Franklin School Plan 2005/06

Franklin Elementary School was a K-5 school with an enrollment of 281 in 2005/06. To review Franklin's state Academic Performance Index scores since 2000 click here.

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?

All subgroups of Franklin's students improved in ELA with the exception of our Asian population. Overall, we improved our Annual Measurable Objective score to exceed our goal. (55.3% in 03-04 to 75.1% in 04-05) Our Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SED) subgroup scores improved. Our AYP goal was to improve the SED subgroup score by 7 points, and Franklin's SED focus group improved by 14.6 points. (35.4% in 03-04 to 50.0% in 04-05) According to subgroup data, our SED students' growth improved comparably with our traditionally higher achieving subgroup population during this school year. (SED 14.6% vs White 13.8%) This would indicate progress towards the closing the achievement gap.

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.

We chose to use formative Houghton Mifflin and Success Maker data to target instruction for strategic and interventions students during Universal Access time and whole group instruction. Franklin administrators and teacher leaders facilitated Cycle of Inquiry discussions using HMR assessments, and each grade level developed specific strategic teaching activities in ELA and listed their target students for improvement. Grade level progress follows: Knidergarten improved their target students' decoding of CVC words, although this group is still below their class average. First and second garde worked onpunctuation & capitalization, reading comprehension, and literacy response and anlaysis. Teachers felt their students made improvement; however, measurable post-data was not collected. Third grade increased reading comprehension according to teacher's verbal assessments and student showed improvement in their written response to literature. Fourth and fifth grade teachers chose to improve direct instruction for editing skills by using a common chart and strategies, although HMR tests provide inconclusive results. More consistent implementation and common assessments are needed in this area. Schoolwide, Successmaker reports showed improvement for targeted students. All staff implemented a new Word Wizard vocabulary program in the Spring. Data related to the impact of this program needs to be collected. Overall, Franklin needs to defin standard pre- and post-assessments to measure progress in our identified areas of concern.

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

During the 2004-05 school year, Franklin's matched student set scores on the ELA CST show that 15% (17 of 116) moved from non-proficient to proficient range. 35% of our students increased at least one level in their performance band as compared to their performance the year before.

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

Our weak ELA areas, as measure through HMR, are similar to those in the greater district. Thus, Franklin's staff development focus should correspond to district inservice and initiatives in these identified areas of need (vocabulary, reading comprehension and writing). Teachers are finding gaps in the HMR writing program and wish to address this through the Cycle of Inquiry.

Fall 2005

1. What are your problem statements?

Student Achievement Problem Statements

• Franklin's Spring 2005 California Standards Test data in English Language Arts still indicates a discrepancy between our target subgroup, Socio-economically disadvantaged (SED) students, and the traditionally higher performing subgroups (White & Asian). While last year's test scores show an improvement of 14.6 points, there still is a gap in achievement between our SED students and the schoolwide average (SED: 50, Franklin average 75.1). Although our SED students made comparable growth last year (SED: +14.6, White: +13.8) our SED students are still not achieving as well as our White subgroup population (SED: 50 compared to White: 84.6).

Teacher Practice Problem Statements

• Franklin teachers are still struggling to implement Universal Access time in order to strategically differentiate instruction for identified low-performing students. Teachers need to identify formative assessments to measure progress of specific ELA standards.
2. What are your inquiry questions?

Student Achievement Questions

• How will students' word analysis comprehension scores on Houghton Mifflin Reading improve by teaching 3 to 10 Tier II vocabulary words per week?

Teacher Practice Questions

• How will teacher practice improve using the Vocabulary Instrucional Sequence, and how will this be assessed?
3. What are your measurable goals?

Student Achievement Goals

• Franklin's socio-economically disadvantaged students will increase English Arts score by 7 points to exceed our Annual Measurable Objective target.

Teacher Practice Goals

• Teachers will use identified bi-monthly formative assessment (HMR, SME,...) to target insrruction during Universal Access time.
4. What are your major strategies?
1. Provide training, coaching, peer observation and collaboration time for improving HMR materials and assessments.
2. Continue SME program for targeted students and use SME data to help teachers differentiate their instruction for identified needs.
3. Target supllemental support services for identified low-performing students such as SME, "I Can Read" volunteers, After-school Phonics Intervention (Gr. K-2) and Read Naturally (Gr. 3-5).
4. Support teacher differetiation using Universal Access grouping to meet student's identified areas of need.
5. Continue to use Integrated Thematic Instruction and brain-compatible teaching techniques to help all students, especially struggling and reluctant learners. Continue Lifeskill learning.

Franklin 2004/05 Single School Plan

Franklin 2003/04 Single School Plan

Single School Plan Home

Franklin

4 Year District API Base Data

Definitions

School Mobility Percent - Represents the percentage of students attending the school for the first time.

Parent Education Average - The average of all responses where "1" represents "Not a high school graduate", "2" represents "High School Graduate", "3" represents "Some College", "4" represents "College Graduate" and "5" represents "Graduate School".

School Classification Index - A mathematically computed index using other non academic API components to create indicator of similar demographics and school environment to be used for similar school rankings.

Disclaimer: All data has been hand created. If there are questions about the validity of the data, please contact the webmaster.

TOP

Send mail to mikemcmahonausd@yahoo.com with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: February 8, 2005

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.