Kennedy high school los Angeles Unified School District Single Plan for Student Achievement



Download 4.23 Mb.
Page1/2
Date08.12.2018
Size4.23 Mb.
  1   2

KENNEDY HIGH SCHOOL

Los Angeles Unified School District

Single Plan for Student Achievement
2010 – 2011

Implementation

J.F. KENNEDY HIGH SCHOOL



Superintendent

Ramon C. Cortines


Board Members

Mónica Garcia, Board President

Marguerite Poindexter LaMotte

Tamar Galatzan

Steve Zimmer

Yolie Flores-Aguilar

Nury Martinez

Richard Vladovic


TABLE OF CONTENTS

District and School Information 1

School Program Identification 1

School Program Improvement Status 2

School Site Council Composition 4

Committee Recommendations and Assurances 5

Parent Involvement Committee Recommendations 5

District Description and Core Program for All Students 7

Mission Statements and School Profile Descriptions 10

Analysis of School Experience Survey for Parents 29

SPSA Evaluation 31

District and School Instructional Priorities 33

District Accountability Matrix 35

Accountability Matrix—High Academic Achievement 37

Accountability Matrix—Graduation Rate 82

Accountability Matrix—Personalization / College & Career Readiness 93

Accountability Matrix—Parent and Community Engagement 96

Accountability Matrix—School Organization / Support Services / Safe Schools 100

Components for Implementation School Wide Program (SWP) 107

Parent & Community Engagement Attachments 110

Parent Involvement Policy 110

School-Parent Compact 111

Monitoring 112

Funding (Budgets) 114

Attachments 115



SCHOOL PROGRAM IDENTIFICATION


School Name:

John F. Kennedy High School

Local District:

1

District CDS Code: 1964733

School CDS Code:

1939941

Initial Year: 2010-2011








For additional information on our school programs contact the following:



Principal:

Christine Clark

E-mail address:

Cclar1@lausd.net

Contact Person:

Dean Xiong

Position:

Title One Coordinator

E-mail address:

dax9193@lausd.net

Address:

11354 Gothic Ave. Granada Hills, CA 91344

Telephone Number:

(818) 271-2900

Indicate which of the following Federal, State and Local Programs are consolidated in this plan:



X

English Learners Programs (EIA-LEP)

X

Special Education/Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)




X

Gifted and Talented Education (GATE)

X

Title I Schoolwide Program (SWP)




X

Los Angeles Educational Alliance for Restructuring Now (LEARN)




Title I Targeted Assistance School (TAS)







Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA)

X

Title II Professional Development




X

School Based Coordinated Programs (SBCP)

X

Title III English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement,







School Based Management (SBM)




and Academic Achievement







School Governance Council (SGC)

X

Tobacco Use Prevention Education (TUPE)




X

Program Improvement (PI)




Other:































Year 1

X

Year 3




Year 4




Year 5+




LAUSD School of Choice







The District Governing Board approved this Revision to Update the Single Plan for Student Achievement on:









Date




The Local District staff has reviewed the School Plan with the principal and agreed to support and provide feedback for implementation.

Signature













Signature





































Local District Director of School Services




Date







Local District Superintendent or Designee




Date






PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT YEAR 3

2010-2011 Corrective Action Decision


Local District:

1




Name of School:

J. F. Kennedy High School




Date:

10/15/2010


Directions: NCLB requires that LEAs select at least one Corrective Action. Please check the applicable box(es) and insert behind the Assurances pages of the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA). Strategies and activities to support the corrective actions should be described in the appropriate Accountability Matrix pages.

Due Date: December 6, 2010






















X




Mandate full implementation of the core curriculum, District initiatives such as Public School Choice, Response to Instruction and Intervention (RtI2) and appropriate professional development as described in the Local Educational Agency Plan and SPSA to ensure that all staff members have the appropriate certification, knowledge, and skills. Particular attention should be focused on implementation of the curriculum and/or professional development necessary to meet the needs of the targeted groups relevant to the school’s failure to make adequate yearly progress. (Describe in the “Comprehensive Needs Assessment to Determine Key Findings”, “Accountability Matrix”, and “Monitoring” page from the SPSA.)

As a result of Public School Choice, indicate which of the following boxes describe the Board reform:

Appoint an outside entity to advise the school on its progress toward making

adequate yearly progress based on its school plan

iDesign Partner (Indicate name of partner)_____________________________

Extend the school year or school day for the school through the addition of

instructional minutes



Instituting APPROVED Small Learning Communities (SLCs) (per

guidelines of LAUSD BUL-1600)



Participating in Public School Choice process

Instituting Small Schools – ( ) number of schools

Instituting Pilot Schools

Reducing class size with Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) funds

Decrease management authority at the school level












Extend the school year or school day for the school through the addition of instructional minutes. (Describe in “School Organization and Support Services/Safe Schools pages”)

Indicate the number of instructional minutes per week:________

















Restructure the internal organization of the school by: (Describe in “School Organization and Support Structures Action Plan.”)

Instituting APPROVED Small Learning Communities (SLCs) (per

guidelines of LAUSD BUL-1600)



Participating in Public School Choice process

Instituting Small Schools – ( ) number of schools

Instituting Pilot Schools

Reducing class size with Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) funds

Received CDE School Improvement Grant (SIG) for three years and will be

implementing the following school intervention model:



Transformation Model

Turnaround Model

Restart Model






Appoint an outside entity to advise the school on its progress toward making adequate yearly progress based on its school plan







  • Indicate name of outside entity:















Decrease management authority at the school level.



















(Describe in Monitoring Section.)




Local District Superintendent:

Linda Del Cueto
















Print Name




Signature




Date




Local District Principal
















Leader/Director:

Print Name




Signature




Date




Principal:

Christine Clark
















Print Name




Signature




Date




School Site Council Chair:

Christine Clark
















Print Name




Signature




Date



School Site Council Composition (SSC)

EC 52012, 52852







The membership of the council shall be no fewer than 10 members.




The membership of the council shall be no fewer than 12 members. *



* A School Site Council at the middle school may, but is not required to, include student representatives (EC 33133-C).




Part A – School Staff

Part B – Parents/Community

Name

Principal

Classroom Teacher

Other Personnel

Name

Parent

Community

Student

Christine Clark

X







Donnette Nelson

X







Alen Harootunian




X




Nery Mendez

X







Nurnisa Kurban




X




Jorge Nunez

X







Xiutleth Santibanez




X




Nestor Garcia







X

Leana Smith




X




Jessica Cubias







X

Elaina I. Sepulveda







X

Cynthia Alfaro







X




























Total number in each column




1







4







1







Total number in each column




3




0







3




Total number in Part A



















Total number in Part B



















CHRISTINE CLARK




Principal



















Name of SSC Chairperson




Position (e.g., Parent, Teacher)




Signature of SSC Chairperson




Date










CHRISTINE CLARK



















Name of Principal




Signature of Principal




Date





COMMITTEE 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 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 programs or grants 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. Signatures are requested for those advisory committees/groups providing input in the development of this plan.




Committees

Chairperson

Check

Date of review of recommendation

Print Name

Signature

Parent/ Community

Staff

Compensatory Education Advisory

Carlos Ruiz




X







English Learner Advisory

Auroa Cortes




X







Gifted & Talented Education Program Advisory

Ruben Garcia







X




UTLA Chapter Chair or Chapter Chair’s Designee

Greg Antonicic







X




Other (list)


































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

  2. 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.

  3. 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 the consolidated application.

  4. The school minimizes the removal of identified children during the regular school hours for supplemental Title I instruction. (Targeted Assistance Schools only)

  1. This school plan was adopted by the school site council on:










Date




Attested:



CHRISTINE CLARK













Typed name of SSC chairperson




Signature of SSC chairperson




Date

CHRISTINE CLARK













Typed name of school principal




Signature of school principal




Date


Parent Involvement Policy
Each school in LAUSD is required to develop a written parent involvement policy. This policy describes how the school will support and increase parent involvement. The parent involvement policy must be developed with parents/community and include participation from all appropriate advisory committees and be agreed upon by the School Site Council. The written parent involvement policy at Title I schools must include how parents will be informed of the school’s Title I program requirements.
Schools not receiving categorical funds must develop a written parent involvement policy with the participation of parents and community members that describes how the school will:

  1. engage parents in their children’s education

  2. inform parents that they can directly effect the success of their children’s learning

  3. build consistent and effective communication between the home and school

  4. train teachers and administrators to communicate effectively with parents

  5. integrate parent involvement programs with the Single Plan for Student Achievement (EC 11504)


Questions regarding this requirement should be addressed to the Local District Parent Ombudsperson or School, Family and Parent/Community Services Branch at (213) 481-3350.


Committees

Chairperson

Check

Date of review by Committee

Print Name

Signature

Parent/ Community

Staff

Compensatory Education Advisory

Carlos Ruiz




X







English Learner Advisory

Auroa Cortes




X










Council

Chairperson

Check

Date of review and approval by Council

Print Name

Signature

Parent/ Community

Staff

School Site Council

CHRISTINE CLARK







X







Person(s) Responsible for Parental Involvement Activities at the School

Print Name (s)



Signature(s)

DEAN XIONG






Los Angeles Unified School District Profile

District 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.
District Description:


PI Corrective Action:

The school institutes and fully implements the core curriculum that is built on State academic content standards, including providing appropriate professional development grounded in scientifically-based research for all relevant staff, that offers substantial promise of improving educational achievement for high priority pupils.





