EDLD+5333+Assignments

=**Leadership for Accountability**=

Summary of AYP Indicators % counted as proficient on test or projected to be proficient based on TPM for students enrolled the full academic year subject to the federal cap // OR //
 * **//Reading/English Language Arts://****// Performance Standard: 67% //**

// Performance Improvement/Safe Harbor: // // Participation Standard: 95% //
 * 10% decrease in percent not proficient on test **
 * and meet the standard // or // show any improvement on the **
 * other measure (Graduation Rate // or // Attendance Rate) **
 * 2008–09 tests (TAKS, TAKS (Accommodated), **
 * TAKS–M, TAKS–Alt, TELPAS Reading ** * **, and LAT **
 * in Grades 3–8 & 10) **
 * All students and each student group that meets **
 * minimum size requirements: **
 * African American **
 * Hispanic **
 * White **
 * Economically Disadvantaged **
 * Special Education **
 * Limited English Proficient **
 * Participation in the assessment program for **
 * students enrolled on the date **
 * of testing **

// OR // // Average Participation Rate: // 10% decrease in percent not proficient on test and meet the standard // or // show any improvement on the other measure (Graduation Rate // or // Attendance Rate) 2008–09 tests (TAKS, TAKS (Accommodated), TAKS–M, TAKS–Alt, and LAT in Grades 3–8 &  10) All students and each student group that meets minimum size requirements (see above) Participation in the assessment program for students enrolled on the date of testing 95% participation based on combined 2007-08 and 2008-09 assessment data || Graduation Rate for high schools, combined elementary/secondary schools offering Grade 12, and districts offering Grade 12 Attendance Rate for elementary schools, middle/junior high schools, combined elementary/secondary schools not offering Grade 12, and districts not offering Grade 12 || Graduation Rate for high schools, combined elementary/secondary schools offering Grade 12, and districts offering Grade 12 ||
 * 95% participation based on combined 2007-08 **
 * and 2008-09 assessment data ** ||
 * //Mathematics:// // Performance Standard: 58% //
 * % counted as proficient on test or projected to be **
 * proficient based on TPM **
 * for students enrolled the full academic year **
 * subject to the federal cap **
 * // OR //**
 * // Performance Improvement/Safe Harbor: //**
 * // Participation Standard: 95% //**
 * // OR //**
 * // Average Participation Rate: //**
 * **//Attendance Rate://**
 * // Graduation Rate Standard: 70.0% //**
 * // or any improvement //**
 * // Attendance Rate Standard: 90.0% //**
 * // or any improvement //**
 * **//Graduation Rate://** **// Graduation Rate Standard: 70.0% //**
 * // or any improvement //**

Campus AYP Data Table |||||||||||||||||| **Campus Name: George W. Truett Elem.**
 * **Campus AYP Status: Academically Acceptable** ||
 * **Title I Improvement Requirement: None** ||
 * **Percent Meeting Standard/ Participation Rate** ||
 * **Performance Area (most current yr.)** || **All Students** || **African American** || **Hispanic** || **White** || **Econ. Disadv.** || **Sp. Education** || **LEP (Measure)** || **LEP Students** ||
 * **Reading/ ELA** || 71 || 63 || 75 || <1% || 69 || 50 || 72 || N/A ||
 * **Mathematics** || 68 || 59 || 72 || <1% || 67 || 69 || 73 || N/A ||
 * **Attendance Rate** || 96.6 || 95.8 || 97.2 || 96.0 || 96.6 || 95.7 ||  || 97.9 ||
 * **Graduation Rate** || Not Measured || Not Measured || Not Measured || Not Measured || Not Measured || Not Measured || Not Measured || Not Measured ||
 * **Attendance Rate** || 96.6 || 95.8 || 97.2 || 96.0 || 96.6 || 95.7 ||  || 97.9 ||
 * **Graduation Rate** || Not Measured || Not Measured || Not Measured || Not Measured || Not Measured || Not Measured || Not Measured || Not Measured ||

