The Single Plan for Student Achievement
District: Alview Dairyland Union School District
County-District School (CDS) Code: 20-65177
Principal: Loren York
Date of this revision: 6/14/2014
The Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) is a plan of actions to raise the
academic performance of all students. California Education Code sections 41507,
41572, and 64001 and the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
require each school to consolidate all school plans for programs funded through the
ConApp and ESEA Program Improvement into the SPSA.
For additional information on school programs and how you may become involved
locally, please contact the following person:
Contact Person:
Sheila Perry
Position:
Vice Principal / Curriculum Director
Telephone Number: (559) 665-2394
Address:
12861 Avenue 18-1/2
Chowchilla, CA 93610
E-mail Address:
sperry@adusd.k12.ca.us
The District Governing Board approved this revision of the SPSA on ________.
District Vision and Mission
The Alview-Dairyland School District’s mission is to provide an exceptional setting for students to learn. We strive to maintain high academic
standards within a positive, nurturing environment. We plan to build active learners that are challenged to their maximum potential. We want our
students to become productive citizens with high moral character. We also believe that a strong line of communication between students, staff,
parents, and community is imperative for children to reach their goals.
The vision of the Alview-Dairyland School District is to develop literacy in all students. Our goal is to help develop our students to be successful
and responsible citizens in our society. We believe our vision is possible through the teaching of Common Core Standards along with
differentiated instruction to reach individualized student needs.
District Profile
Alview-Dairyland School District is a small K-8 district in rural Madera County approximately 10 miles south of Chowchilla. Our district has
provided an educational experience for students since 1915. This district is approximately 125 square miles in size. Currently, about 350
students are enrolled. The school operates on two campuses to utilize available classrooms, but the administration of the two campuses is one
unit. Kindergarten through third grade students attend the Alview Campus and students in grades 4-8 attend the Dairyland Campus. Eighth
grade graduates from Dairyland attend Chowchilla High School.
The district is administered by a five member Board of Trustees, a Superintendent/Principal, and a Vice Principal/Curriculum Director. The
educational staff includes 17 classroom teachers, an RSP teacher, a library technician, and several paraprofessionals. Two of our classroom
teachers are BTSA support providers.
Community and parent involvement is assured by the School Site Council, PAC/DELAC Committee, the Parent-Teacher Club (PTC), and many
parent volunteers. A parent-child-teacher compact is distributed and discussed at conferences. A “Back to School Barbeque” prior to the start of
the school year welcomes parents and community members to the school. Parent training nights are sponsored by our parent club. Our district
encourages English classes for non English speaking parents and plans to offer those classes directly or through a community partner in the
2014-15 school year.
Other programs include a GATE program for students in Grades 2-8 and tutoring to improve student achievement. Students may participate in
community-supported minor league baseball teams, soccer teams, and 4-H. Students in grades 7-8 may also participate in school sponsored
sports, and students in grades 4-8 have the opportunity to join our band program.
Students in 7-8 grades also participate in the Madera County Pentathlon as well as various essay and speech contests.
Our district has had strong community pride since the early 1900’s. Community residents gather at our school dinners and events to visit. Our
local high school teachers and staff recognize our students, because of their high moral standards and academic excellence. Our small school
district staff cares so much for our children that many teachers follow their development through graduation. Some families choose to return to
our school community to raise their own children.
School Accountability Report Card:
The School Accountability Report Card is available at our school offices and on our District web site.
Analysis of Current Educational Practice:
The following statements characterize educational practice at this school:
1. Alignment of curriculum, instruction and materials to content and performance standards:
Math, Language Arts, Social Studies, and ELD curricula are aligned to state and/or Common Core standards. We use state adopted
research-based curricula in Language Arts, Math, ELD, and Intervention programs.
2. Availability of standards-based instructional materials appropriate to all student groups:
All groups use standards-based instructional materials. Students with specific needs are grouped at designated times each day to work at
their appropriate level of instruction. Tutoring is also available before, during, and after school.
3. Alignment of staff development to standards, assessed student performance and professional
needs:
Staff development is focused on Common Core Standards, assessment, and the professional needs of our
teachers. Staff development for summer and fall of 2014 will center around new Common Core curriculum and lesson delivery.
Other areas of staff development will continue to focus on technology and implementation of Explicit Direct Instruction techniques
within new Common Core Standards.
The district adopted Houghton Mifflin’s “Go Math” Common Core curriculum in the spring of 2014; training will be provided in August for all
teachers. Also, ADUSD purchased ELA “bridge materials” in 2014 to infuse our current Houghton Mifflin program with Common
Core content. Training will also be provided in August for those new supplemental materials.
4. Services provided by the regular program to enable Underperforming students to meet standards:
Students that are identified as being at-risk are placed in intervention programs that use state-approved
intervention curriculum. These programs provide small group instruction at student ability levels. Groups
are taught by trained, experienced teachers and paraprofessionals. Frequent assessment enables
students to be moved to grade level programs when they are ready (RTI program). Teachers are working
toward 85% mastery of core curriculum by providing re-teaching and differentiated instruction.
Small group tutoring is also available
Additional technology and software programs including Study Island and Type to Learn have been implemented to
further support the learning needs of ADUSD students.
5. Services provided by categorical funds to enable Underperforming students to meet standards:
We operate a multiage reading intervention program for students in grades 1-6.
In addition, Dairyland provides further intervention with a 75 minute Language Arts class and two 60 minute math periods.
In both courses, grade level standards are taught in small group settings. Percent of teacher and paraprofessional
salaries spent in intervention as well as instructional supplies are funded with Common Core supplemental / concentration grants and Title I.
Also, at both campuses, tutoring is provided through categorical funds. In addition, we use flexible title funding to implement an
anti-smoking/drug curriculum, “Too Good for Drugs”. In the 2013-14 school year, the district adopted a new character education
program, Project Wisdom, which is also funded through LCFF grants. In addition, computers are used to accommodate
student data analysis and math benchmarking. Also, through LCFF funding , “Super Tutoring” has been implemented in March and
April each year to ensure student grade level subject mastery.
6. Use of state and local assessments to modify instruction and improve student achievement:
Without CST data in the spring of 2014, local assessments will be key in evaluating student mastery.
K-8 students are evaluated with the RESULTS lexile reading assessment three times throughout the school year. Teachers have
been trained in this program and use the materials to determine instruction and placement.
In the area of math, teachers assess students at the beginning of the year with a prior year cumulative assessment. Also
available is the Accelerated Math assessment, ”STAR Math”. These local assessments are integral in determining student needs.
In addition, Accelerated Math and math facts practice programs are used to help students develop their skills by
mastering specific objectives. In both ELA and Math, local assessment data is analyzed by teachers and administrators to
differentiate instruction and provide focus to target needed areas of improvement.
7. Number and percentage of teachers in academic areas experiencing low student performance:
Teachers in each grade level experience low student performance in a small percentage of their students. In
grade level teams, teachers develop and implement learning plans for these students. In 2014, teachers met for
half-day “academic conferences” to review student data and strategize to improve student achievement.
8. Family, school, district and community resources available to assist these students:
For students with academic or behavior concerns, student success teams are developed to include parents
and staff to collaborate about ways to improve achievement and/or behavior.
Students are also referred to medical and psychological services when needed. A resource teacher and trained
paraprofessionals work with students identified on IEPs. Students identified with speech needs receive weekly services.
Vision and hearing screenings are scheduled and conducted at required grade levels and when a student is referred.
. After-school tutoring is also available.
9. School, district and community barriers to improvements in student achievement:
English literacy is a barrier for some of our parents. Evening ELD classes are will be provided in 2014-15 with LCFF funding.
Translators are available at each campus to improve parent-school communication. Spanish speaking parents are also encouraged to attend
monthly PAC/DLAC meetings during which a translator is available to report on district events.
10. Limitations of the current program to enable Underperforming students to meet standards:
No real limitations are in place to prevent Underperforming students to meet standards.
PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS IN STUDENT PERFORMANCE
The content of this school plan is aligned with school goals for improving student achievement. The School Site Council analyzed available data on the
academic performance of all students, including English learners, educationally disadvantaged students, gifted and talented students, and students with
exceptional needs. The Council also obtained and considered the input of the school community. Based upon this analysis, the council has established the
following performance improvement goals, actions and expenditures.
GOAL # 1 for Improving Student Achievement: English learners to increase one CELDT level annually
Student groups participating in this goal: Students identified as English Learners
Performance gains expected for these students: One CELDT level each year
Means of evaluating progress toward this goal: Annual CELDT test
Group data needed to measure academic gains: CELDT test data
Description of Specific Actions to Improve
Educational Practice
Implementers/
Timeline
Related Expenditures
Estimated
Cost
Funding
Source
Alignment of instruction with content standards:
Teachers will teach Math, ELA, Science, Social Studies,
and ELD with aligned standards. Teachers will deliver
core instruction differentiated to support student learning
needs.
Study Island, a standards-mastery program has been
implemented to further scaffold grade level curriculum.
Renaissance Learning products included Accelerated
Reader and Accelerated Vocabulary are used in an
ongoing effort to increase English fluency and
comprehension.
ELD Curriculum: Highpoint and Avenues
-Continuing
implementation
Title I,
General
Fund, Title
III, LCFF
Ongoing use of existing
curriculum (consumables)
$29,000
Study Island—program renewal
$ 4,150
Title I
Renaissance Learning—program
renewal
$ 3,900
Title I
Ongoing use of existing
curriculum (consumables)
$ 1200
Title III
PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS IN STUDENT PERFORMANCE (continued)
Description of Specific Improvements to be Made in
Educational Practice
Implementers/
Timeline
Related Expenditures
Estimated
Cost
Funding
Source
Increased educational opportunity:
-
At-risk students will be provided tutoring after-school.
-
For reading, students that are identified as below grade
level will be taught in intervention programs. Small
group instruction with research-based, state adopted
curriculum will provide the intensified teaching needed
to accelerate student learning. K-3 Phonics & Friends,
Houghton Mifflin Leveled Readers, 3-6 Language!, 7-8
Houghton Mifflin Interactive Reading Program.
Intervention English-Writing classes are available for
some grade levels. Guided writing strategies are used
to teach various genres in grades 6-8.
-
-
-
ELD classes in student CELDT levels
Math mastery program for third-Algebra students
Math intervention for grades 5-8.
Study Island online standards practice
Bellworks daily standards practice
-Increased use of technology to support English Learners
with the purchase of electronic white boards for both
campuses
60-240 min. per
week
Tutoring expenses
$21,000
Title I,
LCFF
90 min. per day
for Language
Arts/45 additional
in afternoon for
at-risk
Consumable Replacements
Teacher/paraprofessional
salaries
$800
TBD
Lottery,
Title I,
LCFF
$3900
LCFF
$1200
Title III
Renewal of program
Bellworks curriculum
$4150
$2500
LCFF
Lottery
Cost of Electronic White Boards,
projectors and ongoing
maintenance.
$0
Cost
incurred in
2013-14
45 min. per day
for EnglishWriting daily
30 min. daily
As needed
daily
daily
daily
Summer of 2011
Annual maintenance fee
High Point Levels A,B,C (Dylnd.)
Avenues (Alview)--Consumables
Staff development and professional collaboration:
Training on Common Core Standards Implementation
Continuing Staff Collaboration on Technology
Ongoing 2014-15
$10,000
Ongoing 2014-15
Various Publisher and County
Office Training
Migrant sponsored program
None
General
Fund
Involvement of staff, parents and community:
-
Parent training sessions (Latino Family Project) in
Spanish and/or English or Parent Institute for Quality
Education
Evening meetings
-
Regular PAC/DELAC meetings for Spanish speaking
Parents
Approximately 6
per school year
-
ELD classes for parents learning English
Weekly
LCAP Addition for 2014-15
$5000
-
Migrant support for new families in the community
As needed
Funded through Migrant Program
None
School Site Council
Monthly
Parent Teacher Club
Monthly
None
LCFF
Auxiliary services for students and parents:
-
Early Start for preschool students
None
MCOE Cost
None
-
After school tutoring
60-240 minutes
per week
Tutoring Costs
$21,000
Previously purchased
None
Monitoring program implementation and results:
Avenues Profile cards. High Point student profile cards.
ELA & Math Assessments.
At ends of
chapters & units
LCFF, Title
I
Accelerated Math Individualized Student Reports
As needed
Annual maintenance fee
RESULTS K-8 reading assessment program
Accelerated Reader Star Reading Assessment
Tri-annually
Monthly
See above
Annual maintenance fee
Aeries Software for student data analysis
Daily
Renewal is June 2014
$3,900
LCFF
$2900
General
Fund
PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS IN STUDENT PERFORMANCE
The content of this school plan is aligned with school goals for improving student achievement. School goals are based upon an analysis of verifiable state
data, including the Academic Performance Index and the English Language Development Test, and include local measures of pupil achievement. The school
site council analyzed available data on the academic performance of all students, including English learners, educationally disadvantaged students, gifted
and talented students, and students with exceptional needs. The council also obtained and considered the input of the school community. Based upon this
analysis, the council has established the following performance improvement goals, actions and expenditures.
GOAL # 2 for Improving Student Achievement: Prepare students for success in high school and higher education and/or
vocational job market.
Student groups participating in this goal: Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Students and English Learners
Performance gains expected for these students: Grade level standards mastery
Means of evaluating progress toward this goal: Annual Smarter Balanced Test Results / Local Assessments
Group data needed to measure academic gains: Smarter Balanced results, Local Math and Reading Assessments
Description of Specific Actions to Improve
Educational Practice
Implementers/
Timeline
Related Expenditures
Alignment of instruction with Common Core standards:
Teachers will improve instruction differentiating to student
needs. Paraprofessionals will be trained to support
instruction.
Teachers and
Paraprofessionals None
(Ongoing)
Weekly classroom monitoring for EDI use by site
administrators.
EDI
implementation
Infuse technology into all curriculum components.
2014-2017
Purchase Common Core Curriculum for Math and “bridge”
materials for ELA Common Core
Spring of 2014
Estimated
Cost
Funding
Source
None
None
None
None
None
Chromebooks for 8th grade and
laptop lab for Alview
Professional Development
Ipads for Special Ed Department
$39,000
LCFF
$3000
$600
LCFF
LCFF
Houghton Mifflin “Go Math” and
bridge materials for ELA
$38,000
Common
Core
Implement.
Fund and
LCFF
Purchase McGraw Hill’s “Reading Mastery” to enhance
kindergarten early literacy
Kindergarten
Teachers; Fall of
2014
Reading Mastery Program
purchase
7,600
LCFF
Professional Development to
support Reading Mastery
$1,500
LCFF
Add one paraprofessional at each campus to enhance
intervention and small group instruction
2014-15
Salaries / Benefits of additional
staff
$20,000
LCFF
Add one teacher to Dairyland campus in grades 4-6 to
decrease class size
2014-15
Salaries / Benefits of
additional staff
$65,000
LCFF
Field Trips, Assemblies, and Traveling Teachers to
enhance curriculum
Teachers /
2014-15
$21,500
LCFF
Purchase Character Education Curriculum
Administration /
Teachers 201415
Cost of Volume 2 of Project
Wisdom for Dairyland and
Elementary Volume 1 for
Alview
$1400
LCFF
After-School Arts Program
Various teachers/
2014-15
Teacher stipend and materials
$10,000
LCFF
Implementers/
Timeline
Related Expenditures
Description of Specific Improvements to be Made in
Educational Practice
Costs for traveling teacher,
presenters, transportation, etc.