District Core Program for All Students:


The core program of the District is built on the California State Content Standards and grounded in effective evidence-based pedagogy for effective delivery of those standards. Embedded throughout is the use of a comprehensive assessment program that guides instruction and immediate intervention. The District has adopted four culturally responsive and linguistically appropriate instructional strategies which are threaded throughout all PreK-12 content instruction. Differentiation, SDAIE strategies, and scaffolding are used to ensure instruction meets the needs of all students including gifted and talented students, students with disabilities, and second or nonstandard English learners. Instructional strategies include the use of advanced graphic organizers, explicit instruction in academic vocabulary, use of communal learning strategies such as Think/Pair/Share, cooperative learning, and project-based learning, and the use of instructional conversations to actively engage students in learning. Strong classroom management as outlined in the District’s Discipline Foundation Policy frames the instructional program. Maximum use of academic engaged time is accomplished through planning resulting in clear expectations, preparing for transitions, and developing instruction that engages students in learning.
Elementary Core Program

Reading/ Language Arts:

All elementary students in LAUSD receive a culturally responsive and linguistically appropriate core program grounded in the California State Content Standards and English Language Development standards. Reading/language arts instruction consists of 120 minutes of instruction in Kindergarten, 180 minutes in 1st – 3rd grade, and 120 minutes in 4th,5th, and 6th grades. The core textbook used is Open Court Reading 2000 or 2002 or Foro Abierto, Lectura.
English Learners receive an additional 45 minutes of English Language Development using Hampton Brown Into English and Specially Designed Academic Instruction English (SDAIE)
Mathematics:

The foundation of all math instruction is the expectation that all students will become proficient in basic computational and procedural skills, develop conceptual understanding, and become adept problem solvers. To achieve this expectation all instruction is grounded in the California State Mathematics Standards as framed by the District’s Mathematics Instructional Guide (MIG). The MIG provides a structure for teaching the standards and includes organizers, concept tasks and lessons, textbook connections and many other useful planning resources. The core program consists of 60 minutes of daily math instruction provided using evidence-based instructional pedagogy. The text supporting this instruction is enVisionMath.


Science:

The foundation of all science instruction is the California State Science Standards. These standards are outlined in the Science Instructional Guides for 4th and 5th grade. Science instruction is grounded in the opportunity for students to receive firsthand experiences using investigations and experiments to learn the content of the standards and use the science processes of observing, communicating, and inferring. Kindergarten – 5th grade use FOSS Science, a modular K-5 science curriculum that teaches science in interesting and engaging ways.
Social Studies:

The goal of history/social science instruction is to prepare students to be informed and responsible members of a diverse democratic society. Students are provided with opportunities to think critically, to develop an informed opinion, to research a topic effectively, to express their ideas both orally and in writing, and to listen to others who believe differently than themselves. Texts used to support this instruction include Scott Foresman History and Social Science for California and Harcourt California Series.

Per the following bulletin, allocation of certificated personnel is a primary resource for core instruction:



  • BUL-1222.5 Norms to Allocate Certificated Personnel to Elementary Schools


Los Angeles Unified School District Profile

District 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.
District Description:


PI Corrective Action:

The school institutes and fully implements the core curriculum that is built on State academic content standards, including providing appropriate professional development grounded in scientifically-based research for all relevant staff, that offers substantial promise of improving educational achievement for high priority pupils.







District Core Program for All Students:


The core program of the District is built on the California State Content Standards and grounded in effective evidence-based pedagogy for effective delivery of those standards. Embedded throughout is the use of a comprehensive assessment program that guides instruction and immediate intervention. The District has adopted four culturally responsive and linguistically appropriate instructional strategies which are threaded throughout all PreK-12 content instruction. Differentiation, SDAIE strategies, and scaffolding are used to ensure instruction meets the needs of all students including gifted and talented students, students with disabilities, and second or nonstandard English learners. Instructional strategies include the use of advanced graphic organizers, explicit instruction in academic vocabulary, use of communal learning strategies such as Think/Pair/Share, cooperative learning, and project-based learning, and the use of instructional conversations to actively engage students in learning. Strong classroom management as outlined in the District’s Discipline Foundation Policy frames the instructional program. Maximum use of academic engaged time is accomplished through planning resulting in clear expectations, preparing for transitions, and developing instruction that engages students in learning.
Middle School

English:

Students in grades 6, 7, and 8 receive one period daily of English/language arts (ELA) instruction based on the California State ELA Content Standards. The District has outlined and structured the standards in the Secondary ELA Instructional Guides which contain the instructional sequence aligned with a comprehensive assessment program. Critical standards are identified and strategies for instruction are provided in the Instructional Guides. The tools used for core instruction include Prentice Hall or McDougal Littell Literature Series textbooks and the District developed Design Lessons.
English Learners receive ELA instruction through the Instructional Guides that are specially designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE) or two periods of ESL instruction grounded in language development and literacy skills using High Point curriculum.
Mathematics:

The Mathematics Instructional Guide (MIG) is grounded in the expectation that all students will become proficient in basic computational and procedural skills, develop conceptual understanding, and become adept problem solvers. Math instruction consists of one period of high-quality instruction outlined in the MIG and instruction in the math concept lessons. The math instructional guide contains concept organizers, concept tasks and lessons, textbook connections and many other useful planning resources. State adopted texts are used as the tool for the delivery of evidence-based instructional strategies. Core texts consist of: McDougal Littell CA Math, Course 1 and Course 2; Glencoe CA Mathematics; Concepts, Skills and Problem Solving, and Prentice Hall Mathematics, California Algebra Readiness, Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, California Algebra Readiness: Concepts, Skills, and Problem Solving Discovering Algebra: An Investigative Approach, CA Edition, Algebra Connections, Glencoe California Algebra 1: Concepts, Skills & Problem Solving, CPM Educational Program, or Discovering Algebra: an Investigative Approach.
Science:

The Science Instructional Guide is a foundation for the teaching of science in Grades 6-8. The guide provides a contextual map for teaching all of the California science standards at middle school. It provides the foundation for building a classroom curriculum and instructional program that engages all students in rigorous and dynamic learning. It is aligned to the California science standards and the Science Framework for the California Public Schools.


History/Social Science:

The goal of history/social science instruction is to prepare students to be informed and responsible members of a diverse democratic society. Students are provided with opportunities to think critically, to develop an informed opinion, to research a topic effectively, to express their ideas both orally and in writing, and to listen to others who believe differently than themselves. Students receive culturally responsive and linguistically appropriate instruction using the California Content History/Social Science Frameworks. Embedded throughout instruction is the use of District developed model lessons in grades 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11. The primary text is History Alive.


Per the following bulletins, allocation of certificated personnel is a primary resource for core instruction:

  • BUL-1123.5 Norms to Allocate Certificated Personnel to Middle Schools

Los Angeles Unified School District Profile

District 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.
District Description:


PI Corrective Action:

The school institutes and fully implements the core curriculum that is built on State academic content standards, including providing appropriate professional development grounded in scientifically-based research for all relevant staff, that offers substantial promise of improving educational achievement for high priority pupils.







District Core Program for All Students:


The core program of the District is built on the California State Content Standards and grounded in effective evidence-based pedagogy for effective delivery of those standards. Embedded throughout is the use of a comprehensive assessment program that guides instruction and immediate intervention. The District has adopted four culturally responsive and linguistically appropriate instructional strategies which are threaded throughout all PreK-12 content instruction. Differentiation, SDAIE strategies, and scaffolding are used to ensure instruction meets the needs of all students including gifted and talented students, students with disabilities, and second or nonstandard English learners. Instructional strategies include the use of advanced graphic organizers, explicit instruction in academic vocabulary, use of communal learning strategies such as Think/Pair/Share, cooperative learning, and project-based learning, and the use of instructional conversations to actively engage students in learning. Strong classroom management as outlined in the District’s Discipline Foundation Policy frames the instructional program. Maximum use of academic engaged time is accomplished through planning resulting in clear expectations, preparing for transitions, and developing instruction that engages students in learning.
High School

The high school core program is framed around the A-G requirements for all students. The core program consists of 160 credits in content curriculum and 70 electives. All courses are based on the California Content Standards and connected to the Career pathways. High schools use the Instructional Guides in all content areas as the foundation of instruction but select textbooks and supplemental materials independently.


English:

Students in grades 9-12 receive 40 credits (4 years) of ELA for one period daily of culturally responsive and linguistically appropriate English/language arts instruction based on the California State Content Standards which are outlined in the ELA Instructional Guide. Design Lessons aligned to the standards are the base of the curriculum. The instructional guides provide targeted readings, concept organizers, and instructional strategies for diverse learners. Supplemental readings are selected by each school site.


Mathematics:

Students in grades 9-12 receive 20 credits (two years or more) of subject specific math instruction. Math instruction is grounded in the Content Standards as outlined in the Math Instructional Guide. The math instructional guide contains concept organizers, concept tasks and lessons, textbook connections and many other useful planning resources. Each math content area has concept lessons aligned to key standards.


Science:

Students in grades 9-12 receive 20 credits in Laboratory Science and 5 credits in Health. The California Content Standards are the base of the science curriculum. The Science Instructional Guides provides a contextual map for teaching the content standards and provides effective instructional practices for teaching science to all students. Model lessons that focus on deep understanding are included.


Social Science:

Students in grades 9-12 receive 30 credits in subject specific social science courses. Curricular maps provide guidance as to the instructional sequence. In addition, Instructional Guides for grades 10 and 11 provide a contextual map for the teaching of Social Sciences Content Standards. The guide provides the foundation for building a classroom curriculum and instructional program that engages all students in rigorous and dynamic learning.


Per the following bulletins, allocation of certificated personnel is a primary resource for core instruction:

  • BUL-1124.5 Norms to Allocate Certificated Personnel to High Schools

MISSION STATEMENTS AND SCHOOL DESCRIPTIONS


School Vision and Mission
John F. Kennedy High School Vision and Beliefs

We, the members of the J.F. Kennedy HS community, strive to offer an effective education to our diverse student population and to provide them with the skills they will need to become positive contributors in the 21st Century.

With shared collaboration and communication, the John F. Kennedy High School stakeholders envision:


  • Students will be empowered to assume responsibility for their own quality education.

