table of contents€¦ · web viewin the 2002-03 api cycle (2002 base api and 2003 growth api)...

Taft Senior High Los Angeles Unified School District

Los Angeles Unified School DistrictTaft High School

Single Plan for Student Achievement

DRAFT 7.2


Los Angeles Unified School DistrictSingle Plan for Student Achievement

School Name: Taft High School Local District: CDistrict CDS Code: 1964733 School CDS Code:1938612Initial Year: 2003-2004 Date Revised:

This is an action plan to raise the academic performance of all students and improve the school's educational program. For additional information on our school programs:

Principal: Sharon ThomasTelephone Number: (818) 348-7171Address: 5461 Winnetka Ave. Woodland Hills, CA 91364E-mail address:Contact Person:Position:

The District Governing Board approved the School Plan on:Indicate which of the following Federal, State and Local Programs are consolidated in this plan:

Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) X English Learners Programs (EIA-LEP) X Gifted and Talented Education (GATE)

High Priority Schools Grant (HPSG) Immediate Intervention Underperforming Schools Program (IIUSP) LEARNLEARN/SBMProgram Improvement (PI) School Based Management (SBM)School Improvement (SI)

X Special Education/Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)Tenth Grade CounselingTitle I Schoolwide

X Title I Targeted Assistance X Title III English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic

AchievementX Title IV Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities (SDFSC)X Tobacco Use Prevention Education (TUPE)

Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) Other:

2


3


Table of ContentsTable of Contents.................................................................................................................. 3

Background of the Single Plan for Student Achievement...................................................6School Site Council Membership........................................................................................7Recommendations and Assurances...................................................................................8

Section One........................................................................................................................ 10Los Angeles Unified School District..................................................................................10

LAUSD Mission Statement:...........................................................................................10Los Angeles Unified School District Core Program........................................................10Local District Profile......................................................................................................28

Section Two........................................................................................................................ 29School Profile................................................................................................................... 29

School Demographic Information.................................................................................29Section Three......................................................................................................................32

Student Academic Achievement Data.............................................................................32Academic Performance Index (API) 2003 Growth Report..............................................32Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)...................................................................................36California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)..................................................................36Disaggregated 2003 CAT/6 Data..................................................................................41California Standards Test (CST)....................................................................................44

Distribution of Scores by Performance Bands..................................................................49California English Language Development Test (CELDT)..............................................50Modified Consent Decree Least Restrictive Environment............................................53A-G Course Enrollment and Pass Rate..........................................................................56Graduation Rates..........................................................................................................58Advanced Placement Enrollment and Test Scores........................................................60Alternate Schools Accountability Model (ASAM)...........................................................60

Section Three (B)................................................................................................................63District Data Section........................................................................................................63

Aprenda Test................................................................................................................63English Language Development (ELD) Assessment Portfolios......................................64Post Secondary Plans Self Reported by Graduates.......................................................66Grades Issued Spring 2003 by Ethnicity, Academic Area and Grade Level...................67SAT and ACT Summary Reports....................................................................................72Language Arts Performance Assignment......................................................................74

Section Four........................................................................................................................75Current Conditions, Findings and Barriers.......................................................................75

Component 1................................................................................................................76STANDARDS-BASED CURRICULUM, ASSESSMENT, AND RESEARCH-BASED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES........................................................................76

Component 2................................................................................................................86TARGETED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT....................................................86

Component 3................................................................................................................92PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT......................................................92

Component 4................................................................................................................97LEADERSHIP, SCHOOL ORGANIZATION AND SUPPORT STRUCTURES............97

4


Section Five......................................................................................................................105ACTION STEPS................................................................................................................105

School Site Objectives and Benchmarks for Three Year Plan......................................105ACTION STEPS TO IMPROVE LITERACY.........................................................106ACTION STEPS TO IMPROVE MATHEMATICS.................................................109ACTION STEPS TO IMPROVE THE ACHIEVEMENT OF ENGLISH LEARNERS....112ACTION STEPS TO IMPROVE THE ACHIEVEMENT OF ENGLISH LEARNERS....113ACTION STEPS TO IMPROVE ALL OTHER CONTENT AREAS..Error! Bookmark not defined.ACTION STEPS TO IMPROVE ALL OTHER CONTENT AREAS..........................114ACTION STEPS TO CLOSE THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP......................................116ACTION STEPS FOR LEADERSHIP, SCHOOL ORGANIZATION AND SUPPORT STRUCTURES...............................................................................................118COMPLIANCE ITEMS FOR LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT.....................114ACTION STEPS FOR LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT.............................122COMPLIANCE ITEMS FOR LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT.....................124

ACTION STEPS FOR LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT............................................125ACTION STEPS FOR LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT.............................127

COMPLIANCE ITEMS FOR LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT....................................128ACTION STEPS FOR LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT............................................129

COMPLIANCE ITEMS FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT...................130ACTION STEPS TO MEET COMPLIANCE FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................................131COMPLIANCE ITEMS FOR CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS TITLE I, ECONOMIC IMPACT AID-STATE COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (EIA-SCE), SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT (SI).......................................................................................132ACTION STEPS TO MEET COMPLIANCE ITEMS FOR CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS TITLE I, ECONOMIC IMPACT AID-STATE COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (EIA-SCE), SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT (SI)...............................................................133COMPLIANCE ITEMS FOR CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS TITLE IV, SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES (SDFSC) AND TOBACCO USE PREVENTION EDUCATION (TUPE).................................................................134ACTION STEPS TO MEET COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS TITLE IV, SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES (SDFSC) AND TOBACCO USE PREVENTION EDUCATION (TUPE)........................................135

SECTION SIX...................................................................................................................... 136Monitoring/Evaluation....................................................................................................136

School Site and Local District Monitoring of the Action Steps and Evaluation of the Single Plan for Student Achievement.........................................................................136

Section Seven................................................................................................................... 139Single Plan for Student Achievement Assurances, Budgets, and Justifications..............140

Section Eight.....................................................................................................................1585


ATTACHMENTS...............................................................................................................158Section Nine...................................................................................................................... 159

RESOURCES...................................................................................................................159

6


Background of the Single Plan for Student Achievement

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 mandates local educational agencies (LEA) to develop an LEA Plan that will be updated and amended annually.

In the spring of 2003, the District developed a single, coordinated, and comprehensive plan that describes the educational services for all students and establishes a focus for raising the academic performance of all students, including identified under-performing students, to achieve high academic standards. The LEA Plan will be used to guide implementation of federal and state-funded programs, the allocation of resources and reporting requirements.

Five performance goals, adopted by the California State Board of Education (SBE) as part of the accountability system to achieve the goals of NCLB were addressed in the LEA Plan. They are:

LEA Plan Goal 1 -- All students will reach high standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading and mathematics, by 2013-2014.

LEA Plan Goal 2 --All limited-English-proficient students will become proficient in English and reach high academic standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading/language arts and mathematics.

LEA Plan Goal 3 --By 2005-06, all students will be taught by highly qualified teachers.

LEA Plan Goal 4 --All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug-free, and conducive to learning.

LEA Plan Goal 5--All students will graduate from high school.

The LEA Plan performance goals and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) objectives are now incorporated into the Single Plan for Student Achievement in Section Five, Action Plan Steps, as a guide in evaluating progress toward meeting the school’s objectives.

Senate Bill 374 (SB 374), effective January 1, 2002, requires each school operating state and federal programs funded through the Consolidated Application process, to consolidate all school plans required by those programs, and any other program a school chooses to include, into a single plan, known as the Single Plan for Student Achievement (Single Plan).

The Single Plan, developed with review, certification and advice of applicable school advisory committees and approved by the school site council, establishes a focus for raising the academic performance of all groups of students to state standards. As its name implies, the Single Plan for Student Achievement must coordinate the purposes and meet the requirements of each program funded and operated at the school to improve student achievement.

7


School Site Council Membership

Education Code Section 64001 requires that this plan be reviewed and updated at least annually, including proposed expenditures of funds allocated to the school through the Consolidated Application, by the school site council. The current make-up of the council is as follows:

Names of Members

Prin

cipal

Clas

sroo

mTe

ache

rOt

her

Scho

ol

Staff

Pare

nt o

rCo

mm

unity

Mem

ber

Seco

ndar

ySt

uden

t

Sharon Thomas XTom Pease X

Howard Gillingham XJason Alexander X

Larry Mutz XKaren Schreiber X

Kimberly Schuler-Hall XElaine Klastorin XRich Gibbons X

Jana Schreiber XAlma Hernandez X

Jill Jensen XJessica Bennett XMark Mishkin XSusan Israel XDavid Castro X

Numbers of members of each category 1 6 1 4 4

At secondary schools there must, in addition, be equal numbers of parents or other community members selected by parents, and students. Teachers, other school personnel, parents and (at secondary schools) students select representatives to the council (Education Code 52012).

8


Recommendations and Assurances

The school site council recommends this school plan and its related expenditures to the district governing board for approval, and assures the board of the following:

1. School districts must assure “that school site councils have developed and approved a plan, to be known as the Single Plan for Student Achievement for schools participating in programs funded through the consolidated application process, and any other school program they choose to include.

2. School plans must be developed “with the review, certification, and advice of any applicable school advisory committees.”

The school site council sought and considered all recommendations from the following groups or committees before adopting this plan (Check those that apply):

X Compensatory Education Advisory CommitteeX English Learner Advisory CommitteeX Gifted and Talented Education Program Advisory Committee

II/USP/CSR Action TeamOther (list)

3. Any plans required by programs funded through the consolidated application must be consolidated into a single plan.

4. The content of the plan must be aligned with school goals for improving student achievement

5. School goals must be based upon “an analysis of verifiable state data, including the Academic Performance Index, and the English Language Development test, and may include any data voluntarily developed by district to measure pupil achievement.

6. The plan must address how Consolidate Application funds will be used to “improve the academic performance of all pupils to the level of the performance goals, as established by the Academic Performance Index.

7. The plan must be “reviewed annually and updated, including proposed expenditures of funds allocated to the school through the consolidated application, by the school site council.

8. Plans must be reviewed and approved by the governing board of the local educational agency “whenever there are material changes that affect the academic programs for students covered by programs” funded through Consolidated Application.

9


9. This school plan was adopted by the school site council on: _________________________. Date

10


Attested:

Typed name-Principal Signature DateSharon Thomas

Typed name-School Site Signature DateCouncil ChairpersonTom Pease

Typed name-ELAC Signature DateChairperson

Typed name-CEAC Signature DateChairperson

Typed name and role Signature Date

These signatures should match the committees/groups checked on the previous page.

11


Section OneLos Angeles Unified School District

LAUSD Mission Statement:"The teachers, administrators, and staff of the Los Angeles Unified School District believe in the equal worth and dignity of all students and are committed to educate all students to their maximum potential."

The fundamental goal of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is to improve student learning to enable all students to achieve high academic standards. To reach this goal and close the achievement gap, the district’s highest instructional priorities are:

Improved student reading and writing skills across all grade levels; Improved student skills and understanding in mathematics across all grade

levels; and Focused professional development as the key to improving classroom

practices.

Los Angeles Unified School District Core Program

The District’s core instruction program and adopted materials are aligned with the California content standards. The core program is the foundation for all instructional practice and assessment in every classroom in the LAUSD. Instructional practices utilize strategies to address the needs of English Learners (EL), Standard English Learners (SEL), and students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment.

Intensive professional development is provided to support the implementation of standards-based core instruction and incorporates initial training, coaching, lesson study inquiry groups, and on-line training. Through the district’s work with the Institute for Learning (IFL), the Principles of Learning help organize the district’s instructional focus by creating learning environments to ensure achievement of rigorous academic standards by all students.

ELEMENTARY LITERACY

The goal of the district’s elementary literacy plan is “literacy for every student by third grade.” The standards-based instructional program in grades K-5 uses one of three research-based reading programs. All adopted materials are anchored to the English-language arts content standards and promote effective teaching practices. Benchmark assessments provide ongoing information about student learning and effective teaching practices. The Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program in grades 2-5 (with LAUSD optional testing in Grade 1) provides summative assessment of the basic skills of reading, spelling, and language.

12


Formative and summative assessments are used to plan instruction. Ongoing literacy progress is monitored through examination of student work; “learning walks”; end-of-unit, writing, and diagnostic assessments; teacher observations; and the annual administration of the California Achievement Test (CAT/6); the California Standards Test (CST); California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA); and Aprenda.

13


The District’s first priority is to provide effective initial teaching aligned to the California content standards. Intervention begins in the classroom using a program of rich language and reading instruction. Additional intervention opportunities are offered to students through the Extended Learning Program (ELP), the English Language Acquisition Program (ELAP), the Emergency Immigrant Assistance Program (EIAP), summer school, and intersession.

In order to assure implementation of the District’s standards-based literacy program, professional development is mandated for all new and practicing teachers and administrators. Teachers attend either the five-day Governor’s Professional Development Institute (AB466) or a three-day workshop focused on the state standards, elements of the school’s reading program, and strategies for meeting the instructional, assessment, and intervention needs of diverse learners, including English Learners at various levels of English proficiency, Standard English Learners, students receiving special education services, and gifted and talented students.

Professional development is ongoing and differentiated. Teachers and administrators are provided opportunities to attend initial training as well as advanced and mastery level training to strengthen their knowledge and skills. Each local district offers monthly workshops to meet the identified needs of teachers and administrators.

A literacy coach is assigned to each elementary school to assist teachers with literacy instruction, and provide ongoing and differentiated professional development. The coach works collaboratively with teachers in the areas of content-focused coaching, lesson study (Institute for Learning), lesson planning and lesson reflection based on student performance evidence.

SECONDARY LITERACY

The district literacy program at the secondary level aligns curriculum, instruction, and assessment with the California content standards so that all students in middle and senior high schools are provided with learning opportunities that allow them to meet or exceed grade-level content standards. The focus of this program is the development of the habits of mind and major concepts in each discipline that students need to understand to meet standards; intensive and accelerated literacy instruction for the developing reader; adoption of textbooks in all content areas aligned with the California content standards; a professional development plan and literacy cadres at each school to support literacy in all content areas; and ongoing assessment and evaluation.

Literacy cadres, representing secondary teachers from all content areas, design standards-based content lessons focused on research based instructional approaches. Cadre members collaborate with other teachers in a given content discipline, to support improved instruction through lesson study, modeling, coaching, and reflective practice.

14

http://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ab466/materials.html



Intensive literacy instruction for students who have not developed fluency in reading and writing is provided using appropriate instructional materials and assessment during a double period instructional block. In order to provide additional and differentiated support for developing readers, teachers receive ongoing professional development designed to provide in-depth knowledge of the instructional program, the state standards, and research-based instructional strategies.

15


Professional development is ongoing and differentiated. All middle/high school teachers and administrators attend initial training as well as advanced and mastery workshops, including the five-day Governor’s Professional Development Institute (AB466) for middle school teachers and a five-day initial workshop for teachers of the Developing Reader and Writer’s course. Literacy coaches at each middle/high school provide ongoing content-focused coaching and support to teachers and literacy cadres implementing the Principles of Learning.

Continuous assessments to inform instruction include the analysis of daily student work, diagnostic assessments, and teacher observation and reflection.

Summative Assessments include the California Standards Test (CST), the California Achievement Test (CAT/6), the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA), Aprenda, and the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE).

Progress in the development of English proficiency is documented in ELD Assessment Portfolios and yearly assessment of progress is measured on the California English Language Development Test (CELDT).

The district’s first priority is effective initial teaching aligned to the California content standards. First interventions are made in the classroom with a program of rich language and reading instruction. A second level of intervention for students at risk of not meeting grade-level standards is offered through the Extended Learning Program (ELP). Other interventions include bridging programs for identified grade 5 and 8 students, summer school and intersession, interventions programs for English learners, and intervention materials and strategies aligned to diagnosed student needs.

K-12 ENGLISH LEARNERS

English Language Development: The goal of the district’s English language development program is to provide consistent, rigorous opportunities for English learners to acquire high levels of academic English language for the purposes of communication and learning. The California English Language Development Standards form the foundation for the curriculum, instruction and assessment, and are aligned to the English-language arts content standards. English learners receive daily opportunities to acquire the language skills necessary for successful participation in the core instructional program: the receptive language skills of reading and listening that are critical for accessing information, and the expressive language skills of speaking and writing that are essential for communicating learning.

English language development (ELD) in the elementary schools or English as a second language (ESL) in the secondary schools is taught as a separate subject in addition to the content standards of other subjects. The standards-based curriculum

16




and materials are structured to teach reading fundamentals and to develop the basic vocabulary of academic disciplines. To facilitate accelerated language acquisition in elementary schools, English learners are grouped by proficiency level for daily ELD lessons that are separate and in addition to English language arts, and are designed for the identified ELD level. Elementary ELD is taught by an

17


authorized teacher, using one of four state-adopted ELD programs, for a period of not less than 30 to 45 minutes daily. Multiple assessment measures are used to monitor student growth in English, including teacher observation, a review of daily assignments, performance tasks, and textbook assessments. ELD Assessment Portfolio Records are used to document mastery of ELD standards and to collect samples of student work and assessments that demonstrate mastery.

To facilitate accelerated learning in secondary schools, students are assessed and assigned to the appropriate level ESL class for a two-period instructional block, taught by an authorized teacher trained to use the High Point textbook series, published by Hampton Brown. Ongoing assessment provides the basis for instructional planning. ESL teachers use the High Point Student Assessment Booklet for the appropriate ESL level to document student progress. Results are recorded on District ELD Assessment Portfolio Records following District procedures.

The annual California English Language Development Test (CELDT) measures yearly progress in listening and speaking, reading, and writing. The district benchmarks for adequate progress toward English proficiency are:

Elementary English learners will meet the ELD standards for one ELD level each school year and meet reclassification criteria within four to six years.

Secondary English learners will meet the ELD standards for one ELD level each semester and meet reclassification criteria within three to five years.

English learners are reclassified as fluent-English proficient (RFEP) upon meeting the following criteria:

California English Language Development Test: Assessed overall English language performance level of 4 or 5 with skill area scores of 3 or higher.

California Standards Test: Assessed academic performance scores within or above the range of scores identified as “Basic” on the English language arts section.

Teacher Judgment: The student works successfully in English as demonstrated by:- Elementary progress report marks of 3 or 4 in both English and math;

successful completion of standards for ELD Level 4 recorded on the ELD Assessment Portfolio.

- Secondary marks of C or better in both English and math, or in ESL 3 or 4 and math.

Parental notification of eligibility for reclassification and parental consultation.

Core Curriculum: While the district’s first priority is effective teaching of English, successful English language acquisition depends upon many factors, including the number of varied opportunities to acquire and use newly acquired language skills within and beyond the classroom in meaningful contexts. The correlation between high levels of English language proficiency and successful learning in English in the core content areas defines each teacher’s responsibility to design instructional

18


accommodations that make difficult core concepts comprehensible and offer additional opportunities for students to acquire academic language. Achievement of benchmarks in core subjects is linked to English proficiency. It is expected that English learners at the two lowest proficiency levels will achieve “far below basic” on the California Standards Test. At ELD Level 3, their scores will increase to “below basic,” and by ELD Level 4, they will score within the range designated as “basic.” As English learners reach

19


ELD Level 5, it is expected that they will score at or above “basic” range, and as reclassified students their scores will continue to increase.

In addition to the benchmarks described, English learners in alternative bilingual programs are expected to meet all grade-level content standards in the primary language, scoring at or above the 50th percentile on a test of primary language arts and mathematics (Aprenda).

The Achievement Gap: It is understood that English learners with little or no English proficiency need more time than native-English speakers to meet grade-level benchmarks in English. Newcomers in upper grades with little or no previous schooling need even more assistance to catch up. Schools monitor student progress to assure that additional and appropriate learning opportunities are provided in English language development and in English reading, writing and mathematics so that students can close the achievement gap created by their initial lack of English within the time described above. Each school must write a plan of action or “catch-up plan” that describes how the school will monitor student progress, identify English learners in need of assistance, and provide additional services designed to assist them to catch up to native-English speakers before they incur irreparable deficits. The district provides intervention services for English learners, such as the English Language Acquisition Program (ELAP), the Emergency Immigrant Education Program (EIEP), as well as other summer and intersession opportunities such as the English Language and Intensive Literacy Program (ELILP). The district also provided materials, curriculum, and teacher training for these opportunities.

Literacy coaches, at both the elementary and secondary levels, facilitate ELD lesson study and ongoing analysis of ELD assessment data by grade-level or department teams for the purpose of focused discussion of lesson design and delivery to meet the diagnosed language needs of English Learners. Professional development to address the academic language needs of English Learners is state mandated for all administrators, teachers and paraprofessionals at school sites receiving supplemental EIA-LEP funds.

MATHEMATICS

In an effort to close the achievement gap, the goal of the district mathematics plan is for every student to be academically prepared for Algebra 1 at grade 8 and continue with college-preparatory mathematics courses throughout high school. The plan includes the adoption and purchase of textbooks and other instructional materials for K-algebra classrooms that are aligned to the state mathematics standards; a standards-based pacing plan and aligned quarterly assessments; professional development for all teachers in the use of instructional materials, mathematics content, and pedagogy; professional development for administrators in the supervision of mathematics instruction; mathematics coaches assigned to

20


school sites to provide supplemental support to teachers in the improvement of mathematics instruction; and ongoing evaluation.

Professional development is provided for every K-12 teacher and administrator. Professional development is ongoing and differentiated including the five-day Governor’s Professional Development Institute (AB466) for teachers in grades K-2, 3, 4-5, and 6-Algebra 1.

21



Mathematics coaches at each school provide supplemental support and professional development for teachers through cognitive coaching, lesson study, and the application of the Principles of Learning. Teachers who are authorized to teach English learners make instructional accommodations to assure comprehension for English learners with lower ELD levels.

Ongoing formative assessment is used to plan instruction and include quarterly and culminating assessments aligned to the standards-based pacing plan, diagnostic assessments, and review of student textbook assignments and assessments. Each year’s progress is assessed using the California Standards Test, the CAT 6, and the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE).

OTHER CONTENT AREAS

All standards-based curriculum, instruction, and assessment in the content areas, including arts education, science, history and social science or social studies, and health education are aligned to the California Content Standards. Instructional materials, practices and assessments for all content areas are integrated with the district’s efforts in literacy and mathematics.

ADDRESSING STUDENT NEEDS

Strategies that address the needs of English learners, Standard English Learners, and students with special needs, including students receiving special education services and gifted/talented students are included in all professional development activities provided to teachers and administrators.

Instructional programs for English learners require teachers to be authorized by the state and to use research-based strategies to provide access to the core curriculum. On parent request, teachers use the primary language for instruction until students have learned adequate English to continue learning in English. Teachers in the Structured English Immersion Program and mainstream program provide access to grade-level content standards using special strategies for language arts, mathematics, science, history-social science or social studies, and other subject areas. Teachers in the Basic Bilingual Program initially use the students’ primary language for instruction, providing complete access to grade-level content standards until the student is ready to continue learning in English.

The district Academic English Mastery Program (AEMP) is a comprehensive, research-based program designed to address the language, literacy, and learning needs of students for whom standard English is not native, i.e., standard-English learners. This program’s primary objective is assuring equity in providing to the core curriculum for Standard English Learners.

The LAUSD is committed to providing services to students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment. Instructional programs and services for students with

22


disabilities are outlined in each student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP). The IEP describes the direct relationship between the present level of student performance and the educational services to be provided with the student’s goals and objectives.

23


PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

A dramatic change in the LAUSD has been the increase in the quantity and quality of professional development strategies. Elements of The Principles of Learning are included in all professional development activities to ensure system-wide common understanding and instructional practice. Intensive professional development supports implementation of standards-based core instruction. Opportunities are aligned to each teacher’s assignment and include initial training, coaching, lesson study, inquiry groups, and on-line training. The district is building capacity for staff at each school to provide balanced professional development that supports effective classroom practices through structured reflection, inquiry, action research, and other complementary activities.

Staff development activities support teachers of students with disabilities in the general education classroom with the general education curriculum. Activities that integrate instructional strategies and adaptations to the curriculum to address diverse learner needs are included in all professional development. Coaches include strategies in their training that support students with disabilities to learn core curriculum in the least restrictive environment.

Coaches provide critical support to teachers for literacy and mathematics. Coaches work in classrooms with teachers, creating a collaborative culture to implement practices that increase teacher effectiveness and student achievement.

All site-based administrators are provided monthly training within their local district that is focused on literacy, mathematics, and written language. Training is designed to prepare administrators to build learning communities within schools with comprehensive professional development for teachers, and with classroom visits and Learning Walks used to assess the level of implementation of standards-based instructional programs and strategies.

