Issuu on Google+

Race to the Top Scope of Work Narratives & Action Plans

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 111


RACE TO THE TOP SCOPE OF WORK NARRATIVES AND ACTION PLANS Instructions I. General information As noted in the introduction to this Guidance, the LEA Race to the Top Scopes of Work and Action Plans are now integrated into the Master Plan Annual Update process. For 2011, LEAs should begin with the section goals in the original Scopes of Work, as amended, if applicable. The narratives, action plans, and project budgets are expected to be fully detailed for Year Two. The time period covered by each Scopes of Work section should adhere to the federal fiscal year timeline (October 1, 2011 – September 30, 2012). The project budget documents are submitted separately with the Master Plan Annual Update finance section. II. Section Narratives Each section narrative should provide an overview of the alignment with the State’s Race to the Top plan, incorporate the required activities listed in the Memorandum of Understanding, and establish section-specific, measurable goals. If an activity includes a project budget, and that activity/project is intended to continue beyond the scope of the grant, the narrative must include the source for ongoing funding. The section narratives should include detailed information on Year Two activities and the expected progress toward the goals for the section. III. Action Plans For year two, each action plan should contain action-oriented activities or tasks designed to occur (begin, continue and/or be completed) in year two in support of the goals for the section. One suggested way to be sure activities are action oriented is to begin with a verb and a product (align, develop, create, implement; curriculum, training, professional development). Action-oriented activities are measurable by task-specific accomplishments (staff hired, equipment purchased, training sessions held, documents available). Action Plan Column Definitions a. Activities/Tasks – Specific activities/ tasks designed to accomplish the goals established for the section. b. Correlation to State Plan – Use the section and subsection codes to show where the activity aligns with the State Plan. c. Project # -- If there is a Project Budget associated with this activity, include the previously identified project number. Note: each project budget must be associated with an activity and/or activities in an action plan. d. Timeframe – Specifically describe the time frame for this activity, including the expected start and completion dates. e. Key Personnel – List the LEA employees who will be responsible for the activity. f. Performance Measures – Action-oriented and/or evidence that indicates that the intended outcome(s) were achieved g. Recurring Expense -- Indicate here if the project budget associated with this activity will occur beyond the scope of the grant and as such require ongoing funding. If the LEA indicates that there are recurring funding needs at the conclusion of the grant period, it must specify in its narrative exactly what those recurring expenses will be and propose an ongoing funding source.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 112


Section A: State Success Factors Prince George's County Race to the Top Primary Assurance: Narrative: Prince George’s County Public Schools supports the state’s efforts to create a world class educational system in which all students are career and college ready. The district has created five goals which include high student achievement, highly effective teaching, safe and supportive schools, strong community and parent partnerships and efficient operations. Each of the goals is supported by metrics that mirror the state’s goals: 100% of all high school seniors career and college ready as evidenced by participation in advanced courses and/or certification classes, advanced performance on state and national exams, and overall school performance. Through the adoption of the Common Core Standards and continued collaborations with partners such as College Board, the University of Pittsburgh’s Institute for Learning, and the Breakthrough Center, the district seeks to build a strong academic program with appropriate supports. PGCPS has no projects under Section A of Race to the Top; however, it has agreed to participate in the national and statewide evaluation of the program. Action Plan: Section A Goal(s): N/A Section A: State Success Factors

Correlation to State Plan

Project #

Start Date

End Date

Key Personnel

Performance Measures

Recurring Expense: Y/N

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

MOU Requirements: (No) Additional Required Activities 1. Cooperate with national and statewide evaluation Tasks/Activities: 1. 2. 3. 4.

5.

Year 3 Goals: ƒ ƒ Year 4 Goals: ƒ ƒ

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 113


SECTION B: STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENTS Page ƒ ƒ

ƒ

Race to the Top Scope of Work Update Core Content Areas □ Reading □ Mathematics □ Science □ Social Studies □ High School Assessments □ Graduation Requirements Cross-Cutting Themes and Specific Student Groups in Bridge to Excellence □ Educational Technology □ Education that is Multicultural □ English Language Learners □ Career and Technology Education □ Early Learning □ Gifted and Talented Education □ Special Education

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

115 119 120 128 134 139 142 164 168 168 182 197 206 218 229 242

Page | 114


SECTION B: STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENTS Section B: Standards and Assessments (B)(3) Narrative: Through Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate Ready (AP & IB Ready), and dual enrollment courses, PGCPS proposes to substantially increase the number of high school graduates – particularly students from historically underrepresented subgroups – who are prepared to gain admission to and successfully matriculate through college by accessing and meeting with success in AP, IB, and dual enrollment courses while still in high school. Alignment with State Plan The four main areas of Prince George’s County’s RTTT Plan are substantially aligned with the state’s plan. The state’s and the system’s area one reform plan focuses on preparing students for successful entry into and matriculation through college upon high school graduation. PGCPS has embraced the State of Maryland’s adoption of the national Common Core Standards and is revising all curriculum documents to reflect such. In addition, the state has established ambitious academic achievement goals as measured through student performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Reading and Mathematics assessments, state MSA Reading and Mathematics assessments, High School Assessments (HSAs), and graduation rate and college entry and matriculation targets. Prince George’s county ups the ante by establishing ambitious goals for high school student enrollment and success in Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) courses and exams. SUCCESSES Successes for the year include the completion of the College Board diagnostic and payment for AP and IB exams for the district. PGCPS also held an initial meeting with IBNA to discuss a diagnostic for its IB programs and to look at how the system could get data reports sent to the systemic level. PGCPS was honored by the College Board as being one of 388 school systems nationwide to be placed on its AP Achievement list for significantly broadening the pool of students taking AP courses while maintaining or improving the percentage of students earning a score of “3” or better on AP exams. From SY2009-10, PGCPS increased the number of students participating in AP from 27% to 35% of seniors enrolled while the percentage of exams scoring a “3” or better grew from 24.6% in SY2008-09 to 26.3% in SY2009-10. Eleanor Roosevelt was recognized as having an exemplary AP program for the State of Maryland for having significant numbers of black/African American and/or Hispanic /Latino students succeeded in particular AP subjects: AP Biology, AP Chemistry, AP English Lang & Comp, and AP English Literature and Comp. The development of the first College Board- and MSDE-approved in house online AP courses was completed in SY2010-11 with the selection of five (5) courses to be offered next year online to students from any high school in the school system. There was a selection and training of current AP teachers in the use of the Moodle and Hippocampus programs that will be used to teach the course in the fall of 2011. The AP courses being offered are: AP Environmental Science, AP Calculus AB, AP Calculus BC, AP US History, AP American Government & Politics. CHALLENGES Challenge: PGCPS needs to identify strategies for raising the scores and thus the number of diplomas produced at the IB high school level and the number of students passing with a score of “3” or higher in AP courses and identifying teachers who are prepared to teach AP and IB courses. With staff turnover we have lost many veteran teachers. Response:

A survey will be conducted of all staff to assess their professional development needs. We will meet our challenges by working with district partners including universities, the College Board and sister districts to identify successful strategies for implementation.

Challenge:

The District Diagnostic discovered that in order to build a school culture, we need to train all teachers in a school – including those in elementary and middle school – on expectations for the college and career ready graduate.

Response:

ˆ Professional development plans will be modified to include pre-AP and pre-IB teachers PreK-8.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 115


ˆ In partnership with the College Board, the College Going Culture Committee launched a system wide advisory last year in using the College Ed materials in 22 high schools grades 9-12. Student end-of-year evaluations were generally very positive about the information on college readiness and admission that they gained. ˆ The Individualized Learning Plan committee developed a new instrument for tracking student postsecondary preparation. – i.e. the Pupil Educational Plan (PEP). The form will be able to be used electronically and counselors will be able access it for review and updating during their PEP talk with parents and students in grades K,3,5,7, 9, and 11. ˆ A curriculum writing committee was formed and the SAT Prep course got updated with college admissions information and tasks added to the college admission test prep activities. There is an emphasis on skills and using online programs for higher rigor and more student engagement. The new course will be called College Prep. A team of veteran SAT prep teachers and counselors will complete the new curriculum by the end of August and it will be used in a trial basis in a few volunteer high schools and the Middle College program. ˆ An office was formed called College and Career Ready that coordinates all the programs and grants that support the mission of graduating students college and career ready. Challenge:

The level of student writing and reading is not where it needs to be in order to raise AP exam scores.

Response:

The AP Summer Bridge program was rewritten to focus on the college level writing skill development and complex text reading strategies. Approximately 150 students from the five (5) Smaller Learning Community (SLC) schools attended the program. Feedback from attending students indicated that they felt their writing improved and it was well worth their time. In the future, the school system plans to expand the program to four (4) or five (5) regional centers, opening the program to all interested students from across the school district.

Challenge:

Very little training was provided for AP teachers in 2010-11 due to budget constraints. Teachers who had never been to any training were teaching AP courses.

Response:

PD is the main focus of the performance targets for the College and Career Department this year. RTTT money was used to send 29 teachers to training during the summer of 2011. AP teachers will be surveyed for a history of their training in order to do a triage and train as many as possible this year. Professional Learning Communities will also be started next year in each of the AP subject areas.

Challenge:

Uneven access to technology across school sites negatively impacts the equitable access of all students to the newly developed online SAT Prep course, “College Ed”.

Response:

The Office of College and Career Ready will work closely with the Division of Instructional Technology to increase the number of students taking AP courses online.

Plan:

The system commits to develop a digital lab in each school, staffed by an instructional lab technician, that can be used throughout the regular school day and in the evenings for AP online courses, credit recovery online courses, AVP projects, and SAT and ACT practice and support programs.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 116


Section B

Year of the Grant (circle one)

1 2

3

4

1

1

1

(B)(3)

(B)(3)

Project #

(B)(3)

(B)(3)

Correlation to State Plan

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

MOU Requirements: (Yes) Activities to Implement MOU Requirements 1. Develop college action plans for all middle and high school students as a pa0rt of the Individualized Learning Plan (ILP) and provide support for success with AP/IB courses ƒ Establish support systems to assist AP students in obtaining passing exam scores ƒ Pay for the AP/IB Exams for all students to insure access ƒ Provide student support through summer bridge and extended learning opportunities ƒ Provide tutoring services to at-risk students ƒ Utilize the AP Potential of PSAT to encourage more course enrollment in AP. ƒ We will work with each school to provide content reviews prior to the assessments beginning April 2012 2. Expand AP offerings from 8 to 16 in every high school and identify a cohort of teachers and online resources ( schools with enrollments below 1100 will have less than 16 courses ƒ Increase the number of students prepared to take the AP/IB courses with a particular focus on African-American Males and Hispanic students ƒ Create a cohort of teachers to provide on-line AP courses 3. Provide professional development for teachers, counselors and administrators ƒ AP Achievement Institute 1English and Social Studies Teachers ƒ AP Achievement Institute 2 Mathematics and Science ƒ AP Achievement Institute 3 Middle and High School Teachers ƒ Building the foundation for College Readiness ƒ Strengthening you College Readiness Infrastructure ƒ Institutionalizing a College Readiness Culture ƒ Counseling tools for College and Career Readiness

Section B: High Standards and Quality Assessments

2017.

7/2011- 6/2012

8/2011 – 6/2012

10/2011 – 6/2012

Timeline

Gladys Whitehead C and I

David Eagle HSC

Gladys Whitehead C and I

David Eagle HSC

Diana Kendrick IB

David Eagle HSC

Janice Briscoe Student Services

Key Personnel

Page | 117

Evaluation from the Professional Development System

Average increase in offerings per high school

Increase in number of students with access to AP Exams

Performance Measure

N

N

N

Recurring Expense: Y/N

1. Increase the number of seniors with AP and IB courses in course history to 75%, from the present level of 35% seniors by 2017. 2. Increase the percentage of students scoring a 3 or better on AP exams and a 4 or better on IB exams to 50% of test takers, from the present level of 25% of test takers to 50% by 2017. 3. Increase the percentage of students scoring a 3 or better on AP exams and a 4 or better on IB exams to 50% of test takers of test takers, from the present level of 28% of test takers to 50% by

Goal(s):

Action Plan:


1

(B)(3)

9/2011 – 6/2012

7/2011 – 6/2012

8/20112/2012 9/2011 - 6/2012, Audit Revisions

Timeline

Briant Coleman Communications

Diana Kendrick IB

Paul Mazza Testing Gladys Whitehead C and I

Key Personnel

Race to the Top Scope of Work Update

Section B – Standards & Assessments

1

1

(B)(3)

(B)(3)

1

Project #

(B)(3)

Correlation to State Plan

Community survey feedback to gauge

Student benchmark data and completion of expansion

Measure of alignment

Performance Measure

N

N

N

Recurring Expense: Y/N

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

The responses to these questions can be found in Section G, on page 343.

Page | 118

MSDE Clarifying Question(s): Question: 1. Is there a plan for sustaining proposed projects if there is a recurring expense attached to the plan? 2. Given the number of training dates, are these release dates, or dates where substitutes would be needed? If so, the allocation should reflect this. Please clarify

ƒ Empowering School Counselors to be Change Agents ƒ Using Data to Create Urgent Change in Equity 4. Develop pre and post tests in AP Government as part of a multiple measure pilot 5. Conduct a curriculum audit of college readiness path way courses Advanced Placement courses to identify essential learning experience and work on curriculum alignment ƒ Revise SAT curriculum and alignment 6. Strengthen the support of existing IB schools and expand one high school from middle years to a diploma program ƒ Collaborate with IB North America to perform a diagnostic on the existing programs ƒ Develop benchmarks for IB Mathematics Studies and IB English ƒ Provide professional development for teachers and administrators ƒ Provide summer support for students ƒ Increase diploma candidates Additional Required Activities: 1. Develop parent involvement and outreach programs

Section B: High Standards and Quality Assessments


CORE CONTENT AREAS Reading, Mathematics, Science, High School Assessments No Child Left Behind Goal 1: By 2013-2014, all students will reach high standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading/language arts and mathematics. ¾ No Child Left Behind Indicator 1.1: The percentage of students, in the aggregate and for each subgroup, who are at or above the proficient level in reading/language arts on the state's assessment. ¾ No Child Left Behind Indicator 1.2: The percentage of students, in the aggregate and in each subgroup, who are at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the state's assessment. As required under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Maryland has established continuous and substantial growth targets, or Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs), for 100% of students to reach proficiency in reading/language arts and mathematics by 2013-2014. NCLB requires that states test students in science at least once annually in grades 3-5, grades 6-9, and grades 1012. Additionally, Maryland requires all students who entered ninth grade in or after 2005 to pass the High School Assessments (HSAs). Students may meet the graduation requirement by reaching a combined score of 1602 on the four (4) HSAs or by reaching a combined total of 1208 on the three (3) HSAs, which would include English, Algebra/Data Analysis and Biology. Local school systems are asked to provide data in the Annual Updates to indicate the progress of all students toward attaining academic proficiency consistent with the AMOs and HSA graduation requirement. Reading and Mathematics Within the reading and mathematics content areas, local school systems should address the performance of elementary and middle school students using Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) proficiency data through 2011. LSSs should address the performance of high school students using AYP proficiency data for English and Algebra/Data Analysis through 2010. Additionally, LSSs should address the performance of high school students using the HSA Assessment Results for English and Algebra/Data Analysis for 2010, and local data on juniors (rising seniors) who have not yet met the graduation requirement as of June 30, 2011. Science Under NCLB, local school systems are required to administer annual science assessments at least once at the elementary level, once at the middle school level, and once at the high school level. For the science content area, LSSs should address the performance of students in Grade 5 and students in Grade 8 using the Maryland School Assessment (MSA) data for 2011. Additionally, LSSs should address the performance of high school students using the HSA Assessment results for Biology for 2010, as well as local data on juniors (rising seniors) who have not yet met the graduation requirement as of June, 30, 2011. Social Studies Maryland Social Studies State Curriculum requirements serve to articulate the program criteria local public school systems must implement to produce graduates that are college, career, and citizenship ready. Graduates with these attributes are culturally and civically literate, globally aware and able to efficiently access and discriminate sources of information using 21st century technology. Social studies and its disciplines—history, economics, civics, and geography—have long been valued in American education because of their role in helping students participate meaningfully in the democratic process. Additionally, with the emergence of a postindustrial economy that emphasizes creativity, innovation, lifelong learning, and teambuilding, researchers have come to recognize the central role that social studies instruction plays in the formation of these skills (MD Social Studies Task Force Report, 2010). Please see page 17 for the prompts for the Social Studies content area.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 119


MARYLAND SCHOOL ASSESSMENT (MSA) READING Core Content Areas Based on the examination of AYP Reading proficiency data for elementary schools (Table 2.1) and middle schools (Table 2.2): Table 2.1A: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Reading – Elementary All Students Subgroup 2009 2010 # Tested # Prof. % Prof. # Tested # Prof. % Prof. 25,976 20,139 77.5 25,787 20,209 78.4 All Students

# Tested

2011 # Prof.

% Prof.

26,277

21,525

81.9

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian

6,045

5,101

84.4

89

64

71.9

774

725

93.7

Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White

17,491

13,955

79.8

40

34

85.0

1,138

1,031

90.6

700

615

87.9

Two or more races Special Education

2,800

1,593

56.9

2,851

1,623

56.9

2,816

1,701

60.4

Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

3,155

2,130

67.5

3,386

2,421

71.5

3,668

2,889

78.8

13,805

10,069

72.9

15,119

11,217

74.2

15,971

12,581

78.8

Table 2.1B: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Reading – Elementary Male Subgroup 2009 2010 # Tested # Prof. % Prof. # Tested # Prof. % Prof. 13,342 9,787 73.4 13,163 9,741 74.0 All Students

# Tested

2011 # Prof.

% Prof.

13,465

10,482

77.8

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian

3,087

2,533

82.1

48

30

62.5

387

354

91.5

Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White

8,979

6,726

74.9

24

21

87.5

592

522

88.2

348

296

85.1

Two or more races

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 120


Table 2.1B: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Reading – Elementary 1,953 1,092 55.9 2,021 1,136 56.2 Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

2,030

1,213

59.8

1,673

1,097

65.6

1,816

1,253

69.0

1,996

1,550

77.7

6,964

4,781

68.7

7,621

5,313

69.7

8,135

6,047

74.3

Table 2.1C: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Reading – Elementary Female Subgroup 2009 2010 # Tested # Prof. % Prof. # Tested # Prof. % Prof. 12,634 10,352 81.9 12,624 10,468 82.9 All Students

# Tested

2011 # Prof.

% Prof.

12,812

11,043

86.2

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian

2,958

2,568

86.8

41

34

82.9

387

371

95.9

Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White

8,512

7,229

84.9

16

13

81.3

546

509

93.2

352

319

90.6

Two or more races Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

847

501

59.1

830

487

58.7

786

488

62.1

1,482

1,033

69.7

1,570

1,168

74.4

1,672

1,339

80.1

6,841

5,288

77.3

7,498

5,904

78.7

7,836

6,534

83.4

1. Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of grade band(s) and subgroups. Elementary (K-5) During SY2010-11, in the aggregate Prince George’s County students failed to meet the 85.9% annual measurable objective (AMO) for reading at the elementary school grade band (see Table 2.1A). The district has failed to attain the AMO for the elementary school grade band for two consecutive years. In SY2010-11, the reading proficiency percentage for the elementary grade band was 81.9%, or four percentage points below the AMO. In SY2008-09, the school system’s reading proficiency percentage was 77.5%, which was one percentage point above the SY2008-09 AMO (76.5%). Although in the aggregate elementary reading proficiency rates have increased by 4.4 percentage points over the past three years from 77.5% (SY2008-09) to 81.9% (SY2010-11), the district’s elementary grade band reading proficiency performance has not quite kept pace with the escalation of the AMO. Of the major accountability subgroups, all performed within seven (7) percentage points of the aggregate performance level except special education students. At 78.8% proficiency or above, both LEP and FARMs students performed (-3.2) percentage points below the aggregate performance level. And at 74.9% proficiency or above, African American male students performed (-7.0) percentage points below elementary students in the aggregate. On the other hand, African American female students (+3.0 percentage points) and Latino students (+2.5 percentage

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 121


points) performed above their elementary level peers in the aggregate. Special education student performance, however, was well below (-21.5 percentage points) aggregate elementary student MSA Reading performance. Meanwhile, at 77.8% proficiency or above, male students in the aggregate performed (-4.1) percentage points below students in the aggregate (81.9%), and at 86.2% proficiency or above, female students performed (+5.3) percentage points above students in the aggregate in SY2010-11. The (-4.1) percentage point gap in performance for male students has been consistent over the past three years, while the gap between females and aggregate student reading performance at the elementary level has grown by 0.9 percentage points over the past three years. Middle Grades (6-8) Table 2.2A: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Reading – Middle All Students Subgroup 2009 2010 # Tested # Prof. % Prof. # Tested # Prof. % Prof. 27,652 19,709 71.3 26,890 19,608 72.9 All Students Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races 3,120 1,256 40.3 3,183 1,416 44.5 Special Education Limited English 1,389 547 39.4 1,394 599 43.0 Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals 13,984 9,073 64.9 14,935 10,076 67.5 (FARMS) Table 2.2B: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Reading – Middle Male Subgroup 2009 2010 # Tested # Prof. % Prof. # Tested # Prof. 14,100 9,289 65.9 13,764 9,270 All Students Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races 2,123 841 39.6 2,177 963 Special Education Limited English 767 281 36.6 759 305 Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals 7,118 4,230 59.4 7,586 4,669 (FARMS)

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

# Tested

2011 # Prof.

% Prof.

26,061

19,450

74.6

5,020

3,558

70.9

91

63

69.2

709

608

85.8

18,546

13,743

74.1

27

24

88.9

1,034 633 3,110

895 559 1,453

86.6 88.3 46.7

1,321

477

36.1

14,765

10,228

69.3

2011 # Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

67.3

13,345

9,305

% Prof. 69.7

2,578

1,769

68.6

46

31

67.4

377

310

82.2

9,543

6,518

68.3

13

12

92.3

44.2

508 280 2,135

425 240 971

83.7 85.7 45.5

40.2

705

253

35.9

61.5

7,466

4,791

64.2

Page | 122


Table 2.2C: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results – Reading – Middle Female Subgroup 2009 2010 # Tested # Prof. % Prof. # Tested # Prof. 13,551 10,420 76.9 13,126 10,338 All Students Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races 997 415 41.6 1,006 453 Special Education Limited English 622 266 42.8 635 294 Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals 6,866 4,843 70.5 7,349 5,407 (FARMS)

2011 # Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

78.8

12,715

10,145

% Prof. 79.8

2,442

1,789

73.3

45

32

71.1

332

298

89.8

9,003

7,225

80.3

14

12

85.7

45.0

526 353 975

470 319 482

89.4 90.4 49.4

46.3

616

224

36.4

73.6

7,299

5,437

74.5

For the middle school grade band, the district failed to meet the reading SY2010-11 AMO (85.6%) in the aggregate, performing at 74.6% proficiency or above (or 11.0 percentage points below the AMO (see Table 2.2A). Over the past three years, the gap between PGCPS middle school student performance in the aggregate and the state’s AMO has widened by 6.4 percentage points. Thus, although modest progress has been made, it has not been nearly at the pace necessary to either eventually meet the AMO, or to maintain the current gap distance. At the middle school level, performance gaps between students in the aggregate and some of the major subgroups of students are more acute. Whereas at the elementary level, only special education students performed more than seven (7) percentage points below the aggregate student performance level, at the middle school level, special education students are joined by limited English proficient (LEP) students at levels far below the AMO performance standard. In SY2010-11, at 46.7% proficiency or above, special education students performed at (-27.9) percentage points below the aggregate student performance level, and at 36.1% proficiency or above, LEP students performed (38.5) percentage points below the aggregate. Meanwhile, Latino students (70.9%), FARMs students (69.3%), and African American male students (68.3%) performed (-3.7), (-5.3), and (-6.3) percentage points below aggregate middle school performance level respectively. 2. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made along with the corresponding resource allocations to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate. Elementary Collaboration with Special Education Office to support early reading intervention/Response to Intervention (RTI) – Reading specialists and selected Reading Recovery teachers will continue to employ the Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI). This small group reading intervention is designed to bring children to grade level performance in an average time of 14 to 18 weeks. The continued focus will be to identify at-risk readers in grades K-3 and to prepare them to meet the grade level benchmarks. LLI instruction includes systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, and comprehension. LLI lessons also provide opportunities for writing and are designed to expand vocabulary and develop oral language. Student progress will be monitored from the RELA and SPED departments throughout the school year. Allocation: (LLI Training funded by the Department of Special Education, $5,000.00 consultant fees) Updates to the Curriculum Framework Progress Guides

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 123


The curriculum guides will continue to reflect the State Curriculum and provide additional instructional resources. In addition to the supplemental supports for ESOL and SPED students, explicit book club lessons that incorporate strategy and skill instruction, mini-lessons, and a variety of rigorous independent activities that address multiple learning styles, will be implemented in the Extensions for Advanced Learners. Lessons have been developed for grades 2-5. Reading and writing are part of a reciprocal process. The reading component of the Curriculum Framework has been strengthened to include strategy and skill instruction aligned to the State Curriculum. To reinforce the writing component for grades 2-5 and to prepare for the rigorous Common Core Writing Component, reading specialists will participate in a book study on responding to reading through writing. This book study will bridge the brief opportunities for writing to deeper, extended writing responses. Allocation: Part of regular PD and curriculum writing, books for book study $2,000.00. Ongoing Professional Development To support reading specialists in the use of the Leveled Literacy Intervention, opportunities will continue to be made available to network, analyze data to inform teaching, and observe and discuss lesson implementation. Reading specialists’ will also continue to participate in training on MSDE updates and the MSA Observations from Range finding for brief constructed response analysis. In collaboration with the Special Education Department and the ESOL Office, professional development opportunities will also be provided for classroom teachers and special educators on instructional strategies and lesson adaptations for special needs students. There will also be question and answer sessions on the Curriculum Framework Progress Guides at the conclusion of each professional development opportunity. Additional professional development will include emergent literacy practices, Wildcats-supplemental small group resources, and Title I Comprehension Toolkit demonstration lessons. Workshops will also be provided to K-3 teachers who attended the Balanced Literacy Workshops in August 2011 by the Early Literacy Support Team. Allocation: Substitute and stipend fees, $70,000.00 Middle Grades LEP Data Instructional Initiatives: Professional Development/New Materials Training will be provided for teachers in Grades 6-8 on the revised curriculum frameworks, inclusive of the differentiation strategies for ESOL students and the new Literature 2012 Common Core Textbook Editions which include academic vocabulary instruction (supported by the recently-adopted WIDA standards by MSDE for ESOL instruction), scaffolded instructional strategies for LEP students, and Interactive Reader materials for LEP students. Additionally, the Secondary RELA and ESOL Offices will continue to make concerted efforts to ensure that ESOL educators attend professional development workshops in order to increase their instructional capacity and understanding of the state curriculum for RELA in order to use their skills as ESOL educators to help students achieve. The Secondary RELA Office and the ESOL Office will increase communications to schools (administrators, reading specialists, department chairpersons, and teachers) to increase attendance at workshop opportunities. Allocation: (funding is built into specific initiatives noted below) Collaboration with the ESOL Office The Secondary RELA and ESOL Offices will work together to develop build an addendum for the newly revised curriculum frameworks for use in ELL instruction that integrates the best practices of the SIOP (Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol) Model and WIDA (World-class Instructional Design and Assessment) standards. The Secondary RELA Office will place recommendations for differentiated instruction and texts more prominently in the RELA middle grades curriculum documents. The ESOL Office, supported by the Secondary RELA Office, will recommend texts and articles for schools to utilize in professional learning community studies. In addition, the Secondary RELA Office will support implementation of ESOL instructional practices at middle schools with high ELL populations.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 124


Allocation: $20,000 (Substitutes and Stipends); $2,500 (Materials) Special Education Data Instructional Initiatives: Increased Instructional Support for Special Education Teachers The Secondary RELA Office has filled a Special Education specialist position to provide additional support for curriculum development and professional development. The office will focus attention on Grade 8, especially, collaborating with the Special Education department, the administrative regions, and the testing office, in order to determine how to address this particular challenge. Professional development opportunities will be provided as need is determined. Special education addenda for Grades 6, 7, and 8 have been created for use as pilot curricula during the 2011-2012 school years. These materials are parallel documents for the Curriculum Framework Progress Guides that include scaffolding, additional vocabulary development, scaffolded writing tasks, and other differentiation strategies to support special needs students as they access the general education curriculum and MSA assessments. Gender Data Instructional Initiatives and Ongoing Professional Development The Secondary RELA Office will provide targeted workshops to address African American males and middle school reading. Participants will examine, discuss, and then plan to implement the best practices from current research to address challenges evident in the data, including the gender gap in reading achievement. The Secondary RELA Office will also encourage the following practices espoused by Dr. Alfred Tatum and other respected educators with gender focused/achievement: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

providing opportunities for wide reading of self-selected materials offering choices of texts during instruction, especially those of high interest to male students providing direct instruction on concrete indicators from MSA in gender-based small groups, and providing specific corrective feedback on indicators

The Secondary RELA Office will continue to offer the professional development series for Grade 6 RELA educators established to address the reality of a majority of Grade 6 classes being housed at the elementary school level (whereby they receive insufficient middle-grades specific instructional support). To further address this issue, the Secondary RELA Office will collaborate more closely with the Elementary RELA Office. The Middle School RELA instructional specialist will continue to provide/present regular updates to elementary reading specialists at the elementary workshops to enable them to support Grade 6 RELA educators. The Secondary RELA Office will also continue to offer the professional development series for Grades 7 and 8 RELA educators to build/maintain instructional capacity in those grades. To build the instructional capacity, workshops will specifically address instructional content, particularly focusing on writing in the middle grades classroom (including the BCR/Range-finding and extending beyond to in-class reading response essays, essays of literary analysis, and long-term research). Allocation: $73,000 (Substitutes and Stipends); $6,500 (Materials)

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 125


All Grade 6 R/ELA Educators (ESOL, General, Special Education)

All Grades 7 and 8 R/ELA Educators (ESOL, General, Special Education)

Teachers in grades 3-5

Reading Specialists, Intervention Teachers

Classroom teachers Special educators

Grade 6 R/ELA Educators’ Workshops

Grade 7/8 R/ELA Educators’ Workshop

Wildcats for Struggling Readers

Leveled Literacy Training

Question and Answer Sessions (Follow-up to Balanced Literacy Institute-

ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

ƒ

ƒ ƒ ƒ

ƒ ƒ ƒ

ƒ

ƒ ƒ ƒ

ƒ

ƒ

ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Analyze data Observe/discuss lesson implementation Updates and related leadership skills Supplemental resources Collegial networking Emergent Literacy CFPG support Small group instruction

Meeting the needs of students experiencing challenges in reading

Curriculum framework support Academic vocabulary instruction PLCs that address the gender gap in reading achievement

Leveled Literacy Intervention CFPG Support Updates and related leadership skills Data Analysis to Inform Instruction, lesson implementation Book study (Writing About Reading by Janet Angelillo) Collaborative planning and related leadership skills Curriculum framework support Academic vocabulary instruction PLCs that address the gender gap in reading achievement Focus on gender-based instructional practices will be monitored at a targeted group of middle schools. Curriculum framework support Academic vocabulary instruction PLCs that address the gender gap in reading achievement

Topic(s) addressed

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Middle School Department Chairpersons, Reading Specialists

Reading Specialists *New reading specialists

Audience

Dates

October 5, 2011 (Gr.2) October 11, 2011 (Gr. 1) October 18, 2011 (Gr. 3)

October 12-13, 2011 (other dates TBD)

October 10, 2011 October 26, 2011

September 20, 2011; November 15, 2011; January 31, 2012; May 1, 2012

September 20, 2011; November 15, 2011; January 31, 2012; May 1, 2012

August 17, 2011; September 13, 2011; October 11, 2011; December 6, 2011; January 24, 2012; April 24, 2012; May 29, 2012

August 17, 2011 *September 1, 2011 *September 15, 2011 September 22-23, 2011 December 14, 2011 February 1, 2012 May 31, 2012

CHART A. PGCPS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SY2011-2012

MS R/ELA Leadership Workshops

Professional Development Title Elementary Reading Specialists’ Workshops

Page | 126

~$35,000.00 (stipends)

$5, 000.00 (initial training)

~ $36,500 (sub funds--funding needed from Title IIA; additional funding available through Title III for stipends/evening workshops) ~$2,167 (materials) $17,500.00 (stipends)

~ $36,500 (stipends—partially funded byTitle III; additional funding needed from Title IIA) ~$2,167 (materials)

~$5,000 (sub funds from Secondary R/ELA budget; additional funding of $10,000 needed to continue beyond January 2012) ~$2,167 (materials)

~Facility rental ($5,000 approx.)

Estimated Cost


ESOL 4 middle grades R/ELA educators, 4 middle grades ESOL educators Special Education 6 Special Educators

Curriculum Development (ESOL 2/3 and Special Education CFPGS)

ƒ

ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Section B – Core Content Areas Reading

Lesson adaptations Supplemental resources Collegial networking Emergent Literacy CFPG support Small group instruction Lesson adaptations Supplemental resources Collegial networking Develop an addendum for the newly revised curriculum frameworks for use in ELL instruction that integrates the best practices of the SIOP (Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol) Model and WIDA (World-class Instructional Design and Assessment) standards. Support implementation of ESOL instructional practices at middle schools with high ELL populations.

Topic(s) addressed

TBD by Secondary R/ELA and ESOL Offices

Dates TBD

October 26, 2011 (Kindergarten)

Dates

ESOL ~$20,000 (stipends-from Title III) ~$2,500 (materials-funding from Title III) Special Education ~12,000

~$10,500.00 (stipends)

Estimated Cost

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

The responses to these questions can be found in Section G, on page 344.

Page | 127

2. Throughout the Master Plan Update, the district has identified numerous leadership development initiatives. In general, please describe the role of the principal in the implementation, monitoring and sustainability of each of the content area innovations.

Questions: 1. The Master Plan Update articulates several systemic actions to address academic progress for students in the core content areas (e.g. reading, mathematics, science), and limited English proficient students. Please describe the system’s overall process for ensuring that each of its systemic actions will be fully implemented, monitored, and evaluated at the school and individual classroom level. Please also describe how feedback is provided back to the district as a result of implementation monitoring and evaluation.

MSDE Clarifying Question(s):

Classroom teachers Special educators

Audience

CHART A. PGCPS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SY2011-2012

Question and Answer Sessions (grades 4-5)

Professional Development Title Early Literacy Support Team)


MARYLAND SCHOOL ASSESSMENT (MSA) Maryland School Assessment Mathematics Based on the examination of AYP Math proficiency data for elementary schools (Table 2.4) and middle schools (Table 2.5):

1. Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of grade band(s) and subgroup(s). Elementary Table D: PGCPS Elementary MSA Mathematics In SY2011, 78.2% of elementary students in the Performance and the State Proficiency Standard, 2009 through 2011 aggregate scored at the proficiency or above Proficiency or Above Percentage Pct. Point level in MSA Mathematics testing. This Change proficiency percentage was 6.3 points below the 2009 2010 2011 2009 – 2011 state’s ever-escalating AMO for SY2011 (84.5%). PGCPS 74.7 77.5 78.2 +3.5 The county’s SY2010-11 elementary level AMO 74.2 79.4 84.5 +10.3 proficiency percentage was (0.7) points above PGCPS the previous year’s proficiency or above +0.5 -1.9 -6.3 -5.8 +/- AMO percentage, and (3.5) points above the SY200809 proficiency or above level (see Table 2.4A). Despite this slow incremental progress, county elementary students have lost ground (-5.8 percentage points) relative to the escalating AMO over past three years (see Table D). .

