Lincoln School Plan 2006/07

Lincoln Middle School was a 6-8 school with an enrollment of 961 in 2006/07. To review Lincoln'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?

We still see an achievement gap. (AMO for ELA and Math)

Most groups/sub groups maintained or showed improvement (Hispanic, SED) on the CST, except for the EL population in Math which went down significantly compared to other groups. (AMO for ELA and Math)

In Language Arts all groups showed improvements. (AMO ELA)

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.

The staff was not aware of a focused COI question. However, several of the objectives written down for teacher practice goals were initiated/continued (training on SuccessMaker, REACH training, Literacy Coach, Prentice-Hall training, Advanced Math courses offered, some common vocabulary instructional strategies).

Several objectives were not met because we did not collect measurable data, question design flaw, and data not available.

Some objectives were partially met: Strategic/Core collaboration and access to Measures.

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

Our overall scores have gone up in English/Language Arts. In one of our prior Math focus groups (Hispanics) scores increased 8.4%. (AMO ELA and Math)

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

While our school data continues to show an achievement gap in English/Language Arts and Math, we realize we also need to identify the steps necessary to align all staff efforts to develop a professional learning community that supports all learners.

Fall 2006

1. What are your problem statements?

Problem Statements

Student Achievement Problems

English Language Arts:

Of the 913 students at Lincoln Middle School who took the CST, approximately 30% (274 students) are reading basic or below on CST-Language Arts. Within that group, there are a disproportionate number of Hispanic, SED (Socially Economically Disadvantaged), African American, and EL (English Learners). 54% (44 out of 81 students) of the Hispanic population scored basic or below. 48% (73 out of 151 students) of our SED population scored basic or below. 47% (23 out of 49 students) of our African American population scored basic or below. 69% of our English Learners and Non English proficient students (85 out of 124 students) scored basic or below. 11% of our redesignated English learners (10 out of 94 students) scored basic or below. Only 39 students of the 274 scoring basic or below are not in one of the above identified groups.

Math:

Of the 913 students at Lincoln Middle School who took the CST, approximately 41% (374) are scoring basic or below on CST-Math. Within that group, there are a disproportionate number of African American, Hispanic, and EL students. 49% (40 out of 81 students) of the Hispanic population scored basic or below. 45% (22 out of 49) of the African American population scored basic or below. 40% (87 out of 218) of the EL population scored basic or below. Although the SED population showed growth, it is still significantly below the school average [17%(26 of 151) of SED is basic or below]. Of the students that are placed in 7th grade Algebra, 22% (32 out of 142 students) of these do not transition to 8th grade geometry. 199 students out of the 374 scoring basic or below do not fit these categories. Note for data calculation: Students are moved down one level for taking tests that are below their grade level. An 8th grade student in general math who actually scores proficient moves to basic in calculating school wide API and AYP. This is 20% of students scoring basic or below (76 out of 374). 123 students of the 374 scoring basic or below are not in one of the above identified groups.

Teacher Practice Problems

School Climate:

Currently our school resources are not aligned to create a school climate that supports student achievement and a positive social/emotional experience for all learners.

English Language Arts:

Now that the intensive intervention program (REACH) is in place, we need to focus our efforts and resources to refining the strategic core program and supporting implementation. We also need to continue to refine the delivery of programs at all levels (REACH, Strategic, Benchmark/Advanced, SDAIE, and ELD). While our REACH core is running smoothly, our strategic cores need a concrete curriculum and time for teacher collaboration. Current teachers of SDAIE classes (science and core) need time to meet with the Lincoln ELD coordinator. As a staff, we need to develop strategies to address both academic and content vocabulary.

Math:

Now that the accelerated program (Algebra and Geometry) and math intervention (Math Tech) program are in place, we need to continue our efforts and resources to support articulation between grade level and Math Tech intervention.

We need to investigate the issue of students who are placed in accelerated math, but are not maintaining a minimum proficiency score as measured by a variety of sources which may include the CST, grades, and district assessments. How will we support our target groups (Hispanics, African Americans, and EL students), especially those students who are not in Math Tech.

2. What are your inquiry questions?

Student Achievement Questions

Are students in the intervention, strategic, and ELD classes increasing their fluency rates to achieve grade level standard fluency of 150 words correct per minute of oral fluency?

Are students in the intervention, strategic, and ELD increasing their comprehension as measured by internal assessments?

Are students increasing their knowledge of academic/content vocabulary across the curriculum?

Have 10% of our SED and EL populations shown growth from basic to proficient on the CST ELA?

Math

Are at least 50% of our students in our intervention program passing their grade level math course with a “C-“or above?

What percent of accelerated students are scoring proficient or better based on CST, district assessment and passing math grades? Are students in the accelerated program satisfied with the experience of an advanced math program placement?