Additionally, the LAUSD Administrative Academy provides professional development to all entry-level administrators and all first-year principals to extend the knowledge and skills defined in the California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders and to build a strong knowledge base focused on the core program and on management skills. Beginning the 2002-03 school year, all K-12 school site administrators will participate in a minimum of 80 hours of training and 80 hours of practicum/coaching to meet the requirements of the Principal Training Act (AB 75).

Beginning and new teachers are provided additional opportunities for professional development in curriculum, assessment, standards-based instruction, and classroom management through several district-wide programs. First year probationary teachers receive support through the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program. Teachers with alternative certification are supported through the Pre-Intern program and begin the process for full credentialing through the District Intern Program, an alternate state-certified credentialing program in the areas of

24

Toni Marsnik, 01/03/-1,

Nothing about gifted and talented students?

http://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/prin/rfa.html


elementary education, secondary English, mathematics, and special education, and including authorizations to teach English learners. The New Teacher Academy provides a pre-orientation for newly hired emergency credentialed teachers as a condition of employment. Mentor teachers at school sites provide additional support to beginning and new teachers. The Peer Assistance and Review program provides support to identified veteran teachers.

25


Other Support

All grants and categorical funding allocated to schools and local districts are used to supplement, support, and enhance the implementation of the core program.

The district has designed and implemented an internal support and monitoring “Red Team” process for school improvement that parallels the state’s California Academic Audit. Identified low performing schools develop action steps to improve student achievement based on the Report of Findings that result from the Red Team visit.

26


DISTRICT C LOCAL PROFILE

Elementary Reading

The Open Court, the district’s mandated reading program, is implemented in grades K-5. Open Court is a highly structured reading program with a heavy emphasis on teacher-directed instruction in phonics, reading comprehension, and writing. It has a 95% correlation to the California State Grade Level Standards. Teachers have received a minimum of 3-5 full days of training and are supported by a literacy coach in each school. Many teachers have voluntarily attended up to twenty days of training.

Teachers deliver explicit instruction in reading strategies and language development up to three hours a day. Teacher's editions describe in detail the instructional strategies to used by all teachers to teach students to effectively organize their thinking, to express their thoughts coherently, to understand oral language and text, to be able to communicate effectively in writing, as well as to decode the written word.

Students learn problem-solving as their teacher models his/her thinking processes by "thinking aloud" about the appropriate strategies to use when reading problems are encountered. Teachers verbalize what they are doing, how they are doing it, and why they are doing it. This practice provides students with motivation, rationales and the vocabulary necessary for them to articulate to themselves and others WHAT, WHY, and HOW they are learning.All students receive instruction on grade level material in a large group setting. A period for INDEPENDENT WORK TIME is providing daily during which the teacher, instructional aides and student partners engage in specific instruction or practice tailored to each students needs.

Skills assessments, every six to eight weeks, provide data to inform teachers about the effectiveness of their instruction, and analysis of this data provides the information necessary to modify instruction as necessary. Scores have steadily increased over the last three years.

Secondary Literacy

Each middle and high school has a Literacy Coach. This teacher works with fellow teachers at the school to support reading and writing in Language Arts classes. New strategies and ways of teaching reading and writing are shared. The coaches meet regularly to discuss and collaborate on ideas to help our students be better readers and writers. District C staff who are experts in second language instruction,

27


assessment, and gifted programs share in the planning of training for teachers and administrators.

The latest innovative strategy shared is called Literature Circles. When students are engaged in Accountable Talk, and have Clear Expectations, they better understand and comprehend the piece of literature they have read as part of their role in the literature circle. This activity also provides a chance for students to work in cooperative learning groups, which have been proven, through research, to increase student achievement.

Mathematics

Implement, monitor, and support a rigorous mathematics program for all District C students based on the mastery of content standards.

1. Implement the standards-based mathematics program for grades K-Algebra II.

2. Provide teachers with on-going professional development opportunities to enhance and enrich their content knowledge and teaching practice.

3. Implement and use mathematics instructional guides to provide grade level access to the mathematics curriculum in an organized format.

4. Administer periodic assessments provided by the central mathematics office on a quarterly basis.

5. Retrieve assessment data from the Edusoft website, examine the data, monitor student progress, and provide intervention on standards not mastered.

6. Teachers have access to practice materials available on the Edusoft website and are able to provide students with appropriate materials to achieve success and mastery of grade level standards.

7. Time will be provided for mathematics coaches, department chairpersons, or grade level representatives to meet with teachers to discuss, plan, and implement the quarterly standards as indicated in the mathematics instructional guides.

Categorical Programs

Goals to Achieve, Commitments to Keep and Basic Activities28


1. To have all English learners attain proficiency or better in reading and mathematics by 2013-14, and to accelerate the number of students reclassified as English language proficient

2. English Learners will be instructed in literacy, mathematics and all other content areas in the same manner as all other students, with accommodations as necessary, in order to close the achievement gap.

3. English Learners will have an accelerated program designed to ensure English language proficiency as quickly as possible through the implementation of the State ELD standards.

4. By 2005-06, all students will be taught by highly qualified teachers.

To raise the performance of all students

1. Title I students will be instructed in literacy and mathematics in order to close the achievement gap and to attain grade level proficiency.

2. By 2005-06, all students will be taught by highly qualified teachers.

Introduction

The categorical programs staff provides direct service to school sites to assist the staff with compliance issues and Standards-Based Instruction. It is the goal of the staff to improve student achievement through Standards-Based Instruction.

The categorical programs staff provides professional development and assists school leadership teams to inform teachers, para-educators, parents and community members.

Professional Development Program

The Categorical Programs Office provides staff development monthly to the EL and Title I Program Coordinators in each school and regularly provides staff development to the site administrators. literacy coaches teachers, para-professionals, parents and community members. The staff supports District C schools’ development of the Single Plan for Student Achievement. The staff assists Local District CEAC and ELAC efforts.

Master Plan Program Information

29


It is mandated that all LAUSD schools offer all of the following Master Plan program options:

English Immersion – This program is an English immersion program that also provides limited primary language support

Waiver to Basic – This program is the District’s bilingual program, in which students are instructed in the primary language for all content areas with ELD daily.

Mainstream – This program is one in which English Language Learners receive instruction at grade level in English in all content areas.

Parents are to be informed of the placement options at the time of enrollment. Students are placed per parent request.

When a school does not have a sufficient number of students to initiate the Master Plan Waiver to Basic Program, the new enrollee is placed on a waiting list until there is a sufficient number of students to initiate the program. Parents are to be offered placement in one of the other program options pending placement.

Gifted & Talented Programs

District C Schools Gifted Education Plan

Target: All schools will provide a description of a quality gifted and talented program to parents at Open House.

1. All schools will offer a gifted and talented program that will include:

Clustering of students

Honors programs

Strategies for the increased enrollment of all sub-groups

Differentiated instruction in the classroom in all areas of the core curriculum

2. Expansion of the SAS program

3. Increase the identification of gifted and talented students to reflect a minimum 10% identification rate

30


4. Professional development for teachers of Advanced Placement courses and gifted students.

5. Implementation of parent education programs

6. Publicity and information design for Open House for District C Schools

7. Provide an identified program for Highly Gifted students in District C Schools

DISTRICT C SCHOOLS FOR ADVANCED STUDIES

PROGRAM GOAL

The Advanced Studies Program was developed to meet the increasing demand for high level academic programs which meet the educational needs of highly able learners. The overall program goal is to provide a program with high quality content and performance standards within the classroom setting.

BASIC COMPONENTS of the program are:

Each school in the SAS program will be designated as a Demonstration Site.

Gifted/highly gifted students are to be clustered in classes. The original intent of this program was to mirror as much as possible the setup of a gifted magnet program.

Teachers are mandated to attend 32 hours of professional development directed toward instructional techniques/strategies for gifted/highly gifted/high level learners.

Administrators will be mandated to attend 8 hours of professional development directed toward instructional techniques/strategies for gifted/highly gifted/high level learners.

Assessment/evaluation will be conducted to direct curriculum modification.

Parent education programs will be ongoing and directed toward issues related to gifted children. These issues include, but are not limited to:

support of counseling services

parenting styles that support giftedness

cognitive and social-emotional needs of gifted children

31


strategies to use at home to extend differentiated experiences

assessment and identification

understanding the transition from elementary to middle to senior high school

use of community, print, online, university, school and family resources

college preparation techniques

Special Education

Goal to AchieveTo implement “Schools for All Children: Modified Consent Decree, 2004-2005 Annual Plan” which articulates broad action steps Local District C will undertake in its commitment to students with disabilities and their parents. The action steps are calculated to achieve the outcome measures identified in the Modified Consent Decree by June 2006 and in compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Achievement of the results gained from completing these actions contributes to continuous improvement of educational programs and services for students with disabilities.

Outcome No. 1: Participation in the Statewide Assessment Program

By the end of the 2005-2006 school year, 75% of students with disabilities in state-identified grade levels will participate in the statewide assessment program with no accommodations or standard accommodations.

Outcome No. 2: Performance in the Statewide Assessment Program

The performance of students with disabilities will increase and the disparity with general education performance will be reduced.

Outcome No. 3: Graduation Rate

The District shall increase the number of grade 12 students with disabilities who receive diplomas by at least 5% (no less than 44.11% of grade 12 students with disabilities) during the 2004-05 school year, and at least 5% (no less than 46.32% of grade 12 students with disabilities) during the 2005-06 school year.

Outcome No. 4: Completion Rate32


The District’s completion rate will increase based on an increase in the number of students who graduate with a diploma, receive a certificate of completion, or age out, as compared to the total number of students with disabilities who graduate with a diploma, receive a certificate of completion, age out, or drop out (grades 7-12)

Outcome No. 5: Reduction of Long-Term Suspensions

By June 30, 2006, the District will reduce the percent of students with disabilities suspended 6 or more days from 9.14% of the total suspensions of students with disabilities occurring in the 2001-2002 school year to 2% of the total suspensions of students with disabilities.

Outcome No. 6: Placement of Students with Disabilities (6-22) with Eligibilities of SLD and SLI

By the end of the 2005-2006, the District will demonstrate a ratio of not less than 73% of students placed in the combined categories of 0-20% and 21-60% and not more than 27% students placed in the 61-100% category according to Federal placement reporting requirements.

Outcome No. 7: Placement of Students with Disabilities (6-22) with All Other Eligibilities

By the end of the 2005-2006, the District will demonstrate a ratio of not less than 52% of students placed in the combined categories of 0-20% and 21-60% and not more than 48% students placed in the 61-100% category according to Federal placement reporting requirements.

Outcome No. 8: Home School

The District will meet the Least Restrictive Environment (“LRE”) requirement of federal law related to home school placement. “Home school” means any school a student with disabilities may attend if the student were not disabled. Special education centers are part of the continuum of program options for a full continuum of special education and related services in the least restrictive environment.

Outcome No. 9: Individual Transition Plan

33


By the end of the 2005-2006 school year, 98% of all students age 14 and over shall have an Individual Transition Plan developed in accordance with federal law.

Outcome No. 10: Timely Completion of Evaluations

By the end of the 2005-2006 school year: 90% of all initial evaluations shall be completed within 50 days. 95% of all initial evaluations shall be completed within 65 days. 98% of all initial evaluations shall be completed within 80 days

Outcome No. 11: Complaint Response Time

The District will provide lawful responses to parents filing complaints in accordance with the following performance standards:

a. 25% will be responded to within 5 working days.b. 50% of complaints will be responded to within 10 working days.c. 75% will be responded to within 20 working days. d. 90% will be responded to within 30 working days.

Outcome No. 12: Informal Dispute Resolution

By June 30, 2006, the District will increase reliance on informal dispute resolution of disputes by increasing its ability to timely resolve disputes by concluding its informal dispute resolution process within 20 working days in 60% of cases.

Outcome No. 13: Delivery of Services

All services will be delivered in accordance with a child’s Individualized Education Program.

Outcome No. 14: Increased Parent Participation

Parents will participate in IEP meetings in accordance with law.

Outcome No. 15: Timely Completion of Future Translations

34


By the end of the 2005-2006 school year, the District shall complete IEP translations requested since July 2003 in the District’s seven primary languages as follows:

85% within 30 days95% within 45 days98% within 60 days

Outcome No. 16: Increase in Qualified Providers

By June 30, 2006, the disparity between qualified regular education and special education teachers will decrease from 10.4%, based on the 2001-2002 school year, to 3.4%.

Outcome No. 17: IEP Team Consideration of Special Factors—Behavioral Interventions, Strategies, and Supports

District C Schools will implement IDEA’s requirement that, in the case of children whose behavior impedes their learning, IEP teams are appropriately considering strategies, including positive behavioral interventions and supports, to address such behavior.

Outcome No 18: Disproportionality

District C Schools will undertake efforts to address appropriate identification of African American students as having a special education eligibility of emotional disturbance.

Introduction

The Special Education program staff provides direct and indirect service to the local district and school sites to assist the staffs with compliance issues and standards-based instruction to access the core curriculum for students with disabilities in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). It is the goal of the Special Education staff to support schools in improving the achievement of students with disabilities through equitable access to the school environment and core curriculum with appropriate accommodations, modifications and behavioral interventions for each student.

Professional Development Programs

The Special Education office provides professional development on a regular and on going basis to special education and general education teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators, parents and community stakeholders. The Special Education staff

35


also provides compliance training and specialized training at school sites in support of the Modified Consent Decree (MCD). The Special Education staff supports Local District C schools’ development of the Single Plan for Student Achievement.

Special Education Program Information

It is mandated that all LAUSD schools offer Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) to support all students with disabilities. Placement options are determined by the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team. These program options include:

General education class/es General education class/es with consultation General education class/es with designated instruction and services (DIS) General education class/es with resource specialist program (RSP) General education class/es and special day class (SDC) Special day class/es Special schools/centers Public/non-public schools dual enrollment Non-public schools Home or hospital instruction Residential schools

Monitoring

The Local District C special education staff monitors Local District C schools’ procedures, activities and programs to insure that all students with disabilities receive a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). This is done through direct and indirect monitoring.

Direct monitoring

Learning walks Site visits Participation in behavior support planning Consistent communication with all stakeholders Participation in District Validation Reviews (DVR)

Indirect monitoring

Reviewing of data from CASEMIS, DSS and SIS Evaluation of IEPs through activities such as Green and Red Team

participation

36


Examination of implementation of services being provided Reading of Single Plan for Student Achievement Local District C staff, including Least Restrictive Environment Specialists, Least

Restrictive Environment Behaviorist, and Least Restrictive Environment Facilitators along with Local District C schools will monitor progress towards the completion of the Modified Consent Decree (MCD) outcomes to insure that students with disabilities are appropriately served.

37


Section TwoSchool TAFT HIGH SCHOOL PROFILE

Taft Vision StatementTaft High School will create a safe and supportive environment that encourages academic success, individual growth, social maturity, and responsible citizenship.

Taft Mission StatementTaft High School believes in the equal worth and dignity of all students and is committed to educating all students to their maximum potential.

School Demographic Information

William Howard Taft High School, established in 1960, is one of fifty comprehensive high schools in the Los Unified School District (LAUSD). Beginning with the 2000-2001 school year the LAUSD was divided into eleven mini-districts. Taft is part of District C led by Superintendent Robert Collins. Within this mini-district, there are six high schools, six continuation high schools, nine middle schools, forty-eight elementary schools, and two magnet schools that span grades k-12.

According to the Los Angeles Daily News and the Woodland Hills Chamber of Commerce, the community of Woodland Hills, with zip codes 91364 and 91367, has a population of approximately 59,000 people, consisting of 92% White, with Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and African-Americans comprising the rest of the community. Within the city limits, approximately 30% of the population own their homes. The average household income is approximately $65,000 annually. One-fourth of the people residing in this community is over 55 years of age and one-fifth of the residents is in the 35-44 age group. Almost 50% of the population are married and one-fourth of the population has college degrees.

Taft students enroll under one of four major attendance designations: Resident, Open Enrollment, Permits With Transportation (PWT), and the Capacity Adjustment Program (CAP). Resident Students, numbering 1186 or 33.5% of the student body, come from Woodland Hills, Tarzana, and Reseda. Approximately 1554 students or 43.8% attend on an Open Enrollment permit that gives students and parents the opportunity to select a school outside of their residential area. Taft receives more Open Enrollment students than any other high school in the state of California. Taft receives 199 students or 5.6% of its students from the Permits With Transportation Program (PWT). The PWT students come from communities in South-Central Los Angeles and Pacoima. The most recent addition to our traveling student population is the Capacity Adjustment Program (CAP) student who travels from neighborhoods in Sun Valley, North Hollywood, Van Nuys, and South-Central Los Angeles. Currently, there are 605 CAP students who comprise 17% of the total student body. Data show that students attending Taft come from 36 of the 50 high schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Currently, the student population is 3,544 with 1,842 (52%) male and 1,702 (48%) female. The White population numbers 1,323 (37.4%) and the minority population totals 2,221 with 1,311 (36.9%) Hispanic, 591 (16.8%) African-American, 200 (5.6%) Asian American,

38

Tom Pease, 01/03/-1,

Are we still the highest open enrollment school? What about our SAS program?

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,

Name of school here


88(2.5%) Filipino, 17 (.5%) American Indian, and 14 (.4%) Pacific Islander serving students in nine through twelfth grade.

The School Site Council (SSC) is the governance body for Taft High School. It formulates or approves policies for the following areas: curriculum, student assessment, school-wide assessment, school finances, accountability, campus environment, personnel and information and communication. Its members include parents, faculty, administrators, students, classified staff and a community representative. An English Learners Advisory Committee (ELAC) has been formed to participate in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the school bilingual education program. In addition there is now a Title I Compensatory Education Advisory Committee (CEAC) to meet the educational needs of economically disadvantaged children. Parents who have children being served have the opportunity to participate in the design and implementation of the program.

Special Education

Currently, there are 153 Resource and 103 Learning Handicapped-Special Day Class students in the Special Education Program. Thirteen, seven Special Day Class and six Resource, teachers serve the students. The following shows the number of students by ethnicity:

SDC RSPAfrican-American 41 42Hispanic 45 53White 17 52Asian 0 5Pilipino 1 0American Indian 0 2

English Language Development (ELD)

Currently, there are 375 Limited English Proficient students in our ELD program. Forty-three have redesignated this past semester. Of the remaining 332 LEP students, the home language of the student is the following:

Amharic 2 Dutch 1 Indonesian 1Arabic 2 English 2 Korean 15Armenian 15 Farsi 43 Mandarin 3Assyrian 1 German 1 Pilipino 3Bengali 2 Gujarati 1 Russian 8Burmese 1 Hawaiian 1 Spanish 434Cantonese 2 Hebrew 11 Vietnamese 6

Five hundred and twelve students, or approximately 15% of the school population, are identified as English Learners. One hundred and thirty of those EL students are in ESL classes: 77 are in Structured English Immersion (ESL 1 or 2) and 53 are considered to be reasonably fluent and are in ESL 3 or 4. Approximately 382 EL students are in the

39


Preparation for Redesignation Program (PRP). Parents may sign a waiver to place their student in a Basic Bilingual program or in a mainstream program in accordance with District guidelines. Taft does not currently have a Basic Bilingual program as it has not been requested by parents. Students who have been waived out of the PRP program continue to receive language support services and are monitored by the English Learner program coordinator for redesignation. Counselors review their academic progress at every marking period.

40


Gifted and Talented (GATE)This year, Taft has 733 Gifted and Talented students in the GATE program. For many years, Taft has had approximately 600 students per year in the GATE program. The following shows the number of students by ethnicity:

American Indian 5 Hispanic 114Asian 75 Pacific Islander 6African-American 43 White 471Pilipino 19

Many of the students in this group are highly gifted and in our Advanced Studies (AS) Program. These students are either in classes that are entirely AS students or are clustered together in specific classes.

Free and Reduced Lunch Program

Currently 951 students have been identified to participate in the free or reduced lunch program. Ethnically they are represented as follows:

American Indian 2 Pacific Islander 1African-American 107 Pilipino 24Asian 60 White 205Hispanic 552

41


Section ThreeStudent Academic Achievement Data

Student Achievement: Student achievement/performance data is gathered from a wide variety of District sources, the CBEDS and the California Department of Education databases that report API and STAR test results.

Academic Performance Index (API) 2003 Growth Report

California Department of EducationPolicy and Evaluation Division

2002-2003 Academic Performance Index (API) Growth Report School ReportOctober 22, 2003

School: Taft (William Howard) Senior H District: Los Angeles Unified County: Los Angeles CDS Code: 19-64733-1938612 School Type: High

Number of

Students Met Growth Target

STAR Included 2002-

2003 in the 2003 2002 2003 2002- Comparable BothPerce

nt2003 API API API Growt

h 2003 School- Improve- Schoolwide Awards

Tested

(Growth)

(Growth)

(Base)

Target

Growth wide ment (CI) and CI Eligibl

e92 2386 674 666 7 8 Yes No No No

In order to meet federal requirements of No Child Left Behind, a 2003 API (Growth) is posted even if a school or district had no 2002 API (Base) or if a school had significant population changes from 2002 to 2003. However, the presentation of growth targets and actual growth would not be appropriate and, therefore, are omitted. "N/A" means a number is not applicable or not available due to missing data."*" means this API is calculated for a small school, defined as having between 11 and 99 valid

STAR test scores. The API is asterisked if the school was small either in 2002 or 2003. APIs base 42

http://www.cde.ca.gov/psaa/api/api0203/growth/expn03g.htm#sgf7






http://www.cde.ca.gov/psaa/api/api0203/growth/expn03g.htm#sgfb

http://www.cde.ca.gov/psaa/api/api0203/growth/expn03g.htm#sgfb



http://www.cde.ca.gov/psaa/api/api0102/growth/expn02g#sgf1

http://www.cde.ca.gov/psaa/api/api0102/growth/expn02g#sgf1


http://api.cde.ca.gov/api2003/API/2003Grth_co.asp?cYear=2002-03&cSelect=19Los,Angeles&Page=0

http://api.cde.ca.gov/api2003/API/2003Grth_Dst.asp?cYear=2002-03&cSelect=19647331938612&cChoice=DstAPI1

http://api.cde.ca.gov/


on small numbers of students are less reliable and therefore should be interpreted with caution. "A" means the school scored at or above the Statewide Performance Target of 800 in 2002. "B" means the school is not awards eligible due to Adult Testing Irregularities. "C" means the school did not have a valid 2002 API Base and will not have any Growth or target

information. "D" means the school had significant demographic changes and will not have any Growth or target

information.. "E" indicates this is an ASAM school or a school district. Growth and target information are not

applicable to these schools and districts. Targets Met - In the "Met Growth Target" column, the growth target requirement is part of the state accountability system and does not match the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirements. The AYP requirement for the API is: a 2003 API (Growth) score of 560, or a one-point increase from 2002 API (Base) to 2003 API (Growth). Awards Notes - The "Awards Eligible" column requires at least five points schoolwide growth and at least four points for growth for each numerically significant subgroup.

Similar Schools

Median 2003 API

(Growth)

Median

2002 API

(Base)

Click on the median value heading to link to the list of 2002 API (Base) similar schools. This list contains schools which were selected specifically for the reported school based on the 2002 API (Base).

670 649 Subgroups

Number Numerically 2003 2002

of Pupils Significant Subgroup Subgroup Included in in both API APIEthnic/Racial 2003 API Years (Growth) (Base) African American (not of Hispanic origin) 370 Yes 566 578 American Indian or Alaska Native 13 No Asian 155 Yes 791 773 Filipino 48 No Hispanic or Latino 846 Yes 571 548 Pacific Islander 12 No White (not of Hispanic origin) 941 Yes 772 757Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 1144 Yes 610 564"A" means the subgroup scored at or above the Statewide Performance Target of 800 in 2002.School Demographic CharacteristicsThese data are from the October 2002 California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS) data collection and the 2003 Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) student answer document.

Ethnic/Racial (STAR)Perce

nt African American (not of Hispanic origin) 16 American Indian or Alaska Native 1 Asian 6 Filipino 2 Hispanic or Latino 36 Pacific Islander 0 White (not of Hispanic origin) 39

These percentages may not sum to 100 due to responses of: other, multiple, declined to state, or non-response. Participants in Free or Reduced Price Lunch (STAR) 44 English Learners (STAR) 17 Multi-track year-round school No (CBEDS)

Mobility School, Prior Year (STAR)

This is the percentage of students who first attended this school in the current year. Students in the lowest grade are excluded. These data may not match numbers on other reports for middle and high schools.

15

School, CBEDS Date (STAR) 94 District, CBEDS Date (STAR)

This is the percentage of students who were counted as part of the school/district enrollment on the October 2002 CBEDS data collection and who have been continuously enrolled since that date.

