Lum School Plan 2005/06

Lum Elementary School was a K-5 school with an enrollment of 533 in 2005/06. To review Lum'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?

The following groups scores grew and reached Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) goals: Hispanic, English Languae Learners and Socio-Economically Disadvantaged (SDE). The following groups scores grew and did not reach Annual Measurable Objective goals: African American and Disabled students.

In Spring, 2005, our fourth and fifth grade students incrased percent proficient on the Literacy Response/Analysis and Reading Comprehension segments of the CST ELA by at least 14% as compared to Spring 2004.

Our Hispanic and English Language Learners continue to make growth that is leading to closing the achievement gap. Our SDE student have made growth two years in a row. This year they met their AMO goals which is a step toward closing the achievement gap. Over the past three years, our Asian and White students have grown and met their AMO goals. Our African American students and disabled students have made growth two years in a row however they have not grown at a rate that begins to to close the achievement gap. In ELA we are mproving scores and closing the achievement gap for more of our target subgroups than we are in math.

Over a three year period we have made constant and significant growth in proficiency on the reading comprehension strategies of the CST tests, both at primary and upper grades. Our certificated staff still believes that this is an area of relative weakness which merits continued focus.

The following groups scores grew and reached Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) goals: English Languae Learners.. The following groups scores grew and did not reach Annual Measurable Objective goals: African American and Hispanic students. The following groups scores did not grow and did not reach Annual Measurable Objective goals: Socio-Economically Disadvantaged (SDE).

Our African Amercian, SDE and English Language Learners have expereinced growth and decline over the last three years with no discernible trend.

Over a three year period, our White and Asian students have consistently performed above the other subgroups. Scores of White and Asian subgroups grew and met AMO goals in one of the two years but suffered a declined in the other.

Overall, in math we are improving scores and closing the achievement gap for fewer of our target subgroups than we are in ELA. In math, our African Amerian and Disabled students are performing far below our school wide average and all other subgroups.

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.

All teachers are using HMR as the core of their reading programs. In 2004/05 upper grade teachers completed their initial year of HMR. Our primary teachers refined thier use of HMR and focused on using Universal Access time to meet the diverse needs of their students. Teachers report that, in almost all cases, they were able to adhere to district pacing guide. Almost all teachers completed all of their required assessments and thier part to enter applicable data in Measures. One data day was held at which each grade level spent approximately two hours analyzing HMR assessment data. Most grade levels also met and analyzed data at other times throughout the year. In addition, a supplemental writing program was piloted by some of our primary teachers. First and second grade teachers created an assessment chart to track student progress. Many teachers administered the Rigby test to aide in tracking student progress.

All teachers made use of the district pacing guide, some were not completely successful at staying on target with this guide. As this was the first year of implementation issues were discovered and feedback given for improving the pacing guide. Math assessments were administered at every grade in which they were available. Results were entered into Measures and most grade levels informally analyzed students' success.

By January, 2005, a spreadsheet for tracking target students was developed and each teacher has identified two target students to track throughout the year. At a staff meeting in January, 2005, every grade level agreed to essential assessments and achievement data that would be used throughout the year to track student progress and guide instruction. Target students' progress was discussed at grade level meetings. At a staff meeting on Feb. 28 2005 we discussed strategies that were proving effective with target student and their families. The School Site Council in collaboration with staff created a "Team Contract" that teachers would use to codify and gain support for struggling students' support programs. In August, 2005 Target Student Spreadsheets were completed adding summative data from STAR and AUSD multiple measures.

All of our target subgroups made growth on the 2005 CST ELA tests. Three of our target groups exceeded their AMO goals. Two of our target groups made growth but did not meet their AMO.

In math, our ELL students exceeded their AMO. Our African American and Hispanic students made growth, but did not meet their AMO. Our Disabled and SED subgroups experienced a drop in their scores.

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

Based on the growth of our reading comprehension scores we can surmise that our implementation of the HMR, our use of Univerisal Access Time and our language arts intervention programs are leading to success for many students.

This was first year looking at and analyzing the achievement of target students. Much of our energy on creating criteria for choosing target students, creating systems to track their progress,identifying the most important data for gauging growth.