  • Students will graduate possessing critical thinking and problem-solving skills; students will leave Kennedy prepared to succeed in post-secondary education, technical training, military service, or the workplace.

  • Teachers will provide a meaningful curriculum and an environment of educational excellence for students.

  • Parents and students will work in partnership with the total school community to ensure a successful learning experience for students.

We believe:

  • Every student deserves a safe environment.

  • Every student will be given an opportunity to achieve at his or her highest potential.

  • Every student achieves best when supported by a network of families, school, and a community of professionals.

  • Every student will be provided with the knowledge necessary to make the connection between educational success and his or her future.

  • Every student will be given the opportunity to become technologically proficient.


School Profile Description
A Strong Purpose

Los Angeles Unified School District 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.


School and Community Profile




  • geographical, social, cultural, educational and economic community base

John F. Kennedy High School, one of sixty comprehensive high schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is a secondary school located 23 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles in the middle-class San Fernando Valley neighborhood of Granada Hills.

Groundbreaking on the 27½ acre site for John F. Kennedy High School took place on March 25, 1969, three years after the Los Angeles Unified School District acquired the land. Kennedy opened its doors in 1971 as part of the LAUSD. It was intended as a district response to court-ordered integration, with students from other neighboring areas and ethnic communities. The original student-body of 2,000 tenth and eleventh graders came from the Granada Hills, Monroe, and San Fernando High School areas. Currently, a little more than a third of the 3,012 -member student body are residents of Granada Hills, and a fourth of the students commute from a number of areas, some on nearly two-hour daily bus trips from the downtown Los Angeles area. Since opening in 1971, Kennedy students have maintained pride in their school’s tradition of cultural diversity. In addition to being culturally diverse, the student body finds itself to be economically diverse. John F. Kennedy High School’s Title I status is school-wide. Our percentage of Title I students have increased in the past two years to 60%. The socio-economic status of the remaining student-body varies widely, ranging from lower middle class to upper middle class backgrounds.




  • grade levels/school configuration

John F. Kennedy High School is an ethnically diverse comprehensive high school (grades 9-12). The student-body is comprised of 2,525 students in the regular school and 342 in the magnet program and an additional 145 Special Education students for a total enrollment of 3,012, slightly lower than that of the previous year. This number is reflective of enrollment trends within the Los Angeles Unified School District.


  • student enrollment figures/trends

Over the past three years, Kennedy HS has maintained a consistent enrollment of over 3,100 students. The Kennedy HS campus has also experienced a decrease in its white racial subgroup, and an increase in our Latino racial subgroup. This demographic shift reflects the current trends of the LAUSD and the San Fernando Valley. Some students living within our attendance boundaries attend private schools, charter schools, magnet schools, or obtain the attendance permits to enroll in the neighboring districts of William H. Hart Unified and Valencia Unified. In addition, for the first time in 30 years, LAUSD has built several new schools throughout the Los Angeles areas and the San Fernando Valley. The construction of Valley High School #4 and Valley High School #5, are expected to directly impact the enrollment of Kennedy High School as LAUSD moves towards achieving its goal of relieving overcrowding at the secondary level. Overall, the enrollment at John F. Kennedy High School is expected to decline by 600 students during the 2011-2012 school year.
Fall Norm Day Enrollment Figures/Trends by Grade Level (2008-2011)

Norm Day data provided by the LAUSD DSS system



 

Grade 9

Grade 10

Grade 11

Grade 12

2010-2011

812

744

557

412

2009-2010

969

560

503

574

2008-2009

819

619

771

626




  • poverty level (e.g., percentage of students that are on free/reduced price lunch)

John F. Kennedy High School was designated a Title I school during the 2002 school year. In 2009-2010, 60% are taking part in the free or reduced lunch program. The school’s Title I status is school-wide, thus allowing all students to receive Title I services. The percentage of Title I students has increased over the past two years. The socio-economic status of the remaining student-body is varies widely, ranging from lower middle class to upper middle class backgrounds.

Free/Reduced Lunch Status 2008-2010

Data provided by Title I Coordinator records



Year

# of Students

% of Enrollment

2010-2011

TBD

TBD

2009-2010

1,563

60%

2008-2009

1,652

53.8%




  • feeder program and schools

Neighborhoods serviced by John F. Kennedy High School include the upper middle class area of Granada Hills, and the working class areas of San Fernando, Mission Hills, Sylmar, North Hills, Panorama City, Pacoima, and South Los Angeles. The majority of students arrive from three feeder schools (Patrick Henry Middle School, Robert Frost Middle School, and George K. Porter Middle School).


  • language, racial and ethnic make-up of the student body

Language, Racial and Ethnic Make-up of the Student Body

Ever since it was created as a racially integrated school in 1971 in response to court-ordered integration, Kennedy has drawn students from diverse socio-economic and racial backgrounds. Kennedy students come to us from several communities. A significant number of students attend Kennedy High School under a variety of transportation and attendance programs. These programs include, but are not limited to, Capacity Adjustment Program (CAP), Permits with Transportation (PWT), Open Enrollment and the magnet program.


Over the past three years, Kennedy has experienced a decrease in its white racial subgroup, and an increase in our Latino racial subgroup. This demographic shift reflects the current trends of the LAUSD and the San Fernando Valley. Although Kennedy was built to be a truly integrated school, it is understood that some of the white students living within our attendance boundaries attend private schools, charter schools, magnet schools, or obtain the attendance permits to enroll in the neighboring districts of William H. Hart Unified and Valencia Unified. In addition, for the first time in 30 years, LAUSD has built several new schools throughout the Los Angeles areas and the San Fernando Valley, giving parents and students the option to attend a new school closer to their residence. As of Norm Day, the 2010-2011, total student enrollment of 3,012 represent the following ethnic groups: 77 % Hispanic or Latino, 10 % White, 4.3% African American, .08% Filipino, 7% Asian, 0.3% Pacific Islander, and 0.5 American Indian. Currently, 145 Special Day class students receive Special Education services, and 491 students are designated English Language Learners. JFK also has 375 designated Gifted and Talented (GATE) and 219 students enrolled in the School for Advanced Studies (SAS).


Fall Norm Day Student Enrollment by Ethnicity for September 2011

Data provided by the LAUSD DSS system


Students at Kennedy speak 28 different languages. Predominant among these are Spanish, Tagalog, Armenian, Korean, and Arabic. Our part-time Bilingual Coordinator, two part-time classified staff members and four teaching assistants provide services for 491 English Language Learners (ELL), which include 84 English as a Second Language (ESL) students. All ESL students participate in a Structured English Immersion Program. The state-mandated High Point Program and California English Language Development Test (CELDT) are used for the placement and assessment of ESL students. All English Learners receive access to the core curriculum through “sheltered” classes implementing “Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English” (SDAIE) strategies in English, mathematics, social studies, and science. ELL’s who have exited the ESL program, but have performed at a level 3 or below on the CEDLT, are given additional intervention in an English Language Skills (ELS) class. In recent years, we have witnessed a decline in our ESL population, which may be attributed to early redesignation, political factors, economic factors, and shifting demographics.


Enrollment by Language Classification

Data provided by the LAUSD DSS system




  • school facilities, including technology, library and media resources

The Kennedy campus is comprised of three core administration and classroom buildings framing the students’ favorite gathering spot, a grass courtyard with a small oval outdoor stage known affectionately as “The Mushroom.” The administration building, one classroom building, and the school gymnasium were destroyed and subsequently replaced following the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. After the earthquake, the school was further expanded with the addition of 28 bungalow classrooms. The school

property also includes a theater, cafeteria, library, preschool child-care facility housing the Careers in Children program, athletic facilities, a College Center, Career Center, Parent Center, eight computer labs, a ceramics workshop, filming studio, photography lab, and digital image studio. The school is also home to the Jane Addams Continuation High School, the Kennedy-San Fernando Community Adult School, and the Kennedy Clinic & Family Resource Center.


  • how the school community will work together to establish and promote the culture of the school

Kennedy strives to build a positive school culture that engages all stakeholders. Communication occurs through home-to-school communication, school-to-home communication, parents as volunteers, parent involvement in the school’s governance and decision-making, as well as a greater collaboration and connection with the community. JFK holds monthly parent meetings for Title I (CEAC), Bilingual (ELAC), LEARN Governance Council, School Site Council (SSC), the Booster Club, Parent Teacher Student Association (PTSA), and the Black Parent Advisory Council (BPAC). The suggestions from these organizations are communicated to LEARN Governance and SSC where they can influence school policy. In addition, our Parent Center remains in constant contact with parents by organizing a variety of events and workshops. On a monthly basis, the principal invites parents to attend a social gathering called “Coffee with the Principal.” During this event, the principal updates the parents on a variety of events taking place on campus and gives them an opportunity to share any concerns.
There are a variety of additional sources from which students can receive information that promotes the culture of the school. These include twice-weekly PA announcements, our student television broadcast of announcements, and the school newspaper, known as “The Word,” published twice a semester. Our homeroom period also known as “Cougar Time” gives students an opportunity to have a connection with the same adult throughout their entire high school career. They build a rapport with the homeroom teacher, who can answer their questions and give them important information. In addition, the culture of the school is communicated through our clubs and organizations. JFK has 29 active clubs and organizations on campus with over 1,000 members, and 50 athletic programs with 850 student athletes. These students work with parents and local businesses to enhance the school culture and community. Students have been involved in a number of activities: Red Cross Blood Drive, community parades, business openings, Canned Food Drive, Toys for Tots, Coats for Kids Drive, and Pennies for Patients.
In order to increase the level of personalization and promote the school community, Kennedy is restructuring into Smaller Learning Communities (SLC’s), a transition aimed at bringing students personalization on this large campus. The JKF SLC’s include:

