA administration, 277 grade 3 students in Boundless Learning classrooms achieved at proficient or advanced levels in reading, and 303 achieved at proficient or advanced levels in mathematics. JHU/CTE conducted extensive fidelity checks over a three-year period, and found (not surprisingly), that implementation of Boundless Learning strategies with fidelity produced significantly stronger gains in student achievement than weak implementation. The Department of Special Education will utilize ARRA funds for continued Boundless Learning training to expand inclusive learning opportunities. In SY2010-11, the MEANS initiative continues in 36 elementary schools and all middle schools. In addition, the Department of Special Education moved toward expansion of inclusive learning opportunities for students across the school system. As appropriate, students in CSEPs, Community Referenced Instruction (CRI), Emotional Impairment (EI) Transition, and autism programs are receiving increased access to general education classrooms, and K-12 teachers receive with training in best practices for inclusion. ARRA funds are being utilized to provide professional development in effective collaboration, coteaching, differentiated instruction, and use of accommodations and modifications, as well as Boundless Learning and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) strategies. Discretionary grant funds support Life Space Crisis Intervention training for staff in the EI Transition sites. The review of LRE data for preschool children conducted in SY2009-10, likewise, has given cause for concern and has prompted revisions to the model of early childhood service delivery. In SY2007-08, the overall percentage of PGCPS children aged 3-5 receiving services in a regular early childhood program 80% or more of the time was 38.41%. At age 5, the percentage was 52.81%. For four-year-olds, the percentage was 40.18%, and for three-year-olds, the percentage was only 15.17%. At present, the State target for SY2009-10 has been set at 43.50%. Local agencies were not required to report SY 2007-088 data officially. However, the PGCPS Early Childhood Office has chosen to take a proactive stance to facilitate the delivery of services to preschool children in settings with typically developing peers to the fullest extent possible. Over the past five years, PGCPS has made dramatic progress in the delivery of services to four-year olds in natural environments. During this time, the service delivery model has been transformed from one in which all services were provided in early childhood centers to one in which services are also provided in a variety of other developmentally appropriate settings: pre-kindergarten general education classrooms, co-taught classrooms, Head Start classrooms, and community-based preschool programs. These programs are accessible for four-year olds, but three-year olds have limited access. The SY200708 preschool LRE data above points to an urgent need for additional options for three-year olds to access general education classrooms. This presents a challenge, because community needs assessments indicate that many families in Prince PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 280 George‘s County cannot afford to pay for private preschools. However, due to the support of a discretionary grant from MSDE, in SY2010-11 the PGCPS Early Childhood Office will expand opportunities for three-year old children with disabilities to participate with their typically developing peers through collaborative community partnerships, thereby increasing the percentage of three year olds in Least Restrictive Environments and natural environments. A SY2010-11 Early Childhood Links grant funds community scholarships for children with special needs, contractual services to provide related services in community settings, and professional development for community setting staff and early childhood staff. It is anticipated that the action research conducted in connection with this grant project will inform the ongoing transformation of the service delivery model for preschoolers in Prince George‘s County. Another LRE focus issue reviewed in SY2009-10 was the percentage of students referred out of the school system to receive services. PGCPS has consistently had the highest percentage of students in nonpublic schools of any local school system in Maryland. In SY2005-06, there were 1,112 PGCPS students with disabilities aged 6-21 (8.2% of the total) receiving services in private separate day schools. In SY2006-07, this figure had dropped to 962 students (7.46%). In SY2007-08, it rose slightly to 985 students (7.51%). These figures have been a matter of concern, not only due to the considerable expense associated with nonpublic placements, but also because they indicate a lack of school system capacity to serve many students with significant needs. [Source: MSDE SSIS Data.] Reducing the number of nonpublic placements by increasing school system capacity has been a priority of the Department of Special Education for the past two years, and in SY2009-10, these efforts began to show evidence of success. In SY2008-09, PGCPS reported 1,260 nonpublic placements (one student can receive more than one placement during a school year), which incurred a total expenditure of $56,122,194. In SY2009-10, PGCPS reported 1,192 placements and a total expenditure of $51,651,690. This decrease in placements in SY 2010 yielded a savings of $4,470,504 over the previous year‘s expenditure. [Source: PGCPS Nonpublic Office Data.] Efforts to decrease the percentage of nonpublic placements by increasing the school system‘s capacity to deliver services continue this year. Services for students with Emotional Impairment (EI) will be expanded to include Potomac High School in Oxon Hill. That would make available EI Transition services at four high schools, two middle schools, and two elementary schools. These sites facilitate the successful return of students from nonpublic settings to general education settings. High school autism programming will also expand in SY2010-11. Sites added in SY2009-10 to serve ninth graders at two high schools will expand to serve tenth grade students as well. Services for eleventh and twelfth grade students will be added in SY2001-12 and SY2012-13 to make it possible for students with autism to remain in public school through graduation. Autism programming at the high school level is individualized and includes the following options: autism classrooms, intensive classrooms, co-taught classrooms, general education with support, and honors classes. All PGCPS autism programs provide ongoing direct social skills instruction, curriculum adaptations and modifications, and behavioral supports. Autism programs are also located at seven elementary schools and two middle schools. Compliance with Federal and State Requirements for Special Education In SY2009-100, PGCPS had four Corrective Action Plans (CAPs) in place for special education. The CAP for Initial Evaluation Timelines (State Performance Plan Indicator 11) entered its second year. Federal statute and State regulations require that 100% of children with parental consent to evaluate are evaluated and eligibility determined within 60 days. [(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B); 34 CFR 300.301(c); COMAR 13A.05.01.06A(1) and (2)] In SY2007-08, results for State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicator 11 showed PGCPS significantly below the State target at 69.28%. A CAP was developed in SY2008-09 to correct the noncompliance and the percentage increased to 78.76%, which was still significantly below the target of 100% compliance. A revised CAP was developed for implementation in SY20091-10. The Compliance Office monitored the meeting calendars for each building and provided targeted technical assistance to schools that were out of compliance the previous year. Beginning in July 2009, staff from Early Childhood, Compliance, and Data Management and Technology monitored all initial evaluations. By April 2010, the percentage of initial evaluations completed within the 60 day timeline was 96.57%, which is classified as ―below the target but substantially compliant.‖ Based on the data submitted, MSDE closed the CAP for SPP Indicator 11. The Department of Special Education is implementing an improvement plan this year to bring the percentage to 100%. A second Corrective Action Plan initiated and successfully completed in SY2009-10 involved provision of transportation as a related service when required by a student‘s Individualized Education Program (IEP), specifically consideration of the PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 281 behavioral needs of the student while riding on the school bus. In response to a parent complaint filed in SY2008-09 regarding transportation to a nonpublic school, MSDE conducted a complaint investigation and determined that the issue involved was systemic. Federal regulations require that if ―the student‘s behavior impedes the student‘s learning or the learning of others, the IEP team shall consider strategies, including positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports to address that behavior, as appropriate. [34 CFR 300.324(a)(2)(i)] As a result of dialogue between the Department of Transportation and the Special Education Compliance Office, it was determined that bus drivers and attendants had not received appropriate training commensurate with the needs of students with disabilities to ensure safe transport and access to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). A training module was collaboratively developed, and between October 2009 and March 2010, all bus drivers and attendants responsible for transporting students with special needs were trained on how to support the behavioral needs of students. A system to ensure effective communication between staff at nonpublic schools and staff in the Department of Transportation was developed. Written procedures were adopted to clarify and communicate personnel responsibilities for implementing behavioral interventions on the bus and/or suspending students from the bus for behavioral incidents. The role of Transportation staff and nonpublic staff in IEP meetings was clarified. In March 2010, MSDE conducted a thorough on-site verification of all Transportation CAP activities and data and found that the noncompliance was corrected. Based on SY2008-09 data reported for SPP Indicator 13, PGCPS was also placed in Corrective Action for Secondary Transition Planning during SY2009-10. Federal regulations require that 100% of youth with disabilities, aged 16 and above, have an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet post-secondary goals. [34 CFR 300.320(b)(1) and (2)] The data for SPP Indicator 13 showed a compliance rate of 87%, which is classified as significantly below the State target of 100% and therefore required a CAP. Despite considerable training and monitoring, compliance with requirements for SPP Indicator 13 remained significantly below 100% at the close of SY2009-10. As a result, PGCPS must develop a new Corrective Action Plan for Secondary Transition in SY201011 based on technical assistance provided by MSDE. The most complex and challenging special education compliance issues for PGCPS continue to be the regulatory requirements regarding disciplinary removal of students with disabilities and provision of FAPE after ten days of removal (SPP Indicator 4). MSDE conducted an on-site review of student records in June 2008 and placed PGCPS in Corrective Action as a result of their findings. This CAP was not closed at the end of SY2008-09. On-site record reviews conducted by MSDE in May 2010 confirmed that although there has been improvement in some areas, PGCPS is not yet compliant and must enter a third year of Corrective Action with increased State technical assistance and oversight. To bring this CAP to a successful conclusion, the Department of Special Education must collaborate closely with the Area Offices, the High School Consortium, the Division of Student Services, and the Division of Information Technology. Based on the disciplinary removal data submitted at the close of SY2008-09, PGCPS has also been determined to be disproportionate with respect to suspension of students with disabilities. MSDE determines disproportionality by means of weighted risk ratios, which in the case of suspension measure the likelihood that a disciplinary removal will occur for a subgroup of students compared to all students. A weighted risk ratio of 1.5 or above is classified as disproportionate. In SY208-09, the weighted risk ratios for PGCPS were 2.30 for single suspension events greater than 10 days, and 2.48 for multiple suspension events summing to more than 10 days. Federal law requires that school systems found to be disproportionate must set aside 15% of their IDEA Part B funding to be used for Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS). This means that $3,760,888 of SY2010-11 State passthrough funding for students aged 6-21 and $87,977 of SY2010-11 preschool passthrough funding for children aged 3-5 must be appropriated for CEIS, which the law defines as ―services provided to students in kindergarten through grade 12 (with a particular emphasis on students in kindergarten through grade three) who are not currently identified as needing special education or related services, but who need additional academic and behavioral supports to succeed in a general education environment.‖ [20 U.S.C. §1413(f)(2)); (34 CFR §300.2260)] CEIS funding will be utilized to implement Response to Intervention (RtI), a three-tiered research-based process developed to help struggling students at the earliest signs of difficulty. RtI involves assessment, provision of research-based instructional, and behavioral interventions for students who are not making satisfactory progress, and progress monitoring. Tier 1 instruction is provided for all students in the general education classroom. Tier 2 instruction provides additional intervention and monitoring for students who are not progressing satisfactorily. Tier 3 provides intervention and monitoring that is more intense than Tier 2 in terms of frequency and duration. The CEIS initiative supports K-3 reading and math PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 282 interventions, professional development, an online intervention tracking tool to facilitate strategic instructional decision-making for individual students, and supplemental staffing to enhance the school system‘s capacity to deliver interventions with fidelity and manage student behavior effectively. Eliminating disproportionality with respect to the disciplinary removal of students with disabilities is a high priority for PGCPS this year. Special Education staff provide training for building administrators and monitor the discipline records of all students with IEPs removed for more than 10 days (as measured by both single suspension events and multiple suspension events). Classroom management training, print resources, and targeted technical assistance is provided to schools as needs are identified. A multidisciplinary planning team has been established to address the factors that have contributed to disproportionality with respect to suspension practices and to ensure effective implementation of CEIS activities. This team is led by the Chief Academic Officer and will include representatives from Special Education, Information Technology, Curriculum and Instruction, and Student Services. Parent/Family Involvement and Satisfaction The review of activity data and performance indicators identified parent involvement as an area of strength. PGCPS has consistently exceeded the State targets for the percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities. Each year, the MSDE Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services (DSE/EIS) administers a survey to parents of all students with disabilities in Maryland. Results are reported according to the age of the child, preschool-aged or school-aged. The percentage of parents of preschool-aged children who reported that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results was 33% in SY2005-06 (State target 32%); 63% in SY2006-07 (State target 32%); and 68% in SY2007-08 (State target 34%). The percentage of parents of school-aged children who reported that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results was 37% in SY2005-06 (State target 27%); 36% in SY200607 (State target 27%); and 52% in SY2007-08 (State target 29%). Many factors contribute to these relatively high rates of parent satisfaction. The Partners for Success (PFS) Parent Center plays an active role by providing information, referrals, surrogacy training, translation assistance, and parent workshops. To supplement the $10,000 in grant support received each year (expended for the most part on parent training activities and materials for the PFS lending library), PGCPS has allocated funds for two full time positions, a 1.0 FTE PFS Parent Center Coordinator and a 1.0 FTE bi-lingual Parent Liaison. During SY2009-10, the PFS Parent Center responded to 6,413 requests for information and/or assistance. Parent workshops on a variety of topics were presented monthly. The Center collaborated with a number of community partners, including the Special Education Citizens Advisory Council (SECAC-PG), the Arc of Prince George‘s County, Prince George‘s Community College, the Prince George‘s County Health Department, and the Andrews AFB Parent Center. The PGCPS Early Childhood Program has 43 community partners and collaborates with them in a multitude of ways, including parent trainings and provision of information, referral services, and inclusive learning opportunities. All of these partners collaborated with the PFS Parent Center to implement an innovative discretionary grant-funded project conducted in SY2009-10. Entitled ―Dad‘s Night Out,‖ the goal of this parent training initiative was to increase school-level involvement of fathers and other males who play a significant role in the lives of children with disabilities. Attendees at evening workshops were given information to increase their knowledge about disabilities. They also participated in a variety of activities, including ways to use the Nintendo Wii console to learn, play, and exercise with children who have special needs. As a culminating activity, families celebrated by attending a Bowie Baysox game and a picnic. Male participation in ―Dad‘s Night Out‖ exceeded any other parent involvement activity previously conducted by the Department of Special Education, and feedback from participants was extremely positive. The Department of Special Education maintains a high level of involvement with the SECAC-PG, which meets on the fourth Tuesday of every month at the Arc of Prince George‘s County. The Coordinating Supervisor for Special Federal Projects serves as the departmental liaison to SECAC-PG and attends each meeting. In SY2009-01, at the request of SECAC members, a number of meetings featured presentations given by Special Education staff members addressing such topics as Understanding Gifted Students with Special Needs; Relationship Development Intervention (RDI): A Parent Training for Children with Autism; Deaf and Hard of Hearing Programs in PGCPS; and Bookshare.org (a free accessible book and PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 283 periodical service for students with qualifying print disabilities sponsored by the United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs). Success in working with parents who have reported problems to MSDE is evidenced in the compliance indicator data of the Maryland State Performance Plan (SPP). In SY2007-08, 93% of corrective actions that resulted from complaint investigations were corrected within one year from the date of identification. In SY2008-09, that percentage increased to 100%. Another indicator of success is the percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions and were resolved through resolution settlement agreements. PGCPS met or exceeded the State target (64-75%) in SY2005-06, SY2006-07, and SY2007-08. In addition, the record is strong with respect to the percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements. PGCPS met or exceeded this State target (75-85%) in SY2005-06, SY2006-07, and SY2007-08. These results suggest that Special Education Compliance staff are responsive to parent complaints and effective with respect to resolving parent concerns. In SY2010-11, the Department of Special Education intends is building on this strong foundation of parent involvement. Successful activities are continuing. Participants in ―Dad‘s Night Out‖ were so enthusiastic about their experience in SY200910 that they intend to continue that program on a volunteer basis this year. Department staff continue to present information of interest to parents at meetings of the SECAC-PG. Funding for the PFS Parent Center has been maintained, and a full calendar of parent training activities is planned based on identified needs and parent requests. Outreach and communication will be improved by expanding the parent page of the Department of Special Education website. The PFS Parent Center‘s Latino outreach will be enhanced through a series of five school-based parent support sessions conducted in Spanish. Support sessions for parents of students diagnosed with Emotional Disturbance are offered quarterly by the Prince George‘s Mental Health Initiative, a collaboration between MSDE, PGCPS, and the University of Maryland School Mental Health Program. A close working partnership with ―One World Center for Autism,‖ a local parent support organization, will be forged when the Center relocates to space adjacent to the Department of Special Education at John Carroll School in SY2010-11. Building on the successful SY2009-10 discretionary grant project, the Department of Special Education applied for and was awarded a $7,500 parent training grant for SY2010-11 that will be utilized to host a regional Powering Parents Up with Technology conference as a part of the school system‘s 14th annual Powering Up with Technology event. It will provide parents with access to current research as well as hands-on experience with the latest assistive technology software and devices. The intent of this exposure is to provide parents with an increased understanding of the connection between the effective use of assistive technology and access to the general curriculum. This will be the first time that Powering Up with Technology, attended annually by approximately 500 educators and supported by approximately 30 vendors, has included a strand for parent participation. A significant portion of ARRA funding also has been appropriated for parent support. In SY2010-11, ARRA funds will be utilized to host a ―Disabilities Awareness‖ conference and to purchase equipment and supplies to improve parent outreach and communication. PFS resources will be expanded to include a six-station computer lab for parent use. A total of $72,060 in ARRA funding has been budgeted for improving outreach and support to families of school-aged students with disabilities, and $21,862 of preschool ARRA funding has been appropriated to provide free workshops for parents of preschool children on topics such as supporting language development, boosting self-esteem, and understanding the critical importance of play. Another $78,170.00 in ARRA funding has been appropriated specifically for Relationship Development Intervention (RDI) training. RDI is a parent-centered, family-based therapeutic intervention for children on the autism spectrum. Five PGCPS staff members are currently in the process of becoming RDI Certified Consultants. In SY2010-11, approximately 20 PGCPS families will receive direct RDI consultative services. It is anticipated that this RDI initiative will not only improve relationships with families, but that over time it will also facilitate the movement of students with autism into less restrictive settings. Alignment of Resources to Meet Identified Needs PGCPS has adopted Performance Management as the framework for driving continuous improvement across the school system. Performance Management focuses every employee‘s work on the use of data, processes, and accountability measures or metrics. SY2010-11 is the first year that all budgets have been aligned to Performance Management Core Services. Department of Special Education‘s core services are: 1. Specialized Instruction and Related Services 2. Monitor the Implementation of Services Mandated Through IDEA 3. Support to Parents and Families PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 284 One segment of each account strand in the Oracle financial management system is used to tie the appropriation to one of these core services. Staffing consumes a preponderance of special education fiscal resources. For example, the FY11 State passthrough ($21,311,696) and preschool passthrough ($498,534) are appropriated in their entirety for salaries – nearly all for personnel such as teachers, paraprofessionals, and related service providers who provide direct services to children. In order to develop a staffing plan aligned with the Performance Management and Planning Process (PMAPP) for the Department, the PGCPS Performance Management Team conducted a year-long study of special education staffing in SY2009-10. They met on a regular basis with all Special Education offices to gain knowledge about regulatory requirements and determination of staffing needs. In SY2010-11, the Department of Special Education will collaborate with the Performance Management Team and use this study to support a staffing plan. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds authorized under the IDEA have provided PGCPS with an additional $842,225 for preschool and $28,570,477 for ages 6-12 over two years. These funds have been appropriated according to the following five priorities: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Build systemic staff capacity for high performance; Provide interventions and technology to support students with disabilities; Improve outreach and support to families of students with disabilities, Improve service delivery and resource utilization, and Provide early intervening services for students without disabilities to reduce referrals to special education. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 285 I.F CROSS-CUTTING THEMES EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION THAT IS MULTICULTURAL PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 286 CROSS-CUTTING THEMES EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 1. Identify the major technology goals that were addressed by the school system during the 2009-2010 academic year. Include a description of: the progress that was made toward meeting these goals and a timeline for meeting them. the programs, practices, strategies, or initiatives that were implemented related to the goals to which you attribute the progress. supporting data and evaluation results as appropriate. The Technology Training Department‘s major areas of focus during SY2009-10 were objectives 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the PGCPS Technology Plan 2008 – 2012, Navigating through the 21st Century. The objectives addressed included: Objective 1: Objective 2: Objective 3 Objective 5: Improving student learning through technology. Improving staff knowledge and skills to integrate technology into instruction. Improving decision-making, productivity, and efficiency at all levels of the organization through the use of technology. Improving instructional uses of technology through research and evaluation. Note: With exception of Objective 5, a discussion of the district‘s progress on each objective is presented in the following response to question one. The discussion of progress made under Objective 5 is addressed in the response to question three. Objective 1: Improving student learning through technology. The Division of Information Technology (DIT) sponsored a pilot initiative using netbooks, small, portable laptop computing devises specifically designed for wireless communication and access to the Internet. This entailed assigning a netbook to each of the fifth and sixth grade teachers and students at Carmody Hills Elementary School. This project involved six teachers and 115 fourth and fifth grade students. Several parent nights were held to orient fifth and sixth grade parents on the project‘s requirements. Parental sign-off forms granting permission for students to take netbooks home and to access PGCPS Google email accounts were required. The project allowed student use of email and other tools provided via Google email access. Student email accounts were configured so that students could only send or receive mail from other system email accounts. The Training Team provided training to fifth and sixth grade teachers on appropriate and effective use of technology in the classroom to deliver instructional content. In preparation for the pilot, DIT funded the wiring for wireless access for Carmody Hills. Teachers assigned their students technology-rich classroom projects. Students were directed to complete their respective assignments utilizing a technology medium of their choice. The pilot was very successful in increasing teacher and student effective use of the technology tools for instructional purposes. This was demonstrated during Carmody Hill‘s student gallery walk in June 2010. The projects were displayed and students were encouraged to discuss the process and share their assessments of the skills they learned. Students shared their assessment of the impact of using netbooks in the classroom to complete assignments. Each student who completed her/his assignment was able to clearly explain details pertaining to their project. Benjamin Stoddert Middle School was also wired for wireless access for the start of SY2010-11. Objective 2: Improving staff knowledge and skills to integrate technology into instruction. Sharing Technology with Educators Program (STEP) The Division of Information Technology‘s efforts to improve staff knowledge and skills to integrate technology into instruction are ongoing. For the third consecutive year, the Division offered the Sharing Technology with Educators Program (STEP). Participants receive training on specific technology equipment and tools provided for instructional use. STEP is an innovative program designed to build capacity for instructional technology use in schools with a focus on supporting and enhancing student achievement and assisting administrators and their identified school-based teams to integrate technology into instruction. Specific technology resources, training, and support for MSA and HSA skill development are delivered. Participants are required to attend bi-monthly school-based training sessions and to PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 287 complete an electronic portfolio comprised of projects developed throughout the program‘s duration. Each school interested in participating in STEP must establish a team of three-to-six teachers and apply for acceptance into the program. Principals are encouraged to select certified teacher volunteers from multiple grade levels and content areas in forming their STEP teams. Identified team members must be exemplary teachers who have taught in PGCPS for a minimum of one full year and must agree to the stipulations outlined on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Included with the application were signed teacher/administrator MOUs and a team-written proposal developed around the school improvement plan (SIP) and other school-wide instructional activity that would benefit from the infusion of technology. The training and support was tailored to meet targeted goals as outlined in the STEP program and the school‘s application. The MOU specified that participants be required to attend STEP professional development activities. All professional development sessions were designed to increase the comfort and skill level of teachers in the effective and appropriate use and implementation of technology in their classrooms. Teachers and administrators on the STEP team received training throughout the year, with the expectation of completing a culminating end-of-year activity to showcase progress made in integrating technology into instruction. Some key strategies incorporated in the technology training models included: modeling appropriate instructional use of technology; co-teaching; and mentoring. All trainings conducted by the Training Team included informing participants of the goals, objectives and National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for teachers, students, and administrators as appropriate. In SY2009-10, STEP serviced 121 participants across 23 schools. The majority (i.e. 75 or 62%) was first-year participants, a third (i.e. 40 or 33%) were second-year participants, and the remaining six (6) participants were in their third program year. As noted in Table AZ, the highest concentration of participating schools in the SY2009-10 STEP was at the elementary level (52.2%), with another 26.1% at the middle school level. Only 8.7% of the schools participating in the STEP program were high schools. As the school system strives to prepare students for college, in part by equipping them with 21st century technology skills, 121 STEP-trained staff from 23 schools out of a system-wide total of more than 9,000 instructional staff members from 205 schools represents a very small number. However, with a training team of only 16 trainers, the maximum number of STEP teams that can be serviced is 30. Table AZ: Grade Configuration of STEP Participating Schools: SY2009-10 Levels Elementary School Middle School Early Childhood Center High School Special Center Academy Prek-8 Total Schools Number Percent 12 6 1 2 1 1 23 52.2 26.1 4.3 8.7 4.3 4.3 100 Technology Leadership Academy The first Technology Leadership Academy was held during the summer of 2010. Fifteen teachers participated in training that prepared them to teach instructional technology courses. The participants attended a two-week training session at the conclusion of which they were asked to develop and submit a proposal for a presentation at the fall Powering Up with Technology conference. Each participant was assigned a mentor to provide guidance and encouragement through the process. Technology Literacy Assessment The State of Maryland required all seventh graders to take the technology literacy assessment again this year. The Maryland Measure of Student Technology Literacy (MMSTL) is designed to determine student technology proficiency as rated by an online measurement tool developed by Learning.com. The assessment yields scores in the following areas: Systems and Fundamentals; Social and Ethical; Word Processing; Spreadsheets; Multimedia and Presentations; Telecommunications and Internet; and Database. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 288 Table AAA summarizes student performance on the SY2009-10 MMSTL. Out of a maximum possible score of six for each of the skill areas, the district‘s highest average performance was for Social & Ethical skills (3.7) followed by Telecommunications & Internet (2.6). The lowest performance was for skills in Multimedia and Presentation (1.7) with Systems and Fundamentals skills (1.9) as a close penultimate. PGCPS average scores ranked below state averages. These data highlight the system‘s need to work toward improving students‘ technology literacy skills. Table AAA: PGCPS Maryland Technology Literacy Assessment Results: SY2009-10 Skills Assessed PGCPS Average* State Middle School Average Systems & Fundamentals 1.9 2.9 Social & Ethical 3.7 4.3 Word Processing 2.3 2.9 Spreadsheets 2.3 3.1 Multimedia & Presentations 1.7 2.6 Telecommunications & Internet 2.6 3.2 Database 2.3 3.1 * – Based on a score of six as the highest possible score out of six correct items per assessed skill. As noted in Table AAB, only 36% of PGCPS students scored at the proficiency level in SY2009-10, which reflects an increase of 23 percentage points as compared to the 2008-09 proficiency level. Data on administrator performance on the MSATM indicate that 79% of participating administrators were assessed as proficient and 71% of the teachers participating in the MTTM performed at the proficient level. These data demonstrate the need for PGCPS to continue its work in increasing student proficiency and staff utilization of technology. Table AAB: 2010 MSDE Maryland Technology Measure for PGCPS Teachers, Administrators, and Students Participation Proficient Technology Number Proficient Total Measure Rate Number Proficient % Proficient and Non-Proficient Participants MTTM 3,357 8,918 38% 2,378 71% MSATM 175 477 37% 138 79% MMSTL 8,672 8,672 100% 3,106 36% Legend: MTTM – Maryland Teacher Technology Measure; MSATM – Maryland School Administrator Technology Measure; MSTLM – Middle Measure of School Technology Literacy (MMSTL). In an effort to address student technology literacy aside from STEP, DIT has proposed an IT Technology High School designed to capitalize on student interest in technology by immersing them into hands-on courses that coincide with the work within the DIT. The goal of the high school will be to ensure that every student receives an acceptance letter to college and an IT certification by graduation. The two objectives of this model program are as follows: 1. Provide a unique ―hands on‖ educational opportunity for students by immersing them into the IT business. 2. Create a Center for Educational Research and Innovation for PGCPS. The Technology Training Team also worked with the Division of Academics to re-write and update the Middle School Technology Literacy Course for SY2010-11. This course is designed to teach and reinforce 21st century technology skills intended to help students reach mastery of technology literacy skills by eighth grade. Lessons cover creating and reading information presented in spreadsheets, word processing documents, PowerPoint presentations, using the Internet, and Web 2.0 tools. Direct support from the training team was given to the curriculum writers to develop lessons that include technology-rich, skills-based activities. Objective 3: Improving decision-making, productivity, and efficiency at all levels of the organization through the use of technology. For the past six years, Blackboard has been the primary tool for many offices and departments to share information with employees. Due to funding priorities, the technical support contract for Blackboard has not been renewed. Blackboard functions are being replaced with other alternatives. Google Sites has been identified as the tool that will replace the internal communication site function of e-Organizations for PGCPS, as well as serve as the storage and delivery tool for PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 289 curriculum documents. Additionally, training on the Oracle Human Resource Management System (HRMS) which encompasses the district‘s payroll, purchasing, staffing, and budgeting operations, is offered monthly throughout the year. The system is also preparing for the implementation of a data warehouse, and training is still provided by the Technology Training Team on the use of student data currently available in Performance Matters. This training is also delivered monthly, or on an as requested basis, to administrators and other instructional staff to assist them in making instructional decisions. Panel clarifying question(s): For question #1 in Educational Technology as a Cross-Cutting Theme, the plan mentions the use of the ISTE technology standards. Is the system also addressing the Maryland technology standards in professional development and for students? LSS Response to Clarifying Question(s): The response to this question can be found on page 331. 2. Describe where challenges in making progress toward meeting the major technology goals are evident and the plans for addressing those challenges. Include a description of the adjustments that will be made to the Master Plan and local Technology Plan and timelines where appropriate. The challenges inhibiting progress toward meeting technology goals include older technology equipment in schools designated for teacher and student use; funding for new equipment; and training time with teachers on appropriate use of technology and best practices. SY2009-2010 marked five years since PGCPS began the Refresh Program. The first phase of this program provided technology equipment to high schools. In year two, the second phase of the refresh cycle serviced office and administrative staff. During the last phase, technology equipment was provided to the elementary and middle schools. Although the original plan was to refresh equipment on a three-year cycle, due to major budget cuts, DIT has not been able to execute the original schedule. As an alternative, DIT has opted to upgrade the old equipment. This required purchasing parts and assigning staff to install, configure, and update equipment. The Help Desk staff and school based and field technicians have been able to repair some systems and use parts from others to extend the use of equipment. The Help Desk also ran a pilot on nComputing, which provides an opportunity to reduce the cost of computing by allowing multiple people to simultaneously share a single computer. Since the district is currently unable to replace old and broken equipment, nComputing is being used to minimize the need to purchase large amounts of equipment to assist with the delivery of instruction. A typical configuration will include a server that will support up to 30 users simultaneously. This option is cost effective for computer labs. Increasing teacher attendance in technology training sessions continues to be a challenge. During SY2009-10, the average number of attendees fluctuated between 12 and 15 participants. To reach teachers unable to attend after school workshops, technology training modules, which lend themselves to teaching and learning in an online environment, are being redesigned to be delivered through the district‘s Learning Management System. DIT will continue to offer face-toface after school workshops as a means for reaching those able to attend and/or prefer instructor-led sessions. Paid registration for teachers and administrators are offered as an incentive to encourage their attendance at the Maryland Society of Educational Technology (MSET) and Powering Up with Technology conferences. Funding covering registration for these two conferences will cease with the elimination of the Title II D grant after SY2010-2011. To address these challenges, the Technology Training Team is developing online learning modules that will provide teachers with instructional technology training on the appropriate use of available technology tools in the classroom. DIT appraises the district of ongoing advancements and improvements in information technology. Division staff engages in research on new tools through conferences, vendor presentations, online forums, webcasts, professional associations, and networking. The division responds as opportunities to explore new and emerging technologies evolve. This includes the use of digital technologies, communication tools, Web 2.0 tools, netbooks, iPods, and iPads for instructional use in the classrooms. A pilot using iPod touches was conducted this year at Walker Mill Middle School with its 7th and 8th grade AVID® classes. A netbook pilot was launched at Carmody Hills Elementary School which is a Title I school. Pilots PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 290 planned for SY2010-11 include iPad pilots at Barack Obama Elementary School and Benjamin Stoddert Middle School. DIT was able to fund wiring for wireless access at Benjamin Stoddert Middle School, and as a new school, wireless access was a part of the building specifications for Barack Obama Elementary School. Wireless access is advantageous for the use of iPad and to take advantage of different tools. In April 2010, DIT met with Division of Academics staff and distributed iPads to their content supervisors and coordinators to test and pilot its use as an instructional tool in preparation for launching an iPad pilot in the fall. A proposed adjustment includes developing online technology learning modules and courses to be delivered via the newly implemented Moodle Learning Management System for anytime, anywhere training on appropriate use of technology and best practices for implementation into the classroom for content delivery. 3. Describe how the local school system is incorporating research-based instructional methods and the Maryland technology literacy standards for students, teachers, and school administrators into professional development to support teaching, learning, and technology leadership. Objective 5: Improving instructional uses of technology through research and evaluation. According to Darling-Hammond and Berry30 (1998), "Teacher quality is the factor that matters most for student learning." With respect to educational technology use, professional development for teachers is the key issue in using technology to improve the quality of learning in the classroom. Despite the fact that access to technology tools has been made available, there still exist a number of teachers who are not utilizing the technology in the delivery of content to students, nor providing opportunities for students use for productivity as evident in the low number of students meeting proficiency on the MMSTL. According to research, there are two requirements needed to ensure the success of professional development for effective technology use. First, the professional development should be an integral part of the school technology plan or overall school-improvement plan. Second, the professional development should contain all the necessary components that research has found to be important. 31 STEP is the professional development program that serves the district‘s goal to effectively prepare teachers for technology use. STEP components include the following: a connection to student learning, hands-on technology use, variety of learning experiences, curriculum-specific applications, new roles for teachers, collegial learning, active participation of teachers, ongoing process, sufficient time, technical assistance and support, administrative support, adequate resources, continuous funding, and built-in evaluation. All 15 components listed were designed and incorporated into STEP. All PGCPS technology training sessions incorporate the Maryland Teacher and Administrator Technology Standards. The Division of Information Technology is concentrating on reaching mastery of the Maryland Teacher Technology Standards and the Maryland Technology Standards for School Administrators, as well as Technology Standards for Students. All instructional technology workshops delivered by the technology trainers incorporate modeling of appropriate use of technology in the classroom with students. The trainers also serve as mentors and coaches for teachers and administrators in their use of technology tools. The Middle School Technology Literacy course was recently updated to address strategies to increase integration of technology in classroom instruction. Technology Expos are professional development opportunities designed to expose instructional department leaders to available technology and inform them of appropriate use and best practices to share with teachers for implementation and use in content delivery. Central office staff, who is responsible for writing curriculum and for guiding and assisting teachers in the delivery of content, is the targeted audience for the Technology Expos. The results from the Maryland Measurements are shared with central office staff who attends the Expos to emphasize the need for improvement in students‘ technology literacy skills and for teachers to utilize the available technology tools in the classroom for content delivery. Darling-Hammond, L. & Berry, B. (1998, May 27). Investing in teaching. Education Week on the Web [Online]. Available: http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-17/37darlin.h17 30 31 Killion, Joellen. ( 2005). Critical Issue: Providing Professional Development for Effective Technology Use. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 291 PGCPS Technology Expos are presented in a lab-based setting using a classroom style. The Expos are full-day sessions delivered to non-classroom based staff. Administrative personnel from central and area office departments (including Curriculum and Instruction, Professional Development, Title I, and their coaches) have participated in the Technology Expos sponsored by the technology training team. The Expo sessions demonstrate appropriate classroom delivery of instructional technology. The trainers assume the role of the classroom teacher and the participants assume the role of the students. Participants attend classes by rotating through three-to-four rooms that each offer a session modeling appropriate technology rich lessons. Hands-on practice, time for reflection, and discussion are included in each session. Technology Expos offerings are coordinated with central office departments, and are offered between two and four times each school year. At the conclusion, participants complete an online evaluation survey where the results of the evaluations have been overwhelmingly favorable. Panel clarifying question(s): For question #3, I don‘t see that the plan has included the specific results of the teacher and administrator technology literacy measurements that are informing professional development. In what areas were teachers and administrators most in need of professional development, and how is the system addressing those needs? The plan also addresses educator professional development in question #1, but I do not see the above there either. LSS Response to Clarifying Question(s): The response to this question can be found on page 332. 4. Describe how the local school system is ensuring the effective integration of technology into curriculum and instruction to support student achievement, technology/information literacy, and the elimination of the digital divide. DIT is working closely with the Department of Curriculum and Instruction to provide training and support to curriculum writers. Trainers meet and work directly with curriculum writers providing assistance in the infusion of technology into the curriculum. Training and exposure to the different technology tools and resources are also shared with the writers. Checklists used during classroom walk-throughs and observations conducted by the Division of Academics and Area Office staffs include checking on teacher content delivery and the use of technology. In an effort to combat the digital divide, the DIT Telecommunications and Operations team has configured and maintains the infrastructure for providing effective access to digital and information technology to all schools and offices. High speed internet access is available in all schools and office buildings. There are plans for an Information Technology High School to open in SY2011-2012. The plans include establishing a state-of-the-art technology school that provides students access to a variety of technology-based certification programs through an on-site testing venue where, once students have completed their class work, students will be able to take the associated certification assessments. The four 1003g middle schools will receive a wireless infrastructure this year. Also, 40 schools have been identified to receive additional technology, including the remaining middle schools, specialty schools, K-8 schools, and charter schools. 5. Discuss how the local school system is using technology to support low-performing schools. The training team partnered with one of the district‘s low performing middle schools to pilot the Apple iPod Touches in their eighth grade AVID® class. The iPod Touch pilot provided an opportunity to coordinate activities aligned with the middle school AVID® program curriculum. It incorporated projects, presentations, and career and college development activities. As new and viable technologies such as netbooks, iPads, mobile technologies, etc. become available in the district , DIT, in conjunction with the Division of Academics, will determine the viability of piloting these tools in support of enhancing instruction. Previously, two low performing schools were ―adopted‖ by DIT and outfitted with technology to support instruction. Due to budget cuts, the district is unable to continue this practice. Although regional technology coordinators (RTCs) report to DIT, they are assigned to the Area Offices and schools. RTCs provide technology training and support tailored to meet the needs of the schools in their assigned areas. School- PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 292 based training as well as customized training is available upon request. RTCs also support all of the high schools through the High School Consortium. Performance Matters serves as one of the assessment and data management systems for schools to access student data to make instructional decisions and to plan for differentiated instruction that address student learning needs. Training to assist teachers and instructional leaders with accessing the available data is provided by DIT. Panel clarifying question(s): For question #5, there is no mention of the Ed Tech (Title II-D) ARRA grant as a support for low-performing schools. Isn’t this grant being used in Prince George’s County to support low-performing schools? LSS Response to Clarifying Question(s): The response to this question can be found on page 332. 6. Please update the district’s Accessibility Compliance chart, bolding or underlining any changes. The district's completed chart from last year can be accessed at: http://docushare.msde.state.md.us/docushare/dsweb/View/Collection-20709 ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE On December 4, 2001 the Maryland State Board of Education approved a regulation (COMAR 13A.05.02.13H) concerning accessible technology-based instructional products. This regulation requires that accessibility standards be incorporated into the evaluation, selection, and purchasing policies and procedures of public agencies. Subsequently, Education Article § 7-910: Equivalent Access for Students with Disabilities was passed during the 2002 General Assembly session and further requires that all teacher-made instructional materials be accessible also. MSDE is charged with monitoring local school systems‘ compliance with the regulation and the law. For more information on the regulation and the law, visit the following web site: http://cte.jhu.edu/accessibility/Regulations.cfm Please review the information submitted with the October 2009 Annual Update and use the chart on the following page to address additional progress on or changes to the items below related to accessibility compliance. If you choose to use last year‘s chart with this Update, please bold or underline any changes. Note: to review your system's 2009 master plan update, go to: http://docushare.msde.state.md.us/docushare/dsweb/View/Collection-20709 1. Process: a) Describe your policy and/or procedures for addressing the requirement that invitations to bids, requests for proposals, procurement contracts, grants, or modifications to contracts or grants shall include the notice of equivalent access requirements consistent with Subpart B Technical Standards, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. b) Describe your policy and/or procedures for addressing the requirement that the equivalent access standards (Subpart B Technical Standards, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended) are included in guidelines for design specifications and guidelines for the selection and evaluation of technology-based instructional products. c) Describe how you are addressing the requirement that any teacher-developed materials (web sites, etc.) are accessible. 2. Implementation: a) Describe how you are ensuring that all educators are being provided information and training about Education Article 7-910 of the Public Schools - Technology for Education Act (Equivalent Access for Students with Disabilities). Include who, to date, has received information and/or training (e.g. all teachers, teachers at select schools, special education teachers only, building level administrators, etc.) and any future plans for full compliance. 3. Monitoring: PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 293 a) Describe how you are monitoring the results of the evaluation and selection of technology-based instructional products set forth in COMAR 13A.05.02.13.H, including a description of the accessible and non-accessible features and possible applicable alternative methods of instruction correlated with the non-accessible features. b) Describe how you are ensuring that teachers and administrators have a full understanding of the regulation and law and how you are monitoring their adherence to the process and/or procedures governing accessibility. Panel clarifying question(s): The Accessibility Chart (question #6) does not appear to updated. Under Implementation, the chart references the use of Blackboard for e-communities. Elsewhere it is stated that the Blackboard license was not renewed. Is this old information here, or was it still being used last year? Any updated information that can be provided (# of PD sessions, dates, etc.) is very helpful because we use it for our annual report to the State Legislature. LSS Response to Clarifying Question(s): The response to this question can be found on page 332. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 294 PROCESS a) All invitations to educational technology related bids, requests for proposals, procurement contracts, grants, or modifications to contracts or grants contain a notice of equivalent access requirements consistent with Subpart B Technical Standards, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. b) All Instructional Technology software, online resources and video review rubrics have been revised to include equivalent access standards. Documentation in support of equivalent access and the evaluation rubrics are publicly available on the PGCPS web page at: http://sites.google.com/a/pgcps.org/instru ctional-software/. The Assistive Technology Office, a part of Department of Special Education, worked closely with Instructional Technology to revise these rubrics. Training in the use of these rubrics is ongoing as a part of the Technology Inclusion For All (TIFA) initiative and is included as a part of the annual Summer Curriculum Revision Workshop. c) The TIFA initiative provides training and support to enable all teacher-created technology infused instructional materials to become accessible. This action directly supports COMAR 13A.05.02.13 H and § 7-910. For more detailed information please see the publicly available TIFA web page: http://sites.google.com/a/pgcps.org/instru ctional-software/. The Assistive Technology Office, a part of Department of Special Education, worked closely with Instructional Technology to develop this initiative. IMPLEMENTATION a) To help schools comply with the equivalent access requirements consistent with Subpart B Technical Standards, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, a new two-phase training program has been implemented as a part of the TIFA initiative. Phase I: As part of the day-long training for the Digital Content school-based team, participants received hands-on training to provide background and information to comply with Statute § 7-910, that all teachercreated technology infused materials was be accessible. Phase II: A three-hour afterschool in-service was offered, based on the CAST Universal Design for Learning, to provide teachers the information necessary to comply with Statute § 7- 910, that all teacher-created technology infused materials shall be accessible. This after-school stipend training is ongoing, in each region. Additional training opportunities were offered to individual schools upon request of the principal; The TIFA website is publicly available and contains all training materials. All relevant training materials, self-paced tutorials, and documents are available at this site: http://sites.google.com/a/pgcps.org/instruction al-software/. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update MONITORING a) All technology-based instructional products, including those set forth in COMAR 13A.05.02.13.H, must undergo a rigorous review process. When questions arise, expertise and recommendations are sought from the Assistive Technology Office, (Department of Special Education).The three primarily scrutinized features for accessibility include navigation (keyboard, input focus, and personal operating system settings), graphics (images, graphs, visual icons color, and animation), and sound (text alternative). Training in understanding the issues surrounding these features is provided during the TIFA training sessions and support documentation is available on the TIFA site: http://sites.google.com/a/pgcps.org/instru ctional-software/. Prescribing alternative methods of instruction for inaccessible hardware or software items is variable and must be flexible to meet the needs of the learner. During training, teachers are instructed in techniques to adapt previously inaccessible devices or to encourage use of alternative technology that will communicate the same information in a different way. b) The primary monitoring device used to date has entailed the use of in-service evaluation forms the MSDE Technology Inventory; Section 4: Assistive Technology. Because data are not yet available for last year‘s inventory, progress in this area has not been measured. Page | 295 7. Please update the district’s Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) Certification Form. If there are no changes, check the first box. The form only needs to be signed if there are any changes. Access the district's completed form from last year at: http://docushare.msde.state.md.us/docushare/dsweb/View/Collection-20709 CHILDREN‘S INTERNET PROTECTION ACT (CIPA) CERTIFICATION FORM NOTE: Complete only if there have been changes to your last certification submitted to MSDE. Check here if there are no changes to your CIPA certification status. Any Local Education Agency seeking Ed Tech funds must certify to its State Education Agency that schools have adopted and are enforcing Internet safety policies. It is the intent of the legislation that any school (or district) using federal money ESEA or E-rate) to pay for computers that access the Internet or to pay for Internet access directly should be in compliance with CIPA and should certify to that compliance EITHER through E-rate or the Ed Tech program. Please check one of the following: Our local school system is certified compliant, through the E-rate program, with the Children‘s Internet Protection Act requirements. Every school in our local school system benefiting from Ed Tech funds has complied with the CIPA requirements in subpart 4 of Part D of Title II of the ESEA. The CIPA requirements in the ESEA do not apply because no funds made available under the program are being used to purchase computers to access the Internet, or to pay for direct costs associated with accessing the Internet. Not all schools have yet complied with the requirements in subpart 4 of Part D of Title II of the ESEA. However, our local school system has received a one-year waiver from the U.S. Secretary of Education under section 2441(b)(2)(C) of the ESEA for those applicable schools not yet in compliance. Prince George‘s County Public Schools School System Authorizing Signature PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update October 14, 2010 Date Page | 296 CROSS-CUTTING THEMES EDUCATION THAT IS MULTICULTURAL Discuss the progress toward meeting Education That Is Multicultural (ETM) goals as outlined in the Education That Is Multicultural regulation COMAR 13A.04.05 by responding to the following questions: 1. Identify the major ETM goals that were addressed by the school system during the 2009-2010 academic year. Describe the progress that was made toward meeting these goals, and the programs, practices, strategies, or initiatives that were implemented related to the goals. In your response be sure to address the following areas: Curriculum. Explain how your curriculum enables students to demonstrate an understanding of and an appreciation for cultural groups in the United States as an integral part of education for a culturally pluralistic society. Instruction. Identify how you ensure that students are not denied access to equally rigorous academic instruction on the basis of cultural background. Staff Development. Include descriptions of ETM course and workshop offerings and disaggregated enrollment data for these staff development programs. Instructional Resources. Explain your process for reviewing materials that avoid stereotyping, discrimination, bias and prejudice, as well as materials that reflect the diverse experiences relating to cultural groups and individuals. School Climate. Explain how your school climate reflects the diversity of your community and encourages respect for different cultures. The major goals that were addressed in SY2009-10 are as follows: To strengthen the organizational structure that will lead to improved development of a comprehensive plan for systemic ETM Implementation; To review the scope of identified ETM curricular infusion in Reading/Language Arts across all disciplines with continued emphasis on science and mathematics; To continue to provide instructional strategies that exemplify attention to rigorous instruction for all learners, with emphasis on ESOL; To review administrative procedures used by Library Media Services and content teams when reviewing textbooks and other instructional materials for classroom use; To provide a framework to build capacity for ETM principal leaders; and To identify and implement school climate programs and strategies that reflect the diversity of the school community. 2. Describe the progress that was made toward meeting these goals and the programs, practices, strategies or initiatives that were implemented related to the goals. The system‘s goal for ETM is to strengthen the organizational structure that will lead to improved development of a comprehensive plan for systemic ETM Implementation. The ETM Core Team (SY2009-10), made up of the Directors of Strategic Planning and Grants Development, Teacher Leadership and Professional Development, Organizational Development, the Equity Assurance Officer, and the ETM Specialist, determined that successful implementation required progressive, systematic stages of interdepartmental collaboration and practice. As such, the ETM Core Team expanded during SY2009-10 to form the ETM Steering Committee. The committee was comprised of representatives from all divisions including, though not limited to, departments and offices in Academics, Area Offices, Human Resources, School Leadership and Student Services. The ETM Steering Committee was created to guide the planning and systemic implementation of the ETM Program, including provision of input on its content, and to periodically monitor and assess the program‘s progress and outcomes. The committee, facilitated by the Director of Strategic Planning and Grants Development and the Equity Assurance Officer, met four times to establish its mission and vision, and action plans for the system as starting points for SY2010-11. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 297 Curriculum The system‘s curriculum goal is to assess and monitor ETM implementation across disciplines provided through the Department of Curriculum and Instruction with emphasis on mathematics and science. ETM continues to be infused throughout all curricula content areas. Specifically, English, math, science, social studies, and world languages all reflect a multicultural perspective and incorporate the system and state mandate for ETM implementation. (See Appendix I for mathematics and Appendix II for science.) During SY2009-10, modifications were made in the grade 4 elementary science curriculum and the grade 9 secondary science curriculum. As in past years, new teachers entering the system receive extra support in learning the curricula content through the lens of multicultural infusion. New teachers in all content areas participated in the Professional Educator Induction Program at the beginning of the school year. During this introductory program, they receive comprehensive instructional preparation, guidance, and support for the academic year. Specific examples of lessons learned from mathematics and science are attached to this document (see Appendix I and Appendix III). Elementary Reading Pre-K – 5 Curriculum The Pre-K-5 elementary reading curriculum continues to address understanding of and an appreciation for cultural groups by using diverse award-winning literature in the teaching of skills and strategies. Students interact with varied literature across genres in anthology selections, theme paperbacks, and leveled readers. The curriculum also includes specialized resources to meet the needs of every learner with cross curricular connections during whole and small group instruction (i.e. Supplemental Supports, Launch the Theme Supports, leveled reader resources, informational text resources, and independent literacy activities). Secondary Reading/English Language Arts 6 – 12 Curriculum The 6-12 secondary English curricula continue to provide a focus for students to demonstrate an understanding of and an appreciation for diversity by drawing from a wide array of cultures and authors. The core anthology, The Language of Literature, begins with selections that provide pre- and post-reading activities that preserve cultural sensitivity. The Building Background feature assists teachers in situating selections geographically and culturally; footnotes in the student text explain words of foreign origin; and more advanced assignments allow students to learn more about contributions made by specific ethnic groups. To ensure that all students, with and without disabilities, have equal access to rigorous instruction, differentiated instruction, differentiated text (i.e., Bridges, InterActive Reader Plus), and digital technologies (i.e., United Streaming, Safari Montage), are included in the curriculum to meet the needs of all students, with particular attention given to students identified as ELL, talented and gifted, and special needs. Research-based instructional practices and strategies are embedded throughout the framework documents. High school English teachers are also provided with parallel curriculum framework progress guides for ELL and students with disabilities that include accommodations and modifications that are required by federal law. Materials, resources, and selections were determined by the Language of Literature Multicultural Advisory Board, the R/ELA secondary team, and fellows from the University of Pittsburgh Institute for Learning. Standards and criteria were developed and implemented based on the MSDE Maryland Accommodations Manual, and the Universal Design Guidelines for Learning. Elementary Mathematics Pre-K – 5 Curriculum The elementary mathematics curriculum adheres to principles delineated in the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) publication, Principles and Standards of School Mathematics. Of the six principles delineated, equity is first, followed by curriculum, teaching, learning, assessment, and technology. A key application of this equity principle is that every student‘s cultural heritage should be accepted and celebrated for the diversity that it brings to the learning environment. In addition, NCTM‘s Equity Principle is aligned with ETM implementation, embedded within the system curriculum, and emphasizes access for all students to resources that have the greatest potential to promote learning. There are opportunities within each lesson for teachers to use cooperative learning structures that encourage students to share with their peers their prior knowledge and/or experiences as it relates to math tasks/projects. These strategies are promoted even further via the partnership between PGCPS and the Institute for Learning (IFL) which emphasizes student discourse through ―Accountable Talk.‖ In general the resources and strategies include: PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 298 Text and illustrations that reflect the diversity of a pluralistic society; Equity of gender representation within resources implemented; Multiple approaches to problem solving which include various cultural methods; Literature connections that incorporate an awareness of various cultures; Representations of various ethnicities in non-stereotypical roles; and Connections to mathematical terms from various languages. Secondary Mathematics 6 – 12 Curriculum The secondary mathematics curriculum emphasizes within each math lesson applications of cooperative learning structures that encourages students to share with their peers their prior knowledge and/or experiences as it relates to math tasks/projects. The curriculum includes student tasks/projects that reflect authentic learning applicable for the range of diverse and multi-cultural learners. For each lesson in the secondary course, teachers and students experience sample multilevel resources (i.e. contextual aids to word meanings, games that allow students to interact with math terms, math resources with strong visual support of concept) that are appropriate for diverse cultural groups supporting each other‘s perception of math concepts. Elementary Science Pre-K – 5 Curriculum The elementary science program supports students‘ understanding of and appreciation for cultural groups as well as prepares them for success in a culturally pluralistic society by offering the following opportunities: Folk tales have been added to the 4th grade curriculum to spark interest in diverse cultures, as well as to reinforce science concepts. Students engage in chapter biographies and career excerpts that highlight individuals that have impacted science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. These individuals represent both males and females from diverse backgrounds and cultures. Students participate in cooperative groupings that encourage teamwork and address the needs of multi-level, multi-cultural learning. Within these groups, students are able to collaborate to design, investigate, and solve real world issues, as well as share authentic experiences with their peers of diverse backgrounds. Students are exposed to science content that includes culturally diverse resources and materials, examples, data, and other information from a variety of cultures and groups. Secondary Science 6-12 Curriculum (See Appendix II) Modifications and additions were made in the secondary science K-12 curriculum specifically in grade 9. The 9th grade Integrating the Sciences curriculum was revised to reflect more comprehensive infusion of ETM throughout the year. Where appropriate, ―Multi- cultural Moments ―is a section that is built in to the lessons. Overall, the secondary science program has evolved to provide more focus on developing students‘ understanding of and appreciation for cultural groups to prepare them for success in a culturally pluralistic society by offering opportunities for: Students to apply the scientific concepts gained in the classroom to real world multicultural situations which may occur around the world or around the corner. Students participate in cooperative groupings that encourage teamwork and address the needs of multi-level, multi-cultural learning. Within these groups, students are able to collaborate to design, investigate, and solve real world issues as well as share authentic experiences with their peers of diverse backgrounds. Students are exposed to science content that includes culturally diverse resources and materials, examples, data, and other information from a variety of cultures and groups. Social Studies Pre-K-12 Curriculum Within all social studies curricula, all history is taught during the appropriate historical time frame (African American, Native American, Latin American, Asian American, European History, Women‘s History, etc.) and is aligned to the Maryland State Curriculum (MSC) to serve the needs of all students. All curriculum materials, textbooks, and other resources reflect an appreciation for cultural groups. The social studies curriculum designs student performance tasks and unit projects that reflect authentic learning applicable for the range of diverse and multi-cultural learners. Social Studies Office staff continues to facilitate the distribution of proclamations and observances to celebrate and affirm the achievements of cultural groups in our global society while providing appropriate activities to support classroom instruction. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 299 World Languages K-12 Curriculum The curricula for world languages are all multicultural and afford students the opportunity to demonstrate an understanding and appreciation for cultural groups in the United States and abroad as an integral part of education for a pluralistic society. Culture is part of the World Languages National Standards and is embedded in the curriculum. Students will gain knowledge and understanding of other cultures and the relationship between the practices, products, and perspectives (Standard 2.1 & 2.2). Students are continuously engaged in negotiating the meaning of the language and how to understand the different perspectives of culture in the context of the country and in relation to other countries in the world. The study of culture, as well as language, is embedded in the world languages and immersion curricula. World Languages Office staff is actively involved as a member of the Maryland State Heritage Language Task Force. The inclusion of class offerings for heritage language learners continues to be a committed focus. The World Languages Office staff remains dedicated to providing a full scope of representation for authentic multicultural learning experiences. Instructional Strategies The system‘s ETM instructional strategies goal is to continue to provide instructional strategies that exemplify attention to rigorous instruction for all learners, with emphasis on ESOL. Instructional strategies that were used to maximize equitable access to diverse learners during SY2009-10 included the following: Use of technology in academic areas to ensure that all students have equal access to rigorous instruction, differentiated instruction, differentiated text (i.e., Bridges, InterActive Reader Plus), and digital technologies (i.e., United Streaming, Safari Montage), software (Understanding Mathematics Plus). Cross departmental collaboration for professional development for all teachers partnering with special education and ESOL. Extensions written into the curriculum documents for TAG, ESOL, and special needs students. Listed below are specific examples from ESOL to illustrate strategies that are continuously and successfully used. ESOL Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires that ELLs attain English proficiency, develop high levels of academic attainment in English, and meet the same challenging state academic content and student achievement standards that all students are expected to meet. At the elementary level, ELLs are placed in the general education classroom for core content area instruction. In order for ELLs to access grade-level instruction, accommodations are provided for both instruction and assessment as noted on the ELL Accommodation Documentation form; mainstream teachers provide instructional adaptations and scaffolds; and ESOL teachers provide academic and social language instruction. A variety of ESOL instructional models are implemented to provide language support: pull-out, plug-in, co-teaching, and structured immersion. ESOL students receive the same report card as their native English-speaking peers. Several resources are available to mainstream and ESOL teachers to ensure that the appropriate modifications can be made. All teachers have access to the language-based Instructional Supplement for Teaching Reading Comprehension Strategies and Skills to English Language Learners. ESOL teachers and reading specialists were trained on how to use the Supplement, and selected mainstream teachers were also trained. Training was provided to mainstream teachers who implemented the structured immersion instructional model. The curriculum frameworks provide adaptations for ELL, as do the teacher's editions. Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) training is also available for content area teachers. SIOP training provides teachers with a framework for implementing effective strategies for teaching grade-level content area concepts to ELLs. Professional Development The PGCPS ETM professional development goal is to provide a framework that will build capacity for instructional leaders to evolve as ETM principal leaders. ETM Emphasis within Department of School Leadership During SY2009-10, the Department of School Leadership was charged with providing professional development to all principals and assistant principals. ETM has been identified as one of nine mandated professional development leadership competencies for all PGCPS administrators. As a result of this emphasis, four trainings were provided to elementary and secondary principals in December 2009 and June 2010. In December, 2009, the presentation, Building Capacity for Equity Leadership, was developed through collaboration between staff in the Department of School Leadership and the Equity Assurance Officer. Presentations were planned and conducted in a peer-to-peer format including principal presentation teams. Differentiated ETM PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 300 presentations were provided for the first time to principals and assistant principals as part of the leadership program at the Summer Leadership Institute (June, 2010). One offering, Education That Is Multiculural: An Obligation and a Responsibility, was designed to meet the needs of new administrators or instructional leaders who were learning of ETM for the first time. The second offering, Implementing ETM, Advancing as 21st Century Equity Leaders, was designed for experienced administrators. All administrators were required to select one of the two ETM offerings. The presentations are available for reference on PGCPS Google Docs. The Professional Educator Induction Program (PEIP) PEIP offered a required workshop for new teachers to PGCPS. Meeting the Needs of Diverse Learners reinforced accountability for the instruction of all students across the learning spectrum from cognitively impaired learners to high-ability learners and ELLs. The Program for International Educators (PIE) PIE provided six voluntary workshops for new international educators throughout the academic year. Led by a professional development specialist, a team of experienced international teacher leaders facilitated the team discussions related to the workshop topics. A preliminary survey identified the areas of emphasis which included, ―Maximizing Classroom Management,‖ ―Enhancing Communication Skills,‖ and ―Engaging the Whole Community for the Whole Child.‖ An average of 65 international educators participated in each of the six Friday afternoon workshops. The ETM Program for ETM Teacher Leaders The ETM program was initiated with introductory two-day training for 114 site-based ETM teacher leaders, identified by school principals, at the start of the school year. The topics included were: Components of the ETM COMAR 13A.04.05.00 and its alignment with the PGCPS Master Plan; process of culturally proficient instruction to strengthen efficacy in supporting diverse learners; ETM teacher leader roles and responsibilities; effective strategies to infuse ETM concepts, values, and beliefs in school and its community; and available resources (PD 360, ASCD Online, Teaching Tolerance, and other MSDE-endorsed resources). An ETM presentation was shared with participants at the school system‘s annual COMER School Development program retreat. The ETM Specialist designed and implemented professional development that included electronic updates on information on local and state ETM topics each month; assistance for school planning teams in drafting ETM infusion with school improvement plans; support of site-based ETM programs and projects; and inclusion and funding of ETM teacher leaders as participants in the Maryland National Association for Multicultural Education (NAME) Conference. The ETM Specialist was the department‘s liaison at the PGCPS ETM Steering Committee and the School Improvement Steering Committee and coordinated and implemented professional development for new teachers and international educators. The ETM Specialist represented PGCPS at the monthly MSDE ETM Network meetings throughout the school year and was a contributing writer of the revised MSDEapproved three-credit ETM CPD course. ETM teacher leaders were required to provide 25 hours of after-school professional development services. They led and participated in communities of practice that included collaborative team/department planning sessions, mentoring and coaching sessions, book or lesson study, faculty meeting presentation, parent outreach activities, collection and/or organization of ETM resource materials for staff dissemination, review of school improvement plans for ETM integration, and participation in ETMrelated conferences or courses. They also received two reference books, Culturally Proficient Instruction: A Guide for People Who Teach (Robins, Lindsey, Lindsey, and Terrell) and Educating Everybody’s Children: Diverse Strategies for Diverse Learners (Cole, Editor). ETM teacher leaders receive an annual emolument of $807. Instructional Resources The system‘s ETM instructional resources goal is to maintain a process of material selection that is aligned with ETM guidelines. Administrative Procedure (AP) 6180.2 – Evaluation of Library Media Material continues to provide an accountable process for reviewing materials that avoids stereotyping, discrimination, bias and prejudice, as well as providing materials that reflect the diverse experiences relating to cultural groups and individuals. This updated version of this AP was published in July 2009 and continued to be used as a guide for the material selection process. An excerpt from the administrative procedure follows: IV. Procedures: It is the intent of the Board of Education to provide the very best instructional and reference materials for use by students in library media centers. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 301 A. The evaluation and selection process must insure the following: 1. Materials are relevant to the curriculum. 2. The range of new materials reflects the multicultural composition of the county. 3. Materials do not contain bias or stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, socio-economic factors, or disability. 4. The variety of material is sufficient to meet the needs and interests of all students and reflects the range of topics covered in the curriculum. 5. A determined effort is made to provide materials that present all points of view concerning current problems and issues. 6. Materials are chosen with consideration for the developmental level of students to be exposed to them as well as the general community standards concerning materials that may be considered immoral, obscene, or undesirable. It is continuing practice for the evaluation and selection process to operate in an atmosphere of freedom and creativity while maintaining a sound rationale for selection. Therefore, in keeping with previous practice, no piece of material is prescribed for use by all students; however, a variety must be available to respond to individual needs and interests. This approach is accompanied with intentional and strategic use of higher order and critical thinking skills. Adoption of Textbooks: It should be noted that content teams also abide by these guidelines when reviewing textbooks and other instructional materials for classroom use. The adoption of all textbooks for classroom purposes must follow the same guidelines as those used for Library Media. Curriculum and Instruction staff ensure that all students are represented. The textbook committee membership must have representatives from the Department of Special Education and the ESOL Office. School Climate The system‘s ETM school climate goal is to identify and implement school climate programs and strategies that reflect the diversity of the school community Professional School Counselors As in the previous year, during SY2009-10, Professional School Counselors continue to receive monthly training to assist them in enhancing skills in working with diverse populations in PGCPS. The goal of the trainings was to build on the study as well as examination of evolving trends and educational needs related to cultural diversity in the Latino community. Topics that were reinforced to support Professional School Counselors‘ efforts in providing more culturally responsive guidance and services support to the growing numbers of Latino students and families on their respective zones included: Demographic Shifts In the PGCPS Community Understanding Challenges Facing Latino Families Achievement Trends Among Latino Students Professional School Counselors at all grade levels received a second phase of in-depth training. The effort was intended to build system capacity for engaging parent involvement of immigrant parents more effectively. Professional School Counselors were once again made aware of current enrollment and regional trends of diverse students and families that have come to Prince George‘s County school community. Parent Liaisons Parent liaisons continued quarterly meetings to discuss and address needs and concerns expressed by fathers and significant males in the schools. In addition, parent liaisons were encouraged to use feedback received from fathers and significant males during quarterly meetings in an effort to increase male involvement in schools throughout the district. Parent liaisons encouraged all parents to visit classrooms, attend parent/teacher conferences, volunteer in schools, and join the school‘s parent organization. The counseling office organized bilingual homework assistance for students. The International School Counseling Office(ISCO) The ISCO has continued to support, counseling specialists in each area as well as ESOL and bilingual parent liaisons with a focus on strengthening Latino families‘ participation in PTSA and school events. 3. Describe where challenges in meeting ETM goals are evident. The challenges to meeting ETM goals are as follows: PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 302 Systemic coordination and implementation remains a primary challenge. In order to maximize capacity for ETM efforts that are in place in different departments, students will need to experience the coordinated efforts across departments and offices. Reaching parents of different cultures across the system continues to present an ongoing challenge. The Department of Curriculum and Instruction in conjunction with the ESOL Office and International Student Counseling Office are making a concerted effort to reach out, engage with, and inform all communities of curriculum available across cultures. Sometimes there are cultural barriers that exist that we must work harder to understand. As noted in responses cited above, the Office of School Leadership has continued to take progressive steps to provide high quality professional development. However, due to this being a first year organizational change, challenges continue to exist in identifying and planning for the scope of ETM leadership priorities that will be targeted, reinforced, and supported throughout the year. While ETM teacher leaders participated in introductory professional development sessions at the beginning of the school year, follow-up face-to-face workshops were not held due to budget constraints. Partnership with Department of Curriculum and Instruction and the Division of Student Services is needed in order to provide more discipline-combined services to students. This will help to ensure that students receive, understand, and benefit from information and interventions provided across departments. Overall, effective monitoring of equity and access by all departments needs to be coordinated in order to achieve strategic implementation that will benefit students across cultures. 4. Describe the changes, adjustments, or revisions that will be made to programs or strategies for 2010-2011 to address the identified challenges. Overall, the long-term goal that emerged from the review of SY2009-10 ETM implementation indicates the need for PGCPS to establish and sustain academic excellence through ongoing, equitable access to programs, instruction, and services for all diverse learners via comprehensive, system-wide ETM implementation. In order to effectively address the challenges delineated in the previous response, emphasis will be placed on having each department or office identify indicators of practice that reflect the five core areas of ETM implementation that align with their department/office vision, mission, goals and objectives. Attention will be given to in-depth study of disaggregated data in order to better identify interdepartmental collaboration structures intended to build capacity for culturally proficient articulation and practice. ETM implementation efforts for SY2010-11 are summarized below. Continue the process of systemic integration of ETM to ensure that all curriculum materials, textbooks, and other resources reflect ETM guidelines. The Office of Interpreters and Translators is in its second year and will continue to assist schools with communication needs across cultures in school communities throughout the system. The Department of Curriculum and Instruction will continue to offer opportunities for teachers and Professional School Counselors to participate in shared professional development experiences. The focus will be to strengthen capacity for networks of support to diverse families and their children/youth. Curriculum and Instruction will work closely with the Assistant Superintendents and the Department of School Leadership to identify areas of need and support to insure we have systemic equity and access. More focused efforts to retrieve disaggregated attendance and discipline data will be needed. These data should be used to further assess and analyze patterns of school as well as school community interactions. The goal will be to better identify contributing factors that may be rooted in school climate issues that need closer examination. It is more likely that such an inquiry process will lead to the selection and use of more targeted program interventions. Targeted efforts are needed to assist school system efforts to improve attendance and discipline. School staffs will receive orientation and training on the cultural, gender, and environmental variables that can be attributed to the negative behaviors that can lead to students' violent reactions and insubordination. Additional study is needed to offer more culturally proficient, as well as appropriately differentiated student services. These efforts will become more effective by focusing, developing and supporting the capacity of student services to use strategies that will decrease disparity among its male Latino and African American students. The responses recorded above describe the work and concerted efforts that are in place in various departments throughout the school system, illustrating that they are continuing to provide high quality, responsive inclusion of ETM implementation and PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 303 infused practices in their respective programs and services. Again, in order to maximize capacity for these efforts to impact the elimination of gaps in achievement among diverse learners, students will need to experience the combined, coordinated efforts across departments and offices. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 304 APPENDIX I Education That Is Multicultural Curriculum and Instruction Curriculum Correlations from Mathematics August 2010 Content Area: Elementary and Secondary Mathematics Research-based strategies for differentiating curricula to address the diverse learning styles of our multicultural community are included in all elementary and secondary curriculum documents. Grade Level Pre-Kindergarten Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade Third Grade Curriculum Correlation Curriculum Frameworks: Daily routines Harcourt Math Curriculum Frameworks: Literature Connections: Measuring Penny by Loreen Leedy Arctic Fives Arrives by Elino J. Pinczes Scott Foresman Addison Wesley (SFAW) ―Discover Math in Your World‖ Curriculum Frameworks: Literature Connections: Anno‘s Counting Book by Mitsumasa Anno Nine O‘Clock Lullaby by Marilyn Singer SFAW-―Discover Math in Your World‖ Curriculum Frameworks: Literature Connections: Two Ways to Count to Ten by Ruby Dee Safari Park by Stewart J. Murphy SFAW Dorling Kindersley (DK)book reference Curriculum Frameworks Literature Connections: Mummy Math: An Adventure in Geometry by Cindy Neuschwander Grandfather Tang‘s Story by Ann Tompert Sample Activities Establishes routines that promote an awareness and appreciation of self and others. Literature connections provide problem solving embedded in diverse cultural settings and presents various ethnicities and genders in non-stereotypical roles. Problem solving embedded in diverse cultural settings Problem solving embedded in diverse cultural settings Problem solving embedded in diverse cultural settings Problem solving embedded in diverse cultural settings PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 305 Grade Level Fourth Grade Fifth Grade Sixth Grade Curriculum Correlation SFAW-―Discover Math in Your World‖ The Manu Biosphere Reserve in Peru, 21 Curriculum Frameworks: Literature Connections: How Much is a Million? by David M. Schwartz The Doorbell Rang by Pat Hutchins SFAW-―Math and Social Studies‖ Curriculum Frameworks: Literature Connections: The Village Round and Square by Anna Grifalconi A Grain of Rice by Helena Clare Pittman Mathematics Applications and Concepts (MAC)―Real Life Math‖ Curriculum Frameworks: Write and evaluate expressions Evaluate numeric expressions using the order of operations Seventh Grade Eighth Grade Curriculum Frameworks: Quarter 1 7th Grade Math Knowledge of Algebra, Patterns, and Functions Write and evaluate expressions. Chapter 1 in Textbook EXAMPLE: Quarter 1 1. Analyze number relations and compute a) Add, subtract, multiply, and divide integers Curriculum Frameworks: Quarter 1/Unit 1 Algebra/Data/Analysis Curriculum. To identify positive and negative numbers. To compare and order rational numbers. Sample Activities Problem solving embedded in diverse cultural settings Problem solving embedded in diverse cultural settings Students will use a wide repertoire of instructional strategies and available technology to apply knowledge of rational numbers and place value with exponential notations using real –world tasks to develop understanding of math language/concepts with diverse learners Technology support will aid in reinforcing understanding of math concepts. Teacher will use Understanding Math Intervention Understanding Whole Numbers and Integers, Lesson 9: Order of Operations to provide strong visual support of concepts (using a smart board or LCD projector and calculator) and opportunities for students from diverse cultural backgrounds for academic oral language practice and interaction. Students will use a wide repertoire of instructional strategies and available technology to solve equations involving currency from different countries that use the pound system. The equation 3 3/4d = 21 can be used to determine how many U.S. dollars d equal pounds. Technology support will aid in reinforcing understanding of math concepts. Teacher will use Understanding Math Intervention Software, Section - Understanding Whole Numbers and Integers, Lesson 5, 6, 7, and 7: Adding Integers, Subtracting Integers, Multiplying Integers, and Dividing Integers to provide strong visual support of concepts (using a smart board or LCD projector) and opportunities for students from diverse cultural backgrounds for academic oral language practice and interaction. Students will use a wide repertoire of instructional strategies and available technology with the number line in order to identify, compare, and order positive and negative numbers using real – world tasks to develop understanding of math language/concept with diverse learners. Technology support will aid in reinforcing understanding of math concepts. Teacher will use PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 306 Grade Level Curriculum Correlation . Ninth Grade Curriculum Frameworks: Graphing on the Coordinate Plane Tenth Grade Curriculum Frameworks: Indicator 2.1.4: The student will construct and/or draw and/or validate properties of geometric figures using appropriate tools and technology. Geometry Measuring Segments Measuring Angles Sample Activities Understanding Math Intervention Understanding Whole Numbers and Integers, Lesson 4: The Meaning of Integers, Comparing Integers to provide strong visual support of concepts (using a smart board or LCD projector and calculator) and opportunities for students from diverse cultural backgrounds for academic oral language practice and interaction. Students will use a wide repertoire of instructional strategies and available technology in graphing coordinate points, using real-world tasks to develop understanding of math language/concepts with diverse learners. Technology support will aid in reinforcing understanding of math concepts. Teacher will use Understanding Math Intervention Software Program, Understanding Graphing, Lesson 3: Points on a Grid to provide strong visual support of concepts (using a smart board or LCD projector and calculator) and opportunities for students from diverse cultural backgrounds for academic oral language practice and interaction. EXAMPLE: Students will use a wide repertoire of instructional strategies and available technology in graphing coordinate points, using real –world tasks to develop understanding of math language/concept with diverse learners. Technology support will aid in reinforcing understanding of math concepts. Teacher will use Understanding Math Intervention Software Program, Understanding Measurement and Geometry, Lesson 7: Construction to provide strong visual support of concepts (using a smart board or LCD projector and calculator) and opportunities for students from diverse cultural backgrounds for academic oral language practice and interaction. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 307 APPENDIX II Education That Is Multicultural Curriculum and Instruction Curriculum Correlations from Science August 2010 Content Area: Elementary and Secondary Science Grade Level PreKindergarten Curriculum Correlation Quarter 1:Theme: My Family, My Community Week: One through Three Kindergarten Unit A- Life Science-Quarter 1-Week Five-Chapter 1 First Grade Second Grade Third Grade Fourth Grade Unit A-Life Science - Quarter 1-Week Three- Chapter 1 Unit A-Life Science- Quarter 1-Week Six-Chapter 2 Fifth Grade Unit C-Physical Science-Quarter 2-Week-10-Chapter 11 Sixth Grade Quarters 2-3: Weeks 7-8 Text: Environmental Science - Chapter-Sections 4-3,4,5 Natural Resources and Human Needs 1. Recognize and compare how different parts of the world have varying amounts and types of natural resources and how the use of those resources impacts environmental quality. a. Identify and describe natural resources such as land, fossil fuels, forests, water, wind, minerals, wildlife, etc. 2. Recognize and explain the impact of a changing human population on the use of natural resources and on environmental quality. a. Based on data identify and describe the positive and negative impacts of an increasing human population on the use of natural resources; land, fossil fuels, forests, water, wind, minerals, wildlife, etc. Unit B-Earth Science-Quarter 2-Week four -Chapter 7 Unit A-Life Science-Quarter 1-Week Four-Chapter 1 Sample Activities Students will describe how we are like our parents by looking at photographs in order to name family members. Students will explore roles and behaviors associated with different professions in order to discuss what community helpers do. We will demonstrate an awareness of ways to stay healthy in order to discuss a doctor and dentist occupation. Directed Inquiry – Students will examine how people grow and change over time. Students will bring in pictures of themselves as infants and toddlers and share with their classmates how they are alike and different from one another and how they have changed over time. Students will engage in chapter biographies and career excerpts that highlight individuals of different cultures, gender, and races that have impacted science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Students will engage in chapter biographies and career excerpts that highlight individuals of different cultures, gender, and races that have impacted science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Folk tales have been added to spark interest in diverse cultures, as well as to reinforce science concepts. Students will engage in chapter biographies and career excerpts that highlight individuals of different cultures, gender, and races that have impacted science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Students can hold a classroom debate based upon their investigations of how different countries/cultures utilize their natural resources (e.g. Brazil and the tropical jungle) PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 308 Grade Level Seventh Grade Eighth Grade Curriculum Correlation 3. Recognize and explain how human activities can accelerate or magnify many naturally occurring changes. a. Based on data from research identify and describe how natural processes change the environment. Cyclic climate change Sedimentation in watersheds Population cycles Extinction b. Identify and describe how human activities produce changes in natural processes: Climate change Loss of habitat Quarter 1: Weeks 8-10 Text: Human Biology and Health - Chapter-Sections 5-1,2,3 1. Recognize and provide examples that human beings, like other organisms, have complex body systems of cells, tissues, and organs that interact to support an organism‘s growth and survival. a. Describe and explain that the complex systems found in multi-cellular organisms are made up of different kinds of tissues and organs which are composed of differentiated cells. b. Select several body systems and explain the role of cells, tissues, and organs that effectively carry out a vital function for the organism, such as: Obtaining food and providing energy (digestive, circulatory, respiratory) Defense (nervous, endocrine, circulatory, muscular, skeletal, immune) Reproduction (reproductive, endocrine, circulatory) Waste removal (excretory, respiratory, circulatory). Breathing (respiratory, circulatory) Quarter 2-3: Weeks 9-11 and 1 Text: Astronomy - Chapter-Sections 4-2 & 4 Identify and describe the components of the universe. a. Recognize that a galaxy contains billions of stars that cannot be distinguished by the unaided eye because of their great distance from Earth, and that there are billions of galaxies. b. Identify that our solar system is a component of the Milky Way Galaxy. c. Identify and describe the various types of galaxies d. Identify and describe the type, size, and scale, of the Milky Way Galaxy. Recognize and explain the effects of the tilt of Earth‘s axis. Sample Activities Students can investigate vaccinations for infectious diseases in other continents and create a public service announcement about how those diseases affect the human body. Students can select a country (not the United States) and create a passport on the investigation of the vaccination policies of the United States before you travel to that country. Students can select a country and create a medical information sheet based on the investigation of the most common diseases effecting humans in that location. Students can investigate and create an informational pamphlet about the seasons, and day versus night in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and how these affect cultures in those areas (e.g. the culture of the Eskimos). Recognize that objects of our solar system are interrelated. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 309 Grade Level Ninth Grade ITS Curriculum Correlation a. Recognize that Earth and its closest star, the sun, are part of a disk-shape galaxy of stars, and that our galaxy is one of billions of galaxies. Quarter 4: Weeks 6-7 Text: Earth‘s Waters - Chapter-Sections 2- 1,2,3,4 1. Identify and describe the atmospheric conditions related to weather systems. a. Identify and describe weather patterns associated with high and low pressure systems and frontal systems. b. Identify and describe the atmospheric and hydrospheric conditions associated with the formation and development of hurricanes, tornadoes, and thunderstorms. c. Identify and describe how various tools are used to collect weather data and forecast weather conditions. Thermometer Anemometer Psychrometer 2. Cite evidence to explain the relationship between the hydrosphere and atmosphere. a. Recognize and describe the water cycle as the distribution and circulation of Earth‘s water through the glaciers, surface water, groundwater, oceans, and atmosphere. The 9th Grade Integrating The Sciences Curriculum is revised to reflect an infusion of ETM throughout the year. Where appropriate, a Multi- Cultural Moments section is built in to the lessons. Sample Activities Students can investigate and create video weather reports about weather events from different countries across the world. Students can investigate the quality of the water supply from a country other than the United States. For example in Q1. Module B: The topic is on the lack of availability of clean water in developing countries. The reading outlines how dangerous unclean drinking water can be, and the video shows what women in Nigeria have to go through on a daily basis to obtain clean drinking water. Students are given the ―Importance of Safe Drinking Water‖ reading with questions. (Students should complete the reading and questions individually.) Once students have finished the reading and questions, show students the video on safe drinking water in developing countries http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xel82kovCgI&feature=related Students will be given the following writing assignment: Compare your daily experience with water to the daily experience of the women you saw in the video. In Quarter 1/Module D/ Staying Alive: Calories and Food/Day 1, students will read an article on food and other cultures in order to obtain a better appreciation and understanding of the relationship between certain foods in different cultures such as Thailand, Turkey, China, Argentina, etc. Students will investigate human needs of populations of different countries and correlate them to their carbon footprints. Students will analyze the data from different countries and generate a list of activities that produce the largest carbon footprint. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 310 Grade Level Tenth Grade HSA Biology Curriculum Correlation Sample Activities They can also propose solutions to reduce high carbon footprints from different countries. In Q2, students will also read the article, ―We have more hungry people in the world than we have ever had in history of human kind,‖ and analyze the use and consumption of food and materials of different countries as a function of different cultural practices and how this affects population change over time and carbon footprints. Quarter 1 Unit 2 The Circle of Life - Interdependence in Nature Overarching Question: What is your ecological footprint? Think about diversity of organisms, their interactions and interdependence with each other and their environment to meet their energy demands, and how these interactions result in a delicate web. Natural & Human-Made Changes in the Environment & their Effect on Organisms & Populations Chapter-Section in Prentice Hall Biology Text [5-2, 6-2, 6-3] Explain how population growth is affected by environmental factors and resources (availability of space and resources; number of competing organisms) Investigate how human activities and technology disrupt food webs or interfere with biogeochemical cycles (use of fossil fuels, inorganic fertilizers, water, habitat destruction, and pollution) 5-2 Density-independent limiting factors affect all populations in similar ways, regardless of the population size. Unusual weather, natural disasters, seasonal cycles, and certain human activities such as damming rivers and clear-cutting forests are all examples of density-independent limiting factors. 6-2 Human activities can affect the quality and supply of renewable resources such as land, forests, fisheries, air, and fresh water. Ecological research can help us understand how human activities affect the functioning of ecosystems. To work well, sustainable development must take into account both the functioning of ecosystems and the ways that human economic systems operate. Sustainable strategies must enable people to live comfortably and improve their situations. 