Through anlayzing our data - which was not as precise as we would like - we found a majority of our target students maintained thier academic standing and that very few lost ground. Unfortunately, very made significant growth or were able to reach proficiency level.

Fall 2005

1. What are your problem statements?

Student Achievement Problem Statements

• In spite of the gains made over the past three years in the number of students in English Language Arts on the STAR CST ELA test, the percent proficient reamins below our expectations. Previous test results and teacher observations show that comprehension has been a weak area for many of our students and continues to be an area of difficulty.
  The number of our 3rd graders who scored at or above proficiency on the 2005 STAR CST ELA test is significantly below the district 3rd grade performance and the average school-wide proficiency level.
• Out underperforming subgroups (Afro Americans, Disable, English Language Learners, Hispanic and Socially Disadvantaged students) continue to perform below the school average in language arts as measured by percent proficient on the STAR CST ELA test. The achievement gap between our Afro American and disabled students, and our White and Asian has increased.

Teacher Practice Problem Statements

• Our educational practices and programs have bought about improvements in overall reading and reading comprehension at all grade levels. However, our practices have not enabled our students to perform as well as we would like on the CST ELA test and specifically on reading comprehension assessments and classroom activities related to reading comprehension.
• Our educational practices and programs have not enabled our underperforming students to reach school average for percent proficient on the STAR CST ELA exams. In some instances, our educational practices have not decreased the achievement gap between white and Asian and students from our udnerperforming subgroups.
2. What are your inquiry questions?

Student Achievement Questions

• What strategies and programs are most effective in helping more of our students reach proficiency in English Language Arts and specifically on the Reading Comprehension and Literacy Response and Analysis subtests?
• What strategies can we idenitify, through our focus on "target students", that are effective in accelerating the achievement of under performing students?

Teacher Practice Questions

• What aspects of our Houghton Mifflin Language Arts Program need to be strengthened or enhanced in order to raise students's proficiency level on the STAR CST ELA test and Reading Comprehension, and Literacy Response and Analysis subtests?
• How effective are the following practices at accelerating the achievement of target students?
• Teacher administration of biweekly assessments focusing on one specific learning objective.
• During direct instruction and guided practice, teacher engaging target students in verbal or non-verbal responses and direct participation disproportionately more often than other students.
3. What are your measurable goals?

Student Achievement Goals

• The number of students who score at or above proficiency on the STAR ELA test will increase by 5%. The number of students who score at or above proficiency on the Reading Comprehension, and Literacy Response and Analysis susbtest will increase by 5%.
• Lum will increase percent of continousily enrolled stduents from each underperforming subgroup who are proficient in ELA by at least 10%.

Teacher Practice Goals

• With every Houghton Mifflin story, teachers will implement instructional practices learned at staff development days to strengthen students' vocabulary. Teachers will implement universal access with their students at least twice a week.
• In addition, teachers in each classroom will identify two at-risk students, ideally from under-performing subgroups. Teachers will follow the progress of these students to gauge success of education programs, intervention programs and teaching strategies.
• Teachers will assess target students on one specific learning objective at least once every two weeks.
4. What are your major strategies?
1. K-5 teachers will continue to implement and refine delivery of HMR. Focus areas will be Universal Access and strategies to strengthen students' vocabulary.
2. Teachers will assess and analyze progress of students in ELA through use of language arts assessment data, intervention data, teacher observation and STAR data.
3. Maintain and enhance current intervention programs including creating programs to meet needs of struggling students at all grade levels.
4. Teachers will identify two low performing students per classroom, ideally ones from underperforming subgroups and implement additional teaching strategies and assessments. Students progress will be analyzed to gauge success of those strategies.
5. Staff will implement teaching strategies that have proven effective with under-performing students. Targeted students will be used to track effectiveness of these strategies.
6. Maintain and enhance current intervention programs including creating programs to meet needs of struggling students from all grade levels.
7. Maintain and possibly enchance social-emotional support for low performing lower Socio Economic Disadvantaged students.

Lum 2003/04 Single School Plans

Lum

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, 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.