  • Teaching Careers Academy

  • Architecture, Digital Arts. & Film Production Magnet

  • Freshman Academy

  • Biomedical, Health & Fitness Academy

  • D.R.E.A.M.S.T. (performing arts)

  • Leadership Academy (public service 2009-10)




  • description of how the school will provide individual student academic assessment results in language the parents understand, including an interpretation of those results

A wide range of strategies are used to communicate with parents. Faculty and staff conduct individual phone calls in order to secure parent help in monitoring their student’s academic progress. Kennedy mails home student progress reports in both English and Spanish every five weeks, and a final report card at the end of each semester. For students in danger of failing, the counseling office sends an additional letter informing parents of their child’s academic progress and the intervention programs available at the school site.
LAUSD also mails home individual students’ CST and CAHSEE scores to parents. LAUSD also mails parents a school report card. This user friendly report card provides parents with a great deal of information about the school site. Other mailers sent home by JFK include an update on a student’s graduation status and other senior activities.
In 9th grade, counselors begin meeting with students. However, in 10th grade, counselors meet with parents and students to formulate and discuss the Individualized Graduation Plan (IGP). Parents receive a copy of the IGP, which is updated yearly. For parents unable to attend the meetings, the IGP is sent home with the student. During 12th grade, counselors see students on a more frequent basis to inform them of their progress towards graduation.
Kennedy has a Student Success Team (SST) case manager. An SST is a multi-disciplinary team that develops an evaluation of effective interventions, strategies, and alternatives for students who are demonstrating academic and/or behavioral problems. SST meetings can involve parents, students, administrators, deans, counselors, the Pupil Service Attendance (PSA) worker, the school nurse, and the school psychologist. The Special Education office also communicates with parents to update and maintain students’ Individual Education Plan (IEP).
Back to School Night and the Predominantly Hispanic Black Asian or Other (PHBAO) Open House are the most important events on the school calendar. These two events give an opportunity for teachers, counselors, and parents to discuss the successes, needs, and challenges of the student.


  • description of SBM or LEARN (include any waiver requests) governance structures (if applicable)

In June, 1996, the stakeholders at John F. Kennedy High School agreed that the school would become a LEARN community. While LEARN was officially short-lived in the District, Kennedy continues the governance system that mandates stakeholder representation and input as well as using data to support decisions. During the LEARN process, stakeholders realized that this reform effort would require the school to constantly re-evaluate student performance. Moreover, experience with LEARN made stakeholders comfortable with the WASC process.




  • description of Reform Process:

  • Small Learning Community (SLC)

  • Professional Learning Community (PLC)

  • Personalized Learning Environment (PLE)

  • LAUSD Public School Choice (PSC)

Kennedy is embarking on a full organizational restructuring into Smaller Learning Communities (SLC’s), an exciting transition aimed at providing students more personalization on this large campus and a greater concentration on career paths during high school. Our journey into SLC's began as early as 1998 with the origination of the Teaching Academy. In 1999, our Architecture Magnet school opened. The magnet school has expanded beyond its initial architecture and urban planning focus to now include digital arts and film production. A Freshman Academy, recommended by the 2006 WASC visiting committee as an area for improvement, started its second year in the fall of 2008. The Biomedical, Health & Fitness Academy has been in place since 2005. In fall 2008, two additional smaller learning communities started the implementation process: a “Leadership Academy,” for students interested in public service professions, and a performing arts academy known as Digital Arts, Design and Dance, Recording Arts and Sciences, Entertainment Arts, Music, Screen and Theater (D.R.E.A.M. S.T.) Academy. The enrollment of students in SLC’s is based solely on student choice, with equity and access to all.



  • other important characteristics of the school

  • WASC Accreditation Process (for high schools only—see Crosswalk)

In March, 2009, Kennedy High School underwent the WASC Accreditation Process and received a six year accreditation with a three-year mid term review in 2012.
FOR SCHOOLS IN PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT (PI) identify areas and/or subgroups not meeting AYP targets and identify the school’s year of PI status. SLC description required for secondary schools identified as PI Years 4 or 5. Include identified strategies that will assist in improving student achievement, leading the school to exit PI status.
In 2005 and 2006 Kennedy High School met all AYP criteria, but in 2007, Special Education students taking the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) failed to meet the required goals for participation in both the English and math portions of the test, and in the required scores for math proficiency. As a result, Kennedy was placed on the “Program Improvement Watch List” for the 2007-2008 year. The 2007-2008 CAHSEE scores showed that English Learners did not meet the required goals for proficiency in English and math. Although Kennedy met 16 out of 18 AMO’s in 2007-2008, the failure to achieve proficiency in math for two consecutive years in those two subgroups resulted in PI-1 status.
In 2008 and 2009, Kennedy High School increased its API from 665 to 688. Despite this growth, Kennedy entered PI-2 status when Hispanic and English Learners failed to meet their CAHSEE proficiency growth targets in both English and mathematics and when Socioeconomic Disadvantaged failed to meet their required proficiency targets on the same exam in English.
In 2009 and 2010, Kennedy High School increased its API again from 688 to 695. Yet despite this increase, Kennedy entered PI-3 when English Learners failed to meet the 95% participation rate for CAHSEE math. . In math, African American, Latino, Socioeconomically Disadvantaged, and English Learners all failed to meet their CAHSEE proficiency rate. African American, Latino, and English Learners also failed to meet the CAHSEE proficiency rate for English Language Arts.
John F. Kennedy High School is committed to exiting Program Improvement (PI). Currently, Kennedy has adopted the LAUSD Response to Instruction and Intervention (RTI2) model. The focus will be on providing students with:

  • High quality first instruction and intervention matched to student needs

  • Using data to monitor student progress

  • Engaging in problem solving process to make important educational decisions

The RTI2 model also uses a Framework that includes the following elements:

  • Multi-tiered Approach

  • Problem Solving Process

  • Data-Based Decision Making

  • Academic Engagement Time

  • Professional Development

Based upon the needs of individual students, Kennedy High School offer students continued intervention. This includes after-school CAHSEE tutoring. For seniors who have failed CAHSEE, we will offer students CAHSEE “Boot Camp.” An intensive intervention program, the camp pulls 12th grade students out of their classes to participate in CAHSEE participation tow weeks prior to the exam. In addition, students in need of support will enroll in CAHSEE English and math intervention courses. Assemblies will be held to encourage students to take part in our after school CAHSEE preparation.


Professional Development is an important element that is essential to insure that faculty is prepared and able to meet the needs of all learners. Ongoing PD that is data driven will be developed and led by staff based upon the differentiated needs of students.
We will continue to monitor our progress by analyzing student data to determine the effectiveness of our instructional program. This includes, monitoring student progress towards mastery of the standards and behavior.





COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT TO DETERMINE KEY FINDINGS


COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT TO DETERMINE KEY FINDINGS
Directions: Use the Data Summary Sheet to complete the Comprehensive Needs Assessment. The Data Summary Sheet Guide has been numerically coded to correspond to the Type of Data column. In the Analysis of Data column, guiding questions have been provided to help analyze the data and construct a response for the Key Findings column. The Key Findings will be used to complete the Data-Based Instructional Strategies/Activities column found in the Accountability Matrix.



Check which groups or committees participated in this Needs Assessment. If box is checked, indicate date.

Type of Data

CDE or Summary Sheet



Analysis of Data

Problem Identification *



School’s Key Findings

Problem Analysis









AYP DATA

Participation Rate



  • Did all subgroups meet participation rate?

  • If not, what were the factors that affected participation?

  • Schoolwide and all subgroups met the participation rate in ELA (overall 98%).

  • One subgroup (ELL) failed to meet the participation rate target in Mathematics; 93% instead of 95%.

Factors that affected participation:



  • Historically the participation rate has not been an issue. We believe that this is a single year occurrence with no systemic issues to consider. Students are enthusiastic about passing the CaHSEE, therefore no large groups of students would willingly miss participation. 4 more students in attendance would have meant the school met participation rate.















x

CEAC

Date:

10-27-10
















x

ELAC

Date:

10-27-10
















x

SSC

Date:

10-27-10



















Grade-level Teams

Date:






















Vertical Teams

Date:



















x

Departments

Date:

9-2-10


































WASC Focus Group

Date:



















x

Other:

LEARN

Date:

10-18-10










AYP DATA—Proficiency Rate

  • Which subgroup(s) did not meet proficiency rate and in what subject(s)?

  • To what do you attribute the growth or loss in proficiency rates?

For 10th graders, the school’s test data revealed that 2.1% growth the CAHSEE in 2009-2010.

Kennedy HS did not meet the proficiency rates in either ELA or Mathematics.

Kennedy’s subgroups:


  • Hispanic

  • Economically Disadvantaged

  • English Learners

ELA: Although we improved to 44.2% proficiency in ELA (a 3.4% increase from 2009), it did not meet the proficiency target; only socioeconomically disadvantaged students are in Safe Harbor;

Mathematics: no subgroup made their targets in ELA

Improvement in our pass rate has been continuing. However, the rate of students scoring at the proficiency level has been constant. Looking at both our CST scores and CaHSEE content strands, the school needs to work on:



  • Writing strategies

  • Essay component

  • Algebra 1.

We believe that increased emphasis on writing across the curriculum and academic rigor will assist in both the CSTs and CaHSEE.
The growth in CAHSEE passed rate and proficiency rate is attributed to:

  • Ongoing focus on writing strategies and essay writing

  • Targeted intervention

  • CaHSEE Preparation through homeroom and tutoring

Although we have made progress in first-time pass rates, the proficiency rates are shown below. Increases in the targets have out paced our improvement in ELA.

ELA Proficiency by subgroup:


  • Hispanic: 42.6% (a gain of 3.9% in one year)

  • Socioeconomic Disadvantaged: 42.7% (up 4%)

  • English Learners: 25.1% (up 24.8% in one year).