6-3 Human activity can reduce biodiversity by altering habitats, hunting species to extinction, introducing toxic compounds into food webs, and introducing foreign species to new environments. Students will study how different countries/cultures around the world have reacted to natural disasters. Reaction to natural disasters can be culturally based. Students will study how different countries/cultures try to work in harmony with nature (e.g. the Native American Culture). Students will investigate and respond to how different countries utilize their laws to reduce the chance of non-native plants or animals being brought into their country? PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 311 I.G LOCAL GOALS AND INDICATORS PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 312 I.G LOCAL GOALS AND INDICATORS Goal 6: The quality of school system service delivery will be enhanced by improving management effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability. Introduction Performance Management focuses the work of every employee in PGCPS on the use of data, processes, and accountability measures that drive continuous improvement in teaching and learning. It is a set of processes and tools that the district employs to achieve strategic goals and objectives, and to equip and empower leadership and staff in consistently and systematically achieving the goal of increased achievement for all students. Performance Management is applied in schools, classrooms and offices, and is an iterative approach which emphasizes: 1) the definition and communication of expectations and goals (i.e. performance targets); 2) careful planning, execution, and support for strategies which will best achieve targets; and 3) robust processes and tools to monitor and report progress toward targets. Key components of Performance Management, the data warehouse, portfolio management, and Performance Management Analysis and Planning Process (PMAPP) – Central Office, are highlighted in this section. Data Warehouse Progress In SY2009-10, the Data Warehouse Implementation Project made significant progress towards implementing a repository of consolidated district data which will significantly improve data analysis and decision-making. Within this period, the vendor was selected, the contract was signed, and the following major milestones were achieved. Project kickoff and project schedule completed and approved Scope defined, clarified, and approved System requirements completed and approved Testing plan completed and approved Change management plan completed and approved Communications management plan completed and approved Technical architecture completed and approved Development, test, and production environments installed and approved Training plan completed and approved Training documentation completed One of the goals of the data warehouse is to provide consistent, accurate information for analysis and trending. Therefore, a critical success factor for data warehouse implementation is data quality. The district has undertaken an effort to improve data quality through the definition of business rules and the development of data quality reports to identify data errors for correction in operational source systems. The progress of the data warehouse project can be attributed to consistent application of project management processes as well as ongoing support from data warehouse executive sponsors and external grant funders. Active involvement by assistant superintendents, and selected principals and teachers who reviewed and approved system requirements and dashboard designs has also been valuable in the district‘s efforts to ensure usability and successful adoption. Challenges Data Warehouse implementation has faced challenges with the project timeline extending beyond original estimates. Most notably, hardware configuration and vendor issues of employee retention and sub-contractor disputes negatively affected the project schedule. The implementation is also hindered by limited system resources due to competing initiatives and operational commitments. Another factor is reduced staff availability due to furloughs, and re-classification of some staff from 12-month to 10- and 11month status. As with other large technology implementations, data quality is a major concern, as the introduction of the data warehouse will highlight pre-existing data issues within the district‘s operational systems. Data errors in the warehouse will impact its : PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 313 credibility; therefore, it is imperative that data quality processes and quality assurance testing are effectively executed before the initial data warehouse release. Adjustments Due to unforeseen vendor issues, it was prudent to delay the data warehouse implementation from August 2010 to October 2010. The initial phase - for assistant superintendents and principals – will be implemented as two releases. The first will be in October, and the second will be in November. The final two phases, which will be for teachers, then central office staff, will follow. Throughout the project, PGCPS has maintained strict oversight of vendor performance; however, vendor cash flow, and legal and subcontractor challenges have necessitated increased focus in this area. The district now requires additional detail in status reports, additional meetings with the vendor executive team, and receipt of weekly risk reports to PGCPS executive sponsors. PGCPS has also revised the Phase 1 payment schedule for remaining milestones to provide increased vendor incentive for timely completion of deliverables. To promote data quality, the implementation team is currently developing a data load strategy which will enable data owners to review and approve assessment data in a staging area prior to loading to the production reporting. Data quality in the data warehouse will also be improved through careful quality assurance testing. To relieve the pressure of reduced staff availability, the district will utilize a short-term cross-functional task force to rapidly resolve quality assurance issues as identified. Table AAC: Data Quality Resource Allocations, SY2009-10 and SY2010-11 Funding Source(s) PGCPS Broad Foundation, and Michael and Susan Dell Foundation SY2009-10 $4,049,619 SY2010-11 $3,668,195 $3,066,184 $876,800 Underlying the district’s commitment to Performance Management, a fully functional data warehouse, and dashboards is the requirement for clean, valid data in the warehouse and its contributing systems. In recognition of existing data integrity challenges within the district, the Office of Data Quality was established. The Director of Data Quality is charged with creating processes and procedures within the data flow process to ensure that data reported to federal and state agencies, as well as to system users, are of the highest quality to support appropriate decisionmaking that will ultimately impact student achievement. Portfolio Management Progress The objective of the district‘s portfolio management framework is two-fold: 1) to support district leadership in selecting and prioritizing initiatives that most closely align with Master Plan goals; and 2) to increase the capacity of corresponding managers to successfully manage these important initiatives to desired outcomes. Proposed projects, which are approved for addition to the PGCPS Portfolio, are referred to as initiatives. In SY2009-10, as a result of strategic reviews by district leadership and the conversion of several initiatives to operational activities, the portfolio of initiatives was reduced from 32 to 22, and then to seven (7) initiatives, all of which directly support realigned Master Plan Goals. The district has continued its efforts to increase project management capacity in initiative managers. This year, 21 initiative managers (spanning 18 of 22 initiatives) benefited from tailored project management curriculum developed and administered by certified project managers in the Enterprise Project Management Office (EPMO). A total of five courses, which promote practical application of key concepts by requiring initiative managers to complete deliverables related to their initiatives, comprise the curriculum. To date, project charters have been documented for 90 percent of initiatives. District leaders who serve as initiative sponsors also receive professional development in effectively sponsoring large district-wide projects. Two additional sponsors received training in SY2009-10. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 314 To increase learning and promote ongoing support amongst initiative managers, the collection of professional development offerings is conducted in small-group cohorts of four-to-six initiative managers. Three cohorts were completed in SY2009-10; a fourth is in process. The value of the capacity-building does not solely benefit the current initiative, but is also builds staff's capacity to independently and consistently apply the knowledge to future projects, programs, and initiatives. Challenges Limited staff resources and often-conflicting priorities are continued challenges to sustained progress. A small staff of certified project managers supports the portfolio process (each initiative manager is assigned a mentor from the EPMO.) However, EPMO staff is also tasked with other system-wide responsibilities, e.g. Performance Management Analysis and Planning (PMAPP). To mitigate this challenge, the district‘s tailored professional development is offered in small-group cohorts consecutively throughout the year, rather than simultaneously. This approach extends the time required to train all initiative managers, but affords a higher quality of personal mentoring than could otherwise be realized. Though the importance of the initiatives is understood by all, initiative managers and sponsors often face the challenge of balancing the importance of the initiative‘s success with other conflicting priorities. This challenge is heightened by reductions in force. Adjustments Based on staff feedback and the tangible benefits derived from mentoring, the district has increased the length of mentoring engagements with initiative managers. In addition, executive leadership evaluates district initiatives quarterly, thereby providing an opportunity to re-assess initiatives within the portfolio. The following seven initiatives comprise the current portfolio. All initiative managers will receive sponsorship and other support to promote optimal outcomes for the district. TABLE AAD: PGCPS SY2010-11 PORTFOLIO OF INITIATIVES Initiative Description Secondary School Reform SSR is focused on strategies for increasing success in high schools, including raising expectations for students, providing new options and opportunities, improving high school transition success, and empowering teachers, leaders, and schools. (The SSR initiative is comprised of thirteen distinct projects.) HSA Reform HSA reform will look at decreasing the number of AVP projects submitted to meet individual graduation requirements. Monthly targets will be created for principals to meet which will identify a specific number of projects that must be submitted. All projects will then be submitted by January 30th of each school year to ensure all students are eligible for graduation in the Spring. All students that have failed the HSA will be closely monitored to ensure they are appropriately placed in the correct academic support program for successful completion of the HSA on their next attempt. (The HSA Reform is currently comprised of one distinct project – HSA Bridge Plan Validation.) Special Education Reform Special Education Reform will address issues listed in the system‘s state audit. The reform will look at decreasing the disproportion in suspensions and expulsions, timely processes for the identification and placement of special education students, the maintenance of a Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE), a robust pre-referral process including Response to Intervention (RtI), and a strong continuum of services from birth to post graduate transition. 4 Human Capital Reform HCR aims to develop a human capital strategy that will result in a streamlined approach to recruiting and sustaining talent, including opportunities for career advancement within the system. PGCPS will develop a strategic process for teacher recruitment and career development as well as district-wide supports that create the conditions necessary to support effective human capital management. (The HCR initiative is currently comprised of two distinct projects – FIRST and the Framework for Teaching.) 5 Inception of Portfolio Schools Inception of Portfolio Schools will develop an office to assume the responsibility for 1 2 3 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 315 TABLE AAD: PGCPS SY2010-11 PORTFOLIO OF INITIATIVES Initiative 6 7 Description charter and alternative educational programming while aggressively seeking partnership opportunities with individuals and organizations that bring expertise and effective educational programs to PGCPS. These partnerships will reflect innovative approaches to supporting school success, and create new opportunities for educators to work within and across PGCPS. Capital Improvement Program Reform CIP Reform will analyze the current CIP approach to better address and/or improve the Educational Facilities Master Plan (instructional program priorities), be responsive to state funding priorities (enrollment, facility condition, and adequacy), and consider state and county funding capacities (multi-year cash flow required to support projects). Student-Based Budgeting SBB is being implemented to address three goal areas: 1. Increase Equity – i.e. funds should be equitably allocated for each student at each school based on his or her educational needs; 2. Support System Priorities – i.e. school district leadership should be able to fairly and effectively allocate resources to support strategic priorities and reform efforts in a way that puts student needs first; and 3. Empower and Serve Schools – i.e. principals should be empowered to have more flexibility in their budgetary and operational decisions that meet the needs of their school. Performance Management Analysis and Planning Process (PMAPP) – Central Office Progress In the fall of 2009, all central office departments and some large sub-offices were required to develop and submit a Performance Plan which defines a set of core services, performance measures, annual targets and strategies. Part of the development of this plan is the alignment of objectives to the PGCPS Master Plan. A corresponding accountability and management process was implemented referred to as (PMAPP). Over 50 departments met with Executive Cabinet twice during the school year to review performance metrics and leading indicators to ensure that each department was progressing towards targets stated in the Performance Plan. A Performance Based Budgeting (PBB) system was also introduced for the submission of fiscal year 2011 budgets. The PBB system allocates each department‘s budget by core service, allowing for the holistic analysis of both performance data and resource data. These programs were supported by the Performance Management grants from the Eli and Edythe Broad and Michael and Susan Dell Foundations. Critical to the initial implementation of these programs was the dedication of central office leadership, ranging from the executive team to supervisors and subject matter experts who dedicated significant hours to this pilot year. Challenges There is a learning curve to this process, and one of the key challenges with program implementation has been the ability to develop a set of related strategic measures and supporting data systems in a short span of time. In addition, staff continues to develop the capacity to correctly analyze data in order to assess root cause, adjust work flows, and make decisions. Therefore, the impact in terms of increased efficiency and effectiveness has not yet been fully realized. Another challenge has been the reduction in force and budgetary constraints that have made this process more difficult to implement. The initiation of a data-driven performance management system requires an investment in time and resources; meanwhile, several departments have been adjusting to increasing workloads with substantially reduced staff and fewer material resources. Adjustments The Performance Management Division, created in FY 2010, will begin to build the proper management infrastructure to support the central office Performance Management programs mentioned above. In FY 2010, there was one primary project manager supporting the implementation of Performance Plans and PMAPP Central Office, and working with the budget office PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 316 to implement Performance Based Budgeting. In FY 2011, two additional (existing) staff members are being cross-trained to support these programs. As a member of the district‘s executive leadership team, the Performance Officer (division head) will also work closely with the Executive Cabinet to help ensure that the proper adjustments are being made to each respective program. The Performance Plans were finalized for all departments at the end of September 2010. FY 2012 budgets will be submitted in accordance with these Performance Plans sometime before the end of November. Throughout the fiscal year, departments will hold PMAPP management discussions with Executive Cabinet to ensure progress toward system goals. And at the end of the fiscal year, each department will summarize its performance and establish new targets for the next fiscal year. There will be tight coordination with several offices in the Business Management Services division, such as Budget, and Fiscal Compliance and Quality Assurance, to ensure the full implementation of these programs. Planning will begin in the next one to two years around the alignment of central office employee evaluations to department-level metrics and targets. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 317 I.G LOCAL GOALS AND INDICATORS Goal 7: Strengthen relationships with family, school, business, community, and institutions of higher education to support improved student achievement. 1. Describe the progress that was made in 2009-2010 toward local goals. Collaboration with Social Services Agencies For the first time, the Superintendent, the Chiefs of Academics and Student Services, and Area Assistant Superintendents met with leaders from the Prince George‘s County Health Department, Police Department, Department of Social Services, representatives from the County Executive‘s Office, as well as the University of Maryland School of Education and School of Public Health and Bowie State University to articulate a mutual commitment to working collaboratively, eliminating silos, and developing policies to allow for increased collaboration and partnerships throughout the respective organizations. Representatives from these offices also worked collaboratively with the Suitland Community Development Corporation to develop a spectrum of wrap-around services to be provided at one of the turnaround schools, Drew-Freeman Middle School. These partners co-developed and submitted a federal ―Promise Neighborhood Planning Grant ―proposal, but have committed to developing the program with or without federal funding. This commitment by agency leaders represents a common vision of unprecedented collaboration to be developed within these organizations. Planning continues for projects to provide broad support to communities. Parent-Teacher Organizations Local schools increased PTA membership by 3,544 parents by the end of SY2009-10. In addition, 19,778 parents observed the delivery of instruction in their children‘s classrooms to support academic growth. Further, parent liaisons reported that schools had developed 242 partnerships to support the local schools. Translation Services For the first time, the Office of Communications, working collaboratively with ESOL Office staff, provided translations of all documents sent by the Superintendent to parents into Spanish, as well as many of the documents prepared by other departments within the system. Offices that were able to significantly improve their communication with parents in Spanish include the Transfer Office, Food and Nutrition, Health Services, Title I, the Office of Appeals, and the Division of Academics. Interpreters were provided to schools and offices to improve communication with parents at parent conferences, IEP meetings, and PTA meetings. Over 3,000 individual interpreting assignments were fulfilled by interpreters in up to 60 languages. This represents an increase over the previous year in which 1,795 interpreting assignments were fulfilled. The resource bank (TransACT) was used by schools and offices to translate documents for distribution to parents. The TransACT service was also able to make letters of explanation of the appeals process available to the Office of Appeals in five languages, thus increasing parents‘ understanding of the process. Additionally, interpreters were provided at all meetings of the Superintendent and/or the Board of Education, with simultaneous interpretation provided through audio equipment to ensure understanding. Parent Portal The district utilized the Parent Portal of SchoolMax®, the student information software system, as a tool to provide parents with an immediate snapshot of student performance, including grades, schedules, assignments, attendance, and transcripts. Parent liaisons and other identified staff provided training to parents on navigating through the portal throughout the school year. Information about the Parent Portal was presented to Spanish-speaking parents by bi-lingual parent liaisons. Information about Colleges and Careers To support the school system‘s mission of all children graduating college and/or career ready, Division of Student Services (DSS) personnel educated parents and students about college and career opportunities, the college application process, and how to seek financial assistance. These opportunities included the National Association of College Admissions Counseling College Fair, National College Fair, United Negro College Fund College Fair, University of Maryland Annual College Fair in Spanish, (entitled ―Estudios‖), partnerships with local colleges and universities, college tours, and school sponsored college fairs. Department of Career and Technical Education staff sponsors numerous school-based career awareness, job PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 318 shadowing, and intern opportunities. These opportunities were widely publicized to parents and students, posted in the college centers that all high schools are required to establish, and on the professional school counseling web site. 2. Identify the programs, practices, or strategies and the corresponding resource allocations to which you attribute the progress, include supporting data as needed. Many of the improvements in parent engagement in SY2009–10 were the result of innovative use of internal resources, rather than the result of significant new funding. Indeed, the only area in which parent engagement decreased was a result of the reduction in parent liaison positions, which were formerly supporting every school. The Office of Interpreting and Translation was created with existing personnel, and the interpreter bank was funded with Title III, Student Services, and Special Education funds. Funding for these programs was increased due to the increased demand for services. The Promise Communities Grant proposal was developed with existing personnel, and the ―Estudios‖ College Fair is financed with Title III funds. The Partners for Success Parent Center, under the Department of Special Education, has provided support for parents through a variety of venues and community partners. The program was funded through a collaborative effort between with staff in the Department of Special Education and staff in the Department of Strategic Planning and Grants Development. The goal of this effort was to assist parents and professionals in the development of essential skills so that they are equal partners in the educational decision-making process. To meet this goal, telephone consultation, parent trainings, and professional development for parents and educators are provided by center staff (with a coordinator and a parent liaison). The parent liaison is bi-lingual and assists with phone calls, trainings, and translation of flyers and informational pamphlets. The Parent Center received a $10,000 annual award from MSDE. The center works collaboratively with community partners, such as The ARC, One World Center for Autism, Inc., Maryland National Capital Park and Planning (MNCPP), the Prince George‘s County Health Department, and institutions of higher education. During SY2009-10, the Partners for Success Parent Center was awarded a MSDE competitive grant of $7,500. The grant provided a series of parent involvement conferences especially designed for fathers of children with disabilities and other males who play a significant role in the lives of children with disabilities. This ―Fathers and Others‖ initiative was offered in collaboration with the ARC of Prince George‘s County, Prince George‘s Community College, and the Andrews AFB Parent Center. Through a series of workshops, participants were provided information about disabilities and how to support children with disabilities. Surrogacy Trainings Offered 30 TABLE AAE: The Partners for Success Parent Center - Data Monitoring – July 2009 through June 2010 Number of Calls to Professional Development Events and Participants Community Surrogates Parent Sessions Workshop Attending Engagements Appointed Center Offered to PGCPS Staff Presentations 91 3,526 12 62 564 26 In addition to the Partners for Success Parent Center, Special Education Instructional Specialists provided training sessions in each area to support families of students with disabilities. Those offerings included information with regard to special education policies and procedures, testing, and academic support. The Special Education Citizen Advisory Committee is supported by a $2,500 grant from MSDE. The committee holds open meetings the fourth Tuesday of each month and is charged with providing the Director of Special Education and Board of Education members with information related to special education policies and procedures that affect students with special needs. During SY2009-10, over 100 parents attended the meetings. Professional development was provided at each meeting by Department of Special Education staff. 3. Describe where challenges in making progress toward meeting local goals are evident. The Parent Liaison program was reorganized in August 2009, due largely to funding constraints and a reduction in force. The Office of Family and Community Outreach experienced a reduction in staff from 229 to 117, for a total reduction of 112 positions. The reorganization to an articulated cluster model was intended to sustain a robust systemic approach to parent PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 319 engagement to ensure that families received continuity in support from elementary through middle school. The middle school was intended to serve as the hub of the model. A team approach was used allowing parent liaisons to meet monthly to discuss the issues shared by families within a specific feeder pattern and to coordinate supports for identified families. Parent liaisons continued to provide parent outreach through parent resource rooms. This model provided training and support to parents in the navigation of all aspects of the school system. In November of 2009, the model was again revised based on feedback from school administrators. Bilingual parent liaison support was allocated to schools with the highest percentages of LEP families. A full-time bilingual parent liaison was assigned to schools with Spanish-speaking student enrollment that exceeded 50 percent, and a half-time bilingual parent liaison was assigned to schools with at least 30 percent Spanish-speaking enrollment. Subsequent to the redesign, budget cuts resulted in the elimination of the Office of Family and Community Outreach, effective June 30, 2010. The data displayed in Table AAF indicates that progress related to parent engagement decreased from SY2008-09 to SY2009-10. This decrease was a result of the reduction in force, program restructuring, and multiple staff reassignments. To address the elimination of the parent liaison position, a parent engagement committee will be established at each school during SY2010-2011 to ensure parental engagement efforts are implemented. The committee will develop activities aligned with systemic and school objectives and a data collection and analysis plan. Year SY2008-09 SY2009-10 Change Table AAF: Comparison Of Summary Data Report SY008-09 And SY09-10 Number of parents who Number of Classroom Number of School participate in non-sports Observations Volunteer Hours related events at school 168,311 47,505 373,360 92,940 19,778 198,700 -75,371 -27,727 -174,660 Total number of workshop participants 27,968 15,100 -12,868 The number of volunteers in schools was reduced by 50 percent from 18,668 to 9,939. In addition, the number of school volunteers (20 hours per volunteer) was reduced from 373,360 in SY2008-09 to 198,700 in SY2009-10. This figure represents a reduction of 174,660 hours of volunteer service to schools. The number of classroom observations, a critical target for schools seeking to increase parents‘ understanding of the academic program, was reduced from 47,505 to 19,778 which represent a reduction of 27,727 observations. While there were significant challenges, the school system continued the partnership with parents through systemic and school activities. Parent liaisons received training in topics, such as supporting families with deployed family members, self-esteem building, conducting Rap Circles, which is a community conferencing model, and other topics related to parents supporting the teaching and learning process. Parent Liaisons conducted 519 workshops reflective of the aforementioned training topics. Office of Family and Community Outreach staff also provided a wealth of information, resources, and technical assistance to local schools to support effective family engagement. 