Estimated
Cost
Funding
Source
Increased educational opportunity:
-After school tutoring
Various teachers
Salaries
$21,000
LCFF, Title
I
-Study Hall at Dairyland
-Lunch recess tutoring at both campuses
-During school day: Essential Skills software
Math Facts in a Flash, and Timed Readings
Teachers/Paras
Teachers/Paras
(Throughout the
school year –as
Annual Renaissance
Maintenance Fee (Fluent
$3,900
LCFF
needed)
Reader)
All teachers
throughout year
None
None
Fall 2014
$13,000
Fall 2014
Publisher and County Office
Training
None
Evenings
Monthly
Montly
Monthly
Materials provided by Migrant
None
None
None
None
2014-15
Cost of teacher and materials
$5,000
Staff development and professional collaboration:
-Regular grade level meetings that include focus on
scaffolding students to standards mastery
-Analysis of student work
- Standards development peer coaching in Language Arts
Training on Common Core Standards Implementation
Continuing Staff Collaboration on Technology
Involvement of staff, parents and community:
-PAC/DLAC Meetings
- Parent Teacher Club Meetings
- Site Council Meetings
Common
Core Imp./
General
Fund
Auxiliary services for students and parents:
English Classes for parents
LCFF
Monitoring program implementation and results:
Local assessments (Language Arts and Math)
All teachers
None
Thematic, Chapter, and Summative Tests
All teachers
Study Island
Teachers in 2-8
None
$4,150
California CELDT Test Results Analysis
All teachers
Software student reports: Accelerated Reader, STAR
Reader, Fluent Reader, STAR Math, Accelerated Math,
Math Facts in a Flash, Accelerated Vocabulary, Essential
Skills Marks Manager
All teachers
Title I
None
None
$3,900
Title I
Form C: Programs Included in this Plan
Check the box for each state and federal program in which the school participates.
Enter the amounts allocated for each program in which the school participates and, if
applicable, check the box indicating that the program’s funds are being consolidated
as part of operating a schoolwide program (SWP). The plan must describe the
activities to be conducted at the school for each of the state and federal programs in
which the school participates. The totals on these pages should match the cost
estimates in Form A and the school’s allocation from the ConApp.
Note: For many of the funding sources listed below, school districts may be exercising Categorical
Program Provisions options (flexibility), which are described at
http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/co/ca12sguiappcatprog.asp.
Of the four following options, please select the one that describes this school
site:
This site operates as a targeted assistance school (TAS), not as a
schoolwide program (SWP).
This site operates a SWP but does not consolidate its funds as part of
operating a SWP.
This site operates a SWP and consolidates only applicable federal funds as
part of operating a SWP.
X This site operates a SWP and consolidates all applicable funds as part of
operating a SWP.
State Programs
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) – Base Grant
Purpose: To provide flexibility in the use of state and local
funds by LEAs and schools
LCFF – Supplemental Grant
Purpose: To provide a supplemental grant equal to 20
percent of the adjusted LCFF base grant for targeted
disadvantaged students
LCFF – Concentration Grant
Purpose: To provide an additional concentration grant
equal to 50 percent of the adjusted LCFF base grant for
targeted students exceeding 55 percent of an LEA’s
enrollment
California School Age Families Education (Carryover
only)
Purpose: Assist expectant and parenting students to
succeed in school
Economic Impact Aid/State Compensatory Education
(EIA-SCE) (Carryover only)
Purpose: Help educationally disadvantaged students
succeed in the regular program
Template for the Single Plan for Student Achievement
Allocation
Consolidated
in the SWP
$1,479,369
x
See Below
$216,023
Combined
x
$
$114,857
x
12
Economic Impact Aid/Limited English Proficient (EIALEP) (Carryover only)
Purpose: Develop fluency in English and academic
proficiency of English learners
$
Peer Assistance and Review (Carryover only)
Purpose: Assist teachers through coaching and mentoring
$4759
Professional Development Block Grant (Carryover
only)
Purpose: Attract, train, and retain classroom personnel to
improve student performance in core curriculum areas
$
Pupil Retention Block Grant (Carryover only)
Purpose: Prevent students from dropping out of school
$
Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA)
Purpose: Funds are available for use in performing various
specified measures to improve academic instruction and
pupil academic achievement
School and Library Improvement Program Block Grant
(Carryover only)
Purpose: Improve library and other school programs
School Safety and Violence Prevention Act (Carryover
only)
Purpose: Increase school safety
x
$
$
$7616
Tobacco-Use Prevention Education
Purpose: Eliminate tobacco use among students
$
List and Describe Other State or Local Funds (e.g.,
Career and Technical Education [CTE], etc.)
$41,196
(Lottery)
x
x
Total amount of state categorical funds allocated to this district $1,863,820
Federal Programs
Title I, Part A: Allocation
Purpose: To improve basic programs operated by local
educational agencies (LEAs)
Allocation
$150,964
Consolidated
in the SWP
x
Title I, Part A: Parental Involvement (if
applicable under Section 1118[a][3][c] of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act)
Purpose: Ensure that parents have
information they need to make well-informed
choices for their children, more effectively
$
share responsibility with their children’s
schools, and help schools develop effective
and successful academic programs (this is a
reservation from the total Title I, Part A
allocation).
Template for the Single Plan for Student Achievement
13
For Program Improvement Schools only:
Title I, Part A Program Improvement (PI)
Professional Development (10 percent
minimum reservation from the Title I, Part A
reservation for schools in PI Year 1 and 2)
$
Title II, Part A: Improving Teacher Quality
Purpose: Improve and increase the number of highly
qualified teachers and principals
Title III, Part A: Language Instruction for LimitedEnglish-Proficient (LEP) Students
Purpose: Supplement language instruction to help LEP
students attain English proficiency and meet academic
performance standards
Title VI, Part B: Rural Education Achievement
Program
Purpose: Provide flexibility in the use of ESEA funds to
eligible LEAs
For School Improvement Schools only: School
Improvement Grant (SIG)
Purpose: to address the needs of schools in improvement,
corrective action, and restructuring to improve student
achievement
$15,272
x
$14,558
Title III funds
may not be
consolidated as
part of a SWP1
$17,198
x
$
Other federal funds (IDEA)
$22,489
Other federal funds (list and describe)
$
Other federal funds (list and describe)
$
Total amount of federal categorical funds allocated to this district $220,481
Total amount of state and federal categorical funds allocated to
this district
$2,282,298
Note: Other Title I-supported activities that are not shown on this page may be included in the
SPSA Action Plan.
.
Template for the Single Plan for Student Achievement
14
Form D: School Site Council Membership
Loren York
Jennifer Robbins
x
Maryanne Parreira
x
Jesica Weatherman
x
x
Maggie Diaz
x
Floriberta Maya
x
Randi Mull
x
Susanna Sanchez
x
Michelle Fitch
x
Numbers of members of each category
Secondary
Student
Parent or
Community
Member
X
Lisa Groeneweg
2
Other School
Staff
Classroom
Teacher
Names of Members
Principal
Education Code Section 64001(g) requires that the SPSA be reviewed and updated at least
annually, including proposed expenditures of funds allocated to the through the Consolidated
Application, by the school site council. The current make-up of the school site council is as
follows:2
1
3
1
5
At elementary schools, the school site council must be constituted to ensure parity between (a) the
principal, classroom teachers, and other school personnel, and (b) parents of students attending the
school or other community members. Classroom teachers must comprise a majority of persons
represented under section (a). At secondary schools there must be, in addition, equal numbers of
parents or other community members selected by parents, and students. Members must be selected
by their peer group.
Template for the Single Plan for Student Achievement
15
Form E: Recommendations and Assurances
The school site council recommends this school plan and proposed expenditures to the district
governing board for approval and assures the board of the following:
1. The school site council is correctly constituted and was formed in accordance with district
governing board policy and state law.
2. The school site council reviewed its responsibilities under state law and district governing
board policies, including those board policies relating to material changes in the school
plan requiring board approval.