The school system faces a serious challenge with regard to the underperformance of special education subgroup, a group that comprises approximately 10 percent of the elementary student population. Whereas most of the historically vulnerable subgroups performed within six percentage points of students in the aggregate, the proficiency percentage for special education students (51.3%) was (-26.9) points below the aggregate percentage (78.2%). This wide performance disparity has persisted over the past several years, although it has narrowed by 2.5 percentage points since SY2008-09. Nonetheless, it remains wide, with only half the SPED population meeting the state’s proficiency standard. After special education students, the second widest performance gaps among the major accountability subgroups were with English language learners and lowincome (FARMs) students, each at (-3.2) percentage points below the aggregate performance level (see Table 2.4A). Table 2.4A: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Math - Elementary All Students Subgroup All Students

2009

2010

2011

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

25,948

19,374

74.7

25,752

19,962

77.5

26,248

20,523

78.2

6,039

4,903

81.2

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native

89

67

75.3

Asian

775

725

93.5

17,472

13,196

75.5

40

35

87.5

White

1,135

1,010

89.0

Two or more races

698

587

84.1

Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

Special Education

2,792

1,264

45.3

2,843

1,502

52.8

2,806

1,440

51.3

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

3,156

2,189

69.4

3,375

2,529

74.9

3,665

2,749

75.0

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

13,787

9,703

70.4

15,097

11,144

73.8

15,951

11,963

75.0

Gender differences in elementary mathematics performance were not very substantial. Females in the aggregate outperformed their male counterparts by 4.9 percentage points. Among accountability subgroups, the widest performance disparities were among African Americans (6.2), special education (5.8), and FARMs (4.7). Only with regard to special education students did male students outperform their female counterparts (see Tables 2.4B and 2.4C). 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 128


Table 2.4B: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Math - Elementary Male Subgroup All Students Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

2009

2010

2011

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

13,323

9,616

72.2

13,141

9,901

75.3

1,946 1,674 6,953

916 1,152 4,736

47.1 68.8 68.1

2,016 1,812 7,608

1,082 1,355 5,468

53.7 74.8 71.9

13,449 3,084 48 388 8,967 24 590 348 2,025 1,996 8,123

10,190 2,479 34 361 6,492 21 521 282 1,072 1,504 5,906

75.8 80.4 70.8 93.0 72.4 87.5 88.3 81.0 52.9 75.4 72.7

Table 2.4C: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Math - Elementary Female Subgroup All Students Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

2009

2010

2011

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

12,625

9,758

77.3

12,611

10,061

79.8

846 1,482 6,834

348 1,037 4,967

41.1 70.0 72.7

827 1,563 7,489

420 1,174 5,676

50.8 75.1 75.8

12,799 2,955 41 387 8,505 16 545 350 781 1,669 7,828

10,333 2,424 33 364 6,704 14 489 305 368 1,245 6,057

80.7 82.0 80.5 94.1 78.8 87.5 89.7 87.1 47.1 74.6 77.4

Middle School At the middle school level, 58.5% of students in Table E PGCPS Middle School MSA Mathematics the aggregate performed at the proficiency or Performance and the State Proficiency Standard, 2009 through 2011 above level in SY2010-11 MSA mathematics Proficiency or Above Percentage Pct. Point Change testing. This performance level was (-20.1) 2009 2010 2011 2009 – 2011 percentage points below the proficiency standard PGCPS 54.5 55.8 58.5 +4.0 (AMO) established by the state for 2011 (78.6%). AMO 64.3 71.4 78.6 +14.3 Over the past three years, the gap between the PGCPS county’s aggregate student performance and the -9.8 -15.6 -20.1 -10.3 +/AMO ever-escalating state standard has widened by 10.3 percentage points, going from (-9.8) percentage points in SY2008-09 to the current (-20.1) percentage points (see Table E). Whereas at the elementary level the only performance gap of substantial size was the one between students in the aggregate and special education students, at the middle school level, another gap emerges – i.e. one between students in the aggregate and limited English proficient (LEP) students. In SY2010-11, only 35.6% of LEP students scored at the proficiency or above level in MSA mathematics testing, (-22.9) points below the proficiency or above percentage for middle school students in the aggregate (see Table 2.5A ). Meanwhile, the aggregate student – special education student performance gap remains substantial (-22.6 percentage points). On the other hand, performance gaps between students in the aggregate and lowincome (FARMs) students, and between students in the aggregate and African American students remained relatively modest (-5.3) and (-2.7) percentage points respectively. 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 129


Performance differences between male and female students at the middle school level were modest. In the aggregate, female students outperformed their male counterparts by 6.7 percentage points, and African American females outperformed African American males by 8.1 percentage points. Meanwhile, the difference between proficiency or above levels for Latino males and females is a mere one-half a percentage point (see Tables 2.5B and 2.5C). Table 2.5A: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Math - Middle All Students Subgroup

All Students

2009

2010

2011

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

27,570

15,012

54.5

26,834

14,983

55.8

25,994

15,196

58.5

5,006

2,926

58.4 62.5

Hispanic/Latino of any race

% Prof.

American Indian or Alaska Native

88

55

Asian

708

601

84.9

18,503

10,333

55.8

Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races

27

18

66.7

1,030

781

75.8

632

482

76.3

Special Education

3,093

925

29.9

3,173

1,078

34.0

3,091

1,111

35.9

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

1,387

523

37.7

1,393

545

39.1

1,319

470

35.6

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

13,937

6,772

48.6

14,896

7,535

50.6

14,720

7,824

53.2

Table 2.5B: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Math - Middle Male Subgroup All Students

2009

2010

2011

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

14,056

7,117

50.6

13,723

7,241

52.8

13,310

7,344

55.2

2,563

1,492

58.2

45

28

62.2

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American

377

308

81.7

9,526

4,947

51.9

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

13

8

61.5

White

506

357

70.6

Two or more races

280

204

72.9

Special Education

2,100

643

30.6

2,167

748

34.5

2,122

760

35.8

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

764

290

38.0

757

289

38.2

704

262

37.2

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

7,090

3,194

45.0

7,559

3,598

47.6

7,442

3,745

50.3

Table 2.5C: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Math - Middle Female Subgroup All Students

2009

2010

2011

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

13,514

7,895

58.4

13,110

7,742

59.1

12,684

7,852

61.9

Hispanic/Latino of any race

2,443

1,434

58.7

American Indian or Alaska Native

43

27

62.8

Asian

331

293

88.5

Black or African American

8,977

5,386

60.0

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

14

10

71.4

White

524

424

80.9

Two or more races

352

278

79.0

969

351

36.2

Special Education

993

282

28.4

1,006

330

32.8

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

623

233

37.4

636

256

40.3

615

208

33.8

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

6,847

3,578

52.3

7,337

3,937

53.7

7,278

4,079

56.0

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 130


Thus, despite modest performance growth in MSA Mathematics testing over the past three years (+4.0 percentage points), Prince George’s County students behind the state’s performance level expectations, and special education and LEP students continue to perform substantially below students in the aggregate. 2. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made to ensure sufficient progress. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations, and incorporate timelines where appropriate. As the county and state transition to the Common Core Curriculum for Mathematics, a concerted effort is being made to plan professional development around the pending new standards, particularly at the primary grades. This focus will help ensure the building of foundational concepts, with a view toward alleviating potential performance gaps in the intermediate grades. Intra-county collaborations among the Mathematics and ESOL Offices and the Special Education Department will focus on strategies for reaching all learners and emphasize curriculum resources that have been developed to differentiate instruction. Below is a tentative list of the teacher trainings that have been planned and the resources that will be emphasized to address all learners. ˆ Professional Development: ƒ

Diverse Strategies for Mathematics will be offered for all grade level teachers of mathematics, K-8. These sessions will focus on instructional strategies for reaching all learners, particularly Special Education students and Limited English Proficient students. In an effort to access and service more teachers, these trainings will be offered during the school day (September-December) as opposed to the previous evening offerings. Targeted strategies will include but will not be limited to the following: … … … … … … … … ƒ

Increasing accountable talk among all students Using non-verbal and context clues to provide meaning for instruction (pictures, graphic organizers) Using manipulatives and other mathematical tools to facilitate learning Supporting student language development and understanding of word problems Modeling correct answers by writing them on the board Using questioning to help student access higher level thinking skills from Webb’s Depth of Knowledge Infusion of the Common Core Standards for Mathematical Practice to access student thinking IEP development

Strategies to reach African American Students will focus on the following : … Developing problem solving through authentic context and project based learning. … All materials that are developed or purchased have been and will be reviewed to include Education that is Multicultural (ETM) in a positive manner. … Increased focus on building numeracy and fact fluency in primary grades … Whereas there is no specific support that has been developed to address the achievement gap for AfricanAmerican students, the expectation is that this large sub-group will benefit from the increased attention outlined in all previously mentioned supports. Through improved staff capacity and effectiveness the existing gap is expected to diminish.

ƒ

Elementary Math Leaders (ECs) quarterly trainings will be conducted in conjunction with the Special Education Department and the ESOL Office. Lessons/activities within the Curriculum Framework will be highlighted as a means of addressing all student populations. The expectation is that the leaders from each school will return to their schools and share information within their buildings. (November-January)

ƒ

Middle School Department Chairs (DCs) quarterly trainings will be the product of collaboration with the Special Education Department and the ESOL Office. Lessons/activities within the Curriculum Framework will be highlighted as a means of addressing all student populations. The expectation is that the leaders from each school will return to their schools and share information within their buildings. (November-January)

ƒ

IFL Primary Writing Project will provide training for approximately 30 teachers in delivering student -centered mathematics instruction and curriculum writing. These teachers will share learned strategies for questioning and increasing student engagement at their buildings via classroom videos and at staff meetings. As a result, classroom instruction at all grade levels and with all sub-groups will benefit. A long range goal and by-product of

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 131


the cohort training is that primary grades students will experience student -centered instruction and be better prepared for assessments administered in grades 3-5. ˆ Resources ƒ

The newly adopted Grade 5 textbook includes more online animated support for instruction, step-by-step visuals to illustrate concepts for improved understanding, and clearly details responses to students’ individual needs (RtI).

ƒ

First in Math is an online program that is designed to motivate student participation while developing fact fluency, number sense and problem solving skills. Program implementation has increased across the county with notable implementation in an administrative area with a high concentration of ESOL students. The program will be available to all students in grades 3-8 during the 2011-2012 school-year. Additionally the at-home access allows for more family/parental engagement which has been shown by research as a pivotal element when considering student achievement.

ƒ

Unit Assessments allow students to imitate test-taking strategies in a non-threatening venue prior to high stakes test administration. These assessments mirror the cognitive demand required for success on the MSA and are available for all grades, 1-5, in order to monitor student achievement and adjust instruction based upon data obtained.

ƒ

Count on Us will continue to broadcast throughout the school year to provide students with live on camera support with mathematics problems. Statistical data indicate a high percentage of call-ins to the show from schools that have high ESOL populations. As funds allow, previously produced mini-lessons will be catalogued by topic for classroom access.

Table F SY2011-12 Elementary Mathematics Professional Development Schedule Professional Development Title Audience Date Diverse Strategies for Mathematics Teachers grades 1-2 (100 participants) 9-20-2011 (Sp.Ed focus) Diverse Strategies for Mathematics Teachers-grades 3-4 (100 participants) 9-27-2011 (Sp.Ed focus) Teachers of grade 5 mathematics (180 Diverse Strategies for Mathematics 10-4-2011 participants) Diverse Strategies for Mathematics Teachers grades K-2 (120 participants) 12-6-2011 (ESOL focus) Diverse Strategies for Mathematics Teachers grades 3-5 (120 participants) 12-13-2011 (ESOL focus) 11-9-2011 Mathematics Leadership Meetings 130 Math Leaders (1/school) 3 sessions 1-18-2012 5-30-2012 9-09-2011 11-19-2011 Mathematics/IFL Writing Project 30 Grade 1 writers/session 12-07-2011 02-10-2012

Estimated Cost $11,000 $11,000 ~$18, 000 $13, 550 $13, 550 $15,825/session $47,475.00 Contract + $21, 750.

Count on Us

~50 two-hour sessions

October-April

~$60,000 + TV resources

B.E.A.M. Fair

500 community participants 60 presenters 50 teacher support

Tbd (5-19-2012)

~$40,000

ongoing

$180,000

First in Math Annual Subscription

ˆ Grade 6 and 7 textbook adoption includes more online animated support for instruction, step-by-step visuals to illustrate concepts for improved understanding, and clearly details responses to students’ individual needs (RtI). ˆ Intensive Curriculum for grades 6-8 to address and support ESOL, special education, and diverse learners. ˆ Unit Assessments allow students to imitate test-taking strategies in a non-threatening venue prior to high stakes test administration. These assessments mirror the cognitive demand required for success on the MSA and are available for all grades, 6-8 in order to monitor student achievement and adjust instruction based upon the data obtained.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 132


Table G SY2011-12 Middle School Mathematics Professional Development Schedule Professional Development Title Audience Date Grade 6 Textbook & Content Part 1 MakeGrade 6 Mathematics Teachers Sep 1, 2011 Up Session Grade 7, 8 Textbook & Content Part 1 Grade 7 and 8 Mathematics Teachers Sep 1, 2011 Make-Up Session Algebra 1 Textbook & Content Pt. 1 MakeMiddle and High School Algebra 1 Teachers Sep 7, 2011 up Session Grade 6 Special Educators Content & Grade 6 Mathematics Special Educators Area 1 Sep 14 , 2011 Strategies Grade 6 Special Educators Content & Grade 6 Mathematics Special Educators Area 2 Sep 21 , 2011 Strategies Grade 6 and 7 Textbook & Content Training Oct 5 & 6 2011 Grade 6 and 7 Mathematics Teachers (attend one session ONLY) Part 2 Algebra 1 Textbook & Content Training Part Oct 12 & 13, 2011 Middle and High School Algebra 1 Teachers (attend one session ONLY) 2 Grade 6 Special Educators Content & Grade 6 Mathematics Special Educators: AM – Nov 2 , 2011 Strategies Area 1, PM - Area 2 Grade 7 Special Educators Content & Nov 9 , 2011 Grade 7 Mathematics Special Educators Strategies Grade 8 Special Educators Content & Grade 8 Mathematics Special Educators: AM – Nov 16 , 2011 Strategies Area 1, PM - Area 2 Department Chairs & Teacher Coordinators Middle and High School Math Teacher Leaders Dec. 7, 2011

Estimated Cost $15,825 $15,825 ~$18, 000 ~$11 000 ~$11, 000 $15,825 ~$18, 000 ~$18, 000 ~$18, 000 ~$18, 000 $15,825

Section B – Core Content Areas Mathematics MSDE Clarifying Question(s): Questions: 1. Has the system (i.e., curriculum staff) considered how it will plan for the growing achievement gap to ensure sufficient progress in each of the identified subgroups? The response to this question can be found in Section G, on page 345.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 133


MARYLAND SCHOOL ASSESSMENT (MSA) Maryland School Assessment Science Based on the examination of 2011 Maryland School Assessment Science data for Grade 5 (Table 2.7) and Grade 8 (Table 2.8): 1. Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of grade level(s) and subgroup(s). Elementary Level (Grade 5) In SY2010-11, 55.1% of Prince George’s County fifth grade students scored at the proficiency or above level on the MSA Science test. SY2010-11 marked the second straight year that aggregate fifth grade science student performance exceeded the performance of the previous year. Since SY2008-09, county fifth grade science performance has increased by 5.4 percentage points. Notwithstanding the steady performance growth over the past three years, significant performance disparities exist between students in the aggregate and historically academically vulnerable student subgroups. For example, the proficiency percentage for low-income (FARMs) students (47.7%) was (-7.4) points below the aggregate fifth grade proficiency percentage. Also, the performance gap between students in the aggregate and limited English proficient (LEP) students was (-22.8) percentage points while the gap between special education students and students in the aggregate was (-30.6) percentage points (see Table 2.7A). Table 2.7A: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Science - Elementary (Grade 5) All Students 2009

Subgroup All Students

2010

2011

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

8,793

4,373

49.7

8,573

4,566

53.3

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

8,806

4,850

55.1

1,918

997

52.0

30

21

70.0 78.3

286

224

5,948

3,147

52.9

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

12

8

66.7

White

374

290

77.5 68.5

Black or African American

Two or more races

238

163

Special Education

949

215

22.7

983

258

26.2

1,100

270

24.5

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

828

207

25.0

830

214

25.8

953

308

32.3

4,631

1,907

41.2

4,910

2,216

45.1

5,295

2,524

47.7

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

Regarding gender, performance differences between male and female fifth graders in the aggregate were negligible; however, a fairly sizeable gap exists between 5th grade male (27.1%) and female (18.3%) special education students (see Tables 2.7B and 2.7C).

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 134


Table 2.7B: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Science - Elementary (Grade 5) Male 2009

Subgroup

2010

2011

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

4,522

2,194

48.5

4,323

2,250

52.0

4,609

2,500

54.2

Hispanic/Latino of any race

996

525

52.7

American Indian or Alaska Native

14

10

71.4

Asian

133

111

83.5

Black or African American

3,140

1,610

51.3

6

4

66.7

197

150

76.1

All Students

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races

123

90

73.2

Special Education

658

152

23.1

664

188

28.3

783

212

27.1

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

447

134

30.0

436

129

29.6

534

170

31.8

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

2,363

956

40.5

2,458

1,109

45.1

2,738

1,302

47.6

Table 2.7C: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Science - Elementary (Grade 5) Female Subgroup

2009

2010

2011

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

4,265

2,178

51.1

4,246

2,315

54.5

4,197

2,350

56.0

Hispanic/Latino of any race

922

472

51.2

American Indian or Alaska Native

16

11

68.8

Asian

153

113

73.9

Black or African American

2,808

1,537

54.7

6

4

66.7

White

177

140

79.1

Two or more races

115

73

63.5

All Students

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

Special Education

291

63

21.6

319

70

21.9

317

58

18.3

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

381

73

19.2

394

85

21.6

419

138

32.9

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

2,268

951

41.9

2,452

1,107

45.1

2,557

1,222

47.8

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 135


Middle School (Grade 8) At the middle school level, 47.7% of students in the aggregate scored at or above the proficiency level, and although there is no established state performance target – e.g. an AMO – aggregate system performance was (21.8) percentage points below the statewide average performance level (see Table H). Moreover, the performance of historically academically vulnerable subgroups was far worse than aggregate student performance. Only 12.5% of special education students scored at the proficiency or above level, and less than 10 percent of LEP students (8.9%) scored at that level on the SY2010-11 middle school MSA Science test. Although low-income students did not fare as poorly as special education and LEP students, at less than 40 percent proficiency, their performance needs to improve significantly as well (see Table 2.8A).

Table H: Fifth and Eighth Grade MSA Science Performance for PGCPS and Statewide, SY2008-09 through SY2010-11 (Percent Proficient or Above) SY2008-09 SY2009-10 SY2010-11

Pct. Point Change SY’09 to SY’11

5th Grade PGCPS

49.7

53.3

55.1

+5.4

Statewide

63.7

65.9

66.8

+3.1

PGCPS +/Statewide

-14.0

-12.6

-11.7

-2.3

PGCPS

39.8

44.1

47.7

+7.9

Statewide

65.3

67.7

69.5

+4.2

PGCPS +/Statewide

-25.5

-23.6

-21.8

-3.7

8th Grade

Table 2.8A: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Science - Middle (Grade 8) All Students

Subgroup 2009 All Students

2010

2011

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

9,229

3,677

39.8

9,149

4,039

44.1

8,925

4,254

47.7

1,704

740

43.4

Hispanic/Latino of any race

% Prof.

American Indian or Alaska Native

30

12

40.0

Asian

239

176

73.6

6,407

2,935

45.8

9

5

55.6

White

363

267

73.6

Two or more races

173

119

68.8

Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

Special Education

911

112

12.3

974

126

12.9

1,020

127

12.5

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

494

62

12.6

435

55

12.6

463

41

8.9

4,561

1,412

31.0

4,953

1,733

35.0

4,960

1,948

39.3

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

As was the case with fifth grade students, gender differences in MSA science testing in the eighth grade were marginal at best. Only three (3) percentage points separate the proficiency percentages of male and female eighth students on the SY2010-11 MSA science assessment. But the performance plight of special education and LEP male and female students is daunting nonetheless. In SY2010, only 14.3% of male special education students, 9.6% of male LEP students, 8.5% of female special education students, and 8.0% of female LEP students performed at the proficiency level or above level (see Tables 2.8B and 2.8C).

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 136


Table 2.8B: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Science - Middle (Grade 8) Male 2009

Subgroup All Students

2010

2011

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

4,668

1,798

38.5

4,671

2,052

43.9

4,528

2,092

46.2

873

399

45.7

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races

% Prof.

16

7

43.8

123

89

72.4

3,253

1,413

43.4

2

2

100.0

186

130

69.9

75

52

69.3 14.3

Special Education

613

80

13.1

635

98

15.4

692

99

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

284

39

13.7

243

34

14.0

239

23

9.6

2,310

707

30.6

2,524

894

35.4

2,490

953

38.3

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

Table 2.8C: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Science - Middle (Grade 8) Female 2009

Subgroup All Students

2010

2011

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

4,561

1,879

41.2

4,474

1,985

44.4

4,397

2,162

49.2

831

341

41.0

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races

% Prof.

14

5

35.7

116

87

75.0

3,154

1,522

48.3

7

3

42.9

177

137

77.4

98

67

68.4

Special Education

298

32

10.7

339

28

8.3

328

28

8.5

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

210

23

11.0

192

21

10.9

224

18

8.0

2,251

705

31.3

2,429

839

34.5

2,470

995

40.3

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

2. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made to ensure sufficient progress. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations, and incorporate timelines where appropriate. Science Office staff will continue to focus on the components of curriculum development, professional development, assessments, and grant funded activities in science. Professional development sessions are offered both during the day and evenings to accommodate all teachers’ needs. These opportunities will provide our teachers with differentiated instructional strategies to address the achievement gap among the various sub groups mentioned above. In addition, the 5 th and 8th Grade curricula were revised this summer to include more differentiated instructional strategies, STEM experiences, and Project Based Learning opportunities for all students. The Science Office will continue to use FAST data and unit assessments to modify instruction, support learning, and monitor student achievement throughout the year. 5th Grade New Science CFPG The 5th Grade CFPG has been revised to include specific instructional strategies for all subgroups mentioned above. The new 5th grade CFPG has been compacted, realigned, and infused with inquiry-based STEM and PBL opportunities. The design of the curriculum allows teachers to deliver content that will help build on skills students need as developing learners and prepare students to be aware and ready to emerge as college and career ready citizens.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 137


Notable improvements for FY2011-2012 are as follows: The CFPG is now divided into 6 major themes- Theme A: Earth Science, Theme B: Space Science, Theme C: Chemistry Theme D: Physics, Theme E: Life Science, and Theme F: Engineering & Technology. Within each theme are several related Content Foci (with flexible pacing). Each Content Focus includes the corresponding State Curriculum assessment limits and pacing suggestions. FASTs are aligned to the new CFPG’s Themes and MSDE Indicators. Within each Theme, the pacing has been designed to include: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Pre- and Post-Theme Assessments, Science Problem of the Week (SPOW) questions, and Content Assessments (quizzes) all pre-written with the corresponding State Indicator for ease in data analysis Problem-Based Learning (PBL) and STEM infused lessons Advanced Learner Choice Boards with corresponding worksheets, and rubrics (while they were created for Advanced Learners they were designed for ALL learners) Exemplar 5E lessons Live hyperlinks to all associated websites, content knowledge resources, interactive board instructions, and corresponding documents that have made it a truly digital document (eliminating the need for printing) Specific times designated for Assessing, Re-teaching, and Advancing (ARA)

8th Grade Revised Science CFPG The major changes in the 8th Grade CFPG are as follows: 1. The modules were realigned to reflect a logical sequence that is in sync with MSDE’s State Curriculum and Common Core 2. 4 STEM Activities with real world and career connections were added to the 8th Grade CFPG: ƒ Chemical Interactions (with a STEM Project) ƒ Astronomy (with a STEM Project) ƒ Cells and Heredity (with a STEM Project) ƒ Weather and Climate (with a STEM Project) 3. Several Math, Science and Technology Standards are referenced in all 4 STEM projects 4. Unit Assessments and FASTs reflect these changes. Section B – Core Content Areas Science MSDE Clarifying Question(s): Question: 1. Since the content of the assessment is cumulative, has the district considered alternatives to working exclusively with the tested grade level teachers? The response to this question can be found in Section G, on page 345.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 138


32.3% of 5th grade and 8.9% of 8th grade Limited English Proficient students were proficient on the 2011 science MSA

Data Based Challenge 55.1% 5th Grade and 47.7% 8th Grade students were proficient on 2011 Science MSA 24.5% of 5th grade and 12.5% of 8th grade special education students were proficient on the 2011 science MSA

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Science Office

Science Office Special Education Office IT Office Science Office Special Education Office NSTA Science and ESOL Offices

Science Office Special Education Office

Department Responsible Science Office

Page | 139

Offer collaborative planning workshops for 5th and 8th grade science leaders/teachers. Follow up will include classroom observations and review performance data from student assessments with an emphasis on the subgroups mentioned above. Teachers will modify lessons to re-teach and reinforce content. Teachers from Low performing and Title 1 schools will be targeted. All elementary schools 5th grade teachers and 15 middle schools. 100 teachers/4 sessions ($35,000) Science Office staff will collaborate with staff in the Special Education Department to provide professional development for teachers to address the needs of diverse student populations in low performing and Title 1 schools. Selected elementary special education 5th grade and 15 middle schools special education 8th grade teachers 50 teachers/4 sessions ($17,500) Collaborate more with the instructional technology office to offer more technology integration workshops to include Web 2.0 tools, Discovery Education and Safari Montage. Teachers from low performing and Title 1 schools will be targeted. All elementary schools 5th grade teachers and 15 middle schools. 100 teachers/4 sessions ($35,000) NSTA E-Learning Center Access to 10- 5th grade elementary and 15-8th grade special education science teachers. This is an online one year free PD site offering science content and differentiated instructional strategies to selected teachers in 14 states across the US. 25 teachers $0 Science Office staff will collaborate with ESOL Office staff to provide professional development on -STEP-T: Secondary Teacher Education and Professional Training for English Language Learners. This training consists of 6 components focused specifically on science: 1. Profiles of English Language Learners (ELLs) 2. Cross-cultural Communication 3. Literacy Development for ELLs 4. Teaching Strategies for ELLs 5. Adaptation of Materials for ELLs 6. Classroom Assessment for ELLs Additionally, several strategies will be infused in the ELL training sessions. These include: ƒ Teachers will use the academic language accelerator to scaffold language for English language Learners (this is a resource that consists of 119 different strategies that teachers can use with Science MSA ELLS) ƒ Teachers will implement lessons that focus on development of vocabulary, comprehension and written and oral skills ƒ Teachers will analyze ways that questioning can be used to help build background for ELLs in relationship to the 5 th and 8th Grade Science curriculum ƒ Teachers also have the opportunity to participate in book studies focused on meeting the needs of English Language Learners ƒ Teachers will implement lesson modifications for ELL students into personalized learning plans, instruction and practice. Schools with high LEP populations will be targeted. 50 teachers/4 sessions ($17,500) On-line professional development sessions will be offered via a Google Site. The Google site features science instructional videos to model best instructional, differentiated strategies that yield greater student achievement in diverse student populations and all subgroups in a science classroom. All elementary and middle school science teachers $0

Changes/Resource Allocations

Chart B Data-Based Challenges and Proposed Interventions, Elementary and Middle School Science, SY2010-11

Ongoing NovemberFebruary 2012

Ongoing NovemberFebruary 2012

November 2011- August 2012

Ongoing August 2011February 2012

Ongoing August 2011February 2012

Timeline


MARYLAND SCHOOL ASSESSMENT (MSA) SOCIAL STUDIES The mission of PGCPS is consistent with the above-articulated state goals for social studies instruction and outcomes. PGCPS is committed to preparing its graduates to be engaged global and domestic citizens who exhibit mastery in English, mathematics, science, social studies, fine arts, physical education, health, technology, and world languages content.2 Please respond to the following prompts: 1. Describe the alignment of your LEA’s Social Studies Curriculum with the State Curriculum at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. The Maryland State Curriculum has been adopted by PGCPS. PGCPS Social Studies curriculum is 100% aligned to the Maryland State Curriculum for Elementary, Middle and High School documents. Social Studies curriculum documents K-8, include the Maryland State Curriculum in its entirety in the front matter for teachers to reference in each curriculum document. The Maryland State Curriculum is also included in the curriculum documents grades 9-12 with Correlations to Reading English Language Arts standards that align to Social Studies. 2. Identify the challenges your LEA faces in ensuring that the Social Studies State Curriculum is effectively implemented at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. Ensuring that Social Studies state curriculum is effectively implemented is challenging because Social Studies does not factor into the formula for AYP. Social Studies is not an assessed content area at the state level as the State of Maryland has chosen only to assess Math, Reading and Science for accountability purposes. The PGCPS time allotment for Social Studies is recommended at 45 minutes every other day on the elementary level. It is also recommended as a best practice, i.e. Social Studies content be integrated within the reading block in order to provide exposure to informational text through teaching the content. For the elementary program, this instructional practice is ideal in bolstering reading in the content area. Monitoring the implementation of the recommendations continues to be a challenge because schools have different scheduling models for when and how Social Studies is offered. As the county and state transition to Common Core Curriculum for reading and math, the focus for integrating Social Studies has shifted to highlighting an understanding for the new strategies needed for teaching reading and math. Time allotment for Social Studies is 72 minutes per session on the middle school level. Social Studies content provide exposure to informational text in an approach which promotes literacy in the content area. In some middle school sites, scheduling for Social Studies is not consistent, some schools offer Social Studies every day, semesterized or every other day, while other content areas focusing on literacy meet on a daily basis. Middle schools have different scheduling models, and the lack of uniformity for when Social Studies is offered in the schedule affects the implementation of the program. The schedule variation and the emphasis of Social Studies being offered in the same manner as a reading or a math course that meet every day presents a challenge for monitoring the middle school program. Social Studies content provided on the high school level provides exposure which promotes literacy as well as course work which prepares students to be College and Career Ready. With the elimination of the High School Assessment in Government, earning credit in Social Studies as a graduation requirement is the current focus for monitoring instruction. Staff reductions at central and regional offices force staff to focus limited resources on monitoring accountability for tested courses. 3. Explain how your LEA is addressing those challenges. In addressing the challenges on the elementary and middle school levels, it is proposed that the Social Studies Office collaborates with Reading English Language Arts Office for professional development. A concerted effort is planned to provide professional development that focuses on strategies to incorporate more Social Studies informational text for reading and writing in order to reach all learners. Below is a tentative list of teacher trainings that have been planned and resources that will be emphasized to address all learners.

2

See the PGCPS mission statement at http://www1.pgcps.org/superintendent/strategicoverview. P.5.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 140


Professional Development ˆ Disciplinary Literacy for reading and writing in Social Studies will be offered for all Social Studies department chairpersons and teacher coordinators. These sessions will target instructional strategies for reaching all learners, specifically Special Education students and Limited English Proficient students. In an effort to access more teachers, these trainings will be offered during the school day (September-December). Targeted strategies will include but are not limited to the following: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Increasing accountable talk among all students Using non-verbal and context clues to provide meaning for instruction (pictures, primary and secondary sources, graphic organizers) Using questioning to facilitate learning Supporting student language development and understanding of academic words distinct to Social Studies Modeling good writing practices and scaffolding the process

ˆ The University of Maryland DL in Writing Partnership will provide training for targeted middle schools where teachers will deliver student centered social studies writing instruction and curriculum implementation. These teachers will share learned strategies for questioning and increasing student engagement at their buildings via monthly workshops and e-community. As a result, classroom instruction will benefit targeted classes with all sub-groups. A long range goal and by product of the cohort training is that middle grade students will experience student centered instruction and be better prepared for writing in the content area of Social Studies. ˆ The Teaching American History Grant Project will provide content and pedagogy training for high school teachers to deliver student centered history instruction and curriculum implementation. These teachers will share learned strategies for questioning and increasing student engagement via scheduled bridge sessions, summer institute and e-community. As a result, classroom instruction will benefit targeted classes with all subgroups. A long range goal and by product of the cohort training is that high school students will experience student centered instruction and be better prepared for literacy in the disciplinary of History. Chart C: Social Studies Professional Development Professional Development Date ELEMENTARY LEVEL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Kindergarten MMSR Workshops September 13-15 2011 Elementary School Instructional Leadership Workshop October 5, 2011 ƒ Transitioning to Common Core Social Studies’ Role October 6, 2011 ƒ Instructional Strategies for Building Literacy in Social Studies ƒ And Academic Rigor MIDDLE SCHOOL LEVEL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Middle School Disciplinary Literacy Trainings September 21, 2011 ƒ Instructional Strategies for Building Literacy in Social Studies October 24, 2011 And Academic Rigor November 29, 2011 ƒ Instructional Strategies for building literacy in writing for Social January 18, 2012 Studies April 17, 2012 HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT High School Instructional Leadership Trainings September 22, 2011 ƒ Instructional Strategies for Building Literacy in Social Studies January 30, 2012 And Academic Rigor April 25, 2012 ƒ Instructional Strategies for building literacy in for Social Studies Teaching American History Cohort II Bridge Session October 14, 2011-June 2012 ƒ Content Trainings for teachers from University Partners ƒ Trainings focused on pedagogy in building literacy in history and Academic Rigor

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Target Audience Elementary School Kindergarten Teachers Elementary School Social Studies Department Chairpersons

Middle School Department Chairpersons

High School Teacher Coordinators

Grade 9 United States History Teachers

Page | 141


MARYLAND HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENT (HSA) English High School Assessment Based on the examination of AYP proficiency data for English (Table 2.3): 1. Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of subgroups. Table I PGCPS English HSA Performance and the At 70.5% proficiency, Prince George’s Count y students failed State Proficiency Standard, 2009 through 2011 to meet the 2011 English HSA AMO (79.5%) by 9.0 percentage Proficiency Percentage Pct. Point points. This percentage represents a 1.6 point increase in Change 2009 2010 2011 proficiency over the SY2009-10 level. As recently as SY20082009 – 2011 09, however, 75.4% of county students in the aggregate PGCPS 75.4 68.9 70.5 -4.9 performed at the proficiency level on the English HSA, meaning 65.8 72.7 79.5 +14.7 that despite the one year increase in proficiency between AMO +9.6 -3.8 -9.0 -18.6 SY2009-10 and SY2010-11, the proficiency percentage for PGCPS +/- AMO county students on the English HSA is 4.9 points below the percentage registered in SY2008-09 (see Tables 2.3A and I). Moreover, in three short years, county students have lost 18.6 percentage points against the state’s constantly escalating AMO. Table 2.3A: Maryland High School Assessment Performance Results - Reading - High (English II) All Students Subgroup

2009 # Tested

All Students

8,003

2010

# Prof. 6,032

% Prof. 75.4

# Tested 9,078

2011

# Prof. 6,254

% Prof.

# Tested

68.9

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

9,197

6,482

70.5

703

65.1

44

33

75.0

277

238

85.9

7,318

5,113

69.9

-438

Two or more races

% Prof.

1,080

--

White

# Prof.

-361

82.4

40

34

85.0

Special Education

527

116

22.0

1,113

322

28.9

1,113

322

28.9

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

149

78

52.3

292

89

30.5

292

89

30.5

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

2,503

1,786

71.4

3,276

2,100

64.1

3,499

2,348

67.1

The SY2010-11 performance of two subgroups – SPED and LEP – has consistently been lower than the other accountability subgroups when compared to aggregate student performance. At 28.9% and 30.5% proficiency, the proficiency percentages for these two subgroups were (-41.6) and (-40.0) points below the aggregate proficiency level (see Table 2.3A). The SY2010-11 performance of these two subgroups remained unchanged from their SY2009-10 levels, but the SY2010-11 SPED performance represents a 6.9 percentage point improvement over its SY2008-09 English HSA performance level. Moreover, the improved performance of SPED students on the English HSA narrowed the performance gap between them and students in the aggregate by 11.8 percentage points over the three-year period. On the other hand, the English HSA performance of LEP students has been in free fall since SY2008-09, falling 21.8 percentage points over the three-year time period. And unlike SPED students who narrowed the performance gap between themselves and students in the aggregate, the performance gap between LEP students and students in the aggregate widened by 16.9 percentage points over the same three-year time period. In addition, low-income (FARMs) students and Latino students also performed below the aggregate student performance level; however, at 67.1% and 65.1% proficiency respectively, their performance levels were not nearly as far below the aggregate student performance level as were SPED and LEP students (see Table 2.3A). An additional challenge emerges when reading performance data is disaggregated by gender. At 63.9% proficiency, SY2010-11 male English HSA performance was (-6.6) percentage points below the aggregate student performance level and a substantial (-13.3) percentage points below female student performance. Over the past three years, aggregate scores for both males and females have trended downward, with males dropping from 67.6% proficient in 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 142


SY 2009 to 63.9% proficient in SY2011 (-3.7 percentage points) and females dropping from 82.4 % proficiency to 77.2 % proficiency (-5.2 percentage points). See Tables 2.3B and 2.3C. Male students from other historically vulnerable subgroups – i.e. Latino, African American, SPED, LEP, and FARMs – all performed below their respective racial/ethnic female counterparts (see Tables 2.3B and 2.3C). Table 2.3B: Maryland High School Assessment Performance Results - Reading - High (English II) Male Subgroup

2009 # Tested

All Students

2010

# Prof.

3,807

2,574

% Prof. 67.6

# Tested 4,502

2011

# Prof. 2,757

% Prof.

# Tested

61.2

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Two or more races Special Education

% Prof.

2,963

63.9

549

336

61.2

23

15

65.2

142

122

85.9

3,677

2,297

62.5

--

White

# Prof.

4,639

--

--

235

183

77.9

13

10

76.9

389

80

20.6

763

217

28.4

807

237

29.4

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

73

31

42.5

143

36

25.2

158

43

27.2

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

1,098

672

61.2

1,524

858

56.3

1,691

1,041

61.6

Table 2.3C: Maryland High School Assessment Performance Results - Reading - High (English II) Female Subgroup

2009 # Tested

All Students

2010

# Prof.

4,195

3,458

% Prof. 82.4

# Tested 4,575

2011

# Prof. 3,497

% Prof.

# Tested

76.4

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American

367

69.1

21

18

85.7

135

116

85.9

2,816

77.3

-203

Two or more races Special Education

77.2

531

--

White 138

36

26.1

350

105

30.0

% Prof.

