A copy of the Annual Program Review and a revised Schoolwide Plan need not be submitted to the Oklahoma State Department of Education unless requested for monitoring purposes.
Title I regulations require that all schoolwide sites have a written, comprehensive and current site plan. Sites should conduct an annual review of the schoolwide program to evaluate its effectiveness. The purpose of this review is to evaluate all components and to make revisions for the upcoming school year. The annual review can also serve other purposes such as:
- Inform internal program management and help school leaders make informed decisions to improve the quality of their program;
- Answer stakeholder questions and help them better understand how effectively the school is meeting its stated goals;
- Increase understanding of specific strategies and help the school determine the usefulness of the activities it has undertaken to increase student achievement; and
- Promote interest in and support of a program or activity by illustrating certain strategies, their outcomes in terms of improving student achievement, and increasing support for their use.
This toolkit is designed to be a guide during the annual program review process. Though there is no required format for the annual program review, the Designing Schoolwide Programs Non-Regulatory Guidanceoutlines specific requirements and suggested steps for review, which were used to create this document. A school wishing to format the annual review differently, should consult the guidance to ensure all requirements are met.
This Annual Program Review Toolkit includes a template for writing the annual review as well as several resources such as Annual Data Review Action Steps, Document Checklist, Action Plan Templates and Guiding Questions for the 10 Required Components of a Schoolwide Plan.
Documents gathered during the Annual Program Review and the revised Schoolwide Plan should be kept on file at the school site and be made available to all stakeholders. Results from the Annual Program Review must be shared with parents and staff on an annual basis and be made available upon request.
Step I – Assign a Schoolwide Program Review Team
Title I regulations require that a school operating a schoolwide program annually evaluate the implementation of, and results achieved by, the schoolwide program. The school must revise its plan as necessary based on the results of the evaluation to ensure the continuous improvement of student achievement.
Section A – Schoolwide Program Review Team
Name / Title / Stakeholder GroupKarie Hill / Principal / Administrator
Natalie Smith / Title I Reading Specialist / Teacher
Sarah Ryan / Title I Assistant / Teacher
Leticia Shaw / Special Education Teacher / Teacher
Emily Monroe / Media Specialist / Teacher
Erin Cook / Speech/Language Pathologist / Teacher
Carol Batty / Computer Teacher / Teacher
Melissa Hartzell / Counselor / Teacher
Victoria Russell / Fifth Grade Teacher / Teacher
Sarah Hale / Fourth Grade Teacher / Teacher
Elizabeth Myers / Second Grade Teacher / Teacher
Shelley Mattingly / First Grade Teacher / Teacher
Melissa Gish / First Grade Teacher / Teacher
Jessica Parker / First Grade Teacher / Teacher
Quentell Scott / Kindergarten Teacher / Teacher
Apryl Ashby / Pre-Kindergarten Teacher / Teacher
Heather Pyle / Parent / Parent
Becky Young / Parent / Parent
Jodi Green / Parent / Parent
Nikki Millet / Parent / Parent
Kim Ream / Parent / Parent
Section B - Overview
Briefly describe how review team members were selected and which tasks were outlined for the team to accomplish.
An open invitation is made at the beginning of the year for staff and parents to participate on the Title I Committee. The individuals listed have expressed a willingness to commit to the planning process for Title I and agreed to be present at relevant meetings and programs. This group represents lower and upper grade teachers, Special Education teachers, administration, Title I teachers and parents. The committee met at the beginning of the year to review the goals, Site Plan, proposed expenditures, professional development needs and parent nights.
Section C - Documentation
Record and file the following documentation concerning the schoolwide program review team:Attendance Records, Agenda and Minutes of all program review meetings.
Step II – Data Collection
Section A – Types of Data
Student Achievement Data(OCCT, Benchmarks, District Assessments, Report Cards) / Perception Data
(Staff/Student/Parent Surveys, Self Assessments, Meeting Minutes) / Demographic Data
(Attendance, Truancy, Ethnicity, Low-Income, Special Education)
OCCT / Teacher Survey / Ethnicity
DIBELS / Parent Survey / Free/Reduced Lunch
STAR Reading / Student Survey / Special Education
STAR Math / Attendance
DIBELS
Section B - Overview
Briefly describe the data collection process.