98

Average Class Size (CBEDS) Grades Averag

e K-3 N/A 4-6 N/A Core academic courses 31 in departmentalized programs

43

http://www.cde.ca.gov/psaa/api/api0203/growth/expn03g.htm#sgf2_4

http://api.cde.ca.gov/api2003/2002Base_ss.asp?SchCode=1938612&DistCode=64733&AllCds=







44


Taft scored 674 on its 2003 API and exceeded its target growth of 7 points by one extra point (8). Our African-American subgroup did not meet its target goal and it, along with our Hispanic subgroup, score significantly lower that the Asian and white subgroups. Many of our Title I students lack supplemental counseling support for individual and group academic counseling, as well as individualized monitoring of attendance and academic progress. Supplemental tutoring is also needed for our Title I students, including after school tutoring by highly qualified teachers (teacher x time). Funding is needed to these highly qualified teachers and for a Title I Program Coordinator to implement the Title I program. 17% of our students are English Learners.

Critical Findings: The African-American subgroup was the only group to not meet its target goal, and in fact, dropped

(-12 points) in its scores. This subgroup scores significantly below the white and Asian subgroups. The Hispanic subgroup increased the most (23) out of the 4 major ethnic subgroups. This subgroup,

however, still scores significantly below the white and Asian subgroups. We did not test the required minimum of 95% of our students.

45


Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)(High Schools)

As stipulated in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), all schools are expected to demonstrate Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) towards the goal of having all students being proficient in California Standards in English Language Arts and Mathematics by 2013-14. To measure progress towards this goal, each school, and numerically significant subgroup within the school, are required to have a minimum percentage of students scoring “Advanced” or “Proficient” on the 10th grade administration of the California High School Exit Exam and/or California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) in English Language Arts and Mathematics.

2003 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Phase II ReportGraduation Rate, Additional Indicator: Academic Performance Index (API), and Summary of Phase I Results

School Report(Updated: November 14, 2003)

School Met All 2003 Phase I and Phase II Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Criteria? No

"Yes" displayed above indicates at least one "Yes" and no "No" or "Pending" are displayed in the "Met 2003 AYP Criteria" column on this report. "Pending" indicates the school or school district has an appeal pending or the school or school district is correcting its 2003 STAR demographic data through the test publisher. Phase I includes Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) for percent proficient and participation rate. Phase II includes graduation rate and Academic Performance Index (API) criteria.

PHASE II (API and Graduation Rate)

API (Additional Indicator) 2003 Growth 2002 Base Change

Met 2003 AYP

CriteriaThese data are from the API Reports 674

minimum 560666 ----

8minimum

+1

Yes

Criteria

Schools and school districts must meet at least one of the criteria to meet the AYP criteria and receive a "Yes".

Graduation Rate*Rate for 2003,

Class of 2001-02Rate for 2002,

Class of 2000-01 ChangeAverage 2-

Year Change

Met 2003 AYP

CriteriaThese data are from the CBEDS 83.0

minimum 82.891.1 ----

-8.1minimum

+0.1

-3.5minimum +0.2

Yes

Criteria

Schools and school districts must meet at least one of the criteria to meet the AYP criteria and receive a "Yes".

PHASE I (AMOs and Participation Rate) Appeal Status

Met 2003 AYP

CriteriaUnder the "Appeal Status" column, "None" means no appeal of Phase I AYP has Denied No

been filed.If final action has been taken on the appeal, either "approved" or "denied" appears under this column. "Pending" under this column means that final action has not been taken.

46

.., 01/03/-1,

Under NCLB, all states are required to develop and implement a single, statewide accountability system that will ensure all public schools make their Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) toward enabling all students to perform at or above the proficient level in English Language Arts and mathematics.

http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/CompletionRate/CompRate4.asp?cYear=2001-02&cSelect=Taft%5E(William%5EHoward)%5ESenior%5EH--Los%5EAngeles%5EUnified--1964733-1938612&cChoice=SGradRate&TheName=Taft(WilliamHoward)SeniorHLevel=school

http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/api/2003Grth_Sch.asp?SchCode=1938612&DistCode=64733&AllCds=19647331938612&cYear=2002-03


"N/A" means a "not available," i.e., no calculation was done due to small numbers or missing data.

"Pending" means the school or school district has an appeal pending or the school district is correcting its 2003 STAR demographic data through the test publisher and did not receive a 2002-2003 API Growth report in October 2003. Schools and school districts that corrected their data will receive their 2002-2003 API Growth reports in December 2003. The 2003 AYP Phase I reports for these schools or school districts may also change as a result of their data corrections. Program Improvement (PI) status for those schools receiving Title I funds will be reevaluated at that time. For all school districts and schools with appeals pending, the column "Met 2003 AYP Criteria" for Phase I reflects the AYP determination as of the release of the September 30 revised Phase I AYP Report. This determination is subject to change as a result of final action on the appeal.

* The graduation rate for AYP purposes is defined according to the year of AYP reporting (e.g. rate for 2003). On other California Department of Education reports the graduation rate is defined as the school year of the graduating class (i.e., class of 2001-02). A reference to both definitions is included in the column headings on this report. Note that the AYP graduation rate data on this report is one year older that the other data on AYP reports.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS Participation Proficient or Above

GROUPS

Enrollment First Day of Testing

Number of Students Tested Rate

Met 2003 AYP Criteria

Valid Scores

Number Percent


Schoolwide 850 704 82.8 No 611 372 60.8 Yes African American (not of Hispanic origin) 118 89 75.4 No 64 24 37.5 N/A American Indian or Alaska Native 4 3 75.0 N/A 2 N/A N/A N/A Asian 51 47 92.1 N/A 42 32 76.1 N/A Filipino 21 18 85.7 N/A 15 9 60.0 N/A Hispanic or Latino 303 231 76.2 No 200 78 39.0 Yes

Pacific Islander 3 3100.

0 N/A 3 N/A N/A N/A White (not of Hispanic origin) 349 313 89.6 No 285 224 78.5 Yes Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 394 328 83.2 No 283 130 45.9 Yes English Learner 356 289 81.1 No 255 117 45.8 Yes Students with Disabilities 54 19 35.1 N/A 15 1 6.6 N/A

47

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ayp/2003/aypexp_notes.htm#ayp10






















MATHEMATICS Participation Proficient or Above

GROUPS

Enrollment First Day of Testing

Number of Students Tested Rate


Valid Scores

Number Percent


Schoolwide 850 702 82.5 No 614 269 43.8 Yes African American (not of Hispanic origin) 118 90 76.2 No 66 14 21.2 N/A American Indian or Alaska Native 4 3 75.0 N/A 2 N/A N/A N/A Asian 51 48 94.1 N/A 43 31 72.0 N/A Filipino 21 19 90.4 N/A 16 9 60.0 N/A Hispanic or Latino 303 227 74.9 No 199 35 17.5 Yes

Pacific Islander 3 3100.

0 N/A 3 N/A N/A N/A White (not of Hispanic origin) 349 312 89.3 No 285 180 63.1 Yes Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 394 322 81.7 No 282 88 31.2 Yes English Learner 356 280 78.6 No 249 87 34.9 Yes Students with Disabilities 54 20 37.0 N/A 16 0 0.0 N/A

Graduation Rates

SCHOOL TOTALS:

Dropouts

Gr.9 (98-99)

Dropouts

Gr.10 (99-00)

Dropouts

Gr.11 (00-01)

Dropouts

Gr.12 (01-02)

Dropouts

Gr.9 (98-99)through

Gr.12 (01-02)

Grade 12

Graduates (01-

02)Graduation rate*

TAFT (WILLIAM HOWARD) SENIOR H 12 11 74 25 122 594 83.0DISTRICT TOTAL: 3,667 2,689 2,655 1,489 10,500 27,720 72.5COUNTY TOTAL: 5,000 3,875 4,137 3,930 16,942 79,509 82.4STATE TOTAL: 12,006 11,034 11,632 14,312 48,984 325,928 86.9

48























2003 AYP Criteria for SchoolsIn order to make AYP for 2003, a school must meet or exceed all Phase I and Phase II requirements.

Phase I (August 2003) Percent Proficient or Above in Selected Assessments (schoolwide and subgroups)

English-Language Arts Mathematics

Elementary and Middle Schools 13.6%

16.0%

High Schools 11.2%

9.6%

Participation Rate in Above Assessments (schoolwide and subgroups)

English-Language Arts Mathematics

All Schools 95.0% 95.0%Phase II (November 2003)

Academic Performance Index (API) (schoolwide)

All Schools Growth in the 2002-2003 API of at least one point OR a minimum 2003 API Growth score of 560

Graduation Rate (schoolwide)

High Schools2003 graduation rate of 82.8 OR improvement in the graduation rate from 2002

of at least 0.1 OR improvement of at least 0.2 in the average 2-year rate (change from the average of 2000/2001 to 2002/2003).

49


148 students (about 17%) enrolled on the first of testing did not take the CAHSEE. Taft’s school-wide Proficiency level is at 43.8% in Math and 60.8% in English. However, African American (not of Hispanic origin) (21.2%), Hispanic or Latino (17.5%), Socio-economically Disadvantaged (31.2%) and the English Language Learners (34.9%) had a lower percentage of students scoring in the “Advanced” or “Proficient” levels in Mathematics. African American (not of Hispanic origin) (37.5%), Hispanic or Latino (39.0%), Socio-economically Disadvantaged (45.9%) and the English Language Learners (45.8%) had a lower percentage of students scoring in the “Advanced” or “Proficient” levels in English Language Arts.

Only the Students with Disability subgroup had less than 9.6% of the students meet their AYP objectives in Mathematics with 0 students meeting the proficiency level and 6.6% in English Language Arts. SDC only was included in the Students with Disability subgroup findings, while RSP was distributed among the other ethnic subgroups. This data only represents 16 special education students who participated in SDC, representing only 5% of the special education population.

Taft’s graduation rate is at 83% which is 10.5% higher than the district’s total, 0.6% higher than the county’s total, but 3.9% less than the state total. 122 students dropped out of Taft HS from 1998-2002 with the highest number of 74 dropouts reported in the 11th grade.

Critical Findings: African-Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, and socio-economically disadvantaged students experience an

“Achievement Gap” at Taft High School. In English Language Arts Taft as a whole scored 60.8 at or above proficiency, while African-

Americans scored 37.5, Hispanics/Latinos scored 39.0, and socio-economically disadvantaged students scored 45.9, and EL’s scored 45.8.

In Mathematics Taft as a whole scored 43.8 at or above proficiency, while African-Americans scored 21.2, Hispanics/Latinos scored 17.5, and socio-economically disadvantaged students scored 31.2, and EL’s scored 34.9.

Socio-economically disadvantaged students did not meet AYP participation rates. 702 students were tested on the CAHSEE, but only 614 students received valid scores. Only 87% of

the tested scores were deemed valid. Only 5% of the special education students took the CAHSEE. English Learners score about 10% to 15% lower than the school-wide population.

50


To ensure that all students have equal access to the core curriculum, it is essential to know the achievement levels of specific subgroups. The following tables present information on the academic achievement of these subgroups.

Disaggregated 2003 CAT/6 Data

Disaggregated 2003 CAT/6 Data

Percentage of Students Scoring At or Above the 75th, 50th, and 25th Percentiles

Student Groups Reading Mathematics Language>75th >=50th >25th >75th >=50th >25th >75th >=50th >25th

All Students 28 56 77 34 55 77 30 56 78

Males 26 51 72 37 57 78 27 51 73

Females 31 61 81 32 52 76 34 62 83

American Indian * * * * * * * * *

Asian 39 75 88 61 80 93 46 75 96

Black/African-American, Not of Hispanic Origin

13 42 65 15 35 65 16 38 67

Hispanic 14 36 65 15 34 63 13 36 67

White 43 73 88 52 75 90 47 76 88

Filipino (9th & 10th only)*

33 69 87 36 66 97 26 66 97

Pacific Islander * * * * * * * * *

English Only Initially Fluent English Proficient

38 73 90 49 75 88 42 74 90

Reclassified Fluent English Proficient

26 59 83 36 54 81 28 59 85

English Learners 3 16 48 17 30 56 5 18 50

Students Receiving Special Education ServicesEconomically Disadvantaged Students

17 44 70 27 46 72 20 45 71

Gifted and Talented Education

69 94 98 78 93 98 73 95 98

51

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,

Mandated by Title I, SCE, SI NCLB, NCLB, Section 1111, (b)(2) (C), II

http://dssp.lausd.k12.ca.us/


In math: Males scored slightly higher than females at all three percentiles. Asians outscored African Americans and Hispanics by 46% at the 75th percentile. Whites outscored African Americans and Hispanics by 37% at the 75th percentile. Asians outscored African Americans by 45% and Hispanics by 46% at the 50th percentile. Whites outscored African Americans by 40% and Hispanics by 41% at the 50th percentile. Asians outscored African Americans by 28% and Hispanics by 30% at the 25th percentile. Whites outscored African Americans by 25% and Hispanics by 27% at the 25th percentile. RFEP students scored higher than EL students at all three percentiles. RFEP outscored EL by 19% at the 75th percentile. RFEP outscored EL by 24% at the 50th percentile. RFEP outscored EL by 25% at the 25th percentile. EL students outscored the African Americans and the Hispanics in the >75th percentile by 2%. GATE students scored highest compared to all subgroups. Economically disadvantaged students scored higher than African Americans, Hispanics and EL. No current data available on the English-only students. No current data available on the students with disabilities.

In English: At the 75 percentile in Reading, Whites score slightly higher than Asian; African American and Hispanic students score significantly lower. At the 50th percentile, Asian students score slightly higher than white students; African American students score somewhat higher than Hispanic students. The same percentage of White and Asian students scored at the 25th percentile in Reading; The same percentage of African American and Hispanics scored at the 25th percentile. 12% of White and Asian students scored below the 25th percentile in Reading; however, 35%

percentile in Reading. At the 75% in Language, Whites score slightly higher than Asian students; African American students scored slightly higher than Hispanic students. A slightly higher percentage of Asian students scored at the 25th percentile in language than white

students; The percentage for this percentile was the same for both African American and Hispanic students. Only 4% of Asian students scored below the 25th percentile in language. 12% of white students scored below the 25th percentile 33% of both African American and Hispanic students scored below the 25th percentile in Language

30% of Educationally Disadvantaged scored below the 25th percentile in Reading and 29% of this subgroup scored below the 25th percentile in language.

Only 2% of gifted and talented students scored below the 25th percentile in Reading as well as in language.

52


Critical Findings: There is an achievement gap between the white and Asian student population and the Black and

Hispanic population on the CAT/6 test. The later groups have a higher percentage of students scoring below the 25 percentile, and a lower percentage of students scoring above the 75 percentile.

Although there is little difference between white and IFEPs, there is a significant achievement gap between white and RFEPs.

Only about half of English Learners score above the 25 percentile in all areas. Economically Disadvantaged Students, while scoring near the norm at the 25 percentile and above,

at the 75 percentile and above score significantly lower than the rest of the school population.

53


California Standards Test (CST)(High Schools)

To better assess student achievement in relation to the California content standards, students complete a series of tests aligned to the standards. High School students take tests in English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Science.

The California Department of Education rates each student’s performance on the California Standards tests in English/Language Arts and Mathematics into one of five performance bands (Advanced, Proficient, Basic, Below Basic, Far Below Basic) with the goal of having all students rated advanced or proficient. The percentage of students at the school in each of the performance bands is reported in the tables below.

In the 2002-03 API Cycle (2002 Base API and 2003 Growth API) the CSTs in English Language Arts accounted for 35% of the school’s API, the CSTs in Social Sciences accounted for 20%, and the CSTs in Mathematics accounted for 18%. While the CSTs in Science were not part of the API, the results of these tests are included for analysis.

California Standards Test in English Language Arts Distribution of Scores by Performance Bands

Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 112001 2002 2003 2001 2002 2003 2001 2002 2003

# Tested 781 1,021 1,090 685 656 802 572 485 508% Advanced 10.4 14.1 15.8 14.5 18 16.6 15 23.3 19.5% Proficient 24.3 21.4 21.4 22 24.1 23.3 25.2 22.1 26.4% Proficient & Advanced 34.7 35.6 37.2 36.5 42.1 39.9 40.2 45.4 45.9% Basic 28.9 29.9 33.5 33 29.6 28.8 34.6 26.2 28.3% Below Basic 20.2 19.8 17.6 20.7 17.8 16.1 16.8 19.6 14% Far Below Basic 16.1 14.8 8.9 9.8 10.5 10.7 8.4 8.9 10.4

54



Critical Findings: Between 2001-2003, across grade levels, there were an increased number of students performing at the proficient and advanced band

levels. Between 2001-2003 in the 9th grade there was an increase in the number of students in the basic band, but in the 10th and 11th grades,

there was a decrease in basic band. Between 2001-2003, across grade levels, there was a decrease in the number of students scoring at the below basic and far below basic

bands.

55

Taft Senior High Los Angeles Unified School DistrictCalifornia Standards Test

California Standards Test in Social Science Distribution of Scores by Performance Bands

Grade 9(Hist./Social Sci.)

Grade 10(World History)

Grade 11(US History)

2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003# Tested 1,031 No 655 763 476 502% Advanced 5.8 Longer 11.9 14.8 26.9 17.1% Proficient 17.7 Given 20.3 18.7 19.1 29.9% Proficient & Advanced 23.6 32.2 33.6 46 47% Basic 35 35.1 30.4 25.2 29.7% Below Basic 25.2 14.5 18.1 17.4 15.9% Far Below Basic 16.2 18.2 17.8 11.3 7

Critical Findings: Grade 10 World History showed a slight drop in the percentage of students at the Basic or Lower level (1.5%). Grade 11 US History showed a slight drop in the percentage of students at the Basic or Lower level (1.3%). In tracking the same students from Grade 10, 2002 to Grade 11, 2003, the “Proficient and Advanced” scores rose from 32.2% to 46%. “Far Below Basic” percentages have dropped each testing year.

56



California Standards Test in Mathematics Distribution of Scores by Performance Bands

General Math Algebra 1 Geometry Algebra 2 HS Math2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003

# Tested 509 623 342 596 359 427 230 268 147 196% Advanced 1.2 1.3 5.3 0.7 19.5 13.8 11.3 13.1 19 14.3% Proficient 12.8 16.7 31.6 8.9 34.8 23.9 45.7 36.9 41.5 30.6% Proficient & Advanced 13.9 18 36.8 9.6 54.3 37.7 57 50 60.5 44.9% Basic 40.7 35.8 38.9 28.7 24.5 31.9 29.1 22 25.9 20.4% Below Basic 34.6 28.4 20.2 36.1 17.8 24.4 12.2 19.8 8.8 9.2% Far Below Basic 10.8 14.9 4.1 20.6 3.3 3 1.7 6.7 4.8 24.5

California Standards Test in Integrated MathDistribution of Scores by Performance Bands

Integrated Math 1 Integrated Math 2 Integrated Math 32002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003

# Tested 4 4 4 0 3 7% Advanced 0 0 0 0 0% Proficient 0 0 0 0 0 0% Proficient & Advanced 0 0 0 0 0 0% Basic 25 0 0 0 0 0% Below Basic 75 25 100 0 100 71.4% Far Below Basic 0 75 0 0 0 28.6

57



11 students were tested in Integrated Math 1 through 3 in both 2002 and 2003 – Taft has not offered Integrated Math 1-3 in the last four years. Advanced level has decreased 4.6% in Algebra 1, 5.7% in Geometry and 4.7% in HS Math. Proficient level has decreased 22.7% in Algebra 1, 10.1% in Geometry, 8.8% in Algebra 2 and 10.9% in HS Math. 254 more students were given the Algebra 1 CST from 2002, a 74% increase. In Algebra 2, only the Proficient level has decreased. Far Below Basic level has increased 4.1% in General Math, 16.5% in Algebra 1, 5% in Algebra 2 and 19.7% in HS Math. In Algebra 1, there has been a 23% drop in the Proficient Level. In HS Math, there has been a 15% drop in the Proficient and Advanced Level.

Critical Findings: In General Math there was a rise of 4.1% in the Proficient and Advanced level, and a drop of 7% in

the Basic and Lower level between 2002 and 2003. In Algebra 1 there was a drop of 27.2% in the Proficient and Advanced level, and a rise of 22.2% in

the Basic and Lower level between 2002 and 2003. In Geometry there was a drop of 16.6% in the Proficient and Advanced level, and a rise of 13.7% in

the Basic and Lower level between 2002 and 2003. In Algebra 2 there was a drop of 7% in the Proficient and Advanced level, and a rise of 5.5% in the

Basic and Lower level between 2002 and 2003. In HS Math there was a drop of 15.6% in the Proficient and Advanced level, and a rise of 14.6% in

the Basic and Lower level between 2002 and 2003.

58


California Standards Test in ScienceDistribution of Scores by Performance Bands

Biology Chemistry Earth Science Physics2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003

# Tested 517 881 219 205 2 3 10 122% Advanced 11.8 8.9 20.1 20.5 0 0 40 16.4% Proficient 21.5 21.1 32 21 0 0 20 27.9% Proficient & Advanced 33.3 30 52.1 41.5 0 0 60 44.3% Basic 41.6 31.3 37 42.4 0 0 20 44.3% Below Basic 15.9 20 8.7 9.8 100 33.3 20 9.8% Far Below Basic 9.3 17.1 2.3 6.3 0 66.7 0 0.8

No Integrated Science offered at Taft

CST in science is testing for Earth Science, but Earth Science is not part of the Advanced Physical Science curriculum as per old district standards adopted from UCLA.

Critical Findings: Between 2002 and 2003, the percentage of Proficient and Advanced students has dropped in each subject area: Biology by 3.3%,

Chemistry by 10.6%, and Physics by 15.7%. Between 2002 and 2003, the percentage of Basic and Lower students has risen in each subject area: Biology by 1.6%, Chemistry by

10.5%, and Physics by 14.9%.

59



California English Language Development Test (CELDT)(High Schools)

In addition to assessing the progress of all students towards their mastery of California standards, schools are required to monitor the progress of English learners (ELs) towards developing academic proficiency in English. Progress is monitored in two ways. The first method is to analyze student scores on the California English Language Development Test (CELDT), an assessment mandated by the California Department of Education. English Learners must take the CELDT annually until they have been reclassified. The second method involves monitoring ongoing ELD progress using the District’s ELD Portfolio.

To obtain the range for the skill areas, please refer to the conversion table available at www.lausd.k12.ca.us/lausd/offices/langacquisitionbranch

Annual CELDT Overall Proficiency Level2002-2003 Annual Assessment – All Students

Grades 9 10 11 12 Total Tested

Overall Proficiency Number and Percent of students at Each Overall Proficiency Level

Advanced 86.0%

97.0%

57.0%

210.0%

247.0%

Early Advanced 3729.0%

3931.0%

2128.0%

1048.0%

10731.0%

Intermediate 5442.0%

5242.0%

3649.0%

733.0%

14943.0%

Early Intermediate 2116.0%

1310.0%

45.0%

15.0%

3911.0%

Beginning 97.0%

1210.0%

811.0%

15.0%

309.0%

Number Tested 129100.0%

125100.0%

74100.0%

21100.0%

349100.0%

Skill Area Mean Scale ScoresListening/Speaking 513.7 495.7 490.3 508.9

Reading 524.3 539.2 543.5 570.3Writing 499.8 517.9 519.1 528.3

Three hundred, forty-nine EL students took the annual CELDT during the 2002-2003 testing cycle. Of that number, twenty-four scored at the Advanced Level (ELD 5), 107 scored at the Early Advanced Level (ELD 4), 149 scored at the Intermediate Level (ELD 3), 36 scored at the Early Intermediate Level (ELD 2), and thirty scored at the Beginning Level (ELD 1). Of the 74% of El students who scored at either the ELD 3 or 4 level, 48% of them are placed in ELD 5 level classes: ESL 3/4 or “sheltered” English for PRP students.

Critical Findings. Analysis of CELDT data indicates that the majority of EL students plateau at an ELD 3 or 4 language

skill level despite their movement out of ESL 2 A/B (ELD 3 and 4) and into ESL 3/4 and then PRP “sheltered” English classes.