3. The school site council sought and considered all recommendations from the following
groups or committees before adopting this plan (Check those that apply):
___ School Advisory Committee for State Compensatory Education Programs
__x_ English Learner Advisory Committee
___ Community Advisory Committee for Special Education Programs
___ Gifted and Talented Education Program Advisory Committee
___ Other (list)
4. The school site council reviewed the content requirements for school plans of programs
included in this Single Plan for Student Achievement and believes all such content
requirements have been met, including those found in district governing board policies
and in the LEA Plan.
5. This school plan is based on a thorough analysis of student academic performance. The
actions proposed herein form a sound, comprehensive, coordinated plan to reach stated
school goals to improve student academic performance.
6. This school plan was adopted by the school site council at a public meeting on: 5/22/14
Attested:
Loren York
_________________________
Typed name of school principal
_______________________
Signature of school principal
________
Date
Maryanne Parreira
_________________________
Typed name of SSC chairperson
_______________________
Signature of SSC chairperson
________
Date
Template for the Single Plan for Student Achievement
16
I.
Resources
This section contains the following appendices that will assist a school site council in
completing the Single Plan for Student Achievement and in maintaining a cycle of
continuous improvement:

Appendix A: Programs Funded through the Consolidated Application

Appendix B: Chart of Requirements for the Single Plan for Student
Achievement

Appendix C: Sample School and Student Performance Data Forms

Appendix D: Analysis of Current Instructional Programs

Appendix E: Use of Resources

Appendix F: Acronyms and Specialized Terms

Appendix G: SPSA Evaluation

Appendix H: SPSA Proposed Budget
Template for the Single Plan for Student Achievement
17
Appendix A: Programs Funded through the Consolidated Application
The following programs are reported in the Consolidated Application. Information on
the Consolidated Application and program profiles are available at
http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/co/.
State Programs
 Local Control Funding Formula
o Supplemental Grants
o Concentration Grants
Federal ESEA Programs
Information and CDE contacts for ESEA programs are available at
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nclb/sr/pc.
 Title I, Neglected or Delinquent
 Title I, Part A, Basic Grant
 Title II, Part A, Teacher & Principal Training & Recruiting
 Title II, Part D, Enhancing Education Through Technology (Formula)
 Title III LEP Students
 Title IV, Part A, Safe & Drug-Free Schools & Communities
 Title V, Part A, Innovative Programs
 Title VI, Part B, Rural Education Achievement
Template for the Single Plan for Student Achievement
18
Appendix B: Chart of Requirements for The Single Plan for Student Achievement
Pupil Retention
Block Grant
School & Library
Improvement BG
School Safety
Block Grant **
Title V Innovative
Programs
Title IV, Safe &
Drug-free Schools**
Title III, English
Learners
Title II, Improving
Teacher Quality
High Priority
Schools
Immediate
Intervention/USP
Title I, Program
Improvement
Title I, Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Assistance
EIA, State
Compensatory
Education
LEGAL CITATION
Economic Impact
Aid (EIA) English
Learners
REQUIREMENTS
X
X
I. Involvement
Involve parents and community in
EC 52055.625(b)(1)(C), (2)(C), (e)
planning and implementing the school
EC 52055.620(a)(4)
plan
EC 52054
X
X
X
EC 35294.1(b)(2)(C)
5CCR 3932
X
X
X
X
X
20 USC 7115(a)(1)(E)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
20 USC 6316(b)(3)
20 USC 6315(c)(1)(G)
X
20 USC 6314(b)(1), (2)(A)
Advisory committee review &
EC 64001(a)
recommendations
EC 52055.620(b)(1)
Written notice of PI status
20 USC 6316(b)(3)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
II. Governance and Administration
Single, comprehensive plan
EC 64001(a), (d)
X
X
X
X
X
EC 52853
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EC 41572
X
EC 41507
X
EC 35294.1(a)
X
20 USC 7114(d)(2)
X
20 USC 6315(c)(1)(B)
X
20 USC 6314(b)(2)(A)
School site council (SSC) constituted per
former EC 52012
**
EC 64001(g)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
This program must be included in the Single Plan For Student Achievement if funds are provided to the school from the district's entitlement [EC 64001(d)]
Guide to the Single Plan for Student Achievement
19
X
X
X
School & Library
Improvement BG
X
Pupil Retention
Block Grant
X
School Safety
Block Grant **
Title V Innovative
Programs
X
Title IV, Safe &
Drug-free Schools**
X
Title III, English
Learners
X
Title II, Improving
Teacher Quality
Title I, Program
Improvement
X
High Priority
Schools
Title I, Schoolwide
X
Immediate
Intervention/USP
Title I Targeted
Assistance
EC 64001(a)
EIA, State
Compensatory
Education
SSC developed plan and expenditures
LEGAL CITATION
Economic Impact
Aid (EIA) English
Learners
REQUIREMENTS
X
X
EC 41572
X
EC 41507
X
EC 35294.1(b)(1)
SSC annually updates the plan
EC 64001((g)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EC 35294.2(e)
Governing board approves SPSA
EC 64001(h)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EC 52055.630(b)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Policies to insure all groups succeed
20 USC 6316(b)(3)
X
Specify role of school, LEA, and SEA;
and coordination with other
organizations
Submit High Priority annual report after
public LEA governing board review
20 USC 6316(b)(3)
X
EC 52055.640
X
III. Funding
Plan includes proposed
expenditures to improve
academic performance
EC 64001(g)
EC 52853
EC 52054
20 USC 6316(b)(3)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
20 USC 6314(b)(2)(A)
5 CCR 3947(b)
X
X
X
20 USC 6315(c)
Describe centralized services
expenditures
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IV. Standards, Assessment, and Accountability
Comprehensive assessment and
analysis of data
EC 64001(f)
EC 52055.620(a)(1) - (3)
EC 52054
X
X
X
X
X
X
20 USC 7115(a)(1)(A)
X
20 USC 6314(b)(1), (2)(A)
Evaluation of improvement strategies
EC 64001(f)
Guide to the Single Plan for Student Achievement
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
20
X
EC 32228.5(b)
X
20 USC 7115(a)(2)
20 USC 6315(c)(2)(B)
EC 35294.2(e)
20 USC 7115(a)(1)(E)
X
X
X
X
20 USC 6314(b)(2)(A)
V. Staffing and Professional Development
Provide staff development
EC 52853
X
X
X
X
X
X
EC 52055.625(d)(1)(B),(C)
X
EC 32228(b)(2)
X
20 USC 6316(b)(3)
X
20 USC 6315(c)(1)(F)
X
20 USC 6314(b)(1), (2)(A)
Budget 10% of Title I for staff
X
20 USC 6316(b)(3)
X
development
Provide highly qualified staff
EC 52055.625(b), (d)
X
20 USC 6315(c)(1)(E)
X
20 USC 6314(b)(1), (2)(A)
Distribute experienced teachers
X
EC 52055.620(d)
X
VI. Opportunity & Equal Educational Access
Describe instruction for at-risk students
EC52853
X
X
X
X
X
Describe the help for students to meet
EC 64001(f)
X
X
X
X
X
state standards
20 USC 6314(b)(1), (2)(A)
EC 52853
Guide to the Single Plan for Student Achievement
X
X
X
X
X
20 USC 6315(c)
Describe auxiliary services for at-risk
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
21
School & Library
Improvement BG
X
EC 35294.2(e)
Assessment results available to
parents
Pupil Retention
Block Grant
X
EC 52055.625(c)
Ongoing monitoring and revision
School Safety
Block Grant **
Title V Innovative
Programs
X
Title IV, Safe &
Drug-free Schools**
X
Title III, English
Learners
X
Title II, Improving
Teacher Quality
Title I, Program
Improvement
X
High Priority
Schools
Title I, Schoolwide
X
Immediate
Intervention/USP
Title I Targeted