Mathematics Proficiency by subgroup:



  • Hispanic: 41.8% (a drop of 3% in a year)

  • Socioeconomic Disadvantaged: 42.8% (a drop of 3%)

  • English Learners: 27.5% ( a drop of 4.9% in one year).













x

CEAC

Date:

10-27-10
















x

ELAC

Date:

10-27-10
















x

SSC

Date:

10-27-10



















Grade-level Teams

Date:






















Vertical Teams

Date:



















x

Departments

Date:

9-2-10


































WASC Focus Group

Date:



















x

Other:

LEARN

FACULTY MEET



Date:

10-18-10

10-26-10




















1.

API


  • What is the pattern of API increase or decrease observed at the school?

  • To what do you attribute the gain or loss in API?



Over five years, the school has had increases in the API—05-06, the API started at 665 and 2009-10 it was 695, a growth of 30 points. The data revealed that there is a significant gap in the achievement of ELL and SWD.

This change is attributed to:



  • There has been an increase in fidelity to Standards-Based instruction, especially in Science and Social Science.

  • In ELA, the model lessons made significant changes to the higher order thinking skills in use during English classes.

  • Increased fidelity to Standards Based Instruction in ELA, Science and Social Science resulted in significant gains.

  • An additional math teacher was hired to lower class size; math coach provided PD on effective instructional strategies and organize interventions and curriculum development, Math Essential offered to at-risk students, tutoring services provided after school, etc.







x

CEAC

Date:

10-27-10
















x

ELAC

Date:

10-27-10
















x

SSC

Date:

10-27-10



















Grade-level Teams

Date:






















Vertical Teams

Date:



















x

Departments

Date:

92-10






















WASC Focus Group

Date:



















x

Other:

Faculty Meeting

LEARN


Date:

8-13-10

10-18-10
















2.

Students with Disabilities



  • How did students with disabilities perform in ELA over time?

  • How did students with disabilities perform in mathematics over time?

  • To what do you attribute the change in performance?




Last year’s group of students had more significant deficits in Reading. Both the ELA and Math drop in scores mirror that deficit.

The data revealed that many are having difficulty grasping content standards:



    1. Writing Strategies

    2. Reading comprehension

    3. Writing Convention




  • In 2009-2010 SWDs dropped 4.7% in ELA proficiency, yet there is no change over a 5 year period

  • In Math, SWDs dropped from 4.7% to 1.4% in proficient/advanced and there is .4% average change over 5 years.

Factors that may have caused these changes:



  • Teacher change in ELA

  • Reports of a lack of energy during preparation for CSTs

  • Limited retention of standards and concepts.

  • Students do not feel that the CSTs nor CaHSEE are important to them; they are focused upon passing classes, not testing.









x

CEAC

Date:

10-27-10
















x

ELAC

Date:

10-27-10
















x

SSC

Date:

10-27-10



















Grade-level Teams

Date:






















Vertical Teams

Date:



















x

Departments

Date:

9-2-10



















WASC Focus Group

Date:



















x

Other:

LEARN

FACULTY MEET



Date:

10-18-10

8-13-10
















3.

Gifted


  • What is happening to the gifted identification over time?

  • How does rate differ by ethnicity?

  • What factors explain these differences?

The data revealed that there is a slight gap between the subgroups identified as gifted:

  • There is a gap of 4.5% between all identified gifted and African American identification; there is a gap of 1.6% between all identified gifted and Latino students.

  • There has been a slow but steady improvement in the identification of gifted students (.3% last year).

The factors that explain these differences are:



  • Time for professional development of all staff in order to increase identification of students that are not under “Intellectual or High Achievement.”

  • Limited funding for teacher training on Honors/AP/Gifted students; teachers need additional training to monitor and identify gifted students.

  • Identification procedure; the identification process of gifted students needs to be instituted and rigorous.

  • Increase awareness of potential African American and Latino students who should be considered for identification







x

CEAC

Date:

10-27-10
















x

ELAC

Date:

10-27-10
















x

SSC

Date:

10-27-10



















Grade-level Teams

Date:






















Vertical Teams

Date:






















Departments

Date:






















WASC Focus Group

Date:



















x

Other:

Gifted Advisory

Date:

10-26 -10
















4.

CST Trends ELA



  • How does the proficiency rate in ELA vary over time?

  • How does the proficiency rate in ELA vary by subgroups?

  • What factors explain changes in proficiency over time?

The data revealed that the proficiency rate in ELA grew an average of 1.3% each year over the past 5 years. Latino and Socio-Economically Disadvantaged subgroup showed a higher improvement rate than schoolwide:

  • Latino subgroup improved 2.0% proficient/advanced

  • Socioeconomically disadvantaged students improved 2.0% in proficient/advance.

  • Last year 2009-2010 our African American subgroup improved by .1% but fell an average of .7% over the past 5 years.

  • With the exception of EL students and SWDs, there are no significant gaps within subgroups in comparison with schoolwide.

The factors that explain these differences are:



  • Increased in Culturally Relevant and Responsive Education

  • Targeted intervention for scocioeconomically disadvantaged students

  • Effective use of designed lessons

  • Standards based instruction

  • Effective use of data to drive instruction

  • Professional development on SDAIE

  • Effective use of technology /computer labs/lap top carts and LCD to support differentiated instruction

  • Teacher X time to develop and implement WOW initiative and SSR implementation

  • IMA to support differentiated instruction and intervention

  • Our African American population shrunk over time; 5 years ago 177 students tested and only 91 were tested this year.







x

CEAC

Date:

10-27-10
















x

ELAC

Date:

10-27-10
















x

SSC

Date:

10-27-10



















Grade-level Teams

Date:






















Vertical Teams

Date:



















x

Departments

Date:

9-2-10



















WASC Focus Group

Date:



















x

Other:

FACULTY

LEARN


Date:

8- 13-10

10-18-10


















5.

CST Trends Math



  • How does the proficiency rate in math vary over time?

  • How does the proficiency rate in math vary by subgroups?

  • What factors explain the changes in proficiency over time?

Despite drops in last year’s schoolwide in Math, the overall improvement over 5 years has been .8% per year.
The factors that explain these differences are:

  • Targeted intervention for scocioeconomically disadvantaged students

  • Effective use of designed lessons

  • Standards based instruction

  • Effective use of data to drive instruction,

  • Professional development on SDAIE




  • Our socio-economically disadvantaged students improved at a higher rate than schoolwide over 5 years, as did Latino, White, and African American. Our highest drop over 5 years is in the Asian subgroups.

Factors that explain these differences are:



  • IMA to support differentiated instruction and intervention

  • Additional support from Title 1 for professional development, supplemental materials, tutoring. effective use of data to drive to drive instruction,

  • Effective use of data to drive instruction.

  • The number in the Asian subgroup has dropped 50% over 5 years.

  • Algebra 1 continues to be the biggest academic challenge. Double-block courses with a foundations component will help improve scores in Algebra 1.

There is no significant gap between schoolwide and economically disadvantaged students.









x

CEAC

Date:

10-27-10
















x

ELAC

Date:

10-27-10
















x

SSC

Date:

10-27-10



















Grade-level Teams

Date:






















Vertical Teams

Date:



















x

Departments

Date:

9-2-10



















WASC Focus Group

Date:



















x

Other:

FACULTY

LEARN


Date:

8- 13 -10

10-18-10


















6.

California Standards Test




  • How would you compare CST performance by subject area and/or grade level?

  • Describe the change in proficiency observed across grade levels and subject areas.

  • What factors account for the difference across grade levels and subject areas?

Algebra 1 continues to be the biggest academic challenge. Other core content with significant number of students scoring BB/FBB are ELA grade 9, General Math, and Integrated Science.
In all but three subject areas (9th grade ELA, Geometry, and Algebra 1) there was an increase in Prof/Adv. In Physics, Chemistry, and World History, there were double digit decreases in BB/FBB. ELA continues to lead the subject area competition for the highest percentages of total students scoring at the Adv/Prof.
Factors that explain this information:

  • Overall, the behavior and attitude of the 9th grade students affected the academic focus during CST testing in 2009-2010.

  • HS Math students, often those students also studying for AP Exams, were approached and challenged to demonstrate their awareness of the importance of this exam, with 50% scoring Prof/Adv. and 0% FBB.

  • Chemistry and Physics teachers focused upon moving students from FBB to BB and above through review of standards

  • Effective use of SDAIE strategies in World History classes; teachers implemented department common assessments as well as district’s periodic assessment and district designed lessons, collaboration throughout the year, and warm-ups that mirrored CST exam questions.







x

CEAC

Date:

10-27-10
















x

ELAC

Date:

10-27-10
















x

SSC

Date:

10-27-10



















Grade-level Teams

Date:






















Vertical Teams

Date:



















x

Departments

Date:

9-2-10



















WASC Focus Group

Date:



















x

Other:

LEARN

FACULTY


Date:

10-18-10

8- 13-10



































7.

Course and Career Readiness (High Schools only)




  • What is the percentage of A-G enrollment?

  • How would you describe performance in A-G courses?

  • How does enrollment and performance vary by course area?

  • To what factors do you attribute the differences in enrollment and performance?

A-G enrollment in 2009-2010:

  • 9th 72.7%

  • 10th 53.8%

  • 11th 31.4%

  • 12th 41.7%

The factors that explain these differences are:


10th graders retaking Algebra 1 fall behind the A-G requirements. Physical Education, Life Skills, and Health are not A-G requirements, yet are LAUSD requirements. Students who fail the first semester of a foreign language also fall back into a non-A-G class during the second semester and begin Foreign Language again later in their HS career. The 11th grader % should improve; juniors now need to have both a second year of foreign language and Algebra 2.
There is a significant drop in the percentage of A-G classes passed with a C or better between 9th and 10th grade. There is significant higher percentage of students earning a C or better in A-G courses in 9th grade as compare to 12th grade. The data revealed that there’s a downward trend.
Generally the failure rate in mathematics, notably Algebra 1 in the ninth grade affects the A-G pass rate. Since students taking Algebra in the 10th grade, having failed in the 9th grade, also show as not enrolled in the full day of A-G classes, the Algebra 1 fail rate continues to affect our students.