60

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,

Mandated by Title I, SCE, SI NCLB, NCLB, NCLB NCLB, Section 1111, (b)(3) (C)(7) EC 64001(f) Section 60810

http://www.lausd.k12.ca.us/lausd/offices/langacquisitionbranch

http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest


California English Language Development Test (CELDT)Longitudinal Analysis – All Students

2001 Assessment

Grades 9 10 11 12 Total Tested


Advanced 00.0%

00.0%

00.0%

00.0%

21.0%

Early Advanced *** 0

0.0% 0

0.0% 0

0.0% 11

7.0%Intermediate 22

43.0% 21

66.0% 8

80.0% 0

0.0% 85

54.0%Early Intermediate 9

18.0% 8

25.0% *** 0

0.0% 32

20.0%Beginning 17

33.0% *** 0

0.0% 0

0.0% 27

17.0%Number Tested 51

100.0% 32

100.0% 10

100.0% 0

0.0%157

100.0%

2002 AssessmentGrades 9 10 11 12 Total Tested


Advanced 58.0%

510.0%

**********

00.0%

128.0%

Early Advanced 2133.0%

1427.0%

619.0%

**********

4428.0%

Intermediate 2539.0%

2243.0%

2166.0%

660.0%

7447.0%

Early Intermediate 1117.0%

918.0%

**********

**********

2315.0%

Beginning *** **********

**********

00.0%

43.0%

Number Tested 64100.0%

51100.0%

32100.0%

10100.0%

157100.0%

*** Summary data is not provided for groups of three or less.

Overall CELDT scores went up from one year to the next with the greatest gain being made at the Early Advanced level (ELD 4) The majority of EL students continued to score at the Intermediate and Early Advanced levels (ELD 3 and ELD 4) despite their movement to higher ELD level classes. Of the 75% of EL students who scored at either the ELD 3 or 4 level, the majority of them were in ELD 5 level classes: ESL 3/4 or “sheltered” English for PRP students. Analysis of CELDT data for both years indicates that EL students plateau at an ELD 3 or 4 level despite their movement out of ESL 2 A/B.

Critical Findings: The majority of EL students continued to score at the Intermediate and Early Advanced levels (ELD

3 and ELD 4) despite their movement to higher ELD level classes.

61



Student Reclassification Rate

The following table represents reclassification information over a three-year period. These reclassification rates are based on a December-to-December reporting period using the Master Plan Survey Data.

Throughout the school year, the English Learner program coordinator routinely monitors CELDT scores, CST scores, and grades to reclassify students. Students who have met all the criteria for redesignation except for grades are referred to the Language Appraisal Team for review. During the past three years, 107 students have been reclassified as fluent in English. The first year under the new CELDT/SAT 9 redesignation criteria, the redesignation rate fell from 22.4% (2000-2001) to 1.5% (2001-2002) because EL students were not scoring at the 36percentile or higher in both total reading and total language on the SAT 9. Since in-servicing ESL and “sheltered” English teachers on the skills needed to successfully meet the redesignation criteria, the rate has begun to rise again and was at 4.3% in 2002-2003. Except for 2001-2002, the redesignation rate at Taft has always been above both local district and District rates.

Critical Findings: Although the redesignation rate is somewhat low, except for 2001-2002, the rate at Taft has always been above both local district and

District rates.

Number of Reclassified English Learners2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003

Indicator School Local District

District School

Local District

District School Local District

District

Reclassification Rate Total EL

Eligible 357 27,703 318,158 404 27,030 309,602 492 29,027 329,416No. Reclassified

80 3,368 34,569 6 652 4,777 21 885 10,787Percent

Reclassified 22.4 12.2 10.9 1.5 2.4 1.5 4.3 3 3.3

62

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,

Mandated by NCLB/ EC 313, 60810-60811, 62002

http://www.lausd.net/


Modified Consent Decree Least Restrictive Environment

Data Section: Least Restrictive Environment

Instructions: Complete all boxes then use the data to identify the critical findings.

Instructional Setting SLD and SLI (unduplicated count) 2002/03 2003/04# with an IEP Not Available 198% out of General Education 0–20% of day (70% by 2006) Not Available 19.7%

% out of General Education 21-60% Not Available 46.5%

% out of General Education 61-100% Not Available 33.8%

Instructional Setting All other eligibilities 2002/03 2003/04# with an IEP Not Available 80% out of General Education 0 –20% Not Available 21%% out of General Education 21-60% Not Available 21%% out of General Education 61-100% Not Available 58%

CurriculumIdentify the type of curriculum in which students are participating:

Number of

students

% from total special education population

2002/03 2003/04District general education curriculum for his/her grade level.

50 Not Available 17.5%

District general education curriculum using accommodations or modifications.

227 Not Available 81.5%

Alternate District curriculum provided to prepare him/her to access the District’s general education curriculum.

1 Not Available .5

(This data is available through the web-based IEP or is located in Section J of the student’s IEP)

STAR Assessment (This data is available through the DSS system)Identify the percent of students with disabilities who participated in the following assessments:

Total 2002/03

CAT/6 with no accommodations or standard accommodations. 208

CAT/6 with nonstandard accommodations. 0

California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA). 0Did not take any assessment. 54

63

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,

Mandated by the Chanda Smith Consent Decree Plan 12 Least Restrictive Environment



Master Plan Services (Indicate the number of English learners with disabilities participating in each program)

Structured English Immersion Services

(ELD SDAIE, Primary language support)

Basic Bilingual Services (Primary language

instruction, ELD, and SDAIE)

Mainstream English Services

Total2003/2004

2 0 43 43

Students no longer requiring special education services.Number of students who have been exited from all special education services. Total

2003/200412

What does your data tell you about:Instructional setting:

Examine the percentage of students with disabilities who are participating in general education classrooms for 41% or more of the instructional day. What strategies are in place to increase the percent of time?

How are students with disabilities supported within the general education class?

Curriculum and Instruction:

What curriculum is used within the special education program? How do second language learners with disabilities receive English language development

support? Which students are exited from special education (SLD, SLI, ED, etc.)?

Assessment

How are students with disabilities are participating in the STAR assessment? How are IEPs monitored to ensure participation of students with disabilities in the STAR

assessment (CAT/6 and CAPA)?

Special education classes use the same textbook as the general education classes as well as supplementary materials to meet individual student needs. The mathematics classes currently include Algebra Readiness, Algebra 1, Algebra 2, and Geometry, and the curriculum is well defined on a pacing plan. Mathematics instruction is also aligned with state curriculum standards, parallels instruction in general education math classes, and is aligned within the Special Education Department from class to class, so that different instructors teaching the same course are teaching the same curriculum. English instruction currently parallels the general education English program and is aligned with state curriculum standards. The English curriculum also makes use of the general education texts and reading lists, as well as supplementary materials. However, curriculum is not as well defined as the math curriculum, and may vary from teacher to teacher. English classes need to develop a specific curriculum and pacing plan

64


to standardize instruction. Other curriculum offered (Science, Health, History, Government, and Economics) parallel the general education classes of the same subject matter.

There is a need to develop additional support for special education students participating in general education classrooms. There is a need to provide staff development to assist teachers in meeting the educational needs of special education students in general education classrooms. There is also a need to provide staff development to improve the support provided by special education teachers for Title I students participating in general education to facilitate student success. Both special education and general education need to increase awareness and expertise regarding educating special education students in general education instructional settings. Special Education teachers and leadership need to identify, improve and increase the number of special education students who could be successful in general education settings. Professional Development is needed for teachers of special education students in the areas of accommodations and support for special education students in general education classrooms, collaborative models of instruction, inclusion, and co-teaching could be beneficial in increasing the number of special education students in general education settings. Curriculum currently in use in the special education classes includes an emphasis on state curriculum standards and parallels the general education curriculum. Currently (spring 2004) special education students, including Title I special education students, participate in assessment with accommodations as identified on each students’ IEP. The most common accommodations are testing in a small group setting and extended time. Special education students are encouraged to participate in testing by their special education teachers as well as at their IEP meetings annually.

Special Education students in Structured English Immersion receive ELD via High Point that is taught by CLAD/BCLAD teachers trained in High Point. Special Education students who are PRP receive ELD in the Special Education English classes taught by SB1969/CLAD teachers using SDAIE.

Critical Findings: The relatively low number of special education students in general education classrooms at least

41%of the day suggests that the Special Education Department needs to examine whether or not this is appropriate, and to identify ways of increasing the number of special education students in general education classrooms.

General education teachers may need more training in working with special education students in the general classroom.

A large number of special education students did not take the STAR tests.

65

Taft Senior High Los Angeles Unified School DistrictA-G Course Enrollment and Pass Rate

A-G Course Enrollment and Pass Rateby Ethnicity

Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12Total

Course Enroll

A-G Enroll

A-G Pass

Total Course Enroll

A-G Enroll

A-G Pass

Total Course Enroll

A-G Enroll

A-G Pass

Total Course Enroll

A-G Enroll

A-G Pass

All 6,929 3,287 47.4 5,243 3,732 71.2 3,833 2,782 72.6 3,121 1,918 61.5American Indian 24 14 58.3 18 13 72.2 44 25 56.8 10 3 30Asian 355 197 55.5 298 235 78.9 334 260 77.8 214 161 75.2Black/African- American, Not of Hispanic Origin 1,236 483 39.1 755 480 63.6 525 350 66.7 405 215 53.1Filipino 120 58 48.3 136 95 69.9 73 55 75.3 61 45 73.8Hispanic 2,798 1,161 41.5 1,883 1,283 68.1 1,024 721 70.4 818 484 59.2Pacific Islander 24 16 66.7 19 17 89.5 38 30 78.9White 2,372 1,358 57.3 2,134 1,609 75.4 1,795 1,341 74.7 1,613 1,010 62.6

A-G Course Enrollment and Pass Rateby Language Classification


Course Enroll

A-G Enroll

A-G Pass

Total Course Enroll

A-G Enroll

A-G Pass

Total Course Enroll

A-G Enroll

A-G Pass

Total Course Enroll

A-G Enroll

A-G Pass

All 6,929 3,287 47.4 5,243 3,732 71.2 3,833 2,782 72.6 3,121 1,918 61.5English Only 3,324 1,632 49.1 2,279 1,616 70.9 1,791 1,259 70.3 1,464 867 59.2Initially Fluent English Proficient 788 435 55.2 762 566 74.3 659 522 79.2 431 283 65.7Limited English Proficient 1,283 416 32.4 814 517 63.5 500 319 63.8 201 140 69.7Reclassified Fluent English Proficient 1,522 800 52.6 1,370 1,019 74.4 883 682 77.2 1,025 628 61.3

66

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,

Mandated by WASC, Closing the Achievement Gap

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,



Taft Senior High Los Angeles Unified School DistrictA-G Course Enrollment and Pass Rate

District A-G Course Enrollment and Pass Rateby Program


Course Enroll

A-G Enroll

A-G Pass

Total Course Enroll

A-G Enroll

A-G Pass

Total Course Enroll

A-G Enroll

A-G Pass

Total Course Enroll

A-G Enroll

A-G Pass

All 411,404 180,578 43.9 283,082 184,242 65.1 212,553 143,001 67.3 180,666 103,977 57.6Gifted Program 36,658 22,654 61.8 34,064 25,649 75.3 31,591 23,727 75.1 29,015 19,098 65.8Master Plan Program 134,053 46,948 35 72,503 40,275 55.5 46,281 28,264 61.1 30,045 16,741 55.7Special Education 44,795 10,114 22.6 28,093 10,260 36.5 18,732 6,666 35.6 14,927 4,272 28.6Title 1 289,568 119,755 41.4 187,536 117,723 62.8 133,638 87,003 65.1 112,635 62,621 55.6Travel Program 62,956 33,094 52.6 50,414 35,819 71 41,734 30,578 73.3 40,042 24,372 60.9Economically Disadvantaged 291,631 123,139 42.2 189,234 120,892 63.9 137,147 91,253 66.5 115,541 65,930 57.1

Critical Findings: The pass rate of African-American and Hispanic students in A-G courses generally runs between 7 to 15 percent lower than white and

Asian students. While the A-G pass rate for LEP students in the ninth grade is 15% lower than the average, by twelfth grade this group actually scores

higher than the norm (69.7% vs. 61.5%). The A-G pass rate for Special Education students is about half of “All” pass rate.

67

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,




Graduation Rates

SCHOOL TOTALS:Dropouts

Gr.9 (98-99)Dropouts



Gr.12 (01-02)

DropoutsGr.9 (98-99)

throughGr.12 (01-02)

Grade 12 Graduates

(01-02)Graduation

rate*TAFT (WILLIAM HOWARD) SENIOR H 12 11 74 25 122 594 83.0DISTRICT TOTAL: 3,667 2,689 2,655 1,489 10,500 27,720 72.5COUNTY TOTAL: 5,000 3,875 4,137 3,930 16,942 79,509 82.4STATE TOTAL: 12,006 11,034 11,632 14,312 48,984 325,928 86.9

School Sch.

Code American Indian or

Alaska Native Asian Pacific Islander Filipino Hispanic or Latino African American White (not Hispanic) Multiple or No

Response Total

Gender # of

Grads

Grads with UC/CSU Required

Courses # of

Grads


Courses # of

Grads


Courses # of

Grads


Courses # of

Grads


Courses # of

Grads


Courses # of

Grads


Courses # of

Grads


Courses # of

Grads


Courses Taft (William How 1938612

Female 1 0 ( 0.0 %) 31 8 ( 25.8 %) 0 0 ( 0.0 %) 3 1 ( 33.3 %) 78 20 ( 25.6 %) 40 11 ( 27.5 %) 153 40 ( 26.1 %) 0 0 ( 0.0 %) 306 80 ( 26.1 %)

Male 1 1 ( 100.0 %) 30 8 ( 26.7 %) 0 0 ( 0.0 %) 12 3 ( 25.0 %) 74 18 ( 24.3 %) 28 6 ( 21.4 %) 143 37 ( 25.9 %) 0 0 ( 0.0 %) 288 73 ( 25.3 %)

Total 2 1 ( 50.0 %) 61 16 ( 26.2 %) 0 0 ( 0.0 %) 15 4 ( 26.7 %) 152 38 ( 25.0 %) 68 17 ( 25.0 %) 296 77 ( 26.0 %) 0 0 ( 0.0 %) 594 153 ( 25.8 %)

District Total Female 62 19 ( 30.6 %) 1,012 687 ( 67.9 %) 67 25 ( 37.3 %) 479 276 ( 57.6 %) 9,027 3,053 ( 33.8 %) 2,206 966 ( 43.8 %) 2,163 1,161 ( 53.7 %) 0 0 ( 0.0 %) 15,016 6,187 ( 41.2 %)

Male 28 15 ( 53.6 %) 945 597 ( 63.2 %) 91 16 ( 17.6 %) 443 227 ( 51.2 %) 7,445 2,136 ( 28.7 %) 1,630 569 ( 34.9 %) 2,122 997 ( 47.0 %) 0 0 ( 0.0 %) 12,704 4,557 ( 35.9 %)

Total 90 34 ( 37.8 %) 1,957 1,284 ( 65.6 %) 158 41 ( 25.9 %) 922 503 ( 54.6 %) 16,472 5,189 ( 31.5 %) 3,836 1,535 ( 40.0 %) 4,285 2,158 ( 50.4 %) 0 0 ( 0.0 %) 27,720 10,744 ( 38.8 %)

County Total Female 164 52 ( 31.7 %) 5,013 3,391 ( 67.6 %) 235 73 ( 31.1 %) 1,219 665 ( 54.6 %) 19,996 5,718 ( 28.6 %) 4,726 1,635 ( 34.6

%) 9,965 4,764 ( 47.8 %) 105 35 ( 33.3 %) 41,423 16,333 ( 39.4 %)

Male 205 36 ( 17.6 %) 5,043 3,023 ( 59.9 %) 294 60 ( 20.4 %) 1,219 514 ( 42.2 %) 17,422 4,101 ( 23.5 %) 3,863 1,016 ( 26.3 %) 9,968 3,935 ( 39.5 %) 72 18 ( 25.0 %) 38,086 12,703 ( 33.4 %)

Total 369 88 ( 23.8 %) 10,056 6,414 ( 63.8 %) 529 133 ( 25.1 %) 2,438 1,179 ( 48.4 %) 37,418 9,819 ( 26.2 %) 8,589 2,651 ( 30.9

%) 19,933 8,699 ( 43.6 %) 177 53 ( 29.9 %) 79,509 29,036 ( 36.5 %)

State Total Female 1,590 405 ( 25.5 %) 17,930 11,089 ( 61.8 %) 1,154 351 ( 30.4 %) 5,146 2,563 ( 49.8

%) 58,179 14,056 ( 24.2 %) 12,609 3,714 ( 29.5

%) 71,524 31,991 ( 44.7 %) 834 240 ( 28.8 %) 168,966 64,409 ( 38.1 %)

Male 1,446 287 ( 19.8 %) 17,694 9,387 ( 53.1 %) 1,117 250 ( 22.4 %) 5,165 1,937 ( 37.5 %) 50,865 9,715 ( 19.1 %) 10,844 2,219 ( 20.5

%) 68,922 24,562 ( 35.6 %) 909 168 ( 18.5 %) 156,962 48,525 ( 30.9 %)

Total 3,036 692 ( 22.8 %) 35,624 20,476 ( 57.5 %) 2,271 601 ( 26.5 %) 10,311 4,500 ( 43.6

%) 109,044 23,771 ( 21.8 %) 23,453 5,933 ( 25.3

%) 140,446 56,553 ( 40.3 %) 1,743 408 ( 23.4 %) 325,928 112,934 ( 34.6

%)

While our graduation rate is higher than both the District’s and the County’s, it is lower than the state’s rate. The percentage of students meeting the UC/CSU requirements is fairly consistent across all ethnic groups.

68



Critical Findings: Despite our relatively high graduation rate, only about 26% of our students graduate having successfully completed the UC/CSU required

courses. This percentage is significantly lower than the District’s, County’s and State’s percentage.

69


Advanced Placement Enrollment and Test Scores

Enrollment In Course by DepartmentAP Coursesby Department

Total Amer. Indian

Asian Black Hispanic White Filipino Pac. Islander

Art 21 4 3 5 9Computer Science 15 4 11English 144 21 6 16 96 5Foreign Language 16 1 2 9 3 1Mathematics 158 35 4 11 105 2 1Music 4 1 3Science 293 54 5 15 211 6 2Social Science 248 1 41 10 18 171 3 4Totals 899 1 161 30 74 609 17 7

Passing Exam with 3,4,5AP Courses by Department

Total Amer. Indian

Asian Black Hispanic White Filipino Pac. Islander

Art 6 0 0 2 1 3 0 0

Computer Science 7 0 3 0 0 4 0 0

English 74 0 11 4 3 55 1 0

Foreign Language 27 0 1 1 22 3 0 0

Mathematics 71 0 17 3 7 44 0 0

Music 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Science 155 1 28 3 7 112 3 1

Social Science 163 0 25 3 13 118 3 1

Totals 504 1 113 16 53 339 7 2

AP Enrollment by Department A Track (or Single Track)

B Track C Track

English 144Mathematics 158Science 293Social Studies 248

It is Taft’s policy to require all students enrolled in AP classes to take the AP exam for those classes. We offer enriched foreign language classes and have expanded and strengthened our Native/Heritage Speakers program to encourage students to go on to the more challenging classes (AP). The teachers of AP classes meet with interested students each spring to promote their classes. They present the necessary requirements or prerequisites for the classes, the expectations and workload. We have testing programs for students who speak Spanish so that they can be appropriately placed in a level of study commensurate with their ability. We have tutoring programs (by teachers and by student tutors) for those students who are at-risk to help strengthen their knowledge of the language. The department members work as a vertical team from Level 1 up to and including AP to ensure that the students segue from one class to another without gaps in their learning. The teachers have agreed to cover a certain amount of materials per semester to keep everyone “on the same page”. Teachers offer intensive study sessions before the exam dates. Our goal of increasing the number of students in the program is somewhat

70



impeded by the wide range of offerings in AP by the College Board. As the variety of course offerings increase, the enrollment in our respective classes decreases.

In Social Studies, 68% of AP enrollment is white, 17% Asian, 4% Black, 7% Hispanic – very similar to the ethnic breakdown in other departments at Taft. Ethnic breakdown of AP students compared to the general population shows that Blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented in AP classes As we increase the number of students enrolled in AP classes, the passing rate has continued to decrease. Overwhelming majority of students enrolled in Advanced Placement English Lit. and Advanced Placement Language are White and Asian students, and only 15% of those enrolled were African-American or Hispanic.

Critical Findings: While African-Americans make up about 16% of the school’s population, only about 4% are

enrolled in AP courses. Hispanics, who make up about 35% of the school’s population, only about 8.5% are enrolled in AP

courses.

71


Alternate Schools Accountability Model (ASAM)

Alternative School Accountability Model (ASAM) Measurement

Alternative schools, such as community day schools, continuation high schools and independent study schools, are mandated by the Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 to implement the Alternative Schools Accountability Model (ASAM) effective 2001-2002 school year.

Schools participating in the ASAM are required to collect and report data on two performance indicators selected by each school. The following table presents comparison data reported to CDE on the indicator that measures credit or program completion.

Taft is not an ASAM school.

ASAM PERFORMANCE INDICATOR ON COMPLETION

Indicator 2001-2002 2002-2003

13B Credit CompletionAverage Credit Completion bylong-term students

14 High School GraduationGraduation Rate of credit-eligible long-term 12th grade students

72


Section Three (B)District Data Section

Aprenda Test

Aprenda is administered to English Learners, English-only, and fluent English proficient students who are enrolled in a Spanish Basic or Dual Language Program. The following data looks at groups of students across grade levels and in the content areas assessed on the Aprenda. A comparison of the 2002 to 2003 Aprenda is presented in the table below.

Taft does not administer the Aprenda Test.

AprendaAprenda Comparison 2003 vs. 2002

Reading Math Language

Grade ‘02 ‘03 Change ‘02 ‘03 Change ‘02 ‘03 Change

9

10

11

73

LAUSD, 03/01/-1,

Mandated by Closing the Achievement Gap



English Language Development (ELD) Assessment PortfoliosEnglish Language Development (ELD) Placement by Grade Enrolled

The following table presents information regarding English Learners’ progress in acquiring English language proficiency as of 2001-2002. The progress of ELs in acquiring English language proficiency is determined by identifying their current proficiency level and amount of time in the program.

Each row represents a cohort of students based on the grade initially enrolled.

English Language Development (ELD) Placement by Grade Enrolled (2001-2002) Most current data available

Current Grade

Grade Enrolled

Intro ESL A/B

% ESL 1A/B

% ESL 2A/B

% ESL 3/4

% PRP % RFEP % Total

9 K 0 0 1 33.3 0 0 2 .7 80 28.8 196 70.5 2789 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.4 8 27.6 20 69 299 2 0 0 0 0 2 13.3 0 0 3 20 10 66.7 159 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 22.7 17 77.3 229 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 27.8 13 72.2 189 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 12.5 6 37.5 8 50 189 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 21.4 11 39.3 11 39.3 289 7 0 0 1 5.9 3 17.6 2 11.8 7 31.2 4 23.5 179 8 0 0 2 7.7 10 38.5 10 38.5 3 11.5 1 3.8 269 9 0 0 19 42.2 19 42.2 4 8.9 3 6.7 0 0 459 Total 0 0 23 4.6 34 6.8 27 5.4 132 26.6 281 56.5 49710 K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 21.4 114 78.6 14510 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 23.8 16 76.2 2110 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 12.5 14 87.5 1610 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 9 90 1010 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 22.2 7 77.8 910 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14.3 6 85.7 710 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 33.3 8 66.7 1210 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 58.3 5 41.7 1210 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 63.6 4 36.4 1110 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 28.6 5 71.4 0 0 710 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 66.7 1 33.3 0 0 310 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1.8 66 26 184 72.4 254

74

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,

Mandated by NCLB / EC 305, 306, 310, 313, 60810-60811, 62002

.., 01/03/-1,

This data is available from the school’s local district English Language Learners coordinator or advisor or through the LAUSD Language Acquisition Branch (213) 241-5582.


English Language Development (ELD) Assessment PortfoliosEnglish Language Development (ELD) Placement by Grade Enrolled

(2001-2002)Current Grade

Grade Enrolled

Intro ESL A/B

% ESL 1A/B

% ESL 2A/B

% ESL 3/4

% PRP % RFEP % Total

11 K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3.8 102 96.2 10611 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.8 20 95.2 2111 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 9 90 1011 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 16.7 10 83.3 1211 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14.3 6 85.7 711 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 25 6 75 811 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 13.3 13 86.7 1511 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 100 411 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7.1 9 64.3 4 28.6 1411 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 80 2 20 1011 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 70 3 30 0 0 1011 11 0 0 2 28.6 1 14.3 3 42.9 1 14.3 0 0 711 Total 0 0 2 .09 1 0.4 11 4.9 34 15.2 176 78.6 22412 K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2.9 99 97.1 10212 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 100 2812 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 100 2112 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 100 712 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14.3 8 85.7 712 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 100 812 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 100 912 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 100 1112 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 75 1 25 412 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 50 6 50 1212 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 88.9 1 11.1 912 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 112 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100 0 0 2

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 11.3 197 88.7 222

Students in ESL 1 A/B through ESL 3/4 consistently progress at least one ELD level per semester (secondary).

Critical Findings: Once students complete all of their ESL courses, the majority of them remain in Preparation for

Redesignation (PRP) status.

75

.., 01/03/-1,

This data is available from the school’s local district English Language Learners coordinator or advisor or through the LAUSD Language Acquisition Branch (213) 241-5582.