- OCCT is administered annually, usually in April, of each school year.
- DIBELS benchmark assessment is administered 3 times per year – Fall, Winter, Spring along with progress monitoring on a weekly basis for those students who have not achieved a benchmark score.
- STAR Reading and Math screening assessments are given monthly along with weekly progress monitoring for students who have not achieved benchmark scores.
- District Quarterly Assessments for reading and math are administered at the end of each quarter.
- Attendance reports are reviewed daily by the principal.
- Reports cards are completed at the end of each quarter.
- Teacher, student and parent surveys are done in the spring of each school year.
Section C - Documentation
Record and file the following documentation concerning the schoolwide program review team:Copies of Data Used in the Annual Review
Agenda, Minutes, and Attendance Record for Data Review Meetings
Step II Addendum – Data Profile (Include last three (3) years of data)
1. Student Enrollment by Gender
Year / Total Enrollment / # Male / % Male / # Female / % Female2014-2015 / 516 / 276 / 54% / 237 / 46%
2013-2014 / 450 / 235 / 52% / 215 / 48%
2012-2013 / 472 / 257 / 54.4% / 215 / 45.6%
2011-2012 / 504 / 271 / 53.7 / 233 / 46.3
2010-2011 / 481 / 243 / 51 / 238 / 49
2. Student Enrollment by Ethnicity
Year / TotalEnrollment / %
Black / %
American
Indian / %
Hispanic / %
Asian/
Pacific
Islander / %
White / %
Other
2014-2015 / 516 / 7% / 4% / 19% / 7% / 46% / 17%
2013-2014 / 450 / 6% / 5.1% / 16% / 6% / 50.4% / 16.5%
2012-2013 / 472 / 4.4% / 7.2% / 15.9% / 7.4% / 53.4% / 11.7%
2011-2012 / 504 / 5.8 / 7.7 / 13.5 / 8.7 / 57.7 / 6.6
2010-2011 / 481 / 7% / 10% / 14% / 5% / 64% / 0
3. Students Eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch Program
Year / Number / Percent of Population2014-2015 / 285 / 55%
2013-2014 / 246 / 55%
2012-2013 / 237 / 50.2%
2011-2012 / 230 / 56.93%
2010-2011 / 230 / 48.38%
4. Students Participating in Targeted Title I Programs
Year / Program Enrollment / Percent of Population2014-2015 / 516 / 100% School Wide
2013-2014 / 450 / 100% School Wide
2012-2013 / N/A (school wide program) / N/A
2011-2012 / N/A (school wide program) / N/A
2010-2011 / N/A (school wide program) / N/A
5. Student Attendance
Year / Average DailyAttendance / Percent of Student Population / # Male / % Male / # Female / % Female
2014-2015 / 493.39 / 94.84% / 268.13 / 54% / 225.26 / 46%
2013-2014 / 428 / 95% / 226 / 53% / 202 / 47%
2012-2013 / 460.9 / 82.8% / 299 / 53.7% / 257 / 46.3%
2011-2012 / 485.96 / 96.12% / 298 / 96.30% / 258 / 95.92%
2010-2011 / 456 / 95% / 232 / 51% / 224 / 49%
6. Student Tardy Rate
Year / Average DailyAttendance / Percent of Student Population / # Male / % Male / # Female / % Female
2014-2015 / 4 / 0.7% / 129 / 23% / 99 / 17%
2013-2014 / 8 / 1.6% / 89 / 34.5% / 88 / 37.6%
2012-2013 / 5.4 / 43% / 132 / 55.2% / 107 / 44.8%
2011-2012 / 11.4 / 2.3% / 171 / 52.8% / 153 / 47.2%
2010-2011 / 8 / 3.5% / 87 / 51% / 83 / 49%
7. Student Mobility Rate
Year / Full Academic Year (FAY) / Non Full Academic Year (NFAY)# Students / % Student
Population / # Students / % Student Population
2014-2015 / 524 / 93% / 39 / 7%
2013-2014 / 438 / 89% / 54 / 10.9%
2012-2013 / 415 / 74.6% / 141 / 25.4%
2011-2012 / 458 / 90.9% / 46 / 9.1%
2010-2011 / 428 / 89% / 53 / 11%
8. Student Truancy Rate
Year / Average Daily Truancy / Percent of Student Population2014-2015 / Data Not Available / Data Not Available