4. Describe the adjustments or changes that will be made along with the corresponding resource allocations to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate. Organizational Supports for Family/Community Engagement One of the system‘s five major goals is strong community partnerships. Due to budget constraints, the Office of Family and Community Outreach was eliminated in the SY2010-11 budget. To address the elimination of the office and the position of parent liaison, the Department of Student Services worked collaboratively with the Title I Office to develop a new plan for parent engagement. The plan includes a targeted professional development plan, a Parent Engagement Google.doc link, the establishment of school-based parent engagement committees, a network of Family Academy training centers, and the hiring of Bilingual Outreach Coordinators for Title I schools. Additionally, mid- and end-of-year parent engagement metrics will be included as a part of each principal‘s‘ formative and summative evaluation review. Based on feedback from schools, the Title I Office created the position of Bilingual Outreach Coordinators for selected Title I schools. The coordinators will not only provide language support to the parents, but will also focus on parent training and connection to community resources in order to address the needs of parents and families. In contrast with the former parent liaison position, the bilingual outreach coordinators will be trained to support parent education and connection to community resources as their primary role. They will work collaboratively with the school staff to continue efforts towards increasing the quantity and quality of parent engagement in schools. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 320 The Superintendent developed a Parent Advisory Council SY2009-10 to regularly seek input from members of parent teacher organizations. This information is designed to incorporate the needs of parents into the system planning process and to increase communication with parents. Administrator Training The training for principals, assistant principals, and other staff members was developed by a work group consisting of staff from the Division of Student Services, the ESOL Office, the Title I Office, the Parent Information Resource Center (PIRC), and staff from the National Network of Partnership Schools. Together, representatives from these departments planned a comprehensive parent engagement training workshop designed to provide administrators with information on effective parent engagement. All principals received training during the Superintendent‘s Summer Leadership Conference on the expectations for parent engagement for SY2010-11. The training sessions were differentiated by school levels. The focus of the training was to ensure that all administrators received information on the elements of a comprehensive parent engagement plan to support the development of Goal 4 in the school improvement plan. Principals were given an opportunity to identify strategies to implement the Board Policy on Parent Engagement, tools and resources to support the development of parent engagement strategies, and research on effective practices that support parent engagement. Family Academies The Department of Student Services, in collaboration with members of the Prince George‘s County Board of Education, worked with external partners, mostly faith-based groups, to establish locations for family academies. The academies were designed to provide training to parents developed by PGCPS. These external partners assist with providing space, refreshments, and child care for community-based parent education programs .Some Family Academies also offer ESL classes to parents based on the needs of the community. Some of the classes to be provided include an ―Orientation to Prince George‘s County Public Schools‖, ―How to Support Your Child at Home‖, ―Parenting for Student Success‖, ―Parent Portal‖, ―Student Code of Conduct‖, and ―Charter and Specialty Schools‖. The goal is to develop a system-wide network of Family Academies to not only encourage parents to be involved in their children‘s schools, but also to build their knowledge and capacity to support their children‘s academic success. The classes are offered in English and Spanish, with the Spanish classes funded by the Title III program, and English classes funded by the supporting organization. The system will use existing staff to develop and deliver the training sessions. School-based Activities to Promote Parent/Community Engagement The system target for Goal 4 for SY2016-17 is that 100% of schools will have active formal parent organizations. To support this long-term goal, all schools are expected to establish effective parent engagement programs in SY2010-11. The following are required strategies that are to be implemented in all schools: Development and implementation of parent engagement strategies that are to be reflected in Goal 4 of school improvement plans. Engagement strategies should also seek to involve parents in the school‘s decision-making process; Establishment of a Parent Engagement Committee and a calendar of meetings for the school year; and Establishment of a two-way communication plan to ensure parent input and feedback that is representative of the diversity of the school community. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 321 I.H CLARIFYING QUESTIONS PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 322 MSDE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS SECTION I.A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Panel clarifying question(s): 1. On page 27 in question 1, please clarify the trauma being referenced as “post-traumatic growth” and how it is applicable to students and their educational performance. 2. Under Goal Progress for Dropout Rate on page 30, PGCPS students are cited as meeting the state standard for dropout rate in the aggregate, but this statement is not aligned with the data reported in Table 5.7, please clarify. 3. On page 33, under Goals, Key Performance Indicators - Targets, please correct the typo FY17. 4. Please clarify the source of the $150 million budget cut stated on page 33, in light of an apparent increase in overall actual revenue received. Panel clarifying question: 1. On page 27 in question 1, please clarify the trauma being referenced as ―post-traumatic growth‖ and how it is applicable to students and their educational performance. LSS Response to Clarifying Question: Dr. Ryan Kilmer, nationally known speaker from North Carolina, is presenting a six-hour hour workshop on PostTraumatic Stress Disorder (not "post-traumatic growth") on February 11, 2011. The objectives of this workshop will be to improve knowledge and skills for the school-based professionals working with children and youth who have been exposed to trauma. The workshop will describe child resilience, effective coping and adaptation in the face of major life stress and detail factors associated with resilience. In addition, this workshop will emphasize the transformative elements of responding to adversity. The presentation will include specific recommendations for school mental health professionals and others working with youngsters exposed to trauma. Prince George's County Public Schools PPWs, social workers and psychologists, in collaboration with community partners, have increased their knowledge and understanding of patterns and trends among students in low performing schools which significantly impact their ability to be attentive, focused, and well-behaved in school. By cross referencing schools with high discipline rates, low attendance rates, sizable numbers of students repeating two grades, and low academic achievement with data available from community partners including the county's police department, health department, social service agency, and the local management board, Student Services staff recognized in several instances that students' challenges are most directly related to the physical and mental instability they experience at home and throughout the community. In short, the crime and violence these students have experienced in their lives impact their ability to achieve in school. Several initiatives and strategies are intended to address this dynamic. For example, at Drew Freeman Middle School – one of the system’s four Turnaround Schools which is located in a community with a high percentage of income eligible program recipients; a traditionally high crime rate (although crime is at an all-time low); fifteen 9th graders who will be 16 year old by February 2011; and high out-of-school discipline rates – PPWs, social workers, and psychologists are working with students who have the characteristics of post trauma. In addition to the workshop on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, professional development on the development of the adolescent brain, improving classroom management skills, and educating black males has also been provided. These are not major initiatives in PGCPS; however, each initiative and strategy is consistent with one of the PGCPS' five goals. Panel clarifying question: 2. Under Goal Progress for Dropout Rate on page 30, PGCPS students are cited as meeting the state standard for dropout rate in the aggregate, but this statement is not aligned with the data reported in Table 5.7, please clarify. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 323 LSS Response to Clarifying Question: The statement on page 30 has been corrected and is aligned with the data reported in Table 5.7. Panel clarifying question: 3. On page 33, under Goals, Key Performance Indicators - Targets, please correct the typo FY17. LSS Response to Clarifying Question: There is no typo; FY17 is correct. Panel clarifying question: 4. Please clarify the source of the $150 million budget cut stated on page 33, in light of an apparent increase in overall actual revenue received. LSS Response to Clarifying Question: This statement is being removed; it was erroneously stated. SECTION I.D.i Maryland School Assessment – Reading Panel clarifying question: 1. To what factors would you attribute the noticeable drop in reading performance of elementary special education students? LSS Response to Clarifying Question: The drop in reading performance for special education students can be attributed to a lack of alignment between interventions and state standards, and scheduling issues. Many of the students receiving special education services participate in research based interventions such as “Success for All,” and “Corrective Reading”. The scheduling of interventions detracts from standards-based instruction in terms of time, however. The district needs to provide interventions that are aligned to the standards and do not take away from the standards-based instruction in the classroom. Alignment can be achieved by reinforcing the grade level standards in the intervention classes and interventions can be scheduled that do not interfere with grade level instruction in reading. The district is also increasing the number of approved interventions for non-disabled students and is implementing a team to support schools in implementing reading interventions as part of the Corrective Action Plan in special education. SECTION I.D.i Maryland School Assessment – Mathematics Panel clarifying question: 1. To what factors would you attribute the noticeable drop in math performance of elementary and middle school special education students? LSS Response to Clarifying Question: The district has struggled to find interventions in mathematics that remediate student deficits, with the exception of the KEMS program. There has been only moderate success with the Understanding Numbers program. This could be due to the lack of time devoted to the intervention. In addition, district monitoring noted that teachers were not differentiating instruction and providing enough opportunities to address deficit areas. The district has adopted a new eighth grade math curriculum to address struggling students utilizing the pedagogy of Algebraic Thinking. Eighth grade math was the weakest MSA score for the district. In addition, the district seeks to expand the KEMS math program in schools. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 324 The district is mandating collaborative planning based on how standards are assessed and the scaffolding necessary to remediate deficits. The district is asking that special educators participate in the collaborative planning to add voice to the struggling students. Finally, the district is providing professional development in math interventions and differentiation to special and general educators. Panel clarifying question: Please correct the typo on Table 2.6 under 2008. LSS Response to Clarifying Question: The typo has been corrected on pages 59 and 116. SECTION I.D.i High School Assessments – English II APPENDIX A. Panel Consensus Report Panel clarifying question(s): 1. Please clarify the reason for the large overall number of non-test takers. 2. On page 113, please clarify for LEP students, if the course sequence has been modified (as indicated on p. 130), what is the reason for the large number of non-test takers? LSS Response to Clarifying Question(s): The data on page 113 are from the 2008-2009 school year. Unfortunately, the school system did not change the course sequence for LEP students in English until the 2009-10 school year. Therefore, the large number of non- test takers would still be attributed to the fact that the system did not have LEP students taking the English 10 course until after their 10th grade year. SECTION I.D.i High School Assessments – Biology APPENDIX A. Panel Consensus Report Panel clarifying question: 1. Why is the 2009 data not included in Table 2.9? See comments under HS Graduation. LSS Response to Clarifying Question: Table 2.9 on page 61 has been updated to include SY2009 data. SECTION I.D.i High School Graduation Requirement APPENDIX A. Panel Consensus Report Panel clarifying question(s): 1. How does modifying the curriculum help the graduation rate? 2. Are Bridge instructors certified in the appropriate content area? 3. Please clarify the reason for the large overall number of HSA non-test takers. 4. In 2009, the school system reported that special education students represented 9.8% of the total high school population. On the HSA Test Participation and Status Tables (3.1-3.8) for English II, Algebra/Data Analysis, Biology and Government, special education students represent less than 1% of the tested students at each grade level. Please provide an explanation for the non-participation of special education students on those tests and PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 325 the steps Prince George's County staff will take to ensure that all special education students have access to HSA coursework and participate in Maryland's HSA Program. Panel clarifying question: 1. How does modifying the curriculum help the graduation rate? LSS Response to Clarifying Question: The regular 9th grade curriculum was revised to include ELL strategies. With the course sequence modification, ESOL students are taking the HSAs by their 11th grade year; however, not all 9th grade ESOL students are taking English 9 nor are all 10th grade ESOL students taking English 10. The number of test takers varies because students take English based on their proficiency level, not their grade level. Modifying the curriculum can help the graduation rate in two ways. First, it can help the graduation rate because it gives students their first chance to sit for the English 2 HSA prior to the 12th grade year. Under the MSDE rules for AVP participation, a student must take and fail the HSA two times before they can begin the projects. This allows ESOL students who have only been in the US for three years to take the English HSA for the second time in October of the 12th grade year and then begin the validation projects. This will increase the graduation rate for ESOL students who complete the AVP projects. Second, the increased rigor of the ESOL course sequence may help the graduation rate by better preparing the students in academic language acquisition in order to take and pass the High School Assessments. Note that in 2009-2010 ESOL students in grades 9 - 11 (ESOL levels 1 - 3) were enrolled in ESOL courses under the modified ESOL curriculum. Twelfth grade ESOL students in 2009-2010 did not have access to the modified ESOL curriculum, and therefore, 2010 HSA pass rates and graduation rates cannot be attributed to the increased rigor of the curriculum. Note that 2010-2011 ESOL 12th grade students only had access to the modified ESOL 3 Curriculum in 11th grade. ESOL HSA pass rates and graduation rates for 2011 cannot be attributed to the complete modified course sequence. The first students to complete the entire modified course sequence will graduate in 2013. Non-test-takers question. I would need to see the data. I believe that the high drop-out rate for ESOL students is driving this data. By 11th grade large numbers of ESOL students who began 9th grade with no English and educational gaps are increasingly truant. My guess is that ESOL students who are going to go on to 12th grade have taken the HSA's by 11th grade. The others have stopped attending and are being counted as non-test-takers. I do not have data to back this up, but can begin looking up students, one-by-one to determine a trend if you need it. Regarding the high number of ESOL non test-takers, the high drop-out rate for ESOL students appears to be driving these data. By 11th grade large numbers of ESOL students who began 9th grade with no English and educational gaps are increasingly truant. ESOL students who are going to go on to 12th grade have probably taken the HSAs by 11th grade. The others have stopped attending and are likely being counted as non test-takers. Panel clarifying question: Are Bridge instructors certified in the appropriate content area? LSS Response to Clarifying Question: Yes, all bridge instructors are now certified in the core content areas they are teaching. In SY2008-09, there were several schools that only had one teacher who taught one of the four content areas for Bridge Projects. Schools had to ask Department Chairs to teach bridge classes in the other content areas during their planning periods. Since all bridge teachers are certified, this is no longer necessary. Panel clarifying question: Please clarify the reason for the large overall number of HSA non-test takers. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 326 LSS Response to Clarifying Question: Internal data reflect smaller overall numbers of non-test takers on all assessments than are reflected on prepopulated Tables 3.1 through 3.8. The system is committed to reversing the upward trend in the number of students meeting graduation requirements through AVP projects (reflected in Tables 3.9 through 3.11), while increasing the number of students who satisfy graduation requirements by passing all four HSAs. This objective is the focus of the system’s HSA Reform strategic initiative. The targets that have been established for the Goal 1 (High Student Achievement) HSA key performance indicator are as follows: HSA Key Performance Indicator % of graduates who pass all four HSAs % of graduates who meet HSA requirements via the AVP SY2010 Baseline 47% 2011 Target 54% 2017 Target 90% 15.9% 13% <=5% To support this objective, Administrative Procedure 5123.2 – General Procedures Pertaining to Promotion, Retention, and Acceleration of Students – has been revised to incorporate HSA requirements into system procedures for the student promotion. Revised high school promotion criteria are outlined below: (1) From grade nine (9) to 10, a student must have a total of five units of credit, including one credit of English. Progress toward fulfilling the graduation requirement with regards to the Maryland High School Assessment should be included. (2) From grade 10 to11, a student must have a total of 10 units of credit, including two credits of English, one credit of mathematics, one credit of science, and one credit of social studies. Progress toward fulfilling the graduation requirement with regards to the Maryland High School Assessment should be included. (3) From grade 11 to12, a student must have a total of 14 units of credits, including three credits of English, two credits of mathematics, one credit of science, one credit of social studies, and be able to fulfill all requirements not to exceed nine credits per year, for a Maryland High School diploma in June. In addition, the student must have taken all four high school assessments. An exception will be made for students entering a high school their senior year from another LEA or from out of state. Students must sit for the appropriate high school assessment at the end of the course before being promoted to12th grade. Panel clarifying question: In 2009, the school system reported that special education students represented 9.8% of the total high school population. On the HSA Test Participation and Status Tables (3.1-3.8) for English II, Algebra/Data Analysis, Biology and Government, special education students represent less than 1% of the tested students at each grade level. Please provide an explanation for the non-participation of special education students on those tests and the steps Prince George's County staff will take to ensure that all special education students have access to HSA coursework and participate in Maryland's HSA Program. LSS Response to Clarifying Question: The special education participation data reported on Tables 3.1 through 3.8 are in error. The corrected data reflect special education students as a percent of total test takers for SY2009 and are presented below. Grade 10 Grade 11 English (Tables 3.1 and 3.2) 13.0% 13.5% Algebra (Tables 3.3and 3.4) 14.5% 12.9% PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Biology (Tables 3.5 and 3.6) 13.5% 13.8% Government (Tables 3.7 and 3.8) 12.9% 13.2% Page | 327 Additional data presented in the table below provide a more comprehensive picture of special education student participation and performance in HSA testing for SY2009. The data show the total number of special education test takers, and the numbers and percentages of such students who passed and who did not pass each respective assessment in SY2009. Grade SPGCPS Special Education Student Participation and Success in HSA Testing, SY2009 Subject Total Number Number Percent Number Not Percent Not Special Ed. Passed Passed Passed Passed 10 10 10 10 English Algebra Biology Govt. 1,047 1,158 1,082 1,042 154 268 201 242 14.7 23.1 18.6 23.2 893 890 881 800 85.3 76.9 81.4 76.8 11 11 11 11 English Algebra Biology Govt. 972 919 996 967 237 198 251 321 24.4 21.6 25.2 33.2 735 721 745 646 75.6 78.5 74.8 66.8 Based on 2009 HSSC file. Moreover, data recently retrieved from the PGCPS Performance Matters student information system on November 16, 2010 conclusively show that county special education students indeed continue to participate in Maryland HSA program. For special education students in the Class of 2012, the percent of students who had not yet tested ranged from a low of 17.4% for the Algebra assessment to a high of 21.9% on the Government assessment. Percentages of non test-takers among special education students in the Class of 2011 were much lower, ranging from 7.7% for the Algebra assessment to 8.9% for the Government assessment. These data include certificate-bound students and those who take the Alt-MSA, so the numbers and percentages of diploma-bound non test-takers is even lower (see Table below). Special Education Student HSA Course Enrollment and Test Participation, PGCPS Classes of 2011 and 2012 Special Education Grade 11 English Algebra Biology Government Number enrolled 885 885 885 885 Number not participated 176 154 182 194 Percent not participated 19.9% 17.4% 20.6% 21.9% Number enrolled 745 745 745 745 Number not participated 61 57 63 66 Percent not participated 8.2% 7.7% 8.5% 8.9% Special Education Grade 12 Source: Performance Matters, November 16, 2010 The system recognizes long-standing challenges associated with increasing the achievement of special education students at all grade bands. In order to address these challenges, Special Education Reform has been identified as one of the system’s seven (7) strategic initiatives. Efforts will focus on: • Ensuring that special education students receive standards-based instruction; • Increasing opportunities for special education teachers to participate in collaborative planning and training; and • Developing and implementing programs and strategies to increase the number of highly qualified, effective special education teachers. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 328 SECTION I.D.iii Adequate Yearly Progress School System Improvement32 APPENDIX A. Panel Consensus Report Panel clarifying question(s): 1. Given that PG County has not met AYP in several years for all three levels in both content areas, how are you addressing/ monitoring the effectiveness of each listed strategy and intervention particularly at the subgroup level? 2. Please reconcile the narrative statements on pages 140 and 148 with the data listed in Table 5.1. Please reconcile the number of elementary schools and Title 1 schools listed on page 148 with the chart on page 152. Panel clarifying question: 1. Given that PG County has not met AYP in several years for all three levels in both content areas, how are you addressing/ monitoring the effectiveness of each listed strategy and intervention particularly at the subgroup level? LSS Response to Clarifying Question: The district is using two systems for monitoring. As a part of the performance management process, all schools must report benchmark assessment results disaggregated by student group. School principals must present their data to an audience of their peers and the Assistant Superintendent and offer explanations and action plans based on the data. In addition, each division must present quarterly data in a PMAPP session. Each division disaggregates data by student group. The second monitoring system is the data warehouse, which, when implemented, will provide an automatic electronic platform for the data processing which is now done by hand in the testing office. Data disaggregated by student group will be readily available for decision makers at the classroom, school, area office, central office, and executive levels. Data is now presented weekly at Executive Cabinet meetings and quarterly at Board of Education meetings. Specific data that is monitored includes the Key Performance Indicators referenced on page 135. Actions plans are developed in response to data that do not reflect progress. Examples include enhancements to professional development around the suspension of disabled students and interventions in mathematics at the middle school level. Panel clarifying question: 2. Please reconcile the narrative statements on pages 140 and 148 with the data listed in Table 5.1. LSS Response to Clarifying Question: The response to this question can be found in the modified text on page 139. Panel clarifying question: 3. Please reconcile the number of elementary schools and Title 1 schools listed on page 148 with the chart on page 152. LSS Response to Clarifying Question: The number of elementary schools that made AYP (Table 5.1) has been corrected (see page 148). Seventy-five (75) of 126 elementary schools (or 59.5%) made AYP in SY2010. Of the remaining 51 elementary schools that did not make AYP, 29 were at some level of school improvement as reflected in Table 5.3 on page 152, while the remaining 22 schools were in Local Alert status – i.e. SY2010 was the first year that they did not make AYP (see Table below). 