Comparison of Campus AYP Data to AYP Standards In the table below, compose a one paragraph comparison for each performance area that is applicable at your campus. Evaluate each subgroup’s performance and areas of strength and weakness as identified by the indicators.
 * Reading/English Language Arts: The AYP for Reading/English Language Arts is 67%. Based on the data from the AYP we have two sub-groups that did not meet that standard, African American and Special Education. Also the sub-group Economically Disadvantage is dangerous close to the AYP at 69%. Based on the data our campus is strong in the sub-groups of Hispanic and LEP measured. ||
 * Mathematics: The AYP target for Mathematics is 58%. Our campus was able to reach that goal in all of our sub-groups. According to the data we can still improve in the African American sub-group since it is too close to the minimal AYP at 59%. Also based on the data our campus is very strong in the sub-groups of Hispanic and LEP measured. ||
 * Attendance Rate: In this area of the AYP, our campus us well above the 90% requirement. All sub-groups are above 95%. It seems based on this data that our students, pretty much all of them, come to school the majority of the time throughout the school year. ||
 * Graduation Rate: This is not measured in our campus since we are an elementary school. ||

What is vision? What are the components of a shared vision? || To me a vision is what you see happening to something or someone that helps their advancement. In this case the vision has to do with a school campus and it’s students. A vision that everyone strives for is a shared vision. A shared vision to me needs to have one main element; it needs to encompass everyone in that school, from TA’s and teachers to the custodial staff and cafeteria workers. Everyone in that building needs to know the vision and always trying to reach it.
 * What are the steps in developing, articulating, and implementing a shared vision? How does your campus articulate its vision? || The process of developing, articulating, and implementing a shared vision include knowing the culture of the school. A vision statement does not do anyone any good if it can’t meet the needs of the school’s student population. Also it must include professional growth for the teachers as well as include collaboration.

In my campus, our vision is not really articulated. In fact if you ask a teacher in the building almost everyone will not know what it is or where they can find it. Our campus is lacking good leadership and thus a good vision for the school that can help guide our students and us to success. || How can you use what you learned at these Web sites to help you articulate your personal vision of leadership? With regard to the campus improvement process, why do you think it is important for the principal to have a personal vision of leadership?
 * Looking back at the websites, I can use the knowledge gained to help me to compose my personal vision statement for my campus. It gave me the needs tools to build from, allowing me to focus and narrow down what I want my school to be in the future and how I need to lead to get it there. ||
 * It is important for the principal to have a personal vision of leadership because it is they who run the whole operation. If the person in charge does not have a personal vision or goal in mind how can they expect for the campus staff and personal to follow them, to help them reach their goals and most importantly the schools goals. ||

** AEIS Comparison Chart: All Grades Tested ** · **Reading:** · **Writing:** · **Social Studies:** · **Mathematics:** · **Science:** || **Standard (same for all subjects):** |||| **Standard (same for all subjects):** || //Example: 70 – 65 = -5// || **Standard – Campus Score = Difference** //Example: 75 – 65 = -10// |||| **Standard – Campus Score = Difference** //Example: 90 – 65 = -25// ||
 * |||| ** Acceptable ** || ** Recognized ** || ** Exemplary ** ||  ||
 * **Base Indicators** |||| **Standard (varies by subject):**
 * **TAKS (use most recent results & most recent standards criteria)** |||| **Standard – Campus Score = Difference**
 * **Reading/ ELA** ||||  ||   ||||   ||
 * All Students |||| +3 || -2 |||| -17 ||
 * African American |||| -4 || -9 |||| -24 ||
 * Hispanic |||| +6 || +1 |||| -14 ||
 * White |||| Not enough tested || Not enough tested |||| Not enough tested ||
 * Econ. Disadvantaged |||| +1 || -4 |||| -19 ||
 * **Writing** ||  ||   ||||   ||
 * All Students || +18 || +13 |||| -2 ||
 * African American || +9 || +4 |||| -11 ||
 * Hispanic || +22 || +17 |||| +2 ||
 * White || Not enough tested || Not enough tested |||| Not enough tested ||
 * Econ. Disadvantaged || +17 || +12 |||| -3 ||
 * Econ. Disadvantaged || +17 || +12 |||| -3 ||

