Alameda Community Learning Center School Plan 2005/06

Alameda Community Learning Center was a 6-12 charter school with an enrollment of 204 in 2003/04. To review Alameda Community Learning Center's state Academic Performance Index scores since 2000 click here. Here is the latest STAR data available from the state of California for Alameda Community Learning Center .

Disclaimer: Single School Plan were hand typed and transcribed from source documents. Please pardon the typos as the webmaster is a poor typist. While an effort was made to spell acronyms, here is a reference guide for those acronyms.

Single School Plan Components

What Did You Learn from 2004/05 Cycle of Inquiry?

1. Looking at your data what general trends do you see? What does the data tell us about how the focus group did? How much progress did they make? How does this compare to growth of other subgroups? Is the student achievement gap closing?

We learned that although our Reading Program did not go as smoothly as we hoped for, we no longer have any students at the Far Below Basic and only eleven of our students scored at the Below Basic level.

Math continues to be a focal point for our school improvement plans. In 2005 17% of our students scored in the Far Below Basic and 13% scored in the Below Basic band. This equals 30% of our learners compared to 13% for English Language Learners. Our overall Math Movement chart reveals that while some student test scores caused them to move up a quintile, more students actually moved downward in their scores from the previous year to the 2004-05 school year.

In terms of specific gradesand levels we did not get the gains we hoped in pre-Algebra, bu Algebra fared better:

• Grade 7 math scores declined in general; more learners scored in the lowest three quintiles: 41% in 2005 compared to 37% in 2004 (additionally 3% in 2005 scored FBB compared to 0% in 2004). The same pattern holds true for the top quintiles though was a 3% increase in Advanced scores.
• Grade 8 Algebra reveals significant improvement: 43% students tested into the top two quintiles in 2005 as compared with 7% in 2004 and 57% tested at the Basic and Below Basic levels as compared to 79% in 2004. Another significant gain is that no students in this subgroup tested at the Far Below Basic as compared to 14% in 2004.
• Grade 9 Algebra reveals improvement: No learners scored at the Proficient level in 2004, while 14% scored Proficient in 2005. In 2004 100% of the students scored in Below Basic and Basic, in 2005 this percentage decreased to 86%. Below Basic scores moved from 47% in 2004 to 36% in 2005. At the lowest level, in both 2004 and 2005, no learners scored Far Below Basic.

These results demonstrate that we met our goal that stated "Algebra learners will experience an increase of 10% in the number performing at a proficient level".

A review of our semester grades reveal that we did not meet our pre-algebra target goal of "85% of learners achieving a C or better as measured in semester grades". In semester one 50% achieved a C or better; in semester two 64% achieved a C or better.

Our attendance target of 90% in our math support class (TAP) was acheived.

2. What evidence/data do you have regarding the level of implementation of the teacher/instructional practice and/or schoolwide practice that you planned in your last Cycle of Inquiry? Include information about what was not implemented as well as what was implemented.

In Reading, we created a weekly humanities meeting during which time humanities facilitators met to discuss learners on an ongoing informal basis and were easily able to shift learners into Humanities Lab if needed.

While we did not create an ongoing reading support class, it proved to be less comprehensive that the one we would like to see in place for this school year, so this has become an area of focus for our reading plan.

In Math, we created a weekly math meeting during which time math facilitators met to discuss learners on an ongoing informal basis and were easily able to shift learners into different math sections if the need arose. Out of these discussions, in summer 2005, the math facilitators created and Algebra Screening Matrix for Entrance into Algebra with the plan of implementing this new system for the 2005-06 school year.

At the beginning of semester two, 2005, our Math department implemented a math intervention program, TAP (Targeted Assistance Program), which operated for two hours after school each week on Wednesday. This program targeted math students who wer failing to master content standards in their math classes. Atendance records indicate that this intervention program achieved an attendance rate of 90%. Our pre-algebra scores continue to be lower than desired, a situation that we will address in this year's single school plan.

3. What evidence do you have that your focus on these students has positively impacted their learning?

Our reading program was not implemented as well as we had hoped for, so it is difficult tp assess its impact on the learners it was designed to serve. Our school ELA scores continue to be an area of strength at ACLC and we plan to implement system-wide literacy strategies to further strengthen our program.