Assistance
EC 52853
EIA, State
Compensatory
Education
LEGAL CITATION
Economic Impact
Aid (EIA) English
Learners
REQUIREMENTS
X
20 USC 6315(c)
X
20 USC 6314(b)(1), (2)(A)
X
5CCR 3934
X
X
X
X
X
EC 64001(f)
X
X
X
X
X
X
VII. Teaching and Learning
Goals based on performance
X
X
20 USC 7115(a)(1)(A)
Define objectives
EC 52054
X
X
EC 52054
X
5CCR 3930
X
X
X
X
Account for all services
5CCR 3930
X
X
X
X
Provide strategies responsive to
EC 52055.620(a)(3)
student needs
EC 52054
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
20 USC 7114(d)(2)(E)
20 USC 6315(c)
20 USC 6314(b)(1), (2)(A)
-Allow all to meet/exceed standards;
20 USC 6315(c)
-Are effective, research based;
20 USC 6316(b)(3)
20 USC 6315(c)(1)(C)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
20 USC 6314(b)(1)(B)
X
-Strengthen core academics;
EC 52054
X
-Address under-served populations;
EC 52055.625(b), (c)
X
-Provide effective, timely assistance;
20 USC 6314(b)(1)(I), (2)(A)
X
Guide to the Single Plan for Student Achievement
X
X
20 USC 6314(b)(2)(A)
Describe reform strategies that:
X
X
20 USC 6316(b)(3)
5CCR 3931
X
X
20 USC 7114(d)(2)(B)
Steps to intended outcomes
X
X
X
22
School & Library
Improvement BG
Pupil Retention
Block Grant
School Safety
Block Grant **
Title V Innovative
Programs
X
20 USC 7114(d)(2)(E)
Avoid Isolation or segregation
Title IV, Safe &
Drug-free Schools**
Title III, English
Learners
Title II, Improving
Teacher Quality
EC 52055.620(a)(7)
High Priority
Schools
Immediate
Intervention/USP
Title I, Program
Improvement
Title I, Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Assistance
EIA, State
Compensatory
Education
students
LEGAL CITATION
Economic Impact
Aid (EIA) English
Learners
REQUIREMENTS
X
X
20 USC 6315(c)(A);
X
20 USC 6314(b)(1)(B),(2)
X
20 USC 6314(b)(1)(H), (2)
X
assessments
-Coordinate state and federal programs
20 USC 6315(c)(1)(H)
X
20 USC 6314(b)(1)(J), (2)(A)
-Transition from preschool
X
20 USC 6315(c)(1)(D)
X
20 USC 6314(b)(1)(G), (2)(A)
X
Provide an environment conducive to
EC 52055.625(f)(1)
X
learning
EC 52055.620(a)(6)
X
20 USC 7114(d)(1)
Enable continuous progress
5CCR 3931
Acquire basic skills, literacy
EC 52055.625(b)(1), (c)(1)
X
X
X
X
X
X
5CCR 3937
X
X
X
X
X
Align curriculum, strategies, and
EC 52853
X
X
X
X
X
materials with state standards or law
EC 52055.625(b)(2)(D),(c)
Provide high school career preparation
5CCR 4403
Guide to the Single Plan for Student Achievement
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
23
School & Library
Improvement BG
Pupil Retention
Block Grant
School Safety
Block Grant **
Title V Innovative
Programs
Title IV, Safe &
Drug-free Schools**
Title III, English
Learners
Title II, Improving
Teacher Quality
High Priority
Schools
Immediate
Intervention/USP
-Involve teachers in academic
Title I, Program
Improvement
20 USC 6316(b)(3);
20 USC 6314(b)(1)(B),(2)
-Meet needs of low-performing students
Title I, Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Assistance
EIA, State
Compensatory
Education
-Increase learning time
LEGAL CITATION
Economic Impact
Aid (EIA) English
Learners
REQUIREMENTS
Appendix C: Sample School and Student Performance Data Forms
The following tables are included in Appendix C. These tables represent samples of ways to assist
the school site council in representing and analyzing data and developing conclusions regarding
improvement strategies:





Table 1: Academic Performance by Ethnicity
Table 2: Academic Performance by Grade Level
Table 3: English-Language Arts and Mathematics Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Table 4: California English Language Development (CELDT) Data
Local Assessment (RESULTS Data)
Table 1: Academic Performance by Ethnicity Alview Elementary
Academic Performance Index (API) School Report
. Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
STAR
Percent
Tested
100
100
99
100
Subgroups*
African American,
Not Hispanic
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian
Filipino
Hispanic or Latino
Pacific Islander
White not Hispanic
Economically
Disadvantaged
English Learners
Students with
Disabilities
API
Score
866
861
863
878
API
Base
852
866
861
863
Number
of Pupils
Included
in
2013 API
0
Numerically
Significant
No
0
No
0
0
47
0
21
52
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
39
1
No
No
SUBGROUPS**
Schholwide
English Learners
Redesignated FEP
African-American
American Indian
Asian
Filipino
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
White
Gifted
Economically Disadvantaged
API
Target
0
0
0
0
API
Growth
14
-6
2
15
Met
Target
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Statewide
Rank
8
8
8
8
Similar
Schools
Rank
2013
API
Score
2013
API
Base
2013
API
Target
2013
API
Growth
2013
Met
API
819
792
800
27
Yes
958
830
948
820
948
820
10
10
Yes
Yes
806
792
800
14
Yes
California Standards Tests – Schoolwide
Percent of Students at Performance Levels*
English/Language Arts
Mathematics
2012
2013
2012
2013
Pro/Adv
Pro/Adv
Pro/Adv
Pro/Adv
62.3
62.7
88.4
82.1
43.6
55.3
82.1
81.6
46.8
52.3
83.0
77.3
95.2
81
100.0
90.5
51.9
56.5
84.6
78.3
Conclusions indicated by the data:
1. Alview School had a 15 point growth in API in 2013. After a 72 point gain in 2009, and a 14 point
growth figure in 2010, Alview remained steady with a 6 point downturn in 2011 followed with a 3
point growth figure in 2012. These results for the last five years indicate consistency in student
achievement. Proficiency rates for English Learners in Math were almost 30 percentage points
higher than those rates for English Language Arts. This data is a direct result of the English
acquisition process that takes place as English Learners progress through grades 2 and 3 at
Alview.
2. In all areas at Alview, EL students scored below their English-proficient counterparts
3. Math proficiency at Alview for white students came in at 90.5; approximately 10 points higher than
proficiency levels for English Learners.
Trends from data indicate that as students progress through the grade levels, English Learners and
Hispanic subgroups continue to make gains in ELA proficiency. These findings reinforce our schoolwide goal #1: Increase English proficiency.
Academic Performance by Ethnicity Dairyland Elementary
Academic Performance Index (API) School Report
. Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
STAR
Percent
Tested
100
100
100
99
Subgroups*
African American,
Not Hispanic
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian
Filipino
Hispanic or Latino
Pacific Islander
White not Hispanic
Economically
Disadvantaged
English Learners
Students with
Disabilities
API
Score
833
839
867
877
API
Base
817
833
839
875
Number
of Pupils
Included
in
2013 API
0
API
Target
0
0
0
0
Numerically
Significant
No
API
Growth
16
6
28
2
Met
Target
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Statewide
Rank
8
8
8
9
Similar
Schools
Rank
10
9
10
10
2013
API
Score
2012
API
Base
2013
API
Target
2013
API
Growth
2013
Met
API
0
No
3
0
118
0
75
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
842
840
0
2
Yes
926
921
0
5
Yes
132
Yes
848
860
0
-12
Yes
100
8
Yes
No
838
832
0
6
Yes
California Standards Tests - Schoolwide
Percent of Students at Performance Levels*
SUBGROUPS**
Schoolwide
English Learners
Redesignated FEP
African-American
American Indian
Asian
Filipino
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
White
Gifted
Economically Disadvantaged
English/Language
Arts
2012
2013
Pro/Adv
Pro/Adv
68.6
67.9
56.0
55.0
Mathematics
2012
2013
Pro/Adv
Pro/Adv
72.6
64.8
77.0
69.0
56.9
57.6
66.1
68.6
84.8
82.7
82.3
89.3
62.5
59.8
69.2
72
Conclusions indicated by the data:
1. At Dairyland, overall API growth was steady at 2 points. In Math, all subgroups showed progress
in proficiency levels but some ELA proficiency levels were slightly down.