** AEIS Comparison Chart: All Grades Tested (Continued) **
 * **Social Studies** || N/A || N/A || N/A ||
 * All Students || N/A || N/A || N/A ||
 * African American || N/A || N/A || N/A ||
 * Hispanic || N/A || N/A || N/A ||
 * White || N/A || N/A || N/A ||
 * Econ. Disadvantaged || N/A || N/A || N/A ||
 * **Mathematics** ||  ||   ||   ||
 * All Students || +14 || -6 || -21 ||
 * African American || +3 || -17 || -32 ||
 * Hispanic || +9 || -1 || -16 ||
 * White || Not enough tested || Not enough tested || Not enough tested ||
 * Econ. Disadvantaged || +13 || -7 || -22 ||
 * ** Science ** ||||  ||   ||   ||
 * All Students |||| +20 || -5 || -20 ||
 * African American |||| +8 || -17 || -32 ||
 * Hispanic |||| +16 || +1 || -14 ||
 * White |||| Not enough tested || Not enough tested || Not enough tested ||
 * Econ. Disadvantaged |||| +19 || -6 || -21 ||
 * White |||| Not enough tested || Not enough tested || Not enough tested ||
 * Econ. Disadvantaged |||| +19 || -6 || -21 ||

AEIS Comparison Chart: Grade Level For this portion of the assignment, select a grade level at your campus. **Reading: 70% (3rd Grade)** **Writing:** **Social Studies:** **Mathematics: 55% (3rd Grade)** **Science:** || **Standard (same for all subjects): 75%** || **Standard (same for all subjects): 90%** ||
 * || ** Acceptable ** || ** Recognized ** || ** Exemplary ** ||
 * **Base Indicators** || **Standard (varies by subject):**
 * **TAKS (use most current AEIS data & standards)** || **Standard – Grade Level = Difference** || **Standard – Grade Level = Difference** || **Standard – Grade Level = Difference** ||
 * **Reading/ ELA** ||  ||   ||   ||
 * All Students || +6 || +1 || -14 ||
 * African American || +4 || -1 || -16 ||
 * Hispanic || +10 || +5 || -10 ||
 * White || Not enough tested || Not enough tested || Not enough tested ||
 * Econ. Disadvantaged || +2 || -3 || -18 ||
 * **Writing** || N/A || N/A || N/A ||
 * All Students || N/A || N/A || N/A ||
 * African American || N/A || N/A || N/A ||
 * Hispanic || N/A || N/A || N/A ||
 * White || N/A || N/A || N/A ||
 * Econ. Disadvantaged || N/A || N/A || N/A ||
 * Econ. Disadvantaged || N/A || N/A || N/A ||

AEIS Comparison Chart: Grade Level (Continued)
 * **Social Studies** || N/A || N/A || N/A ||
 * All Students || N/A || N/A || N/A ||
 * African American || N/A || N/A || N/A ||
 * Hispanic || N/A || N/A || N/A ||
 * White || N/A || N/A || N/A ||
 * Econ. Disadvantaged || N/A || N/A || N/A ||
 * **Mathematics** ||  ||   ||   ||
 * All Students || -5 || -25 || -40 ||
 * African American || -9 || -29 || -44 ||
 * Hispanic || -8 || -28 || -43 ||
 * White || Not enough tested || Not enough tested || Not enough tested ||
 * Econ. Disadvantaged || -7 || -27 || -42 ||
 * **Science** || N/A || N/A || N/A ||
 * All Students || N/A || N/A || N/A ||
 * African American || N/A || N/A || N/A ||
 * Hispanic || N/A || N/A || N/A ||
 * White || N/A || N/A || N/A ||
 * Econ. Disadvantaged || N/A || N/A || N/A ||
 * White || N/A || N/A || N/A ||
 * Econ. Disadvantaged || N/A || N/A || N/A ||