Post Secondary Plans Self Reported by Graduates

Post Secondary PlansSelf Reported by Graduates

California Adult School Non. CA

UC CSU CC Private Voc. Military Employed Other4 yr. 2 yr.

Total Graduates 9% 9% 60% 2% 3% 2% 6% 0 8% 0American Indian 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0Asian 17 8 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0Black/African-American, Not of Hispanic Origin

2 7 33 4 0 0 3 0 0 10 0

Hispanic 9 15 79 5 0 8 4 2 0 7 1White 39 34 172 3 2 5 3 2 0 15 0Filipino 2 0 0 3 2 0 2 0 1 0 0Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Students Receiving Special Education Services

1 0 29 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0

The College Office is responsible for collecting this data. 60% of our students go to a community college, the majority of those, to Pierce College. Pierce only sends about 7% of its population to a four year college each year. Other community colleges, such as Santa Monica Community College, sned about 47% on to a four year college.

Critical Findings: While close to 90% of our students go on to some kind of college, the vast majority (60%) go to

community college.

76

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,

Mandated by WASC and SCE 5CCR 4403

.., 01/03/-1,

This data is collected at the individual school site.


Grades Issued Spring 2003 by Ethnicity, Academic Area and Grade Level

Grades Issued Spring 2003 by Ethnicity, Academic Area and Grade LevelEnglish

Grade Level

Grade Earned

American Indian

Asian Black/African-American, Not of Hispanic Origin

Hispanic White Filipino Pacific Islander

SPED EL

9 A 33.3 26.4 9.2 9.1 18.8 15.4 40 3.2 7.2B 33.3 38.9 15.4 18.2 35 34.6 0 19.4 13.3C 33.3 27.8 23.1 19.3 24.3 11.5 20 22.6 20.6D 0 2.8 20.1 19.5 12.7 26.9 20 22.6 16.6Fail 0 4.2 32.2 33.8 9.3 11.5 20 32.3 42.3

10 A 0 27.7 14.8 9.4 24.1 22.7 25 1.9 10.4B 25 40.4 24.4 17.8 33.6 31.8 50 21.2 12.6C 25 19.1 24.4 25.4 22.8 27.3 25 26.9 25.2D 25 4.3 16.3 18.7 11.1 9.1 0 26.9 21.3Fail 25 8.5 20 28.7 8.5 9.1 0 23.1 30.4

11 A 12.5 46.3 16.4 9.4 34.1 7.1 42.9 11.7 14.4B 0 24.1 21.8 27.2 32.8 42.9 57.1 23.4 27.5C 75 20.4 30.9 29.8 18.8 21.4 0 24.7 21.6D 0 5.6 15.5 20.4 7.3 7.1 0 18.2 23.5Fail 12.5 3.7 15.5 13.1 7 21.4 0 22.1 13.1

12 A 0 28.6 15.3 15.7 27.5 20 3.2 27.3B 100 50 34.1 21.4 34.9 40 25.8 11.4C 0 16.7 25.9 32.7 24.2 26.7 32.3 31.8D 0 2.4 15.3 23.3 10.7 6.7 25.8 20.5Fail 0 2.4 9.4 6.9 2.8 6.7 12.9 9.1

The English Department is in the process of aligning local assessments and grades to state and norm-referenced data results.Critical Findings: Across grade levels, African-Americans and Hispanics show significantly fewer A’s and B’s and

significantly more D’s and Fails than the white and Asian subgroups. EL 9th grade students have fewer A’s and more Fails than white students, but by 12th grade the gap

has closed considerably. Special Education 9th grade students have fewer A’s and more Fails than white students. By 12th

grade, there are still significantly fewer A’s, but the number of Fails has dropped by over half, though still over 4 times higher than whites.

77

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,




Grades Issued Spring 2003 by Ethnicity, Academic Area and Grade LevelGrades Issued Spring 2003 by Ethnicity, Academic Area and Grade Level

MathematicsGrade Level

Grade Earned

American Indian



SPED EL

9 A 25 28.8 3.4 5.7 15.9 20 25 12.5 8.8B 0 35.6 5.7 12.1 21.8 30 50 16.1 11.3C 25 11.9 22.9 19.5 26.3 30 0 19.6 16.1D 25 13.6 24 18.3 13.4 0 0 17.9 16.6Fail 25 10.2 44 44.4 22.6 20 25 33.9 47

10 A 0 18 6.9 7 17.1 15 0 14.3 8.6B 50 28 10.9 15.1 24.6 20 33.3 4.8 12.2C 0 24 27.7 25.4 25.4 25 33.3 47.6 23.5D 50 10 18.8 14.4 10.5 35 0 14.3 17.6Fail 0 20 35.6 38 22.2 5 33.3 19 38

11 A 0 16 1.6 3.8 14.1 0 50 17.6 20B 50 32 11.5 13.7 26.9 18.2 0 23.5 17.7C 0 20 31.1 27.5 24.1 9.1 16.7 29.4 19.2D 0 18 16.4 22.1 15.3 18.2 16.7 29.4 13.1Fail 50 14 39.3 32.8 19.7 54.5 16.7 16.7 30

12 A 0 10 0 3.9 15 0 20 11.4B 0 60 11.1 13.7 34.5 0 33.3 17.1C 0 20 50 15.7 27.4 0 12.5 25.7D 100 5 27.8 31.4 15 66.7 16.1 17.1Fail 0 5 11.1 35.3 8 33.3 19.6 28.6

78

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,




76.3% of Asians received grades of A, B or C in the 9th grade, 70% in the 10th grade, 68% in the 11th grade and 90% in the 12th grade. 32% of African-Americans received grades of A, B or C in the 9th grade, 45.5% in the 10th grade, 44.2% in the 11th grade and 61.1% in the 12th grade. 37.3% of Hispanics received grades of A, B or C in the 9th grade, 47.5% in the 10th grade, 45% in the 11th grade and 33.3% in the 12th grade. 64% of Whites received grades of A, B or C in the 9th grade, 67.1% in the 10th grade, 65.1% in the 11th grade and 76.9% in the 12th grade. Asians, African-Americans, Hispanics and Whites experience a slight drop in passing grades from the 10th to the 11th grade year. Hispanics experience an 11.7% drop in passing grades from the 11th to the 12th grade year. Asians, African-Americans, and Whites experience an increase in passing grades from the 11th and 12th grade year. 36% of the EL received grades of A, B or C in the 9th grade, 44.3% in the 10th grade, 56.9% in the 11th grade and 54.2% in the 12th grade. There is steady growth from the 9th to the 11th grade, and a slight drop in the 12th grade. 36.2% of the SPED received grades of A, B or C in the 9th grade, 66.7% in the 10th grade, and 70.5% in the 11th grade. However, 131.5% of the students were incorrectly reported for the SPED in the 12th grade. LAUSD District Quarterly Assessments for Algebra 1 is aligned to state standards.

Critical Findings: African Americans received the least A’s across all grade levels, with 0% in the 12th grade. African Americans, Hispanics and EL received the most Fails in 9-11th grade, while only Hispanics,

Filipinos and EL receive the most Fails in the 12th grade. EL 9th grade students have fewer A’s and twice the Fails than white students. By 12th grade, the

percentage of A’s is comparable to the white population, but the percentage of Fails, while showing a drop from 9th grade, is still considerably higher than with the white population.

Special Education 9th grade students have slightly fewer A’s and more Fails than white students. By 12th grade, Special Education students show more A’s than whites, and while the number of Fails has dropped it is still significantly higher than whites.

79


Grades Issued Spring 2003 by Ethnicity, Academic Area and Grade LevelSocial Studies

Grade Level

Grade Earned

American Indian



SPED EL

9 A 0 26.1 28.6 12.3 30.8 0 50 8.7 1.8B 100 43.5 8.6 4.9 32 25 50 13 1.8C 0 17.4 17.1 13.1 19.2 0 0 34.8 7.3D 0 13 14.3 22.1 8.1 75 0 17.4 27.3Fail 0 0 31.4 47.5 9.9 0 0 26.1 61.8

10 A 33.3 36.7 19.5 14.1 26.7 35 25 10.4 11.6B 33.3 32.7 19.5 12.8 31.3 25 0 11.9 10C 0 12.2 24.8 27.2 21.6 30 50 25.4 30D 33.3 6.1 19.5 19.5 10.3 5 25 31.3 23.2Fail 0 12.2 16.8 26.5 10.1 5 0 20.9 24.8

11 A 14.3 43.3 15.9 13.5 38.9 9.1 71.4 4 27.3B 42.9 40.3 21.6 22.4 32.6 54.5 14.3 24 15.5C 42.9 9 25 30 18 9.1 0 16 28.6D 0 6 13.6 19.4 6.3 0 14.3 24 13.7Fail 0 1.5 23.9 14.7 4.1 27.3 0 32 14.3

12 A 100 47.9 16.9 16.2 30.6 50 7.8 32.5B 0 25 15.6 22.7 29.4 21.4 7.8 20C 0 16.7 37.7 37 28.1 0 43.1 26.3D 0 6.3 19.5 20.8 9.4 14.3 33.3 16.3Fail 0 4.2 10.4 3.2 2.5 14.3 7.8 5


No breakdown of ethnicity by various classes. Ninth graders only enrolled in honors. The percentage of Hispanic students receiving D’s and Fails drops each year. The percentage of Black students receiving Fails rises in the 11th grade. Black students’ scores are fairly consistent across the grades.

Critical Findings: African-American and Hispanic students’ grades are significantly lower than whites and Asians. EL 9th grade students have fewer A’s and more Fails than white students, but by 12th grade the gap

has closed considerably. Special Education 9th grade students have fewer A’s and more Fails than white students. By 12th

grade, there are still significantly fewer A’s, but the number of Fails has dropped.

80

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,




Grades Issued Spring 2003 by Ethnicity, Academic Area and Grade LevelScience

Grade Level

Grade Earned

American Indian



SPED EL

9 A 0 5 5.1 3.4 9.5 0 0 4.5B 50 45 15.4 7.6 24.5 0 0 40.9C 50 40 17.9 16 38.1 50 0 18.2D 0 5 23.1 21.8 10.9 25 100 36.4Fail 0 5 38.5 51.3 16.3 25 0 10.9

10 A 0 43.8 8.3 11.1 32.5 23.8 33.3 16.4B 100 25 20.2 16.1 28 14.3 33.3 36.4C 0 18.8 33.9 23.6 24.7 42.9 33.3 14.5D 0 10.4 19.3 16.8 9 19 0 21.8Fail 0 2.1 17.4 32.5 5.7 0 0 4.7

11 A 33.3 35.3 5.8 8.8 24.7 36.4 28.6 11.6B 33.3 19.6 10.1 15.4 26.5 9.1 57.1 37.2C 0 23.5 43.5 30.9 27.3 36.4 0 23.3D 33.3 13.7 18.8 22.1 13.1 0 0 23.3Fail 0 7.8 21.7 22.8 8.4 18.2 14.3 15.4

12 A 31 15 20.5 29.2 42.9 46.2B 34.5 5 25 32.8 28.6 15.4C 34.5 30 31.8 30.7 14.3 23.1D 0 40 18.2 5.8 14.3 4.5Fail 0 10 4.5 1.5 0 40.9


38.51% of Blacks and 51.3% of Latinos fail their science classes in the 9th grade as opposed to 5% and 16% of Asians and Whites respectively. That trend is also seen in the 10th, 11th, and 12th grade years, with a drop in failure rates seen in the 12th grade year due to a high dropout rate in those subgroups.

Critical Findings: Grades earned in the African-American and Latino subcategories are over-represented in the Fail

category.

81

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,




SAT and ACT Summary Reports

SAT and ACT Summary ReportsGender Ethnic Group

Total Male Female American Indian

Asian Hispanic or Latino

African American

White

Grade 12 EnrollmentSAT Test 475 238 237 1 45 108 49 272Test Takers-Number 298 155 143 1 36 35 23 91Test Takers-Percent 62.7 65.1 60.3 100 80 32.4 46.9 33.5Average Verbal Score 503 502 504 380 514 449 458 539Average Math Score 532 548 515 400 584 450 463 563Average Total Score 1,035 1,050 1,019 780 1,098 899 921 1,102Meeting Criteria (>= 1000)-Number 172 94 78 0 26 13 7 65Meeting Criteria (>= 1000)-Rate 36.2 39.5 32.9 0 57.8 12 14.3 23.9ACT Test 298 155 143 1 36 35 23 91Test Takers-Number 81 37 41 0 10 13 13 27Test Takers-Percent 17.1 15.5 17.3 0 22.2 12 26.5 9.9Average Composite Score 21.8 21.5 22.3 -- 23 21.4 18.8 23.1Meeting Criteria (>=21)-Number 46 20 26 -- 7 6 4 19Meeting Criteria (>=21)-Rate 9.7 8.4 11 0 15.6 5.6 8.2 7To protect privacy, dashes appear in place of test data when the results are for 10 or fewer students.

82

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,




Taft has seen an increase in the number of students taking the PSAT (513 students last year versus over 1200 this year). The number of students taking the SAT has also increased over last year ((190). Males scored slightly higher than the females in Math portion of the SAT and the overall total score. Females scored slightly higher than the males on the ACT. 33.5% of the Whites are taking the SAT, as opposed to the 80% of Asians taking the SAT. African-Americans are taking the SAT at a 13.4% higher rate than the Whites. Hispanic or Latinos are taking the SAT at the lowest rate of 32.4%. Latinos and African-Americans are scoring almost 100 points less than the Whites and Asians on the average math score on the SAT. Hispanic or Latinos are scoring 199 points less than the Asians and 203 points less than the Whites for the average total score on the SAT. African-Americans are scoring 177 points less than the Asians and 181 points less than the Whites for the average total score on the SAT. 57.8% of Asians, 23.9% of Whites, 14.3% of African-Americans and 12% of Hispanic or Latinos score above 1000 on the SAT.

Critical Findings: Out of 475 seniors, only 298 students took the SAT. This is 63% of the seniors. Out of 475 seniors, only 81 students took the ACT. This is 17% of the seniors. Taft’s SAT verbal score (503) is above the LAUSD and state average. Taft’s math score (532) is

above the LAUSD, state and national average. African Americans and Hispanic students received a lower average score than white and Asian

students.

83


Language Arts Performance Assignment

District Language Arts Performance Assignment

Grade Level

Year Tested

Total Number Tested

No Score ( 0 )

Not Proficient

( 1 )

Partially Proficient

( 2 )

Proficient( 3 )

Advanced( 4 )

Grade 92002 814 3.8 24.4 37 27 7.72003 993 7.2 18.4 40.7 26.3 7.3

Comparing 2002-2003, the percentage of students who were proficient or advanced remains the same. There is a slight increase in 2003 of partially proficient students from 2002, but a decrease in 2003 of “not proficient” students.

Critical Findings: Over 50% of our students are scoring at the “Not Proficient” or “Partially Proficient” levels.

84



Section Four

Current Conditions, Findings and Barriers

Interviews:

Members of the Single Plan team interviewed administrators, teachers, school support staff, classified staff, paraprofessionals, parents and students and asked specific questions from Section Four. Respondents expressed concern about the achievement gap, effective professional development, school safety, communication and lack of parental involvement.

Classroom Visits:

After classroom visitation training, administrators, local district personnel, teachers, and parents conducted classroom visits to determine if there was visible evidence of implementation of standards-based instruction occurring school-wide. Most felt that Taft was doing an excellent job in standards-based instruction. Use of technology in the classroom has been a school priority but these classroom visits revealed that consistent use of computers by students was not evident. At the present time, Taft is still waiting for the District to finish connecting all classrooms to the Internet.

Examination of Student Work:

Student work samples in all content areas are collected at benchmark points throughout the year. These samples are analyzed by the Taft Leadership Team, and teachers during grade level and/or department banked time meetings. These samples indicated that grade level standards alignment and rigor are fairly consistent across grade levels.

85


Current Conditions, Findings and Barriers

The questions in this section are used to define the school’s current educational practices and strategies. To complete this section, all members of the school community should respond to selected questions. Parents and community members are specifically asked to assist in answering the questions in Component 3.

Directions: To develop the critical findings in each component, use the findings and data analysis from Section Three, findings from the information gathering process and the answers to the questions contained in this section. The analysis of these resulting critical findings in each component will lead to the identification of underlying causes that led to lack of student achievement (barriers).

Component 1

STANDARDS-BASED CURRICULUM, ASSESSMENT, AND RESEARCH-BASED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES

Directions: Provide responses to the following questions in narrative or bullet form.

1. Alignment of standards, curriculum and assessment: How are teachers educated about standards, curriculum and assessment? How do teachers at all grade levels and/or departments ensure that curriculum and

assessments are aligned to standards for all students? How does the school’s leadership and organizational structure address student

achievement and standards-based instruction? How are students educated about expectations for mastery of standards? How does the school’s core curriculum address state content standards? How are the needs in content area classes identified and met to provide students with

rigorous instruction and disciplinary literacy? How do teachers and students participate in the assessment process? What accommodations are made for diverse learners to access standards-based

curriculum and assessments? How does differentiated instruction address the needs of gifted students to meet or

exceed state core curriculum and standards? - GATE How are testing accommodations provided for students with disabilities

participating in the assessment process? How are students with disabilities included in standards-based instruction and

curriculum? Describe the school’s ELD program. How and when do teachers use ELD materials

to address the ELD standards? How do teachers assure that English learners understand standards-based core

curriculum?

86


All teachers are in-serviced on standards based instruction, curriculum and assessment tools on a regular basis. Departments meet regularly to ensure that curriculum is aligned to the standards within their department. Standardized test scores, grades analysis, and other assessment results are examined by departments, the Leadership Team, and the School Site Council on an ongoing basis. Strategies are developed within these groups to address any weaknesses that analysis makes evident. The Math Department conducts quarterly assessments to insure that pacing is the same across all course classes. Teachers use the results to target student weaknesses and develop strategies to address those weaknesses. Students are made aware of the standards for their classes by the posting of standards in all classrooms along with daily agendas that are aligned to the standards. Taft needs to communicate better with parents on class standards and pacing.

Teachers of gifted classes use instructional techniques that are adapted to the needs of their students. Techniques include group work, presenting questions with a variety of possible answers, providing materials in several languages, drawing upon multiple intelligeneces to solve real-world problems, and multimedia presentations.

Critical Findings: Departments, the Leadership Team, and the School Site Council to address student weaknesses

examine standardized test scores, grades analysis, and other assessment results. Examination of the data reveals an achievement gap between our Hispanic and African American

and the rest of the school. Examination of the data also reveals a low level of proficiency in math. Earlier diagnostic testing in math would assist counselors in placing students in the correct math

classes, and would assist teachers in targeted instruction. Though teachers have been in-serviced on differentiated instruction and sheltered techniques in

order to assist all students in meeting the standards, more work needs to be done in this area. This will be especially critical as we move more students with disabilities into regular classrooms.

Parents, students and teachers complain that some of our students lack the test taking skills that would allow for a more accurate representation of their abilities.

MORE STUFF ON ELD, AND DISABILITIES

87


2. Identification of research-based instructional strategies, and the consistency/fidelity of implementation: What specific research-based strategies are used in reading and mathematics for all

groups of students? What is the evidence that research-based strategies are used effectively in all other

content areas? What specific research-based strategies are utilized to meet the needs of

historically underserved children of poverty, homeless, migrant, American Indian, females and other minorities?

How is disaggregated data utilized to determine the effects of strategies on closing of the achievement gap?

How does the school implement the District’s pacing plans and instructional guides? How are ELD, SDAIE, and primary language strategies used to facilitate access to

the core program? What research-based strategies are utilized to meet the needs of students with

disabilities within general education? Special education? How are research-based service delivery models used to ensure students with IEPs

are provided service in the least restrictive environment?Note: Schools with Model Providers need to include the role of that provider in this section.

Teachers have presented model lessons to the rest of the faculty. Techniques presented have included differentiated instruction, sheltered, and literacy across the curriculum. Staff meets as a whole several times a year to discuss all instructional data and works both inter- and intra- departmentally to develop teaching strategies to address shortcomings. In addition to standardized tests, diagnostic tests are given in both math and reading to help determine areas of weakness. Departments meet to analyze the results and to develop strategies to address problem areas. Our Literacy and Math coaches work with teachers on developing and implementing instructional strategies. Administrators monitor the progress of the departments and meet with department chairs to address areas of concern. Overall school progress is analyzed and discussed in weekly Leadership Team meetings.

Critical Findings: Teachers have been in-serviced on differentiated instruction and sheltered techniques in order to

assist all students in meeting the standards, though more work needs to be done in this area. The Leadership Team meets regularly to look at disaggregated data to monitor our progress in

closing the achievement gap. This gap, however, remains a serious issue at Taft. As a result of the above-mentioned analysis, several programs have been implemented that address

specific student instructional needs. Bridge classes, the STAR Academy, our AVID program and Humanitas are examples of such programs. More such programs will be coming next year, including the Twilight Academy. All these programs have special funding needs.

MORE STUFF ON ELD, GIFTED, AND DISABILITIES

88


3. Data collection, analysis and reporting of student academic achievement: What data is collected, analyzed, and reported to, how often, and by whom? How is data used to inform instruction designed to close the achievement gap? What does the school do to prepare teachers to effectively use data to improve individual

student achievement? To improve the overall instructional program? How does the school determine the effectiveness of data analysis to identify students for

differentiated instruction and intervention? What data are collected and analyzed to determine the effectiveness of special

education services and programs? What opportunities are provided for teachers to collectively examine student work? How do teachers determine how well English learners are achieving in English

language development? How does the school monitor the teachers’ use of ELD Portfolios? How do teachers use CELDT scores? How do teachers know when English learners have met benchmarks toward

achieving adequate progress? How do teachers inform students about what the data says about their achievement?

API scores, California State Standards Test scores, AYP data, CAHSEE scores, CAT6 resluts, grades analysis data, diagnostic test results, AP enrollment and scores, graduation rates, post secondary plans, SAT test scores and ACT results are all analyzed several times a month by the Leadership Team. Appropriate data is disseminated to departments for further analysis. In addition, the School Site Council examines most of the same data. Much of this material can be accessed via links on the school’s web site. CELDT test results, reclassification rates, and EL assessment portfolios are examined by ELAC and the EL coordinator and shared with the Leadership Team and the School Site Council. Least Restrictive Environment data along with IEPs are examined by the Special Education department chair and the administrator in charge of Special Education. Data is shared with department members and the Leadership Team.

As a result of the data, department chairs along with coordinators develop instructional strategies to address problem areas. Several programs have been implemented that address specific student instructional needs including Bridge classes, the STAR Academy, SAS and Humanitas. Departmental finals and essays, are examined collectively by teachers. In addition, student work is posted in all classrooms.

Critical Findings: In order to close the achievement gap, the Leadership Team examines data from all available

sources. It’s findings are used to drive professional development, and to inform the School Site Council so that adequate funding can be appropriated. Data reveals that the achievement gap is a serious issue for Taft.

Data analysis also reveals a proficiency problem in both math and in the Language Arts Performance Assignment.

MORE STUFF ON ELD, GIFTED, AND DISABILITIES

89


4. Extended Learning Opportunities

Intervention Programs Check all Intervention Programs that apply

Emergency Immigrant Education Program (EIEP)English Language Acquisition Program (ELAP)English Language and Intensive Literacy Program (ELILP)Extended Learning Program (ELP) (Summer School/Intersession)Extended Learning Program (ELP) (Before-, After-, Saturday School, etc)Extended School Year (ESY) Migrant EducationStandards-Based Promotion (Summer School/Intersession)Standards-Based Promotion Bridge ProgramSupplemental Educational Services/Program Improvement (PI)After School Math TutoringOther

Add stuff about existing tutoring programs How does the school serve all the students that have special needs? How are extended learning opportunities aligned with the regular instructional program? How are intervention materials and strategies aligned to grade level/subject content

standards? How are students identified for intervention programs? How is student progress measured in intervention programs? How do the extended

learning opportunities bridge the gap to meet the standards-based core and what is the impact on the instructional program?

Provide data that demonstrates the effectiveness of intervention programs in closing the achievement gap.

How are extended learning program opportunities aligned to identify needs of targeted student populations, including students receiving special education services, English learners, gifted students, Standard English Learners, (others)?

How are the Student Success Team (SST) and the Language Appraisal Team (LAT) used to support students at risk?

How does the school identify students and provide intervention for English language development.

How do students with IEPs access general education intervention programsNote: Program Improvement schools with students receiving Supplemental Educational Services need to answer the questions below. How do parents receive information about supplemental services (No Child Left Behind)

and how are these services provided to eligible students? How are the Supplemental Educational Services for students coordinated between the

provider and the student’s teacher(s) and parent(s)?

