OREGON DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Submission Date: __6-28-12______
District Name: __Medford School District 549C______
District Address: __815 S. Oakdale Ave. ______
City, State and Zip code ___ Medford, OR 97501______
ESL/Bilingual, Title III Director___Terri Dahl _Elizabeth Prusko Consultation –Carol Holm,Charlie Bauer
District Phone Number _(541) 842-3636______
Title III Director’s Phone Number __(541) 842-3633______
Name of T III Director for SY 2012-2013 __Terri Dahl______
Name of Summer Contact ___July: Todd Bloomquist______
Summer e-mail or phone # __ same______
Table of Contents for Title III Improvement Plans
ITEM / Page # /District/School Information / 2 /
Components of Title III Improvement Plan /
Section A: Planning – Comprehensive Needs Assessment / 2-3 /
1. Assessment results / 4-12 /
2. Teacher Practices / 13-15 /
3. Acts of Leadership / 15-16 /
4. Strengths / 16-17 /
5. Challenges / 17-18 /
6. Identified Needs / 18-19 /
Section A: Inquiry / 19 /
1. Possible cause-effect relationships / 19 /
2. Strategies driven by specific needs / 19 /
3. Analysis of adult actions / 20 /
Section A: SMART Goals / 21 /
Section B: Implementation / 25 /
Instructional Strategies / 25 /
Section B: Master Plan Design / 26 /
1. Purposeful, focused action steps / 27-29 /
2. Adult learning and change process considered / 30-31 /
3. Strategies linked to specific student needs / 32 /
4. Action Steps and Timelines / 34 /
Section C: Monitoring /
1. Monitoring Plan / 39-40 /
2. Monitoring Frequency / 43-45 /
3. Annual Evaluation / 46-47 /
District information:
Check all that apply:
2010-11 AMAOs Report
AMAO 1: Acquiring English Language proficiency
___X___ Met ______Not Meet
AMAO 2 – Proficiency acquired (exited students)
___X___ Met ______Not Meet
AMAO 3 – Adequate Yearly Progress for the ELL Sub-group
Reading
______Met ___X___ Not Meet Corrective Action Year ___7____ (Year 1,2, …)
Mathematics
______Met ___X___Not Meet Corrective Action Year ____7___ (Year 1,2, …)
School information
List the schools that will contribute to the 2012-2013 Title III Improvement Plan, provide name of school and grade levels each school serves. On the AMAOs/AYP columns check all that apply.
School Name / Grades / # ELLs / AMAO 1 / AMA0 2 / AYP Read / AYP MathMet / N M / Met / NM / Met / NM / Met / NM
North Medford HS / 9-12 / 45 / X / X
South Medford HS / 9-12 / 45 / X / X / X
Central Medford HS / 9-12 / 5 / X / X / X
Hedrick MS / 7-8 / 21 / X / X / X / X
McLoughlin MS / 7-8 / 45 / X / X / X / X
Abraham Lincoln ES / K-6 / 13 / X / X
Griffin Creek ES / K-6 / 25 / X / X
Hoover ES / K-6 / 16 / X / X
Howard ES / K-6 / 105 / X / X / X / X
Jackson ES / K-6 / 135 / X / X / X / X
Jacksonville ES / K-6 / 13 / X / X
Jefferson ES / K-6 / 65 / X / X / X / X
Kennedy ES / K-6 / 55 / X / X / X / X
Lone Pine ES / K-6 / 12 / X / X
Oak Grove ES / K-6 / 105 / X / X / X / X
Roosevelt ES / K-6 / 60 / X / X / X / X
Ruch School / K-8 / 3 / X / X
Washington ES / K-6 / 105 / X / X / X / X
Wilson ES / K-6 / 65 / X / X / X / X
Section A: Planning – Comprehensive Needs Assessment - A1. Assessment Results: Narrative Required
I. Formative Achievement Data
a. DIBELS Data
i. End of the Year Average DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Scores for Active ELLs by Building and Grade Level: In schools with larger sample sizes, such as Title I schools (shaded in the table below), the range in average scores among buildings is large in the primary grades, yet decreases by grades 4 and 5, the result being that ELL students from various schools demonstrate similar Oral Reading Fluency levels.