AEIS Comparison Chart: Other Factors Campus Action Plan |||||||||| Goal: Have all students at Truett Elem to reach Recognized Status by the end of the 2010-2011 school year.
 * || ** Acceptable ** || ** Recognized ** || ** Exemplary ** ||  ||
 * **Base Indicators** || **Standard:** || **Standard:** |||| **Standard:** ||
 * **TAKS (use most current AEIS data & standards)** || **Standard – Campus Score = difference** || **Standard – Campus Score = difference** |||| **Standard – Campus Score = difference** ||
 * **//Completion Rate (High School)//** || N/A || N/A |||| N/A ||
 * All Students || N/A || N/A |||| N/A ||
 * African American || N/A || N/A |||| N/A ||
 * Hispanic || N/A || N/A |||| N/A ||
 * White || N/A || N/A |||| N/A ||
 * Econ. Disadvantaged || N/A || N/A |||| N/A ||
 * **Base Indicators** || **Standard:** || **Standard:** |||| **Standard:** ||
 * **TAKS (use most current AEIS data & standards)** || **Standard – Campus Score = difference** || **Standard – Campus Score = difference** |||| **Standard – Campus Score = difference** ||
 * **//Dropout Rate (Grades 7 & 8)//** || N/A || N/A |||| N/A ||
 * All Students || N/A || N/A |||| N/A ||
 * African American || N/A || N/A |||| N/A ||
 * Hispanic || N/A || N/A |||| N/A ||
 * White || N/A || N/A |||| N/A ||
 * Econ. Disadvantaged || N/A || N/A |||| N/A ||
 * **Base Indicators** || **Standard:** || **Standard:** |||| **Standard:** ||
 * **TAKS (AEIS reports the previous year’s attendance rate)** || **Standard – Campus Score = difference** || **Standard – Campus Score = difference** |||| **Standard – Campus Score = difference** ||
 * **Attendance Rate** ||
 * **Base Indicators** || **Standard:** || **Standard:** |||| **Standard:** ||
 * **TAKS (AEIS reports the previous year’s attendance rate)** || **Standard – Campus Score = difference** || **Standard – Campus Score = difference** |||| **Standard – Campus Score = difference** ||
 * **Attendance Rate** ||
 * **Attendance Rate** ||
 * **Attendance Rate** ||
 * Objective: By the end of the 2010-2011 school year, all students at Truett Elem, including all sub-groups, will be ranked as Recognized or higher as measured by the state’s TAKS assessment. ||
 * Target Group(s): The biggest at risk sub-groups for this objective will be African-American students in all tested grade levels. ||
 * Activity/ Strategy (Include 3) || Person(s) Responsible || Timeline || Resources/Estimated Cost || Formative Evaluation ||
 * 1. According to the school AEIS data, one of the lowest scores for our target sub-group is 3rd Grade mathematics. To help those targeted students the school will provide computer based after school tutoring in basic mathematics facts. || Alberto Guia, Campus Technologist || Aug. 2010 – March 2011 || Title 1 funds for after school tutoring at $20/hour times twice weekly will be estimated cost of $1100. || After every two weeks of after school computer based tutoring students will be given an online exam to see how well they have progressed and meet their personal target goal that will be developed by both the teacher and the student. ||
 * 2. Hire a half or part-time Math Coach/Specialists to work with the at risk sub-group. || Judith Van Zandt, School Dean || Dec. 2010-April 2011 || Title 1 funds for a part-time coach/specialists for approximately 4 months is estimated at $8500. || The coach will give a weekly district made common assessment and a bi-weekly teacher made common assessment to see how students are progressing. The data from the common assessments will be entered into a graph to show progress in each math concepts. ||
 * 3. Provide after school professional development for all math teachers in grades 3-5. || Judith Van Zandt, School Dean || Aug. 2010- April 2011 || The after school professional development will be done by district personnel and coaches requiring no cost out of the school’s budget. || Teachers will be asked to track student progress via charts/graphs to show the students strengths and weaknesses as well as any trends in different math concepts. ||
 * 3. Provide after school professional development for all math teachers in grades 3-5. || Judith Van Zandt, School Dean || Aug. 2010- April 2011 || The after school professional development will be done by district personnel and coaches requiring no cost out of the school’s budget. || Teachers will be asked to track student progress via charts/graphs to show the students strengths and weaknesses as well as any trends in different math concepts. ||