Taft provides afterschool tutoring for students Monday through Thursday. Students are either self-identified, or are recommended for turtoring by teachers and /or counselors. Taft’s Bridge program works

90

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,

Special Education Students only as identified in the Individualized Education Program (IEP)

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,

Includes ELAP, ELIP, Saturday School, UCTP, Beyond the Bell, Cross-age tutoring etc.


with students who are not quite ready for Honors or AP level courses, with the goal of transistioning them into these classes in the following academic year.

Critical Findings: Taft’s Bridge program does not attract enough Hispanic and African American students to close the

achievement gap for higher level minority student.

5. State Approved and District Adopted Textbooks (Senior High School)In order for all students to have access to the core, schools must supply required State approved and District adopted textbooks, which are aligned with the California content standards.

9th/10th grade students in need of intervention in developing reading skills (reading below 3 rd grade level) are enrolled in the Developing Reader and Writer’s course utilizing:

Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Language! A Literacy Intervention and Scholastic Read 180

English learners use the Hampton-Brown High Point series for all English as a Second Language (ESL) classes.

Algebra I Students use the following series:

McDougal Littell Concepts and Skills, McDougal Littell Structure and Method, and Prentice Hall Algebra I.

Instructional materials (textbooks) are provided in all subject areas (language arts, mathematics, science, social science, health, physical education, visual and performing arts) primarily through the List of Authorized Materials serving Grades 9-12 with a listing of board-adopted textbooks and instructional materials evaluated by teacher committees.

91


6. Supplemental materialsIn addition to implementing the core instructional program of the district, schools receive supplemental funds from the following programs (Title I, EL, GATE, Special Ed, SI etc.) to assist eligible students in meeting grade level standards.

Directions: Complete the following table to identify the supplemental materials currently being used.

State Approved and District Adopted Supplemental Materials

Supplemental Materials Currently in UseTitle Math Language

ArtsReading ELD/ESL Social

StudiesScience Arts

EducationHealth

EducationAll StudentsELEnglishELPrimary LanguageSEL

SPEC ED

GATE

Title I

Title IV

TUPE

What standards-aligned supplemental materials are used? How are supplemental materials used to support GATE and special education students? How are supplemental materials used to support ELD and provide access to the core

program, particularly for ELs at ELD Levels 1-3? What, if any, additional supplemental materials are needed to support standards-based

instruction?Names of textbooks etc.Critical Findings: Most supplemental material currently used at Taft does not appear on the State approved or District

adopted lists. There is a critical lack of supplemental material to address issues such as closing the achievement

gap, raising math proficiency, providing supplemental writing experiences and reading experiences, and improving test taking skills.

92

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,

If supplemental materials are purchased in a language other then English please note.

Taft Senior High Los Angeles Unified School DistrictFindings and Barriers

Component 1: Standards-Based Curriculum, Assessment, and Research-Based Instruction Strategies

Findings Barriers(underlying cause)

Content AreaAddressed

African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos experience an “Achievement Gap” at Taft High School. The African-American subgroup was the only group not to meet its target goal on the API, and in fact, dropped in its scores. This subgroup scores significantly below the White and Asian subgroups. The Hispanic subgroup increased the most (23) out of the 4 major ethnic subgroups. This subgroup, however, still scores significantly below the white and Asian subgroups. These students are at the lowest proficiency level on the CAHSEE. African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos are underrepresented in AP classes. Across grade levels, African Americans and Hispanics show significantly fewer A’s and B’s than the Asian and White student population, and more D’s and Fails.

Many African American and Hispanic students come to Taft without the required prerequisite content knowledge and study skills to be successful in high school. This may be the result of coming from under-performing middle schools, and poor home environment with regards to a lack readily available educational materials (books, computers, etc.) in the home. There is a lack of supplemental materials at the school site to compensate for this deficit at home. In addition, these students may not have the test taking skills that would allow for an accurate assessment of their true abilities on standardized tests. Finally, teachers may lack the instructional strategies to address the educational needs of this population.

Primarily English, Math, Science, Social Studies and Foreign Language

Examination of the data reveals a low level of proficiency in math for many of our students. The Advanced level has decreased 4.6% in Algebra 1, 5.7% in Geometry and 4.7% in HS Math. The Proficient level has decreased 22.7% in Algebra 1, 10.1% in Geometry, 8.8% in Algebra 2 and 10.9% in HS Math. The Far Below Basic level has increased 4.1% in General Math, 16.5% in Algebra 1, 5% in Algebra 2 and 19.7% in HS Math.

Students are entering their math classes without the prerequisite skills. Mandated pacing therefore may not address the needs of all our students. Teaching techniques do not always address the learning styles of many of our students. Diagnostic test results take too long to place students in the appropriate class. There is also a lack of supplemental materials and/or inadequate distribution of materials that address different student learning styles. Finally, students do not always bring their books to class, thus hindering classroom instruction.

Math

93


Analysis of CELDT data indicates that the majority of EL students plateau at an ELD 3 or 4 language skill level despite their movement out of ESL 2 A/B (ELD 3 and 4) and into ESL 3/4 and then PRP “sheltered” English classes.

These students still have trouble developing the reading and writing skills necessary for redesignation from EL to RFEP.

EL

Over 50% of our students are scoring at the “Not Proficient” or “Partially Proficient” levels on the District Language Arts Performance Assignment.

There is a lack of early diagnostic testing for incoming freshman. There is a lack of consistency in scope and pacing across all classes of a specific course. Students frequently do not bring their books to class. In addition, students are not getting enough experience writing, due in part to the heavy time demands placed on teachers grading essays. There is also a lack of supplemental reading material geared to the lower end students.

Special Education

94


Component 2

TARGETED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The LEA Plan Goal 3 – By 2005-06, all students will be taught by highly qualified teachers, will be accomplished by recruiting highly qualified teachers and focusing on differentiated professional development for new and experienced teachers and administrators resulting in activities and strategies that will have a substantial, measurable, and positive impact on student academic achievement. Targeted professional development will be addressed throughout the action steps in Section 5.

1. Highly Qualified Teacher Recruitment

LAUSD Division of Human Resources aggressively seeks qualified teaching candidates from local universities and out-of-state/country. LAUSD also provides alternative credentialing opportunities for potential teachers through the District Intern Program, Pre-Intern Program, Para-educator Career Ladder Program, and teacher academies at the high school level. The district works with local universities to support student teaching as a means of identifying high quality candidates. Additionally, district efforts are enhanced through on-line recruitment.

2. Quality of Staff, Status of Credentials and District Recruiting Strategy Status of Teaching Credentials

Quality of Staff, Status of Credentials and District Recruiting StrategyStatus of Teaching Credentials

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04Total Number of Teachers

138 140 145

Full Credential 83 86 91Teaching Outside Subject Area

4 2 0

Alternative Certification

51 52 54

Teachers with Waivers

3 1 0

Teachers with Bilingual Authorization

7 5 8

Teachers with English Language Authorization

20 32 41

Teachers with SDAIE Authorization

18 17 16

Teachers with Special Education certification

14 16 17

95

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,

You will find this chart in your School Accountability Report Card

hhttp://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/

hhttp://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/


Of the 145 teachers on the Taft High School teaching staff 91 are fully credentialed. Of the remaining 54, 37% are probationary and are working toward permanent status. Forty-five teachers are enrolled in a program to obtain a credential. Several teachers have additional authorizations that include reading or language arts specialist credentials, or supplementary credentials in science, math, technology, or special education. English learners represent 15% of the student population. Thirty-five teachers are assigned to provide instruction to Els, eight teachers are authorized with BCLAD/BCC, forty-one with a CLAD/LDS, sixteen with SB1969/SB395, four with interim teacher-in-training status with proof of enrollment/progress, zero are not authorized nor in training. Two-hundred sixty-one students receive special education services from teachers. Eleven teachers hold credentials to teach special education and two are working toward special education credentials.

The teaching staff is a diverse group that represents the student body. A majority of the staff holds credentials with the remainder working toward credentials in regular and/or special education. Teachers serving English learners have the appropriate authorizations.

Critical Findings: Funding is needed for a Title I Program Advisor to develop and implement the Title I program. Funding is needed for a Title I office assistant to provide clerical support for the Title I program. There is a need for differentiated professional development that addresses the needs of teachers with

varying amounts of teaching experience and training. There is a need for sub time to cover these teachers when they are out of the classroom with professional development.

3. Paraprofessionals are required to work under the direction of a highly qualified teacher.

Highly Qualified ParaprofessionalsTotal

Number hired to

work with students

BA Degree (or higher)

AA Degree 60 Semester

Unit

LAUSD Para Exam

HS Diploma

Working towards

certification

36 1 2 3 13 16 1

Taft’s API scores, grades analysis, and California State Standards test results indicate a need for more paraprofessionals to work with at-risk Title I students in the areas of literacy and math. Paraprofessionals are assigned to special education classes as per state and IEP requirements. Teacher Assistants are provided in EL classes to assist highly qualified teachers in EL instruction. There is no formal statistical process to evaluate the effectiveness of the use of paraprofessionals in improving student achievement at this time.

Critical Findings: Paraprofessionals could benefit from more on-site professional development.

96

http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/


4. Design and evaluation of professional development:Describe in narrative or bullet form the status of professional development. How is data used to determine the school’s professional development needs? What data

is used, e.g., student achievement data, total and disaggregated by student group, level of staff experience, staff-identified needs, needs identified through administrative monitoring, etc.?

How does the school’s leadership and organizational structure facilitate professional development aligned to data-driven student needs?

How is professional development differentiated to meet the needs of both new and experienced teachers?

Describe the school’s professional development that is based on a comprehensive, ongoing plan that is tied to needs identified through data analysis and the professional development that addresses intervention.

Describe the professional development teachers receive to instruct students requiring intervention.

What types of differentiated professional development in the areas of literacy, math, ELD, SDAIE, Title IV, TUPE, and special education have been provided and for which constituents in the school community (include paraprofessionals)?

How is professional development customized to meet the needs of the total school community (administrators, teachers, paraprofessionals)?

Describe the professional development provided to staff in the least restrictive environment for students with disabilities.

What types of professional development are provided to staff in the area of classroom management, positive behavior support, and behavioral intervention for students with severe behavioral issues?

How and how often is the quality of professional development measured for impact and results?

ANSWER ALL EL ETC. DIFF PRO DEV

District C determines about half of our staff development, with a focus primarily on literacy and math. The math and literacy coaches, and the department chairs do the actual presentation of this professional development. Our Leadership Team determines the other half of our staff development. The Leadership Team’s analysis of the data helps determine the direction of the professional development. New teachers attend a weekly “new teachers” meeting not only to assist them in procedures, but to help them with instructional strategies. Teachers (9th grade Health, 10th, 11th, and 12th grade English and Social Studies) will be given a three-hour training session on the “Project Toward No Drug Use” curriculum. Buy-back days are used to address analysis of student data and teaching strategies for addressing student weaknesses. Taft teachers of GATE students attend 32 hours of professional development to demonstrate knowledge of the topics concerning gifted/talented education. Many of these teachers continue to attend conferences on GATE education to meet their regency.

97


Critical Findings: There has been no specific staff development for TUPE. A few Health teachers were sent to trainings

for the approved TUPE curriculum to be taught in Health classes. At the beginning of the Conflict Resolution grant (1997 – 2000) some teachers were offered staff

development in techniques to reduce violence in the classroom, but little training in this area has been offered since then.

Many teachers lack training in the areas of differentiated instruction, developing strategies to bridge the achievement gap, integrating technology into the curriculum, and sheltered instruction.

Many teachers lack training to prepare them for the mainstreaming of special education students, including areas such as inclusion, differentiate content delivery, and collaboration.

Many staff are not adequately trained on SDAIE.

MORE STUFF ON ELD, , AND DISABILITIES

98


5. In-class coaching, collegial support and technical assistance:

How does the school’s leadership team provide support for ongoing instructional improvement?

How does staff collaborate to improve student academic achievement, e.g., grade-level teams, departments, cross-disciplinary teams, etc?

How is in-class coaching assigned and provided and how does coaching impact student academic achievement?

How is content literacy addressed and supported by coaches, cadres, teachers, and administrators?

How do coaches assist teachers in providing accommodations (ELD strategies, SDAIE strategies, primary language) to ensure ELs have access to the core instructional program?

How do coaches, itinerant teachers, related services personnel, and other support staff assist teachers in providing accommodations to ensure that special education students have access to the core instructional program?

How does the school use technology to facilitate academic achievement? MOVE TO STANDARDS BASED INSTRUCTION OR…

The Leadership Team meets weekly to review data and find solutions to weaknesses. Solutions include staff development, agenda items for departmental meetings, and the examination and creation of structural changes that can improve student achievement. Staff development often breaks into groups that cut across departmental and grade level lines. Math and Literacy coaches work with departments and individual teachers to address weaknesses as identified by the Leadership Team.

Critical Findings: Student use of technology has suffered due to budget cutbacks in technology support. Most of our

technology training for staff was done about three years ago. Many teachers who were trained at that time have either forgotten much of the information, or have moved to other schools. There is little money currently available to retrain veteran teachers, or instruct new teachers.

Delays in implementing site Internet wiring have led to delays in implementing our Digital High School grant objectives.

The District does not provide funding for a staff position that would manage the school’s network, and maintain equipment.

Last year Learning Walks were used to give teachers an idea of what other teachers were doing in their classrooms. We have not had any Learning Walks so far this year, in part due to lack of funds.

99


Component 2: Targeted Professional Development



Teachers need more staff development to address special education issues such as inclusion, different models of content delivery, and collaboration.

There is currently no budget that could fund additional staff development in this area.

AllSpecial Education

There has been no specific staff development for TUPE. A few Health teachers were sent to trainings for the approved TUPE curriculum to be taught in Health classes.

There is currently no money to fully fund these programs.

AllHealth

At the beginning of the Conflict Resolution grant (1997 – 2000) some teachers were offered staff development in techniques to reduce violence in the classroom.

There is currently no money to fully fund these programs.

All

Staff is not adequately trained on SDAIE. There is a lack of time due to other staff development requirements, and a lack of money to bring in speakers and trainers.

All

Many teachers lack training in the areas of differentiated instruction, developing strategies to bridge the achievement gap, integrating technology into the curriculum, and sheltered instruction.

There has been a lack of training in these areas, in part due to budget cutbacks.

All

100


Component 3

PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

1. Communication regarding student academic achievement and standards mastery:Parents are informed of their child’s academic progress through the five and fifteen week progress reports, and the ten and twenty week report cards. In addition, parents of students with disabilities are informed of their child’s progress through yearly IEP meetings. Parents of EL students are informed of their child’s progress in structured English immersion through yearly meetings. Parents can leave messages on teachers’ voice mail, however, there have been complaints that teachers do not always get back to them in a timely manner. Teachers site the unavailability of phones on campus. The Taft web site lists links to the California STAR web site, CAHSEE data, API scores, and other school related data. The school as a whole communicates to parents through a monthly newsletter, weekly Sprintel phone messages, parents meetings, PTSA, Booster Club, parent email, and the school’s web page. Teachers don’t always communicate with parents at the first sign of a child having problems. Some of the phone communication problems may be remedied when the new phone system is fully in place. At that time, teachers will be able to call from their classrooms to a switchboard that can then connect them to an outside line. The advanced studies newsletter is published monthly and contains information regarding colleges, conference opportunities for parents, Taft news, and tips on being a successful students.

Critical Findings: There is a need to improve communication with our parents. The staff needs to be more consistent in

returning phone calls in a timely manner.

2. Program planning, involvement and evaluation:

Parents are involved in the development and evaluation of school plans primarily through the School Site Council (formerly the Policy Council), the Leadership Team, ELAC, and CEAC. Parents are included on focus groups and subcommittees including safety and personnel. Gifted parent meetings are also held twice a year and allow parents to ask questions and be updated with the gifted program’s progress. In addition, Taft has an active Booster Club and PTSA. Parents generally feel that Taft does a good job in including parents in the decision making process.

Critical Findings: Parent involvement is relatively strong. Taft needs to continue to attract new parents into the planning

and evaluation process.

101


3. Training and support:

Parents of Title I EL students must be given the opportunity to get monthly training through the CEAC meetings. Parents of gifted Title I students are sent a monthly SAS newsletter. In addition, parents of gifted students new to Taft, or considering coming to Taft, are given tours of the school. An orientation is given in June to all parents of new students, including Title I parents coming to Taft. Teachers provide syllabi for their all classes. Interviews with parents, students the school nurse, and teachers have indicated that Title I students have special needs with regards to health, drug problems, teen pregnancy, and mental health. The Parent Center is underutilized in the area of providing training and support for parents. Operational funding is needed to make this center fully functional. Parents need funding to attend conferences and other training related to their support and training work in the Parent Center.

Critical Findings: Focus on communicating to all parents what Taft expects of its students and how students can best

be successful at Taft. Provide training and support to parents so that they may better assist their children at being successful in school.

4. School/Community/Business Partnerships

District C provides counseling services. PTSA provides a Health and Dental clinic. Communication with local community groups is not as strong as it should be. Pierce College offers some specialized courses for our students, although this may be cutback due to the State’s financial condition. We need more support for programs like “Healthy Family.” Taft students, including Title I students, perform community service.

Critical Findings: Interviews with parents, students the school nurse, and teachers have indicated that students have

special needs with regards to health, drug problems, teen pregnancy, and mental health.

102


No Child Left behind Act of 2001Title I, Part A, Section 1118

Taft Parental Involvement Policy

Taft recognizes the importance of having parents deeply involved in all aspects of the school in order to raise student achievement. Taft pledges to do what it can to support and encourage such parent participation.

A. Policy Involvement Taft will hold annual meetings, for all parents of participating children, at a convenient

time, to inform them of the policy, their rights under Title I, and how they can be involved in the planning, review, and improvement of Title I programs in the school.

Taft will be flexible as to meeting times so as to encourage broad parent involvement. Taft will involve parents in the planning, review, and improvement of programs. Taft will provide parents with timely information about curriculum, assessments, and

expected proficiency levels for student achievement

B. Shared Responsibilities for High Student Academic Achievement Taft has developed a school-parent compact that describes the school’s, student’s and

parents’ responsibilities to support student academic achievement.

C. Building Capacity for Involvement Taft will assist parents to understand topics such as content and achievement standards,

state/local assessments, Title I requirements, how to monitor their child’s progress, and work with educators to improve the achievement of their child.

Taft will provide materials/training to help parents work with their children (e.g., literacy training, using technology, etc.).

Taft will educate its staff, with the assistance of parents, on how to reach out to, communicate with, and work with parents as equal partners.

Taft will coordinate/integrate parent involvement activities that encourage/support parents in fully participating in the education of their child

Taft will ensure that information/reports are sent/provided to parents in a format/language that parents understand.

Taft will provide support for parental involvement activities as parents request.

D. Accessibility Taft will provide opportunities for participation by parents with limited English proficiency,

parents with disabilities, Title I parents, parents of traveling students and migratory parents.

103


No Child Left behind Act of 2001Title I, Part A, Section 1118(d)

School Parent Compact

Learning is most successful when students, parents and the school work together. This compact outlines the roles of each of these groups.

AS A STUDENTI agree to: Be on time to all my classes Complete all assignments Return completed homework on time Be attentive in class Ask for help when needed Be responsible for my behavior Be respectful of others Dress in an appropriate manner Keep my parents informed of my progress in my classes

AS A SCHOOLWe agree to: Communicate with parents in a timely manner Constantly work to improve teaching strategies Cover appropriate course content as stated in the California State Standards Be positive role models for our students Be sensitive to the individual needs of all students Show respect for each student Be available to help students resolve academic, classroom and peer problems Praise the student for his/her success Correct and return appropriate work in a timely manner

AS A PARENTI agree to: Talk to my child daily about his/her academic progress Encourage my child to complete his/her homework; check homework assignments Provide an appropriate setting for my child to do homework Monitor my child’s academic progress Attend Back to School Night, Open House, and other school events Praise my child when he/she succeeds in a task Review all school communications Support all school policies (i.e. dress code, tardy/attendance, cell phone) Encourage my student to engage in independent reading activities Ensure my child arrives at school early enough to be on time to his/her first period class

104


Component 3: Parent and Community Involvement

.



The nurse has a difficult time checking on at risk students with regards to health, drug problems, teen pregnancy, and mental health.

The nurse lacks the necessary time and support to reach all at risk students regarding their health concerns.

AllAt Risk PopulationHealth

Communication with local community groups is not as strong as it should be.

Time needs to be allocated and funded to allow for meetings between community groups and Taft administration, teachers, parents, and students.

All

There is a need to improve communication with our parents. Staff needs to be more consistent in returning phone calls in a timely manner.

Teachers site the unavailability of phones on campus. Some teachers are not as conscientious as they should be about returning phone calls promptly and checking voice mail daily. Currently there is a lack of email access from the classroom.

All

Focus on communicating to all parents what Taft expects of its students and how students can best be successful at Taft. Provide training and support to parents so that they may better assist their children at being successful in school.

A community representative is needed to act as a liaison between the school and Title I parents. A student aide is needed to assist with babysitting, clerical work, and maintaining computer equipment. The Parent Center has been underutilized in providing training and support for parents.

All

105


Component 4

LEADERSHIP, SCHOOL ORGANIZATION AND SUPPORT STRUCTURES

1. School organization:Taft’s main governance body is the School Site Council. It is composed of teachers, administrators, students, parents, classified and community representatives. All twelve positions are elected by their constituent groups with the exception of the principal. Terms are for two years. The SSC meets about twice a month. Its meetings are open to the public, and input from non-council members is encouraged. The SSC oversees Taft’s budget, the hiring of staff, academic progress, and general school policies. The Council receives reports from ELAC, CEAC, Digital High School, Booster, PTSA, Student Council, and the principal.

ELAC is the body that oversees the EL program (including the EL budget) and the academic progress of EL students. It is composed of parents, teachers, and administrators. It meets monthly and reports to the SSC.

CEAC oversees Title I funding and the academic progress of at risk students. It is composed of parents, teachers, and administrators,. It meets monthly and reports to the SSC.

The Leadership Team is composed of coordinators, department chairs, and administrators. It also includes parents and occasionally students in its meetings. The Leadership Team’s primary responsibility is to monitor academic progress and to create staff development to assist teachers in addressing academic shortcomings. It meets weekly.

Taft has a GATE focus committee comprised of administators, coordinators, teachers, parents, and students. They meet at least twice a year to review content forms on differentiated instruction, oversee the gifted budget, and plan informational meetings for parents of gifted students.

A new method of creating the master schedule of classes was used this year. It prioritizes the placement of classes in a manner that minimizes class conflicts for students. A committee of teachers and administrators decides the final master schedule.

Critical Findings: The parents of special education students are not adequately represented in leadership and

organization roles.

106


2. Articulation across programs and schools

Taft has gone to our CAP sender school over the summer in order to acquaint parents with our school. Programs such as the SAS program, the STAR academy, and Humanitas are small learning communities that can be effective in helping students transition into high school. Records of transfer students, CAP students, and other students outside the local area are often not received in a timely manner.

The advanced studies coordinator attends feeder middle schools to promote Taft Advanced Studies program, as well as provide monthly informational tours at Taft to prospective Taft parents.

MORE STUFF ON ELD, , AND DISABILITIES

Critical Findings: Until recently, there has not been a strong effort to transition students from special day classes to

general education classes. Taft is just now making this a priority. Taft has an exceptionally difficult task in articulating between itself and its feeder middle schools due

to the fact that only about one-third of our population comes from local schools.

107


3. Staff and Student AttendanceStaff Attendance

Staff AttendanceAverage Number of Days Absent per School Year

2000-01 2001-02 2002-032000-2003

ChangeCertificated Taft 10.227 9.485 7.986 -2.241Local District C 8.667 8.973 8.698 .031LAUSD 8.373 8.592 8.707 .324ClassifiedTaft 15.782 13.695 19.266 3.484Local District C 13.714 14.593 15.184 1.0470LAUSD 15.604 16.295 17.219 1.615

Student Attendance

2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003Percent of Student In-

seat Attendance

90.61 92.16 91.06

Taft’s certificated personnel’s average number of days absent has dropped significantly over the last three years. It is now below both District C’s averange and LAUSD’s average. The absent rate among Taft’s classified personnel has risen significantly over the last three years, and is higher than District C’s and LAUSD’s average.

Critical Findings: The percent of student in-seat attendance dipped slightly from 2001-2002 to 2002-2003.

108

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,

Implications for Title I, SCE and SI EC 52054 OPTIONAL




4. Suspensions and Expulsions

Suspension and Expulsion Data

School District2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03

Suspensions (number)

549 530 515 73,082 78,555 77,105

Suspensions(rate)

18 16.4 14.7 8.28 8.81 8.47

Expulsions(number)

5 12 3 722 766 678

Expulsions(rate)

.164 .371 .085 .081 .09 .07

Suspensions and expulsions rates have decreased over the last several years. Taft has recently added a third dean to assist in student discipline.