There is mixed evidence about the success of our math program last year. Learners benefited from our Algebra interventions, but did not achieve any gains in pre-Algebra.

4. Is there anything else you learned in examining your data that will inform your revised problem statement?

In the area of reading, in addition of targeting the lowest learners in pull-out sections, it would be to our benefit to develop and implement school-wide literacy strategies that would assist all learners in understanding basic vocabulary so that all of them can achieve even greater success on standardized achievement tests.

An analysis of our reading intervention program last yea reveals results that were less desirable than those expected: 7 of 13 learners moved up to Basic while 6 of 13 were designated as Below Basic again and are repeating the class this year. These outcomes reveal a flaw in the staffing design and class structure that has now been addressed. This year the program has be revamped, is now taught by a Rewards trained facilitator and utilizes the additional support of the Resource Specialist classroom aide, the Resource Specialist and the ACLC counselor.

Fall 2005

1. What are your problem statements?

Student Achievement Problem Statements

• In the Secondary Literacy Support Network plan addresses two problems:
1. Creating an intensive literacy class for learners scoring at below basic.
2. Creating a school-wide literacy plan to assist all learners in comprehending written materials at a higher level, and to help them achieve at levels on district tests.
• In Math, too high a percentage of our math learners continue to score at levels below proficient, particularily at the pre-algebra level. Students are not learning the necessary material required to help them achieve mastery in their math classes.

Teacher Practice Problem Statements

• The Secondary Literacy Support Network plan identifies teacher problems related to English Language Arts.
• The math department needs to find ways to refine instructional practices and create extra time in class for those learners who are struggling with the basic skils required at the pre-algebra level.
• The math department needs to develop systems to provide math support for learners at all levels of math instruction.
2. What are your inquiry questions?

Student Achievement Questions

• The Secondary Literacy Support Network plan identifies student achievement questions related to English Language Arts?
• How can the math department refine instructional practices and create extra time in class for those learners who are struggling with the basic skils required at the pre-algebra level?
• How can the math department provide math support for learners at all levels of math instruction?
• Will these specific changes in our program, provide a more successful math program at ACLC?
• Increase pre-algebra and algebra class meetings to five days a week
• Change personnel
• Standardize use of note-taking, notebooks, department portfolios, accelerated math
• Increase depratmental communication
• Utilize Math Screening matrix

Teacher Practice Questions

• The Secondary Literacy Support Network plan identifies teacher/instructional practice questions for English Language Arts.
• Will the use of Math Screening Matrix serve to place math students in the correct level?
• Will five days of math instruction and practice help to improve scores?
• Will standardizing the practice of note-taking, notebooks, department portfolios and accelerated math assist in the uniformity of teacher practices? Will the change in math personnel be positive?
3. What are your measurable goals?

Student Achievement Goals

• The Secondary Literacy Support Network plan identifies measurable goals for English Language Arts.
• In pre-algebra 70% of learners will achieve a "C" or better as measured by semester grades.
• No pre-algebra or algebra learners will test at the Far Below Basic level.
• Fewer than 5% of algebra learners will perform at the below basic level.
• This year we want our overall math movement chart to indicate that more leaners have advanced 1+ level than declined 1+ level. (Last year our overall math movement chart indicated that our learners decreased 1+ level at a rate double the learners that increased 1+ level.)

Teacher Practice Goals

• The Secondary Literacy Support Network plan identifies measurable goals for English Language Arts teachers.
• Pre-algebra and Algebra will meet five days a week. 100% of classes will utilize a uniform system for note-taking, portofolios and accelerated math.
4. What are your major strategies?
1. Scheduling math classes 5 days a week.
2. Implementing math matrix for scheduling learners in math classes.
3. Standardizing systems in the math department.
4. Creating an intensive intervention program that utilizes Rewards to teach Below Basic learners.
5. Involving all staff in a school-wide literacy program.

Alameda Community Learning Center 2003/04 Single School Plan

Alameda Community Learning Center

Single School Plan Home

TOP

Send mail to mikemcmahonausd@yahoo.com with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: February 28, 2006

Disclaimer: This website is the sole responsibility of Mike McMahon. It does not represent any official opinions, statement of facts or positions of the Alameda Unified School District. Its sole purpose is to disseminate information to interested individuals in the Alameda community.