|
|
Alameda Community Learning Center School Plan 2006/07Alameda Community Learning Center was a 6-12 charter school with an enrollment of 213 in 2006/07. 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 ComponentsWhat Did You Learn from 2005/06 Cycle of Inquiry?
English/Language Arts We implemented our planned school-wide literacy strategies and made progress on our goal of having all learners shift up one level on the CST scores. Although only 22% of our learners moved up one level (compared to our goal of 100%), our English Language Arts program continues to be a strong and successful component of our overall academic program. Nonetheless, we have 37 learners who tested below proficient on the CST and need support. Math Although we have seen marked successes in the program, math continues to be a focal point for our school improvement plans. In the 2005-2006 CST Math Movement Chart, 38 learners decreased 1+ level while 40 increased 1+ level and 86 had no change. This is an improvement from the previous year when a greater number of learners actually moved downwards in their scores than the number that had upward movement. Our program successes are even more striking when we look at the movement of our younger learners. When we isolate grades 7, 8, and 9 we see that only 6 learners decreased 1+ level in their CST scores, while 21 increased 1+ level and 25 remained the same. This leads us to conclude that, while the younger learners are improving their math skills and scores, the older learners are remaining the same or declining in their skills and scores. English/Language Arts We used the REWARDS reading program in our Humanities Lab class to support our below basic learners. The outcome was a steady increase in decoding, reading and fluency speeds. In addition the learners gained better comprehension skills. We stopped using REWARDS toward the beginning of semester 2 (05/06) because there was a greater demand to help learners with reading comprehension in the content area curriculum, mainly in Social Studies. We focused on teaching specific strategies to facilitate comprehension of complex texts. This school year, Humanities Lab has continued our focused and in-depth instruction of materials presented in class. In addition to supporting our learners with Humanities Lab, our resource specialist facilitated staff training on the importance of vocabulary comprehension. All facilitators agreed to use the techniques presented in the workshop in their classrooms, especially in content rich classes like history. We also began a word of the week program on our flat screen in the main room and learners presented books they loved at our weekly, school-wide meeting. Math
Our math team met weekly in both formal and informal sessions. During the meetings the team used a Cycle of Inquiry to discuss teaching practices, assess resultant learner performance, and identify ways of improving these practices based on assessment data. Our math team met its goal that 70% of learners would achieve a “C” or better as measured by semester grades. We almost met our second goal that no pre-algebra learners would test at the Far Below Basic level (FBB)—we had just one learner test FBB. We did not meet our third goal that fewer that 5% of our Algebra learners would perform at the Below Basic (BB) level—we had nearly 15 % test at BB. As mentioned earlier, our math movement charts show that we met our fourth goal and had more learners advance 1+ level than decline 1+ level. The math department also found that the Math Screening Matrix used in 2006 was a reliable tool and will use it again this year to place learners in Algebra. In addition, the team tried out a variety of portfolio formats and has yet to decide on one for school-wide implementation. English/Language Arts Our school’s ELA scores continue to be an area of strength at ACLC and the system-wide literacy strategies that we implemented augmented our already strong program. Our English/Language Arts program has reliably received high test scores and 2006 was no exception. 22% of our learners increased 1+ level in their ELA CST scores, while only 7% decreased 1+level. Math The math team meetings helped learners meet math objectives by allowing the math team to adjust its practices accordingly. In addition, the math team discussed specific learners and their strengths and weaknesses so that teaching might be differentiated to address individual learners. That our math learners were positively impacted by our focus on the program can be seen in over-all higher grades and higher test scores. In addition, our math movement chart indicates that more learners advanced 1+ level than declined 1+ level on the CST math tests. English/Language Arts Our English Language Arts program is strong, yet 18% of our learners continue to test below proficient on the CST (27 learners are Basic---). These learners are in need of direct instructional support in addition to their English classes. Our humanities lab classes have focused on content (homework help) and we see that there is a need to focus on skill building. Of the 27 learners who scored Basic, 14 are within 20 points of the cutpoint for Proficient.