CEAC

Date:






















ELAC

Date:






















SSC

Date:






















Grade-level Teams

Date:






















Vertical Teams

Date:






















Departments

Date:






















WASC Focus Group

Date:



















x

Other:

Counseling

Date:

10-19-10
















8.

Graduation Rate: CAHSEE Pass Rate (High Schools only)



  • How are pass rates changing over time by grade level?

  • To what do you attribute this change?

Continuing increases in CaHSEE pass rate in 2 of 3 grade levels.

  • The drop in CaHSEE scores in 12th grade does not reflect in the Graduation Rate. Our graduation rate continued to improve.

  • First time pass rate for both parts of the CaHSEE increased 2.1% last year. 11th grade pass rate increased 3.9% last year. Overall pass rate for 12th graders dropped by 2.7% from 2008-09.

  • Pass rate for 12th graders as of May, dropped to 90.9% as compared to 93.6% in 2008-09.

Changes attributed to:



  • CaHSEE Prep afterschool support classes have been cut. These had been very important to our success. However, our academic staff remained focused on providing instruction necessary for improvement.

  • Students are realizing the importance of completing a full essay with their exams. Increased focus on writing in ELA classes has helped focus our students.







x

CEAC

Date:

10-27-10
















x

ELAC

Date:

10-27-10
















x

SSC

Date:

10-27-10



















Grade-level Teams

Date:






















Vertical Teams

Date:



















x

Departments

Date:

9-2-10



















WASC Focus Group

Date:



















X

Other:

LEARN

FACULTY MEET



Date:

10-18-10

8- 13 -10


















9.

High School Completion (High Schools only)



  • How is the graduation rate changing over time?

  • How are drop-out rates changing over time?

  • What factors contribute to changes in the graduation rate?

Students continue to fall behind during the 9th grade year, making it difficult to complete their high school requirements in 4 years.

Many of the students who fall into the “drop out” designation are still actively completing their high school credits, but some are taking the courses through Adult School or Community College.




  • The school’s Graduation Rate is above the District Average. Between 07 and 08, it increased 1.8% to 84.9.

  • The drop-out rate is less than District Average. According to the 4 year Rate, we improved 4.6% between 07 and 08.

The factors that contributed to these changes are:



  • Continued emphasis on attendance improvement and improved Parent communication has contributed to the improvement. We will continue to run our Freshman Academy and LINK CREW activities to address the needs of the 9th graders to improve and be promoted to 10th grade in a timely manner.







x

CEAC

Date:

10-27-10
















x

ELAC

Date:

10-27-10
















x

SSC

Date:

10-27-10



















Grade-level Teams

Date:






















Vertical Teams

Date:



















x

Departments

Date:

9-2-10



















WASC Focus Group

Date:



















X

Other:

LEARN

FACULTY MEET



Date:

10-18-10

8- 13 -10


















10.

Safe Schools





  • How are suspension rates changing for students?

  • How are attendance rates changing for students and staff?

  • What factors contribute to the changes in suspension and attendance rates?

Our Dean’s Office used alternative methods instead of at-home suspensions as part of the Discipline Policy. There is an increase in student transience—1.9%.

  • Our suspension rates dropped 4.2% last year. There is not a significant difference in rates between subgroups. Staff and student attendance is affected by more than simple illness concerns. Overall, 87% of students reported feeling “safe” on the School Report Card. Staff attendance fell .5% last year. Attendance of students fell .2%.

Factors contributed to this change:



Unfortunately, the school suffered many significant loses during the school year. It seems that the need for absences was greater due to those issues as well as directives to stay home if ill due to H1N1.







x

CEAC

Date:

10-6-10
















x

ELAC

Date:

10-6-10
















x

SSC

Date:

10-6-10



















Grade-level Teams

Date:






















Vertical Teams

Date:



















x

Departments

Date:

9-2-10



















WASC Focus Group

Date:



















X

Other:

LEARN

FACULTY MEET



Date:

10-18-10

8- 13 -10


















11.

Parent Survey





  • What was the percentage of parents responding to the survey?

  • How many parents completed the survey?

  • How will you increase the number of parents responding to the survey?

  • What results from the survey will lead you to change your current practices?




More communication will be sent out to parents on alternative methods of response once we know parents have begun receiving the survey in the mail. Workshops on the parent survey and parent involvement will continue to be conducted by the Parent Center. In 2009-2010, 134 (21.9%) parents responded to the survey.
Not all parents received the 2009-2010 parent survey (it’s unclear how many surveys were sent out to Kennedy HS parents by the district). The school will take the following actions to increase the number of parents responding to the survey:

  • Send communication to parents through Connect Ed. to remind parents to complete the survey.

  • The Parent Center will call to remind parents of due date and hold workshops to assist parent in completing their survey.

  • Community Representatives in the Parent Center will help parents in completing online survey if the survey is available electronically.

  • Information on the parent survey will be posted online.






x

CEAC

Date:

10-6-10



















x

ELAC

Date:

10-6-10



















x

SSC

Date:

10-6-10



















Grade-level Teams

Date:






















Vertical Teams

Date:






















Departments

Date:






















WASC Focus Group

Date:



















x

Other:

Coffee with the Principal

LEARN


Date:

10-20-10
10-18-10
















12.

English Learners





  • How has the performance of English Learners on the CELDT change over times?

  • How as AYP proficiency change for English Learners?

  • How is the rate of reclassification changing?

  • What factors contribute to the changes in CELDT, AYP, and reclassification for English Learners?

  • Professional development is necessary for teachers to understand the various aspects of redesignation including the CST and Grade in ELA.

  • Students new to the country are still academically focused upon reclassification.

  • ESL coursework is preparing students for academic success and reclassification.

  • SDAIE instruction still not pervasive in all subject areas.

  • CELDT data indicated that 18% were eligible for reclassification in 2007/2008, 14.1% in 2008/2009 and 13.2% in 2009-2010. Most students that are unable to reclassify are due to low CST scores (basic or below) and not meeting the overall score of 4 or more on the CELDT. The majority of ELs scored at Intermediate level with only 8% scored early advance or above.

  • The AYP proficient rate for ELs in English was 25.1%, a 2.1% growth. The math proficient rate was 27.5%, a 3.2% growth. Percentage rates were not enough to meet the AYP criteria.

  • CST data revealed that EL students are having difficulty meeting the CA State Standards in English. 32% of ELs scored BB and 53% scored FBB.

The following factors contributed to the changes for ELs reclassification:

  • Low CELDT scores; most scored less than 4 overall.

  • Some eligible ELs received a D or less in English preventing them from reclassifying.

  • EL population decreased, the rate of reclassification also decreased.

  • ELs intervention classes seemed to be unsuccessful for some long term ELs.







x

CEAC

Date:

10-6-10



















x

ELAC

Date:

10-6-10



















x

SSC

Date:

10-6-10



















Grade-level Teams

Date:






















Vertical Teams

Date:



















x

Departments

Date:

9-2-10



















WASC Focus Group

Date:



















X

Other:

LEARN

FACULTY MEET



Date:

10-18-10















12.


English Learners



  • How has the reclassification rate changed over time?

  • EL students did not meet the AMAO 1, although there’s an annual growth of 47.1%. In AMAO 2, EL students’ Eng. Proficiency rate was 21.4% for those students new to the country. ELs did not meet the reclassification target for ELs (5years or more) (34.2%)—target was 41.3%.

  • The reclassification rate has dropped over the past three years. With the decrease in number of EL students in the past few years, we are working with fewer students. Non-proficient students continued to be a concern.

  • Data indicated that 11% to 18% of eligible ELs are meeting the district’s progress benchmarks for EL to reclassify (time in program 6+ years). Data also indicated that students that are classified as ELs for more than 6 years have difficulties in meeting the criteria for reclassification due to low CST scores. Only 16.2% scored proficient on the ELA; 84% did not meet the state’s proficiency goal. The RFEP rate in 2007-08 was 17.7%, 2008-09 was 16%, and in 2009-10 13%.

  • The Reclassification Rate for EL has dropped 4.4% in the past two years.

Teachers need to understand the reclassification process and requirements. Kennedy HS strives to provide professional development to teachers to focus on:

  • Good first teaching and SDAIE strategies / Thinking Maps

  • Departments to review and discuss EL CST and CELDT data

  • Provide in-class and after-school intervention

  • Monitor closely all the English Language Skills intervention classes

  • Review the RFEP monitoring roster

  • Monitor sheltered classrooms for consistent implementation of SDAIE strategies.

  • Monitor High Point ELD implementation in ESL classrooms







x

CEAC

Date:

10-6-10
















x

ELAC

Date:

10-6-10
















x

SSC

Date:

10-6-10



















Grade-level Teams

Date:






















Vertical Teams

Date:



















x

Departments

Date:

9-2-10



















WASC Focus Group

Date:



















X

Other:

LEARN

FACULTY MEET



Date:

10-18-10

8- 13 -10


















Content Strand Data

(if applicable)





  • What conclusions may be drawn based on grade level data and content strands?

CaHSEE Data:

  • ELA:  Writing Applications (53.9% correct) and Writing Strategies (58.3% correct) are the two lowest strands;

  • Mathematics: Algebra 1 (49.3%) and Measurement and Geometry (55.2% correct) are the two lowest strands;

CST Data:

  • ELA:  In 9th grade, the lowest strand is Literary Response (51.7%), but there is improvement in both 10th (57.8% correct) and 11th grade (56.3% correct); Writing Strategies is the second lowest strand in 9th grade (55.2% correct), with an improvement in 10th grade to 58.9% correct and 11th grade 61.2% correct.