Grade Level: / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5Abraham Lincoln / 73.8 / 56.0 / 56.5 / n/a / 45.5
Griffin Creek / 48.3 / 68.5 / 86.8 / n/a / 80.0
Hoover / 70.0 / 52.0 / 51.5 / 77.3 / n/a
Howard / 53.1 / 80.0 / 69.9 / 101 / 98.6
Jackson / 47.9 / 69.2 / 100.6 / 102.3 / 99.3
Jacksonville / 86.0 / 38.5 / 65.0 / n/a / 129.5
Jefferson / 64.4 / 92.8 / 84.8 / 105.6 / 105.7
Kennedy / 9.7 / 48.1 / 55.8 / 72.4 / 95.3
Lone Pine / 47.0 / 66.5 / 81.0 / 50.0 / n/a
Oak Grove / 71.4 / 85.8 / 96.9 / 105.2 / 97.8
Roosevelt / 73.0 / 52.4 / 52.0 / 102.0 / 98.7
Washington / 40.7 / 48.8 / 74.9 / 98.2 / 95.0
Wilson / 26.6 / 68.0 / 105.2 / 90.0 / 101.0
District / 48.9 / 68.9 / 83.4 / 97.0 / 96.7
Growth Compared to 2010-2011 / 6.9 / -5.9 / -0.2 / 1.7 / 8.1
Grade
Level / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
47.8 / 68.3 / 83.4 / 89.7 / 98.2
ii. Fall to Spring* Average DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Growth for Active ELLs by Building and Grade Level: Using the “Adequate Response to Intensive Intervention” chart by Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, Walz and Germann (1993), the expected realistic growth for 29 weeks of intervention would be: 1st Grade: 58.0, 2nd Grade: 43.5, 3rd Grade: 29.0, 4th Grade: 24.7, 5th Grade: 14.5. The actual amount of intervention for these students varied considerably, as did the number of weeks between which growth was measured.
Grade Level: / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5Abraham Lincoln / 42.0 / 16.0 / 7.0 / n/a / 15.0
Griffin Creek / 31.0 / 28.7 / 20.3 / n/a / 9.5
Hoover / 28.5 / 30.0 / 29.0 / 39.3 / n/a
Howard / 17.2 / 29.4 / 20.4 / 33.6 / 29.4
Jackson / 27.6 / 32.7 / 29.3 / 41.8 / 26.6
Jacksonville / 43.0 / 20.5 / 28.0 / n/a / 38.0
Jefferson / 36.8 / 42.9 / 26.2 / 21.7 / 23.7
Kennedy / 6.1 / 18.1 / 16.0 / 22.4 / 9.8
Lone Pine / 24.0 / 30.5 / 12.0 / 25.0 / n/a
Oak Grove / 32.1 / 40.0 / 37.0 / 37.7 / 22.4
Roosevelt / 46.0 / 25.1 / 30.5 / 59.5 / 25.5
Washington / 22.7 / 25.3 / 29.1 / 34.8 / 18.2
Wilson / 13.6 / 26.3 / 22.0 / 30.1 / 27.2
District / 25.3 / 31.0 / 26.3 / 35.3 / 22.9
Gap Between Actual and Expected Growth / 32.7 / 12.5 / 2.7 / -10.6 / -8.4
* For students who did not have both fall and spring scores, growth scores were calculated for the time frame for which scores were available. Students with only one score for the year were not included.
Growth data reveals that although young students who have recently begun school lag behind in expected Oral Reading Fluency growth, by 3rd grade their rate of growth is comparable to the expected rate of growth for readers at that grade level. Overall, the rates of growth for ELLs on this measure continue to increase as students progress through the grade levels, and by the intermediate grades, exceeds expected rates of growth. This result is not surprising in that as students progress through the grade levels, their English language proficiency also increases, allowing them to more effectively process and benefit from reading instruction in English. This “faster than expected” growth should then allow ELLs to accelerate their progress and eventually catch up to the benchmark Oral Reading Fluency rate for their grade level.
b. Grades Analysis for North Medford High School: In December, 2011, 1st quarter grades and class sizes were analyzed for North Medford High School (NMHS). NMHS was chosen for analysis based on not meeting AYP for graduation rates for the 2010-2011 school year.
i. Class Sizes:
Class Type: / Regular / Honors / APAverage Class Size / 31.04 / 30.56 / 24.75
ii. Year 1 and 2 Monitored Students: Year 1 and Year 2 monitored students were identified as having “academic concerns” based on one of two possible criteria: 1. Failing more than 1 class during the 1st quarter, or 2. not on track to graduate based on accumulated credits. Out of 91 monitored students, 25.3% were identified as having academic concerns. Of those with academic concerns, 82.6% were identified as migrant or homeless or had an IEP or 504 plan, or a combination of those factors. In addition to this general data analysis, the sub-group of migrant and monitored students was looked at to determine whether or not academic success was correlated with participation in the Migrant Ed. after-school program, Hispanic Academic Outreach (HAO). The table below indicates the number of migrant and monitored students falling into each category:
Academic Concerns / No Academic ConcernsParticipated in HAO / 2 (1 of which missed the first 2 weeks of school.) / 6
Did Not Participate in HAO / 7 / 7
iii. Biology Grades for Active ELL and Year 1 and 2 Monitored Students: A review of 1st quarter grades for Active ELL and Year 1 and 2 Monitored students revealed a high percentage of failing grades in the Biology course. Further analysis was then conducted on individual students in Biology classes.