2103-2014 / 0 / 0%
2012-2013 / Data Pending
2011-2012 / 0 / 0%
2010-2011 / 0 / 0%
***As of May 1st, no students/parents have gone to Truancy Court for the 14-15 school year.
9. Students Identified as English Language Learners (ELL)
Year / Program Enrollment / Percent of Student Population2014-2015 / 34 / 7%
2013-2014 / 27 / 6%
2012-2013 / 27 / 5.7%
2011-2012 / 24 / 4.8%
2010-2011 / 24 / 5%
10. Student Behavior
Year / Average Daily Referrals / Average Daily In-School Suspensions / Average Daily Out-of-School Suspensions2014-2015 / 0.5 / 0.08 / 0.12
2013-2014 / 2.36 / 0.17 / 0.34
2012-2013 / 1 / .5 / .01
2011-2012 / 1 / .5 / .01
2010-2011 / 1 / .5 / .01
11. Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) and Paraprofessionals
Number of Certified Teachers / Number of HQT / Number of Non HQT31 / 31 / 0
Number of Paraprofessionals / Number of HQT Paraprofessionals / Number of Non HQT Paraprofessionals
4 / 4 / 0
12. Teaching Experience / Years of Experience
Number of Certified Teachers / 0-3 / 3-5 / 6-10 / 11-15 / 15-20 / 20+
7 / 2 / 9 / 8 / 0 / 5
13. Education
Degree ReceivedNumber of Certified Teachers / Bachelor’s / Bachelor’s
+ 15 / Master’s / Master’s
+15 / Doctorate / National
Board
Certification
21 / 0 / 10 / 0 / 0 / 2
14. Teacher Turnover Rate
Year / Number of Returning Teachers / Number of New Teachers / Percentage of Turnover2014-2015 / 16 / 15 / 48%
Step III – Data Analysis
Section A – Process
Briefly describe the process used to analyze the collected data.Initial data analysis is completed on Site Improvement Day in the Fall during a school wide faculty meeting. In addition, the Title I planning committee also reviewed OCCT scores from the past 3 years at the Fall planning meeting. Continual data analysis is done during grade level data planning throughout the school year, which may include the principal, classroom teachers, special education teachers, reading specialist and school psychologist. Teachers review benchmark assessments, district assessment results and progress monitoring data to identify areas of need and determine grouping for instruction and interventions. Parent, teacher and student surveys are collected by Title I teacher and reviewed by the Title I committee at the Spring planning meeting.
Section B – Summary of Analysis
Summarize the results of the data analysis specifically identifying the strengths, weaknesses and critical needs areas as shown in the data.Data from 2013-2014 OCCT Performance Reports indicate that math and reading are still areas needing improvement. The chart below delineates a summary of performance per grade level for 2013-2014 OCCT Performance (2014-2015 data is not available yet).
3rd Grade Math
Number of Students at each Performance Level
Advanced
798-990 / Proficient
700-797 / Limited Knowledge 633-699 / Unsatisfactory
400-632
Kingsgate / 5 / 29 / 20 / 5
58% of 3rd grade students passed
3rd Grade Reading
Number of Students and Percent at each Performance Level
Advanced
891-990 / Proficient
700-890 / Limited Knowledge 649-699 / Unsatisfactory
400-648
Kingsgate / 1 / 42 / 10 / 6
73% of 3rd grade students passed
4th Grade Math
Number of Students at each Performance Level
Advanced
805-990 / Proficient
700-804 / Limited Knowledge 639-699 / Unsatisfactory
400-638
Kingsgate / 7 / 21 / 9 / 11
58% of 4th grade students passed
4th Grade Reading
Number of Students at each performance Level
Advanced
845-990 / Proficient
700-844 / Limited Knowledge 658-699 / Unsatisfactory
400-657
Kingsgate / 0 / 30 / 7 / 11
63% of 4th grade students passed
5th Grade Math
Number of Students at each Performance Level
Advanced
830-990 / Satisfactory
700-829 / Limited Knowledge 641-699 / Unsatisfactory
400-640
Kingsgate / 33 / 27 / 3 / 4
90% of 5th grade students passed
5th Grade Reading
Number of Students at each Performance Level
Advanced
830-990 / Proficient
700-829 / Limited Knowledge 641-699 / Unsatisfactory
400-640
Kingsgate / 15 / 37 / 9 / 4
80% of 5th grade students passed
5th Grade Science
Number of Students at each Performance Level
Advanced
765-990 / Proficient
700-764 / Limited Knowledge