3,519

3,641

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

# Prof.

4,558

-178

87.7

27

24

88.9

346

108

31.2

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

76

47

61.8

149

53

35.6

131

37

28.2

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

1,405

1,114

79.3

1,752

1,242

70.9

1,808

1,307

72.3

Again, as is the case with aggregate student performance, the most daunting gender challenge the school system faces with regard to English HSA performance is with SPED and LEP males – SPED males because their performance level is so low (29.4% proficiency), and LEP males because their performance level is even lower (27.2% proficiency) and in free fall (down from 42.5% just three short years ago). 2. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made to ensure sufficient progress. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations, and incorporate timelines where appropriate. The district is proposing three strategies to address the challenges noted in the data analysis: a) increased instructional support for ESOL and Special Education teachers; b) restructured professional development delivered with a more tailored approach; and c) curriculum adjustments. The professional development will be designed and delivered by the University of Pittsburgh’s Institute for Learning (IFL) with these targeted teachers. Increased Instructional Support for ESOL Teachers PGCPS will continue to increase collaboration between the ESOL and R/ELA offices, receiving guidance from University of Pittsburgh’s Institute for Learning (IFL). Modifications have been written into English 9 and English 10 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 143


curriculum documents for LEP students and teachers will continue to be encouraged to make appropriate adjustments to the delivery of instruction for their LEP students. IFL will provide on-site and off-site guidance to the ESOL office staff to support this effort, inclusive of professional development for both ESOL teachers and general RELA educators. Increased Instructional Support for Special Education Teachers Secondary RELA Office has filled a Special Education specialist position to provide additional support for curriculum development and professional development. The office will focus attention on Grade 9 and 10, especially, collaborating with the Special Education Department and the Testing Office to determine how to address this particular challenge. Professional development opportunities will be provided as need is determined. Professional Development High School Teacher Coordinator (TC) meetings/leadership workshops will focus on developing instructional leadership skills and adolescent literacy. The professional development will be designed to increase the aggregate student performance as well as to increase the LEP and SPED performance. TCs will share their expertise and will support each other and their respective departments through face-to-face and online collaboration. Inter-classroom and inter-school visits will allow teachers to examine best practices of their colleagues. Professional development opportunities will be provided on strategies to increase student performance and the academic rigor of instructional practices. Topics will include but not be limited to the topics below: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

ƒ

Embedding higher level questioning and thinking skills using Webb’s Depth of Knowledge and Accountable Talk™ moves; Scaffold instruction to support comprehension of complex text (with special focus on LEP and SPED population); Using scaffold instruction to engage all students in inquiry discussion (with special focus on LEP and SPED population); Addressing adolescent male literacy through inclusion of best practices espoused by Dr. Alfred Tatum and other respected educators with gender focus/achievement; □ providing opportunities for wide reading of self-selected materials; □ offering choices of texts during instruction, especially those of high interest to male students; and Improving instructional practices through peer-to-peer formative informal observations designed to encourage reflective and cooperative planning among teachers.

Curriculum Adjustments Additional lessons/model lessons/activities will be included in existing curriculum documents to address areas of weak student performance on the HSA. Such additions will include but not be limited to those listed below: ƒ ƒ

Including selected response item practice to instructional units as practice for targeted indicators on HAS; and Embedding grammar instruction in the existing instructional units.

Through collaborative analysis of formative assessment data and collaborative planning, teachers will adjust their instruction to address the areas of weak student performance. Although many of these strategies were initiated in previous years, they are being continued because county students registered slight improvement in proficiency performance in SY2010-11, and there was a precipitous decline in the number of English AVP projects completed (-785) from the previous school year without a substantial decline in the percentage of seniors meeting the state’s HSA graduation requirement. Resource Allocation: ƒ The SY2012 contract with IFL for consultant services: $68,400 for English Language Arts; and ƒ The SY2012 contract with IFL for consultant services $40,900 for ESOL English Language Arts.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 144


Chart D: English Language Arts Professional Development Plan Professional Development Title English Teacher Coordinators’ Leadership Workshops

Audience

Topic(s) addressed

Teacher Coordinators (all high schools)

The following topics will be discussed at each TC meeting/workshop:

(Attendance is expected as part of job description but is subject to the principal’s discretion.)

Meeting the needs of all learners: How the curriculum supports differentiated and scaffold instruction and prepares students for successful performance on HSA (e.g., focus on grammar and HSA-type questions) Increasing the rigor of instruction: How the curriculum supports higher order thinking skills (e.g., Webb’s Depth of Knowledge and Accountable Talk)

Date(s)

Estimated Cost

August 17, 2011; October 6, 2011; November 30, 2011; January 2012; February/March 2012; April 2012; June 2012 ~$10,000

Adjusting curriculum/instruction: Using formative assessment data to target weaknesses in student performance (focus especially on LEP, FARMS, and SPED as well as gender)

Disciplinary Literacy Curriculum Mapping and Design Workshops

*Selected English Teacher Coordinators, English Teachers, Special Educators, and ESOL Teachers *Teachers will be selected, from among those expressing an interest, based on experience and knowledge of Disciplinary Literacy practices and unit design features.

Peer-to-Peer Observation and Collaborative Planning Labs / Workshops

Disciplinary Literacy for ESOL ELA Training Workshops

(Attendance is expected as part of agreement to participate.) Selected English Teacher Coordinators and English/ Special Education /ESOL Teachers *Teachers will be selected, from among those expressing an interest, based on experience and knowledge of Disciplinary Literacy practices, including but not limited to Accountable Talk moves; selection will also be based on schools with high LEP/SPED/FARMS population. (Attendance is expected as part of agreement to participate.) ESOL Teachers

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Adjusting curriculum/instruction: Employing best practices to increase adolescent/male literacy These workshops will provide professional development while teachers create a framework for a comprehensive curriculum that addresses the increased rigor of the Common Core Standards. (See detailed plans below.)

These workshops will provide professional development and serve as a systemic model for collaborative planning; sessions will focus on 1) reflective teaching practices and 2) increasing academic rigor for all students through scaffold instruction and Accountable Talk.

October 27, 2011; November 30- December 1, 2011; January 2012; February 2012; March 2012; April 2012; May 2012

November 2011; January 2012; February 2012; March 2012; April 2012; May 2012

(*See detailed plans below.)

(**See detailed plans below.)

TBD by ESOL Office

~$15,000 (in addition to the $68,400 IFL contract for consultants)

~$7,000 (in addition to the $68,400 IFL contract for consultants)

~$10,000 (in addition to the $40,900 IFL contract for consultants)

Page | 145


*Disciplinary Literacy Curriculum Mapping and Design Workshops; Peer-to-Peer Observation and Collaborative Planning Labs / Workshops The Institute for Learning (IFL) proposes to work with the Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) to support its implementation of Disciplinary Literacy High School Reading/English Courses and its planning and implementation of the Common Core Standards (CCS). There will be two main objectives: Objective 1: Development of a grades 9-12 English Language Arts (ELA) curricular frameworks (i.e., overarching questions, identified CCS, major assessments, and core text) that embody the major goals, intellectual work, and perspectives on learning for PGCPS high school students. ƒ

ƒ ƒ

Build the capacity of selected 12 – 15 PGCPS high school teacher leaders to be full participants in development of the frameworks and spokespersons for the frameworks’ usefulness to the larger community of ELA educators in PGCPS □ Use IFL structures, protocols, and routines that support the teaching and learning of the CCS through problem solving, reading, student talk, and writing to teach the content and skills. □ Pay special attention to supports for special needs students and English language learners. □ Teach and facilitate professionals to use the CCS as the basis of developing the district’s high school curricular framework for English language arts Guide the planning, drafting, and initial revision of a curricular frameworks to guide textbook adoption, implementation of CCS, and plans for student assessments (assuming high school teacher developers met responsibilities of professional learning including completing frameworks section as agreed to and assigned) Work with district Reading/ELA content director to align the new 9-12 curricular frameworks responsively to district goals and assessments, textbook adoptions, teacher professional learning, and student learning needs

Responsibilities of PGCPS High School Teacher Curriculum Developers (12 to 15 Developers) High school teacher leaders attending these collaborative work sessions will develop an overview of the development project and understand their role in learning about CCS, English studies content, curricular structures, text complexity, and pedagogy in order to complete development assignments and be full participants in the development of the PGCPS HIGH School ELA frameworks. Teacher leaders will be asked to attend and engage fully in all development work sessions, including the following: ƒ Complete and discuss advanced readings on CCS, ELA content, curriculum, and pedagogy ƒ Assume responsibilities of a lead writer or team member of a section of the frameworks ƒ Complete development assignments between work sessions ƒ Propose student text selections ƒ Offer feedback and ideas on the developing frameworks The following outlines the scope of work that the IFL will provide to support meeting Objective 1 of the Proposal Days One and Two (October – using a Friday and Saturday) IFL team of two fellows – with PGCPS Reading/ELA Content Director Formulate best approaches and structures for developing the PGCPS high school curricular frameworks by ƒ Establishing a shared vision and plan for the project ƒ Forming writing teams and agreeing to roles and responsibilities ƒ Examining CCS for their learning progressions and purposes ƒ Re-visiting a vision of rigorous, standards-based work in ELA by analyzing lessons designed to teach the CCS in terms of the content and skills on which they focus and the texts that they use ƒ Beginning to engage in readings on curriculum design and analyzing the design of lessons and units keyed to the CCS Days Three through Five (One 2-day work sessions in January and a 1-day work session in March) Two IFL Fellows with PGCPS Reading/ELA Content Director Develop Frameworks by ƒ Analyzing an example of an existing curriculum frameworks for several grades or courses through the CCS lens 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 146


ƒ ƒ ƒ

Engaging in readings on curriculum design and English studies and re-visiting the design of lessons and units keyed to the CCS Learning about and use the CCS and IFL criteria to assess student texts for complexity Formulating draft frameworks and mapping overarching questions, keyed CCS, and large assessments progressing from grades 9-12

One Off-site Day in April or May (Two IFL Fellows): Develop revision recommendations to address identified gaps in Curricular Frameworks Objective 2: Build capacity of a corps of 4-to-5 selected Teacher Coordinators (TCs) to improve teaching and learning in ELA high school courses by leading peer-to-peer lesson observations in their high schools and in at least three other high schools. The following outlines the scope of work that the IFL will provide to support meeting the Proposal’s Objective 2 Days One & Two: One IFL Fellow ƒ Form shared purposes of project and plans for conducting observations across the school year ƒ Deepening understanding of Accountable Talk practices and pedagogical rituals and routines ƒ Developing open-ended, text-based questions and consider potential follow-up questions to expand students’ reasoning about texts ƒ Re-visit facilitation observation process using the DL observation protocol with the PGCPS Look-fors Tool ƒ Pre-observation meeting □ Conducting the observation □ Post-observation feedback meeting □ Reflection and next steps ƒ Agree to and develop plan to complete two peer-to-peer observations in next two months (one in own department and one in a trusted TC’s peer’s department) and complete and send teacher participants’ reflections and facilitation reflection Days Three and Four: One IFL Fellow Observe and debrief facilitation by TCs of lesson observation process in four schools using an observation lab protocol that supports reflection by facilitator of total process. Objective 3: Produce a lesson video of PGCPS High school ELA Curriculum. Summary of Days Days Days Per Fellow

Number of off-site days Professional Development Video

Detail 2 Fellows for 5 days of Professional Learning and Work Sessions with HS Teacher Writers 1 Fellow for 4 days of Professional Learning and On-site Support for Lesson Observations 2 fellows X 1 day One PD video based on PGCPS content. Pricing includes offsite planning with the teachers, a day of fellow time onsite for the taping, an IFL video crew and editing.

Summary 14 on-site days

2 days off site 1 PD Video

*** Disciplinary Literacy for ESOL ELA Training Workshops The Institute for Learning (IFL) proposes to work with the Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) to support its implementation of ESOL English Language Arts and its planning and implementation of lessons for the High School ESOL Reading/English Language Arts Courses and its planning and implementation of the Common Core Standards (CCS). There will be two main objectives: Objective 1: Support the development of ESOL Language Arts Lessons/Unit ƒ

Work with district ESOL/ELA administrator, coach, and ESOL writers to align the ESOL lessons/Unit with district goals and assessments, textbook adoptions, teacher professional learning, and student learning needs;

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 147


ƒ

Build the capacity of a selected group of PGCPS high school teacher leaders to be full participants in development of the lessons/units and spokespersons for the work’s usefulness to the larger community of ESOL educators in PGCPS □ Use IFL structures, protocols, routines, and Power Tools for ELs that support the teaching and learning of the CCS through problem solving, reading, student talk, grammar, and writing to teach the content and skills. □ Pay special attention to supports for English language learners to access a rigorous curriculum. □ Guide the planning, drafting, and initial revision of a set of lessons to comprise a unit so that by January 2012 there is a draft to pilot (assuming high school ESOL teacher developers met responsibilities of professional learning including completing lessons/unit as agreed to and assigned)

Responsibilities of PGCPS High School ESOL Teacher Curriculum Developers High school ESOL teacher leaders and content administrators attending these collaborative work sessions will develop an overview of the development project and understand their role in learning about CCS, English studied content, curricular structures, text complexity, and pedagogy in order to complete development assignments and be a full participant in the development of the PGCPS High School ESOL/ELA lessons/unit. Teacher leaders and content administrators will be required to attend and engage fully in all development work sessions, including the following: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Complete and discuss advanced readings on CCS, ELA content, curriculum, and pedagogy Assume responsibilities of a lead writer or team member of a section of the lessons/unit Complete development assignments between work sessions Propose student text selections Offer feedback on and ideas about the developing lessons/unit

The following outlines the scope of work that the IFL will provide to support meeting Objective 1 of Proposal: Days One and Two (First Semester– using a Thursday) IFL team of one fellow – with PGCPS ESOL/ELA administrator, coach, & ESOL writers Formulate best approaches and formats for developing the PGCPS ESOL high school lessons/Unit by: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Establishing a shared vision and plan for the project Forming writing teams and agreeing to roles and responsibilities Deepening understanding of scaffolding and formative assessment Examining CCS for their learning progressions and purposes Re-visiting a vision of rigorous, standards-based work in ESOL by analyzing lessons designed to teach the CCS in terms of the content and skills on which they focus and the texts that they use Beginning to engage in readings on curriculum design and analyzing the design of lessons and units keyed to the CCS

Days Three through Five (First Semester/Second Semester each time using a Thursday) One IFL Fellow with PGCPS ESOL administrators, coach, & ESOL writers Develop Frameworks by: ƒ Engaging in readings on curriculum design and English studies and re-visiting the design of lessons and units keyed to the CCS ƒ Learning about and use the CCS and IFL criteria to assess student texts for complexity ƒ Formulating draft format and mapping overarching questions, keyed CCS and WIDA standards for Grade 9 ƒ Identifying core texts and/or text topics/genres/levels of text complexity for grade 9 that map into lessons/unit. ƒ Investigating how to economically and effectively provide student text selections for PGCPS high schools One of the days above will be a joint venture of the ESOL and the RELA departments of Prince George’s Public Schools to ensure there are understanding, coherence, and coordination in reading and English Language Arts for the EL population.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 148


One Off-site Day in April or May (One IFL Fellows): Develop revision recommendations to address identified gaps in lessons/unit Objective 2: Provide professional development to ESOL I (One) high school teachers on how to implement IFL lessons with fidelity. The following outlines the scope of work that the IFL will provide to support meeting the Proposal’s Objective 2: Day Six (Second Semester using a Thursday) ƒ

Provide clear expectations regarding district policies on the use of the unit and pedagogical rituals and routines, the support that will be received during implementation and the timeline for implementation of the first and subsequent units under development ƒ Learn the unit’s architecture, the use of APriori lessons, and the rationale for each ƒ Learn how to use pedagogical rituals and routines contained in the unit for ELs and the rationale for using them with ELs Objective 3: Build capacity of a corps of 4-to-5 selected ESOL Teacher Coordinators (TCs) to improve teaching and learning in ESOL ELA high school courses by leading peer-to-peer lesson observations in their respective high schools and in at least two other high schools. The following outlines the scope of work that the IFL will provide to support meeting the Proposal’s Objective 3: Days One & Two: One IFL Fellow ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Form shared purposes of project and plans for conducting observations across the school year Deepen understanding of Accountable Talk practices and pedagogical rituals and routines Develop open-ended, text-based questions and consider potential follow-up questions to expand students’ reasoning about texts Re-visit facilitation observation process using the DL observation protocol with the PGCPS Look-fors Tool □ Pre-observation meeting □ Conducting the observation □ Post-observation feedback meeting □ Reflection and next steps □ Agree to and develop plan to complete two peer-to-peer observations in two months (one in own department and one in a trusted TC’s peer’s department) and complete and send teacher participants’ reflections and facilitation reflection

Days Three and Four: One IFL Fellow Observe and debrief facilitation by TCs of lesson observation process in four schools using an observation lab protocol that supports reflection by facilitator of total process. Summary of Days Days Days per Fellows Number of off-site days

Detail 1 Fellows for 5 days of Sessions with HS Teacher Writers 1 Fellow for 4 days of On-site Support for Lesson Observations 1 fellow X 4 day

Summary 9 on-site days 4 days off site

Based on the examination of 2010 High School Assessment (HSA) results for English (Tables 3.1 and 3.2): 1. Identify any additional challenges that are evident. There is a need to increase number of LEP students taking as well as passing the English HSA. ƒ ƒ

For SY2009-10, only 11.9% of 10th grade LEP students took and passed the English HSA. Another 23.7% of 10th graders in this subgroup took the English HSA but did not pass, and 64.4% of 10th grade LEP students did not take the exam. At the 11th grade level, 24.8% of LEP students took and passed the English HSA, another 66.9% of this subgroup took the English HSA but did not pass the exam, and 4.7% of 11 th grade LEP students did not take the test.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 149


ƒ ƒ

Some 247 12th grade LEP students took the English HSA, and two-thirds of them (67.2%) did not pass. There was a significant discrepancy noted in performance by gender within this subgroup: males outperformed females by 13.6 points.

Note: LEP students who enter high school at the Level 1 or Newcomer level have to take the HSA before having completed English 10 in order to have an opportunity to graduate via the AVP project. This may be one reason for the low performance on the HSA in SY2010. Special Education: The failure of Special Education students to score at or above the proficiency level has remained a concern. ƒ ƒ ƒ

In 2010, the percentage of Special Education students that did not pass the HSA has remained consistent across the grade levels. For 10th grade, 69.8% of the students in this subgroup took but did not pass the HSA; for 11th grade, the percentage was 66.1%; and for 12th grade, the percentage was 60.2%. For SY2010, the percentage of Special Education students that took and passed the HSA showed improvement from the 10th through the 12th grade. For 10th graders, 17.2% of the students from this subgroup took and passed the English HSA; for eleventh grade, the percentage was 28.7%; for twelfth grade, the percentage was 39.7%. No significant discrepancy was noted for performance by gender within this subgroup.

FARMS: The failure of FARMS students to score at or above the proficiency level remained a concern. ƒ ƒ ƒ

For 2010, the percentage of FARMS students that did not pass the HSA has remained fairly consistent across the grade levels. For tenth grade, 37.1% of the students in this subgroup took but did not pass the HSA; for eleventh grade, the percentage was 35.3%; for twelfth grade the percentage was 31.6%. For SY2010, the percentage of FARMS students that took and passed the HSA showed improvement from tenth through twelfth grade. For tenth graders, 50.1% of the students in this subgroup took and passed the English HSA; for eleventh grade, the percentage was 62.1%; for twelfth grade, the percentage was 68.3%. There was a significant decreased for performance by gender within this subgroup: males outperformed females by 13.2% points.

Note: The passing rate for 12th grade was only 0.6 percentage points lower than the aggregate district passing rate (68.9%). This is encouraging, but the challenge remains to increase the number of students passing the test as tenth graders. 2. Describe what, if anything, the school system will do differently than in past years to address the challenges identified. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations. The Secondary R/ELA office will continue to make Disciplinary Learning (DL) curriculum available to all students in English 9 and English 10. Additionally, the secondary R/ELA office now includes a secondary R/ELA instructional specialist for special education. This specialist will work directly with designated schools’ special education teachers to support the special educator’s implementation of the curriculum and to determine what additional supports can be provided systemically. Resource Allocation: None required. The specialist is filling a previously vacant (funded) position. ƒ

The system has created a new course sequence for the LEP students. The sequence is designed to give the students more instruction in English prior to taking the HSA. Resource Allocation: None required. ƒ

The Disciplinary Literacy peer-to-peer observation labs/workshops will target schools with high LEP/FARMS populations. Resource Allocation: ~$7,000 (See chart above.)

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 150


MARYLAND HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENT (HSA) Algebra/Data Analysis Based on the examination of AYP proficiency data for Algebra/Data Analysis (Table 2.6): 1. Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of subgroups. In SY2010-11, the percentage of students in Table J. PGCPS Algebra/Data Analysis HSA Performance and the aggregate that passed the Algebra/ Data the State Proficiency Standard, 2009 through 2011 Analysis High School Assessment was the SY2008-09 SY2009-10 SY2011-12 SY2012-13 same as the percentage that passed the PGCPS 69.2% 67.8% 67.8% TBD exam the previous school year (67.8%). This AMO 56.1% 64.9% 73.7% 82.4% passing rate is slightly lower (-1.4 percentage points) than the 69.2% passing rate for PGCPS +13.1 +2.9 -5.9 TBD +/- AMO county students during the SY2008-09 testing cycle, and whereas the county’s performance on the exam exceeded the state’s standard (AMO) by 13.1 percentage points in SY2008-09, its SY2010-11 performance fell 5.9 percentage points below the escalating AMO. This trend poses a significant challenge for the county as the AMO for SY2011-12 will escalate to 82.4% while recent county performance has remained stagnant at best (see Tables 2.6A and J). Table 2.6A: Maryland High School Assessment Performance Results - Math - High (Algebra/Data Analysis) All Students Subgroup

2009 # Tested

All Students

7,861

2010

# Prof.

% Prof.

5,438

69.2

# Tested 9,026

# Prof. 6,118

2011 % Prof.

# Tested

67.8

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

# Prof. 6,128

1,071

742

69.3

42

29

69.0

264

233

88.3

4,731

65.9

-434

Two or more races

67.8

7,184 --

White

% Prof.

9,034

-360

82.9

39

33

84.6

Special Education

563

94

16.7

1,202

272

22.6

1,195

322

26.9

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

148

89

60.1

286

173

60.5

286

142

49.7

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

2,464

1,634

66.3

3,264

2,167

66.4

3,450

2,276

66.0

In addition to the need to accelerate the current stagnant performance trend in aggregate student performance, there is the need to substantially increase the pace of acceleration in the performance of special education students, and also reverse and then rapidly accelerate the performance of LEP students. In SY2010-11, with a 26.9% passing rate, special education student performance fell 40.9 percentage points below the overall student performance level (67.8%). Meanwhile, with a passing rate of 49.7%, LEP students fell 18.1 percentage points below overall student performance. Even more challenging is that the SY2010-11 passing rate was (-11.4) percentage points below the LEP passing rate as recently as SY2008-09 (see Table 2.6A). Another challenge is the fairly sizeable gap between male and female student performance. Whereas over the past three years females have consistently outperformed their male counterparts, the performance gap between the two student subgroups has grown from 5.5 percentage points in SY2008-09 to 7.0 percentage points in SY2010-11. And whereas the gender performance gaps within subgroups ranged within five percentage points, the performance gap between African American males (61.5%) and females (70.3%) was a substantial 9.8 percentage points (see Tables 2.6B and 2.6C).

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 151


Table 2.6B: Maryland High School Assessment Performance Results - Math - High (Algebra/Data Analysis) Male Subgroup

2009 # Tested

All Students Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

# Prof.

2010 % Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

2011 % Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

4578 544 23 133 3635 -227 16 829 158 1683

2946 381 15 119 2235 -185 11 243 81 1081

64.4 70.0 65.2 89.5 61.5 -81.5 68.8 25.7 51.3 64.2

# Tested

# Prof.

3,766

2,496

66.3

4,524

2,967

65.6

411 72 1,097

72 44 699

17.5 61.1 63.7

821 140 1,525

193 86 995

23.5 61.4 65.2

Table 2.6C: Maryland High School Assessment Performance Results - Math - High (Algebra/Data Analysis) Female Subgroup

2009 # Tested

All Students Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races Special Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

4,095

# Prof. 2,942

2010 % Prof. 71.8

# Tested 4,501

# Prof. 3,150

2011 % Prof. 70.0

4,456 527 19 131 3,549 207

3,182 361 14 114 2,496 -175

366 128 1,767

109 61 1,195

--

152 76 1,367

22 45 935

14.5 59.2 68.4

381 146 1,739

79 87 1,172

20.7 59.6 67.4

% Prof. 71.4 68.5 73.7 87.0 70.3 -84.5 95.0 29.8 47.7 67.6

2. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made to ensure sufficient progress. Include a discussion of the corresponding resource allocations, and incorporate timelines where appropriate. The response to this question is the same as the response to Question 2 in the Algebra participation and status subsection that immediately follows.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 152


HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENT (HSA) Maryland High School Assessment Mathematics Based on the Examination of 2008 High School Assessment Results for Algebra/Data Analysis (Tables 3.3 and 3.4): 1. Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of grade band(s) and subgroup(s). Analysis of 10th Graders Table 3.3A: HSA Test Participation and Status - Algebra/Data Analysis 2010 Population: All 10th Grade Students All Students Subgroup

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed

All Students

8,339

58.7

4,899

35.2

2,937

Special Education

860

17.6

151

74.5

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

469

27.7

130

62.3

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

3,739

53.0

1,981

42.0

% Taken and Number Not Not Passed Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken

6.0

503

641

7.9

68

292

10.0

47

1,570

5.0

188

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races

In SY2009-10, 58.7% of PGCPS 10th grade students taken and passed the Algebra/Data Analysis High School Assessment (HSSA). By the end of the school year, another 6.0% of 10th graders had not even sat for the assessment. The passing rate for 10th graders among the historically vulnerable, non-racial accountability subgroups, varied (see Table 3.3A). Whereas the passing rate among low-income (FARMs) 10th graders was within 5.7 percentage points of the aggregate student passing rate, the picture for 10th grade special education and limited English proficient students was far worse. In SY2010, only 17.6% of special education 10th graders had taken and passed the Algebra/Data Analysis HSSA and three-quarters of these students (74.5%) had taken the exam and not passed. Only 7.9% of special education 10th graders had not sat for the exam (see Table 3.3A). The situation for 10th grade LEP students was not much better than it was for 10th grade special education students. Only 27.7% of 10th grade LEP students had passed the Algebra HSSA, and 62.3% of them had taken but failed the exam. Performance comparisons between male and female students in the aggregate show marginal differences with 57.1% of males and 60.3% of females having passed the Algebra/Data Analysis exam prior to entering the 11th grade. Among the most academically vulnerable of the accountability subgroups, males out perform females, with special education males outperforming their female counterparts by 6.5 percentage points (19.7% to 13.2%). See Tables 3.3B and 3.3C.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 153


Table 3.3B: HSA Test Participation and Status - Algebra/Data Analysis 2010 Population: All 10th Grade Students Male

Subgroup

Number of S 4,063

% Taken and

Number

57.1

2,322

36.0

Special Education

579

19.7

114

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

247

32.0

79

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

1,802

51.9

936

All Students

% Taken and Number Not

% Not

Number Not

1,461

6.9

280

72.4

419

7.9

46

59.1

146

8.9

22

42.1

759

5.9

107

% Not

Number Not

5.2

223

22

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races

Table 3.3C: HSA Test Participation and Status - Algebra/Data Analysis 2010 Population: All 10th Grade Students Subgroup

Female Number of S 4,276

% Taken and

Number

60.3

2,577

34.5

1,476

Special Education

281

13.2

37

79.0

222

7.8

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

222

23.0

51

65.8

146

11.3

25

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

1,937

53.9

1,045

41.9

811

4.2

81

All Students

% Taken and Number Not

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races

Analysis of 11th Graders By the end of the 11th grade year, the aggregate passing rate had only improved somewhat to 68.9%. This relatively low passing rate meant that the remaining 31.1% of 11th graders who had either failed the exam, or who had not taken it, would have had to register for an AVP (Bridge) project course upon entry into the 12 th grade if they expected to graduate on time. The 11th grade passing rates for special education and LEP students was noticeably higher than their 10th grade passing rates; however, at 28.7% and 48.4% respectively, performance levels for these subgroups were well below a respectable level (see Table 3.4A). Meanwhile, 10th grade gender performance patterns held form through grade 11 as female students (70.7%) in the aggregate outperformed male students (66.9%), but male special education and male LEP students continued to outperform their female counterparts (see Tables 3.4B and 3.4C). At the end of the 11th grade year, 3.9% of all 11th graders had still not sat for the Algebra/Data Analysis exam.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 154


Table 3.4A: HSA Test Participation and Status - Algebra/Data Analysis 2010 Population: All 11th Grade Students All Students Subgroup

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed

All Students

7,246

68.9

4,994

27.2

Special Education

635

28.7

182

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

341

48.4

165

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

2,936

63.1

1,852

% Taken and Number Not Not Passed Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken

1,972

3.9

280

66.6

423

4.7

30

48.1

164

3.5

12

33.6

986

3.3

98

% Not

Number Not

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races

Table 3.4B: HSA Test Participation and Status - Algebra/Data Analysis 2010 Population: All 11th Grade Students Male

Subgroup

Number of

% Taken and

Number

3,415

66.9

2,286

29.0

989

4.1

140

Special Education

411

28.7

118

66.7

274

4.6

19

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

193

51.3

99

45.6

88

3.1

6

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

1,363

61.1

833

35.4

483

3.4

47

All Students

% Taken and Number Not

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races

Table 3.4C: HSA Test Participation and Status - Algebra/Data Analysis 2010 Population: All 11th Grade Students Subgroup

Female Number of

% Taken and

Number

% Not

Number Not

3,831

70.7

2,708

25.7

983

3.7

140

Special Education

224

28.6

64

66.5

149

4.9

11

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

148

44.6

66

51.4

76

4.1

6

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

1,573

64.8

1,019

32.0

503

3.2

51

All Students

% Taken and Number Not

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 155


2. Describe the interventions that the school system has in place to support students passing the Algebra/Data Analysis HSA. How effective are they? What evidence do you have of their effectiveness? Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations. As the county and state transition to Common Core Curriculum for Mathematics, a concerted effort is being made to plan professional development for Algebra 1 teachers that is focused on building foundational concepts, and on the identification and use of interventions to support students as they prepare for the Algebra/Data Analysis HSSA. These professional development activities also include curriculum modifications and support for targeted subgroups. Intra-county collaborations among the Mathematics and ESOL Offices and the Special Education Department will focus on strategies designed to reach all learners and emphasize curriculum resources that have been developed to differentiate instruction. Below is a tentative list of the teacher trainings that have been planned and the resources that will be emphasized to address all learners. ˆ Professional Development: ƒ

Diverse Strategies for Mathematics will be offered for to all Algebra/Data Analysis and Algebra teachers. These sessions will target instructional strategies for reaching all learners, particularly Special Education students and Limited English Proficient students. In an effort to access more teachers, these trainings will be offered during the school day (September-December) Targeted strategies will include but are not limited to the following: … Increasing accountable talk among all students … Using non-verbal and context clues to provide meaning for instruction (pictures, graphic organizers) … Using manipulatives and other mathematical tools to facilitate learning … Supporting student language development and understanding of word problems … Modeling correct answers by writing them on the board … Using questioning to help student access higher level thinking skills from Webb’s Depth of Knowledge … Infusion of the Common Core Standards for Mathematical Practice to access student thinking … IEP development … Key Elements to Algebra Success (KEAS) will be used at all middle schools to support students with math delays, including ESOL and general education students

ƒ

Strategies to reach African American Students will focus on the following : … Developing problem solving through authentic context and project based learning. … All materials that are developed or purchased have been and will be reviewed to include Education that is Multicultural (ETM) in a positive manner. … Increased focus on building numeracy and fact fluency in primary grades … Whereas there is no specific support that has been developed to address the achievement gap for African-American students, the expectation is that this large sub-group will benefit from the increased attention outlined in all previously mentioned supports. Through improved staff capacity and effectiveness the existing gap is expected to diminish.

ƒ

High School Teacher Coordinator’s (TCs) quarterly trainings will be conducted in conjunction with the Special Education Department and the ESOL Office. Lessons/activities within the Curriculum Framework will be highlighted as a means of addressing all student populations. The expectation is that the leaders from each school will return to their schools and share information within their buildings. (NovemberJanuary)

ˆ Resources ƒ

Algebra 1 textbook adoption includes more online animated support for instruction, step by step visuals to illustrate concepts for improved understanding and clearly details responses to students’ individual needs, (RtI).

ƒ

Unit Assessments allow students to imitate test-taking strategies in a non-threatening venue prior to high stakes test administration. These assessments mirror the cognitive demand required for success on HSA

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 156


and for algebra data analysis and algebra teachers and students, in order to monitor student achievement and adjust instruction based upon the data obtained. ƒ

Count on Us will continue to broadcast throughout the school-year to provide students with live on camera support for mathematics problems. Statistical data indicates a high percentage of call ins to the show from schools that have a high ESOL population. As funds allow, previously produced mini-lessons will be catalogued by topic for classroom access.

ƒ

KEAS the purchase of KEAS materials for all algebra data analysis teachers and students including, English language learners.

ƒ

IFL/DL Secondary Curriculum Writing Project will provide training for all geometry teachers on the new developed “Common Core” unit to prepare and assist in delivering student centered mathematics instruction and writing curriculum.

Table K SY2011-12 Algebra Professional Development Schedule Professional Development Title Audience Date Mathematics Teacher Coordinators Workshop Teacher Coordinators Aug 31, 2011 Algebra 1 Textbook & Content Pt. 1 Make-up Middle and High School Sep 7, 2011 Session Algebra 1 Teachers Algebra Data Analysis (HSA) Teacher Training Teachers Sep 8, 2011 Middle and High School Oct 12 & 13, 2011 Algebra 1 Textbook & Content Training Part 2 (attend one session ONLY) Algebra 1 Teachers Algebra Data Analysis (HSA) Teacher Training Teachers Oct 27, 2011 Mathematics Department Chairs & Teacher Middle and High School Math Dec. 7, 2011 Coordinators Teacher Leaders

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Estimated Cost ~11,000 ~$18, 000 ~$18, 000 ~$18, 000 ~$18, 000 $15,825

Page | 157


MARYLAND HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENT (HSA) Biology Based on the examination of 2010 High School Assessment results for Biology (Tables 3.5 and 3.6): 1. Identify the challenges that are evident. Biology HSA – Grade 10 In SY2009-10, 55.7% of the school system’s 10th grade students who had enrolled in the HSSA Biology course passed the HSSA exam. At the same time, a full one-third of these 10th grade students took the exam and failed. A full 11.0% of course enrollees – 924 students – took the course but chose not to sit for the exam. The performance of historically vulnerable, non-racial/ethnic subgroups was substantially lower than 10th grade students in the aggregate. Only 46.3% of low-income (FARMs) students who took the exam passed it, and the pass rates for special education students and limited English proficient students were far worse – 22.0% and 19.1% respectively(see Table 3.5A). Upon registering a mere 19.1% passing rate, just an additional 21.5% percent of the LEP students who took the course sat for the exam and failed it. The remaining three-fifths (59.4%) of course registrants chose not to sit for the exam. Thus, the school system determine not only what accounts for the low passing rate, but must also grapple with how to infuse these students with the confidence necessary to even take the exam (see Table 3.5A). Table 3.5A: HSA Test Participation and Status - Biology 2010 Population: All 10th Grade Students All Students Subgroup

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed

All Students

8,423

55.7

4,693

33.3

Special Education

860

22.0

189

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

470

19.1

90

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

3,749

46.3

1,737

% Taken and Number Not Not Passed Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken

2,806

11.0

924

64.3

553

13.7

118

21.5

101

59.4

279

39.7

1,487

14.0

525

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races

Among 10th grade students in the aggregate, there were no differences in the passing rates for males (55.9%) and females (55.6%). Substantial gender differences were manifested among special education and LEP students, however. Among special education students, 26.4% of the male students who took the exam passed it compared with only 12.8% of special education females. Similarly, 22.3% of male LEP students passed the Biology HSSA assessment compared with only 15.7% of female LEP students. These findings suggest that system officials may have to come up with some gender-specific interventions to close a troubling achievement gap (see Tables 3.5B and 3.5C).

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 158


Table 3.5B: HSA Test Participation and Status - Biology 2010 Population: All 10th Grade Students Subgroup

Male Number of

% Taken and

Number

4,105

55.9

2,294

32.2

Special Education

579

26.4

153

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

247

22.3

55

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

1,808

47.5

859

All Students

% Taken and Number Not

% Not Taken

Number Not

1,321

11.9

490

60.6

351

13.0

75

21.5

53

56.3

139

38.1

688

14.4

261

% Not Taken

Number Not 434

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races

Table 3.5C: HSA Test Participation and Status - Biology 2010 Population: All 10th Grade Students Subgroup

Female Number of

% Taken and

Number

4,318

55.6

2,399

34.4

1,485

10.1

Special Education

281

12.8

36

71.9

202

15.3

43

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

223

15.7

35

21.5

48

62.8

140

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

1,941

45.2

878

41.2

799

13.6

264

All Students

% Taken and Number Not

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races

Biology HSA – Grade 11 In the same year (SY2009-10), 65.1% of 11th grade students who had taken the HSSA Biology course had also taken and passed the Biology HSSA. This rate is 10 points higher than the 10th grade passing rate, but does not come near meeting the school system’s own college readiness by graduation standard (see Table 3.6A). Even more dramatic than the 10 point increase in the percentage of Biology course enrollees/completers in the aggregate who had now passed the end-of-course exam, was the reversal of fortune for LEP students. Whereas only 19.1% of LEP 10th graders had passed the Biology HSSA, the percentage of LEP students who had passed the exam by the end of the 11 th grade had increased to 47.4% -- a 27.7 percentage point increase. And whereas almost 60 percent of LEP students had not sat to take the Biology HSSA by the end of the 10th grade, only 5.6% had chosen not to sit for the exam by the end of the 11 th grade. Moreover, whereas there were rather stark differences in the passing rates for male and female 10th graders, by the end of the 11th grade, those differences had almost completely dissipated (see Tables 3.6A, 3.6B, and 3.6C).