a. Active ELLs: Five out of nine, or 55.5%, of Active ELLs failed the 1st quarter of Biology. Of those who failed, all were either of Latino or Pacific Islander race/ethnicity. Of the four who passed, one was of Latino ethnicity, and the others were of mainland Asian race/ethnicity.
b. Year 1 and 2 Monitored Students: Nine out of eleven, or 81.8%, of Year 1 and 2 Monitored students failed the 1st quarter of Biology. Of those who failed, all were either of Latino or Pacific Islander race/ethnicity. Of the two who passed, one was of Latino ethnicity, and the other was of mainland Asian race/ethnicity. In addition, of those who failed, for six out of nine, or 66.7%, of them, Biology was the only class they failed.
c. Science Grades Analysis for McLoughlin Middle School
II. Summative Achievement Data
a. ELPA
i. AMAO 1: AMAO calculations are based on ELPA scores received through the May batch; therefore, it is difficult to draw conclusions from them. However, preliminary calculations reveal the district-wide AMAO 1 to be 51.0%, compared to last year’s official AMAO 1 calculation of 56.71%. Based on this information, it appears that growth on ELPA has decreased from last year.
Elementary: 51.0%
Middle School: 68.1%
High School: 38.8%
School / % of LEP Students Increasing 1+ Levels on ELPA From 2010-2011 to 2011-2012NMHS / 33
SMHS / 47
CMHS / 0
Hedrick MS / 81
McLoughlin MS / 58
Abraham Lincoln / 87
Griffin Creek / 41
Hoover / 40
Howard / 49
Jackson / 55
Jacksonville / 57
Kennedy / 47
Lone Pine / 67
Oak Grove / 56
Roosevelt / 52
Washington / 41
Wilson / 46
ii. AMAO 2A: Preliminary AMAO 2A calculations reveal that 16.7% of all ELLs were exited this year, which is 0.3% short of the AMAO 2A target of 17.0%.
Elementary: 14.4%
Middle School: 24.7%
High School: 26.0%
School / % of LEP Students Exited During 2011-2012NMHS / 27.1
SMHS / 40.8
CMHS / 0.0
Hedrick MS / 40.0
McLoughlin MS / 17.6
Abraham Lincoln / 31.6
Griffin Creek / 9.0
Hoover / 5.3
Howard / 14.7
Jackson / 16.7
Jacksonville / 11.1
Kennedy / 17.0
Lone Pine / 36.4
Oak Grove / 14.1
Roosevelt / 4.9
Washington / 17.1
Wilson / 14.9
iii. AMAO 2B: Preliminary AMAO 2B calculations reveal that 52.2% of ELLs who have received ELL services for 5 or more years were exits, which exceeds the AMAO 2B target of 26.5%
Elementary: 61.5%
Middle School: 30.6%
High School: 42.5%
b. OAKS ELA: (Substitute with Pre-preliminary AYP data if possible) Preliminary calculations (which exclude SEM calculations and possible 3rd opportunity scores) reveal that 23.3% of the LEP subgroup met or exceeded on the ELA OAKS test.
Elementary: 29.6%
Middle School: 16.3%
High School: 7.0%
c. OAKS Math: (Substitute with Pre-preliminary AYP data if possible) Preliminary calculations (which exclude SEM calculations and possible 3rd opportunity scores) reveal that 21.9% of the LEP subgroup met or exceeded on the Math OAKS test.
Elementary: 24.5%
Middle School: 26.1%
High School: 7.0%
d. Essential Skills Requirements Met for Seniors: The percentage of seniors who have met the Reading Essential Skills requirement for graduation is disaggregated in the chart below by factors that include LEP status, current participation in the ELL Program and SPED eligibility.
Subgroup / All Students / Excluding SPED studentsLEP Students
Participating in ELL Program / 25% / 30%
Year 1 and Year 2
Monitored Students / 90% / 93%
Non-ELL Students
(Including students exited more than 2 years ago) / 91% / 95%
LEP Students
Parent Refusal of Services / 0% / 0%
DATA PORTFOLIO
The following items make up the Data Portfolio (to be kept on file at the school/district):
o ELPA data for the last five years.
o AYP report for ELs for the last three-five years.
o Summary of Findings of Survey Data and other source documents. (Teachers, Parents, Students, Principal) If Parent sample size is inadequate, you might consider Parent Focus Group(s).
o Summary of Findings of Interview Data and all source documents. (Principal, Counselor, and Teachers)
o Summary of Findings of Focus Group Data and all source documents. (Teachers, Students, and Parents)
o Copy of Data Triangulation
o Comprehensive Needs Assessment: Final Report
o Summary of internal assessment data
o Data Analysis (Trend Data history etc.)
o Cognitive Summary Data (PSAT, SAT etc.)
o Citation from monitoring of Federal Title III Program
Adapted from Improvement Planning Louisiana Department of Education