In all areas, EL students scored below their English-proficient counterparts
Trends from data indicate that as students progress through the grade levels, English Learners and
Hispanic subgroups continue to make gains in ELA proficiency. These findings reinforce our schoolwide goal #1: Increase English proficiency.
Table 2: Academic Performance by Grade Level Alview Elementary
GRADES
2
3
GRADES
2
3
FBB/BB
21
9
FBB/BB
7
3
California Standards Tests – English/Language Arts – All Students
Percent of Students at Performance Levels*
2011
2012
2013
Basic
Pro/Adv FBB/BB
Basic
Pro/Adv
FBB/BB
Basic
30
49
13
16
71
3
23
34
57
16
33
53
20
33
2011
Basic
16
9
California Standards Tests – Mathematics – All Students
Percent of Students at Performance Levels*
2012
2013
Pro/Adv FBB/BB
Basic
Pro/Adv
FBB/BB
Basic
77
6
13
81
0
12
88
0
10
90
10
20
Pro/Adv
76
47
Pro/Adv
88
70
Conclusions indicated by the data:
1. The percentage of second and third grade students scoring in the Proficient/Advanced levels in
Math and ELA continues to remain high over the last three years. The highest level of
proficiency is indicated by levels at 88% for 2nd grade math.
2. At Alview, a disparity continues to exist in the proficiency percentage between Language Arts
and Math.
For example, Math proficiency for 3rd grade was at 70% while ELA was at 47%. This
discrepancy is due to the large number of English Learners who are still in the process of
language acquisition at the 2nd and 3rd grade levels.
Academic Performance by Grade Level Dairyland Elementary
GRADE
4
5
6
7
8
FBB/BB
3
8
9
3
8
California Standards Tests – English/Language Arts – All Students
Percent of Students at Performance Levels*
2011
2012
2013
Basic
Pro/Adv FBB/BB
Basic
Pro/Adv
FBB/BB
Basic
23
73
3
16
81
6
27
37
45
5
31
64
5
33
33
58
2
27
71
5
33
31
67
5
21
74
7
12
31
61
0
41
69
3
23
Pro/Adv
66
61
62
81
75
California Standards Tests – Mathematics – All Students
Percent of Students at Performance Levels*
GRADE
4
5
6
7
8
8
TESTS
Mathematics
Mathematics
Mathematics
Mathematics
General
Algebra
FBB/BB
0
5
25
18
13
16
2011
Basic
7
13
27
28
33
23
Pro/Adv
93
82
47
55
53
62
FBB/BB
3
5
4
16
15
0
2012
Basic
3
10
27
21
47
10
Pro/Adv
94
85
69
63
38
90
FBB/BB
3
0
7
2
22
0
2013
Basic
6
12
45
12
28
9
Pro/Adv
91
88
48
86
50
92
Conclusions indicated by the data:
1. At Dairyland, in most grade levels, classes of students show growth over a three-year period in
proficiency percentages as they progress through the grade levels in both ELA and Math. One
area of concern is General Math in 8th grade. Although those students are have not
demonstrated math proficiency in 7th grade, they did not show overall growth from 7th to 8th
grades.
2. At the 6th grade level, students show a higher proficiency level in ELA than Math. That data
suggests that our EL students have fully acquired English at the sixth grade level. That trend
also exits in 8th grade with the exception of 8th grade Algebra. Algebra, however, is only offered
to students who have already demonstrated math proficiency.
Table 3: English Language Arts and Mathematics Adequate Yearly Progress
Alview
Made 2013 AYP: No
Met 2013 AYP Criteria:
Participation rate
Percent proficient
API - Additional indicator for AYP
Graduation rate
English-Language Arts
Yes
Yes
Mathematics
Yes
No
Yes
N/A
Percent Proficient - Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)
English-Language Arts
Met English-Language Arts percent
proficient criteria? (89.2%) Yes
Valid
Scores
Number
At or
Above
Proficient
Percent
At or
Above
Proficient
Schoolwide
African American or Black (not of
67
42
62.7
Hispanic origin)
0
0
0
0
44
0
21
46
38
Schoolwide and Subgroups*
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Filipino
Hispanic or Latino
Pacific Islander
White (not of Hispanic origin)
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
English Learners
Students with Disabilities
Met
2013
AYP
Criteria
Yes *
(SH)
23
52.3
---
17
26
21
81
56.5
55.3
-------
Mathematics
Met Mathematics percent proficient
criteria? (89.5) Yes
Valid
Scores
Number
At or
Above
Proficient
Percent
At or
Above
Proficient
Met
2013
AYP
Criteria
67
55
82.1
No
0
0
0
0
44
0
21
46
38
34
77.3
---
19
36
31
90.5
78.3
81.6
-------
Academic Performance Index - Additional Indicator for AYP
Met 2013
2012 API Base
2013 API
Growth
2012-13 Growth
863
878
15
API Criteria
Yes
Conclusions indicated by the data:
1. Adequate Yearly Progress was achieved in participation rates and API scores.
School-wide percent proficient goals (89.2% in ELA / 89.5% in Math), were met
in ELA (due to “safe harbor”) but not met in math. These goals increased over
10 percentage points in the last year. Alview students showed growth in ELA
and although they didn’t’ meet the 89.2%, AYP was still met. Math proficiency,
however, took a slight downturn so “safe harbor” could not apply.
Teachers there have maximized the use of Explicit Direct Instruction as well
as a multitude of technology resources—both enhancements appear to be
effective in overall student proficiency.
2. Math scores were significantly higher than ELA for all subgroups; another
indicator that ELA scores fall behind those in Math due to the language
acquisition process that our English Learners experience.
Based on the conclusions above, we will continue to emphasize the use of
Explicit Direct Instruction as a strategy as well as Interwrite pads, interactive
whiteboards, and overhead projectors as technological tools to continue
to increase student engagement.
*SH = Passed by safe harbor
The school, LEA, or subgroup met the criteria for safe harbor, which is an
alternate method of meeting the AMO if a school, an LEA, or a subgroup shows
progress in moving students from scoring at the below proficient level to the
proficient level.
Table 3: English Language Arts and Mathematics Adequate Yearly Progress
Dairyland
Made 2013 AYP: No
Met 2013 AYP Criteria:
Participation rate
Percent proficient
API - Additional indicator for AYP
Graduation rate
English-Language Arts
Yes
No
Mathematics
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
Percent Proficient - Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)
English-Language Arts
Met English-Language Arts percent
proficient criteria? (89.2) Yes*
Schoolwide and Subgroups*
Schoolwide
African American or Black (not of
Valid
Scores
Number
At or
Above
Proficient
Percent
At or
Above
Proficient
Met
2013
AYP
Criteria
196
133
67.9
No
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
0
0
3
Filipino
0
Hispanic origin)
Mathematics
Met Mathematics percent proficient
criteria? (89.5%) Yes*
Valid
Scores
Number
At or
Above
Proficient
Percent
At or
Above
Proficient
196
151
77
Met
2013
AYP
Criteria
Yes
(SH)*
118
0
81
68.6
Yes
(SH)*
0
0
3
0
Hispanic or Latino
Pacific Islander
118
0
68
57.6
Yes
(SH)*
White (not of Hispanic origin)
75
62
82.7
No
75
67
89.3
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
132
79
59.8
No
132
95
72
English Learners
Students with Disabilities
100
55
55
100
69
69
No
8
8
*(SH = Safe Harbor)
Academic Performance Index - Additional Indicator for AYP
2012 API Base
2013 API Growth
2012-13 Growth
Met 2013
API Criteria
875
877
2
Yes
Yes
(SH)*
Yes
(SH)*
Yes
(SH)*
Conclusions indicated by the data:
1. Adequate Yearly Progress was achieved in participation rates and API scores
.