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 159


Table 3.6A: HSA Test Participation and Status - Biology 2010 Population: All 11th Grade Students All Students Subgroup

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed

All Students

7,362

65.1

4,795

31.4

Special Education

637

29.7

189

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

342

47.4

162

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

2,954

57.4

1,695

% Taken and Number Not Not Passed Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken

2,314

3.4

253

65.1

415

5.2

33

47.1

161

5.6

19

39.3

1,160

3.4

99

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races

Table 3.6B: HSA Test Participation and Status - Biology 2010 Population: All 11th Grade Students Subgroup

Male Number of

% Taken and

Number

% Not Taken

Number Not

3,468

65.6

2,276

30.7

1,064

3.7

128

Special Education

413

30.8

127

63.9

264

5.3

22

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

193

48.2

93

47.2

91

4.7

9

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

1,372

58.5

802

38.4

527

3.1

43

All Students

% Taken and Number Not

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races

Table 3.6C: HSA Test Participation and Status - Biology 2010 Population: All 11th Grade Students Subgroup

Female Number of

% Taken and

Number

% Not Taken

Number Not

3,894

64.7

2,519

32.1

1,250

3.2

125

224

27.7

62

67.4

151

4.9

11

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

149

46.3

69

47.0

70

6.7

10

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

1,582

56.4

893

40.0

633

3.5

56

All Students

% Taken and Number Not

Hispanic/Latino of any race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races Special Education

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 160


2. Describe what, if anything, the school system will do differently than in past years to address the challenges identified. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations. To better align with MSDE’s Core Learning Goals for Biology, the PGCPS Science Office has revised and delivered a new HSA Biology Curriculum Framework Progress Guide that is built on capturing students’ prior knowledge from 9 th grade, Integrating the Sciences. This modified curriculum guide also offers more opportunities to integrate STEM strategies and inquiry-based activities in order to maximize student thinking and learning. Data from a Pilot FASTS 1 and 2 suggest that MSDE’s goals one (1) and three (3) and their accompanying indicators needed to be reorganized within the curriculum in order to maximize the flow of each lesson, module, and unit, thereby increasing student learning on difficult indicators. The new modified curriculum highlights Disciplinary Literacy principles of inquiry science and learning through structured conversation (Accountable Talk). Using Maryland’s State Curriculum, Common Core College and Career Readiness, ETM, and Technology Standards as a guidelines, this enhanced curriculum marries goal 3 (biology content) indicators with goal 1 (science skills and processes) indicators to help students see a daily connection to the nature of science. Curriculum adjustments on the HSA Biology Curriculum ƒ ƒ ƒ

ƒ

ƒ

ƒ ƒ ƒ

Units are broken down into modules. Modules are 1-4 days and are linked together with enduring questions. Each module is preceded by a visual concept flow map to support teachers and students on what concepts and indicators need to be taught and learned respectively. The lessons support Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences by offering multiple opportunities for students to interact with material. Several instructional strategies to include non-linguistic strategies are included in each module so that all learners’ learning styles are addressed in all lessons. Students are exposed to many more technical passages and teachers are supported with different explicit ways to support their students to comprehend the texts. Several case studies and reading passages with associated reading strategies are included in each module to support real world learning. This adjustment will contribute to increased student achievement on questions on the Biology HSA that contain reading passages. Many units have an associated case study or a Project-Based Learning (PBL) Project that allows students to apply and synthesize information. This adjustment also allows students to apply concepts from Goals1 and 3 and integrate them in a different context, thereby, increasing their understanding of difficult concepts, hence, increased student achievement. Teachers (and special educators) are supported with key points for each lesson to know what the student learning outcomes are for each lesson. Several sub-groups’ references (icons) are visually displayed in each module. This strategy allows teachers to make informed decisions in their daily lesson delivery, in terms of differentiation for ELL, Special Education, FARMS and the general population of diverse learners. Several examples of scientific career connections are highlighted and discussed in each module. This strategy allows students to interact with the Biology concepts in a more authentic way- making connections to the real world of Biology. In all the Modules, content and skills are taught through inquiry based lessons. Several inquiry activities that challenge students’ thinking that center around the scientific design process are included in each module. Universal Design Learning Principles are cross-cutting themes in all units.

The Science Office will continue to use FAST data to modify instruction, support learning and monitor student achievement throughout the year. Chart E: Biology Professional Development Plan for SY2011-12 Data –Based Challenge 55.7% 10h Grade and 65.1% 11th Grade students passed the 2010 Biology HSA A

Changes/Resource Allocations Monitor and support teachers as they implement the new HSA Biology Curriculum. A systemic collaborative Google site will be developed to share best instructional practices through exemplar videos and lesson plans. Teachers will also modify lessons to reteach and reinforce content.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Department Responsible Science Office Special Education Office

Timeline Ongoing August 2011May 2012

Page | 161


Chart E: Biology Professional Development Plan for SY2011-12 Data –Based Challenge 22% 10h Grade and 29.7% 11th Grade special education students passed the 2010 Biology HSA

19% 10h Grade and 47.4% 11th Grade LEP students passed the 2010 Biology HSA

Changes/Resource Allocations 100 Biology Teachers/4sessions $35,000 Collaborate with staff in the Special Education Department to provide professional development for teachers to address the needs of diverse student populations. One focus this year is the use of Interactive Simulations. Each High school has access to four accounts per science department for Gizmos (Interactive Simulations from Explore Learning). These Gizmos are correlated to the respective Biology units for support of special education and other sub-groups of HSA Biology students. 4 accounts/ high schools- $41,000 Collaborate more with the instructional technology office to offer more technology integration workshops to include Web 2.0 tools, Discovery Education and Safari Montage. Teachers from low performing schools will be targeted. 100 teachers/4 sessions ($35,000) Science Office staff will collaborate with ESOL Office staff to provide professional development on -STEP-T: Secondary Teacher Education and Professional Training for English Language Learners. This training consists of 6 components focused specifically on science: 7. Profiles of English Language Learners (ELLs) 8. Cross-cultural Communication 9. Literacy Development for ELLs 10. Teaching Strategies for ELLs 11. Adaptation of Materials for ELLs 12. Classroom Assessment for ELLs Additionally, several strategies will be infused in the ELL training sessions. These include: ƒ Teachers will use the academic language accelerator to scaffold language for English language Learners (this is a resource that consists of 119 different strategies that teachers can use with Biology HSA ELLS) ƒ Teachers will implement lessons that focus on development of vocabulary, comprehension and written and oral skills ƒ Teachers will analyze ways that questioning can be used to help build background for ELLs in relationship to the Biology curriculum ƒ Teachers also have the opportunity to participate in book studies focused on meeting the needs of English Language Learners ƒ Teachers will implement lesson modifications for ELL students into personalized learning plans, instruction and practice. Schools with high LEP populations such as Northwestern, Bladensburg, Parkdale and High Point will be targeted. 25 teachers/4 sessions ($8,750). Resource Materials $5,000 On-line professional development sessions will be offered via a Google Site. The Google site features science instructional videos to model best instructional, differentiated strategies that yield greater student achievement in diverse student populations and all sub-groups in a science classroom.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Department Responsible

Timeline

Science Office Special Education Office

Ongoing August 2011May 2012

Science Office Special Education Office IT Office

Ongoing August 2011May 2012

Science and ESOL Offices

Ongoing August 2011May 2012

Science Office

Ongoing August 2011May 2012

Page | 162


Chart E: Biology Professional Development Plan for SY2011-12 Data –Based Challenge 46.3% 10h Grade and 57.4% 11th Grade FARMS students passed the 2010 Biology HSA

Changes/Resource Allocations All HSA Biology teachers $0 Teachers from selected low performing schools will receive coaching and other instructional interventions to address low performing students.

Department Responsible Science Office to include Owens Science Center and NSF Grant Staff

Timeline Ongoing August 2011May 2012

25 teachers/5 schools- $8,750

MSDE Clarifying Question(s): Question: 1. Can you elaborate on the ‘real world’ STEM activities targeted at improving outcomes for 8th grader? (p. 137 of plan) 2. With regard to grade 5 and 8 CFPG: has the system considered connecting inquiry based STEM and Project Based Learning opportunities to a Career and Technology Education pipeline? (p. 136) The responses to these questions can be found in Section G, on page 346.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 163


STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENTS Maryland High School Assessment Graduation Requirement Class of 2011

All Students Male

Female

Table 3.9: Graduates Who Met the High School Assessment (HSA) Graduation Requirement by Option HSA Graduation Requirement Options Total Passing Enrolled Bridge School Scores on Waivers Met Not Met 1602 Option Projects Year Four HSAs # # % # % # % # % # % # % 2008-2009 7,496 4,013 53.5 2,203 29.4 983 13.1 211 2.8 7,410 98.9 86 1.1 2009-2010 8,241 4,219 51.2 2,442 29.6 1,323 16.1 153 1.9 8,137 98.7 104 1.3 2010-2011 8,397 4,337 51.6 2,134 25.4 1,733 20.6 60 0.7 8,264 98.4 133 1.6 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 4,056 1,997 49.2 1,071 26.4 868 21.4 27 0.7 3,963 97.7 93 2.3 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 4,341 2,340 53.9 1,063 24.5 865 19.9 33 0.8 4,301 99.1 40 0.9

Based on the examination of data for 2011 Graduates Who Met the High School Assessment Graduation Requirement by Option and Bridge Projects Passed (Tables 3.9 and 3.10): 3. Describe your school system’s results. In your response, please report on the implementation of the Bridge Plan for Academic Validation. In SY2010-11, some 51.6% of high school seniors met the state’s HSA graduation requirement by passing all four HSA exams. This success rate is (0.4) percentage points higher than the percentage of seniors that passed all four HSA exams the previous year (51.2%), but 1.9 points lower than the percentage that passed all four exams in SY2008-09. Another 25.4% of seniors met the graduation requirement by passing three HSA exams and making a combined score of at least 1602 on all four exams. The combined 77.0% of seniors who met the HSA graduation requirement one way or the other is 3.8 points below the percentage of seniors who met the testing requirement in the previous school year, and 5.9 points below the percentage that met the testing requirement in SY2008-09, however (see Table 3.9). At the same time, there was a 4.5 point increase in the percentage of seniors who met the graduation requirement in SY201011 by completing Academic Validation (or Bridge) projects over the percentage that met the graduation requirement via the AVP option the previous school year (see Table 3.9). Moreover, the percentage of seniors exercising the AVP option to meet the graduation requirement has increased by 7.5 points since SY2008-09. Thus, the school system’s emphasis on increasing the percentage of students passing all four HSA exams as the preferred option for meeting the state’s high school graduation requirement had no measureable impact on the graduating class of 2011. Overall, a slightly higher percentage of senior female students met the testing requirement in one way or the other (78.4%) than did male students (75.6%) in SY2010-11. And although there were 285 more female seniors than male seniors, 53 more males failed to meet the graduation requirement either via the testing, AVP, or waiver options than females. There continues to be a decrease in the number of waivers with only 60 graduates meeting HSA requirements through waivers for SY2010-11. The expectation is that the number of waivers will continue to decrease each year. The decrease in waivers can be attributed to the systemic push to increase the number of students who complete bridge projects and early identification of students who would be eligible for waivers. Students are informed early in the year that they are not eligible for waivers, which causes them to complete their projects before the end of the school year. Although the number and percentage of seniors that met the graduation requirement by completing a bridge project increased from SY2009-10 to SY2010-11, the actual number of bridge projects completed actually declined by 210 projects (see Table 3.10). This overall decline in the total number of bridge projects was accomplished despite increases in the numbers of bridge projects passed in three of the four HSA exam areas. The overall decline was driven by a dramatic decline in English bridge projects which declined by 785 projects from the previous year. Thus, overall, 2011 seniors passed more total exams than their predecessors over the previous two years although their predecessor classes had more students who passed both a 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 164


higher and a lower number of exams. Meanwhile, although female seniors outnumbered their male counterparts by 285, they completed 191 fewer AVP projects in SY2010-11 (see Tables 3.9 and 3.10) School Year All Students

Male

Female

Table 3.10: Bridge Projects Passed Algebra Biology English

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

Government

Total

#

#

#

#

#

1,925 2,493 2,642

1,701 2,035 2,203

2,605 2,804 2,019

1,230 1,671 1,929

7,461 9,003 8,793

1,343

1,041

1,144

964

4,492

1,299

1,162

875

965

4,301

Strategies The school system has made performance on the HSA graduation requirements a priority by implementing the following strategies. It is expected that this increased focus on instructional delivery will yield a greater number of students passing the HSA at its initial administration, thereby decreasing the number of alternative graduation routes needed to meet this graduation requirement. ƒ

ƒ

ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

After each quarterly benchmark, supervisors in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction will review the prescribed curriculum to identify the shortfalls to determine whether content modifications are needed to increase the number of students who pass all three high school assessments. Recommendations on additional resources to use to meet the content of the specific learning indicator that were missed are shared with schools within two weeks after the quarterly benchmark is given. Quarterly data analysis sessions are held with high school principals and staff of the High School Performance Office to monitor the success of first time test takers, a greater emphasis has been placed on the HSA core content classes. During these meetings, instructional implications and strategies are discussed to ensure that there is an increase in student achievement from one quarter to the next. Quarterly benchmark assessments are provided and the data from the assessments are analyzed to determine next steps for instructional strategies. Due to the large numbers of students who pass the content courses but fail the exam, teachers are using the collaborative planning process to examine student work and compare the work to the expectations of the exam. Department of Curriculum and Instruction staff works with Teacher Coordinators (TCs) monthly to develop skills in student work examination, rigor, cognitive demand, and standards-based assessments. Schools are infusing content standards into courses that precede the HSA tested content course. Schools are scheduling support groups for students who fail the HSA exams with intense remediation of the content standards.

4. Identify the strategies to which you attribute the results. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations. There was a slight decrease in the number of bridge projects passed, due to the increase in the number of students meeting the graduation requirement by passing all four exams (see Tables 3.9 and 3.10). Having fewer waivers required students to meet the HSA graduation requirement using another route – meeting the 1602 Option, passing all four assessments, or completing bridge projects – it can be concluded that many students met their graduation requirement for HSA through these alternative routes. A series of interventions, targeted professional development, and curriculum modifications contributed to a dramatic increase in the number of students passing the English HSSA in SY2010-11. Beginning in SY2008-09, all high schools fully participated in the implementation of READ 180®, a research-based reading intervention that accounts for substantial reading and literacy gains for students who enter high school below grade level. SY2010-11 marked the third year of full READ 180® implementation. In addition to the full-scale implementation of READ 180®, training in Disciplinary Literacy (DL) rituals and routines were offered as professional development options. Also included in the DL training were best practices in language/grammar/writing 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 165


instruction. Special educators and ESOL teachers were included in the DL trainings. The DL training was a collaborative effort involving the school system’s Reading/English Language Arts (R/ELA) Office and the University of Pittsburgh’s Institute for Learning (IFL). The IFL provided PGCPS with and ELL consultant specifically to work with ESOL teachers. Also, the R/ELA Office modified curriculum frameworks for grades nine through 12 by integrating content area software, assistive technology applications, graphic organizer applications, and reading strategies. In SY2009-10, the district implemented a Performance Management Analysis and Planning Process (PMAPP), whereby principals and staff analyzed HSA benchmark data quarterly and determined next steps related to instructional strategies and content. This strategy was implemented to ensure an increase in the percentage of first time test-takers. The district anticipates an even greater increase in the number of students passing all HSAs for SY2011-2012. In addition, students were closely monitored and required to sit for each HSA during the testing window. If a student was absent, the PPW contacted the parent to find out why, and to make sure the student took the exam on the make-up date. 5. Describe where challenges were evident. The main challenge for PGCPS with regard to meeting the state’s high school graduation requirement is to substantially increase the percentage of students who pass all three (going forward) HSSA exams. Such an occurrence would automatically result in a reduction in the percentage of students having to use the AVP project option to meet the graduation requirement, and move the system closer to meeting its SY2017 strategic goal of having 95% of students graduate from high school college- or career-ready. Over the past three years, the percentage of seniors who had passed all four HSSA exams actually decreased by 1.9 percentage points. Another challenge is to reverse the trend regarding the number of AVP projects completed to meet the high school graduation requirement in Algebra and Biology. In SY2010-11, the numbers of AVP projects completed across the school system in these two content areas were 149 and 168 more respectively than were completed the previous year. Large numbers of AVP projects also pose logistical problems for school system officials who must score the projects. Late scoring of projects potentially jeopardizes the chances of seniors to meet the graduation requirements in time. For SY2010-11, all projects were completed by the end of February for regular education students and by the end of April for special education students. The district’s goal was to complete the scoring of projects by January and March respectively. Monthly bridge project targets were given to principals in August. Bridge project targets were created by calculating the total number of projects each school will need to ensure their seniors meet the HSA graduation requirement divided by 5. Creating the monthly target allowed the school and High School Performance staff to ensure that seniors met the graduation prior to Spring Break. The system’s goal for SY2011-2012 is to meet the district’s established target of having all regular education student projects completed by the end of January and special education student projects completed by March now that the district knows what to expect in terms of monthly submission of projects. Class of 2012 Based on the Examination of Data for Juniors (Rising Seniors) Who Have Not Yet Met the High School Graduation Requirement as of June 30, 2011 (Table 3.11):

School Year All Students Male

Female

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

Table 3.11: Rising Seniors Who Have Not Yet Met the Graduation Requirement Not Yet Met Enrolled Met Needing to Needing to Needing to Pass Needing to Pass Pass 4 Pass 3 2 1 # # % # % # % # % # % 7,329 5,210 71.1 775 10.6 642 8.8 450 6.1 252 3.4 8,436 5,652 67.0 1,183 14.0 788 9.3 515 6.1 298 3.5 8,023 5,825 72.6 1,159 14.4 656 8.2 383 4.8

Total # 2,119 2,784 2,198

% 28.9 33.0 27.4

3,985

2,805

70.4

661

16.6

320

8.0

199

5.0

1,180

29.6

4,038

3,020

74.8

498

12.3

336

8.3

184

4.6

1,018

25.2

1. Identify the challenges that persist. Just short of 15 percent of SY2011-12 rising seniors have yet pass any of the state-required HSA exams. This percentage represents an increase of 5.1 points over the percentage of rising seniors who needed to pass as many exams entering their

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 166


senior year the previous year, and an increase of 5.6 points over the percentage needing to pass three exams in SY2008-09. In the aggregate, slightly more than one-quarter of the rising senior class still needed to pass at least one HSA exam or resort to an AVP in order to meet the state’s graduation requirement. The status of male students was somewhat worse than the status of female students. Almost 17 percent of rising male seniors in the class of 2012 still need to pass three HSSA exams in order to meet the testing graduation requirement, and just under 30 percent of rising male seniors had yet to meet the graduation requirement. Despite the improvement in the percentage of students entering their senior year of high school having met the graduation requirement, the fact that almost one-quarter of these students had not passed exams tied to courses taken two-to-three years prior constitutes a significant challenge. Based on the analysis of the quarterly benchmark results for SY2010-11 conducted by each school’s Instructional Team, students taking Algebra and Biology continue to miss the same learning indicators each quarter. To address this need, an extensive analysis of current curriculum documents was done to determine the extent to which the appropriate learning indicators were taught in the prescribed curriculum. In addition to the support that is needed, a team of administrators has been created to continue to review the sequence of middle school mathematics courses to determine how to best support and prepare 9th grade students in Algebra. 2. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made to support those juniors (rising seniors) who have not yet met the HSA graduation requirement in passing the High School Assessments. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations. All rising seniors who did not meet the HSA graduation requirement have been placed in an AVP course which is offered during the school day. All high schools have been allocated one dedicated full-time equivalent (FTE) teacher position for this course. While students are working to complete the required bridge projects, they will also prepare for the HSA. All students will be required to sit for HSA exams during each administration. PPWs will make sure that all rising seniors sit for their HSA exams. In the event that a student is absent, the parent will be contacted, and the student will be required to sit for the makeup exam. In addition, a new administrative procedure was created that does not allow students to matriculate to grade 12 unless they have taken all of the high school assessment exams at least once in their high school experience if they took classes in the State of Maryland. Section B – Core Content Areas Graduation Requirements Panel clarifying question(s): Question: 1. Is the system gathering data on a school by school/teacher by teacher by teacher basis on the number of Bridge projects as an alternative to graduation? If so, what is the response to the data? 2. Has the district considered collaborating with other LSS’ Bridge Projects using the Bridge as a learning tool to increase performance on HSA, rather than merely as an alternative? The responses to these questions can be found in Section G, on page 347.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 167


CROSS-CUTTING THEMES Educational Technology In addition to including technology strategies across the Master Plan to outline specifically how your district will use all sources of funding in meeting No Child Left Behind Statutory Goals, please respond to the prompts below. Include targets from the Maryland Educational Technology Plan for the New Millennium, 2007-2012, district technology and school system strategic plans, data from the Maryland Technology Inventory and technology literacy measurements, and data from any other relevant sources as appropriate. If these items were discussed elsewhere in the Master Plan Update, you can reference the sections and page numbers in your responses below instead of repeating information. 1. Identify the major technology goals that were addressed by the school system during the 2010-2011 academic year. Include a description of: ƒ the progress that was made toward meeting these goals and a timeline for meeting them. ƒ the programs, practices, strategies, or initiatives that were implemented related to the goals to which you attribute the progress. ƒ supporting data and evaluation results as appropriate. The major technology goals addressed by the school system during the 2010-2011 academic year were in support of the 2007-2012 Maryland Educational Technology for the New Millennium to which the Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) Technology Plan is aligned. The targeted goals include: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

ƒ ƒ

Increase access to instructional digital content. Provide a ubiquitous computing environment – anytime, anywhere computing. Develop and track professional development of all staff. Develop professional development courses in a variety of formats for instructional and administrative staff to obtain the skills necessary to meet the Maryland Teacher Technology Standards (MTTS) and Maryland Technology Standards for School Administrators (MTSSA). Provide staff access to equipment, applications, and information systems in order to enhance technology skills. Expand functionality of current information systems with enhancements such as self-service components.

The Division of Information Technology (DIT) initiatives during SY2010-11 targeted objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the PGCPS Technology Plan 2008 – 2012, Navigating through the 21st Century. Objective 1: Objective 2: Objective 3: Objective 4: Objective 5: Objective 1:

Improving student learning through technology. Improving staff knowledge and skills to integrate technology into instruction. Improving decision-making, productivity, and efficiency at all levels of the organization through the use of technology. Improve equitable access to appropriate technologies among all stakeholders. Improve instructional uses of technology through research and evaluation.

Improving student learning through technology.

The Netbook Project The DIT continued its pilot initiative using Netbooks (i.e., small portable laptop computing devices specifically designed for wireless communication and access to the Internet). The Netbook Project afforded an opportunity to increase student and teacher access to instructional digital content. It also afforded the school a ubiquitous computing environment – anytime, anywhere computing, in that the use of the netbooks had Internet access throughout the building with the setup of the wireless network. Students were able to take their assigned netbooks to and from home, with parent permission. Carmody Hills Elementary School participated in the netbook project for the second year. This project involved distributing netbook computers to two returning sixth grade teachers, two new fifth grade teachers and approximately 95 fifth and sixth grade students. Several parent nights were held to orient the parents on the project‘s requirements. Parental sign-off forms granting permission for students to take netbooks home and to access PGCPS Google email accounts were required. The project

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 168


allowed student use of email and other tools provided via Google email access. Student email accounts were configured so that students could only send or receive mail from other system email accounts. The Technology Training Team (T3) provided one-to-one coaching for the teachers. A group meeting was held with all coaches and teachers to: explain the role of the coach; identify solutions to the current challenges; and establish measurable goals for integrating technology into the curriculum using the Netbooks. The teachers received demo lessons, collaborative planning sessions and assistance with the creation and maintenance of a Google site from the coaches. Teachers assigned their students technology-rich classroom projects which addressed the following standards: International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE)/National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) and Maryland Technology Literacy Standards for Students (MTLSS – see Table L). Table L. Technology Standards Addressed in the Netbook Project ƒ Demonstrate creativity and innovation National Educational Technology ƒ Communicate and collaborate Standards (NETS) ƒ Think critically, solve problems, and make decisions ƒ Use technology effectively and productively ƒ Technology Systems ƒ Digital Citizenship ƒ Technology for Learning and Collaboration Maryland Technology Literacy Standards for Students (MTLSS) ƒ Technology for Communication and Expression ƒ Technology for Information Use and Management ƒ Technology for Problem-Solving and Decision-Making ƒ Leadership and Vision ƒ Teaching and Learning ƒ Data Driven Decision Making Maryland Technology Standards for School Administrators ƒ Management and Operations ƒ Professional Practice and Productivity ƒ Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues Source: ISTE/NETS Standards, 2007

The desired outcome was to provide a technological tool to the students to engage them in the curriculum and allow them to take ownership and participate in their education. The students were fully engaged and most interested in project-based learning. It was clearly evident that the desired outcome was met when the students worked on projects at home, which may not have happened with traditional homework assignments. There was a decrease in discipline issues and an increase in test scores. The children were equipped to become college ready as evidenced in research projects addressing their desired colleges. Technology was used to research, estimate and budget the costs associated with this effort. Students completed their respective assignments and were able to express what they learned utilizing a familiar technology medium. The sixth grade students displayed the findings of their research with additional projects that were used for their Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) projects. The coaches and teachers worked with the students to prepare the students for a gallery walk, which was held in June 2011, where they demonstrated lessons learned and the use of technology. The program was very successful in increasing teacher and student effective use of available technology tools for instructional purposes. The student projects were displayed and time was allotted for students to discuss the process and share their assessment of the skills learned. Students shared their assessment of the impact of using netbooks in the classroom to complete assignments. Each student in completing his/her assignment was well able to clearly share and elaborate on the details pertaining to their project. PGCPS iPad Pilot Project The decision to implement the iPad project was to duplicate the success of the Netbook project utilizing a different tool to improve student learning and address and meets the requirements of the technology standards as referenced in Table K. The goal of the PGCPS iPad Pilot Project was to increase student access to technology and teacher use of technology tools in the delivery of instruction by integrating instructional technology and providing instructional and administrative staff

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 169


technology professional development in the use of Apple iPad technology. Gasell (May 2008: page 2), states that “as technology becomes more readily available in schools, the role of the teacher changes to facilitator ‘through the thoughtful integration of student-centered methodologies and computer-based technology’” (see Poole, Sky-MeIlvain, Jackson, and Singer, 2006)3. The purposes of the iPad Pilot are to: ƒ Provide individualized access to technology ƒ Increase the use of technology resources in daily instruction ƒ Provide real-time access to information for instructional purposes ƒ Provide access to educational technology that will assist students in improving their organizational, writing and presentation skills ƒ Provide tools to engage our students as they access and explore relevant information, and create web-based projects. ƒ Bridge the gap between how students live and how they learn. ƒ Invest in the development of teachers as they learn ways to better engage students. The use of the iPads provided an avenue which allowed staff to enhance student engagement, specifically in the areas of oral and written communication as well as problem solving skills, which are needed to prepare students to become college and work ready. Through the iPad project, students have greater access to digital content, such as streaming video, podcasts, online textbooks, wikis and curriculum related web resources to work on improving student achievement on the Maryland School Assessment (MSA). As a part of the pilot, student work included assignments geared to improve student writing skills across the curriculum with a concentrated effort in reading/language arts and technology skill development through the use of digital content. As a result of the favorable reviews of the pilot, the district decided to implement a one-to-one iPad program in four of its identified TurnAround schools. Teacher and administrator training started in June 2011, affording teachers the opportunity to take the iPads home over the summer to better familiarize themselves with the tool and plan for its instructional use in the classroom. Information Technology (IT) High School Fairmont Heights High School, in collaboration with the district’s Division of Information Technology, has formed a unique program designed to offer students a rigorous four-year program focused on computer repair, network and security engineering, and mobile applications. The program will focus on core academics and professional Information Technology (IT) certification programs. The program is specifically designed for students interested in information technology. The Information Technology (IT) High School is designed as a partnership between business and education – the Division of Information Technology and Fairmont Heights High School. This collaboration was formed to provide a greater learning environment for students and to serve as a center for research and innovation for the district. Students will receive many opportunities to analyze and problem-solve real world issues using their technology skills. There are currently 95 students enrolled in the program. Objective 2:

Improving staff knowledge and skills to integrate technology into instruction.

The Carmody Hills Coaching Project was designed to improve staff instructional technology skills and knowledge as well as to integrate technology into instruction. The Technology Training Team (T3) provided one-to-one coaching sessions to the 5th and 6th grade teachers participating in the netbook project. Group meetings were held with all of the coaches and teachers to explain the role of the coach, identify solutions to the current challenges and establish measurable goals for integrating technology into the curriculum using the netbooks as an instructional technology tool. The coaches made site visits to work with their assigned mentee. They were available to communicate with the teachers by email or phone as needed to provide assistance and ensure that milestones were met to accomplish the desired goals. The teachers worked with the coaches and received the support that best met their need (i.e., an optional demo lesson, a Poole, Bernard J.; E. Sky-McIlvain, L. Jackson, and Y. Singer. Computers, Education, and Society, pages 344-365. Education for an Information Age: Teaching in the Computerized Classroom, 6th edition, 2006, published on-line.

3

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 170


collaborative planning session, or an observation of a lesson that had been prepared by the teacher for constructive feedback). The teachers worked with their students in preparation for the gallery walk which demonstrated their comprehension of the lessons learned to effectively integrate the technology into the curriculum. For all teachers participating in this project, the Maryland Teacher Technology Standards I, II, III, V, and VII were addressed as shown in Table L. Targeted Professional Development Another strategy utilized to improve teacher technology skills and knowledge was through targeted professional development in the use of iPads as an instructional tool. The instruction in the effective use and integration of technology, regardless of the technology tool, whether netbook or iPad utilizing digital content, equips the teachers to reach the students where they are in their advancement in technology literacy skills and use of technology. Table L displays details on the two schools that participated in the iPad pilot. The students at Barack Obama Elementary School received support in the use of the elementary student applications and the students at Benjamin Stoddert Middle School received support in the use of the middle school student applications. Table M indicates that 14 core staff and 13 leadership teams were engaged in targeted professional development in the two iPad pilot schools. The project served 328 students (114 students at Barack Obama Elementary School and 214 students at Benjamin Stoddert Middle School). A total of 410 iPads were utilized (158 iPads at Barack Elementary School and 252 iPads at Benjamin Stoddert Middle School). Table M lists the iPad apps downloaded for use in delivering digital content. The professional development training and activities were designed to address the Maryland Teacher Technology Standards (MTTS) as well as the ISTE National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T). School Name Barack Obama Elementary School Benjamin Stoddert Middle School

Staff

Table M: Details on Initial iPad Pilot Schools Grade/Program Students

5 Core Staff & 2 Leadership Team

6th Grade, All Content Areas

114

9 Core Staff & 11 Leadership Team

8th Grade, All Content Areas, Creative Arts and Computer Skills Course

214

Number of iPads 158 iPads 5 Mobile Carts (30 per cart) 8 - Administrative Team Members 252 iPads 8 Mobile Carts (28-30 per cart)

Source: Information Technology, Technology Training Team, March, 2011

Table N: Apps in Support of Student Learning Elementary Student Apps Middle School Student Apps Brain Pop BrainPop Dictionary Dictionary Discovery Education (mobile Site) DiscoveryEducation (Mobile Site) Dragon Dictation Dragon Dictation Draw Free DrawFree DropBox DropBox Easel Algebra Lite Easel Algebra Evernote Evernote Google Earth Google Earth IBooks iBooks NASA NASA Safari Safari Science Glossary Science Glossary Stanza Stanza This Day In History (World Book) This Day In History Wikipanion Wikipanion Word Press WordPress

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 171


Table N: Apps in Support of Student Learning Elementary Student Apps Middle School Student Apps 3d Sun Constitution ArtikPix DoodleBuddy Calculator EMDPTE (Periodic Table) Classics2Go Collection History Maps Mathboard Number Line Storykit Tap to Talk Temperature Converter Us History Earlty Jamestown USA Today Word Warp X

Inkling iStudiez Lite Molecules NPR News SAT Word Lite (Middle School) Shakespeare TouchCalc (Calculator) WeatherBug Word Wrap Source: Information Technology, Technology Training Team, April 2011.

Sharing Technology with Educators Program (STEP) The DIT’s efforts to improve staff knowledge and skills to integrate technology into instruction are ongoing. For the fourth consecutive year, the DIT offered the Sharing Technology with Educators Program (STEP). Participants received training on specific technology equipment and tools provided for instructional use. STEP is an innovative program designed to build capacity for instructional technology use in schools with a focus on supporting and enhancing student achievement and assisting administrators and their identified school-based teams to integrate technology into instruction. Specific technology resources, training, and support for MSA and HSA skill development `were delivered. Participants were required to attend bimonthly school-based training sessions and to complete an electronic portfolio comprised of projects developed throughout the program‘s duration. Each school interested in participating in STEP must establish a team of three-to-six teachers and apply for acceptance into the program. Principals are encouraged to select certified teacher volunteers from multiple grade levels and content areas in forming their STEP teams. Identified team members must be exemplary teachers who have taught in PGCPS for a minimum of one full year and must agree to the stipulations outlined on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Included with the application were signed teacher/administrator MOUs and a team-written proposal developed addressing how increased technology integration would positively impact their students. Applicants also had to submit a plan for a school-wide instructional activity that would benefit from the infusion of technology. The training and support was tailored to meet targeted goals as outlined in the STEP program. The MOU specified that participants are required to attend STEP professional development activities. All professional development sessions were designed to increase the comfort and skill level of teachers and administrators in the effective and appropriate use and implementation of technology in their classrooms and schools. Teachers and administrators on the STEP team received training throughout the year, with the expectation of completing a culminating end-of-year Gallery Walk activity to showcase progress made in integrating technology into instruction. School teams were also required to provide professional development on a topic they learned through STEP to their school staff. Support for completing the STEP team training requirements was provided by members of the Technology Training Team. Some key strategies incorporated in the technology training models included: modeling appropriate instructional use of technology; mentoring; and team planning and collaboration. All trainings conducted by the Technology Training Team included informing participants of the goals, objectives and National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for teachers, students, and administrators as appropriate. In SY2010-11, STEP serviced 81 participants across 15 schools. The majority (i.e. 64 or 79%) was first-year participants, twelve (12) or 14.8% were third-year participants, three (3) or 3.7% were second year participants and the remaining two (2) participants were in their fourth year of the program. As noted in Table O, the highest concentration of participating schools in the SY2010-11 STEP was at the elementary level (40%), with one third (33.3%) of the participants at the high school level and another 20% at the middle school level. Only 6.7% of the schools participating in the STEP program were on the PreK-8 level.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 172


As the school system strives to prepare students for college, in part by equipping them with 21st century technology skills, 81 STEP-trained staff from 15 schools out of a system-wide total of more than 9,000 instructional staff members from 205 schools represents a very small number. However, with a training team of only 16 trainers, the maximum number of STEP teams that can be serviced is 30. Table O: Grade Configuration of STEP Participating Schools: SY2010-11 Levels Number of Schools Percent Elementary School 6 40.0% Middle School 3 20.0% High School 5 33.3% Academy Pre K-8 1 6.7% Total Schools 15 100% Source: PGCPS, T3 Google STEP Survey, June, 2011.

In continuing to address Objective 2, the Technology Training Team provided trainings on the main tools of the Google Apps suite, including Mail, Docs, and Sites. Sessions were offered in various formats, at a central location on a monthly basis; sitebased, upon request; and online. Workshops focused on improving productivity and effectiveness as well promoting instructional uses for all of the tools. In addition to the standard classes, two audience-specific workshops were held: Google Sites ePortfolios for Resident Teachers and Google Apps for Students Overview for high school teachers (to prepare them to use Google Apps tools with their students). Topic Google Docs Google Mail, Calendar, and Contacts Google Sites Google Sites for ePortfolios (Resident Teachers) Google Apps for Students Overview (High School Teachers)

Table P: Participants Receiving Google Training Outcomes Create, edit, and share each of the applications included in Google Docs. Increase efficiency in organizing mailbox, create contact lists, create calendar events, create and share additional calendars. Create, edit, and customize a Google Site, add content from other Google tools and gadgets, share sites, apply basic principles of design. Create and edit ePortfolio to meet Resident Teacher program requirements. Understand the tools that will be available to students and ideas for integrating them into instruction.

Trained 337 128 159 33 581

Source: PGCPS ERO System, June, 2011

Table P summarizes the Google training for SY2010-11. It shows the type of Google training, its outcome focus and the number of persons trained as recorded by the system’s electronic registrar online (ERO). The largest registration was for the Google Apps for: Students Overview (high school teachers) with 581 registrants; followed by the Google Docs with 337 registrants; Google Mail, Calendar and Contacts with 128 registrants; and Google Sites for ePortfolios (Resident Teachers) with 33 registrants. Powering Up With Technology Conference (PUWT) The Division of Information Technology sponsored the 14th Annual Powering Up With Technology (PUWT) Conference which was held at Dr. Henry A. Wise High School in November 2010. Three hundred ninety people attended, including teachers, library media specialists, technology coordinators, administrators, parents, and educators from neighboring school systems. The program included 53 sessions of various formats (hands-on, extended workshops in the computer labs, and lecture). Some topics included learning how to use Web 2.0 tools, iPads, Discovery Streaming, Internet resources, multimedia and interactive whiteboards to enhance learning and increase academic achievement. Selected sessions were targeted toward addressing the technology leadership skills of school-based and central office administrators. An additional strand, new to the conference, was the Powering Parents Up With Assistive Technology which was funded through a partnership with the Department of Special Education. Sixty parents and some students attended lecture style, interactive, and hands-on sessions that focused on assistive technology and strategies for supporting students with special needs at home.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 173


This venue allows the district to impact a larger audience with various specific “just-in-time trainings” and demonstrations that provide exposure to emerging technologies and highlight appropriate use of the technology tools for content delivery. Objective 3: Improving decision-making, productivity, and efficiency at all levels of the organization through the use of technology. Ready Access to Data Two of the data tools supported by DIT include Performance Matters and the new Data Warehouse. DIT provided training on accessing and analyzing current student data accessible in both Performance Matters and the Data Warehouse. These data management systems are used by schools to access student data, make instructional decisions and plan for differentiated instruction that addresses student learning needs. Training for Performance Matters was delivered monthly, and on an as requested basis including site based trainings to teachers, administrators and other instructional staff to assist them in making data-driven instructional decisions. Training for Data Warehouse began in January 2011. Several sessions were offered monthly to central office staff, school administrators and their designees on the Performance Management and Analysis and Planning Process (PMAPP) dashboard and how to analyze data in the various reports. Table Q displays the number of trainings conducted with total participants trained in the use of Performance Matters and the Data Warehouse for instructional decision making for SY2010-2011.