DSS has subgroup breakdownCritical Findings: Though not shown here, a relatively higher rate of suspensions occur with our African-American and

Hispanic populations.

109



5. Auxiliary Services:

Our nurse works with students to promote proper health care, assist with medication that students are required to take, and aid in emergency situations that occur on campus. The work of the nurse positively affects our attendance and the ability of students to work in class.

Our Title I coordinator works to insure the implementation of the Title I plan. Our ELAC coordinator implements our EL program. Both these coordinators work to increase the academic achievement of their student groups.

Our Parent Center Coordinator works to improve communication between the school and home, and to provide training for our parents on how to helpo their children improve their academic success.

Our counseling staff insures that students are properly programed and that students are performing to the best of their abilities. They also monitor student attendance. Our deans maintain a school-wide standard of discipline allowing students to focus on learning.

Critical Findings: Our deans and counselors work with students to encourage behavior that will lead to academic

success. Counselors often do not have the time to give special attention to our disadvantaged and

underrepresented minority students. Our nurse works with all students, but especially with our underrepresented minority students, to

provide health services that they might not receive at home. The nurse position is threatened with a cutback in hours unless additional funding can be found. This

would most severely impact our disadvantaged and underrepresented minority students.

110


6. Governance and Funds Management:

Taft’s main governance body is the School Site Council. It is composed of teachers, administrators, students, parents, classified and community representatives. All twelve positions are elected by their constituent groups with the exception of the principal. Terms are for two years. The SSC meets about twice a month. The SSC oversees Taft’s budget, the hiring of staff, academic progress, and general school policies. The Council receives reports from ELAC, Title I, Digital High School, Booster, PTSA, Student Council, and the principal. ELAC is the body that oversees the EL program (including the EL budget) and the academic progress of EL students. It is composed of parents, teachers, and administrators. It meets monthly and reports to the SSC. The Title I committee oversees Title I funding and the academic progress of at risk students. It is composed of parents, teachers, administrators, and students. It meets monthly and reports to the SSC. The Leadership Team is composed of coordinators, department chairs, and administrators. It also includes parents and occasionally students in its meetings. The Leadership Team’s primary responsibility is to monitor academic progress and to create staff development to assist teachers in addressing academic shortcomings. It meets monthly. Due to community complaints, several of our fund-raising activities have had to be stopped. Taft receives money for its GATE and Special Education programs.

Critical Findings: The School Site Council oversees Taft’s budget. It is advised by CEAC, ELAC and other relevant

committees. There is a critical lack of funding for programs that lie outside the prevue of restricted budgets.

111


7. Facilities Management:

Taft has a reputation for having a clean and well-maintained campus. The air conditioning and heating systems work sporadically. All student bathrooms are now kept open. There are safety and traffic concerns with the student parking lot area. Supervisory staff have PDAs to help with student identification and record keeping.

Critical Findings: There is a shortage of security personnel and security equipment. There are few accommodations for students with disabilities on campus.

112


Component 4: Leadership, School Organization, and Support Structures


Safety on campus needs to be improved. Taft lacks an adequate number of campus aides, and security video equipment.

Articulation between both local and out of area feeder schools is weak.

Time and funding are needed to create more articulation opportunities. Taft receives students from numerous feeder schools under our PWT, SAS, CAP and open enrollment programs. This makes it extremely difficult to articulate with all of them.

Support services such as the nurse, counselors, deans, school psychologist, and campus aides are not adequate to effectively service all students. Counselors often do not have the time to give special attention to our disadvantaged and underrepresented minority students.

Our deans and counselors lack the time and resources to effectively work with students to encourage behavior that will lead to academic success. Our nurse lacks the time and resources to effectively work with all students, but especially with our underrepresented minority students, to provide health services that they might not receive at home.

The parents of special education students are not adequately represented in leadership and organization roles.

There is currently no committee that specifically represents the parents of special education students.

Until recently, there has not been a strong effort to transition students from special day classes to general education classes.

Taft is just now making this a priority.

The percent of student in-seat attendance dipped slightly from 2001-2002 to 2002-2003.

Insufficient resources have been allocated to improving attendance in areas such as calling parents, counseling students and parents, and tracking down long term absentees.

113


Section Five

ACTION STEPSSchool Site Objectives and Benchmarks for Three Year Plan

School Site Objectives and Benchmarks Aligned to Disaggregated Student Academic Achievement Data to Close the Achievement Gap

LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY:By 2004-05 ninth grade students will show a 3% gain in the proficient or advanced level of the District Language Arts Performance Assignment

MATHEMATICS:There will be a decrease in the number of failing students in all math classes as evidenced by the grades analysis report for math.

ENGLISH LEARNERS:

ALL OTHER CONTENT AREAS:Students will improve their scores on the California Standards Tests by 3% in the proficient and advanced levels.

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP:All subgroups will meet their AYP and API goals in 2004-05.

LEADERSHIP, SCHOOL ORGANIZATION AND SUPPORT STRUCTURES:By June 2005, the school will implement an improved organizational structure that supports a rigorous standards-based educational system as measured by increased student achievement in the content areas.

SDFSC and TUPE:

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIESStudents with disabilities will improve performance on the STAR assessment program by 3% points. By June 2006, 47% or more of Grade 12 students with disabilities will graduate with a diploma. By June 2006, the completion rate for students with disabilities will increase by 3%.

114


ACTION STEPS TO IMPROVE LITERACY3-YEAR PLAN (High Schools)

The Action Steps should address the barriers identified in Components 1, 2, and 3. Action Steps are solutions that overcome barriers that inhibit student achievement. The timeline of the Action Steps may be one to three years for implementation. The evidence column reflects what will be used to determine the Action Step completion. In addition to the principal, the monitoring responsibility includes the identification of other staff members, who are responsible for the implementation of the Action Step.LEA PLAN GOAL I: All students will reach high standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading by 2013-14.AYP OBJECTIVE: By 2004-05 the percentage of students scoring proficient or above on the 10th grade administration of the California High School Exit Exam and the California Alternate Performance Assessment in English Language Arts will equal or exceed 22.3 percent. For 2005-06 and 2006-07 the percentage of students scoring proficient or above on the California High School Exit Exam and the California Alternate Performance Assessment in English/Language Arts will equal or exceed 22.3 percent.SCHOOL SITE By 2004-05 ninth grade students will show a 3% gain in the proficient or advanced level of the District OBJECTIVE(S): Language Arts Performance Assignment.

Barrier Action Step Persons Involved Timeline (mo./yr.)

Evidence MonitoringResponsibility

Funding Source

Monitoring Comments

Standards-Based Curriculum and Assessment (Component 1)There is a lack of supplemental materials that address different student learning styles for our low performing and at-risk Title I students.

Purchase supplemental materials targeted for low performing and at-risk Title I students.

Title I CoordinatorLiteracy CoachDepartment ChairsTitle I Students

Beginning 2/2004, and on-going

InvoicesObservationStudent work

Assistant Principal over LiteracyTitle I CoordinatorCEAC

Title IEIA-SCE

Standards-Based Curriculum and Assessment (Component 1)Title I students lack reading comprehension, vocabulary and test taking skills.

Purchase test supplemental literacy and test preparation materials targeted for low performing and at-risk Title I students..

Testing CoordinatorTitle I CoordinatorAssistant PrincipalsTitle I Students



Assistant Principal over LiteracyTitle I CoordinatorCEAC

Title IEIA-SCE

115

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,

Identify target populations (e.g. GATE, Special Education, Economically Disadvantaged, EL’s)


Standards-Based Curriculum and Assessment (Component 1)Title I students do not get enough experience in writing.

Purchase writing assessment materials and/or software to assist teachers in grading essays of Title I students. Purchase aides to assist Title I students in the writing process.

Title I CoordinatorDepartment ChairsLiteracy CoachTechnology CoordinatorTitle I Students



Technology CoordinatorAssistant Principal over Literacy

Title IEIA-SCE

Targeted Professional Development (Component 2)There is a lack of scope and pacing across all classes of a specific course.

Create staff development time to allow English teachers to create a common scope and pacing plan.

Targeted Professional Development (Component 3)Teaching styles do not always address the needs of many of our at-risk Title I students.

Create culturally relevant staff development that trains teachers on sheltered techniques, differentiated learning and other teaching styles that target our Title I students.

Literacy CoachEnglish ChairpersonEnglish TeachersLeadership Team

2/2004 and on-going

AgendasSign-in sheets

Assistant Principal over Language ArtsCEACLiteracy CoachEnglish Chairperson, Title I Coordinator

Title I Coordinator

Targeted Professional Development (Component 3)Technology is lacking at Taft.

Train staff on the integration of technology into the curriculum for use with Title I students.

Title I CoordinatorTechnology Coordinator


AgendaSign-ins

Technology CoordinatorAssistant Principal over Literacy

Title IEIA-SCE

Parent and CommunityInvolvement (Component 4)There is a lack of communication between parents of Title 1

Create better communication between teachers, counselors and parents of Title 1

TeachersCounselorsTechnology CoordinatorTitle 1 CoordinatorCommunity Rep


Voice mail logs,Parent feedback

CEACSSCAssistant Principal over LiteracyTitle 1 Coordinator

Title IEIA-SCEE046

116


students and teachers/counselors of Title 1 students, and the school at large.

students through staff development, improved technology (email and better phone access), the use of a community representative, and monitoring.

117


ACTION STEPS TO IMPROVE MATHEMATICS3-YEAR PLAN (High Schools)

The Action Steps should address the barriers identified in Components 1, 2, and 3. Action Steps are solutions that overcome barriers that inhibit student achievement. The timeline of the Action Steps may be one to three years for implementation. The evidence column reflects what will be used to determine the Action Step completion. In addition to the principal, the monitoring responsibility includes the identification of other staff members, who are responsible for the implementation of the Action Step.LEA PLAN GOAL I: All students will reach high standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in mathematics by 2013-14.AYP OBJECTIVE: By 2004-05 the percentage of students scoring proficient or above on the California High School Exit Exam and the California Alternate Performance Assessment in Mathematics will equal or exceed 20.9 percent. For 2005-06 and 2006-07 the percentage of students scoring proficient or above on the California High School Exit Exam and the California Alternate Performance Assessment in Mathematics will equal or exceed 20.9 percent.SCHOOL SITE There will be a decrease in the number of failing students in all math classes as evidenced by the grades OBJECTIVE(S): analysis report for math.

Barrier Action Step Persons Involved

Timeline (mo./yr.)


Funding Source

Monitoring Comments

Standards-Based Curriculum and Assessment (Component 1)Many Title I students are entering their math classes without the prerequisite skills.

Provide for supplemental tutoring, aides and intervention programs, and provide supplemental materials for Title I students.

Title I students,Math teachers of Title 1 Students

2/2004 and on-going

Tutoring logsStudent work

Assistant Principal over Math,Title I Coordinator

Title IEIA-SCE

Standards-Based Curriculum and Assessment (Component 1)Diagnostic test results take too long to place Title I students in the appropriate classes.

Determine the feasibility of a pre-enrollment diagnostic testing program for Title I students.

Math Coach,Math Chairperson,Title I Coordinator,Title 1 Math TeachersAPSCS

5/2004 Feasibility report

Assistant Principal over Math,CEACMath Coach,Math Chairperson, Title 1 Coordinator

Title IEIA-SCE

118

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,

Identify target populations (e.g. GATE, Special Education, Economically Disadvantaged, ELs)


Standards-Based Curriculum and Assessment (Component 1)There is a lack of supplemental materials that address different student learning styles.

Purchase supplemental materials for low performing and at-risk students.

Math Coach,Math Chairperson,Title I Students, Title 1 Coordinator,Math Teachers

2/2004 and on-going

InvoicesStudent work

Assistant Principal over Math,CEAC,Math Coach,Math Chairperson,Title 1 Coordinator

Title IEIA-SCE

Targeted Professional Development (Component 2)Teaching styles do not always address the needs of many of our at-risk Title I students and our African-American and Hispanic students.

Create culturally relevant staff development that trains teachers on sheltered techniques, differentiated learning and other teaching styles that target our at-risk Title I students and our African-American and Hispanic students.

Math CoachMath ChairpersonMath TeachersLeadership TeamAt-risk Title I studentsAfrican-American and Hispanic students

2/2004 and on-going


Assistant Principal over MathCEACMath CoachMath Chairperson, Title I Coordinator

Title IEIA-SCE

Targeted Professional Development (Component 2)The scope and pacing of our math classes may not always address the needs of all our at-risk Title I students.

Create time for the math department to meet and work on a scope and pacing that addresses the needs of all our at-risk Title I students.

Leadership TeamEL CoordinatorMath CoachMath ChairpersonMath Teachers

2/2004 and on-going

Scope and pacing report

Assistant Principal over MathCEACMath CoachMath Chairperson

Title IEIA-SCE

Parent and CommunityInvolvement (Component 3)Teachers and counselors do not communicate to parents

Create better communication between teachers,

Teachers andCounselors of Title 1 students,Technology Coordinator, Title 1

2/2004 and on-going


CEACSSCAssistant Principal over Math, Title 1 Coordinator

119


of Title I students in a timely manner when their child is having difficulties.

counselors and parents of Title 1 students through staff development, parent training and CEAC meetings and improve technology.

Coordinator, Community Rep

120


ACTION STEPS TO IMPROVE THE ACHIEVEMENT OF ENGLISH LEARNERS3-YEAR PLAN (High Schools)

The Action Steps should address the barriers identified in Components 1, 2, and 3. Action Steps are solutions that overcome barriers that inhibit student achievement. The timeline of the Action Steps may be one to three years for implementation. The evidence column reflects what will be used to determine the Action Step completion. In addition to the principal, the monitoring responsibility includes the identification of other staff members, who are responsible for the implementation of the Action Step.LEA PLAN GOAL 2: All Limited English Proficient (LEP) students will reach high academic standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading/language arts and mathematics.AYP OBJECTIVE: By 2004-05 the percentage of students scoring proficient or above on the 10th grade administration of the California High School Exit Exam and the California Alternate Performance Assessment in English Language Arts will equal or exceed 22.3 percent. For 2005-06 and 2006-07 the percentage of students scoring proficient or above on the California High School Exit Exam and the California Alternate Performance Assessment in English/Language Arts will equal or exceed 22.3 percent. By 2004-05 the percentage of students scoring proficient or above on the California High School Exit Exam and the California Alternate Performance Assessment in Mathematics will equal or exceed 20.9 percent. For 2005-06 and 2006-07 the percentage of students scoring proficient or above on the California High School Exit Exam and the California Alternate Performance Assessment in Mathematics will equal or exceed 20.9 percent.

SCHOOL SITE OBJECTIVE:


Timeline (mo./yr.)


Funding Source

Monitoring Comments

121


ACTION STEPS TO IMPROVE THE ACHIEVEMENT OF ENGLISH LEARNERS3-YEAR PLAN (Continued)

(High Schools)

SCHOOL SITE OBJECTIVE:


Timeline (mo./yr.)


Funding Source

Monitoring Comments

122


ACTION STEPS TO IMPROVE ALL OTHER CONTENT AREAS3-YEAR PLAN (Continued)

SCHOOLSITE OBJECTIVE (S):

Students will improve their scores on the California Standards Tests by 3% in the proficient and advanced levels.


Timeline (mo./yr.)


Funding Source

Monitoring Comments

There is a lack of supplemental materials that address different student learning styles.

Purchase supplemental materials that address different student learning styles

Title I Coordinator’Department Chairs,Students

Beginning 9/2004 and on-going

InvoicesObservationStudent Work

PrincipalLeadership TeamTitle I Coordinator

Title IEI-SCE

Staff is not adequately trained on SDAIE, differentiated learning, and other techniques.

Create staff development that instructs teachers on these teaching techniques.

Title I Coordinator’Department Chairs,Teachers



PrincipalLeadership TeamTitle I Coordinator

Title IEI-SCE

Teachers and counselors do not always communicate with parents in a timely manner when their child is having difficulties.

Create better communication between teachers, counselors, and parents through staff development, improved technology (email and phone access) and monitoring.

Teachers andCounselors of Title 1 students,Technology Coordinator, Title 1 Coordinator, Community Rep

2/2004 and on-going


CEACSSCAssistant Principal over Math, Title 1 Coordinator

123


ACTION STEPS TO CLOSE THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP3-YEAR PLAN(High Schools)

The Action Steps should address the barriers identified in Components 1, 2, and 3. Action Steps are solutions that overcome barriers that inhibit student achievement. The timeline of the Action Steps may be one to three years for implementation. The evidence column reflects what will be used to determine the Action Step completion. In addition to the principal, the monitoring responsibility includes the identification of other staff members, who are responsible for the implementation of the Action Step.

LEA PLAN GOAL 5: All students will graduate from high school.

AYP OBJECTIVE: The school will increase the graduation rate by one-tenth of one percent (0.1) per year until the school reaches 100 percent.

LAUSD OBJECTIVE: From June 2005-2007, schools will have identified and provided professional development and training on culturally responsive pedagogy to address the needs of Standard English Learners and all other students at risk of not meeting grade level standards.

SCHOOL SITE All subgroups will meet their AYP and API goals in 2003-04.OBJECTIVE:

Action Step Targeted Subgroups Timeline (mo./yr.)


Funding Source

Monitoring Comments

Provide funding for additional nurse time to provide supplemental health services to Title I students.

Title I students Beginning 2/2004 and on-going

Nurse logs AP in charge of nurse, Title 1 CoordinatorSSC budget committee

Title IEIA-SCE

Provide supplemental counseling to assist Title I students.

Title I students Beginning 2/2004 and on-going

Counseling logs APSC, Title 1 CoordinatorSSC budget committee

Title IEIA-SCE

Determine the feasibility of providing a summer school program to assist incoming at-risk

Title 1 students 6/2004 Feasibility report APSC,Title I Coordinator

Title 1,EIA-SCE

124


Title I freshmen in meeting the basic prerequisite requirements for their classes.

Plan a small learning community for Title I students that would core English, Math and Life Skills classes to improve academic achievement.

Title 1 students Plan by 5/2004, implementation in 9/2004

Master Schedule for 2004-05

APSC,Title I Coordinator

Title 1,EIA-SCE

Provide supplemental tutoring/intervention and materials for Title I students in math and English

Title 1 students Beginning 2/2004 and on-going

Tutoring logsStudent work

AP in charge of tutoring,Title I CoordinatorSSC budget committee

Title 1,EIA-SCE

Provide professional development in differentiated.

Teachers of economically disadvantaged students



AP in charge of professional development,Title I Coordinator

Title 1,EIA-SCE

Create training and support through the Family/Parent Center for parents of Title I students.

Parents of Title 1 students


Training agendas, logs

Principal,Title I Coordinator,Community Rep,Parent Center Director

EO46

125


ACTION STEPS FOR LEADERSHIP, SCHOOL ORGANIZATION AND SUPPORT STRUCTURES3-YEAR PLAN

The Action Steps should address the barriers identified in Component 4. Action Steps are solutions that overcome barriers that inhibit student achievement. The timeline of the Action Steps may be one to three years for implementation. The evidence column reflects what will be used to determine the Action Step completion. In addition to the principal, the monitoring responsibility includes the identification of other staff members, who are responsible for the implementation of the Action Steps.SCHOOL SITEOBJECTIVE(S):

By June 2005, the school will implement an improved organizational structure that supports a rigorous standards-based educational system as measured by increased student achievement in the content areas.


Timeline (mo./yr.)


Funding Source

Monitoring Comments

School OrganizationIt is generally the same small group of parents who participate in the governance and support of the school.

Recruit larger numbers of people from all stakeholder groups to participate at Taft.

PrincipalSSC ChairpersonParents

On-going Membership lists for PTSA, Booster Club,SSC, CEAC and ELAC membership rosters

PrincipalSSC Chairperson

Title IE046

Articulation across programs and schoolsTaft has a difficult time communicating and articulating with its numerous feeder schools.

Provide release time and funding to increase the articulation between Taft and its feeder schools.

All Staff On-going Agendas PrincipalAdministrator in charge of articulationLeadership Team

Title IRodriguez

Staff and Student AttendanceStudents not attending school, or tardy students are not learning.

Work with District C in developing a District-wide

All StaffStudents


Attendance policy document

Administrator in charge of attendance

126


attendance policy

Suspensions and Expulsions

Continue to decrease the number of suspensions and expulsions through support of the dean and counseling office.

DeansStudents

On-going Suspension and expulsion data

Administrator in charge of discipline

Auxiliary ServicesTaft does not have a committee that represents the interest of special education students.

Create a committee that will represent the interest special education students.

Special education teachers, students and parents

10/04 and on-going

Committee agendas

Administrator in charge of special education

Auxiliary ServicesThe TUPE and Conflict Resolution programs do not have adequate funding to be effective.

Provide funding for TUPE and Conflict Resolution programs.

Students 9/04 and on-going

Student logs TUPE and Conflict Resolution Coordinators

Title ITUPE

Governance and FundsCutbacks in the budget have hurt Taft’s ability to adequately fund educational and support programs.

Provide time for grant writing.

StudentsStaff

9/04 and on-going

Grant documents

Principal Title I

FacilitiesManagementTaft needs to provide better security in and around the campus.

Hire additional aides and install video cameras to assist in providing a safe and secure campus.

StudentsStaff

9/04 and on-going

Invoices Administrators in charge of plant and discipline

Grants from Coca Cola, councilmen Zine, and other sources

127


COMPLIANCE ITEMS FOR LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT

2003-2004 BENCHMARK: 65% of students with disabilities in state-identified grade levels (2-11) will participate in the statewide assessment program with no accommodations or standard accommodations.

Benchmarks Responsible Staff Compliant(indicate

date completed)

In Progress

Analyze school data regarding the number of students with disabilities participating in the 2002-2003 statewide assessment program with no accommodations or standard accommodations to determine if students with disabilities are participating according to District policy.

Principal

Develop and implement a plan of action to be included in an amended Single Plan for Student Achievement to increase participation of students with disabilities in the 2003-2004 statewide assessment programs with no accommodations or standard accommodations if 2002-2003 participation rate is below the stated target.

Principal

Review with IEP teams the guidelines for participation by students with disabilities in the 2004-2005 statewide assessment program, including participation of students with severe disabilities in the CAPA and provision of approved standard accommodations.

Principal

Monitor IEPs for inclusion of students with disabilities in the 2003-2004 statewide assessment program, including participation of students with severe disabilities in the CAPA and provision of approved standard accommodations.

Principal

128


ACTION STEPS FOR LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT

Directions: The Modified Consent Decree requires the following objective from every K-12 comprehensive school. Develop the action steps needed to accomplish this goal in the given timeframe. OBJECTIVE: Students with disabilities will improve performance on the STAR assessment program by 3% points.

Modified Consent Decree Requirements

Action Steps Persons Involved

Timeline (mo./yr.)

Evidence Monitoring Responsibility

Funding Source

To be determined

To be determined

129

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,



2003-2004 BENCHMARK: 42.01% of grade 12 students with disabilities will receive diplomas.

BenchmarksResponsible

StaffCompliant(Indicate

date completed)

In Progress

Review guidelines for graduation and commencement activities for students with disabilities with IEP teams and school support staff (counselors, deans, assistant principals).

Principal

Review Master Programs for students with disabilities to determine graduation status for individual students (i.e. credits earned, proficiency examinations completed).

Principal

Analyze 2002-2003 graduation data for students with disabilities in relation to the baseline benchmark (37.01%) and revise Single Plan for Student Achievement as necessary to achieve the outcome.

Principal

Target interventions for students with disabilities significantly below meeting requirements for graduation.

Principal

Implement middle school and high school collaborative, or other instructional service delivery models, to increase access by students with disabilities to the general curriculum and increase participation in the general education classroom.

Principal

COMPLIANCE ITEMS FOR LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT(High Schools)

130



2003-2004 BENCHMARK: Increase 2003-2004 completion rate for students with disabilities from previous year by 3%. ** Analyze current data to determine accuracy of data and determine if 2003-2004 benchmark is aggressive enough.

Benchmarks Responsible Staff

Compliant(indicate date

completed)

In Progress

Review guidelines for graduation with diploma, certificate of completion, and termination of services due to age for students with disabilities with IEP teams and school support staff (counselors, deans, assistant principals).

Principal

Review Master Programs for students with disabilities to determine graduation status for individual students (i.e. credits earned, proficiency examinations completed).

Principal

Analyze 2002-2003 dropout data for students with disabilities to determine factors that contribute to dropping out.

Principal

Target interventions for students with disabilities at risk of dropping out due to identified factors.

Principal

(High Schools)

131


ACTION STEPS FOR LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT(High Schools)

Directions: The Modified Consent Decree requires the following objective from every comprehensive high school. Develop the action steps needed to accomplish this goal in the given timeframe. OBJECTIVES: By June 2006, 47% or more of Grade 12 students with disabilities will graduate with a diploma. By June 2006, the completion rate for students with disabilities will increase by 3%.