  • Mathematics: Our lowest levels of achievement are in Algebra I.  Within Algebra: Functions and Rational Expression is the lowest strand in all grade levels (34.9%, 29.8%, 33.6% respectively).

  • Algebra II: Probability and Statistics is the lowest strand in all grade levels (58.2%, 49.6 %, and 41.2%).

  • Geometry: no obvious strands are of concern.

     Science:

  • Biology: The lowest strand is Cell Biology (50.9%, 50.0%, and 46.5% correct).Overall, a 49.7% correct.

  • Chemistry: Chemical Reactions (44.4%, 49.3%, and 46.7% correct), overall 47% correct.

  • Physics: Heat and Thermodynamics was the lowest strand at 42.8% correct.

   Social Science:

  • World History:  The strand with the lowest percentage correct was: International Development/Post WWII Era at 56.5% correct, however that is over 10% higher than the LAUSD average.

  • US History: Foundations of American Political and Soc Thought was the strand with the lowest score of 56.2% correct.

Data driven standards based instruction will continue to be implemented in the core classrooms; teachers will provide differentiated instruction through the use of Thinking Maps and SDAIE strategies, and monitor students’ academic progress using district periodic assessments and department assessments.








x

CEAC

Date:

10-6-10
















x

ELAC

Date:

10-6-10
















x

SSC

Date:

10-6-10



















Grade-level Teams

Date:






















Vertical Teams

Date:



















x

Departments

Date:

9-2-10






















Date:

























LEARN

FACULTY MEET



Date:

10-18-10

8- 13 -10


















Other Data



What conclusions may be drawn based on additional data?

  • What conclusions may be drawn based on additional data?





























COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT TO DETERMINE KEY FINDINGS

High Schools


Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) Recommendations (high schools only):







List the WASC Recommendations that correspond with the Key Findings in the data page (if applicable).

A. Key issues for Organization:



  • There is a need to broaden the use of technology in all core academic areas to help bridge the achievement gap

  • Continue collaboration and communication among the different stakeholders, especially in the areas of data analysis to drive instruction

B. Standards-Based Student Learning: Curriculum:



  • The school needs to continue increasing enrollment in honors and AP classes

  • There is a need to increase academic success for all students to continue the increase of the graduation rate

  • There is a need to broaden the use of technology in all core academic areas to help bridge the achievement gap

  • Implement additional staff development opportunities that utilize research-based instructional strategies to strengthen the delivery of curriculum

C. Standards-Based Student Learning: Instruction



  • Implement additional staff development opportunities that utilize research-based instructional strategies to strengthen the delivery of curriculum

  • Increase availability of intervention classes within the school day to close skills gaps for students who perform far below basic and below basic on the CST and/or have not passed one or more sections of the CAHSEE

  • Increase the personalization and academic rigor for all students through SLC’s

D. Standards-Based Learning: Assessment and Accountability:



  • Increase the personalization and academic rigor for all students through SLCs.

  • Implement additional staff development opportunities that utilize research-based instructional strategies to strengthen the delivery of curriculum

  • Analysis of disaggregated data needs to be extended across all course offerings

E. School Culture and Support for Student Personal and Academic Growth



  • Continue collaboration and communication among the different stakeholders, especially in the area of data analysis to drive instruction

  • Student access to school counselors needs to be increased

  • Increase personalization and academic rigor for all students through SLCs

  • Seek was to increase the school-wide effectiveness of homeroom

School-wide Critical Areas for Follow-Up (list numerically)



  1. Implement additional staff development opportunities that utilize research-based instructional strategies to strengthen the delivery of curriculum

  2. Increase personalization and academic rigor for all students through SLCs.

  3. There is a need to broaden the use of technology in all core academic areas to help bridge the achievement gap

  4. Continue collaboration and communication among the different stakeholders, especially in the area of data analysis to drive instruction.




When page expands, update the Table of Contents.

Update Table of Contents if page is deleted.

Analysis of School Experience Survey for Parents
Compile the results of the School Experience Survey for Parents and use the chart below to summarize your findings. List the corresponding two or three activities from each part that the school has selected as areas of improvement. These areas of improvement will become Key Findings and serve as the basis for the Parent and Community Engagement Accountability Matrix. Resources to develop the findings are on the following pages.





























Survey participation rate




22%

Number of parents participating in the survey

134










Schools not meeting minimum 50% participation rate or achieving 10% participation rate growth from 2009 must identify strategies to meet the targets
The school will use Connect Ed. as well as phone calls from the Parent Center to remind parents of the survey and its due date. Announcements will be made at parent advisory and support groups to encourage parents about the importance of the survey and its relevancy to the parent involvement. Copy of the survey will be posted in the Parent Center to inform parents of the date they will be expected to receive the survey in the mail. In addition, the Parent Center Community Liaisons/Representatives will host workshops to help parents complete the survey online in the Parent Center.







Types of Parent Involvement

Surveyed Activities

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Opportunities for Involvement

1. The school informs me about academic services available to help my child.

5

10

46

34

2. The school offers training and workshops I can use to help my child learn.

3

8

46

35
















Welcoming Environment

1. I feel that any problem I have at the school will be solved quickly.


8


11


55


22


2. Staff members at the school take my complaints and suggestions seriously.

7


6


53


21

















Parent Center

1. I know where the parent center is.


2

10

26

33

2. The parent center is open at times I can visit.


4

11

32

26
















Safety

1. My child is safe in the neighborhood around the school.


3

12

56

20

2. My child is safe on school ground.


5

12

56

22




Types of Parent Involvement

Surveyed Activities

Never

Some-times

Often

Always

Home Involvement

1. I share stories with my child about when I was in school.

5

25

36

35

2. I spent time with my child on educational activities.

5

25

48

22
















School Involvement

1. I talk with the teachers about my child’s schoolwork.


13

57

21

9

2. I talk with the teachers about how I can help my child learn at home.


20

52

22

6

When page expands, update the Table of Contents.

Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) Evaluation
Linking Goals, Strategies, and Actions from the SPSA to Increased Student Achievement
Directions: Answer the questions below in small groups/committees to consider if the strategies, actions and expenditures written in the SPSA are increasing students’ achievement.
1a. Examine the data that has been downloaded.


  • What is the overall rate of growth over the last 5 years for the proficient or advanced proficient group in English/Language Arts?

(If the overall rate has grown by at least 10%, answer question 1b. If the overall rate has not increased by 10%, answer question 1c)

5.1%.


  • What is the overall rate of growth over the last 5 years for the proficient or advanced proficient group in mathematics?

(If the overall rate has grown by at least 10%, answer question 1b. If the overall rate has not increased by 10%, answer question 1c)

5.7%
1c. Which of the expenditures did not increase growth in the proficient or the advanced proficient group and therefore will no longer be funded?
In 2009-2010 $15,000 was budgeted in 70A56 and $5,000 in 7V094 for Staff Conference Attendance. All stakeholders recognize the importance of Professional Development through conference attendance for teachers. However, due to budget constraints, the school district placed a freeze on Conference Attendance and many English and math teachers were unable to attend scheduled conferences. Cuts are made in this line item for 2010-2011 budget. In addition, categorical funds will not be used to renew the subscription of the school website—jfkcougars.org. Due to budget cuts, the council decided to limit the funding for student work stations or computers to the classrooms and will not fund auxiliaries. Lastly, it must be noted that all stakeholders strongly believe that the increase in class size in the core subjects will not improve test scores or learning in the classroom.
2. How did research-based professional development [70A56 and 70V94 (if applicable)] lead to academic growth? (For PI Schools only)
Although the school overall rate of growth over the last five years did not meet the District’s 10% growth target, the CST data revealed that there is significant growths in both English and Math. The overall growth for English is 5.1 % over the last five years. There’s also a growth of 5.0% from 2007-08 to 2008-2009 school year. The data also show that all the subgroups made gains in 2008-2009 with Socio-Economically Disadvantage students having the high increase in score (6.1% change in one year); and ELA 9th graders had an impressive 7.5% growth. This is attributed to the ongoing professional development in the English Department.
The English Coach collaborated with the English Department Chair and the Title One Office to host a series of trainings and meetings after the regular work day to review and implement the Program Improvement plan as noted in the Single Plan for Student Achievement. The professional developments focused on vocabulary development and writing strategy and application. The teachers implemented the Schoolwide Vocabulary Intiative, discussed the CST data and released questions and best practices, differentiated instruction such as SDAIE strategies, writing strategies and literary analysis. The teachers also analyzed the disaggregated data using MyData to determine areas of weakness and plan intervention. Some teachers were also trained in using Discovery Education to differitiate instruction through the use of powerpoint presentation. Additionally, the teachers met to plan for the CAHSEE and administered the CAHSEE Diagnostic Test, reviewed the results and recommended intervention for struggling students. On the CST, 10th grade ELA made the lowest gains in one year (1.6% growth) and this is a concern. As a result, the department will continue to meet by grade level to review CST released test items and design lessons to reflect the CST questions.
For math, the CST data also revealed that there is a significant growth in the overall rate in the last five years—5.7%. All subgroups’ test results grew with African American and Socio-Economically Disadvantage students making the biggest increase—7.6%. African American students and Socio-Economically Disadvantaged students also had the highest one-year change (2007-08 to 2008-09) in scores—5.0% for African American and 4.6% for Socio-Economically Disadvantaged students. This academic growth is as a result of the ongoing professional development in the Math Department.
The Math Coach and the Math Department Chair with the support from the Title One and Bilingual Office hosted a series of trainings and meetings after the regular work day to implement the Program Improvement plan. Teachers were trained in using MyData; they extracted and reveiewed their students’ scores to plan and adjust lessons. They discussed best practices and review model lessons. They met as a department and also by course subject and designed common assessments for every math subject offered by the school. The Math Coach and Math Dept. Chair met with teachers every Tuesday and some Saturdays to review instructional strategies for Algebra One, reviewed, revised, and aligned the pacing plan to the new textbook and the State standards. During their professional development meetings, the teachers examined the State’s released test questions and identified math test vocabulary to be embedded into their daily lessons. They were also trained in writing test questions to reflect the CST and CAHSEE. The Math Coach also trained the Algebra One teachers and provided model lessons to be implemented in all Algebra One classes. Prior to the implementation of the District Periodic Assessment, the math teachers met to review and discuss content standards most emphasized on the CST. Review strategies and warm-up questions were created and implemented. The teachers also reviewed the District Periodic Assessment results and then revised their instruction to address areas of weakness and to mentor struggling students. Algebra One intervention and curriculum were then designed and made available to at-risk students. Other academic interventions include CAHSEE Preparation classes, Pull Out Program for both English and math, CAHSEE After School Program funded by the Title One Program, and the After School Tutoring Program that offered tutoring services for core subjects including all math subjects/levels.