32 Section 13A.01.04.08 of the Code of Maryland Regulations. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 329 Similarly, 29 of 53 Title I elementary schools (or 54.7%) met AYP in SY2010 (see Table 5.2 on page 148). Of the remaining 24 schools that did not make AYP, 16 are at some level of school improvement, and the remaining eight schools on Local Alert status (see Table below). Also, see Table 5.4 on page 153 for the number and improvement status of Title I schools. Elementary School AYP and School Improvement Status, PGCPS, SY2010-11 Schools Making AYP School Type Total No. Pct. All 126 75 59.5% Title I 53 29 54.7% Schools Not Making AYP (SY2010) In School Local Improvement Alert Status Subtotal (SY2011) (SY2011) 29 22 51 16 8 24 SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT APPENDIX A. Panel Consensus Report Panel clarifying question: 1. Given the growing number of schools not making AYP and entering school improvement, how are you addressing/ monitoring the effectiveness of school level interventions, particularly at the subgroup level? LSS Response to Clarifying Question: The district has adopted a performance management model that holds each school accountable for growth. School staff must disaggregate data by student group using a mandated template and respond to the data through a protocol. This is done in a PMAPP meeting, in which principals present their data to an audience. Area principals, specialists, and Assistant Superintendents listen to the principal’s analysis and add comments or ask clarifying questions. In addition, each central office administrator and each principal has performance targets based on problematic student performance. This in monitored by all supervisors. Finally, disaggregated data is then presented to Executive Cabinet. Not only are schools accountable for their data, each division is accountable as well. For example, student group performance is monitored and addressed by ESOL, Special Education and curriculum and instruction. Then, the annual action plan is modified in the face of new data. For example, ELL performance on graduation and HSA has resulted in a realignment of the reading program and the ESOL course sequence at the high school level. Math performance in middle school has resulted in a revision of the eighth grade math curriculum. Constant data review informs both district and school actions. Sections I.E, I.F. Addressing Specific Student Groups and Cross Cutting Themes: Education Technology APPENDIX A. Panel Consensus Report Panel clarifying question(s): 1. For question #1 in Educational Technology as a Cross-Cutting Theme, the plan mentions the use of the ISTE technology standards. Is the system also addressing the Maryland technology standards in professional development and for students? 2. Also in question #1, would you please check the labeling of the Tables before submitting your final version? The labels referenced in the text do not appear to match the labels in the Tables. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 330 3. For question #3, I don’t see that the plan has included the specific results of the teacher and administrator technology literacy measurements that are informing professional development. In what areas were teachers and administrators most in need of professional development, and how is the system addressing those needs? The plan also addresses educator professional development in question #1, but I do not see the above there either. 4. Also for question #3, the second paragraph begins “According to research…” Can you please indicate the research that is being referenced? 5. For question #5, there is no mention of the Ed Tech (Title II-D) ARRA grant as a support for low-performing schools. Isn’t this grant being used in Prince George’s County to support low-performing schools? 6. The Accessibility Chart (question #6) does not appear to updated. Under Implementation, the chart references the use of Blackboard for e-communities. Elsewhere it is stated that the Blackboard license was not renewed. Is this old information here, or was it still being used last year? Any updated information that can be provided (# of PD sessions, dates, etc.) is very helpful because we use it for our annual report to the State Legislature. Panel clarifying question: For question #1 in Educational Technology as a Cross-Cutting Theme, the plan mentions the use of the ISTE technology standards. Is the system also addressing the Maryland technology standards in professional development and for students? LSS Response to Clarifying Question: Yes, the Maryland standards for professional development as well as student technology standards were addressed and totally infused throughout the netbook project as well as in all technology integration courses delivered by the Technology Training Team. The teachers at Carmody Hills received training on the standards prior to the start of the project. The training and lesson development components first engaged the teachers in identifying the Technology Literacy Standard(s) to be addressed in their lesson. In June, 2010, PGCPS held a Technology Leadership Academy. The purpose of the Technology Leadership Academy was to build a community of Instructional Technology Leaders who are able to effect change in their schools and help other educators become skilled at technology integration. Fifteen participants were accepted and paired with a technology coach to mentor them throughout the school year. The technology coaches provided monitoring and feedback on technology use. STEP is another program designed to expose and train teachers to new and available technology for use in content delivery in order to enhance and engage students in the learning process. The aforementioned programs, coupled with our current technology training session offerings, will help increase technology proficiency levels. Training addresses both Student Technology standards and the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Standards. Panel clarifying question: Also in question #1, would you please check the labeling of the Tables before submitting your final version? The labels referenced in the text do not appear to match the labels in the Tables. LSS Response to Clarifying Question: The appropriate corrections have been made (see pages 288 and 289). Panel clarifying question: For question #3, I don’t see that the plan has included the specific results of the teacher and administrator technology literacy measurements that are informing professional development. In what areas were teachers and administrators most in need of professional development, and how is the system addressing those needs? The plan also addresses educator professional development in question #1, but I do not see the above there either. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 331 LSS Response to Clarifying Question: The results on the Technology Measure for Administrators revealed that 87 percent of principals and 71 percent of assistant principals who took the assessment were proficient on the majority of the standards. However, both principals and assistant principals were least proficient on Standard III which addresses Data-Driven Decision Making. PGCPS provides on-going training on the use of Performance Matters, which is one of the administrative data systems housing student data (including test scores, attendance, grades, and discipline by subgroups). A total of four trainings for administrators and instructional leaders were conducted thus far this year on 7/22/10, 8/11/10, and 10/06/10. Monthly sessions are scheduled. The results yielded from the 3,357 individuals who took the Measure indicate that 70 percent were proficient. Keeping in mind that proficiency is assessed by the use of a variety of technology resources for professional productivity, technology integrated lessons, and use of data to inform and differentiate instruction, training on technology tools including equipment, Web 2.0, Microsoft Office Suite, Multimedia, CPD courses, Discovery Education, and STEP (Sharing Technology with Educators Program) to name a few. These sessions as well as others are designed to help increase teachers and administrators proficiency in the use of technology. Panel clarifying question: Also for question #3, the second paragraph begins “According to research…” Can you please indicate the research that is being referenced? LSS Response to Clarifying Question: The requested footnote was inserted on page 291. Panel clarifying question: For question #5, there is no mention of the Ed Tech (Title II-D) ARRA grant as a support for low-performing schools. Isn’t this grant being used in Prince George’s County to support low-performing schools? LSS Response to Clarifying Question: PGCPS is a participating partner of the Title II-D ARRA Ed Tech grants. In an effort to provide support to our low performing schools, a learning team from William Wirt Middle School was selected to participate in the Maryland STEM Portfolio Project (MSPP) grant. This team is charged with working together to develop a model for projectbased STEM learning across curricula and classrooms incorporating e-portfolios. As a partner in the College and Career Readiness Grant opportunities for curriculum coordinators, teachers, and technology trainers to receive additional Universal Design for Learning (UDL) training will be provided. Panel clarifying question: The Accessibility Chart (question #6) does not appear to updated. Under Implementation, the chart references the use of Blackboard for e-communities. Elsewhere it is stated that the Blackboard license was not renewed. Is this old information here, or was it still being used last year? Any updated information that can be provided (# of PD sessions, dates, etc.) is very helpful because we use it for our annual report to the State Legislature. LSS Response to Clarifying Question: Although PGCPS chose not to renew the maintenance on our Blackboard server our Technology Infusion For All (TIFA) e-Org site was accessible. However, with our official move off of Blackboard, the TIFA site has been moved and is now housed at: http://www.pgcps.org/~tifa. Trainings are delivered on a rotational basis and delivered to school-based technology coordinators and tech liaisons in a face-to-face format. A total of six sessions were conducted last year on the following dates: 9/17/09, 11/19/09, 12/17/09, 1/21/10, 4/15/10, and 5/20/10. SY2010-11 training sessions, incorporating updates and reminders, started on 9/16/10 and 10/21/10 during the monthly scheduled Tech Liaison/Coordinators meetings. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 332 Professional Development Content Analysis Tool Panel clarifying question(s): 1. Are all of the activities included in response to question 2 provided for all schools, or just for the schools in improvement? Please elaborate. 2. Provide artifacts used to review PD plans (i.e. the scoring rubric used to provide feedback on the extent to which the six elements, or any other relevant artifacts). 3. Responses to question 4: Results are provided for the 26 AG schools, only. Please respond to the guiding question regarding all LSS schools. Provide Summary description of the strengths and weakness of the plans as reflected in how they addressed each of the six elements of the planning framework Provide a discussion of lessons learned about the need for additional training and support for school and district staff Panel clarifying question: Are all of the activities included in response to question 2 provided for all schools, or just for the schools in improvement? Please elaborate. LSS Response to Clarifying Question: In an effort to provide more in-depth support, feedback, and guidance, Option 2 focuses primarily on Alternative Governance (AG) schools. However, the school improvement process includes guidelines and training for all LSS school teams with probing questions to determine the professional development opportunities needed to build teacher capacity and align with each school’s data. Alternative Governance Schools, schools in improvement and Title I schools are required to complete a Professional Development Calendar (Attachment A, pages 20-21) that incorporates the six elements of high-quality professional development as outlined in the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Planning Guide. Schools in improvement and Title I schools also document alignment of their professional development opportunities with the ESEA components for professional development. During the annual Bridge to Excellence Conference, and as requested, schools are provided guidance on the teacher professional development planning framework to ensure they are offering high quality training opportunities that address the elements of high-quality professional development. Schools are also directed to links on the School Improvement Google site for additional resources and support. Additionally, Alternative Governance schools plan professional development that aligns with the findings from the Teacher Capacity Needs Assessment (TCNA) and Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CNA) Summary. Based on these findings, schools plan customized professional development based provided by various departments. The school improvement plan, inclusive of the professional development calendar, is reviewed by several departments using the School Improvement Plan Checklist. The recommendations reflect feedback from supervisors and specialists from Curriculum and Instruction, Special Education, ESOL, and other central offices. Systemwide opportunities for teacher professional development are also available to all schools in support of the areas indicated in their school improvement plans. These opportunities, led by supervisors, specialists, and teacher leaders, are reviewed by an interdivisional committee to ensure that they include the six elements of high-quality professional development as outlined in the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Guidelines. In addition, this review process ensures that professional development activities: are the result of need based on student achievement data; are developed using standards for effective teacher professional development; reflect priorities articulated in the Master Plan, MSDE initiatives or identified system-wide initiatives; articulate how training will migrate from the system-level to the school; reduce redundancy and promote collaboration among divisions and/or departments; PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 333 provide evidence of an evaluation and follow-up process; are communicated to all teachers and administrators through a web-based calendar of events; and provide an online system for registration and attendance, as well as a way for teachers to monitor their participation in professional development. Panel clarifying question: Provide artifacts used to review PD plans (i.e. the scoring rubric used to provide feedback on the extent to which the six elements, or any other relevant artifacts). LSS Response to Clarifying Question: Reviewers use the School Improvement Plan Checklist (Clarifying Question, Attachment B) to guide their review of school plans and document elements of high-quality professional develop therein. The Maryland Teacher Professional Development Planning Checklist (Clarifying Question, Attachment C) is also used to provide feedback to school teams regarding their professional development plan and calendar of activities. The School Improvement Plan Checklist is also used to review schools’ Performance Portfolio, an extension of the school improvement plan. This portfolio is a collection of artifacts that serve as documented evidence of the school’s professional development activities. All schools in improvement are required to document the implementation of the professional development opportunities (i.e., school-based, systemic, outside consultants, etc.) in their Performance Portfolios. In addition, schools that are in Alternative Governance are required to not only document the implementation of the professional development opportunities, but also to determine an implementation level and discuss challenges, successes and next steps/adjustments based on the impact of the professional development activity on improving student achievement (MSDE AG Action Step Report). See Attachments A-E at end of this document. Panel clarifying question: Results are provided for the 26 AG schools, only. Please respond to the guiding question regarding all LSS schools. LSS Response to Clarifying Question: All LSS schools participate in Performance Management Analysis and Planning Process (PMAPP) as a framework for systematic and systemic monitoring of student achievement. In addition to monitoring student progress, this process provides insight into the implementation and impact of school-based professional learning in which teachers and school teams engage. The performance data examined during PMAPP enables the district and school leadership teams to drill down to root causes of performance issues, focus on areas of need, and develop action plans for improvement that include targeted professional development opportunities for teachers and school teams. During this process, problems are identified, resources are focused to help resolve issues, and best practices are documented for dissemination and replicated throughout the school district as appropriate. The PMAPP process ensures that all schools in PGCPS are monitoring and using a set of core metrics to inform school-wide, grade- and course-specific, and classroom level decisions about instruction and related practices, including school-based learning opportunities throughout the year. Schools include strategies and activities to increase student achievement and teacher capacity in their school improvement plans (Clarifying Question, Attachment D). The implementation and impact of these activities and strategies are documented and shared during quarterly PMAPP area and executive cabinet meetings (Clarifying Question, Attachment E). These sessions are held quarterly to consistently and continuously monitor data and review strategies to assess effectiveness and identify next steps. Panel clarifying question: Provide Summary description of the strengths and weakness of the plans as reflected in how they addressed each of the six elements of the planning framework. LSS Response to Clarifying Question: Each school’s plan is reviewed by School Improvement specialists using the School Improvement Plan Checklist to determine if all components are present in the plan. The specialists provide feedback to PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 334 improve the quality of the school plan’s alignment between the data and the strategies and activities and professional development identified in the plan. Subsequently, plans are returned to the schools for them to respond to the recommendations and feedback. Plans are then approved and uploaded to the district’s website. Most of the feedback to schools addresses the alignment of the activities to the data and follow up activities in response to professional development and the implementation of identified activities. The most recent reviews of school improvement plans (June 2010-October 2010) identify the following strengths: o Identification of research-based strategies (flexible grouping, differentiation) o Identification of professional development designed to increase teacher capacity in the delivery of high quality rigorous instruction The reviews also reveal the following weaknesses: o misalignment of the activities to the data, o lack of multiple data sources to monitor impact and implementation of specific strategies and activities, and o detailed follow up activities in response to professional development. Panel clarifying question: Provide a discussion of lessons learned about the need for additional training and support for school and district staff LSS Response to Clarifying Question: In response to the assistance and support that was needed by schools in order to develop quality plans, the Department of School Improvement, in collaboration with the area offices, determined that schools required more assistance in support in identifying strategies and activities that are aligned to their school's data. In response to this needed support, we restructured the Bridge to Excellence Conference to provide schools the opportunity to work with Curriculum and Instruction specialists in order to analyze data and identify possible strategies to improve student achievement. Additionally, school teams participated in a variety of workshops on best practice strategies and activities at the conference and throughout the year (Attachments C and D, pages 28-32). The Department of School Improvement provides professional development and support through the annual Bridge to Excellence Conference. Please refer to the original guidance for this section. A new requirement for 2010 requires districts to submit an overview of their “Teacher Induction Program.” Please address this issue as described in the guidance, describing how your program addresses the Induction Program COMAR. Table F on pages 14-16 of the Master Plan submission provides an overview of the current teacher induction practices in Prince George’s County Public Schools. The table describes several current practices that address the teacher induction COMAR, including orientation prior to the start of the school year, support from a mentor, regularly scheduled opportunities to observe or co-teach with skilled teachers, and ongoing professional development sessions. Table G outlines how we are attempting to address the gaps between the current induction practices and those addressed in the induction COMAR. We are currently examining these areas and making necessary revisions to prepare for implementation in 2011-2012. As part of the work around teacher evaluation system reform, a teacher professional development project team has been formed to explore customized teacher professional development that informs teacher practices according to identified areas of need. This project team has included in its scope of work, a review of the teacher induction COMAR, and will make recommendations for modifying existing induction practices, with an emphasis on year three as referenced on page 18 of the Master Plan submission. A draft of the modified induction practices will be submitted to Executive Cabinet for approval by April 2011. SEE ATTACHMENTS A-E BELOW: PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 335 Clarifying Question – Attachment A Grant Funded: Prince George's County Public Schools Redesign of Professional Development Professional Development Calendar Committee During/After School Professional Development (PD) Review Form Key to Scoring Submitted By: Name of Activity: Date of Review: Evaluator: Date(s): Review Status: Audience: SCORING: 3 = Highly Evident 2 = Evident 1 = Somewhat Evident 0 = Not Evident N/A = Not Applicable THE PROPOSED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (PD) ACTIVITY: 1. Activities are clearly defined, easily understood, and include intended outcomes and specific audience. 2. Clearly articulates intended impact on student needs which provide the foundational context for designing this PD activity (as applicable). 3. Clearly describes tasks and instructional strategies that will be used by facilitators to engage participants in a high quality adult learning experience and assist participants to successfully apply what they learn to their leadership and instructional practices 4. Clearly articulates the professional knowledge and skills teachers will gain to effectively address the student learning needs. 5. Specifically cites the source of data used to provide evidence of the need for this PD and this data directly relates to the activities. 6. Clearly supports and makes explicit the connections among the objectives of this session (is aligned to) and the specific goals or initiatives which are identified as priorities in PGCPS, MSDE, Federal, or other. 7. Clearly aligns with MSDE or other specifically-defined professional development standards and/or indicators. 8. Participant Evaluation Form addresses the intended workshop outcomes and can be used to gage workshop impact. 9. Clearly specifies what type of follow-up activities will be used to ensure implementation of the intended learning, including how training will migrate from the system level to the school. 