Number of Sessions Number of People

Table Q: Trainings Conducted 2010-2011 Performance Matters 14 144

Data Warehouse 45 663 Source: PGCPS ERO, June 2011.

MOODLE Learning Management System (LMS) One of the PGCPS Technology Plan objectives is to develop professional development courses in a variety of formats for both instructional and administrative staff. Currently, the formats include but are not limited to face-to face trainings, hands-on workshops, just-in-time digital tutorials, written How To documents, webinars, and online courses both self-paced as well as hybrid which are available for use by all end-users including students with a PGCPS user account. Courses are provided to staff by request. An introductory training course to Moodle has been developed and delivered. Currently, there are 250 courses in varying stages set up in Moodle. These courses are designed for assessment purposes, course development, and practice. A total of 865 staff members received online training. Table R displays Moodle course statistics for SY 2010-2011 by group. Total 31 21 16 14 4 2

Table R: Moodle Learning Management System (LMS) Available Course Statistics Description Active courses used for teaching students Active courses used for staff Packaged courses AP courses Additional AP courses available Fall 2011 Hybrid credit recovery courses Source: PGCPS Moodle LMS, June 2011.

Moodle statistics show the results of end users visiting the system to either view content, take online courses or to obtain learning resources to enforce learning. The district’s Electronic Registrar Online (ERO) system is used to capture trainings delivered through face-to-face trainings, workshops, continuing professional development’s and stipend activities. The ERO is tied to the district’s payroll system for identification of personnel eligible for workshop payments. The ERO is used to track a variety of professional development opportunities. Table S displays the attendance numbers for SY2010-2011 (i.e., from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011).

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 174


Total 703 114 2947 3468

Table S: ERO Registrants Completing Courses Course Category Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Onsite Instructional Technology Administration (Oracle, SIS, Performance Matters, Data Warehouse) Source: PGCPS ERO System, June 2011.

Objective 4:

Improve equitable access to appropriate technologies among all stakeholders.

The DIT implemented its Technology Refresh Program starting in SY2005-2006 to provide the necessary tools for instructional staff, students, and administrative staff to effectively infuse technology into the instructional programs. During the first year of implementation, all secondary teachers received a laptop and all secondary instructional classrooms received projectors and network printers. DIT also replaced approximately 20 instructional business labs and 10 graphics labs in high schools. In the following year, elementary schools were refreshed. Again, they too received laptops, projectors for instructional areas, and printers. At the start of the Tech Refresh Program, equipment refreshment was planned to occur every three years. However, after completing the first round, the system was unable to re-start in the fourth year, nor the fifth or sixth year. As a result, the technology equipment purchased during the initial refresh is now out-dated and broken. The refresh budget for FY2011 was restored and the district is now able to replace or repair old and broken equipment. Objective 5:

Improve instructional uses of technology through research and evaluation.

In review of the data received from the MSDE Technology Inventory it is noted that the equipment being used is outdated and no longer under warranty. The ratio is higher for equipment aged five years and above. The demand for use of technology to complete daily school based required activities is increasing. Therefore, the need to have a functional system which is capable of handling the workload is imperative. The refresh program was reinstated after expressing the need for working equipment. The district was able to refresh middle schools in SY2010-2011 and expects to refresh both high schools and elementary schools in SY2011-2012. At the start of the new round of information technology equipment refresh, middle schools were selected to be serviced first. This is due to the poor academic performance of middle school students as reflected by low MSA test scores. All middle school teachers were given the option to select their preferred laptop, either PC or MAC. The schools were the allocated $150 per student to purchase technology tools to enhance the delivery of content and access to digitally rich academic content. The district’s high school refresh will start when teachers return to school in August 2011. It will include a repeat of what occurred in all the middle schools. The elementary schools are slated to begin their information technology equipment refresh in SY2012-2013. 2. Describe where challenges in making progress toward meeting the major technology goals are evident and the plans for addressing those challenges. Include a description of the adjustments that will be made to the Master Plan and local Technology Plan and timelines where appropriate. Until the new round of the refresh program is completed, the advancing age of technology equipment in schools remains a challenge. Ongoing issues include maintaining working computers, replacing bulbs for the LCD projectors, and providing sufficient access to labs for online testing. Scheduling training sessions to accommodate team members is and continues to be a major challenge faced in delivering teacher technology training. As the system approaches the end of Title II Part D grant funding, which provided stipend support to STEP workshop participants, the district will also lose a resource that helped to boost professional development participation. Teachers participating in the STEP-related professional development activities will no longer receive stipends for attending afterschool professional development. The lack of stipends has the potential of negatively impacting the training team’s ability in deliver as many face-to-face training sessions to the different STEP teams. With that in mind, the district is submitting a plan to provide Continuing Professional Development (CPD) credits for STEP participation. If CPD status is obtained and the stipend is removed, participants would at least be able to earn credit towards re-certification.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 175


Another effort to combat the teacher access for delivering training will be implemented this school year. The Technology Training Team’s trainers will work with an assigned cluster of schools. This move is expected to account for greater access to teachers. Trainers will be available to work with all of the teachers, regardless of whether they are STEP, in their specific schools, before, during, and afterschool as well as during planning periods. 3. Describe how the local school system is incorporating research-based instructional methods and the Maryland technology literacy standards for students, teachers, and school administrators into professional development to support teaching, learning, and technology leadership. Technology Leadership Academy (TLA) The first Technology Leadership Academy (TLA) – sponsored by the Training Team for teachers desiring training and opportunities to teach instructional technology courses completed year 1 May 2011. A total number of fifteen participants started and completed the program. Entering into the second year of the program there are a total of 22 teachers who were accepted into the program specifically designed to increase teacher capacity in the use of instructional technology tools for content delivery. The participants are required to attend a two week training session. This year, participants completing the program will earn three CPD credits. Another requirement is to prepare a presentation to present at the PGCPS’ fall PUWT conference. Each participate again will be assigned a T3 mentor who will work to provide guidance and encouragement throughout the program to each of the participants. Despite the fact that MSDE no longer sponsors the technology assessment tool delivered to teachers, students and administrators to assess their technology literacy skills, the district continues to host programs designed to increase technology literacy. The Department of Curriculum and Instruction is embedding more and more technology rich activities into lessons that are shared with teachers for use in delivering content to students. STEP and TLA continue to be sponsored to assist teachers in their use of technology in the classroom. The trainings incorporated into both STEP and TLA are influenced by teacher requests, training evaluations and comments returned on program and course evaluations, as well as needed skills aligned to the MTTS and ISTE/NETS standards for teachers in effective and appropriate use of technology. 4. Describe how the local school system is ensuring the effective integration of technology into curriculum and instruction to support student achievement, technology/information literacy, and the elimination of the digital divide. Prince George’s participated as partners in the three AARA grants which included the College and Career Readiness, Open Educational Resources (OER) Project, and the STEM Portfolio Project for Students and Teachers in Grades 4-8 (MSPPSTEM). The College and Career Readiness Support Project The purpose of the College and Career Readiness Support Project was to provide high quality professional development that helps teachers become comfortable with the use of emerging technologies in their classrooms. Online professional development modules in Biology, Government, Algebra, and English IV were developed with the assistance of teachers and curriculum specialists from Prince George’s. Open Educational Resources (OER) Project The purpose of the Open Educational Resources Project is to: (1) assist local school systems in increasing teacher and student use of open educational resources in classroom instruction; and (2) determine the cost-effectiveness of using existing public domain, Creative Commons, and affordably licensed resources for state-wide use versus duplication of effort across local school systems. These resources shall be vetted at a minimal level and meta-tagged using a state-wide standard for search and retrieval from a state-wide learning object repository as a proof of concept. The Learning Objects Repository (LOR) is now under development and 18 of PGCPS’ librarians participated in the meta-tagging workshop in order to upload resources to the LOR. STEM Portfolio Project for Students and Teachers in Grades 4-8 The Maryland STEM Portfolio Project (MSPP) grant was designed to utilize learning teams of school-based educators comprised of a cross-representation of grade levels (grades 4-8), STEM content disciplines, and library media specialists,

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 176


teachers of English Language Learners, and Special Education teachers. These teams will work together to develop a model for project-based STEM learning across curricula and classrooms. William Wirt Middle School’s instructional team participated on behalf of the district. Through the OER grant, the district was able to train 45 content specialists in teaching online courses. The CCR project developed three courses for use during the upcoming school year and the district has staff positioned to teach the online courses. 5. Discuss how the local school system is using technology to support low-performing schools. In addressing and providing support to low-performing schools, the county was approved for wiring thirty (30) schools for wireless access. Four of our lowest performing middle schools are designated to be among the first to get wired. This is significant as the four schools designated are also the schools identified as the district’s 1-to-1 iPad schools this year. Wireless access for the iPads is significant in order to use to access the textbook websites, DiscoveryEducation and other digital content. Teachers and administrators attended training in June 2011 with the opportunity to use their iPads over the summer to get better acquainted with the tool for instructional use. Students will be introduced to the tool in the fall. More than 3,400 student and administrative iPads were purchased for the 1-to-1 iPad program for the four Title 1 Turn-Around Middle Schools for students, instructional staff, administrators and Curriculum and Instruction staff. 6. Please update the district’s Accessibility Compliance chart, bolding or underlining any changes. This information is used in the preparation of a report that goes to the Maryland Legislature. The district's completed chart from last year can be accessed at: http://docushare.msde.state.Md.us/docushare/dsweb/View/Collection20709 The district has updated its Accessibility Compliance chart per the guidance instructions. Changes from the previous year’s submission are noted in bold. 7. Please update the district’s Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) Certification Form. If there are no changes, check the first box. The form only needs to be signed if there are any changes. Access the district's completed form from last year at: http://docushare.msde.state.md.us/docushare/dsweb/View/Collection-20709 The district has updated its Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) Certification Form per the guidance instructions. ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE On December 4, 2001 the Maryland State Board of Education approved a regulation (COMAR 13A.05.02.13H) concerning accessible technology-based instructional products. This regulation requires that accessibility standards be incorporated into the evaluation, selection, and purchasing policies and procedures of public agencies. Subsequently, Education Article § 7910: Equivalent Access for Students with Disabilities was passed during the 2002 General Assembly session and further requires that all teacher-made instructional materials be accessible also. MSDE is charged with monitoring local school systems’ compliance with the regulation and the law. For more information on the regulation and the law, visit the following web site: http://cte.jhu.edu/accessibility/Regulations.cfm Please review the information submitted with the October 2010 Annual Update and use the chart on the following page to address additional progress on or changes to the items below related to accessibility compliance. If you choose to use last year’s chart with this Update, please bold or underline any changes. Note: to review your system's 2010 master plan update, go to: http://docushare.msde.state.md.us/docushare/dsweb/View/Collection-20709 1. Process: a. Describe your policy and/or procedures for addressing the requirement that invitations to bids, requests for proposals, procurement contracts, grants, or modifications to contracts or grants shall include the notice of equivalent

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 177


access requirements consistent with Subpart B Technical Standards, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. b. Describe your policy and/or procedures for addressing the requirement that the equivalent access standards (Subpart B Technical Standards, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended) are included in guidelines for design specifications and guidelines for the selection and evaluation of technology-based instructional products. c. Describe how you are addressing the requirement that any teacher-developed materials (web sites, etc.) are accessible. 2. Implementation: a. Describe how you are ensuring that all educators are being provided information and training about Education Article 7-910 of the Public Schools - Technology for Education Act (Equivalent Access for Students with Disabilities). Include who, to date, has received information and/or training (e.g. all teachers, teachers at select schools, special education teachers only, building level administrators, etc.) and any future plans for full compliance. 3. Monitoring: a. Describe how you are monitoring the results of the evaluation and selection of technology-based instructional products set forth in COMAR 13A.05.02.13.H, including a description of the accessible and non-accessible features and possible applicable alternative methods of instruction correlated with the non-accessible features. b. Describe how you are ensuring that teachers and administrators have a full understanding of the regulation and law and how you are monitoring their adherence to the process and/or procedures governing accessibility.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 178


A Google site is maintained to facilitate TIFA trainers and participants.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

c) The TIFA initiative provides training and support to ensure all teacher-created technology infused instructional materials are accessible. This action directly supports COMAR 13A.05.02.13 H and § 7-910. For more detailed information please see the publicly available TIFA web page: http://sites.google.com/a/pgcps.org/instructionalsoftware/. The Assistive Technology Office, a part of Department of Special Education, worked closely with Instructional Technology to develop this initiative

Information necessary to comply with Statute § 7- 910, that all teacher-created technology infused materials shall be accessible. This after-school stipend training is ongoing, in each Region. Additional training opportunities were offered to individual schools upon request of the principal; The TIFA website is publicly available and contains all training materials. All relevant training materials, self-paced tutorials/modules, and documents are available on the google site http://sites.google.com/a/pgcps.org/instructional-software/. and or in Moodle http://www.moodle.pgcps.org .

Phase I: As part of the day-long training for the Digital Content school-based team, participants received hands-on training to provide background and information to comply with Statute § 7910, that all teacher-created technology infused materials are accessible. Phase II: A three-hour after-school in-service was offered, based on the CAST Universal Design for Learning, to provide teachers the

a) To help schools comply with the equivalent access requirements consistent with Subpart B Technical Standards, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, a new two-phase training program has been implemented as a part of the TIFA initiative.

a) All invitations to educational technology related bids, requests for proposals, procurement contracts, grants, or modifications to contracts or grants contain a notice of equivalent access requirements consistent with Subpart B Technical Standards, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.

b) All Instructional Technology software, online resources and video review rubrics have been revised to include equivalent access standards. Documentation in support of equivalent access and the evaluation rubrics are publicly available on the Prince George’s County Public Schools web page at: http://sites.google.com/a/pgcps.org/instructionalsoftware/. The Assistive Technology Office, a part of Department of Special Education, worked closely with Instructional Technology to revise these rubrics. Training in the use of these rubrics is ongoing as a part of the Technology Inclusion For All (TIFA) initiative and is included as a part of the annual Summer Curriculum Revision Workshop.

IMPLEMENTATION

PROCESS

Chart F: Accessibility Compliance Chart

Page | 179

b) The primary monitoring device used to date has entailed the use of in-service evaluation forms, the MSDE Technology Inventory, and the incorporation of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Guidelines. Section 4: Assistive Technology. UDL training has been delivered to all special education teachers, curriculum specialists and half of the instructional specialists on the Technology Training Team to meet the needs of all learners.

a) All technology-based instructional products, including those set forth in COMAR 13A.05.02.13.H, must undergo a rigorous review process. When questions arise, expertise and recommendations are sought from the Assistive Technology Office, (Department of Special Education).The three primarily scrutinized features for accessibility include navigation (keyboard, input focus, and personal operating system settings), graphics (images, graphs, visual icons color, and animation), and sound (text alternative). Training in understanding the issues surrounding these features is provided during the TIFA training sessions and support documentation is available on the TIFA site: http://sites.google.com/a/pgcps.org/instructionalsoftware/. Prescribing alternative methods of instruction for inaccessible hardware or software items is variable and must be flexible to meet the needs of the learner. During training, teachers are instructed in techniques to adapt previously inaccessible devices or to encourage use of alternative technology that will communicate the same information in a different way.

MONITORING


CHILDREN’S INTERNET PROTECTION ACT (CIPA) CERTIFICATION FORM NOTE: Complete only if there have been changes to your last certification submitted to MSDE. Check here if there are no changes to your CIPA certification status. Any Local Education Agency seeking Ed Tech funds must certify to its State Education Agency that schools have adopted and are enforcing Internet safety policies. It is the intent of the legislation that any school (or district) using federal money ESEA or E-rate) to pay for computers that access the Internet or to pay for Internet access directly should be in compliance with CIPA and should certify to that compliance EITHER through E-rate or the Ed Tech program. Please check one of the following: Our local school system is certified compliant, through the E-rate program, with the Children’s Internet Protection Act requirements. Every school in our local school system benefiting from Ed Tech funds has complied with the CIPA requirements in subpart 4 of Part D of Title II of the ESEA. The CIPA requirements in the ESEA do not apply because no funds made available under the program are being used to purchase computers to access the Internet, or to pay for direct costs associated with accessing the Internet. Not all schools have yet complied with the requirements in subpart 4 of Part D of Title II of the ESEA. However, our local school system has received a one-year waiver from the U.S. Secretary of Education under section 2441(b) (2) (C) of the ESEA for those applicable schools not yet in compliance.

Prince George’s County Public Schools

William R. Hite, Jr., Ed.D., Superintendent of Schools

School System

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Authorizing Signature

10-14-2011

Date

Page | 180


EDUCATION THAT IS MULTICULTURAL AND ACHIEVEMENT (ETMA) MARYLAND LOCAL SCHOOL SYSTEM COMPLIANCE STATUS REPORT Local School System:

Prince George’s County Public Schools

ETMA Contact Person:

Alison Hanks-Sloan

Title/Position:

Supervisor, English for Speakers of Other Languages, International Student Counseling Office, & Office of Interpreting

Address:

Judy Hoyer Family Learning Center 8908 Riggs Road, Suite 272 Adelphi, MD 20783

Phone:

301.445.8450

E-Mail:

alison.hankssloan@pgcps.org

Date completed:

September 1, 2011

Local School System:

Prince George’s County Public Schools

ETMA Contact Person:

Diane Powell

Title/Position:

Director, Student Engagement and School Support

Address:

7711 Livingston Road Oxon Hill, MD 20745

Phone:

301.567.5702

E-Mail:

diane.powell@pgcps.org

Date completed:

September 1, 2011

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Fax:

Fax:

301.445.8457

301.567.8606

Page | 181


BRIDGE TO EXCELLENCE CROSS-CUTTING THEME EDUCATION THAT IS MULTICULTURAL (ETM) INTRODUCTION The Compliance Status Report on the following pages presents the criteria for the assessment of Education that is Multicultural and Achievement (ETMA) implementation in Maryland local public schools. The assessment categories relate to the level of compliance with the ETM Regulation (COMAR 13A.04.05) with emphasis on equity, access, support for success, academic achievement, and diversity in educational opportunities. This report will identify and measure ways to enhance educators’ cultural proficiency and to implement culturally relevant leadership and teaching strategies. The ETMA goals for all of Maryland’s diverse students are to eliminate achievement gaps, accelerate academic achievement, promote personal growth and development, and prepare for college and career readiness. GUIDELINES FOR COMPLETION AND SUBMISSION OF BRIDGE TO EXCELLENCE ETM REPORT ƒ ƒ ƒ

The completion of the Maryland Local School System (LSS) Compliance Status Report for ETMA is to be coordinated by the LSS ETMA contact person. This person will work with other appropriate LSS individuals to gather the information needed. The Compliance Status Report form is to be submitted as the ETM component of the LSS Bridge to Excellence Plan. The additional materials requested (listed below) should be sent separately by the ETMA contact person and to the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) Equity Assurance and Compliance Office, MSDE, 200 West Baltimore Street, Maryland 21201 These materials may be submitted as hard copies or digitalized and submitted on a disk.* □ □ □ □ □

A copy of the Local School System’s (LSS) ETM vision and mission statement A sample curriculum document that infuses Education That Is Multicultural A list of ETM mandatory and/or ETM voluntary courses offered A list of Professional Development ETMA workshops or seminars provided during the school year A sample checklist used to evaluate and approve LSS instructional resources

*Copies of these materials can be obtained by either contacting the PGCPS ESOL Office at 301-445-8450 or the above listed Equity Assurance and Compliance Office at MSDE.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 182


ETMA BRIDGE TO EXCELLENCE REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY After completion of the Maryland Local School System Compliance Status Report: Education That Is Multicultural (ETMA) form, provide the following summary information. 1. List your Local School System’s major ETMA strengths identified Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) ETMA strengths include: a) curricula with diversity components in multiple subject areas; b) administrative procedures supporting ETMA; c) in-depth training for principals; d) ongoing opportunities with internal and external partners in the school system working toward ETMA; e) translation support; f) assessments; g) supporting diversity among parent groups; and h) instructional resources and materials. 2. List your Local School System’s major ETMA areas identified that need improvement PGCPS continues to make strides in creating an ETMA school climate. While the district continues to use data to drive instructional decisions, leaders can increase their focus to view the data through an ETMA lens. School leadership can develop more tools on how to facilitate discussions within its staff development and data discussions about how to reach all populations and develop culturally proficient school and work climates. In the 2011 school year, a limited number of courses were offered voluntarily and for CPD credit due to a need for additional trainers. 3. List your three major Local School System ETMA goals for the next school year 1. Conduct discussions on how to consciously implement ongoing practices around ETMA in different leadership circles, including: the Executive Cabinet, instructional directors, principals, the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Division of Student Services, and other offices of support. 2. Develop a long-term process for the implementation of ongoing practices around ETMA and the delivery of training to address the different needs of staff members and faculty in both central office and schools. 3. Require all principals to include an ETMA initiative that will work toward closing the achievement gap for their school based on their students’ data. 4. Provide comments related to the compliance status report form, noting any recommendations for suggested revisions ƒ

Curriculum questions are too broad to provide specific details about the school system’s implementation of curricula development and ETMA infusion. Recommendation: Identify specific content areas for curriculum focus, (e.g., English/Language Arts, Math).

ƒ

LSSs need additional guidance in how to measure the levels of practice, as various staff members rated listed practices differently. Recommendation: Provide a rubric with criteria for the various rating categories as part of the instructions for completing the Compliance Status Report.

ƒ

Provide instructions on what a completed Compliance Status Report should look like and a process for documentation of comments related to each of the cells. LSSs need to understand the basic structure expected for responding to the items. For example, should the LSS provide more than one check-mark to a row? Should the response provide or highlight specifics that resulted in the particular response? Recommendation: Provide more detailed instructions for the completion of the Compliance Status Report, specifically instructing respondents to only indicate one response per row (i.e., only one level of compliance per response category).

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 183


3.

2.

1.

4.

3.

2.

1.

MISSION/VISION/LEADERSHIP

CURRICULUM No action has been taken

No action has been taken

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Curriculum provides information which enables students to demonstrate an understanding of and an appreciation for cultural groups in the United States as an integral part of education for a culturally pluralistic society. Practices and programs promote values, attitudes, and behaviors, which promote cultural sensitivity: a. Curriculum content includes information regarding history of cultural groups and their contributions in Maryland, the United States and the world. b. Multiple cultural perspectives of history are represented. As reflected in the State Curriculum, all schools provide opportunities for students to demonstrate the following attitudes and actions: a. valuing one’s own heritage.

II.

The LSS has a written mission or vision statement that includes a stated commitment to: ƒ Diversity ƒ Education that is Multicultural ƒ Accelerating and enhancing student achievement ƒ Eliminating student achievement gaps The LSS’s mission statement is integral to the operation of the schools and is regularly communicated to all staff, students, parents, and the community. A culturally diverse group (including the LSS ETM liaison) actively engages in the development of the Bridge to Excellence (BTE) or other management plan. The Bridge to Excellence Master Plan includes specific references (Cross-cutting Themes) related to Education that is Multicultural and minority achievement initiatives.

I.

Efforts are being initiated

Beginning

Efforts are being initiated

Beginning

Initial Results are being gained

Initial Results are being gained

PGCPS ETMA BRIDGE TO EXCELLENCE COMPLIANCE STATUS REPORT

Page | 184

Efforts and results are being enhanced and supported

Embedding

X

X

Efforts and results are being enhanced and supported

Embedding

X

X

X

X

Sustaining Practices are evident, policies are in place, and results are increasing

X

X

Sustaining Practices are evident, policies are in place, and results are increasing


2.

1.

4.

CURRICULUM

SCHOOL CLIMATE No action has been taken

No action has been taken

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

The LSS has a written policy and procedure addressing bullying and harassment. The LSS addresses how all schools promote the following aspects of an inclusive climate: a. in which harassment is not tolerated and in which incidents of bullying, intimidation, intolerance and hate/violence are addressed in an equitable and timely manner. b. that promotes the development of interpersonal skills that prepare students for a diverse workplace and society. c. that reflects the diversity of the LSS and community through school activities such as School Improvement Teams (SIT), PTA/PTO/PTSO, planning committees, advisory groups, etc... d. in which diverse linguistic patterns are respected. e. in which students, instructional staff, support staff, parents, community members, and central office staff are made to feel welcomed and actively involved in the entire instructional program. f. that reflects relationships of mutual respect.

III.

valuing the richness of cultural diversity and commonality. valuing the uniqueness of cultures other than one’s own. being aware of and sensitive to individual differences within cultural groups. e. addressing stereotypes related to ETMA diversity factors including but not limited to: race, ethnicity, region, religion, gender, language, socio-economic status, age, and individuals with disabilities. Curricular infusion of Education that is Multicultural is visible in ALL subject areas. Attach sample ETM curriculum infusion in core content areas at the elementary, middle, and high school level.

b. c. d.

II.

Efforts are being initiated

Beginning

Efforts are being initiated

Beginning

Initial Results are being gained

Initial Results are being gained

Page | 185

Efforts and results are being enhanced and supported

Embedding

Efforts and results are being enhanced and supported

Embedding

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Sustaining Practices are evident, policies are in place, and results are increasing

X

X

X

Sustaining Practices are evident, policies are in place, and results are increasing X X


IV. INSTRUCTION

that includes activities and strategies to prevent bullying, harassment, racism, sexism, bias, discrimination, and prejudice. that includes multicultural assemblies, programs, and speakers.

SCHOOL CLIMATE

No action has been taken

No action has been taken

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

A. ACCESS AND GROUPING 1. All schools use data disaggregated by race/ethnicity, gender, English Language Learners, and socio-economic status/FARMS to assess inequities in course/class participation, student placement, grouping, and in making adjustments to assure equity. 2. A committed demonstration of high expectations for all students is visible. a. Schools ensure that all students have access to equally rigorous academic instruction regardless of cultural and socio-economic background. b. All schools assure that all students with disabilities are afforded access to classes and programs in the “least restrictive� environment. c. Highly qualified/effective and certified teachers are assigned to low-achieving schools. d. Teachers already working in low-achieving schools are certificated and highly qualified/effective. 3. All schools monitor and address disproportionate referrals for discipline, suspensions, and expulsions, as well as, placements of students in special education programs. 4. All schools provide outreach to assure that there is equitable representation of diverse cultural and socioeconomic groups in: a. advanced placement courses b. gifted and talented programs c. special initiatives such as grants and/or pilot programs such as STEM

h.

g.

III.

Efforts are being initiated

Beginning

Efforts are being initiated

Beginning

Initial Results are being gained

Initial Results are being gained

Page | 186

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Efforts and results are being enhanced and supported

Embedding

Efforts and results are being enhanced and supported

Embedding

X

Sustaining Practices are evident, policies are in place, and results are increasing

X

X

Sustaining Practices are evident, policies are in place, and results are increasing


1.

C.

4.

3.

2.

1.

B.

5.

STAFF DEVELOPMENT

No action has been taken

No action has been taken

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

ETMA staff development includes involvement of all staff: (check all that apply) ƒ Administrators X ƒ central office staff _ X

V.

d. student organizations and extracurricular activities e. student recognition programs and performances All schools ensure that all students have access to instructional technology. INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITIES All schools engage in instructional activities that recognize and appreciate students’ cultural identities, multiple intelligences and learning styles. All schools use instructional activities that promote an understanding of and respect for a variety of ways of communicating, both verbal and nonverbal. All schools implement activities that address bullying, harassment, racism, sexism, bias, discrimination, and prejudice. All schools provide opportunities for students to analyze and evaluate social issues and propose solutions to contemporary social problems. ACHIEVEMENT DISPARITIES 1. All schools provide a range of appropriate assessment tools and strategies to differentiate instruction to accelerate student achievement. 2. All schools implement strategies, programs, and interventions aimed at eliminating academic gaps. 3. All schools implement strategies, programs, and interventions that prevent dropouts as evidenced by data. 4. All schools implement strategies, programs, and initiatives to eliminate disproportionality in special education identification and placement.

IV. INSTRUCTION

Efforts are being initiated

Beginning

Efforts are being initiated

Beginning

Initial Results are being gained

Initial Results are being gained

Page | 187

X

Efforts and results are being enhanced and supported

Embedding

X

X

X

Efforts and results are being enhanced and supported

Embedding

Sustaining Practices are evident, policies are in place, and results are increasing

X

X

X

X

X

X

Sustaining Practices are evident, policies are in place, and results are increasing X X


5.

4.

3.

2.

STAFF DEVELOPMENT

X

No action has been taken

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

ƒ teachers _ X ƒ support staff __ _ ƒ instructional assistants/para-educators __ _ ƒ substitutes __ _ ƒ bus drivers __ _ ƒ custodians __ _ ƒ cafeteria workers __ _ ƒ volunteers __ _ ƒ nurses X Staff development utilizes the MSDE Professional Development Competencies for Enhancing Teacher Efficacy in Implementing Education That is Multicultural (ETM) and accelerating minority achievement. The LSS coordinates and facilitates ETMA programs and activities: ƒ Voluntary ETM courses are offered (attach a list of courses) ƒ Mandatory ETM courses are offered (attach a list of courses) ƒ ETMA workshops or seminars are provided during the year (attach a list of programs) The LSS and relevant area offices ensure ETMA Staff Development provided by all schools includes involvement of all staff in training that: a. explores attitudes and beliefs about their own cultural identity. b. identifies equity strategies, techniques, and materials appropriate for their work assignment. All schools provide training: a. in assessing the prior knowledge, attitudes, abilities, and learning styles of students from varied backgrounds in order to ensure compliance with ETM practices. b. to recognize, prevent and address bullying, harassment, stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination, and bias that impedes student achievement. c. to explore attitudes and beliefs about other cultures to foster greater inter-group understanding. d. to identify and implement instructional strategies, techniques, and materials appropriate for ETMA.

V.

Efforts are being initiated

Beginning

X

Initial Results are being gained

Page | 188

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Efforts and results are being enhanced and supported

Embedding

Sustaining Practices are evident, policies are in place, and results are increasing


7.

6.

5.

4.

3.

2.

1.

8.

7.

6.

STAFF DEVELOPMENT

INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES & MATERIALS No action has been taken

No action has been taken

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

LSS maintains a system-wide resource center with materials for schools at all grade levels that reflect cultural diversity and inclusiveness. The LSS uses resource organizations that promote cultural and ethnic understanding. The LSS uses instructional materials that reinforce the concept of the United States as a pluralistic society within a globally interdependent world, while recognizing our common ground as a nation. Information about available ETMA resources is communicated throughout the LSS using a variety of mechanisms such as newsletters/monthly/and/or quarterly publications. All schools incorporate multicultural instructional materials in all subject areas. All schools encourage, have representation, and utilize parents and community members from diverse backgrounds in school events and activities and as resources. All schools maintain a library inclusive of current instructional supplementary references and/or materials for teachers and administrators on Education that is Multicultural and student

VI.

to recognize and correct inequitable participation in school activities by students and staff from different backgrounds and redress inequity in instances of occurrence. All schools provide appropriate opportunities for staff to attend and participate in local, state, regional, and national ETMA conferences, seminars, and workshops. All schools provide professional development workshops and courses that include an ETMA focus. All schools maintain current professional development references for educators, support staff and administrators on education that is multicultural and student achievement.

e.

V.

Efforts are being initiated

Beginning

Efforts are being initiated

Beginning

Initial Results are being gained

X

X

Initial Results are being gained

Page | 189

Efforts and results are being enhanced and supported

Embedding

X

X

Efforts and results are being enhanced and supported

Embedding

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Sustaining Practices are evident, policies are in place, and results are increasing

Sustaining Practices are evident, policies are in place, and results are increasing


INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES & MATERIALS

No action has been taken

No action has been taken

No action has been taken

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

The LSS has non-discrimination policies and statements included in staff and student handbooks, on websites and publications throughout the school system. The LSS has established procedures for students and staff to

2.

3.

The LSS has written policies and practices that prohibit discrimination against students and staff based on the disability and diversity factors.

VIII. POLICIES

All schools are barrier free and accessible for people with disabilities. The physical environment in all schools reflects diversity and inclusiveness in displays and materials.

VII. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

1.

2.

1.

8.

achievement. All schools provide instructional resources to assist students in gaining a better understanding and developing of an appreciation for cultural groups (i.e. cultural groups, holidays, historical events). 9. All schools have a process for selection of instructional resources that includes the following criteria: a. materials that avoid stereotyping and bias. b. materials that reflect the diverse experiences of cultural groups and individuals. c. individuals from diverse backgrounds were involved in the review and selection of materials. 10. All school media centers include print and non-print materials that reflect diversity and the multi-cultural nature of the community.

VI.

Efforts are being initiated

Beginning

Efforts are being initiated

Beginning

Efforts are being initiated

Beginning

Initial Results are being gained

Initial Results are being gained

Initial Results are being gained

Page | 190

Efforts and results are being enhanced and supported

Embedding

X

Efforts and results are being enhanced and supported

Embedding

Efforts and results are being enhanced and supported

Embedding

X

X

X

Sustaining Practices are evident, policies are in place, and results are increasing

X

Sustaining Practices are evident, policies are in place, and results are increasing

X

X

X

X

X

X

Sustaining Practices are evident, policies are in place, and results are increasing


8.

7.

6.

5.

4.

3.

2.

1.

5.

4.

No action has been taken

No action has been taken

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

All schools provide a range of appropriate assessment tools and strategies to differentiate instruction to accelerate achievement, eliminate achievement gaps, and prevent dropouts as evidenced by student achievement and discipline data. The LSS will select testing and assessment tools that have been normed on a variety of ethnic, gender, and socio-economic populations to document instructional effectiveness. All schools use a multiplicity of opportunities and formats for students to show what they know. The LSS requires re-teaching and enrichment using significantly different strategies or approaches for the benefit of students who fail to meet expected performance levels after initial instruction or are in need of acceleration. The LSS requires that teachers allow multiple opportunities for students to recover failing assessment and/or assignment grades. The LSS utilizes assessment instruments and procedures which are valid for the population being assessed, not at random. The LSS utilizes non-traditional assessment instruments and procedures to allow students to evidence mastery of content. The LSS utilizes valid assessment instruments which are varied

IX. ASSESSMENTS

report discrimination complaints based on any of the diversity factors. School system policies assure that all school publications use bias free, gender fair language and visual images which reflect cultural diversity and inclusiveness. All school system policies and practices are in compliance with federal and state civil rights in education legislation, including but not limited to, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (race, religion, national origin, ethnicity), Title VI of the Education Amendments of 1972 (gender), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (disability).

VIII. POLICIES

Efforts are being initiated

Beginning

Efforts are being initiated

Beginning

X

Initial Results are being gained

Initial Results are being gained

Page | 191

Efforts and results are being enhanced and supported

Embedding

Efforts and results are being enhanced and supported

Embedding

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Sustaining Practices are evident, policies are in place, and results are increasing

X

X

Sustaining Practices are evident, policies are in place, and results are increasing


3.

2.

1.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH No action has been taken

No action has been taken

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

The LSS ensures active involvement by the following in developing policies and strategies to address ETMA issues: a. families from diverse backgrounds. b. community members from diverse backgrounds. c. resource organizations that reflect diversity. Communications for parents and community members are available in languages other than English where appropriate, as well as in alternative formats for persons with disabilities. All school functions are held in facilities that are accessible to individuals with disabilities.

X.

and sensitive to students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds.