Timeline (mo./yr.)


Funding Source

By 2004-2005, 47% of students with disabilities will graduate with a diploma.

By 2004-2005 completion rate will increase by 3%

To be determined.

132

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,



COMPLIANCE ITEMS FOR LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT(High Schools)

2003-2004 BENCHMARK: 63% or more of students with eligibilities of Specific Learning Disabled (SLD) and Speech/Language Impaired (SLI) participate in general education classes for 41% of the day or more.


Compliant(indicate

date completed)

In Progress

Analyze school site data regarding percentage of SLD and SLI eligibilities out of general education for more than 60% of the instructional day and less than 60% of the instructional day. (“Instructional day” means the legal minimum instructional minutes at that grade level.)

Principal

Set school target for decreasing the percent of students with SLD and SLI eligibilities placed outside of the general education classroom for more than 60% of the instructional day. (“Instructional day” means the legal minimum instructional minutes at that grade level.)

Principal

Implement professional development regarding research-based strategies for educating diverse learners through differentiated instruction within the general education classroom.

Principal

Implement current year phase of LRE elements of Single Plan for Student Achievement (comprehensive or abridged versions) to initiate/expand collaborative service delivery models and supports, to increase the percentage of students with eligibilities of SLD and SLI participating in the general education classrooms, and to expand the capacity for students with disabilities to access the general curriculum through differentiated instruction.

Principal

133



Directions: The Modified Consent Decree requires the following objective from every K-12 comprehensive school. Develop the action steps needed to accomplish this goal in the given timeframe. OBJECTIVE: By June of 2007 80% or more of students with eligibilities of Specific Learning Disabled (SLD) and Speech/Language Impaired (SLI) will participate in general education classes for 41% of the day or more.



Timeline (mo./yr.)


Funding Source

By 2004-2005, 63 % of students with eligibilities of SLD and SLI participate in general education classes for 41% or more of the day.

By 2005-2006, 73% of students with eligibilities of SLD and SLI participate in general education classes for 41% or more of the day.By 2006-2007, 80% or more of students with eligibilities of SLD and SLI participate in general education classes for 41% or more of the day.

134

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,




2003-2004 BENCHMARK: 21% or more of students with all other disabilities participate in general education classes for 41% or more of the day.


Compliant(indicate

date completed)

In Progress

Analyze school site data regarding percentage of students with eligibilities other than SLD and SLI out of general education for more than 60% of the instructional day and less than 60% of the instructional day. (“Instructional day” means the legal minimum instructional minutes at that grade level.)

Principal

Set school target for decreasing the percentage of students with eligibilities other than SLD and SLI outside of the general education classroom for more than 60% of the instructional day. (“Instructional day” means the legal minimum instructional minutes at that grade level.)

Principal

Implement current year phase of LRE elements of Single Plan for Student Achievement (comprehensive or abridged versions) to initiate/expand collaborative service delivery models and supports, to increase the percentage of students with eligibilities other than SLD and SLI participating in the general education classroom, and to expand the capacity for students with disabilities to access the general curriculum through differentiated instruction.

Principal

135



Directions: The Modified Consent Decree requires the following objective from every K-12 comprehensive school. Develop the action steps needed to accomplish this goal in the given timeframe. OBJECTIVE: By June 2007, 60% or more of students with all other disabilities will participate in general education classes for 41% or more of the day.



Timeline (mo./yr.)


Funding Source

By 2004-2005, 21% of students with all other eligibilities participate in general education classes for 41% or more of the day.

By 2005-2006, 52 % of students with all other eligibilities participate in general education classes for 41% or more of the day.By 2006-2007, 60% or more of students with all other eligibilities participate in general education classes for 41% or more of the day. (Must be above 52 %)

136

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,



COMPLIANCE ITEMS FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT3-YEAR PLAN

Schools are to check compliance for the following items. For those items in progress schools must develop action steps to meet full compliance.ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT Full Compliance In ProgressClassroom instruction is organized to assure that English Learners are grouped together by ELD level to facilitate differentiated instruction.

All teachers with ELs provide rigorous ELD instruction differentiated by proficiency level on a daily basis (2 periods in secondary)Every teacher of ELs has appropriate state-approved materials for ELD instruction (High Point for secondary)

Professional development is provided during grade level/department/faculty meetings and/or professional development days to all teachers and paraprofessionals based on the ELD standards, curriculum, assessment, and identified student and staff needs.Each teacher uses ELD Assessment Portfolios appropriate to their grade span and ELD level to record student progress at each grading period.

Teachers of ELs are appropriately authorized to teach ELD and teachers-in-training are enrolled in course work leading to appropriate authorizations.

Language Appraisal Team (LAT) is established to 1) assess the general ELD progress of students as well as individual student concerns and 2) prescribe program modifications and/or interventions.

Time is scheduled for staff to analyze ELD progress data, work samples and instructional materials to inform ELD program improvement, identify staff development needs, and align student needs to appropriate intervention services.

137


ACTION STEPS TO MEET COMPLIANCE FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT3-YEAR PLAN


Timeline (mo./yr.)


Funding Source

Monitoring Comments

138

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,



COMPLIANCE ITEMS FOR CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS TITLE I, ECONOMIC IMPACT AID-STATE COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (EIA-SCE), SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT (SI)

Schools are to check compliance for the following items. For those items in progress schools must develop action steps to meet full compliance.CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS Full Compliance In ProgressMinutes of School Site Council (SSC) meetings are on file to verify that the SSC updates the school plan annually and proposes related expenditures.

X

Evidence exists that the advisory committees provided suggestions in the development of the school site plan and modifications to the plan.

X

Documentation exists verifying the broad involvement of staff and parents in the development of program improvements.

X

The school plan contains activities that are based on sound educational theory and that respond to the academic needs of all students, including at-risk students,

X

The school plan contains staff development activities needed by teachers, other personnel, and parents to effectively implement plan improvement to the instructional program.

X

Proposed expenditures are clearly related to the purposes of their fund source and necessary for the implementation of planned activities.

X

The school plan includes criteria to determine the relative effectiveness of planned programs.

X

The school plan is modified when planned improvements are found to be ineffective. Activities are either upgraded or eliminated.

X

Schools that operate under the provisions of the School-Based Program Coordination Act have included that compensatory education program design included in the plan.

X

Schools receiving Title 1 funds use highly qualified staff. XTitle 1 Targeted Assistance schools have used resources to help participants meet state performance standards.

x

139


ACTION STEPS TO MEET COMPLIANCE ITEMS FOR CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS TITLE I, ECONOMIC IMPACT AID-STATE COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (EIA-SCE), SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT (SI)


Timeline (mo./yr.)


Funding Source

Monitoring Comments

The school plan will be modified when planned improvements are found to be ineffective. Activities will be either upgraded or eliminated.

CoordinatorsAdministrators

6/04on going

Testing data, grades analysis, and stake-holder feedback

Administrator in charge, Coordinators in charge

140

LAUSD, 01/03/-1,



COMPLIANCE ITEMS FOR CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS TITLE IV, SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES (SDFSC) AND TOBACCO USE PREVENTION EDUCATION (TUPE)

(High Schools)

Schools are to check compliance for the following items. For those items in progress schools must develop action steps to meet full compliance.SDFSC & TUPE Full Compliance In ProgressEvidence exists that science-based, State approved programs are implemented with fidelity in the classroom and school site to reduce violence, illegal drug use, and tobacco use.

x

Documentation exists verifying that staff development opportunities are offered to individuals who implement the science-based, State approved programs addressing alcohol, drug, and tobacco use and violence prevention and intervention.

X

Evidence exists that intervention strategies are used after a student is identified as “at risk” because of use or possession of alcohol, drugs, or tobacco or because of violent behavior.

X

Documentation exists verifying parental notification of prevention, intervention, and cessation services for their students.

X

Evidence exists that services are available to pregnant minors and minor parents about tobacco-use prevention and cessation.

X

Evidence exists that intentional positive youth development and asset building strategies and activities have been implemented at the school site.

X

Evidence exists that signs prohibiting tobacco use are posted. XDocumentation exists verifying that staff received Bulletin No. X-1 (Implementing Zero-Tolerance Policies for Drug-, Alcohol- and Tobacco-Free Workplaces), Bulletin No. Z-73 (Preventive Measures and Mandatory Procedures for Students Who Violate Laws Regarding Drugs, Alcohol, and Tobacco) and Bulletin No. Z-66 (Compliance on Services for Pregnant Minors and Parenting Minors).

X

Proposed TUPE expenditures are clearly related to the four TUPE Essential Topics and necessary to meet compliance of the TUPE grant.

x

141


ACTION STEPS TO MEET COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS TITLE IV, SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES (SDFSC) AND TOBACCO USE PREVENTION EDUCATION (TUPE)

LEA PLAN Goal 4: All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug-free, and conducive to learning.

OBJECTIVE: The school will adopt and implement a comprehensive program for students to prevent alcohol, drug, and tobacco use and decrease violent behavior.

SCHOOL SITEOBJECTIVE(S):


Timeline(mo./yr.)


Funding Source

Monitoring Comments

Create more staff development for individuals that implement the State approved programs for alcohol, drug, and tobacco use and violence prevention and intervention.

AdministrationTUPE coordinator

9/04 and on going

Agendas, sign in sheets

Administrator in charge

TUPERodriguezTitle I

Distribute bulletins X-1, Z-73, and Z-66.

Administration 9/04 Sign in sheet

Administrator in charge

IMA

142


SECTION SIX

Monitoring/Evaluation

School Site and Local District Monitoring of the Action Steps and Evaluation of the Single Plan for Student Achievement

A comprehensive and multi-level monitoring process will assist the school and the Local District in evaluating the implementation of Action Steps and providing information for long-term site planning for improved student achievement.

Required Monitoring/Evaluation:

The School Site Council (SSC) has the responsibility to monitor and evaluate the overall progress of the Single Plan for Student Achievement. Schools and Local Districts will collaboratively determine how, how often, and how results are reported.

The school and the Local District Director will participate collaboratively in the monitoring and evaluation process.

Information about and access to the Single Plan for Student Achievement will be provided to school staff, councils and committees to ensure successful implementation and assist in the ongoing monitoring and, when necessary, modification process.

143

Describe the school monitoring process.

The Taft Leadership Team will be the initial evaluating group for all Single Plan programs. The Leadership Team is made up of department chairpersons, coordinators, literacy and math coaches, and administrators. In addition, parents and students are invited to the Leadership Team’s meetings. The Team meets every Monday at 2:30. The Leadership Team will monitor standardized test scores, grades analysis, staff, student, and parent feedback, and chairperson and coordinator reports to evaluate the success of the programs.

The Leadership Team will make recommendations to the programs’ sponsors on improvements. They will also report to the School Site Council and CEAC as to the efficacy of the program.


The Local District will monitor the extent to which each student has appropriate textbooks and supplementary materials aligned with the California content standards and will also be responsible to provide and facilitate the use of all assessments to inform instruction and improve academic achievement.

Local District C Monitoring Process

Local District C recognizes the importance of ongoing assessment and evaluation of student achievement data and instructional programs. The Single Plan is utilized as the key document to drive a coherent instructional program and close the achievement gap in district C schools. The following processes has been established for effective district wide articulation:

A. The process for articulation regarding expected grade level and department and core content monitoring will be conducted with administrators, coaches, coordinators, teachers and parents as follows:· Monthly Administrator Meetings· Monthly Principal/Coach Meetings· Monthly Coach Meetings· Monthly Content Cadre Meetings· CEAC, ELAC, and PCAC Meetings

B. Articulation among school levels will be facilitated by District C in the following manner: District C assessment of all students in the fifth grade in mathematics and reading to provide students with appropriate placement and intervention in mathematics and language artsC. Students learning to high levels and progressing towards the quantifiable goals:

English Learners

English Learners Coordinators and Advisers will provide training to all schools in the following areas:· Class rosters, to ensure that English Learners are grouped by ELD levels to facilitate ELD instruction· Grouping for differentiated instruction· Use of ELD portfolios for each English Learner· The appropriate training and use of required appropriate State-approved materials for EL instruction· Training for Principals and coordinators to assess that core and supplemental services are in place for all English Learners· Provide annual data (CELDT, Cat/6) and train Principals and coordinators on how to revise and analyze data to improve student learning and redesignation rates

Monitoring high level learning

The Director of Instruction and Directors of School Services under the guidance of the Local District Superintendent will participate in the monitoring process in the following manner:· Monthly meetings with Principals to review data, instructional strategies and academic goals

144


· As members of the Learning Walk team at their assigned school· Review and Action Plan and meetings with principals to review the progress of stated action steps· Work with Literacy and Mathematics Coordinators to review clear expectations in each area of instruction· Review the results of SOAR database data with Literacy Coordinators and Principals· Participate in monthly training sessions on the Principles of Learning to assist principals in planning appropriate professional development sessions to meet the learning needs of their students

Monitoring of textbook availability within schools

· Books purchased in Language Arts and Mathematics· Local District and schools are currently in the process of purchasing textbooks in science and social studies· The contractual agreement with UTLA calls for teachers to provide and have an opportunity to request textbook needs in their assigned grade and course, should the need exist· Textbook funds are allotted to the school on an annual basis

145


Section Seven

BUDGET ASSURANCES

ALLOCATIONS

BUDGETS

BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

CENTRALIZED SERVICES(insert when you receive)

146

Los Angeles Unified School DistrictSpecially Funded Programs, Compliance and Technical Support

1 9 6 4 7 3 3

Single Plan for Student Achievement Assurances, Budgets, and Justifications2004 - 2005

School Taft High School Local District C Principal Sharon Thomas

School Address 5461 Winnetka Ave.City

TelephoneArea Code

Woodland Hills ( 818 ) 348 - 7171

The Single Plan for Student Achievement has been reviewed by the Local District and recommended for approval to Specially Funded Programs.

Typed Name of Local District Superintendent Robert Collins

Signature of Local District Superintendent Date

Date approved by District Board of EducationSchool-based Coordinated Program (SBCP)

Check each applicable box

Plan Cycle Programs

x Initial three-year plan x Compensatory EducationSecond-year plan modification Title I Schoolwide Program (SWP)

Third-year plan modification x Title I Targeted Assistance School (TAS)

Schoolwide Program x English LearnersInitial/Reauthorization

Annual Update School Improvement

147

LAUSD Single Plan For Student Achievement

School Name: Taft High School 2004-2005 Local District: CASSURANCES

The signatures below verify that the school site council: Sought and considered all recommendations from the following groups or committees before adopting this plan and budget. (Check

those that apply.)School Advisory Committee for State Compensatory Education Gifted and Talented Education Program Advisory CommitteePrograms HPSGEnglish Learner Advisory Committee II/USP/CSR Action TeamCommunity Advisory Committee for Special Education Programs Chapter Chair/Designee

Other (list)

Reviewed annually and updated the Single Plan including proposed expenditures of funds allocated to the school through the consolidated application.

Concurs that the district may apply for any waivers necessary to implement appropriate supplemental programs to support the district goals using categorical funds.

School Site Council Typed name of chairperson Signature Date

Tom Pease

Principal Typed name of principal Signature Date

Sharon ThomasCheck box if SSC is an umbrella group for the CEAC. The minutes for this vote are on file at the school site.

The Signatures below verify that stakeholders have had the opportunity to provide recommendations during the budget-planning process. The signatures do not necessarily indicate approval of the spending plan.Compensatory EducationAdvisory Committee (CEAC)

Typed name of chairperson Signature Date

English LearnersAdvisory Committee (ELAC)

Typed name of chairperson Signature Date

Classified Typed name of classified person Signature Date

Chapter Chair orChapter Chair’s Designee

Typed name of teacher Signature Date

Other (list) Typed name Signature Date

Other (list) Typed name Signature Date

148


Categorical Funding Allocated to This SchoolThe following state and federal categorical funds were allocated to this school through the Consolidated Application, Part II. Additional funds (listed under "Other") may be allocated to the school in accordance with district policy.

(Delete funding sources from this list for which the school does not receive an allocation.)

State ProgramsEconomic Impact Aid/ State Compensatory Education Amount: $Purpose: Help educationally disadvantaged students succeed in the regular program.

Economic Impact Aid/ Limited English Proficient Amount: $Purpose: Develop fluency in English and academic proficiency of English Learners.

School Improvement Program Amount: $Purpose: Improve school response to educational, personal and career needs of all students.

Other State or Local funds (list and describe): Amount: $

Federal ProgramsElementary and Secondary Education Act:Title I: Schoolwide Program Amount: $Purpose: Upgrade the entire educational program of the school.

Title I: Targeted Assistance Program Amount: $Purpose: Help educationally disadvantaged students achieve grade level proficiency.

Title III: English Language Development Amount: $Purpose:

Other Federal Funds (list and describe): Amount: $

Total amount of state and federal categorical funds allocated to this school: $

After funding has been established, determine what funds can be used to fund the school’s priorities.

149


Title IBudget

Fiscal Year 2004-2005

Name of District: Los Angeles Unified School District Date:CDS Code: 1964733 2004-05 Allocation:Name of School: School CDS Code:School Contact Person: Phone:Local District: Fax:

Object Code Description of Line Item Amount of

Funds

Funding Source

(Indicate additional sources if

multi-funded)

Number of Positions

JustificationInclude page # in Single Plan

or Current Plan

1000 Certificated Personnel Salaries (includes benefits)

2000 Classified Personnel Salaries (includes benefits)

4000 Books, Materials, Supplies

150


Title IBudget

Fiscal Year 2004-2005 (continued)


Funds

Funding Source


multi-funded)

Number of Positions

JustificationInclude page

# in Single Plan or

Current Plan

5000 Services and Other Operating Expenses

6000 Capital Outlay (Equipment)

7000 Other OutgoingPending DistributionFunding Variance

Allocation $

Program Improvement SchoolsIdentified Program Improvement (PI) Schools must annually set aside 10% of the current year’s Title I allocation to support professional development in Literacy and/or Mathematics.

151


Title I Budget JustificationFiscal Year 2004-2005

1000 Certificated Personnel Salaries

Title I Coordinator (0.5): Direct services (3 hours) to students include coordinating student intervention programs, program evaluation activities, and delivery of professional development activities. Indirect (1 hour) services are provided include monitoring the program expenditures, distributing program materials, and planning related to the instructional program.

Categorical Program Advisor Differential: supplemental payment, which is added to the salary of a coordinator who performs program, related activities outside the regular six hour work day

Secondary Teacher, X-time: used to pay for the assignment of teachers who performs regular teaching duties outside their basic assignment basis – after school intervention program.

School Nurse (.4 hours): based on referrals the nurse will provide supplemental support health services to students including the following: Health-related services, health counseling, referral, follow-up on preventive health concerns, parent in-service training and health-related counseling.

Counselor, Secondary (.25 hours): on-site counselor who provides supplemental counseling services to at-risk Title I students for the expressed purpose of improving their academic achievement. Supplemental services include the following: small group counseling, study skills counseling, personal monitoring of weekly progress and attendance reports, monitoring of student tutoring attendance, working with teachers to provide individualized alternate methods of instruction for at-risk students and referrals to intervention services.

Day to Day Sub: substitutes are used to provide coverage for teachers of Title 1 students attending professional development, attending conferences and planning related to the instructional program to improve Title 1 students academic achievement.

2000 Classified Personnel Salaries

Ed Aide III: provides reinforcement and support of instruction to Title I students in the classroom under the direct supervision of a highly-qualified classroom teacher.


Supplemental Materials: Supplemental literacy materials and math materials will be purchased to support the Title I program. Funds will be used to purchase materials that are in alignment with standards-based instruction to improve Title I students’ academic achievement. Reading materials, and computers with supplemental math and literacy software will be purchased to support the Title I program.

152



Conference Attendance: funds for all expenses including travel. Selected Title I teachers (8) will attend the CUE (Computer Using Educators) conference to receive professional development in using technology to build literacy and math skills for Title I students. Sessions to attend include: Inspiration: Using Graphic OrganizersInteractive Multimedia Technology: Engaging Students in the Learning ProcessUsing Technology in the Writing Process


7000 Other Outgoing

153


Title I Parent Involvement E046 Budget




Funds

Funding Source


multi-funded)

Number of Positions


# in Single Plan or

Current Plan


2000 Classified Personnel Salaries (includes benefits)Clerical ReliefCommunity RepresentativeCustodial ReliefProfessional ExpertStudent Aide

4000 Books, Materials, SuppliesInstructional MaterialCompensatory Education Advisory Committee Expense

5000 Services and Other Operating ExpensesContracted Instructional ServicesIndependent ContractParent Conference AttendanceParent Training Allowance

154


Title I Parent Involvement E 046 Budget



Funds

Funding Source


multi-funded)

Number of Positions


# in Single Plan or

Current Plan



Allocation $

Title I Parent InvolvementTitle I schools must implement activities for parents that support the instructional program. Using the Title I parent involvement budget worksheet (E046), schools will develop a budget justification for the allocation. Questions should be directed to the Parent Community Services Branch (PCSB) or the local district.

155


Title I Parent Involvement (E046) Budget JustificationFiscal Year 2004-2005



Community Representative: community person who performs a liaison role between school and the community. Services involve participation as a neighborhood resource advisor to the principal, Title I teachers, parents, and Title I personnel concerned with school-community relations.


Advisory Committee Expense: funds for establishing and operating the local CEAC (Compensatory Education Advisory Council) governing body.


Parent Training Allowance: use to reimburse Title I parents for meals, child-care, and mileage to attend in-service training sessions related to the programs.


7000 Other Outgoing

156


EIA-SCE Budget




Funds

Funding Source


multi-funded)

Number of Positions

JustificationInclude page # in Single Plan

or Current Plan




157



Funds

Funding Source


multi-funded)

Number of Positions


# in Single Plan or

Current Plan




Allocation $EIA-SCE Budget


158


EIA-SCE JustificationFiscal Year 2004-2005




Supplemental Materials: Supplemental literacy materials and math materials will be purchased to support the Title I program. Funds will be used to purchase materials that are in alignment with standards-based instruction to improve Title I students’ academic achievement. Reading materials, and computers with supplemental math and literacy software will be purchased to support the Title I program.



7000 Other Outgoing

159


Bilingual (EIA-LEP + District)Budget




Funds

Funding Source


multi-funded)

Number of Positions


# in Single Plan or

Current Plan




160


Bilingual (EIA-LEP + District)Budget



Funds

Funding Source


multi-funded)

Number of Positions


# in Single Plan or

Current Plan




Allocation $

Bilingual (EIA-LEP + District)Schools must allocate five percent of the initial EL budget for (1) professional development activities and (2) an additional five percent for appropriate supplemental instructional materials to support compliant implementation of the District’s Master Plan and its Instructional Programs School Guide for ELs.

161


Bilingual (EIA-LEP +District) JustificationFiscal Year 2004-2005




Supplemental Materials: Supplemental literacy materials and math materials will be purchased to support the EIA-LEP program. Funds will be used to purchase materials that are in alignment with standards-based instruction to improve EIA-LEP students’ academic achievement. Reading materials, and computers with supplemental math and literacy software will be purchased to support the EIA-LEP program.



7000 Other Outgoing

162


School Improvement Budget




Funds

Funding Source


multi-funded)

Number of Positions


# in Single Plan or

Current Plan




163


School Improvement Budget



Funds

Funding Source


multi-funded)

Number of Positions


# in Single Plan or

Current Plan




Allocation $

164


School Improvement JustificationFiscal Year 2004-2005






7000 Other Outgoing

165


Section EightATTACHMENTS

Parents Right To Know Notification

School Accountability Report Card (SARC)

Migrant Education Individualized Learning Plans (ILP)

Language Acquisition Waivers

SBM/Learn Waivers

166


Section NineRESOURCES

Guide to the Single Plan for Student Achievement

Data Links(included)

Directions and Comments

Parent Education Level (STAR)Percen

t Percent with a response* 81 Of those with a response: Not a high school graduate 14 High school graduate 19 Some college 20 College graduate 34 Graduate school 13

*This number is the percentage of student answer documents with stated parent education level information. Avera

geAverage Parent Education Level (STAR)

3.13

The average of all responses where "1" represents "Not a high school graduate" and "5" represents "Graduate school."

Percent

Fully credentialed teachers (CBEDS)

75

Teachers with emergency credentials 25 (CBEDS)

Numb

167


erEnrollment in grades 2-11 on first day of testing (STAR) 2654 Students taking the California Alternate Performance Assessment 0 (STAR)

Students exempted from STAR testing per parent written request (STAR)

11 Number of Students Tested (STAR)

2435

168

table of contents€¦ · web viewin the 2002-03 api cycle (2002 base api and 2003 growth api)...

Documents