Home

Mike McMahon AUSD
BOE Meetings Assessment Facilities FinancesFavorite Links

Franklin School Plan 2006/07

Franklin Elementary School was a K-5 school with an enrollment of 285 in 2006/07. 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 2005/06 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?
  2. All subgroups of Franklin’s students improved in ELA with the exception of our Hispanic population. We improved our Annual Measurable Objective score to exceed our goal (75.1 in 04-05 to 84.3 in 05-06) Our SED subgroup scores improved. According to subgroup data, our SED students’ growth improved more than our traditionally higher performing white subgroup (84.6 in 04-05 to 88.3 in 05-06), but not as well as our EL students (35.3 in 04-05 to 68.0 in 05-06). This would indicate progress towards closing the achievement gap.

  3. 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.
  4. Teacher self-assessments indicate that students retained vocabulary when it was reinforced through the Instructional Sequence strategy and reviewed again in homework. Teachers tried to develop vocabulary assessments, and many varieties of assessments emerged, but they were not used consistently across grade levels. Walk-throughs and student response on the yard, indicated that teachers were using the Word Wizard vocabulary program. Teachers still struggle with how to differentiate instruction during Universal Access time, and specifically how to assess, word analysis and comprehension for identified low-performing students.

  5. What evidence do you have that your focus on these students has positively impacted their learning?
  6. The CST indicates that in ELA, students moved from 17% at the Basic level to 9.3%, 6% of our students were Below Basic in 2005 as compared to 2.6% in 2006, and students moved from 2%Far Below Basic to 0%.

  7. Is there anything else you learned in examining your data that will inform your revised problem statement?
  8. Teachers would like to continue to target our SED population, understanding it is still a need to be addressed, though this subgroup has made substantial progress. (Please refer to the CST ELA & Math by ELL Designation Chart and the CST ELA Writing Strategies by ELL Designation Chart). Teachers would also like to include our ELL population this year, as our data indicates they struggle with reading comprehension and writing proficiency. (Please refer to the AMO Math Chart and the CST Math Movement Chart-Matched Student Set). Our data also indicates that math is an area to focus staff development this year.

Fall 2006

  1. What are your problem statements?
  2. Problem Statements

    Student Achievement Problems

      Franklin’s Spring 2006 California Standards Test in English Language Arts still indicates a discrepancy between Socio-economically disadvantaged (SED 60.5) and Non-SED students (Non-SED 91) achievement. Although our SED’s made substantial growth last year (SED: 10.5,), our SED students are still not achieving as well as our Non-SED population.

      Franklin’s Spring 2006 CST in Math still indicates a discrepancy between SED students (SED 63.2) and Non-SED (Non-SED 86) achievement.

      Franklin’s Spring 2006 CST in ELA still indicates a discrepancy between EL student (EL:59.1) and non-EL (Non-EL 87) achievement. Further, 79% of non-EL students are proficient or advanced in writing strategies compared to 69.5% of EL students.

      Franklin’s Spring 2006 CST in Math still indicates a discrepancy between EL student (EL:63.6) and Non-EL student (Non-EL:94 ) achievement.

    Teacher Practice Problems

      Franklin teachers are using direct instruction, including Step Up to Writing, to improve organizational skills and writing quality for identified low-performing students. Teachers need to identify grade level rubrics for assessing writing.

      Franklin teachers are working to improve/support conceptual understanding of math by increasing the correct/efficient use of math vocabulary.

      Franklin School will provide additional writing support for ELL students
  3. What are your inquiry questions?
  4. Student Achievement Questions

      To what degree are non-proficient writers improving their writing strategies?

      As measured by:

      HMR Summative and Skills Tests
      Grade level rubrics
      Writing Skills Checklists
      CST

      To what degree are students demonstrating conceptual understanding of math through the command of math vocabulary?

      As measured by: Math Unit Tests
      1-1 Math Interviews
      Teacher Quizzes
      Math Summative Tests
      CST

    Teacher Practice Questions

      How consistently are teachers using direct instruction (including Step Up to Writing), for writing?

      How will teachers collaborate schoolwide to identify key vocabulary terms and devise a strategy for schoolwide instruction?

      As measured by:

      Self Assessment
      Observation and other measures as developed

  5. What are your measurable goals?
  6. Student Achievement Goals

      Franklin’s Socio-Economically Disadvantaged students will increase English Language Arts scores on the California Standards Test by 6 points to exceed our Annual Measurable Objective target.

      Franklin’s SED students will increase Math scores on the CST by 6 points to exceed our Annual Measurable Objective target.

      Franklin’s EL students will increase ELA and Math scores on the CST by 6 points to exceed our Annual Measurable Objective target.

      As measured by:

      Franklin’s Annual Measurable Objective Chart

    Teacher Practice Goals

      Teachers will use direct instruction to teach writing (including the Step Up to Writing program), 2-3 times per week.

      Teachers will choose 1-2 focus students for targeted instruction in writing.
      Teachers will work to establish structures for regular collaboration.
      Teachers will collaborate to identify key vocabulary and will preteach, reinforce, and review math vocabulary schoolwide using a variety of methods.

      As measured by:

      HMR data
      Writing rubrics
      Summative Math Tests
      Teacher Observation

  7. What are your major strategies?
    1. Improve writing instruction and math vocabulary
    2. Target supplemental support services for identified low-performing students, such as SME, Phonics Intervention(Gr. K-2), Read Naturally(Gr. 1-5), Math Coach and Math Intervention, Write into Reading
    3. Purchase books and materials to support ELL students and our intervention program

Franklin 2005/06 Single School Plan

Franklin 2004/05 Single School Plan

Franklin 2003/04 Single School Plan

Single School Plan Home

Franklin

2002 2003 2004 2005
Base API 812 827 824 873
Number of Students Tested 143 156 177 173
State Rank 9 9 9 9
Similar School Rank 8 6 6 10
African American  Students Tested 8 8 17 14
African American Students API N/A N/A N/A N/A
Asian Students Tested 15 18 21 17
Asian Students API N/A N/A N/A N/A
Filipino Students Tested 7 11 18 15
Filipino Students API N/A N/A N/A N/A
Hispanic Students Tested 12 11 9 15
Hispanic Students API N/A N/A N/A N/A
White Students Tested 86 92 96 104
White Students API 850 863 868 911
SED* Students Tested 38 46 62 38
SED* Students API 727 744 736 N/A
% in Free or Reduced Price Lunch  27 30 36 23
% of English Language Learners  12 13 13 9
School Mobility Percent* 13 11 14 11
Parental Education Average* 3.60 3.70 3.69 3.43
School Classification Index* 173.78 177.80 177.14 174.06

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, 2007

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.