648-699 / Unsatisfactory
400-647
Kingsgate / 18 / 32 / 12 / 5
75% of 5th grade students passed
5th Grade Social Studies
Number of Students at each Performance Level
Advanced
711-990 / Proficient
660-710 / Limited Knowledge
615-659 / Unsatisfactory
400-614
Kingsgate / 45 / 14 / 4 / 4
88% of 5th grade students passed
5th Grade Writing
Number of Students at each Performance Level
Advanced
48-60 / Proficient
36-47 / Limited Knowledge
23-35 / Unsatisfactory
15-22
Kingsgate / 0 / 21 / 40 / 4
32% of 5th grade students passed
6th Grade Math
Number of Students at each Performance Level
Advanced
795-990 / Proficient
700-794 / Limited Knowledge 664-699 / Unsatisfactory
400-663
Kingsgate / 19 / 32 / 5 / 10
77% of 6th grade students passed
6th Grade Reading
Number of Students at each Performance Level
Advanced
828-990 / Proficient
700-827 / Limited Knowledge 647-699 / Unsatisfactory
400-646
Kingsgate / 13 / 37 / 11 / 5
76% of 6th grade students passed
Needs Assessment Results
2014-2015
All stakeholders including teachers, students and parents were surveyed during the two weeks prior to Spring Break.
Teachers and staff were given the opportunity to give their feedback regarding the Title I program via an online survey. The results are as following:
Interventions:
- 100% of K-3 teachers agree or strongly agree that the interventions with the Title I Teacher and Assistant fit their students’ needs.
- 92% of K-3 teachers indicated they felt their students (who attend Title I interventions) showed moderate or significant improvement and 29% indicated students showed some improvement.
- 100% of K-3 teachers indicated the Title I intervention schedule works “okay” or “well” with their own classroom schedule.
- 41% of teachers indicated a preference for students being served via pull-out, 11% indicated a preference for a combination of push-in and pull-out, and 7% indicated push-in and 41% of teachers had no preference.
- 81% of teachers indicated that Parent Involvement Events were effective to very effective, 15% felt neutral and 4% felt they were ineffective.
- 84% of teachers indicated that Kingsgate is effective to very effective at involving parents in their students’ education, 12% felt neutral and 4% felt Kingsgate is ineffective at involving parents.
- Open ended responses indicated that teachers desire professional development in:
- Comprehension and Fluency Strategies
- RtI
- Specific Interventions Idea
- Math Workshops
- SLB
- Integrating Literacy
- Science workshops
- Writing in Primary Grades
- In an open ended question, teachers indicated they would like to purchase:
- 5th Grade Math Buckle Down OCCT Prep books
- Reading Eggspress subscription for 4th-6th
- iPads
- Small white boards
- Lakeshore Magnetic Phonics lapboard
- Teachers indicated the 3 most effective tools at encouraging student success were technology (SmartBoards and computers), during the day tutoring/interventions and before/after school tutoring.
- Teachers indicated the 3 least effective tools were Study Island, AR and Professional Development.
Parents were given the opportunity to respond to a paper/pencil survey sent home in Thursday folders. Surveys were collected from March 13th to March 28th. 187 responses were received.
- 100% of parents indicated they felt Kingsgate was providing a quality education for their student.
- 56% of parents who attended Parent Nights felt they were very successful,44% felt they were successful and 5% felt neutral.
- Parents were also asked how much AR, Technology, Parent Portal, Library Lessons and Parent Involvement activities had an effect on their student’s learning. Results are as follows:
AR / 59% / 11% / 2% / 4% / 25%
Improved Technology / 62% / 17% / 0% / 1% / 20%
Parent Portal / 35% / 15% / 7% / 6% / 37%
Reading Eggs/Study Island / 48% / 19% / 2% / 4% / 27%
Library / 79% / 12% / 1% / 0% / 8%
Parent Involvement / 47% / 16% / 5% / 0% / 32%
- 16 parents indicated their students attended Title I interventions in K-3 and 59% of those parents were very satisfied, 39% were satisfied and 2% were neutral. This is improvement from the 13-14 school year.