Secondly, although we phased out the Rewards literacy program due to learners testing out, we continue to have a limited number of learners (9, including 3 ELs)whose difficulties in reading affect their grades across all subject areas. Through examining test scores, grades, and facilitator feedback, we have found a need for direct literacy instruction. Math In reviewing our CST math data it became clear that our older learners (10th and 11th grades), especially those taking the High School Math test, need some extra support to be successful. On further investigation it became clear that the kids taking the High School Math test are those who are not currently enrolled in any math class at ACLC. It will be necessary to create an extra study class to prepare these learners for the CST math test. In addition, new this year our math department is using the Carnegie math program. It will therefore be necessary to evaluate this program and make adjustments as needed for the success of all learners at ACLC. Fall 2006
Problem Statements Student Achievement Problems Math: We have recently undergone a change in staff, whose additions to our curriculum have had a positive effect on the program as indicated by our learners’ test scores and grades. Nonetheless, we have not yet reached our goal of having no “Far Below Basic” test scores on the CST. The 2005/2006 test scores showed 7 learners (3%) at FBB. Also, while our math movement charts show positive improvement, 42% of our learners scored below proficient on the CST. ELA: Thirty-seven learners scored below proficient on the English/Language Arts portion of the CST. Of these 37, 27 scored Basic, and of those 27, 14 were within 20 points of the cutpoint for Proficient. These learners are in need of direct instructional support to build their skills. Last year our academic objective was to advance all Below Basic learners to Basic, this year we need to broaden our focus to include those learners who scored at the Basic level and give them the support needed to advance to Proficient. Teacher Practice Problems Math In the area of teacher/instructional practice we have a continued need to focus on our math program. In an effort to strengthen our mathematics program we have increased the time each learner has in math class and instituted the Carnegie Math Program, a research based program for Pre-Algebra to Algebra 2 learners. Our current need is to collect data and analyze the effectiveness of the Carnegie Math Program. ELA Our Language Arts classes need to focus on improving delivery of standards-based instruction to all learners, especially those scoring in the high end of the Basic range who can easily be moved to a Proficient level. Our ELA support classes need to focus on direct instruction in skill building to all learners who scored below proficient on the CST. We do not offer targeted literacy support to our struggling readers outside the regular program. Student Achievement Questions Math Can our math department refine instructional practices and create extra time in class for those learners who are struggling with the basic skills required for proficiency on the CST? Will enrollment in math lab support the academic success of our under-achieving learners? As measured by: Classroom grades, progress on Carnegie math placement assessments, CST scores ELA Will standards-enhanced curricular time improve the skills of those learners who test in the Basic range? Will this enhanced curriculum, in addition to support classes, improve the skills of those scoring FBB, BB, or in the low Basic range on the CST? Will direct literacy instruction improve the abilities of those learners who read below grade level? As measured by: Classroom grades, CST scores Teacher Practice Questions Math Is the ACLC math program strengthening every learner’s ability to increase 1+ level on the CST math test? How are we supporting the learners not currently enrolled in an ACLC math class? What effects is the Carnegie Math Program having on student success? As measured by: CST math test scores, movement charts, class grades and math facilitator analysis of Carnegie Math Program ELA Are facilitators implementing standards-based instructional strategies in Language Arts to strengthen the skills of our Basic learners? Are our support classes provided targeted skill-building for FBB and BB learners? Are we providing literacy support for learners who read below grade level? As measured by: Facilitator assessment of curriculum, implementation of additional standards-based curriculum where needed, and direct instruction time in support classes Student Achievement Goals Math No learners will test at Far Below Basic level in math 63% of learners will test at proficient or above on CST math tests English 87% of learners will test at proficient or above on CST ELA test Teacher Practice Goals Math Math department facilitators will have at least 80% confidence that any increase in test scores were caused by the Carnegie Math Program
ELA Facilitators will ensure that all lessons are explicitly aligned to California State Standards and will implement testing preparation skills into curriculum. Support class facilitators will spend 80% of class time with research based skill building materials
Alameda Community Learning Center 2005/06 Single School Plan Alameda Community Learning Center 2003/04 Single School Plan Alameda Community Learning Center
Send mail to mikemcmahonausd@yahoo.com with
questions or comments about this web site.
|