10. Clearly outlines a method of program evaluation, including evidence that should exist in three months, six months, or within one year of implementation and specifies activities to document how the evaluation and data collection will be done. TOTAL SCORE Recommendation(s): Will be considered for another review if: Date completed: PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 336 As of 3/25/09 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 337 Clarifying Question – Attachment B Participation Status (Please check appropriate box below.) Individual Review Final Review Checklist School Name: Principal: Date: School Improvement Status: Title I APPROVED DIRECTIONS: A marked box NA = not applicable. indicates the section is complete. A blank box REVISIONS NEEDED indicates ―no evidence‖ or that information is missing or incomplete. Please include commendations, recommendations and guiding questions where appropriate. Section II: School Improvement Team Signature Roster The name and title of each member of the school improvement team (SIT/SPMT/SBMT) are typed, members‘ signatures inserted and dates included beside each signature. Parent signatures are included. Community business partners are included. Section III: School Executive Summary Executive summary ready for publication Grammar, punctuation, capitalization, language mechanics, spelling Font, Arial Narrow 11, color (black), no highlighting Information is current and accurate. A. Demographics The overview includes the following information: School location Student enrollment and subgroup information Staff experience and certification School Improvement status B. School Vision School vision Section III: School Executive Summary (continued) C. Major strategies for Increased Achievement Major strategies for: Mathematics/Algebra Major strategies for: Reading/English Language Arts Major strategies for: Science/Biology Major strategies for: Local, State, & National Government (HS ONLY) Major strategies for: Parent Engagement & Community Involvement Major strategies for: Career Development & Graduation/Promotion Major strategies for: other area(s) PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Commendations/Recommendations Commendations/Recommendations Commendations/Recommendations Page | 338 D. Attendance/Climate and Culture Safe and orderly environment School governance and management system Section IV. Fourth Quarter PMAPP 1. Fourth Quarter PMAPP (School Year 2010) Document has been uploaded to the school‘s folder on the School Improvement Google Site. Section V. PMAPP Strategies 1. Mathematics/Algebra Strategy Measurable objective Strategy Activities to support strategies Person(s) responsible Monitoring Professional development 2. Reading/English Language Arts Strategy Measurable objective Strategy Activities to support strategies Person(s) responsible Monitoring Professional development Section V. PMAPP Strategies (continued) 3. Science/Biology Strategy Measurable objective Strategy Activities to support strategies Person(s) responsible Monitoring Professional development 4. LSN Strategy (HS ONLY) Measurable objective Strategy Activities to support strategies Person(s) responsible Monitoring Professional development 5. Parent Engagement and Community Support Strategy Measurable objective Strategy Activities to support strategies Person(s) responsible Monitoring PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Commendations/Recommendations Commendations/Recommendations Page | 339 Professional development 6. Career Development and Graduation/Promotion Strategy Measurable objective Strategy Activities to support strategies Person(s) responsible Monitoring Professional development Section V. PMAPP Strategies (continued) 7. __________________ Strategy Measurable objective Strategy Activities to support strategies Person(s) responsible Monitoring Professional development Commendations/Recommendations Section VI. PMAPP Quarterly Monitoring Tool To be completed as required by Assistant Superintendent Attachments Ten Components of No Child Left Behind for schools in improvement ONLY Attachment A Title I School Wide (if applicable) Attachment B Title 1 Targeted Assistance (if applicable) Attachment C Year 3 Corrective Action(s) (if applicable) Attachment D Alternative Governance Plan (if applicable) Attachment E Professional Development Calendar (Title 1 & restructuring schools only) Attachment F Other Attachment G PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Commendations/Recommendations Page | 340 Notification Approved Congratulations! The school is commended for writing a plan that addresses the needs of its students. Final Review Need Revisions Indicates the plan has been reviewed by the Department of School Improvement and has not been accepted by the review team as submitted. School Improvement plans needing revisions must resubmit the document to the School Improvement Google Site by October 22, 2010. Reviewers Name PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Title Page | 341 Clarifying Questions – Attachment C Teacher Professional Development Planning Checklist PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 342 Clarifying Questions – Attachment D Sample – PMAPP Strategies with Activities to Increase Student Achievement/Teacher Capacity PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 343 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 344 PART II ATTACHMENTS PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 345 PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Board of Education Verjeana M. Jacobs, Esq., Chair Ron L. Watson, Ph.D., Vice-Chair Donna Hathaway Beck Pat J. Fletcher Heather Iliff Rosalind A. Johnson R. Owen Johnson, Jr. Linda Thornton Thomas Amber P. Waller Jonathan Harris II, Student Member William R. Hite Jr., Ed.D., Superintendent of Schools and Secretary/Treasurer PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 346 TABLE OF CONTENTS INFORMATION Part II – Submission Cover Page Attachments 4A – 6B Attachment 7: Title I, Part A C-125 Assurances Appendix 7-A Attachment 8: Title II, Part A C-125 Assurances Attachment 10: Title III, Part A C-125 Assurances Consultation Regarding Title III Services Has Occurred Attachment 13: Fine Arts C-125 Assurances Additional Federal and State Reporting Requirements Victims of Violent Criminal Offenses Report Achieving Equity in Teacher and Principal Distribution Facilities to Support Master Plan Strategies Transfer of School Records for Children in State-Supervised Care Annual Certification Statement Student Records Review and Update Verification Certification Statement PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 347 PAGE 4 6 29 30 45 46 47 127 128 129 139 141 142 143 145 152 156 160 SUBMISSION COVER PAGE PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 348 Bridge to Excellence Master Plan 2010 Annual Update (Please include this sheet as a cover to the submission indicated below) Part II: Attachments—Due: August 16, 2010 Local School System Submitting This Report: PRINCE GEORGE‘S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Address: 14201 School lane, Upper Marlboro, Maryland 20772 Local Point of Contact: Dr. Sheila C. Gray Director, Department of Strategic Planning & Grants Development Name: Dr. Sheila C. Gray Telephone: 301-952-6231 Fax: 301-952-6227 E-Mail: sheilag@pgcps.org WE HEREBY CERTIFY that, to the best of our knowledge, the information provided in the 2009 Annual Update to our Bridge to Excellence Master Plan is correct and complete. We further certify that this Annual Update has been developed in consultation with members of the local school system‘s current Master Plan Planning Team and that each member has reviewed and approved the accuracy of the information provided in the Annual Update. William R. Hite, Jr., Ed.D. August 12, 2010 Signature (Local Superintendent of Schools) Date Sheila C. Gray, Ph.D. August 12, 2010 Signature (Local Point of Contact) Date PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 349 ATTACHMENTS 4a – 6b PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 350 ATTACHMENT 4A – SCHOOL LEVEL SPREADSHEET BUDGET SUMMARY Fiscal Year 2011 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 351 ATTACHMENT 4B – SCHOOL LEVEL SPREADSHEET BUDGET SUMMARY Fiscal Year 2011 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 352 ATTACHMENT 4-A and B - SCHOOL LEVEL BUDGET SUMMARY Fiscal Year 2011 Local School System: Prince George’s County Public Schools Enter the Amount of Funds Budgeted for Each School by ESEA Programs and Other Sources of Funding Expand Table as needed. SCHOOL NAME Rank Order All Schools by Percentage of Poverty – High to Low Poverty After School Name Indicate as appropriate: (SW) for T-I Schoolwide Schools (TAS) for Targeted Assistance T-I Schools (CH) for Charter Schools Sch. ID Percent Poverty Based on Free and Reduced Price Meals Title I-A Grants to Local School Systems JUDGE SYLVANIA W WOODS SR ES (SW) MARY HARRIS "MOTHER" JONES ES (SW) LANGLEY PK-MCCORMICK ES (SW) RIVERDALE ES (SW) TEMPLETON ES (SW) COOL SPRING ES (SW) DODGE PARK ES (SW) LEWISDALE ES (SW) GLASSMANOR ES (SW) THOMAS CLAGGETT ES (SW) MT RAINIER ES (SW) BLADENSBURG ES (SW) WILLIAM PACA ES (SW) RIDGECREST ES (SW) ROGERS HEIGHTS ES (SW) THOMAS S STONE ES (SW) PORT TOWNS ES (SW) BUCK LODGE MS (SW) LAMONT ES (SW) COLUMBIA PARK ES (SW) COOPER LANE ES (SW) BEACON HEIGHTS ES(SW) NICHOLAS OREM MS (SW) WILLIAM WIRT MS (SW) HIGHLAND PARK ES (TAS) ROSA L PARKS ES (SW) GLADYS NOON SPELLMAN ES (SW) WOODRIDGE ES (SW) SPRINGHILL LAKE ES (SW) CARROLLTON ES (TAS) OVERLOOK ES (SW) CAROLE HIGHLANDS ES (SW) CHEROKEE LANE ES(TAS) SEAT PLEASANT ES (SW) CHARLES CARROLL MS (TAS) ADELPHI ES (SW) 1333 1730 1719 1901 0214 1725 1310 1712 1214 0651 1703 0205 1309 1710 0210 1706 0217 2108 2014 1302 0213 1907 1718 1908 1307 1731 0211 2007 2113 2005 0633 1711 2121 1802 2011 1714 93.45% 91.58% 90.95% 89.36% 88.62% 87.78% 87.63% 87.26% 86.77% 86.67% 86.61% 85.63% 85.28% 85.22% 85.20% 84.94% 83.67% 83.53% 82.87% 82.60% 81.62% 81.29% 80.97% 80.83% 80.53% 80.31% 80.05% 79.81% 79.54% 79.45% 79.45% 79.38% 78.11% 78.07% 78.03% 77.49% 262,400 539,200 337,600 470,400 386,400 350,400 345,600 394,400 225,600 176,800 232,800 452,800 315,200 392,000 432,800 415,200 524,800 393,600 433,600 300,000 316,800 312,800 439,200 465,600 122,400 502,400 260,000 268,800 472,800 485,600 207,200 428,000 271,200 188,000 463,200 242,400 (1) Title I-D Delinque nt and Youth At Risk of Dropping Out Title II, Part A Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Title II-D Ed Tech Formula Grants Title III-A English Language Acquisition Title IV-A Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Title V-A Innovative Programs Title IARRA (over a twoyear period) 60,000 114,200 77,200 105,200 85,800 85,200 83,600 90,200 48,200 43,800 58,800 69,800 79,400 98,000 97,600 103,000 116,000 97,600 87,800 70,400 68,400 69,800 108,200 119,800 60,800 113,000 54,200 55,600 85,800 108,800 54,600 86,600 56,800 41,600 122,200 55,400 Page | 353 Other Total ESEA Funding by School 322,400 653,400 414,800 575,600 472,200 435,600 429,200 484,600 273,800 220,600 291,600 522,600 394,600 490,000 530,400 518,200 640,800 491,200 521,400 370,400 385,200 382,600 547,400 585,400 183,200 615,400 314,200 324,400 558,600 594,400 261,800 514,600 328,000 229,600 585,400 297,800 SCHOOL NAME Rank Order All Schools by Percentage of Poverty – High to Low Poverty After School Name Indicate as appropriate: (SW) for T-I Schoolwide Schools (TAS) for Targeted Assistance T-I Schools (CH) for Charter Schools Sch. ID Percent Poverty Based on Free and Reduced Price Meals Title I-A Grants to Local School Systems GLENRIDGE ES (SW) HYATTSVILLE ES (SW) ANDREW JACKSON ACADEMY (TAS) BRADBURY HEIGHTS ES (SW) ROBERT FROST ES (SW) PRINCETON ES (TAS) CHILLUM ES (TAS) KENMOOR ES (TAS) ROBERT R GRAY ES (SW) FOREST HEIGHTS ES (SW) CALVERTON ES (SW) GAYWOOD ES (SW) DISTRICT HEIGHTS ES WILLIAM W HALL ACADEMY (SW) FLINTSTONE ES(SW) JAMES MC HENRY ES (TAS) OAKLANDS ES (TAS) HILLCREST HEIGHTS ES CESAR CHAVEZ ES (SW) CONCORD ES (SW) SAMUEL P MASSIE ACADEMY (SW) CARMODY HILLS ES (SW) WILLIAM BEANES ES (TAS) LAUREL ES SUITLAND ES (SW) PAINT BRANCH ES (TAS) DOSWELL E BROOKS ES (SW) BARNABY MANOR ES G JAMES GHOLSON MS JOHN H BAYNE ES JAMES HENRY HARRISON ES SAMUEL CHASE ES HOLLYWOOD ES CORA L RICE ES SEABROOK ES HYATTSVILLE MS VALLEY VIEW ES DREW-FREEMAN MS KENMOOR MS CAPITOL HEIGHTS ES SCOTCHTOWN HILLS ES 2006 1601 0645 0606 2016 0619 1709 1312 1828 1204 0105 1411 0613 1830 1208 2013 1009 0607 1713 0647 0648 1811 0636 1001 0661 2123 1808 1219 1320 1816 0109 1216 2107 1347 2003 1602 1218 0660 1330 1812 1014 77.23% 76.79% 76.60% 76.51% 76.14% 75.56% 75.32% 75.20% 75.19% 75.00% 74.97% 73.32% 73.13% 72.96% 72.82% 72.07% 72.04% 71.97% 71.67% 71.39% 71.20% 70.56% 70.02% 69.51% 68.40% 68.33% 65.80% 65.56% 65.48% 65.37% 65.29% 65.15% 65.09% 64.94% 64.55% 64.27% 63.95% 63.38% 63.17% 63.01% 62.79% 423,200 309,600 429,600 344,000 173,600 215,200 185,600 220,800 232,800 134,400 464,800 (1) Title I-D Delinque nt and Youth At Risk of Dropping Out Title II, Part A Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Title II-D Ed Tech Formula Grants Title III-A English Language Acquisition Title IV-A Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Title V-A Innovative Programs Page | 354 Title IARRA (over a twoyear period) Other Total ESEA Funding by School 94,800 67,600 104,000 81,000 39,400 44,400 38,000 54,000 53,800 33,200 105,600 65,400 518,000 377,200 533,600 425,000 213,000 259,600 223,600 274,800 286,600 167,600 570,400 65,400 70,400 52,200 89,800 50,000 70,400 52,200 89,800 50,000 33,600 51,400 74,800 56,800 76,600 33,600 51,400 74,800 56,800 76,600 71,400 44,800 36,600 71,400 44,800 36,600 SCHOOL NAME Rank Order All Schools by Percentage of Poverty – High to Low Poverty After School Name Indicate as appropriate: (SW) for T-I Schoolwide Schools (TAS) for Targeted Assistance T-I Schools (CH) for Charter Schools Sch. ID Percent Poverty Based on Free and Reduced Price Meals GREENBELT MS FRANCIS SCOTT KEY ES NORTH FORESTVILLE ES DEERFIELD RUN ES J FRANK DENT ES BLADENSBURG HS OXON HILL ES CATHERINE T REED ES GREEN VALLEY ACADEMY SKYLINE ES THURGOOD MARSHALL MS BERWYN HEIGHTS ES NORTHWESTERN HS PANORAMA ES DWIGHT D EISENHOWER MS THOMAS JOHNSON MS PARKDALE HS BELTSVILLE ACADEMY ALTERNATIVE HS BENJAMIN STODDERT MS LONGFIELDS ES HIGH POINT HS MAGNOLIA ES ARROWHEAD ES MONTPELIER ES OXON HILL MS FAIRMONT HEIGHTS HS ALLENWOOD ES OAKCREST ES KETTERING ES APPLE GROVE ES CENTRAL HS CLINTON GROVE ES FORT FOOTE ES POTOMAC HS FORESTVILLE HS AVALON ES WALDON WOODS ES DUVAL HS WALKER MILL MS TALL OAKS VOCATIONAL 2141 0617 0610 1435 1231 0208 1201 1414 0608 0620 0622 2109 1708 0656 1010 2009 1909 0104 0216 0615 0618 0102 2122 0640 1424 1234 1806 0632 1305 1324 1229 1810 0906 1213 1220 0631 1221 0914 1409 1819 0705 62.73% 62.42% 62.39% 62.30% 62.05% 61.94% 61.37% 61.14% 61.11% 61.09% 60.81% 60.59% 60.39% 60.00% 59.97% 59.94% 59.46% 59.29% 59.26% 59.16% 59.06% 58.92% 58.71% 58.53% 58.10% 56.94% 56.66% 56.53% 55.71% 55.47% 54.96% 54.82% 53.79% 52.20% 52.01% 50.94% 50.87% 50.31% 49.97% 49.93% 49.66% (1) Title I-A Grants to Local School Systems Title I-D Delinque nt and Youth At Risk of Dropping Out Title II, Part A Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Title II-D Ed Tech Formula Grants Title III-A English Language Acquisition Title IV-A Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Title V-A Innovative Programs Page | 355 Title IARRA (over a twoyear period) Other Total ESEA Funding by School SCHOOL NAME Rank Order All Schools by Percentage of Poverty – High to Low Poverty After School Name Indicate as appropriate: (SW) for T-I Schoolwide Schools (TAS) for Targeted Assistance T-I Schools (CH) for Charter Schools Sch. ID Percent Poverty Based on Free and Reduced Price Meals TAYAC ES MARTIN LUTHER KING JR MS FORT WASHINGTON FOREST ES CROOM VOCATIONAL HS LINCOLN PCS (CH) ROSE VALLEY ES CROSSLAND HS PHYLLIS E WILLIAMS ES JAMES RYDER RANDALL ES BRANDYWINE ES ISAAC J GOURDINE MS GLENN DALE ES KINGSFORD ES ARDMORE ES EXCEL ACADEMY PUBLIC CHARTER (CH) LAUREL HS TURNING POINT ACADEMY (CH) GLENARDEN WOODS ES SUITLAND HS INDIAN QUEEN ES FRANCIS T EVANS ES HIGH BRIDGE ES VANSVILLE ES GREENBELT ES UNIVERSITY PARK ES BENJAMIN FOULOIS ACADEMY ERNEST EVERETT JUST MS MELWOOD ES STEPHEN DECATUR MS KETTERING MS THOMAS G PULLEN MS BADEN ES MARLTON ES PATUXENT ES POTOMAC LANDING ES CHARLES HERBERT FLOWERS HS LAKE ARBOR ES LARGO HS GWYNN PARK MS WOODMORE ES OXON HILL HS 0905 0110 0504 0303 0662 0507 1217 1322 0909 1101 0912 1408 0729 2008 1442 1008 2022 2010 0603 1233 0916 1412 0111 2106 1902 0638 1348 1504 0915 1326 1814 0802 1511 0305 0510 1327 1346 1314 1104 0706 1209 49.65% 47.48% 46.57% 46.53% 45.65% 45.64% 45.20% 45.19% 44.90% 44.87% 44.70% 44.62% 44.59% 44.51% 44.36% 43.29% 43.08% 42.61% 42.54% 42.46% 42.04% 41.88% 41.81% 41.04% 40.93% 39.74% 39.29% 39.02% 38.93% 38.90% 37.82% 36.58% 36.55% 36.00% 35.74% 35.35% 35.13% 34.95% 33.97% 33.96% 33.70% (1) Title I-A Grants to Local School Systems Title I-D Delinque nt and Youth At Risk of Dropping Out Title II, Part A Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Title II-D Ed Tech Formula Grants Title III-A English Language Acquisition Title IV-A Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Title V-A Innovative Programs Page | 356 Title IARRA (over a twoyear period) Other Total ESEA Funding by School SCHOOL NAME Rank Order All Schools by Percentage of Poverty – High to Low Poverty After School Name Indicate as appropriate: (SW) for T-I Schoolwide Schools (TAS) for Targeted Assistance T-I Schools (CH) for Charter Schools Sch. ID Percent Poverty Based on Free and Reduced Price Meals MATTAPONI ES BARACK OBAMA ES FRIENDLY HIS JAMES MADISON MS ROSARYVILLE ES ACCOKEEK ACADEMY SAMUEL OGLE MS SURRATTSVILLE HS ROCKLEDGE ES ELEANOR ROOSEVELT HS BENJAMIN TASKER MS DR HENRY A WISE HS JOHN HANSON FRENCH IMMERSON BOND MILL ES PERRYWOOD ES NORTHVIEW ES POSSIBILITY STEM PREPARATORY ACADEMY (CH) YORKTOWN ES ROBERT GODDARD FRENCH IMMERSION FREDERICK DOUGLASS HS POINTER RIDGE ES KENILWORTH ES JOHN HANSON MONTESSORI GWYNN PARK HS TULIP GROVE ES IMAGINE FOUNDATIONS PCS (CH) BOWIE HS ROBERT GODDARD MONTESSORI HEATHER HILLS ES WHITEHALL ES Total Public School Allocations (For Title I, should add up to the total number from Title I Allocation Excel Worksheet Column N.) School System Administration (Use # on Table 7-8 LINE 5) System-wide Programs and School System Support to Schools (Use # on Table 7-8 LINE 13) Nonpublic Costs (Column O) (For Title I, Use # on Table 7-10 LINE 7) TOTAL LSS Title I Allocation (Should match # presented on C-1-25) 1102 1518 0511 1510 1105 0509 1428 0908 1432 2114 0714 1519 0639 1011 0304 0716 1321 1427 1416 1502 0718 0708 1206 1103 0711 1521 1423 1417 0712 1438 33.12% 32.96% 32.76% 32.54% 32.15% 31.99% 31.14% 30.53% 30.48% 30.45% 30.26% 30.09% 30.05% 29.71% 29.65% 29.60% 28.37% 28.29% 28.28% 27.22% 26.21% 25.13% 24.15% 23.90% 22.15% 22.03% 21.01% 20.37% 18.75% 18.41% Title I-A Grants to Local School Systems (1) Title I-D Delinque nt and Youth At Risk of Dropping Out Title II, Part A Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund Title II-D Ed Tech Formula Grants Title III-A English Language Acquisition Title IV-A Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Title V-A Innovative Programs 15,961,600 3,979,140 6,262,882 $49,549 26,195,847 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 357 Title IARRA (over a twoyear period) Other Total ESEA Funding by School PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 358 ATTACHMENT 5A - TRANSFERABILITY OF ESEA FUNDS [Section 6123(b)] Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2011 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 359 ATTACHMENT 5-A TRANSFERABILITY OF ESEA FUNDS [Section 6123(b)] Fiscal Year 2011 Local School System: Prince George‘s County Public Schools Local school systems may transfer ESEA funds by completing this page as part of the Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Annual Update submission, or at a later date by completing and submitting a separate Attachment 5-A form. Receipt of this Attachment as part of the Annual Update will serve as the required 30 day notice to MSDE. A local school system may transfer up to 50 percent of the funds allocated to it by formula under four major ESEA programs to any one of the programs, or to Title I (Up to 30 percent if the school system is in school improvement)33. The school system must consult with nonpublic school officials regarding the transfer of funds. In transferring funds, the school system must: (1) deposit funds in the original fund; (2) show as expenditure – line item transfer from one fund to another, and (3) reflect amounts transferred on expenditure reports. Not applicable. 50% limitation for local school systems not identified for school improvement or corrective action. 30% limitation for districts identified for school improvement. A school system identified for corrective action may not use the fund transfer option. Funds Available for Transfer Total FY 2010 Allocation $ Amount to be transferred out of each program $ Amount to be transferred into each of the following programs Title I-A Title II-A Title II-D Title IV-A Title V-A Title II-A Teacher Quality N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Title II-D Ed Tech N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Title IV-D Safe and Drug Free Schools & Communities N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Title V-A Innovative Programs N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 33 A school system that is in school improvement may only use funds for school improvement activities under sections 1003 and 1116 (c) of ESEA. PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 360 ATTACHMENT 5B - CONSOLIDATION OF ESEA FUNDS FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION [Section 9203] Fiscal Year 2011 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 361 ATTACHMENT 5-B CONSOLIDATION OF ESEA FUNDS FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION [Section 9203] Fiscal Year 2011 Local School System: Prince George‘s County Public Schools__ Section 9203 of ESEA allows a local school system, with approval of MSDE, to consolidate ESEA administrative funds. In consolidating administrative funds, a school system may not (a) designate more than the percentage established in each ESEA program, and (b) use any other funds under the program included in the consolidation for administrative purposes. A school system may use the consolidated administrative funds for the administration of the ESEA programs and for uses at the school district and school levels for such activities as – The coordination of the ESEA programs with other federal and non-federal programs; The establishment and operation of peer-review activities under No Child Left Behind; The dissemination of information regarding model programs and practices; Technical assistance under any ESEA program; Training personnel engaged in audit and other monitoring activities; Consultation with parents, teachers, administrative personnel, and nonpublic school officials; and Local activities to administer and carry out the consolidation of administrative funds. A school system that consolidates administrative funds shall not be required to keep separate records, by individual program, to account for costs relating to the administration of the programs included in the consolidation. If the school system plans to consolidate ESEA administrative funds, indicate below the ESEA programs and amounts that the school system will consolidate for local administration. Provide a detailed description of how the consolidated funds will be used. Title I-A (Reasonable and Necessary) $ Title II-A (Reasonable and Necessary) $ Title II-D (Reasonable and Necessary) $ Title III-A (Limit: 2 Percent) $ PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Title IV-A (Limit: 2 Percent) $ Title V (Reasonable and Necessary) $ Total ESEA Consolidation (Reasonable and Necessary) Not applicable. Page | 362 ATTACHMENT 6A - NONPUBLIC SCHOOL INFORMATION Fiscal Year 2011 PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 363 ATTACHMENT 6-A/6-B NONPUBLIC SCHOOL INFORMATION FOR ESEA PROGRAMS Fiscal Year 2011 Local School System: Prince George‘s County Public Schools Enter the complete information for each participating nonpublic school, including mailing address. Use the optional ―Comments‖ area to provide additional information about ESEA services to nonpublic school students, teachers, and other school personnel. For example, if Title I services are provided through home tutoring services or by a third party contractor, please indicate that information under ―Comments.‖ For Title I services, include written affirmation signed by officials at each participating nonpublic school that consultation has occurred. NOTE: Complete Attachment 6-A for Title I-A, Title II-A, Title II-Ed Tech, and Title III services. Complete Attachment 6-B for Title IV-A and Title V-A services. Use separate pages as necessary. Comment: Title 1 non-public services will be provided by a third party contractor for the 2009/2010 school year. NONPUBLIC SCHOOL NAME AND ADDRESS Al-Huda School 5301 Edgewood Street College Park, MD 20740 Ascension Lutheran 7415 Buchanan Street Landover, Hills, MD 20784 Berwyn Baptist School 4720 Cherokee St. College Park, MD 20740 Bishop McNamara High School 6800 Marlboro Pike, SE Forestville, MD 20746 Bowie Christian School 2518 Kenhill Drive Bowie, MD 20715 Children‘s Guild, Inc. in Chillum, The 5702 Sargeant Road Chillum, MD 20782 Christian Family Montessori School 3628 Rhode Island Ave. Mt. Rainier, MD 20712 DeMatha Catholic High School 4313 Madison Street Hyattsville, MD 20781 Elizabeth Seton High School 5715 Emerson Street Bladensburg, MD 20710 Excellence Christian School 9010 Frank Tippett Road Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 Faith Baptist Christian School 12700 Claxton Drive Laurel, Md. 20708 First Baptist School of Laurel 15002 First Baptist Lane Number Nonpublic T-I Students Served AT Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Number of Nonpublic School Participants (Students, Teachers, and Other School Personnel) Title I-A Title II-A Title II-D Ed Tech Students Students Reading/Language Arts (can be a Mathematics Staff Students Staff duplicated count) (can be a duplicated count) Title III-A Title IV-A Students Staff Students Staff 18 16 60 460 50 N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9 6 15 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate 96 850 80 N/A N/A 870 106 Does not participate Does not participate 8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate 55 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate 17 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate 96 1000 85 N/A N/A 1000 105 Does not participate Does not participate 87 603 56 N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate DNP 140 23 N/A N/A 157 20 Does not participate Does not participate 24 250 18 N/A N/A N/A N/A PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 364 NONPUBLIC SCHOOL NAME AND ADDRESS Laurel, MD 20707 Foundations School 6000 Executive Drive, Suite 605 Rockville, MD 20852 Free Gospel Christian Academy 4703 Marlboro Pike Coral Hills, MD 20743 Grace Brethren Christian School 6501 Surratts Road Clinton, MD 20730 Grace Christian School 7210 Race Track Road Bowie, MD 20715 Greater Mr. Nebo Christian Academy 1001 Old Mitchellville Road Bowie, MD 20716 Henson Valley Montessori 13400 Edgemead Road Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 Highland Park Christian Acad. 6801 Sheriff Road Landover, MD 20785 Holy Family School 2200 Callaway Street Hillcrest Heights, MD 20748 Holy Redeemer School 4902 Berwyn Road College Park, MD 20740 Holy Trinity Episcopal Day School 11902 Daisy Lane Glenn Dale, MD 20769 JABEZ Christian Academy 2203 Owens Road Oxon Hill, MD 20745 Jericho Christian Academy 8601 Jericho City Drive Landover, MD 20785 Kiddie Academy of Oxon Hill 6031 Oxon Hill Rd Oxon Hill, MD 20745 Kingdom Christian Academy 529 Commerce Drive Upper Marlboro, MD 20774 Number Nonpublic T-I Students Served AT Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Number of Nonpublic School Participants (Students, Teachers, and Other School Personnel) Title I-A Title II-A Title II-D Ed Tech Students Students Reading/Language Arts (can be a Mathematics Staff Students Staff duplicated count) (can be a duplicated count) Title III-A Title IV-A Students Staff Students Staff Does not participate Does not participate 23 210 76 N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate 69 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate 34 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate 8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate DNP 200 20 N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate 32 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate 26 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate 22 237 24 1 N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate 90 603 50 N/A N/A 600 91 Does not participate Does not participate 10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate 9 400 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate DNP N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate 6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 365 NONPUBLIC SCHOOL NAME AND ADDRESS Lanham Christian School 8400 Good Luck Road Lanham, MD 20706 The Maryland International Day School 6400 Livingston Road Oxon Hill, MD 20745 Mitchellville Montessori 12112 Central Avenue Mitchellville, MD Mount Calvary Catholic Sch. 6704 Marlboro Pike Forestville, MD 20747 National Christian Academy 6709 Bock Road Fort Washington, MD 20744 New Hope Academy 7009 Varnum St Landover Hills, MD 20784 New Horizon Child Development Center, Inc 5664 Silver Hill Road Forestville, MD 20747 Our Savior‘s School 3111 Forestville Rd Forestville, MD 20747 Pathways School 1106 University Boulevard West Silver Spring, MD 20902 Patuxent Montessori School 14210 Old Stage Road Bowie, MD 20720 Progressive Christian Academy 5408 Brinkley Road Clinton, MD Renaissance Christian Academy 2101 Shadyside Avenue Suitland, MD 20746 Riverdale Baptist School 1133 Largo Road Upper Marlboro, MD 20774 Saint Ambrose School 6310 Jason Street Cheverly, MD 20785 Saint Columba School Number Nonpublic T-I Students Served AT Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public Schools Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Public School Neutral Site Private School Number of Nonpublic School Participants (Students, Teachers, and Other School Personnel) Title I-A Title II-A Title II-D Ed Tech Students Students Reading/Language Arts (can be a Mathematics Staff Students Staff duplicated count) (can be a duplicated count) Title III-A Title IV-A Students Staff Students Staff Does not participate Does not participate 30 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate 12 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate 10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 13 11 28 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate 25 394 30 N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate 50 239 35 N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate 7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate 7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate 28 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate DNP N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate 26 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate 62 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6 6 24 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Does not participate Does not participate 24 272 25 7 N/A N/A N/A PGCPS 2010 Annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Update Page | 366 NONPUBLIC SCHOOL NAME AND ADDRESS 7800 Livingston Road Oxon Hill, MD 20745 Saint Hugh‘s School 145 Crescent Road Greenbelt, MD Saint Jerome‘s School 5207 42nd Place Hyattsville, MD 20781 Saint John the Evangelist School 8912 Old Branch Avenue Clinton, MD 20