IX. ASSESSMENTS

Efforts are being initiated

Beginning

Efforts are being initiated

Beginning

Initial Results are being gained

Initial Results are being gained

Page | 192

X

X

Efforts and results are being enhanced and supported

Embedding

Efforts and results are being enhanced and supported

Embedding

X

X

X

Sustaining Practices are evident, policies are in place, and results are increasing

Sustaining Practices are evident, policies are in place, and results are increasing


Individuals contributing to the completion of the Compliance Report PRINT NAME Alison Hanks-Sloan Diane Powell Frederick Hutchinson Sharon Hodges Sheila Jackson Sharan V. Blohm Elizabeth Davis Judith Kachinske Kara Libby Anita Lambert Elizabeth “Liz� Sessoms Shauna Battle Doreen Myers Stephanie Foster Doreen Myers Silvia Hoke A. Simone McQuaige Andrea Phillips Hughes Anita Sampson Richard Moody Sandra Rose Maria Flores Godfrey Rangasammy David Eagle Theresa Jackson Paul Mazza Birgitt Brevard Randall Pike

JOB TITLE Supervisor, English for Speakers of Other Languages Director, Student Engagement and School Support Acting Director, Department of Strategic Planning and Grants Development Specialist, Office of Talent Development Supervisor, School Improvement Supervisor, Office of Library Media Services Officer, Compliance Instructional Specialist, Special Education Grants Monitoring Coordinating Supervisor, Academic Programs Coordinating Supervisor, Creative Arts Supervisor, Counseling Deputy General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel Supervisor, Secondary R/ELA Supervisor, Secondary Math Supervisor, Secondary R/ELA Counselor, International Student Counseling Office Supervisor, Elementary R/ELA Supervisor, Title I Specialist, Title I Supervisor, Student Services Supervisor, Social Studies Supervisor, World Languages Supervisor, Science Coordinating Supervisor, College and Career Readiness Supervisor, Talented and Gifted Director, Testing Communications Communications

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 193


PGCPS Response Notes for The Compliance Status Report Education That Is Multicultural (ETM) Introduction: The following notes are provided in order to provide a context for how PGCPS approached developing responses for the Compliance Status Report. A synopsis is provided for the majority of the ten factors listed on the Compliance Status Report. The district approached numerous departments and divisions in order to derive its responses for each of the items in the report. The factors summarized in these notes provide an overview of some of the deliberations resulting in the rankings recorded for the district. I. Mission/Vision/Leadership The PGCPS ETMA Steering Committee has been reviewing current language and other policies; a new equity team will develop more explicit references to enhance the core operating beliefs starting in the Fall 2011. While the district’s mission and vision statements are integral parts, the ETMA components are broadly addressed by referring to the school system’s “diverse student body.” Two board policies are currently connected to the core value beliefs. As recommended by the Chief of Academics and supported by the Chief of Student Services, the equity team is led by the ESOL supervisor and Director of Student Services. An equity team, representing multiple offices, has collaborated in this process (see the listing of members in the Compliance Status Report) and will continue to meet regularly throughout the school year. II. Curriculum Multiple curricula documents incorporate ETMA components, a sampling is provided below and more detailed samples are provided as a separate attachment to illustrate infusion in core content areas at the elementary, middle and high school level. (Additional examples – including science, world languages and social studies – are readily available upon request). Secondary Math: A different challenge exists for the new Algebra Framework now in preparation. Here the challenge is to integrate multicultural materials in the form of real-life examples, which could relate to the student's world. Actually, many of the famous problems from the history of mathematics in Africa, Asia and Latin America proved to be quite suitable for 9th grade algebra. Reading/English Language Arts K-5: The selections below are examples of multiculturalism that are referenced in our Curriculum Framework Progress Guide (See Chart G). Chart G. Examples of Multiculturalism in Reading/English Language Arts Grade Levels K-5 Grade Level Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Theme Theme 3 Theme 3 Theme 4 Theme 3 Theme 5 Theme 6 Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 5 Theme 6 Theme 1 Theme 3 Theme 4 Theme 6 Theme 2 Theme 3 Theme 5

Theme Titles Tortillas and Lullabies, Families Carribean Dream Who’s in a Family? Chinatown, Big Bushy Moustache, The Year of the Dog Jalapeno Bagels, How My Parents Learned to Eat The School Mural Ballad of Mulan Keeping Quilt, Grandma’s Records, The Talking Cloth, Dancing Rainbows Yunmi and Halmoni’s Trip Pepita Talks Twice Grandfather’s Journey, *Comprehension Toolkit, Unit 2 “Harvesting Hope: The Story of Cesar Chavez” Cendrillon, *Comprehension Toolkit Unit 3 “My Name is Maria Isabel” The Last Dragon, Sing to the Stars, *Comprehension Toolkit Unit 4 “Garana’s Story” Salmon Summer Michelle Kwan James Forten A Boy Named Slow, Elena

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 194


Creative Arts: All fine arts curriculum documents and extensions include information and resources about the composers, the genre, the culture and its significance. III. School Climate Regarding bullying and harassment, the PGCPS policy implementation plan was sensitive to needs of cultural diversity. Posters on reporting bullying behavior were distributed to all schools in Spanish and English, and children in the posters represent the diversity of PGCPS. A Google site was developed for administrators with information related to cultural sensitivity on this topic. Procedures specify timelines for addressing these issues so that when substantiated, a plan of action can be implemented and supported by the local school. Student Services trained over 1,500 staff and issued the Olweus Survey in Spanish and English to over 4,000 middle school students, which allows students to self-report on their experiences with bullying and harassment. Schools promoted the various heritage months by organizing assemblies, programs, and speakers for (but not limited to): Women’s History Month, Asian-Pacific Month, African-American History Month, and Hispanic American History Month. The Social Studies Office provides the memos and proclamations for the various heritage months. Additionally, the R/ELA K-5 office participated in the 2011 African American Read-In, which highlights African American authors and African American readers. See evidence of its participation: http://www.ncte.org/action/aari http://www.ncte.org/action/aari/certificate Fine Arts instruction supports, encourages, and promotes all that is stated by Social Studies above. In many schools, the fine arts teachers work collaboratively to add authentic performance opportunities to the cultural experiences. IV. Instruction The Department of Testing provides a quarterly Formative Assessment System Test (FAST) in several core subjects at multiple grade levels to identify students likely to be successful on MSA/HSA and to identify intervention where necessary. Teachers and administrators are able to review objectives and receive support from Curriculum and Instruction (C&I) Specialists to work with department chairs and instructional leaders. Every school in School Improvement (SI) submits annual plans that address all subgroups; the system is making academic achievement gains in each subgroup. The SI plans are supported by the system’s Performance Management Analysis and Planning Process (PMAPP). The plans are reviewed throughout year to minimize the achievement gap. The Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) strategy is implemented at some schools to assist with behavior and attendance issues at the elementary and middle school levels. Additionally, every school has a promotion and career development component that is mandated. High schools are implementing Career Academies and Small Learning Communities. V. Staff Development Initial professional development has taken the form of an MSDE-approved course that is available to administrators, teachers, and central office staff. The course, “Cultural Proficiency and Accelerating Student Achievement for the 21 st Century,” is a three-credit Continuing Professional Development (CPD) course that is offered three times per school year. The course is designed to clarify concepts and share strategies to ensure an infusion of Education That Is Multicultural into curriculum, instruction, professional development, assessment, school climate, and instructional resources. A special education class is also offered with an ETMA influence. The MSDE ETMA initiative was one of the trainings at the annual principal institute in July 2010. VI. Instructional Resources and Materials Administrative Procedure 6180.2, Review & Evaluation of Materials; Procedure Manual for School Library Media Centers: A Balanced Approach PreK-12; PGIN 7690-1550 SB, addresses the value of ETMA and the steps necessary to implement the initiative. Additionally, PGCPS is a part of the MDK12 Digital Library Consortium. Access for all of PGCPS include but are not limited to SAFARI Montage video-on-demand, an online circulation system, as well as Follett Destiny, with home/school access. Additionally, the Professional Library Newsletter is published quarterly/electronically for all staff.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 195


Other resources are available through different departments including social studies, world languages and the International Student Counseling Office. All of them collaborate with diverse organizations and provide multiple resource links through their websites. VII. Physical Environment Evidence available upon request. VIII. Policies Evidence available upon request. IX. Assessments A diverse variety of assessments exists throughout the district: quarterly administration of FAST assessments; unit assessments; special education assessments; and teacher developed assessments developed through collaborative planning sessions. PGCPS also provides assessments for students to assess degree of English proficiency and ISCO math placement test. X. Community Outreach School Planning and Management Teams (SPMT) at all schools solicit representation from diverse family backgrounds; some Title I schools have community outreach coordinators. School Planning and Management Teams (SPMT) at all schools also solicit representation from diverse community backgrounds.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 196


ADDRESSING SPECIFIC STUDENT GROUPS LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENTS A. Based on the Examination of AMAO 1, AMAO 2, and AMAO 3 Data (Tables 4.1- 4.3) This section reports the progress of Limited English Proficient students in developing and attaining English language proficiency and making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). School systems are asked to analyze information on Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs): ƒ

AMAO 1 is used to demonstrate the percentages of Limited English Proficient students progressing toward English proficiency. For making AMAO I progress, Maryland uses a composite score obtained from the LAS Links assessment. The composite score is derived from equally weighted sub scores from each of the four domains of listening, speaking, reading and writing. Students are considered to have made progress if their overall test score on the LAS Links composite is 15 scale score points higher than the composite score from the previous year test administration. In order to meet the target for AMAO I for school year 2010-2011, 60% of ELLs will make progress in learning English.

ƒ

AMAO 2 is used to demonstrate the percentages of Limited English Proficient students attaining English proficiency by the end of each school year. For calculating AMAO II, Maryland uses a composite score obtained from the LAS Links assessment. The composite score is derived from equally weighted sub scores from each of the four domains of listening, speaking, reading and writing. For the purpose of AMAO 2 (accountability), a composite cut score of 5 on the ELP assessment with a minimum cut score of 4 in each domain is used to determine proficiency level for each grade. The AMAO II target for school year 2010-2011 is 17% of ELLs will attain proficiency in English.

ƒ

AMAO 3 represents Adequate Yearly Progress of Local School Systems for the Limited English Proficient student subgroup.

1. Describe where progress is evident. Tables 4.1, 4.2, and A, and Figures 1 and 2 describe the progress made by students based on AMAO 1 and 2 standards.

Note:

Total

Table 4.1: System AMAO I, 2009-2010 N Number Who Met 13,919 9,437

% 67.9

Total

Table 4.2: System AMAO II, 2009-2010* N Number Who Met Target 14,489 2,114

% 14.6

In order for a local school system to meet the System AMAO I, 2010-2011, at least 60% of students must make a 15 scale score point increase on the 2011 LAS administration as compared to last year's administration

*Note: In order for a local school system to meet the System AMAO II, 2010-2011, at least 17% of students must meet grade-specific targets for English Language Proficiency.

AMAO 1: For SY2010-11, the school system as a whole met the AMAO 1 standard as 67.74% of English Language Learner (ELL) students improved their score on the LAS Links English Proficiency Assessment by 15 points or more over their previous year’s score (see Table 4.1). The target proficiency rate was 60%. ELL students met the AMAO 1 proficiency target at each grade level except kindergarten and grades 11 and 12 (see Table T), and in 132 of the 181 schools (or 73%) in which ELL students attend (see Figure 1). AMAO 2: The school system did not meet the AMAO 2 standard for SY2010-11 as only 14.6% of ELL students attained English proficiency by the end of the school year (see Table 4.2). Table T below indicates that ELL students in grades 3 through 8 and grade 12 met the AMAO 2 standard as more than 17% exited from the ESOL program. Seventy-nine (79) of the 181 schools (or 43.64%) met AMAO 2 by exiting at least 17% of their students (See Figure 2).

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 197


Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 School System

Table T: Percent of LEP Students Meeting AMAOs 1 and 2 on the LAS Links English Proficiency Assessment by Grade Level, SY2010-11 AMAO 1 Percent of Students Making Progress by AMAO 2 Percent of Students Meeting Proficiency Target Attaining English Proficiency 54% 2% 92% 10% 75% 10% 66% 19% 60% 30% 71% 35% 65% 32% 63% 28% 72% 25% 68% 11% 60% 9% 56% 14% 43% 20% 67.7% 14.6% Figure 5 AMAO 1 Status by School, SY2010-11

73%

27%

Schools Meeting AMAO 1

1

2

Schools Not Meeting AMAO 1

Figure 6 AMAO 2 Status by School, SY2010-11

56% 44%

1 Schools Not Meeting AMAO 2

2 Schools Meeting AMAO 2

AMAO 3: In the aggregate, PGCPS Limited English Proficient students did not meet proficiency in Reading and Mathematics in SY2010, but met the participation rates for both Reading and Mathematics. At the time of this writing, the AYP data for SY2011 is not available.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 198


Table 4.3: System AMAO III, 2010-2011 AYP Status for Limited English Proficient Students Reading % Proficient 2008 Not Met 2009 Not Met 2010 Not Met 2011 Not Met Indicate Met or Not Met for Each Column.

Mathematics Participation Rate Met Met Met Met

% Proficient Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met

Participation Rate Met Met Met Met

2. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies to which you attribute the progress of Limited English Proficient students towards attaining English proficiency. Through professional development, the ESOL Program implements practices, programs, and strategies to support 338 ESOL teachers who work with over 15,000 English Language Learners. Much of the professional development is correlated with the corrective action plan, which was developed as a result of not meeting AMAO 3 in the SY2010-11. This corrective action plan includes targeted ESOL professional development focused on inquiry-based learning, data analysis, and informative text. Several strategies were employed that contributed to the progress: 1) The ESOL Office partnered with the University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC) to provide Secondary Teacher Education and Professional Training for ELLs (STEPT) to content area teachers of ESOL students; 2) Parent workshops were held throughout the district to empower ESOL and immigrant parents to play a more active role in their child’s education; and 3) International Outreach Counselors partnered with school-based counselors to provide additional support to ESOL schools with large secondary populations. 3. Describe where challenges are evident in the progress of Limited English Proficient students towards attaining English proficiency by each domain (Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing). Table U: Percent of ESOL Students Scoring at Levels 4 and 5 on LAS Links by School Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Form A Form B Form A Form B Form A Form B AREA SPEAKING 22% 31% 43% 42% 52% 49% LISTENING 31% 35% 48% 46% 49% 46% READING 27% 30% 46% 43% 48% 44% WRITING 22% 28% 39% 36% 41% 37%

LAS Links, the test of English Language Proficiency, has two forms: A and B. The test is alternated each year, and each form has a different set of questions and vocabulary. Since 2008, students in Prince George’s County Public Schools have performed better on Form A than on Form B (See Table U.) The trending pattern reflects improvement on alternating years. For the past four years (2007-2011), students have shown improvement on Form A from the previous year and a decrease in performance on Form B. The vocabulary chosen from Form B is oftentimes unfamiliar to the students. Due to test security (COMAR 13A), specific test items cannot be discussed.)4 Over the six years of testing displayed in Table U above, students have performed lowest on the writing domain. Table V highlights the number and the percent of ESOL students making a 15 scale score point by each domain. Despite reflecting the highest percentage increase in student performance from SY2009-10 to SY2010-11 – i.e. 71.5% increasing the scale score by 15 or more points – writing is still the domain in which students consistently score the lowest . Table V: Number and Percent of ESOL Students Making a 15-Scale Score Point Gain by Domain NUMBER OF STUDENTS MAKING PERCENT OF STUDENTS MAKING A 15 POINT SCALE SCORE A 15 POINT SCALE SCORE DOMAIN GAIN FROM 2009-10 TO 2010-11 GAIN FROM 2009-10 – 2010-11 SPEAKING 5,503 57.19% LISTENING 5,895 53.39% READING 7,140 69.27% WRITING 7,369 71.49% TOTAL/ALL 10,307 67.74% 4 This upcoming school year, a new assessment will be used across the state to measure accountability for ELLs. MSDE will be conducting a correlation study to compare LAS Links to the new assessment.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 199


Table V: Number and Percent of ESOL Students Making a 15-Scale Score Point Gain by Domain NUMBER OF STUDENTS MAKING PERCENT OF STUDENTS MAKING A 15 POINT SCALE SCORE A 15 POINT SCALE SCORE DOMAIN GAIN FROM 2009-10 TO 2010-11 GAIN FROM 2009-10 – 2010-11 DOMAINS

According to Table W, middle school ESOL students outperform their elementary and high school counterparts across each of the four testing domains. Elementary students outperform high school students in speaking and listening, and high school students outperform elementary students in reading and writing. The ESOL Office is working with the Institute for Learning (IFL) to redesign lessons and incorporate accountable talk and academic rigor into the high school ESOL classrooms. Table W: Percent of ESOL Students Scoring at Levels 4 or 5 by School Level AREA Elem Middle High SPEAKING 50% 56% 31% LISTENING 46% 58% 39% READING 42% 54% 47% WRITING 33% 54% 45%

Below is an analysis of students’ performance, based on each of the domains. Speaking: The percentage of students scoring at levels 4 or 5 on Form B in Speaking increased from 42% in 2009 to 49% in 2011; however, the percentage scoring at the same levels decreased by six (6) percentage points – i.e. from 52% on Form A in 2010 to 46% on Form B in 2011. Listening: The percentage of students scoring at levels 4 or 5 on Form B in Listening increased from 46% in 2009 to 49% in 2011 (+3 percentage points). On the other hand, the percentage of students scoring at the same levels on decreased by the same number of percentage points (-3) from 49% on Form A in 2010 to 46% on Form B in 2011. Oral:

Table C indicates that overall, fewer students are making gains in Speaking (57.19%) and Listening (53.39%). One reason may be that students have minimal room for improvement as they are scoring at the highest levels in these domains. In addition, according to Table D, high school students performed less well in the Speaking (31%) and Listening (39%) domains than they did in the Reading (47%) and Writing (45%) domains. High school students are more likely to be foreign-born, new arrivals to the United States. These students are meeting the challenge of age, cultural transition, and tend to spend less time attempting to meet academic requirements.

Reading:

The percentage of students scoring at levels 4 or 5 in Reading increased by only one percentage point on the Form B test from 2009 (43%) to 2011 (44%). The percentage of students scoring at these levels decreased by four (4) percentage points from the Form A test in 2010 (48%) to the Form B test in 2011 (44%).

Writing:

The percentage of students scoring at levels 4 or 5 on Form B in Writing increased from 36% in 2009 to 37% in 2011. ESOL students at the elementary level struggle most in Writing. However, from Form A in 2010 (40.5%) to Form B in 2011 (37%) the results decreased by 3.5 percentage points.

Literacy:

ESOL students at the elementary level represent 76% of the total ESOL population. Kindergarten ESOL students make-up 18% of the total ESOL population. Elementary ESOL students performed the lowest (33%) in the Writing domain. The challenge is that the Kindergarten students do not complete the K – 1 Use Conventions section of the LAS Links Writing Test because it requires the reading skills to complete 20 multiple choice questions independently. Most kindergarten students have not mastered the ability to complete a multiple choice standardized test independently.

4. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made to ensure sufficient progress of Limited English Proficient students towards attaining English proficiency. Include a discussion of corresponding resource allocations and incorporate timelines where appropriate. The following changes have been put in place for the 2011 - 2012 school year to ensure sufficient progress of Limited English Proficient students toward attaining English proficiency. The ESOL Office will:

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 200


ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Train teachers to implement student-centered instructional strategies/methods and incorporate reading of informational text with students Pilot language-based quarterly benchmarks addressing the new language proficiency standards and assessments Provide intensive coaching support at the schools with the greatest instructional needs Engage newcomer families in parent involvement trainings Implement elementary newcomer language-support program at ten schools with the largest newcomer population Increase Extended Learning Opportunity (ELO) Support Provide additional instructional software Offer Continuing Professional Development Courses (CPDs) in supporting English language learners for teachers in Prince George’s County Public Schools. Revisit English Language Learner Plan to integrate Response to Intervention for long-term ELLs

No Child Left Behind requires that corrective actions are taken in local school systems that failed to make progress on the AMAOs: ƒ

ƒ ƒ

For any fiscal year, the school system must separately inform a parent or the parents of a child identified for participation in or participating in a language instruction educational program of the system’s failure to show progress. The law stipulates that this notification is to take place not later than 30 days after such failure occurs. The law further requires that the information be provided in an understandable and uniform format and, to the extent practicable, in a language that the parent can understand. For two or three consecutive years, the school system must develop an improvement plan that will ensure that the system meets such objectives. The plan shall specifically address the factors that prevented the system from achieving the objectives. For four consecutive years, the state shall require the local system to modify the curriculum program and method of instruction or determine whether or not the local school system shall continue to receive funds related to the system’s failure to meet the objectives, and require the local system to replace educational personnel relevant to the system’s failure to meet the objectives.

ˆ If applicable, describe the corrective action plan specifying action to be taken for not meeting AMAO 1 for two or three consecutive years: Local school systems not making AMAO 1 for two or three consecutive years must provide an update on how the school system has revised the applicable components of the Master Plan to ensure progress of English Language Learners towards English proficiency. In the report, school systems should describe what challenges are evident and what changes or adjustments will be made so that the school system will meet AMAO 1. ˆ If applicable, describe the corrective action plan specifying action to be taken for not meeting AMAO 2 for two or three consecutive years: Local school systems not making AMAO 2 for two or three consecutive years must provide an update on how the school system has revised the applicable components of the Master Plan to ensure progress of English Language Learners towards English attainment. In the report, school systems should describe what challenges are evident and what changes or adjustments will be made so that the school system will meet AMAO 2. A corrective action plan is not required for schools that do not meet AMAO as these goals are measured systemically and not at the school level. Prince George’s County Public Schools met AMAO 2 in the 2009-2010 school year, and therefore, a corrective action plan is not required for AMAO 2. ˆ If applicable, describe the corrective action plan specifying action to be taken for not meeting AMAO 3 for two or three consecutive years: Local school systems not making AMAO 3 for two or three consecutive years must provide an update on how the school system has revised the applicable components of the Master Plan to ensure progress of Limited English Proficient students toward attaining reading and math proficiency. In the report, school systems should describe what challenges are evident and what changes or adjustments will be made so that the school system will make Adequate Yearly Progress. You may refer to other sections of this update as appropriate. For SY2011-12 ESOL teacher trainers are working with schools that did not meet AYP in the LEP subgroup for both reading and math and providing one-on-one coaching, professional development, and assistance with data utilization. A focus group on the Language Rich Classroom is being provided for teachers at elementary schools that did not meet AYP in reading only. 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 201


A Continuing Professional Development (CPD) course is being provided on meeting the needs of ELLs in the Mathematics classroom with follow up from an ESOL teacher trainer for teachers at elementary schools that did not meet AYP in the LEP subgroup for math only. English for Speakers of Other Languages/Title III Corrective Action Plan 2011-2013 AMAO III: To meet AYP in the LEP subgroup (including ELLs) Table X: State Assessment PGCPS LEP Data SY 20115 ESOL Proficiency Count

Test Takers (including Reclassified English Language Learners)

Reading LEP Subgroup

% to Meet

Elementary

3,327

4,301

77.4%

81.2%

Middle

1,302

2,373

54.9%

85.6%

313

436

41.1%

79.5%

Levels

High

Chart H: English for Speakers of Other Languages/Title III Corrective Action Plan Action and Grade-Level Impact K-12 Target professional development for mainstream teachers

K-12 Target ESOL professional development for principals

K-12 Provide book study opportunities for ESOL staff, and school communities

K-12

Year 1: 2011-2012 September - June - Provide 5 CPD courses (Second Language Acquisition/Culture, Reading (K-6 and 6-12), Math, Strategies) multiple times throughout the school year

September - June - Offer multiple CPD courses for multiple times throughout the school year

May - June - Create two new CPD courses and update the current courses July – Provide principals with information about LAS Links scores, ESOL instruction, models, and new WIDA Standards and testing through a face-to face professional development

July - June - Provide principals with updated information about the ESOL program, ESOL instruction, and ELP standards and test through short online presentations

September - June - Provide principals with updated information about the ESOL program and new ELP standards and test through short online presentations Throughout school year, ESOL teachers and central office staff will participate in instructional book studies funded by Title III

Continue to provide Title III funded book study for ESOL teachers and central office staff

Middle and high schools will conduct school-based book studies in the areas of literacy, strategies, assessment and/or cultural diversity May- ESOL teachers and central office staff will identify books for a book study for the following school year August – Review accommodations with ESOL chairs

Maximize accommodations in daily instruction and in assessments for ELLs and RELLs

September – Review accommodations with testing coordinators

K - 12

September - Attend regional training presented by WIDA for ESOL central office team and 50 ESOL teachers

Provide training on WIDA Standards to facilitate

Year 2: 2012-2013

October – Collect all accommodations for the capture sheet

August – Review accommodations with ESOL chairs September – Review accommodations with testing coordinators October – Collect all accommodations for the capture sheet October - Train classroom and content teachers

October - Train 300 ESOL teachers by replicating

5

As of this writing, SY2010-11 data had not been made available by MSDE. The school district is aware that it did not make AYP for the ELL subgroup, however, and as such, has updated its Corrective Action plan accordingly. The SY2009-10 data in the table are for illustrative purposes.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 202


Chart H: English for Speakers of Other Languages/Title III Corrective Action Plan Action and Grade-Level Impact collaboration between ESOL Teachers and Content Teachers and promote mastery of academic language K - 12 Provide training on ACCESS for ELLs administration K - 12 Provide training on interpreting ACCESS for ELLs teacher reports to ensure strategic delivery of instruction for ELLs K - 12 Host and train ESOL teachers at the Summer Institute Elementary Targeted professional development for Classroom Teachers

Year 1: 2011-2012 regional training locally

December - Attend regional training presented by WIDA for ESOL central office team. Train 400 ESOL teachers and other school personnel to administer ACCESS for ELLs by replicating the regional training locally May - Attend online score report training presentation for ESOL central office team.

December- Host trainings for ESOL teachers, test coordinators, and other classroom/content teachers

Train 330 ESOL teachers to interpret ACCESS for ELLs Teacher Reports and use the information to differentiate and target instruction November - Establish conference committee, theme and dates

Train ESOL teachers to interpret ACCESS for ELLs Teacher Reports and use the information to differentiate and target instruction November- Establish conference committee, theme and dates

March - Distribute conference information

March - Distribute conference information

August - Host conference September - Workshop for classroom teachers on The Language-Rich Classroom presented by the authors.

August - Host conference September - Conduct initial workshop for select classroom teachers

Target after school programs for ESOL students

Elementary Train elementary teachers using the structured immersion model

May - Identify focus groups for school year 2012-13 October - Continue Reading Together, Imagine Learning, and Champions at 53 schools

October 4 – (Primary Structured Immersion) Train primary teachers (K-1) in effective ESOL strategies October 6 – (Intermediate Structured Immersion) Train Intermediate teachers (2-6) in effective ESOL strategies Provide an online presentation that presents a general overview of structured immersion for teachers with ESOL coursework

Elementary Support ESOL teams at schools that did not meet AYP in the LEP subgroup Elementary and Middle School Provide opportunities for ESOL teachers to conduct peer observations

May - Attend online score report training presentation for ESOL central office team.

Strategies for Teaching ELLs in the Mathematics classroom CPD class will be offered for select schools October - May- Follow- up workshops and classroom visits will be conducted by a coach to implement the strategies discussed in the workshop

Elementary

Year 2: 2012-2013

February - Provide follow-up trainings on ESOL strategies September - June - Coaches provide support and coaching to the ESOL teams that did not meet AYP in the LEP subgroup. Coaches provide support with lesson planning, professional development, and collaboration September- Participants attend a workshop which will provide an overview of the purpose, procedure and outcomes of the peer observation process

October - May - Follow-up workshops and classroom visits for the teacher participating in the focus groups

Continue with after school programs at 50+ schools.

Fall -Online training for new teachers implementing the structured immersion model

Spring - Online follow- up training for the teachers implementing the structured immersion model September - June - Coached provide support and coaching to the ESOL teams that did not meet AYP in the LEP subgroup. Coaches provide support with lesson, planning, professional development, and collaboration Select a new cohort of teachers to participate in the peer observation process.

January- Participants reflect on the observations they

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 203


Chart H: English for Speakers of Other Languages/Title III Corrective Action Plan Action and Grade-Level Impact

Year 1: 2011-2012

Year 2: 2012-2013

have conducted and their individual strengths and weaknesses.

Middle School Mainstream all ESOL 3 middle school students into ESOL/Reading English Language Arts co-taught classes in SY2012 Middle School Incorporate ESOL intervention plan for ESOL students who have been in U.S. Schools for five years or more and need support in reading and writing

Elementary & High Schools Provide intense instruction to newcomer students

May- Collect data on the effectiveness of peer observation partnerships November- Begin revision of new ESOL 3/RELA curricula with RELA department to provide additional scaffolds for ELLs February- Identify teachers of ESOL 3/RELA and schedule all ESOL 3 into a co-taught ESOL RELA course Conduct a year-long book study on Preventing LongTerm ELLs

Service middle and high school ESOL students with International Student Counseling Outreach counselors directly at the schools twice a month Middle and High Schools

February – Begin to identify students who need the intervention

February – Begin to identify students who need the intervention

April – Work with counselors to engage parents to develop the RTI (Response to Intervention) plans

April – Work with counselors to engage parents to develop the RTI (Response to Intervention) plans July –Place order to refresh the materials at the existing site and purchase new materials for the next 5 schools that have the largest newcomer population

July – Order materials for the 10 schools that have the largest newcomer populations September – Train teachers using the materials for the schools using newcomer programs

October through June – ISCO counselors will collaborate with guidance counselors and ESOL teachers every two weeks for college-readiness and to provide workshops geared toward newcomers, at-risk ESOL students

March – Order summer reading materials May – Distribute materials

Middle and High Schools

November – Begin school-based trainings on how to utilize the Toolkit

High School Collaborate with IFL (Institute for Learning) to update the ESOL high school course sequence

August – Review intervention plans January – ESOL chairs review the intervention plan

Provide summer reading materials to secondary ESOL students

Provide training to content area secondary teachers of ESOL students through STEP-T and ELL Toolkit Training

December – Follow up training

January – ESOL chairs review the intervention plan

November - Refresher training for teachers teaching the newcomer programs

Middle and High Schools

August - Train all ESOL 3 teachers and their RELA co-teachers in strategies for successful co-teaching

September – Train teachers using the materials for the schools using newcomer programs November - Refresher training for teachers teaching the newcomer programs August through June – ISCO counselors will continue to support ESOL middle and high schools

August - follow up activities for summer reading March- Order summer reading materials May – Distribute materials To be determined

December – Train secondary science and math chairs in using ESOL strategies through Toolkit and STEP-T modules August- Conduct a summer Institute for science, Social Studies and Math teachers using STEP-T Modules October – Follow an ESOL student through a day of instruction and informally interview teachers about the instructional challenges impacting the ESOL students

To be determined

November/December – Review the ESOL course sequence and curricula

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 204


Chart H: English for Speakers of Other Languages/Title III Corrective Action Plan Action and Grade-Level Impact

High School Provide reading courses to support ESOL high school students reading below grade level

Year 1: 2011-2012 January through May – Develop a team to align the course sequence and curricula with the common core standards in preparation for the high school assessment August – Provide ESOL critical reading and ESOL advanced critical reading courses to ESOL students at participating schools

Year 2: 2012-2013

August – Train teachers in the ESOL high school reading courses

January and May – Review EduSoft SRI data

Section B – Cross Cutting Themes Limited English Proficient Students MSDE Clarifying Question(s): Question: 1. Is there a plan for expanding the UDL across the student population? The response to this question can be found in Section G, on page 347.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 205


ADDRESSING SPECIFIC STUDENT GROUPS CAREER AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION (2011)6 The Bridge to Excellence Act requires that the Master Plan “shall include goals, objectives, and strategies” for the performance of students enrolled in Career and Technology Education (CTE) programs. Instructions: Please respond to these questions/prompts: 1. Describe the school system’s progress on the implementation and expansion of Maryland CTE Programs of Study within Career Clusters as a strategy to prepare more students who graduate ready for entry into college and careers. Include plans for industry certification and early college credit. Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) has a goal that 100% of its seniors graduate college and/or career ready by FY2017. The adoption of the Maryland Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs of study within the Career Clusters is used as a strategy to help ensure students graduate both career and/or college ready. PGCPS has MSDE approval to implement 26 programs of study within nine (9) of the 10 recognized Career Clusters. The programs of study afford students the opportunity to enroll in both rigorous academic and career readiness courses as they prepare to transition from high school to either post-secondary education or the world of work. PGCPS offers CTE programs of study within the following MSDE-approved Career Clusters: 7 ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

Arts, Media & Communication Business, Management, and Finance Construction & Development Health & Biosciences Consumer Services, Hospitality, & Tourism Human Resource Services Information Technology Manufacturing, Engineering, and Technology Transportation Technologies

Along with these programs of study, students are also afforded an opportunity to gain real world experience through a variety of career interest work-based learning activities. Currently, students within all high schools are provided an opportunity to participate in programs of study, primarily beginning in grades 11 and 12. In SY2010, 16,823 (41.6%) of the system’s 40,394 high school students were enrolled in one or more CTE courses/programs of study. This enrollment level represents an increase of 2,923 students (or +21.0%) over the previous year’s (SY2009) CTE enrollment. Approximately 87 percent of these students (14,687) were enrolled in programs within MSDE’s Career Clusters, and the remaining 13 percent (2,136 students) were enrolled in the Career Research Development (Experiential Learning). The increased student enrollment in the SY2010 from SY2009 is attributed to increases of 1,343 (+14.9%) in the Business, Management and Finance Cluster; an increase of 445 (17.3%) in the Human Resource Services Cluster; and a slight increase of 43 (3.3%) within all the other clusters. Also, there was an increase of 1,092 (+104.6%) within the Career Research and Development program (see Table Y). Notwithstanding the enrollment increase, there continued to be a lack of balance in student enrollment across cluster programs of study. Of the 14,687 CTE program enrollees, 10,343 (or 70.4%) were enrolled in programs within the Business, Management and Finance Cluster, and another 3,016 students (or 20.5%) were enrolled in Human Resource Services Cluster programs. The remaining 1,328 CTE program enrollees (or 9.1%) were dispersed across the remaining seven career clusters.

7

Data used for this section are from SY2009-10. No programs are offered from the Environmental, Agricultural, and Natural Resources Systems Career Cluster.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 206


Table Y: CTE Enrollment by Cluster Category Prince George’s County, SY2008-09 and SY2009-10 CTE Program/Cluster Category SY2008-09 SY2009-10 Change SY2008-09 to SY2009-10 BMF Cluster 9,000 10,343 1,343

% Change SY2008-09 to SY2009-10 +14.9%

HRS Cluster

2,571

3,016

445

+17.3%

Other Clusters

1,285

1,328

43

+3.3%

Career Cluster Subtotal

12,856

14,687

1,831

+14.2%

Career Research Development (Experiential Learning) Total CTE Enrollment

1,044

2,136

1,092

+104.6%

13,900

16,823

2,923

+21.0%

PGCPS experienced level student enrollment in programs aligned with projected high growth industries such as Information Technology (88 students), Construction Trades (146 students), and Health and Biosciences (50 students). The future integration of CTE programs of study into career academies under the Secondary School Reform Initiative is expected to reduce student enrollment in over populated programs and increase enrollment in the above-referenced high-demand, highgrowth programs. This initiative is expected to have a significant impact on student enrollment within many often underenrolled programs (see Figure 7). Of the 16,823 SY2009-10 CTE enrollees, approximately 2,557 were concentrators of which 2,530 became completer graduates. Partial evidence of the career and/or college readiness of these students is the securing of technical certification for a career, finding a job placement in a field commensurate with a student’s CTE course of study, earning early college credit prior to graduation, and/or meeting the University System of Maryland’s admissions requirements. Much of this report will focus on the college and career readiness status of the graduating completers. Figure 7

Enrollment by Career Cluster - Prince George's County, SY200910 IT MET 1% 1% TT 1%

AMC 0%

CRD 13%

HRS 18% BMF 61% CSHT H&B 4% C&D 0%

1%

CTE Program Effectiveness CTE program effectiveness is based on the percentage of program-enrolled students – i.e. in most cases concentrators – who meet a series of nine performance indicators that collectively comprise MSDE’s Program Quality Index (PQI). Year-to-year progress is measured in part by the extent to which students meet state-established annual performance targets, and in part by the extent to which student performance on specific indicators improves from the previous year or over a period of years.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 207


SY2009-10 PQI data revealed that county CTE students experienced slight setbacks on several indicators in efforts to meet or exceed local targeted performance goals. For example, at 76.71% proficiency, county CTE students failed to meet the county’s SY2009-10 English HSA performance target (80% proficiency) by (-3.79) percentage points and the five-year MSDE goal of 83 percent proficiency by (-6.29) percentage points. The county also failed to meet its annual target for placements (13.18), non-traditional completions (-11.23), non-traditional participation (-9.44), graduation rate (-0.49), and completion (0.15). Simultaneously, at 79.12% proficiency, the students exceeded the county’s SY2009-10 Algebra HSA performance target (77.84%) by 1.28 percentage points, but fell (-8.35) percentage points below the MSDE five-year goal of 87.47 percentage points.8 Nevertheless, county students are capable of meeting the state’s SY2012 performance goals by the 201112 school year. In addition to academic performance, technical skills attainment outcomes exceeded the performance target of 19.51 percentage points by +14.99 percentage points while falling slightly below the state’s 5 year targeted goal of 35.17 percentage points by -0.67 percentage points. Table Z: 2009-10 CTE-PQI Outcomes for PGCPS (Percent of Students) SY2010 5-Year PGCPS (SY2007Annual SY2010 PGCPS SY2012) Performance Outcomes Performance Standard MSDE Goal Target Academic Attainment - HSA English 83.00 80.60 76.71 Academic Attainment - HSA Algebra 87.47 77.84 79.12 Dual Completion 48.32 n/a 11.54 Technical Skill Attainment 35.17 19.51 34.5 Completion 94.95 99.09 98.94 Graduation Rate 98.54 99.77 99.28 Placement 75.62 72.19 59.01 Non-Traditional Participation 42.40 49.95 40.51 Non-Traditional Completion 37.37 41.73 30.50

SY2010 PGCPS Outcomes +/- Perf. Target9 -3.89 +1.28 +11.54 +14.99 -0.15 -0.49 -13.18 -9.44 -11.23

SY2010 PGCPS Outcomes +/- MSDE Goals* -6.29 -8.35 -36.78 -0.67 +3.99 +0.74 -16.61 -1.89 -6.87

The inability to meet or exceed all annual targets on these performance standards is somewhat a cause for concern as for three standards (technical skill attainment, completion, and dual completion) are key indicators of career and college readiness. (See Table Z).10 Compared over a three-year period, SY2010 performance was also slightly below SY2008 performance levels on PQI indicators. While student academic performance improved significantly – i.e. in English HSA testing (+30.91 percentage points) and Algebra HSA testing (+47.47 percentage points), the county failed to match SY2008 performance levels in technical skill attainment (-3.57), completion (-0.07), graduation rate (-0.04), placement (-13.06), non-traditional student participation (-9.77), and non-traditional program completion (-1.94). See Table Z-1.