4th-6th Grade Responses:
Program / I like this a lot / This is okay. / I don’t like this. / I don’t know about this.
AR / 28% / 54% / 14% / 4%
Technology / 67% / 23% / 4% / 5%
Reading Eggs / 7% / 6% / 3% / 84%
Study Island / 25% / 42% / 30% / 3%
Library Lessons / 50% / 38% / 8% / 4%
Peer Tutoring / 23% / 21% / 5% / 51%
Reading Groups / 30% / 32% / 13% / 25%
Centers / 30% / 20% / 8% / 42%
Spelling/Vocabulary Work / 18% / 47% / 25% / 10%
Tutoring during the Day / 9% / 6% / 4% / 81%
Family Nights / 56% / 22% / 5% / 17%
Kindergarten-2nd Grade Responses:
Program / I like this a lot / This is okay. / I don’t like this.
SmartBoards / 83% / 14% / 3%
Computers / 81% / 14% / 5%
Library Lessons / 80% / 12% / 8%
Centers / 85% / 9% / 6%
Reading / 77% / 16% / 7%
Math / 69% / 13% / 8%
Section C – Success of the Schoolwide Program
Based on the data analysis, explain which schoolwide programs are succeeding and which are not.The Title I teacher and Title I assistant provides interventions for students scoring strategic or intensive on DIBELS in grades Kindergarten-3rd. Teacher surveys indicate it increases student performance. DIBELS summary reports indicate its success in grades Kindergarten through 3rd, with the greatest success in First Grade. This is largely due to the fact that the First Grade Team willingly works closely with Title I staff to plan interventions.
Parent Involvement is an area of concern. Surveys indicate that while parents who attend family nights feel the events are successful, the majority of parents still do not attend events. In addition, surveys indicate that parents’ desire more communication from the school about how to access Parent Portal, AR home connect and other resources. However, it is important to note that Title I events for the 14-15 school year had the greatest attendance when compared to the past 5 years.
Step IV – Review the Current Schoolwide Plan
Section A – Overview
Briefly describe the implementation of the Schoolwide Plan and the effects the plan had on teaching and learning, specifically addressing how the needs of particularly low-achieving students were met.Kingsgate continued to participate in a school wide Response to Intervention program during the 2014-2015 school year. The DIBELS Benchmark Assessment was used as the screening instrument for Kindergarten through 3rd grade. STAR Reading was used as the screening instrument for 4th through 6th grade. STAR Math was used for grades 1 through 6. Data from the OCCT and classroom observations were also used to help identify students who may need additional interventions. Data team meetings were beneficial in helping to ensure that all student needs were being met in a timely manner.
In regards to additional interventions, the Title I Reading Specialist and Title I assistant worked with all students Kindergarten-Third grade who did not meet the DIBELS benchmark.
In addition, Title I funds were used to purchase STAR Math for grades 1-6 to identify students at risk in the area of math. Title I funds were also used to purchase subscriptions for Starfall.com, Study Island and Reading Eggs in efforts to increase the use of technology in the classrooms.
Section B – Focus Goals
Briefly describe the progress made toward reaching the focus goals identified in the Schoolwide Plan, specifically addressing barriers if goals have not been met.Goal 1:
For the 2014-2015 school year, students’ knowledge in reading and language arts (in relation to comprehension/critical literacy, vocabulary and written expression) will increase as measured by STAR Reading benchmark assessments.
In 2014-2015, the percentage of K-3 students reaching benchmark status on the DIBELS Spring Benchmark Assessment will increase by 10%.
In 2014-2015, the percentage of 4-6 students reaching benchmark status on the STAR Reading Spring Benchmark Assessment will increase by 10%.