3. What other evidence (ie. other performance data) exists that shows an increase in student learning?
The District Periodic Assessment data revealed that many students acquired the CA content standards and met the District’s benchmarks. Also, the departments’ assessment and chapter tests demonstrated that learning occurred in the classrooms. This is reflected in the school’s five week, ten week, and fifteen week progress reports. The School Report Card also revealed that Kennedy High School’s 10th grade students had a greater average (50%) than the District (49%) to be promoted to the next grade level. Kennedy High School’s 10th graders also out performed the District with a 67% pass rate verses 61% for the District. Lastly, the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) data revealed that 32% of Kennedy High School English learners met English proficiency while only 27% of EL students tested proficiency for the District.
4. Using local data (parent trainings, parent volunteers, parent centers, etc.), describe the expenditures from 7E046 and 709V4 that resulted in increased parental involvement.
A Parent Center Community Representative is funded with 7E046 budget. To increase parental involvement, the Parent Center hosted a series of workshops, trainings, and classes that focused on California State Standards Tests for all core subjects. Other workshops were on the Title One Program, high school graduation requirements, post secondary education and financial aid, CAHSEE requirements, drug and gang prevention, and coping with H1N1. The center also offered parent education classes such as Parent Back in Control, Parent In Action, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, Parent Book Club, and Parent Institute for Quality Education. Parents who completed the cardiopulmonary resuscitation class received certification from the Red Cross. Many parents also participated in the “Coffee with the Principal” to get the latest news from the school’s principal. They also volunteered in the Parent Center or are members of the PTSA, Council of Council, PHABO, Booster Club, BPAC, CEAC, ELAC, and SSC. These committees are an integral part of the school; they give parents opportunities to work with other stakeholders to improve the school’s education programs.
The Parent Center and parent volunteers continued to support the school in its effort to raise test scores. The following are Kennedy High School’s Parent Center tradition:

1. Parent volunteers raise money for the “Power Breakfast”—providing all students with a

nutritious meal before the administration of the CST.

2. Parent volunteers plan and host the “Teacher Appreciation Luncheon”.

These events demonstrate the spirit of parental involvement at Kennedy High School and validate the parents’ appreciation of the services provided by the teachers and school staff.
5. What changes in strategies/activities including budget will occur ?
All stakeholders believe that the increase in class size in the core subjects will negatively affect the school’s test scores. The school will lower class size through the purchase of seven additional teachers using Title One funds. Title One funds will also pay for two days of the school nurse who will provide supplemental health services to students, parent in-service trainings including workshops, and staff development and training on health related issues. The Title One Office will continued to fund two half-time coaches (Math and English) to work with the Math and English departments to improve instruction and test scores. With budget cuts, the school will lose three counselors. This will dramatically impact the ratio for counselor to students. To offset this, Title One funds have been approved to acquire two counselors.
It is believed that with lower class size teachers can better serve their students with a variety of instructional techniques. Students will also benefit and positively affect the school’s test scores since they will receive differentiated instruction and more feedback from their teachers. In addition, students will also have greater access and receive more effective counseling services with a lower counselor-student ratio. These are the school’s efforts, in a tough economic time period, to improve the educational experience of all students.

DISTRICT AND SCHOOL INSTRUCTIONAL PRIORITIES





All schools are required to address the priorities (listed below) established in the District’s Program Improvement Local Education Agency Year 3—Corrective Action Plan. High Schools may add the Expected Schoolwide Learning Results (ESLRs) that address the instructional priorities.



1

Maximize the impact of core instruction for all students as described in the District Core Program for All Students on pages 8 to 10.





2


John F. Kennedy High School Graduates will be
Effective Communicators who will:

  • Write and speak clearly and coherently

  • Read for comprehension

  • Listen for understanding

  • Use technology proficiently and appropriately


Effective Thinkers who will:

  • Apply prior knowledge to new situations

  • Probe for further understanding

  • Analyze, evaluate, and interpret

  • Find innovative solutions to problems


Effective Team Players who will:

  • Work in a group toward a common goal

  • Commit to a quality group effort

  • Offer support to others

  • Show respect to themselves and others

Responsible Individuals who will:

  • Exercise self-discipline

  • Take responsibility for their own learning

  • Resolve conflicts effectively

  • Focus on post-secondary education and career goals





District and School Program Improvement Professional Development Priorities



1

Provide professional development to assist local district and school-site staff with full implementation of the District’s Framework for Response to Instruction and Intervention (RtI2).








2

Use data to ensure instruction is provided at the intensity necessary for all students to succeed.











3

Implement curriculum-based measures (i.e., Progress Monitoring) to inform instruction and maximize student exposure to that instruction.











4



Title I and Title III professional development allocations must be used to support the training needed for teachers and paraprofessionals to implement the exit priorities.



Update the Table of Contents when the page expands to a second page.

Los Angeles Unified School District Accountability Matrix
The goals have been provided as targets for guiding the schools and resources to ensure that all students graduate, are college prepared and career ready in accordance with California Accountability Workbook and as approved by the United States Department of Education.

.

AYP Goals For High Academic Achievement

Annual Measurable Achievement Objective (AMAO) Goals:

  • AMAO 1: 54.6% EL students will score in the appropriate performance range on the CELDT in 2010-11; 56.0% EL students will score … in 2011-12

  • AMAO 2: 43.2% EL students (5 years or more) will score in the appropriate performance range on the CELDT in 2010-11; 45.1% EL students will score … in 2011-12

  • AMAO 2: 18.7% EL students (less than 5 years) will score in the appropriate performance range on the CELDT in 2010-11; 20.1% EL students will score … in 2011-12

  • AMAO 3—ELA: 67.0% EL students will score in the appropriate performance range on the CST for ELA in 2010-11; 78.0% EL students will score … in 2011-12

  • AMAO 3—Math: 67.3% EL students will score in the appropriate performance range on the CST for Math in 2010-11; 78.2% EL students will score … in 2011-12




* Participation Rate:

  • The school will achieve a 95% participation rate for all state assessments.

* API (Academic Performance Index):

  • All schools will meet the API goal of 710 for the 2010-11 school year or for schools at or above 710 increase by 1 point from the previous year. The API goal for 2011-2012 is 740 or for schools at or above 740 show a 1 point growth from the previous year

* Proficiency Rate:

Elementary and Middle Schools—ELA:

  • The percentage of students scoring proficient or above on the California Standards Test (CST) and the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) in English/ language arts 2010-11 will equal or exceed 67.6% and for 2011-12 will equal or exceed 78.4%.

Elementary and Middle Schools—Math:

  • The percentage of students scoring proficient or above on the California Standards Test (CST) and the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) in Mathematics 2010-11 will equal or exceed 68.5% and for 2011-12 will equal or exceed 79.0%.

High Schools—ELA:

  • The percentage of students scoring proficient or above on the 10th grade administration of the CAHSEE and the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) in English/ language arts for 2010-11 will be equal or exceed 66.7% and for 2011-12 will equal or exceed 77.8%.

High Schools—Math:

  • The percentage of students scoring proficient or above on the 10th grade administration of the CAHSEE and the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) in Mathematics for 2010-11 will be equal or exceed 66.1% and for 2011-12 will equal or exceed 77.4%.

* Graduation Rate:




  • Comprehensive high schools with grade level data have their 2010 graduation rates calculated using standard procedures. The graduation rate goal for all schools is 90% beginning with the 2010 AYP. Also beginning with the 2010 AYP, the new growth target structure requires all schools to meet the 90% goal by 2019 AYP.


Option 1: Have a 2010 graduation rate of at least 90.00 Option 2: Meet its 2010 fixed growth target rate Option 3: Meet its 2010 variable growth target rate





Goals For Accountability Matrix

Personalization / College Career Readiness:

  • All schools will provide a rigorous standards-based instruction to all students.

  • All students will have equitable access to a rigorous standards-based college preparatory curriculum.

  • District will align and articulate pre-K-12 and postsecondary expectations.

  • Continuous communication with parents/guardians regarding student progress.

  • All schools will promote and sustain an academically rigorous, student-centered environment that facilitates positive relationships among students, staff, and parents/guardians.

  • All schools have structures and programs in place that result in students feeling that the staff members know who they are and that they care about them.

School Organization and Support Structure Goals:

  • All schools will be organized e.g., master schedule, to support the academic needs of students.

  • All schools’ support structures and resource allocations reflect a shared commitment to preparing students for college and career success.



Safe Schools



  • School must implement LAUSD Discipline Policy.

  • 80% of Staff and students must meet 96% attendance target each month.




Parent Engagement

  • There are opportunities for parent involvement.

  • Parents feel welcome at this school.

  • There is a high level of reported involvement at the school, as indicated on the annual School Experience Survey for Parents (School Report Card).


Share with your friends:
  1   2


The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2019
send message

    Main page