Performance Standard

Table Z-1: Three-Year CTE-PQI Outcomes for PGCPS (Percent of Students) PGCPS Performance 5-Year (SY2007SY2008 SY2009 SY2012) MSDE Goal

Academic Attainment – HSA English Academic Attainment – HSA Algebra Dual Completion Technical Skill Attainment

83.00 87.47 48.32 35.17

45.70 32.34 57.05 37.57*

78.64 75.02 29.43 38.18

SY2010 76.61 79.61 N/A 34.00

3-Year Percentage Point Change SY2008 toSY2010 +30.91 +47.47 N/A* -3.57

8

Data used to calculate the technical skill attainment percentage were based on local assessment results in which 473 passed assessments out of 1,396 students. This represents a more accurate of indication of performance than reported in the PQI data. MSDE was advised of this noted change in review of data.. Percentage point differences between SY2010 PGCPS Outcomes and SY2010 Annual Performance Target, and between SY2010 PGCPS Outcomes and SY2012 MSDE Goals. 10 “Technical skill attainment” and “placement” are the key indicators of career readiness, while “dual completion” is the key indicator of college readiness.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 208


Table Z-1: Three-Year CTE-PQI Outcomes for PGCPS (Percent of Students) PGCPS Performance 5-Year (SY2007SY2008 SY2009

3-Year Percentage Point Change Performance Standard SY2010 SY2012) MSDE Goal SY2008 toSY2010 Completion 94.95 99.01 96.99 98.94 -0.07 Graduation Rate 98.54 99.32 99.59 99.28 -0.04 Placement 75.62 72.07 65.75 59.01 -13.06 Non-traditional Participation 42.40 50.28 49.66 40.51 -9.77 Non-traditional Completion 37.37 32.44 41.45 30.50 -1.94 **The Dual Completion data provided by MSDE for SY2010 is incomplete, accounting for only two programs study. Therefore, it is not displayed.

Career and College Readiness Indicators by CTE Program The performance standards most indicative of career and college readiness are program completion, technical skill attainment, placement, and dual completion. The first three of these standards are indicators of career readiness, while dual completion is an indicator of college readiness. With regard to program completion, county students remained practically the same as SY2009 with a rate of 98.9% and have already exceeded the state’s SY2012 target percentage (94.95%) by four percentage points. On the other hand, student performance on other career and college readiness indicators was mixed, varying substantially by CTE program of study. For example, with regard to technical skill attainment, more than 85 percent of students in cosmetology, nursing, masonry, electrical, and carpentry passed their technical skill assessments, while less than five percent (5%) of the students in four programs of study passed their respective technical skill assessments. Overall, 58% of students tested (concentrators) earned an industry certification or license (see Figure 8).11 The placement rates for CTE program high school graduates ranged from 100% for business administration students to 55% for automotive mechanic students. The placement rate is based on a survey of graduates conducted by MSDE six months after graduation and the scanning of the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulations employment data base. An average of 71% of students who responded to survey were enrolled in a postsecondary institution or employed. A relatively high number of CTE students graduated from high school in SY2010. Although it may not substantiate that graduates are college and career ready, it demonstrates that CTE has an impact on the overall graduation rate for PGCPS. An average of 99% students who reached completer status graduated in SY2010. (see Figure 9) Figure 8

Technical Skill Attainment Rate by CTE Program Prince George's County, SY2010 120% 100%

100%

100%

100%

92%

80% 60% 40%

85% 68% 58% 48% 30%

24%

21%

21%

20% 0%

0%

11

Programs analyzed and graphed in this subsection are those with at least 10 students in the indicator base.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 209


Figure 9

Program Completion Rate by CTE Clusters Prince George's County, SY2010 110% 100%

100%

98%

98%

AMC

BMF

C&D

100%

100%

98%

CSHT

H&B

HRS

100%

100%

IT

MET

97%

98%

TT

CRD

99%

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% PGCPS Avg

The Structure of Career and Technical Education in PGCPS The PGCPS Career and Technical Education programs of study and services were delivered through five distinct programmatic areas in 2009-10: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Technical Academy Programs Experiential Learning Program Business and Computer Management Services (formerly Business Education Programs) Family and Consumer Sciences Programs Career Support Services (formerly Vocational Support Services)

Technical Academy Programs PGCPS offers 11th and 12th grade students 12 Technical Academy programs of study within six of MSDE’s 10 Career Clusters across nine high schools. Academy programs offer a rigorous course of study, have established benchmarks, quarterly and summative assessments, and provide students with experiences working in and out of lab settings. Enrollment is dictated by staff availability and program guidelines. Overall, student enrollment in the Technical Academy programs has increased by 17 (or 2.7%) over the past three years. The Project Lead the Way Program experienced the highest increase in enrollment by (+59 or +58.40% students) in the Engineering and Technology Cluster. There were also enrollment increases in the Construction Trades +5 (or 3.5%), Nursing +9 (or 22%) and Transportation Technologies +7 (or 6.6%) programs. The largest enrollment decreases occurred in the Information Technology (-61 students or -40.9%) and in Arts, Media and Communication (-16 students or -29.1%) clusters (see Table AA). Table AA: PGCPS Technical Academy Enrollment by Career Cluster, 2007-08 through 2009-10 Career Cluster Arts, Media & Communications (Printing & Graphics) Construction Trades (Masonry, Carpentry, HVAC, Electrical, Drafting/CAD, Plumbing) Environmental & Natural Resources Health and Biosciences (Nursing/Medical) Information Technology (CISCO and IT Essentials)

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

39

Change 2007-08 to 2009-10 -16

% Change 2007-08 to 2009-10 - 29.1%

155

148

+5

+3.5%

0 45 150

0 50 88

n/a +9 -61

0.0% +22.0% -40.9%

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

55

55

143 0 41 149

Page | 210


Table AA: PGCPS Technical Academy Enrollment by Career Cluster, 2007-08 through 2009-10 Career Cluster Engineering & Technology (PLTW) Transportation Technologies (Automotive Body and Automotive Technician) Total

198

Change 2007-08 to 2009-10 +73

% Change 2007-08 to 2009-10 +58.4%

108

113

+7

+6.6%

645

636

+17

+2.7%

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

125

132

106 619

In SY2010, technical skill assessments were administered for all Technical Academy programs for which there is a MSDEapproved assessment. One-hundred-fifty-eight (158) of 260 (or 60.8%) Technical Academy students passed their technical skills assessment. This success rate was higher than the school system’s SY2010 target passing rate of 42.3% and exceeded the state’s SY2012 goal of 35.2%. End of program skills assessments have become embedded into the course completion process for these programs of study. Experiential Learning (Work-based Learning) In SY2009-10, approximately 2,136 students were afforded the opportunity to gain real world work experience as a means to enhance their workplace readiness skills and competencies. Some students worked in companies that hire large numbers of students while other students worked in individual placements where they had the opportunity to explore specific career interest work experiences. Students were placed in paid and unpaid work-based learning experiences. Since SY2007-08, the number of students engaged in hands-on work experiences increased by 557 (or 35.3%). See Table AB.

SY2007-08 1,579

Table AB: Enrollment in Work-Based Learning Activities, 2007 through 20009-10 Inc. SY2007-08 % Inc. SY2007-08 SY2008-09 SY2009-10 to SY2009-10 to SY2009-10 1,600 2,136 +557 +35.3%

Of the 2,136 students enrolled in experiential learning in SY2009-10, 688 were actually placed in a real world work experience. The remaining 1,448 were required to enroll in the job readiness course during grade 11 before being assigned to work experiences in grade 12. According to employer survey results, 98% of participating PGCPS CTE students were rated workplace ready in their capacity to learn new job skills, to meet or exceed minimum job requirements, to meet or exceed minimum workplace readiness skills at the time of employment, and to meet or exceed minimum Skills for Success at the time of employment. SY2009-10 survey results remained consistent with or slightly exceeded results from the previous years’ surveys (see Table AC). Table AC: Workplace Readiness Preparedness, 2007-08 through 2009-10 MSDE Work-Readiness Survey Students learned new job skills with average or less than average instruction. Students met or exceeded minimum job requirements at the time of employment/placement Students met or exceeded minimum job requirements for workplace readiness skills at the time of employment/placement Students met or exceeded minimum job requirements for Skills for Success at the time of employment/placement

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2007-10 Average

97.5%

98.4%

98.6%

98.1%

97.4%

98.4%

98.9%

98.2%

97.7%

98.4%

98.8%

98.3%

97.9%

98.8%

97.7%

98.1%

Business and Financial Services (formerly Business Education) In SY2010, the Business, Management, and Finance Cluster had the highest student enrollment (10,343) of the nine clusters of programs offered by PGCPS. Cluster enrollment increased by 1,343 students (or by 14.9%) from SY2008-09 enrollment (9,000) after having declined substantially (-3,239) from the previous year’s (SY2007-08) enrollment. The one-year enrollment decline can be attributed to the elimination of courses such as Keyboarding and Accounting/Bookkeeping in the Business Administrative Services program of study, while the subsequent rebound in enrollment in SY2009-10 (+3,322) is largely due to

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 211


the establishment of the Business Management and Finance program of study as part of the realignment of business career cluster programs by MSDE in SY2008. Overall, BMF Cluster’s programs of study experienced an enrollment decline of (1,896) students from SY2007-08 to SY2009-10 (see Table AD). Table AD: Enrollment in BMF Career Cluster, 2007-08 through 2009-10 Program of Study

491

Change 2007-08 to 2009-10 +123

% Change 2007-08 to 2009-10 +33.40%

689

68

--969

-93.3%

10,661

7,850

6393

-4268

-40.03%

0

0

3322

+3322

n/a

173

132

69

104

-60%

12,239

9,000

10,343

-1,896

-15.49%

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

368

329

Accounting

1,037

Business Administrative Services

Academy of Finance

Business Management and Finance (New Program of Study for 2009-10) Marketing Management Total

This MSDE-mandated program realignment has resulted in a more rigorous sequence of courses into which schools have yet to aggressively enroll students. Despite this substantial enrollment decline, however, business cluster programs of study still produced the highest number of CTE program completers (965 of 983 students or 98%), and the highest graduation rate among the school system’s CTE Career Clusters (1,027 of 2,781 students or 37%). (See Table AE) Table AE: BMF SY2009-10 Concentrators and Completers Results Graduates

Concentrators

Completers

Accounting

142

143

138

Completers As % of Concentrators 96%

Business Administrative Services

332

303

295

97%

Business Management

402

389

386

99%

Marketing

57

53

52

98%

NAF – Academy of Finance

94

95

94

98%

1,027

983

965

98%

Program of Study

Total

For SY2009-10, no technical assessments were administered for BMF Cluster programs. Four teachers attended training provided by MSDE to begin implementation of technical assessments for Microsoft Application Certification in SY2011. Of the cluster’s SY2008-09 graduate completers surveyed by MSDE, 70% found either a cluster-related employment placement or enrolled in a postsecondary institution within two quarters after graduation. Meanwhile, MSDE provided no data for calculating the percentage of BMF Cluster students who qualified as dual completers. Family and Consumer Sciences Family and Consumer Sciences programs afford students an opportunity to prepare for possible careers in Cosmetology, Barbering, Culinary Arts, Hospitality Management [ProStart], Early Childhood Education and the Teacher Academy of Maryland [TAM]. In SY2009-10, a total of 3,726 students participated in these programs, which represents an increase of 515 students from the SY2008-09 enrollment level. Since SY2007-08, overall cluster enrollment has increased by 224 [or 6.4%]. These changes are reflective of efforts to maintain capacity [see Table AF]. Table AF: CTE Family and Consumer Sciences Programs Enrollment Data, 2007-08 to 2009-10 Career Cluster/ Program of Study Cosmetology

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

168

169

168

Change 2008-09 to 2009-10 -1

Change 2007-08 to 2009-10 0

% Change 2007-08 to 2009-10 0.0%

Page | 212


Table AF: CTE Family and Consumer Sciences Programs Enrollment Data, 2007-08 to 2009-10

57

Change 2008-09 to 2009-10 7

Change 2007-08 to 2009-10 8

% Change 2007-08 to 2009-10 +16.3%

31

37

6

-6

-14.0%

368

390

448

58

80

+21.7%

2,849

2,571

2,943

372

94

+3.3%

25

0

73

73

48

+192.0%

3,502

3,211

3,726

515

224

+6.4%

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

Barbering

49

50

Culinary Arts

43

Hospitality Management (ProStart)

Career Cluster/ Program of Study

Early Childhood Education Teacher Academy of Maryland (TAM) Total

Further analysis of program enrollment conveys that student participation varied among programs. For instance, the Early Childhood Education program of study increased enrollment by 372 students between SY2008-09 to SY2009-10. This one year enrollment increase offset, by 94 students, the substantial enrollment decline between SY2007-08 and SY2008-09. Similarly, student enrollment in the Teacher Academy of Maryland program increased substantially – i.e. (+73 students or +192%) in SY2009-10 – after a precipitous enrollment decline the previous year. The enrollment increases in Hospitality Management have been more consistent, going up each of the past two years by a total of 80 students (or +21.7%). On the other hand, student enrollment in cosmetology, barbering, and culinary arts has remained fairly consistent since SY2007-08, increasing by eight (8) students [or 16.3%] in barbering, remaining constant in cosmetology, and decreasing by six (6) students (or -14.0%) in culinary arts (See Table AF). 2. What actions are included in the Master Plan to ensure access to CTE programs and success for every student in CTE Programs of Study, including students who are members of special populations? CTE supports the PGCPS Master Plan goal to prepare all students to graduate career or workforce ready. A total of 25 CTE Programs of Study are administered through a combination of 24 comprehensive high schools, five Evening High Schools, and five Regional Technical Academy Centers. Each program of study has a strong collaborative relationship with business, industry, and postsecondary education. Hence, completion of any one of 16 programs results in industry recognized professional certifications and/or licenses. Equally important, 13 programs enable students to earn articulated college credit while in high school. The Office of Career and Technology Education is also actively involved in the school system’s ongoing Secondary School Reform Initiative (SSRI). The purpose of the Initiative is to ensure that all students who graduate from the school system are college- and/or career-ready. SSRI involves restructuring high schools into career academies aligned with CTE programs of study. As a result of this initiative, the CTE Office expects to significantly increase the number of students who enroll in and complete CTE programs of study, and who attain technical skill certification over the next three-to-five years. Students from under-represented populations (gender, ethnicity, etc.) are aggressively pursued to enroll in non-traditional programs of study. In particular, efforts are made to attract more females into non-traditional career fields such as engineering, construction trades, culinary arts, and information technology. CTE employs three strategies to help students be successful in their chosen CTE program: a.) CTE reviews and monitors student academic performance on a quarterly basis to identify deficient and/or low performing students in core subject areas. b.) CTE collaborates with Prince George’s Community College (PGCC) to administer the Accuplacer exam to determine students’ academic strengths and weaknesses, particularly in Mathematics. A select group of 25 students who scored below proficient levels were afforded the opportunity to participate in a Math intervention initiative co-sponsored by PGCC. c.) CTE conducts numerous extended learning opportunities to expose students to diverse postsecondary options including 2- or 4-year college, apprenticeship, professional schools or worksites in a field related to their respective program of study. The expectation is that students successfully complete both rigorous academic and technical skills courses that prepare them for college and/or a career upon graduation.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 213


Students from special populations (special needs, limited English proficiency LEP, economically disadvantaged (FARMS), teen parents, etc.) are also afforded the opportunity to excel in all programs of study. CTE staff established linkages with interdepartmental stakeholders (Alternative Education, Special Education, Counselors, and Support Services) to ensure students from diverse populations are directed and encouraged to enroll in CTE programs of study. In addition to the abovecited strategies, CTE offers Career Support Services to help ensure special population students experience success in CTE programs. Career Support Services (formerly Vocational Support Services—VSS) The Career Support Services (CSS) program supports the academic and technical efforts of the following CTE programs of study in all high schools: Technical Academy, Experiential Learning, Business and Computer Management Services, and Family and Consumer Sciences. Services are also extended to students enrolled in Special Education programs. CSS consists of two components: 1) Academic and Technical Enhancement; and 2) Transition Services. The Academic and Technical Enhancement component is primarily responsible for providing instructional support to special populations enrolled in CTE programs, identifying learning strengths and challenges, and developing instructional strategies that enhance student achievement and career readiness skills. The Transition Services component is a support service for high school seniors enrolled in CTE or special education programs that assists seniors in transitioning from high school to postsecondary placements. Students who are referred for services have been identified as needing additional support with their transition as well as needing additional assistance meeting their career goals. CSS staff also provides support services to teachers, special educators, professional school counselors, local colleges, the business community, parents, and other stakeholders to ensure that special populations have equitable access to enroll and succeed in CTE programs. In SY2009-10, staff assigned to provide CSS services were reduced from three to one. Despite the reassignment of staff, disaggregated data show special populations (special needs, economically disadvantaged (FARMS), and limited English proficiency (LEP) exceeded state averages in secondary completion, graduation rates, and under-represented, non-traditional enrollment (see Table AG). Further analysis shows students identified as FARMS and LEP exceeded or were slightly below the statewide average levels of performance on most performance indicators. Students identified as special needs exceeded or were slightly below the statewide average performance on five of eight performance indicators (see Table AG). The levels of performance in math academic attainment and placement, however, were well below the state average. In addition, the performance of special populations in technical skills attainment was well below the statewide average levels—especially among special needs and LEP students. College- and career-readiness performance factors (secondary completion, technical skills attainment, placement, and dual enrollment) for special populations show students exceeded the state performance rate in secondary completion; were slightly below state performance rate in placement; and well below the average state performance rate in technical skills attainment. There were no data available for special populations in dual enrollment. CSS will focus on college- and career- readiness challenges most apparent to special populations—academic attainment and technical skill attainment. Staff will support individual CTE preparation efforts along with identifying at-risk special populations early and providing the academic and technical supports to address challenges that may impede students from securing industry certification and/or early college credit. Table AG: CTE PQI Performance Results for Special Populations, SY2009-2010 Indicators

Academic Attainment—HSA (English) Academic Attainment—HSA (Math) Technical Skill Attainment Secondary Completion Graduation Post-Secondary Placement Under-represented students/non-traditional programs-enrolled Under-represented students/non-traditional programs completed

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

2010 State Average

Special Needs

FARMS

LEP

54.00 69.14 42.00 93.44 98.39 65.17 36.25 32.46

45.05 44.14 7.59 98.20 100 42.86 54.32 26.15

72.63 78.11 11.49 98.74 98.85 61.70 38.63 26.51

43.86 70.18 5.88 98.25 100 * 45.56 21.43

Page | 214


3. Describe the school system’s strategies for increasing CTE enrollees to become completers of CTE programs of study. Data points should include the number of enrollees, the number of concentrators and completers. For SY2009-10, PQI data indicated that 2,530 students out of a possible 2,557 CTE concentrators (98%) successfully completed their respective CTE courses of study to become program completers.12 As a result, ninety one percent of SY2009-10 graduates were completers (see Table AH). Table AH. Completers of CTE Programs of Study in FY2009-10 Graduates

Concentrators

Completers

Automotive Body Repair

7

7

7

% of concentrators became completers 100%

Automotive Mechanics

36

35

34

97%

Automotive Technician

6

6

6

100%

Barbering

25

23

23

100%

Business Administrative Services

332

303

295

97%

Business Management

402

389

386

99%

Career Research and Development

729

688

686

99%

Carpentry

15

13

12

92%

Child Care and Guidance

350

334

329

98%

Cisco Networking Academy

41

41

41

100%

Cosmetology

83

81

81

100%

Drafting

11

11

11

100%

Electrical

33

31

31

100%

Finance and Accounting

142

143

138

96%

Food and Beverage Management (ProStart)

114

109

109

100%

Food Production

15

15

15

100%

Graphics and Printing

32

31

31

100%

HVAC (Heating, Air Cond. & Refrig mech.)

10

9

9

100%

Marketing

57

53

52

98%

Masonry

10

10

10

100%

NAF – Academy of Finance

94

95

94

98%

Nursing Academy

40

39

39

100%

Plumbing

48

46

46

100%

Project Lead The Way

126

24

24

100%

4,773

45

45

100%

725

688

686

99%

2,781

2,557

2,530

98.%

Programs

Teacher Academy Career Research & Development Total

12 This reflects a substantial increase in both the number and percentage of program completers from the previous year – i.e. 299 completers out of 2,262 concentrators in FY2008-09. The drastic reduction reported last year is attributed to a data transmission error between PGCPS and MSDE.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 215


In accordance with MSDE guidelines, each program of study is required to have a designated concentrator identifier course within each sequence of courses. Students become completers based on the successful completion of the next course beyond the designated concentrator course. CTE does not have the authority to select courses or facilitate student enrollment; therefore, it must depend on having a collaborative relationship with schedulers, Professional Counselors, and teachers to ensure students transition into the completer course. CTE will continue to collaborate with schedulers and counselors to increase the number of students enrolled as concentrators to increase the number of completers. The following strategies have been implemented to increase student transition from concentrator to completer status: a.) Program of study planners are being revised to ensure that students better understand the requirement to complete both academic and technical skills courses in order to graduate as dual completers (i.e. meeting both industry entrance requirements and the University of Maryland system admissions requirements). As such, the sequence of technical skills courses will be aligned with rigorous academic courses to include Advanced Placement (AP) courses and high level Math. b.) Collaborating with IT to better identify program concentrators to ensure students are enrolled within a completer course sequence. c.) Train teachers to become proactive in recruitment of students for both their concentrator and completer courses within their programs of study. d.) Teachers receive training in how to integrate technical skills attainment preparation into classroom curricula to ensure students are adequately prepared for their respective assessments at the conclusion of their programs of study. Technical skills assessments are administered in all CTE programs in which an assessment has been approved by MSDE. e.) As a result of articulation and/or transcript credit agreements with postsecondary institutions throughout the region, students may earn credit at Prince George’s Community College, Montgomery College, Towson University, and Community College of Baltimore County. Efforts are also under way to establish dual enrollment credit opportunities for students at Prince George’s Community College. 4. CTE improvement plans are required if a local school system does not meet at least 90% of the negotiated performance target for a Core Indicator of Performance under the Perkins Act. If your school system did not meet one or more Core Indicators of Performance, please respond to the following. 1) Identify the Core Indicator(s) of Performance that did not meet the 90% threshold. Placements, non-traditional participation, and non-traditional completion were the three PQI performance indicators on which PGCPS did not meet the 90% threshold. At 59%, PGCPS’ placement percentage fell six (6) percentage points below the success rate required (65%) to reach the 90% threshold; non-traditional participation at 40.5% was 4.4 percentage points below the 90% threshold of 44.9%; and with a 30.5% completion rate, the non-traditional completion rate was about seven (7) percentage points below that indicator’s 90% threshold of 37.5% (see Table AI). Table AI. PGCPS PQI Indicators That Did Not Meet 90 Percent Threshold. SY2009-10 SY2009-10 Annual SY2009-10 PGCPS PGCPS Performance Performance Indicator 90% Threshold Target Performance +/- 90% Threshold HSA – English 80.60 72.54 76.61 +4.07 HSA – Algebra

77.84

70.05

79.12

+9.07

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Technical Skill Attainment

19.51

17.55

34.00

+16.45

Completion

99.09

89.18

98.94

+9.76

Graduation Rate

99.77

89.79

99.28

+9.49

Placement

72.19

64.97

59.01

-5.96

Non-traditional Participation

49.95

44.95

40.51

-4.44

Non-traditional Completion

41.73

37.55

30.50

-7.05

Dual Completion

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 216


2) Analyze why the indicator was not met, including any disparities or gaps in performance between any category of students and performance of all students a. Secondary Placement: Placements outcomes are based on student responses to post graduate survey or data captured through the Maryland Department of Labor Licenses and Regulations. Failure to meet the PQI 90% threshold for secondary placement may be attributed to low student participation in post graduate surveys, as well as the lack of student connections with postsecondary institutions or employment opportunities prior to graduating from high school. The lowest placement outcomes occurred among students enrolled in the barbering (37%), carpentry (50%), plumbing (50%), HVAC (50%), cosmetology (53.85%), automotive mechanic (55%), and graphic and printing (56%), programs. In order to improve outcomes, it will require increased efforts to ensure students are better prepared to make the transition into college or fulltime employment prior to graduating. b. Non-Traditional Participation: The low performance in regard to non-traditional participation is due to lowenrollment among females in traditionally male-dominated fields and low-enrollment among males in traditionally female-dominated fields. While there was a small rate of female participation in the electrical and plumbing programs, there were no females enrolled in plumbing, HVAC, or automotive technology. Likewise, there were no males enrolled in the cosmetology or nursing programs. We attribute the low rate of non-traditional participation in these programs to the persistence of sex role stereotypes, as well as to a lack of aggressive marketing on our part. c. Non-Traditional Completion: In order to meet the 90% performance threshold for non-traditional completion, there must be an increase of both males and females enrolled in those programs designated as non-traditional. Qualifying programs include: automotive technician (0%), pre-engineering (16.67%), early childhood (10.94%), teacher academy (22%), nursing (0%), cosmetology (0%), plumbing (0%), electrical (0%), carpentry (12.90%), and masonry (14.29%). These low performing programs had an adverse impact on overall non-traditional completion in FY2010. To increase non-traditional recruitment and retention in these programs, and thus the completion rate of non-traditional populations, communication with students needs to be improved so that they are aware of the educational opportunities in these programs and the benefits of pursuing a career in these fields. i.

For FY2011, indicate the section/subsection in the CTE Local Plan for Program Improvement where the improvement plan/strategy is described. Below are the locations of proposed improvement strategies within FY2012 CTE Local Plan for Program Improvement: Strategy Worksheet A A A A A A B-1 AB-2 AB-3 B-4 B-2 B-4

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page # 6 9, 10 12, 13 23 27, 29, 31 36 1, 3 1 1 1, 2 56, 57 61

Program Area AMC BMF C&D H&B HRS MET Transition and Alignment Career Development Professional Development Services to Special Population Career Development Services to Special Populations

Page | 217


EARLY LEARNING A. Based on the examination of 2010-2011 MMSR Kindergarten Assessment Data (Tables 8.1 and 8.2): 1. Describe the school system’s plans, including any changes or adjustments that will be made, for ensuring the progress of students who begin kindergarten either not ready or approaching readiness as determined by the Maryland Model for School Readiness Kindergarten Assessment. Please include a discussion of the corresponding resource allocations and include timelines for use of allocations where appropriate. Table 8.1: Percentage of All Kindergarten Students at Readiness Stages

MT

ST

SS

TA

PD

SP

LL

MT

ST

SS

TA

PD

SP

LL

MT

ST

SS

TA

PD

Composite

LL

% Developing Readiness Composite

SP

% Approaching Readiness Composite

% Fully Ready

2004-05 57 41 39 25 34 64 67 48 33 44 43 52 50 31 29 43 10 16 17 22 16 6 4 10 2005-06 58 44 41 27 36 67 71 51 33 42 43 51 47 28 25 33 9 15 16 22 17 5 4 9 2006-07 61 48 49 40 44 69 73 59 30 39 38 46 44 25 23 34 8 13 14 14 12 5 4 8 2007-08 63 50 49 44 49 73 76 63 30 39 39 45 43 24 21 33 7 11 12 10 8 3 3 5 2008-09 67 59 62 57 60 78 82 71 26 32 30 35 33 19 15 24 7 9 8 8 7 3 2 4 2009-10 68 57 59 54 58 76 81 68 24 33 31 36 34 20 16 26 8 10 9 10 8 4 3 5 2010-11 76 70 73 70 74 85 89 79 19 22 20 24 20 13 9 17 5 8 7 6 6 2 1 4 Domain Abbreviations: Social and Personal (SP); Language and Literacy (LL); Mathematical Thinking (MT); Scientific Thinking (ST); Social Studies (SS); The Arts (TA); and Physical Development (PD). Source: Children Entering School Ready to Learn: The 2010-2011 Maryland School Readiness Report.

In SY2010-2011, 79% (7,267 of 9,161) of kindergarten students enrolled in PGCPS were fully ready for school across all learning domains. This represents an 11 percentage point increase in full readiness from SY2009-2010. At the domain level, the extent of full readiness varies from a high of 89% for the Physical Development domain to a low of 70% for the Language and Literacy and Scientific Thinking domains respectively. The percentages of full school readiness for the other learning domains are: The Arts—85%; Social and Personal Development—76%; Mathematical Thinking—73%; Social Studies—74% (see Table 8.1). Notwithstanding the SY2009-10 three (3) percentage point drop in full readiness, the trend among children starting their formal schooling in PGCPS since SY2005-06 has been in the upward direction. During this time period, PGCPS has seen a 28-point increase (from 51% in SY2005-06 to 79% in SY2010-11) in the overall percentage students entering kindergarten fully schoolready. Full readiness across the seven readiness domains also increased significantly during this five-year time period. Since SY2005-06, full readiness in Mathematical Thinking increased by 32 percentage points; in Language and Literacy by 26 points; and in Social Studies by 38 points. Full kindergarten readiness has been consistently lowest in the Scientific Thinking domain, yet this domain experienced the greatest increase in full kindergarten readiness (43 percentage points) over the SY2005-06 to SY2010-11 five-year time period. PGCPS has seen comparatively low performance in the Language and Literacy, Mathematical Thinking, Scientific Thinking, and Social Studies domains since SY2005-2006. Although significant gains were made in each domain during the 2010-11 school year, each year these domains fall below the composite score. To address these domains, the Early Childhood Program will offer targeted professional development in the underperforming domains for all preschool and kindergarten staff. Trainings for parents and community providers will also be provided in the targeted domains. Enhanced materials of instruction will be provided in the targeted domains. Parent and community resources available through the PGCPS website will also be enhanced in the targeted domains. Pre-Kindergarten Student Readiness Table 8.2 illustrates Language and Literacy and Mathematical Thinking readiness among kindergarten students who attended PGCPS-provided pre-kindergarten. In SY2010-11, 83% of system-provided pre-kindergarten children were evaluated as fully ready for kindergarten. Meanwhile, in the critical Language and Literacy and Mathematical Thinking domains, 74% and 77% were deemed to be fully ready for kindergarten. These percentages are 11 and 12 point increases over SY2009-10 full

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 218


readiness percentages and 23 and 26 point increases over SY2005-06 full readiness percentages respectively (see Table 8.2). Table 8.2: Percentage of Kindergarten Students with Previous Prekindergarten Experience % Fully Ready

LL

MT

% Approaching Readiness

LL

2004-2005 48 46 43 2005-2006 51 51 39 2006-2007 56 56 36 2007-2008 57 56 36 2008-2009 66 69 29 2009-2010 63 65 30 2010-2011 74 77 21 Domain Abbreviations: Language and Literacy (LL); Mathematical Thinking (MT).

% Developing Readiness

MT

LL

MT

43 39 35 37 27 29 19

10 9 8 6 5 7 5

12 11 9 7 4 6 5

Source: Children Entering School Ready to Learn: The 2010-2011 Maryland School Readiness Report .

Subgroup Readiness Table AJ-1 summarizes the full readiness of PGCPS kindergarten students by racial/ethnic subgroup for SY2010-2011. The composite full readiness percentage for each of the accountability subgroups was within six percentage points of the system’s composite full readiness percentage, and full readiness percentages for three of the subgroups – i.e. Asian (81%), African American (82%), and White (80%) – exceeded the system’s aggregate composite percentage (79%). Table AJ-1: Percent of Kindergarten Students Fully Ready by Race/Ethnic Sub-Group for SY2010-2011 Subgroup All Students American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian African American Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander White Hispanic Two or More Races (Non-Hispanic/Latino)

% Fully Kindergarten Ready 79 76 81 82 77 80 73 *

*- Fewer than five persons; NA – Not Applicable. Source: Children Entering School Ready to Learn: The 2010-2011 Maryland School Readiness Report.

Composite full readiness for two of the three subgroups (for which valid historical comparisons can be made) – Limited English Proficient (LEP) and FARMS – was within seven percentage points of full readiness in the aggregate. Moreover, the SY2010-11 increase in full readiness from the previous year was 10 or more percentage points for each of the three subgroups, and was 17 percentage points for special education students. Over the five-year SY2005-06 to SY2010-11 time period, full kindergarten readiness improved for each of the three subgroups by at least 20 percentage points, and increased by 31 and 33 percentage points respectively for FARMS and LEP students (see Table AJ-2). Despite the overall progress made by these three subgroups over the past six years, only 54% of special education students were fully kindergarten ready in SY2010-11.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 219


Table AJ-2: Percent of Kindergarten Students Fully Ready by Selected Sub-Groups, SY2005-2006 to SY2010-2011 1 – Year 5 – Year 200520062007200820092010Percentage Point Percentage 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Change Point Change Subgroup All Students 51 59 62 71 68 79 11 28 Special Education 34 32 34 44 37 54 17 20 Limited English Proficient 39 45 52 47 62 72 10 33 FARMS 46 55 58 69 65 77 12 31 *- Fewer than five persons; NA – Not Applicable. Source: Children Entering School Ready to Learn: The 2010-2011 Maryland School Readiness Report.

Interventions to Improve Kindergarten Readiness Chart I outlines domain-specific interventions that the district will implement and the resources allotted for implementation to ensure the progress of students who begin kindergarten either not ready or approaching readiness as determined by the MMSR. Prescribed interventions will focus primarily on improving kindergarten readiness in the Language and Literacy, Mathematical Thinking, and Scientific Thinking domains. Since the data also reflect that special education students require additional intervention strategies, the district will provide specific interventions for this subgroup. These strategies are also highlighted in Chart I. The resource allocations are identified for each instructional strategy, professional development activity, or enhanced collaboration. Unless otherwise indicated in Chart I, the timeline for these activities is for SY2011-12.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 220


All Students including Special Education Students

Special Education Students

All Students including Special Education Students

Language and Literacy

Language and Literacy

Mathematical Thinking

Whole Group Reading Instruction (including Teacher Read Alouds and listening activities) Small Group Reading Instruction(which contains word work and writing skills) Interactive writing is used to develop familiarity language and writing conventions Fountas and Pinnell’s Leveled Literacy Intervention program is used in classrooms to improve reading readiness for low achieving students.

The Mathematics intervention supplement, “Number Worlds,” has been provided to schools, upon request, by the Special Education Department. Resource Allocation: No specific cost associated with intervention Timeline: Ongoing throughout SY2011-12

Timeline: Ongoing throughout SY2011-12

Resource Allocation: No specific cost associated with intervention

Timeline: Ongoing throughout SY2011-12 Special Education students receive the same interventions and strategies as general education students. If a student has an Individualized Education Plan, the stipulations it outlines are taken into account, and are reflected in the tactics employed.

Resource Allocation: No specific cost associated with intervention

ƒ

ƒ

ƒ

ƒ

All kindergarten teachers have the opportunity to access MMSR training in September 2011 “Booster Sessions” will be provided by the mathematics department in December to kindergarten teachers to support classroom instruction. Resource Allocation: $60,000 for trainings funded through the MMSR and Title II grants Timeline: Trainings in September 2011 and

Timeline: Training in September 2011 and on-going training throughout SY2011-12

Resource Allocation: $60,000 for trainings funded through the MMSR and Title II grants

Provide professional development to all Kindergarten special education teachers on the requirements and correlations to the Work Sampling/MMSR assessment.

Timeline: Training in September 2011 and on-going training throughout SY2011-12

Resource Allocation: $60,000 for trainings funded through the MMSR and Title II grants

ƒ

Data collection strategies Use of MMSR Exemplars Criteria used to monitor development of Kindergarten students Language and Literacy MMSR Indicators

MMSR training is being offered to all Kindergarten teachers during the month of September 2011. Topics covered will center on:

Interventions for kindergarten students identified as not ready and approaching readiness focus on phonics and phonemic awareness. Additionally, activities using magnetic letters to develop their sight word vocabulary are also employed. Efforts to improve skills in Language and Literacy consist of: ƒ ƒ ƒ

Professional Development

Instructional Strategy

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Target Student Group(s)

Domain

Chart I: Interventions to Ensure Progress of Students who Begin Kindergarten either Not Ready or Approaching Readiness.