Summative Evaluation: Explain the summative evaluation process for the campus action plan. || The summative evaluation process for the campus action plan is very simple; the students will show what they know on the TAKS test. The targeted sub-groups will demonstrate on paper what they have learned throughout the school through their intensive tutoring during the day and after school. The teachers will show the data they have created for their targeted students as well as the strategies they used for each students which they would have learned for their bi-weekly after school professional development. Professional Development Agenda |||||||||| Action Plan Goal: To give teachers some real classroom ideas/projects they can use the computer or internet that they can use with their students to help reinforce the concepts of math. According to the date from the AEIS and CIP that is the schools area of greatest need. || 3-5 Math teachers  ||  Facilitator: Judith Van Zandt, Dean ||  Location: Rm. 139 Computer lab ||  Start Time: 9:00 am ||  End-Time: 3:30 pm  || During the staff development session I will have teachers in groups of 5 play the game the same way the students will. The game is played in front of the whole class with a projector and/or with a Smartboard so the students can go in front of the class and choose their own categories and point values. || 2 Hours – Allow teachers to learn the game and play themselves as if they were students. This will give the teachers a basic idea on how the game is played as well as an opportunity to use the Smartboards that can used for this in class activity. || Depending on what math concept the teachers are working on for any given week the teacher’s list of websites and on-line activities will be placed into different math concept groups. The teachers can then decide which links to use according to their on-line planning guides and the pace their students are grasping the concepts. During the staff development the teachers will have free access to visit all websites and on-line activities, taking notes of which ones they like and can use in their classrooms. || 2 Hours  ||
 * || 96.3 ||
 * Action Plan Objective: 3-5 Math teacher hands on activities
 * Action Plan Objective: 3-5 Math teacher hands on activities
 * Topic: 3-5 Math ||
 * Subtopics: For targeted sub-group of African American population ||
 * Grade Level:
 * Strategy/ Activity  ||   Purpose   ||   Description   ||   Steps   ||   Estimated Time   ||
 * Jeopardy – Math Basic Facts ||  The purpose of this activity is to give teachers more resources to introduce or reinforce the basic math concepts of addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication to help improve student scores on their Benchmarks as well as their TAKS Math test.  ||  This is computer-based program based on the TV show Jeopardy. The game will have all aspects of the game, such as round 1, 2nd round (Double Jeopardy), and the final question.   ||  The game will have 6 categories going across as well as point values ranging from 100 – 1000, depending on the round of the game. The game is best played with the whole class in which the teacher can divide it into two teams. The teacher will have the students work as a group but all students within the group will take turns as the group spokesmen ensuring all students have a chance to participate. The teams will have about 45 seconds to reply to a question before the opposing team has a chance to steal. As an added component, the teacher can also play along as the 3rd group when neither team gets the correct answering; this will allow the students a chance to beat the teacher as well as the other group. The group with the most points at the end of the game will be declared a winner in which the teacher may choose to hand out rewards or some other form of recognition.
 * Student Friendly Math Websites and On-line Activities ||  The purpose of this activity is to give teachers more resources to introduce or reinforce the math concepts that the targeted sub-group shows signs of improvement based on their common assessments and teacher observations.   ||  This portion of the staff development teachers will be given a list of website and on-line activities that pertain to math concepts.  ||  In this activity of the staff development all teachers will have their own computer to work with however in their classroom they may use the 2-3 class computers as stations for this activity.


 * 96.3 |||| 96.3 ||