What support structures are in place to support struggling students (C- or below) in all Math classes?

How many students are dropping from proficient to basic or below as measured by the 2007 CST?

As measured by:

Language Arts measurements will include:

• AIMS WEB Fluency Test
• CELDT Test
• High Point Assessments
• District Benchmark Assessments
• REACH Assessments
• CST Language Arts scores

Math measurements will include:

• Student grades
• CST Math scores
• District wide mid-year and final math assessment
• Teacher created survey for accelerated classes

Teacher Practice Questions

School Climate:

What school structures are necessary to support ongoing communication and collaboration to achieve the Single School Plan goals?

What support structures are in place to support students academically, emotionally and physically? To what degree are our target groups participating in these structures?

How many referrals for emotional and physical bullying occur during the school year?

Language Arts Questions:

To what degree are strategic core teachers collaborating, and to what degree are SDAIE core teachers working with the ELD coordinator to identify student need and design curriculum materials to support those needs?

To what degree are teachers implementing the two content area literacy strategies of academic/content vocabulary development and the use of realia as agreed upon by the LMS teaching faculty?

Math Questions:

To what degree are math intervention teachers collaborating in the placement of students?

What data is being collected for the purpose of modifying practice?

What instructional techniques are currently being used to align our practice to standards?

As measured by:

• The number of opportunities given to strategic teachers to collaborate and the outcome of the meeting in terms of a curriculum guide at each grade level.
• Use of collaboration time towards goals of the Single School Plan
• Attendance at study hall, intramurals, etc.
3. What are your measurable goals?

Student Achievement Goals

Language Arts:

From Fall 2006 to Spring 2007, 50% of the students in the intervention and strategic classes will reach a score of 150 words correct per minute.

From Fall 2006 to Fall 2007, 50% of the students in the REACH program will exit the program.

From Fall 2006 to Fall 2007, we will have a minimum 10% shift of our Basic students to either Proficient or Advanced on the CST-ELA. Additionally, within our target of (African American, Hispanic, SED and ELL populations, we will also see an overall 10% growth.

75 % of students in our intensive intervention classes (REACH and ELD) will show 80% mastery on state curriculum adopted assessments (REACH and High Point).

Math:

From Fall 2006 to Summer 2007, 75% students in our intervention program will achieve a “C-” or higher in their general math course by the 3rd trimester.

At the year’s end 80% of the students in accelerated courses will score proficient or higher on the CST in their subject area (not grade level.)

From Fall 2006 to Summer 2007, 20 % of targeted students will move from basic to proficient as measured by the CST.

As measured by:

Language Arts:

• AIMS WEB Fluency Test
• High Point Assessments
• REACH Assessments
• CST Language Arts scores

Math:

• Student grades
• CST scores

Teacher Practice Goals

School Climate:

Resources for Lifeskills training will be identified.

Principal will conduct mini- Lifeskills training during faculty meetings on the 5 Life Long Guidelines.

Data will be collected on bullying referrals.

Leadership Team and Staff will identify and prioritize a list of current and needed school structures that support collaboration and communication about student achievement.

Language Arts:

During the 2006-2007 school year, strategic core teachers will meet a minimum of 1 time during the school to identify student need and to design curriculum to support those needs.

By the end of Summer 2007 all strategic core teachers and the ELD coordinator will be SIM trained.

Summer 2007, 90% of all teachers will implement the two content area literacy strategies of academic/content vocabulary development and the use of realia as agreed upon by the LMS teaching faculty.

Math

During the 2006-2007 school year, math teachers will meet a minimum of 1 time during the school year to specifically coordinate the general and intervention math programs.

By the end of Summer 2007, teachers will have met to integrate modifications into the pacing and strategies used with accelerated students.

Math teachers will have the opportunity to attend professional development opportunities to improve practice (eg.. Asilomar, SIMI, etc.)

As measured by:

School Climate:

Staff and Leadership meeting agendas

Staff survey on the use of time to support the goals of the single school plan.

Language Arts:

The number of opportunities given to strategic teachers to collaborate and the outcome of the meeting in terms of a curriculum guide at each grade level.

The amount of time given to teachers collaborate

Math

The modification of the pacing guide

Access and availability to student data (Measures/SASI)

4. What are your major strategies?

Improve implementation of Reading Program in all reading classes. This will include professional development, data collection and analysis.

Teachers will use the agreed upon two literacy strategies of academic/content vocabulary development and realia.

Improve articulation with all levels of the math department

Evaluate alignment of current resources/school structures to support the achievement of single school plan goals

Lincoln 2005/06 Single School Plans

Lincoln 2004/05 Single School Plans

Lincoln 2003/04 Single School Plans

Lincoln

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.

Single School Plan Home

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.