Spring Benchmark Scores are not available yet, results below are comparing Fall to Winter benchmark scores:
Grade / Urgent / Intervention / On Watch / Benchmark / Predicted to Pass OCCT
ADK(Fall-EL) / 0% / 6% / 13% / 81% / N/A
ADK(Winter-EL) / 0% / 5% / 0% / 95% / N/A
1st Grade(Fall-EL) / 20% / 10% / 16% / 54% / N/A
1st Grade(Winter-EL) / 2% / 11% / 13% / 75% / N/A
1st Grade(Fall-Read) / N/A / N/A / N/A / N/A / N/A
1st Grade(Winter-Read) / 3% / 10% / 14% / 72% / N/A
2nd Grade(Fall) / 5% / 13% / 20% / 62% / N/A
2nd Grade(Winter) / 13% / 10% / 19% / 59% / N/A
3rd Grade(Fall) / 6% / 9% / 20% / 65% / 85%
3rd Grade(Winter) / 8% / 11% / 18% / 63% / 81%
4th Grade(Fall) / 7% / 13% / 12% / 68% / 80%
4th Grade(Winter) / 16% / 11% / 7% / 66% / 73%
5th Grade(Fall) / 9% / 11% / 19% / 61% / 80%
5th Grade(Winter) / 11% / 15% / 11% / 64% / 75%
6th Grade(Fall) / 9% / 8% / 22% / 61% / 83%
6th Grade(Winter / 12% / 16% / 13% / 59% / 72%
Aside from All-day Kindergarten and First grade, grade levels were not able to meet the reading goal of increasing number of students reaching benchmark by 10%. Possible barriers in achieving this goal are: new faculty, lack of fidelity of RtI implementation, large class size, re-districting.
Goal 2:
Students will increase knowledge of math concepts and operations as evidenced by performance on STAR Math.
In 2014-2015 there will be a 10% increase in the number of students (1st-6th grade) reaching benchmark on the STAR math assessment.
Grade / Urgent / Intervention / On Watch / Benchmark / Predicted to Pass OCCT
Kindergarten(Fall) / N/A / N/A / N/A / N/A / N/A
Kindergarten(Winter) / N/A / N/A / N/A / N/A / N/A
1st Grade(Fall) / 9% / 6% / 15% / 69% / N/A
1st Grade(Winter) / 4% / 5% / 13% / 78% / N/A
2nd Grade(Fall) / 8% / 13% / 13% / 66% / N/A
2nd Grade(Winter) / 6% / 14% / 11% / 68% / N/A
3rd Grade(Fall) / 3% / 6% / 18% / 72% / 90%
3rd Grade(Winter) / 6% / 5% / 8% / 81% / 90%
4th Grade(Fall) / 4% / 7% / 6% / 82% / 88%
4th Grade(Winter) / 3% / 10% / 7% / 80% / 87%
5th Grade(Fall) / 2% / 4% / 19% / 74% / 93%
5th Grade(Winter) / 0% / 11% / 7% / 82% / 89%
6th Grade(Fall) / 7% / 7% / 8% / 77% / 85%
6th Grade(Winter / 9% / 11% / 12% / 68% / 80%
Aside from 1st and 3rd grade, grade levels were not able to meet the reading goal of increasing number of students reaching benchmark by 10%. Possible barriers in achieving this goal are: new faculty, lack of fidelity of RtI implementation, large class size, re-districting.
Goal 3:
Kingsgate teachers will increase the utilization of technology during K-6 instruction.
K-6th students will participate in a technology oriented lesson once per week.
This goal was met for the 14-15 school year. Title I purchased additional computer programs and subscriptions including Starfall.com, Reading Eggs and Study Island. In addition, the computer lab schedule was altered to ensure every class is able to visit the computer lab one time a week for 45 minutes each session. This schedule left additional time for teacher to use the computer lab for special projects. Also, students attended the computer lab as one of the specials rotations.
Goal 4:
For the 2014-2015 school year is for parents will become more involved in PTA, attend Family Nights with their students, help keep ongoing communication with teachers and help ensure that homework is being completed and returned to school. In 2014-2015, the number of parents/family members attending Title I sponsored activities will increase by 10% as identified by the sign-in sheets from each activity.
Attendance at parent involvement nights was drastically improved this year through better planning, preparation and communication about upcoming events. Attendance was increased by more than 10% when compared to last year; however, the majority of parents still do not attend events. Parents who did attend events considered them very successful. In addition, the parent surveys revealed that more communication is desired about programs such as Parent Portal and AR Home Connect.
Section C – Required Components