2. In ELA, proficiency rates were not obtained for any group other than the Hispanic
subgroup; despite not achieving the proficiency goal, that group showed enough
growth to achieve the target through safe harbor*.
3. Math scores were significantly higher than ELA for all subgroups; another
indicator that ELA scores fall behind those in Math due to the language
acquisition process that our English Learners experience.
4. Although Dairyland did not achieve the ELA proficiency goal, students had
very high proficiency rates. The school achieved its API goal and showed growth
in most areas. The ten point increase in the proficiency rate goal made it a difficult
target to attain.
Based on the conclusions above, we will continue to emphasize
the use of Explicit Direct Instruction as a strategy as well as Interwrite
pads, interactive whiteboards, and overhead projectors as technological
tools to continue to increase student engagement and provide additional
support to English Learners.
*SH = Passed by safe harbor
The school, LEA, or subgroup met the criteria for safe harbor, which is an
alternate method of meeting the AMO if a school, an LEA, or a subgroup shows
progress in moving students from scoring at the below proficient level to the
proficient level.
Table 4: California English Language Development (CELDT) Data
Alview Elementary
Percent of Students at Performance Levels
Grade 2
Proficiency
2012
Advanced
Early Advanced
Intermediate
Early Intermediate
Beginning
Number Tested
Grade 3
2013
5%
35%
55%
8%
0%
2012
0%
18%
50%
32%
0%
20
2013
6%
66%
50%
22%
0%
22
5%
29%
57%
10%
0%
18
21
At Alview, most English Learners were in the Intermediate category for 2nd and
grades.
2. Tables indicate that the majority of students are moving one CELDT level each
year.
3. Number of English Learners decreases as student progress through the grade
levels as reclassification criteria are met.
1.
3rd
Table 4: California English Language Development (CELDT) Data
Dairyland Elementary
Percent of Students at Performance Levels
Grade 4
Proficiency
Advanced
Early Advanced
Intermediate
Early
Intermediate
Beginning
Number Tested
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
2012
2013
2012
2013
2012
2013
2012
2013
2012
6%
50%
44%
12%
47%
29%
13%
75%
6%
7%
73%
20%
27%
36%
37%
8%
67%
17%
17%
50%
25%
36%
36%
27%
8%
31%
46%
44%
33%
22%
0%
0%
18
12%
0%
17
5%
0%
16
0%
0%
15
0%
0%
11
8%
0%
12
8%
0%
12
0%
0%
11
15%
0%
13
15%
0%
9
1. Most students at Dairyland are in the Early Advanced level
2. Tables indicate that the majority of students are moving one
CELDT level each year.
3. Number of English Learners decreases as student progress
through the grade levels as reclassification criteria are met.
2013
Local Assessments:
Reading RESULTS Assessments
Reading
2013-14
Grades two through six have similar assessments that are given three times each
year. Student scores in each grade level have been averaged.
Grade
Level:

Benchmarks
Accuracy/
Comprehension
Benchmarks
Fluency
Beginning
Of Year
Middle
Of Year
End
Of Year
Acc. Fl. Comp.
Acc. Fl. Comp.
Acc. Fl. Comp.
2
95
80-100%
85-95
94 48 74%
99 90 82%
96 98 85%
3
95
80-100%
105-115
96 84 60%
98 119 84%
97 151 88%
4
95
80-100%
115+
98 106 80%
98 118 82%
98 120 88%
5
95
80-100%
120+
90 96 78%
97 137 92%
96 145 90%
6
95
80-100%
125+
99 124 97%
99 119 90%
98 140 94%
Conclusions: Most grade levels have shown growth in reading fluency. Second and
third grade results indicate that fluency almost doubled from beginning to end of the
school year. Weekly timed readings (grades 2-3 and 4-6 intervention) have
strengthened fluency in all grade levels. Sixth grade showed a decline in
comprehension; a higher level end-of-year passage contributed to the decline. All
grade levels need to focus on the Accelerated Reader program and timed reading
practice to enhance overall reading skills and strategies for growth in the 2014-15
school year.
Grade
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
Accuracy
+2 words
+ 1 word
+0 words
+1 word
-1 words
Fluency
+ 50 words
+ 67 words
+ 14 words
+ 49 words
+16 words
Comprehension
+ 11%
+ 28%
+8%
+12%
-3%
Appendix D: Analysis of Current Instructional Programs
The following statements are adapted from Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) Title I, Part A and the California Essential Program Components (EPC).
These statements will be used to discuss and develop findings that characterize the
instructional program at Alview Dairyland Union School District for students:
 Not meeting performance goals
 Meeting performance goals
 Exceeding performance goals
Special consideration should be given to any practices, policies, or procedures found
to be noncompliant through ongoing monitoring of categorical programs.
Standards, Assessment, and Accountability
1. Use of state and local assessments to modify instruction and improve
student achievement (ESEA)
2. Use of data to monitor student progress on curriculum-embedded
assessments and modify instruction (EPC)
Staffing and Professional Development
3. Status of meeting requirements for highly qualified staff (ESEA)
4. Principals' Assembly Bill (AB) 75 training on State Board of Education (SBE)
adopted instructional materials (EPC)
5. Sufficiency of credentialed teachers and teacher professional development
(e.g., access to AB 466 training on SBE-adopted instructional materials)
(EPC)
6. Alignment of staff development to content standards, assessed student
performance, and professional needs (ESEA)
7. Ongoing instructional assistance and support for teachers (e.g., use of
content experts and instructional coaches) (EPC)
8. Teacher collaboration by grade level (K-8) and department (9-12) (EPC)
Teaching and Learning
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Alignment of curriculum, instruction, and materials to content and
performance standards (ESEA)
Adherence to recommended instructional minutes for reading/language arts
and mathematics (K-8) (EPC)
Lesson pacing schedule (K-8) and master schedule flexibility for sufficient
numbers of intervention courses (EPC)
Availability of standards-based instructional materials appropriate to all
student groups (ESEA)
Use of SBE-adopted and standards-aligned instructional materials, including
intervention materials, and for high school students, access to standardsaligned core courses (EPC)
Opportunity and Equal Educational Access
14. Services provided by the regular program that enable underperforming
students to meet standards (ESEA)
15. Research-based educational practices to raise student achievement at this
school (ESEA)
Involvement
16. Resources available from family, school, district, and community to assist
under-achieving students (ESEA)
17. Involvement of parents, community representatives, classroom teachers,
other school personnel, and students in secondary schools, in the planning,
implementation, and evaluation of consolidated application programs. (5
CCR 3932)
Funding
18. Services provided by categorical funds that enable underperforming students
to meet standards (ESEA)
19. Fiscal support (EPC)
Appendix E: Use of Resources
The following fiscal practices apply to the use of funds generated through the Consolidated
Application:
The state fiscal year is the period from July 1 to June 30. Funds not spent during the period
become “carryover funds”, to be budgeted for use the following fiscal year. Districts may allow
carryover to remain at the school that generated the funds or may aggregate unspent funds from all
schools and redistribute them according to the formula appropriate for each program. State law does
not limit the amount of carryover funds.
The federal fiscal year is the period from October 1 through September 30. However, we are
allowed to expend federal funds beginning the previous July 1. Thus, the period of allowable
expenditure extends for 15 months. Title I law limits the amount of funds that may be carried over
from the previous fiscal year to 15 percent, except for agencies that receive less than $50,000. n A
waiver of this restriction may be requested from the State Board of Education once every three years.
Eighty-five percent of the funds from certain programs must be used for direct educational services
at schools. This limitation applies to:
 Title I, Part A, Improving Basic Programs
Up to 15 percent may be spent for administrative costs incurred at the school and district office in
support of these programs.
Expenditures are allowable if they:
 Provide an effective means of achieving the purposes of program funding source
 Are a reasonable use of limited resources
 Are necessary to achieve the goals of the plan
 Provide supplementary services for eligible students
 Do not fund services required by state law
 Do not pay for what, in the absence of these categorical funds, would be provided by
the general fund.
This definition meets the federal requirement that expenditures of funds “supplement, and not
supplant” state and local expenditures.
The district must reserve funds from Title I, Part A, Basic Grant Program for:
 Costs of parent involvement (1 percent minimum) and professional development (5
percent to 10 percent)
 Program Improvement schools, whatever is needed for costs of public school choice,
transportation, and supplemental educational services, up to 20 percent of the district
allocation
The district may reserve funds from Title I, Part A, for:
 Serving community day school students
 Capital expenses for Title I programs operated at private schools
 Salary differentials
 Preschool
 Summer school
 Before school, after school, and school year extension programs
 Neglected students
 Homeless students
 Assistance to schools
The district may also reserve funds for:
 Indirect costs of administering state and federal programs
 Repayment of disallowed expenditures
Funds received through the Consolidated Application must be used to reach school goals for
improving the academic performance of all students to the level of state standards. In so doing, care
must be exercised to ensure that each funding source is used for the purposes for which the funds
are allocated, and for eligible students.
A ppendix F: Acronyms and Specialized Terms
Listed below are acronyms most often associated with programs funded through the
ConApp. Most of the acronyms are "hot-linked" to information on the topic of the
acronym:
ACRONYM
STANDS FOR
WEB ADDRESS
ADA
Average Daily Attendance
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/ec/
ADA
Americans with Disabilities Act
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm
(Outside Source)
API
Academic Performance Index
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap
APS
Academic Program Survey
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/stateassesspi.asp.
BTSA
Beginning Teacher Support and
Assessment
http://www.btsa.ca.gov
BTTP
Bilingual Teacher Training Program
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/bt
CAHSEE
California High School Exit Examination
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/hs/
CAPA
California Alternative Performance
Assessment
http://www3.cde.ca.gov/scripts/texis.exe/webinato
r/search?pr=default&query=California%20Alternat
e%20Performance%20Assessment%20&submit=
GO
CBEDS
California Basic Educational Data System
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ss/cb
CBEST
California Basic Educational Skills Test
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/CAWexams.html#CBEST (Outside Source)
CDE
California Department of Education
http://www.cde.ca.gov
CELDT
California English Language Development
Test
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el
http://www3.cde.ca.gov/scripts/texis.exe/webinato
r/search?pr=default&query=California%20Modifie
d%20Assessment&submit=GO
CMA
California Modified Assessment
COE
County Office of Education
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/sd/co/index.asp
COP
Committee of Practitioners (Title I)
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/sw/t1/practitioners.asp
CPM
Categorical Program Monitoring
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/cr/cc
ACRONYM
STANDS FOR
WEB ADDRESS
CSAM
California School Accounting Manual
http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/ac/sa
CSCS
California School Climate Survey
http://cscs.wested.org/ (Outside Source)
CSIS
California School Information Services
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cs
CSR
Comprehensive School Reform
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/lp/cs/
CST
California Standards Tests
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/guidecst08.asp
CTC
Commission on Teacher Credentialing
http://www.ctc.ca.gov (Outside Source)
DAS
District Assistance Survey
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/stateassesspi.asp.
DSLT
District/School Liaison Team
http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2010/
EC
Education Code
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
EDGAR
U. S. Department of Education General
Administrative Regulations
http://www.ed.gov/policy/fund/reg/edgarReg/edgar
.html (Outside Source)
EL
English Learner
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/cr/el
ELA
English Language Acquisition
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/ii
ELAP
English Language Acquisition Program
http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/ca/englishlang.asp
ELD
English Language Development
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/cr/el
ELSSA
English Learner Subgroup Self
Assessment
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/stateassesspi.asp.
EO
English-Only (Monolingual English)
EPC
Essential Program Components
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/lp/vl/essentialcomp.asp
ESEA
Elementary and Secondary Education Act
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.h
tml (Outside Source)
ESL
English as a Second Language
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/cr/el
ESLRs
Expected School wide Learning Results
http://www.acswasc.org/process_ca_comprehensi
ve.htm (Outside Source)
FEP
Fluent-English-Proficient
http://www.cde.ca.gov/demographics
FOL
Focus on Learning
http://www.acswasc.org/process_ca_comprehensi
ve.htm (Outside Source)
FTE
Full-Time-Equivalent
http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/gls_fte.htm
GATE
Gifted and Talented Education
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/g/
GED
General Educational Development
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/gd
IDEA
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA)
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/lr/ideareathztn.asp.
IEP
Immigrant Education Program (NCLB, Title
III)
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/t3
ACRONYM
STANDS FOR
WEB ADDRESS
IEP
Individualized Education Program
http://www.calstat.org/iep/ (Outside Source)
ISSSD
II/USP
Inventory of Supports and Services for
Students with Disabilities
Immediate Intervention/Underperforming
Schools Program
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/stateassesspi.asp.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/lp/iu
LC
Language Census
LD
Learning Disabled
LEA
Local Educational Agency
LEP
Limited English Proficient
NAEP
National Assessment of Educational
Progress
NCE
Normal Curve Equivalent
NCLB
No Child Left Behind
NRT
Norm-referenced Test
PI
Program Improvement
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/programimprov.asp
PSAA
Public Schools Accountability Act
http://www.cde.ca.gov/psaa
PTA
Parent Teacher Association
http://www.pta.org (Outside Source)
R-FEP
Redesignated Fluent-English-Proficient
ROPC
RSDSS
Regional Occupational Program and
Centers
Regional System for District and School
Support
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ss/lc
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/sd
http://www.nagb.org (Outside Source)
http://www.cde.ca.gov/pr/nclb
http://www.cde.ca.gov/rocp/dsp/coord.html
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/sw/ss/s4directory.asp
SARC
School Accountability Report Card
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/sa
SBCP
School-Based Coordinated Programs
SEA
State Education Agency
http://www.cde.ca.gov
SESM
Special Education Supports Module
http://cscs.wested.org/survey_content/sesis
(Outside Source)
STAR
Standardized Testing and Reporting
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr
UCP
Uniform Complaint Procedures
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cp/uc
WASC
Western Association of Schools and
Colleges
http://www.acswasc.org (Outside Source)
Appendix G: SPSA Annual Evaluation May 2014 (Reviewed with SSC)
Plan Priorities
Priorities were two identified goals:
 Move English Learners up one level in English proficiency as measured by CELDT.
 Prepare students for success in high school and higher education and/or vocational job
market.
See attached budget (appendix H) for expenditures
Strategies and Activities
Strategies to achieve goals were all implemented as per plan
Most effective strategies included: Explicit Direct Instruction, Infusion of Technology, Common
Core Curriculum Implementation and Super Tutoring
Ineffective strategies
PAC/DELAC meetings were not well-attended; Migrant parents were informed but showed
a lack of interest.
Based on an analysis of the impact of the strategies/activities, what appears to be the reason
they were ineffective in improving student achievement?

Not appropriately matched to student needs/student population

Migrant parents did not see value in topics presented; they also rely on
home to school communication for their students’ academic progress and
school events
Based on the analysis of this practice, the School Site Council recommends:
 Continuing with the following modifications: Plan Pac DeLAC meetings
after consulting with migrant parents on their areas of interest for guest
speakers and meeting topics
 Better communication of meeting dates and times—make personal phone
calls to migrant parents to encourage attendance.
Outcomes
 All goals of the SPSA were met for Academic Achievement