Page | 221

Enhanced Collaboration


All Students including Special Education Students

All Students including Special Education Students

All Students including Special Education Students

Scientific Thinking

Social Studies

General/Overall Performance

Continue to model activities which foster learning for Social Studies. Strategies will include incorporating centers where students can demonstrate the following: ƒ Identify the importance of rules ƒ Demonstrate how groups of people interact ƒ Describe the roles, rights and responsibilities of being a member of the family/school ƒ Identify that resources are used to make products ƒ Identify similarities and differences in people’s characteristics, habits, and living patterns to describe how they mee3t the same needs Resource Allocation: No specific cost associated with intervention Timeline: Ongoing throughout SY2011-12 Increase use of instructional strategies and behavioral interventions with preschool children through increased implementation of the Expansion of Social Emotional Foundations for Early Learning Program, which promotes positive social-emotional development and behavior management in young

Model activities which foster learning for Science at the kindergarten level. Strategies will include infusing laboratory experiences where students can demonstrate the following: ƒ Raise question about scientific phenomena. ƒ Use tools and equipment to extend senses. ƒ Form explanations and communicates about scientific information. ƒ Compare, observe and explore properties of objects, living things, rocks, soil, air and weather. Resource Allocation: No specific cost associated with intervention Timeline: Ongoing throughout SY2011-12

Instructional Strategy

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Target Student Group(s)

Domain

Provide professional development trainings for all preschool teachers on the second year of the implementation of the Work Sampling System and Assessment. Professional development will target all domains providing strategies to differentiate instruction and link

December 2011 Offer professional development training for all kindergarten teachers on scientific thinking. The sessions will: ƒ Focus on infusing instructional strategies to support laboratory experiences that meet the indicators under each content area and skills and processes. ƒ Focus on training teachers in best practices for collaboration in data collection using the MMSR observation tool. Resource Allocation: $60,000 for trainings funded through the MMSR and Title II grants Timeline: Training in September 2011 and on-going training throughout SY2011-12 Provide professional development trainings for all teachers of kindergarten. Sessions will: ƒ Focus on creating authentic instructional tasks geared toward learning goals for center activity. ƒ Focus on training teachers in best practices for collaboration in data collection using the MMSR observation tool. Resource Allocation: $60,000 for trainings funded through the MMSR and Title II grants Timeline: Training in September 2011 and on-going training throughout SY2011-12.

Professional Development

Chart I: Interventions to Ensure Progress of Students who Begin Kindergarten either Not Ready or Approaching Readiness.

Page | 222

Expand Judy Center collaboration and coordination of services for families and young children, age birth to five, as mandated by the MSDE grant. Services will include educational and health care services.

Focus best practices for collaboration in data collection using the MMSR observation tool. Resource Allocation: No specific cost associated with intervention Timeline: Ongoing throughout SY2011-12

Focus best practices for collaboration in data collection using the MMSR observation tool. Resource Allocation: No specific cost associated with intervention Timeline: Ongoing throughout SY2011-12

Enhanced Collaboration


Special Education Students

General/Overall Performance

Provide intensive levels of instructional and behavioral supports to address increased numbers of children with significantly challenging behaviors. Supports include visual strategies, environmental modifications, behavior action plans and counseling. Continue with Response to Intervention procedures, promoting a tiered approach to pre-referral strategies to support increased school readiness in all schools. Resource Allocation: No specific cost associated with intervention Timeline: Ongoing throughout SY2011-12

children. Resource Allocation: $12,000 for trainings Timeline: Ongoing throughout SY2011-12

Instructional Strategy

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Target Student Group(s)

Domain instruction to exemplars, state curriculum and the individual child’s needs. Resource Allocation: $18,000 for trainings funded through the MMSR grant and general budget Timeline: Ongoing throughout SY2011-12 Provide professional development to all special education teachers in early childhood and kindergarten on the Early Childhood Accountability System requirements and correlations to the Work Sampling/MMSR assessment. Resource Allocation: $48,000 for trainings funded through the MMSR and Title II grants Timeline: Trainings provided August 2011 through January 2012

Professional Development

Chart I: Interventions to Ensure Progress of Students who Begin Kindergarten either Not Ready or Approaching Readiness.

Page | 223

Increased collaboration with Early Childhood Special Education to support at risk preschoolers through consultation, observation and participation in team meetings. Increased collaboration with Early Childhood Special Education to support at risk preschoolers through consultation, observation and participation in team meetings. Resource Allocation: No specific cost associated with intervention Timeline: Ongoing throughout SY2011-12

Enhanced Collaboration Resource Allocation: Judy Center Service Coordinator and $12,000 funded through the Judy Center Grant Timeline: Ongoing throughout SY2011-12


2. Describe how the school system is working in collaboration with other early childhood partners/programs (i.e., Preschool Special Education; Head Start; Child Care Programs) to ensure that children are entering kindergarten “ready to learn”? Readiness of Children Receiving Prior Care The MMSR Report designates six categories of prior kindergarten care – child care center, head start, home/informal care, family child care, non-public nursery, and prekindergarten. The prior care provider that served the highest percentage of children (60.2%) was PGCPS (pre-kindergarten). The next highest prior care provider category was home/informal care (16.1%). The prior care provider categories with the highest percentages of children who were fully ready to enter kindergarten were non-public nursery (92%), child care centers (85%), and school systemprovided prekindergarten (83%). Full readiness percentages for each of these three prior care provider categories exceeded full readiness in the aggregate (79%). On the other hand, the prior care provider categories with the lowest percentages of fully ready kindergarten students were family child care (70%) and home/informal care (61%). These latter two prior care provider categories account for more than one-fifth (21.3%) of all PGCPS kindergarten students (see Table AK). Table AK. Distribution of PGCPS Kindergarten Students Among Prior Care Providers and Kindergarten Readiness, SY2010-11 No. of Children 875

Pct. of Total Prior Care 9.8%

% Fully Ready 85

% Approaching Readiness 13

% Developing Readiness 2

Family Child Care

459

5.2%

70

25

5

Head Start

374

4.2%

78

18

4

Home/Informal Care

1,429

16.1%

61

29

10

Non-public Nursery

406

4.6%

92

7

1

Pre-Kindergarten

5,360

60.2%

83

15

2

Total

8,903

100.0%

79

17

4

Prior Child Care Provider Child Care Center

Source: Children Entering School Ready to Learn: The 2010-2011 Maryland School Readiness Report.

The district’s plan to work with other early childhood partners/programs (i.e., Preschool Special Education; Head Start; Child Care program) to ensure that children are entering school ready to learn is described in Chart J. Chart J: Plans to Work with Early Childhood Partners/Programs ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Professional Development Provide joint training initiatives for general education and special education providers that promote understanding and skill development in the areas of differentiated instruction and behavioral support for all types of learners. Continue the Social Emotional Foundations for Early Learning (SEFEL) training for instructional staff and school teams to include community and parent trainings. Expand parent and community training opportunities through increased public awareness and advertising. Continue to provide parent and community trainings that are linked to school readiness, literacy and personal social skills. Partnerships/Collaboration Collaborate with the Partners for Success and the Early Childhood Special Education Program to offer a variety of parent and community trainings related to school readiness, IEP process and development of positive personal social skills. Collaborate with the Prince George’s County Resource Center and the Early Childhood Program to offer a variety of parent and community trainings related to parenting skills, child development and behavior management. Continued collaboration with Curriculum and Instruction, ESOL, Talent Development, Professional Development, Office of General Counsel, Pupil Accounting and School Boundaries, and the Division of Information and Technology to ensure an integrated approach to the delivery of early intervention services. Continue partnerships with Area offices and school administrative teams to ensure continued support of school teams and instructional programming.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 224


B. Based on the examination of the 2010-2011 Public Prekindergarten Enrollment Data (Table 8:3) 1. Please verify the accuracy of the Prekindergarten enrollment data, as it was provided to the MSDE, Division of Early Childhood Development Early Learning Office for school year 2010-2011. Table 8.3: September 30 Prekindergarten Enrollment Prince George’s Prekindergarten (4 year old) Enrollment Data 9.30.10 School Accokeek Academy Adelphi Allenwood Andrew Jackson Apple Grove Ardmore Arrowhead Avalon Baden Barack Obama Barnaby Manor Beacon Heights Beltsville Academy Bladensburg Bond Mill Bradbury Heights Brandywine Calverton Capitol Heights Carmody Hills Carole Highlands Carrollton Catherine T. Reed Cesar Chavez Chapel Forge ECC Cherokee Lane Chillum Clinton Gove Columbia Park Concord Cool Springs Cooper Lane Cora L. Rice Deerfield Run District Heights Dodge Park Doswell E. Brooks Flintstone Forest Heights Fort Foote Fort Washington Forest Francis Fuchs ECC Francis S. Key

Half Day or Full Day

Total Students Enrolled 9.30.10

Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day

22 19 43 22 43 44 21 19 19 39 41 57 43 88 22 35 22 44 20 44 86 88 20 22 19 22 44 22 44 44 110 44 44 44 44 44 22 22 22 22 22 121 56

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Income Eligible Students (Priority 1) 22 19 43 22 43 44 21 19 19 39 41 57 43 88 22 35 22 44 20 44 86 88 20 22 16 22 44 22 44 44 110 44 44 44 44 44 22 22 22 18 22 111 56

Students Enrolled Under Other Criteria (Priority 2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 10 0

Page | 225


Table 8.3: September 30 Prekindergarten Enrollment Prince George’s Prekindergarten (4 year old) Enrollment Data 9.30.10 School Francis T Evans Gaywood Gladys N. Spellman Glassmanor Glenarden Woods Glenridge Greenbelt Greenbelt Children's Center H. Winship Wheatley High Bridge Highland Park Hillcrest Heights Hollywood Hyattsville Indian Queen James Harrison James McHenry James Ryder Randall John Bayne Judge S. Woods Kenilworth Kenmoor Kettering Kingsford Lake Arbor Lamont Langley Park McCormick Laurel Lewisdale Longfields Magnolia Marlton Mary Harris “Mother” Jones Mattaponi Melwood Montpelier Mt. Rainier North Forestville Northview Oakcrest Oakland Overlook Oxon Hill Paint Branch Panorama Patuxent Perrywood Phyllis E. Williams Pointer Ridge Port Towns

Half Day or Full Day

Total Students Enrolled 9.30.10

Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day

44 22 44 22 22 65 44 18 71 17 22 44 40 22 20 44 66 29 44 42 15 22 44 44 44 66 83 44 88 22 44 19 88 21 22 44 44 22 41 21 44 19 27 60 20 17 22 19 14 110

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Income Eligible Students (Priority 1) 44 22 44 22 22 65 44 18 63 17 22 44 40 22 20 44 66 23 44 42 15 22 44 44 44 66 83 44 88 22 44 19 88 21 22 44 44 22 41 21 44 19 27 60 20 17 22 19 14 110

Students Enrolled Under Other Criteria (Priority 2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page | 226


Table 8.3: September 30 Prekindergarten Enrollment Prince George’s Prekindergarten (4 year old) Enrollment Data 9.30.10 School Potomac Landing Princeton Ridgecrest Riverdale Robert Frost Robert Gray Rockledge Rogers Heights Rosa Parks Rosaryville Rose Valley Samuel Chase Samuel Massie Academy Scotchtown Hills Seabrook Seat Pleasant Skyline Suitland Tayac Templeton Thomas Claggett Thomas S Stone Tulip Grove University Park Valley View Vansville Waldon Woods William Beanes William Hall Academy William Paca Woodmore Woodridge Yorktown TOTAL

Half Day or Full Day

Total Students Enrolled 9.30.10

Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day Full Day

22 34 60 66 22 35 22 66 44 20 19 44 41 40 44 22 22 41 21 66 21 44 22 44 22 44 43 39 23 41 21 44 22 4848

Income Eligible Students (Priority 1) 22 34 60 66 22 35 22 66 44 20 19 44 41 40 44 22 22 41 21 66 21 44 22 44 22 44 43 39 23 41 21 44 22 4817

Students Enrolled Under Other Criteria (Priority 2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31

Prekindergarten enrollment as of September 2010 consisted of 4,817 income eligible children and 31 above income children. All above income students were children receiving IEP services. Enrollment is monitored monthly through direct communication with school records secretaries. Figures are also compared with the Office of Pupil Accounting. Enrollment of income eligible students continues throughout the school year. Enrollment increased through the school year from 4,848 to 4,873 in June 2011 (see Table 8.3). 2. Describe the policies and practices put in place to ensure the enrollment of all eligible children into the Public Prekindergarten Program as described in COMAR 13A.6.02. Policies and procedures are reviewed annually by the Early Childhood Program and the Office of Pupil Accounting and School Boundaries to maintain alignment with COMAR regulations for program implementation. Information is also shared with administrative staff, including the Superintendent, Executive Cabinet, and the General Counsel to ensure policies and procedures meet the requirements of COMAR 13A.6.02. Training is provided to school registrars to ensure compliance with approved policies and procedures and to ensure that all eligible children have access to the prekindergarten program. Trainings are provided regionally and all schools are asked to 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 227


send their records secretaries and an additional school representative to these trainings. Early childhood instructional staff is assigned to individual schools to support registration policies and procedures. The Early Childhood Program partners with the Office of Food and Nutrition Services to share prekindergarten information with the families of income eligible kindergarten and older students through the practice of joint distribution of program information. Two mass mailings to identified community partners are done in July and August, requesting that they share program information as appropriate. Registration and program information are posted on the school system’s website at www1.pgcps.org, where parents can directly access eligibility guidelines, program locations, an application, early entrance procedures, and other helpful information. 3. Describe any policies the school system has put in place to work collaboratively with early childhood partners to provide a prekindergarten program for all eligible children. The Early Childhood Program works collaboratively with a variety of community partners through the development of formal and informal policies and procedures. PGCPS has memoranda of understanding with the following agencies through our Judy Center outreach efforts: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Prince George’s Child Resource Center Prince George’s Community College Prince George’s County Health Department Infant and Toddler Program Prince George’s County Memorial Library System University of Maryland School of Public Health

In addition to formal memoranda of understanding, the Early Childhood Program meets a minimum of four times a year with our PGCPS partner programs (including Head Start, Even Start, Before and After School Extended Learning Program and English Speakers of Other Languages Program) to facilitate the sharing of information with all eligible families. The Early Childhood Program shares information through the PGCPS website, the community resource distribution list, local papers, and participation in a minimum of three community events per year. A technical bulletin, Administrative Procedure 5111.1, Admission to Pre-Kindergarten, Kindergarten, and First Grade, (http://www.pgcps.org/~procedur/5000/5111.1.pdf) is in place to ensure all system employees are knowledgeable and can share information related to the prekindergarten program with families, business partners and others within their direct school communities. This bulletin is reviewed annually with all pertinent staff.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 228


GIFTED AND TALENTED PROGRAMS ADDRESSING SPECIFIC STUDENT GROUPS 1. List the goals, objectives, and strategies for the Gifted and Talented Program student identification and services along with the progress made in 2009-2010 toward meeting those goals, objectives, and strategies. Include supporting data as needed to document progress. In SY2010-11, PGCPS implemented four strategies in a concerted effort to meet the objective and reach the goal of its Gifted and Talented Program. The goal and the objective of the program are listed immediately below, and progress toward meeting the objective and reaching the goal is discussed in the context of the four adopted strategies. Goal 1: Address the academic and social-emotional needs of Talented and Gifted (TAG) students Objective 1.5: Provide programs and services which enrich, modify, or replace regular classroom curricula and instruction to meet the unique needs of Talented and Gifted students. Strategy 1.5.1 Continue to meet the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) standards for identification of talented and gifted students (see NAGC Goal 1 Standards in Appendix). NAGC has established six (6) basic standards for the implementation/operation of Pre-k-Grade 12 gifted programs. The established standards include: 1) Learning and Development; 2) Assessment; 3) Curriculum Planning and Instruction; 4) Learning Environments; 5) Programming; and 6) Professional Development. Accompanying each standard are a set of expected outcomes and a set of evidenced-based practices (See Appendix A). Student outcomes and attendant evidence-based practices for student identification fall under the scope of Standard 2: Assessment. Accordingly, all students in grades PreK-12 should have equal access to “a comprehensive assessment system that allows them to demonstrate diverse characteristics and behaviors that are associated with giftedness�. In addition, an appropriate assessment system should yield evidence that would point to appropriate instructional accommodations and modifications for identified students. Finally, an appropriate assessment system should yield/identify students of diverse backgrounds and be reflective of the total student population. To achieve the above-stated outcomes, NAGC recommends 11 evidence-based practices, all of which are adhered to by PGCPS with the exception of one (i.e. providing testing in multiple languages). Progress in TAG testing, screening, and identification is documented below. Evidence of meeting the assessment standard includes the following: TAG global test nominations; parent and teacher nominations; screenings; identification records; professional development evaluations; participation records; TAG program review forms; and anecdotal evidence collected in SY2009-2010. The data below demonstrate that TAG identification procedures are identifying students from diverse racial, ethnic, linguistic, and socioeconomic backgrounds. PGCPS continues to make progress in addressing the academic and social-emotional needs of talented and gifted students. Identification of TAG Students Student assessment/identification data come from multiple sources, reflect multiple assessment methods, and represent an appropriate balance of quantitative and qualitative measures. At each grade level there are several paths to identification in designated areas of intellectual giftedness and academic talent. The identification process includes nominations (global, teachers, parent, administrator, self and newly registered students), testing, screening, and selection (see Appendix B, PGCPS Administrative Procedure 6142.2). Overall, based on multiple criteria, TAG identification has increased from 11% of the school system’s grade 2-12 student population in SY2007-2008 to 12.5 % of the population in SY2010-2011 (see Table AL). TAG students in Title 1 Schools increased from 716 students in SY 2006-2007 to 1,065 in SY 2010-11. The increase in identification can be attributed to continued monitoring and accountability of global screening of all test-nominated students; ongoing professional development opportunities focusing on the characteristics of gifted students (including students with learning disabilities; gifted English language learners and gifted students from disadvantaged backgrounds); and implementation of non-verbal assessment for students with significant discrepancies in verbal and non-verbal sub-test scores.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 229


School Year 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

Table AL: PGCPS TAG Population Data Summary Grades 2-12 Student Population Number of TAG students 105,784 11,641 104,346 11,987 102,796 11,867 101,652 12,705

% of TAG Students * 11.0% 11.5% 11.5% 12.5%

Screening and identification data change daily. *Percentage and the number of TAG students are based on identified TAG students in grades 2-12.

NOMINATIONS Global Test Nominations All first and third grade students in PGCPS are globally tested with the Otis Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT). Third graders are also administered the Stanford Reading and Math Achievement Assessments. All students scoring at the 80 th percentile and above on the OLSAT, and/or the 89th percentile or above on the Stanford Reading and Math Assessments are screened using a balance of quantitative and qualitative measures for inclusion in the TAG program. Data in Table AM show that in SY2010-11, the number of students nominated for TAG screening based on global testing increased by 185 students over the number nominated from global testing the previous (SY2009-10) school year, and by 193 students over the number nominated from this process four years prior (SY2007-08). Table AM: Summary of TAG Global Test Nominations School Year First Graders* Third Graders* 2007-2008 986 1,008 2008-2009 1,043 902 2009-2010 1,078 904 2010-2011 1,275 892

Total 1,974 1,945 1,982 2,167

*Students who are test-nominated are automatically screened for TAG services. Additional students may be screened by Teacher, Parent, or self-nomination

The increase in total global testing nominations was driven by an increase of 197 first grade nominations over the number recorded in SY2009-10, and of 289 over the number recorded in SY2007-08. The decline in the number of third grade global testing nominations is a function of the increase in first- and second-grade nominations, as more students are entering third grade already TAG-nominated. Teacher, Parent, Administrator, Self-Nominations, and Newly Registered Students/Off-level Nominations Table AN: Parent and Teacher Nomination Summary In addition to Grade 1 and Grade 3 global testing and (Off-level Testing for students without valid test data on file) screening, students in grade 2, and grades 4 through 7, who SY Off-level Testing were nominated by teachers, parents, administrators, or self, 2007-2008 461 were tested with appropriate ability (OLSAT) and achievement 2008-2009 575 tests (SCAT) and screened for participation in the TAG 2009-2010 558 program. Students new to PGCPS are tested and screened 2010-2011 705 for participation in the TAG program upon parental request. * This includes 56 Early Entrance into First Grade OLSAT Tests. Any student in grade 2 or in grades 4 through 7 may be screened for TAG participation with valid test data, completed within the past two years, when nominated by parent, teacher, or self.

Table AN documents the total number of students tested off-level (not global tested). Most were new registrants to PGCPS and some were absent during global testing. The off-level test numbers for SY2010-2011 have increased substantially because more newly registered students were nominated by teachers and/or parents. The increase in re-screenings can be attributed to modification in the re-screening policy which allows any student with an OLSAT score above the 80th percentile who did not qualify during the first screening to be re-screened. Students have multiple opportunities for screenings.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 230


TAG Screening and Identification Screening All students who are nominated for the TAG program are screened. Screening involves evaluating a student based on qualitative criteria. The combination of a student’s quantitative test score and her/his qualitative evaluation determines whether or not a student is selected (i.e. identified) to participate in the TAG program. There are two types of screenings: a) regular screening for students who scored sufficiently high on either the OLSAT or Stanford Reading and Math Achievement Assessments; or b) re-screening based on either parent request, or due to wide discrepancies between verbal and non-verbal test scores. In SY2010-11, 3,111 PGCPS students were initially screened for participation in the TAG program, an increase of 137 over the number of initial screenings conducted during the previous (SY2009-10) school year (see Table AO). Non-Public Testing and Screening TAG Office staff also provides opportunities for non-public (private school) students to be tested and screened for participation in the TAG program. In SY2010-11, 148 non-public students participated in non-public testing (Table AO), and 50 students met the criteria for participating in the TAG program (Table AP). The increase in the number of students screened reflects an increased interest in TAG identification from parents of children in private settings. Re-screen Nominations All students screened in SY2009-10 for the TAG program who met the quantitative testing criterion, but not the qualitative criteria, were nominated for re-screening by TAG Office staff. The SY2010-11 re-screening list was generated in May 2010 for distribution to TAG Coordinators in September 2010. In SY2010-11, 448 PGCPS students were re-screened for participation in the TAG program, an increase of 280 re-screenings over the previous year’s (SY2009-10) total (see Table AO). The TAG Office takes great care to differentiate between an initial screening and re-screening. Naglieri Non-verbal Assessment TAG Coordinators are trained to analyze grade 1 OLSAT test data for significant discrepancies in verbal and non-verbal scores. Students who have non-verbal scores in the 8th or 9th stanine with a discrepancy of at least 2 stanines between their non-verbal score and their verbal score were considered for an additional non-verbal assessment (NNAT) on a case-by-case basis. SY 2010-11, the TAG Office administered 164 Naglieri Non-verbal Assessments (see Table AO). Table AO: Number of Students Screened School Year 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

PGCPS Initial Screenings* 3,027 2,999 2,974 3,111

Nonpublic 105 132 150 148

PGCPS Re-screenings 171 180 168 448

TOTAL** PGCPS screenings 3,303 3,311 3,292 3,707

*Screenings based on test score, parent, teacher, and self nominations. **TOTAL PGCPS Screenings includes 1st and 3rd screenings, off-level parent and teacher nomination screenings, Non-public screenings, independent testing//screenings, and re-screenings.

Overall Identification The cumulative number of new students who met the criteria for TAG identification in SY2010-2011 was 2,088 (See Table AP). This represents an increase of 192 newly identified TAG students over the number of newly identified students the previous school year. The increase in both TAG screenings and identification can be attributed to multiple factors including the following: increased awareness of the TAG English Language Learners population and TAG FARMs student population through specific trainings for teachers of grades K and 1, increased awareness of teacher and parent nominations deadlines, and accountability for mandatory re-screenings. Table AP: Number of New Students Identified Students Identified Nonpublic PGCPS Re-screenings

School Year

(test, parent, teacher , self nominations)

TAG identified

TAG identified

TOTAL PGCPS * TAG identified

2007-08 2008-09

1,690 1,623

33 49

69 60

1,792 1,732

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 231


School Year 2009-10 2010-11

Table AP: Number of New Students Identified Students Identified Nonpublic PGCPS Re-screenings (test, parent, teacher , self TAG identified TAG identified nominations) 1,793 1,936

48 50

55 102

TOTAL PGCPS * TAG identified 1,896 2,088

*TOTAL PGCPS Identification includes 1st and 3rd screenings, off-level parent and teacher nomination screenings, Non-public screenings, independent testing//screenings, and re-screenings.

Table AQ: PGCPS and TAG Populations by Consistent with NAGC standards, one of Race/Ethnicity and Special Needs Status, the goals of PGCPS is to have its TAG SY2010-2011 program reflect the diversity of the school TAG PGCPS system’s general population. Data in the Subgroup Hispanic 14% 20% Table AQ reflect the demographic diversity Indian .003% .05% of the PGCPS gifted population in relation Asian 6% 3% to the demographic diversity of the overall African American 64% 70% school system population. The PGCPS Native Hawaiian .0007% .001% TAG population in includes all racial, White 11% 4.5% cultural, linguistic, socio-economic, and Two or More 4% 2% special needs sub-groups that are FARMS 38% 54% represented in the total student population. ELL 10% 9% 3.7% 11% Among the major subgroups of students, Special Learning Needs (IEPs and 504 Students) the ELL TAG population is proportionate with its percentage of the overall student population. The proportion of Asian and white students among TAG-identified students was twice their respective proportions in the overall student population. On the other hand, there were slight disparities in the identification of both African American and Hispanic students for participation in the program – both student subgroups were underrepresented by six (6) percentage points; but the disparity for low-income (FARMS) students was substantial (-16 percentage points). Despite Hispanic student underrepresentation, however, their percentage of the overall TAG population increased by four percentage points over their SY2009-10 percentage.

Notwithstanding low level disparities among the major racial/ethnic student subgroups, all major subgroups are substantially represented in the TAG program. Overall progress can be attributed to the increased use of the Naglieri Non-verbal assessment and increased training for teachers and coordinators, while the underrepresentation of certain subgroups can be partially attributed to teacher misperceptions of the characteristics of gifted students from culturally, linguistically, economically diverse backgrounds. The underrepresentation of students from traditionally underserved backgrounds is in an on-going concern across the nation. Management of Data Through establishing electronic databases and monitoring screenings on a school-by-school basis, an effective system of checks and balances has been implemented to ensure that all test-nominated students are screened for participation in the TAG program. Beginning in SY2009-2010, a new feature was implemented through SchoolMax® and APEX that facilitates the identification of TAG students. This feature provides current and immediate TAG enrollment data by school to facilitate the continuation of TAG services as students move from one school to another. This year, additional information regarding TAG ELL and TAG students receiving free or reduced priced meals has provided the TAG Office with more information to monitor and develop necessary interventions regarding these special populations. Professional Development – Identification Several trainings on TAG Identification Screening Procedures and Characteristics of Gifted Students were presented to elementary TAG Coordinators and middle school TAG Coordinators in September 2010. In addition to screening procedures, TAG Coordinators received training in analyzing OLSAT test data to recognize significant discrepancies in verbal and nonverbal scores for potential re-assessment and identification via optional pathways, including a path for gifted students with special learning needs (twice-exceptional) and ESOL. Professional development for TAG Coordinators was differentiated for novice elementary coordinators, experienced elementary coordinators, middle school coordinators, TAG Center coordinators, and TAG Title I coordinators. TAG Office staff provided ongoing research and technical and screening support to TAG

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 232


Coordinators, as well as Pull-out, TRC, and TAG Center teachers throughout the school year via site visits, email, phone, fax, inter-office pony, and monthly bulletins. Strategy 1.5.2: Continue to implement a talented and gifted program which provides all identified students with access to comprehensive instructional services that develop and nurture outstanding talents and high levels of accomplishment in intellectual, creative, and/or leadership areas. Comprehensive Instructional Services PGCPS provides comprehensive instructional services for TAG-identified students at all levels (per COMAR). Instructional services are provided using three delivery models: 1) TAG Pull-Out Model (TPO); 2) TAG in the Regular Classroom (TRC); and 3) TAG Center (TC). Tables AR-1 and AR-2 below illustrate the distribution of students receiving gifted services across program models and school levels. At the elementary level, slightly more than half the students (51.3%) receive instructional services through the TPO model, with another quarter (24.7%) receiving their services via the TRC model. Only 21.3% of TAG-identified elementary students attend TCs. At the middle school level, slightly more than a quarter of TAG-identified students (25.9%) attend one of the three (3) TC middle schools, while neighborhood schools provide Honors courses for the remaining TAG-identified students. TAG-identified high school students have access to Honors and Advanced Placement courses, as well as to specialty programs such as the International Baccalaureate, Science and Technology, Bio-Technology, and Bio-medical Programs. Placements into these specialty programs are via testing, lottery, or application.

School Type Elementary Charter (elementary)

K-8 Schools Middle High School Total

Table AR-1: Distribution of TAG Students by Service Type and School Level, SY2010-2011 High School Middle Other Pull Out/ (Honors, AP, Center Pull Out TRC School (non-public IB, Specialty TRC Honors placement) Programs) 1,141 2,744 1,319 140 NA NA 4

Total 5,348

NA

111

NA

NA

23

NA

0

134

244 521 NA 1,906

230 NA NA 3,085

104 NA NA 1,423

NA NA NA 140

271 1,492 NA 1,786

NA NA 4,360 4,360

0 1 0 5

849 2,014 4,360 12,705

Center = Full-day Talented and Gifted program; placement via lottery TRC = TAG in the Regular Classroom (cluster grouping and differentiation within a mixed-ability classroom) TAG Pull-out = Interdisciplinary enrichment program, meets 2 hours a week

Table AR-2: Percentage Distribution of TAG Students by Service Type and School Level, SY2010-2011 High School Other Middle Pull Out/ (Honors, AP, (non-public School Type Center Pull Out TRC School IB, Specialty TRC Honors placement) Programs) Elementary 21.3% 51.3% 24.7% 2.6% NA NA 0.1% Charter N/A 82.8% NA NA 17.2% NA 0.0%

100.0%

K-8 Schools Middle High School Total

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(elementary)

28.7% 25.9% N/A 15.0%

27.1% NA N/A 24.3%

12.2% NA N/A 11.2%

NA NA N/A 1.1%

31.9% 74.1% N/A 14.1%

NA NA 100.0% 34.3%

0.0% 0.0% NA 0.0%

Total 100.0%

Center = Full-day Talented and Gifted program; placement via lottery TRC = TAG in the Regular Classroom (cluster grouping and differentiation within a mixed-ability classroom) TAG Pull-out = Interdisciplinary enrichment program, meets 2 hours a week

Table AS below illustrates the percentage distribution of TAG-identified students across major program categories at both the elementary and secondary levels. Elementary TAG services are offered through center specialty programs; other specialty programs (French Immersion, Montessori, Creative Performing Arts, Charter Schools); and neighborhood TAG programs. Specialty programs are lottery-based and have a maximum capacity for enrollment. In SY2010-2011, the TAG middle schools were filled to capacity due to high parent demand.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 233


As noted in Table AR-1, there are no TAG center programs at the high school level. However, TAG students at the high school level have opportunities to participate in Honors and Advanced Placement courses, or the International Baccalaureate, Science and Technology, or other choice/specialty programs. Table AS: Distribution of Student Participation by Program Type and School Level, SY2010-11 Elementary Level TAG Center Specialty Program (placement via lottery) Other Choice/Specialty Program (French Immersion, Montessori, Creative Performing Arts, Charter Schools) Neighborhood TAG Program Elementary Subtotal Secondary TAG Center Choice/Specialty Program (3 Middle School Programs) General courses, Honors courses, AP, IB, and Other Choice/Specialty Program (French Immersion, Montessori, Creative Performing Arts, Charter Schools) Secondary Subtotal

Pct. Student Participation 21% 13% 66% 100% 26% 74% 100%

Professional Development PGCPS TAG Office provided a variety of professional development opportunities based on the unique needs of experiences of teachers and administrators. In SY2010-11, TAG Office staff sponsored or facilitated 35 professional development opportunities for 1,255 TAG Coordinators, teachers of gifted students, instructional specialists, and principals. This is a significant increase from the previous year as demonstrated in Table AT. This increase can be attributed to collaboration between the TAG Office and the Title I and Title II Grant Offices to deliver high-quality professional development trainings to targeted audiences based on their roles, responsibilities, program model, and levels of expertise. A variety of opportunities included the following: state gifted conference, presentations by educational consultants, in-house trainings, continuing professional development courses, school-based trainings and the Johns Hopkins Masters in Elementary Education Program with a concentration in gifted education cohort. The TAG professional development plan provided staff with ongoing opportunities to develop an understanding of the characteristics of gifted learners, recognizing the needs of gifted learners, and implementing appropriate instructional strategies to meet those needs. Each training increased awareness of the behaviors of gifted students and of their unique academic, social, and emotional needs. Through follow-up site visits, anecdotal surveys, discussions with principals, and evaluations, participants in these trainings have more effectively implemented the TAG programs and services, thus strengthening the programs at their respective schools. Highlights of SY2010-2011 TAG Professional Development Highlights TAG professional development opportunities highlighted in Table AM are designed to address specific areas of needs and topics which vary from year to year based on instructional needs of educators, scheduling considerations, and financial resources. For example, Junior Great Books training was increased from three (3) to six (6) courses to meet the demand. Table AT: TAG Professional Development Highlights, SY2008-09 to SY2010-11 2008-2009 2009-2010 Topic/s Target Audience Participants Participants Characteristics of gifted students, Elementary and Middle School TAG identification procedures, and TAG 175 149 Coordinators Program services Teaching the Gifted (3 CPD credits, 45 Elementary and Secondary classroom 41 69 hours of instruction* teachers Smart Kids with Learning Difficulties (3 Elementary and Secondary classroom 16 37 CPD credits, 45 hours of instruction)* teachers Junior Great Books Elementary Pull-out, TRC and Center 32 54 Shared Inquiry (13 hours of training) teachers 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

2010-2011 Participants 155 75 8 110

Page | 234


Topic/s

Table AT: TAG Professional Development Highlights, SY2008-09 to SY2010-11 2008-2009 2009-2010 Target Audience Participants Participants

Junior Great Books Shared Inquiry (13 hours of training) Junior Great Books Shared Inquiry (13 hours of training) Maryland State Gifted Conference National Association of Gifted Children Conference Grade 3 TAG – Creative Thinking Independent Study TAG Center RELA Twice-Exceptional Training – Dr. Baum Differentiating Instruction for Gifted Learners – Dr. Coil Critical Thinking Models – Paul’s Reasoning and Kaplan’s Depth and Complexity

Middle School Honors/TAG Teachers Title 1 – Grade K and 1 teachers Elementary and Secondary classroom teachers Elementary, Middle, Special Education Specialist 2008-2009 – Grade 2 teachers 2009-2010 - Grade 3 teachers Elementary Pull-out teachers TAG Center Reading Language Arts Elementary and Middle, teachers and specialists Elementary and Middle TAG and Honors teachers TAG in the Regular Classroom Teachers

2010-2011 Participants

NA

35

32

NA

NA

55

56

84

96

13

9

NA

185

151

135

NA NA

12 45

24 NA

45

52

60

NA

NA

111

NA

12

45

* TAG Professional Development – Continuing Professional Development

In addition, the TAG Office sponsored two MSDE-approved 3 credit-45 hour Continuing Professional Development (CPD) courses, Teaching the Gifted and Smart Kids with Learning Difficulties, for PGCPS teachers, coordinators, professional school counselors, and administrators over the summer and during the fall and spring semesters of the 2010-11 school year. These courses provided opportunities for in-depth study of the gifted population. Each semester 25 participants participated in Teaching the Gifted and eight (8) participants completed the Smart Kids with Learning Difficulties courses. The TAG Office accessed Title II grant funding to pay for educational Consultant, Dr. Carolyn Coil, to present ‘Differentiating Instruction for Gifted Learners,” and “Critical Thinking Models” was added to the workshop schedule based on teachers’ need to understand how to foster critical thinking skills in light of the Common Core Standards adoption (see Table AT). Johns Hopkins Title I/Talented and Gifted Cohort, SY2010-11 Teachers from Title I schools were offered the opportunity to earn a Masters Degree in Elementary Education with an endorsement in Gifted Education from Johns Hopkins University. The purpose of this program was to increase teacher awareness of best practices for gifted students, improve teacher capacity, and to enhance the services provided at Title I schools for gifted students. Access to the program was limited to the first 17 teachers who applied and who were ultimately accepted into the program. Title I funds were used to pay for tuition contingent upon participants agreeing to continue service in Title I schools for a minimum of three years after completing the three-year program. The JHU Program consists of 11 graduate courses. In February 2008, the initial cohort of 17 teachers began classes, and by June 2011, the cohort had completed all graduation requirements. Participants completed the following courses in SY2010-11: ƒ ED.893.508 Technology and the Science of Learning ƒ ED.882.524 Education of Culturally Diverse Students ƒ ED.885.505 Creativity ƒ ED.885.604 Social and Emotional Needs of the Gifted ƒ ED.855.610 Seminar in Teacher Leadership As a result of this program and other TAG Office initiatives, there has been an increase in the identification of TAG students in 75% of Title I schools. Data Collection/Monitoring Tools 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 235


Various monitoring tools, databases, surveys, and reports have been created and disseminated to guide program management and decision making. The monitoring tools include the following: TAG Program Beginning-of-the-Year Report; TAG Review Report Form, professional development evaluations, follow-up surveys, the TAG-Identified Student Database, off-level testing, NNAT testing, test distribution and scores, re-screening data, early entrance into grade 1, and the TAG Center Database. Data utilized from these tools provided needed support to transitioning four schools from the TAG Pull-Out Model to the TAG in the Regular Classroom Model. In addition, these monitoring tools help to identify needed professional development and supplemental advanced resources. This year, TAG Center Schools reported quarterly Formative Assessment Systemic Test (FAST) results in addition to MSA data to measure TAG Center student achievement in reading and math. This information was incorporated into quarterly Performance Management Analysis and Planning Process (PMAPP) reports. Table AU shows the comparison of first and second quarter FAST data with MSA data from SY 2009-2010. Almost all TAG Center students are performing at the proficient and advanced level on both FAST and MSA assessments.

TAG Center Accokeek Academy Capitol Heights ES Glenarden Woods ES Heather Hills ES Kenmoor ES Kenmoor MS Longfields ES Oakcrest Valley View ES Walker Mill MS

Table AU: TAG Center MSA and FAST Data Comparison, SY 2010-2011 2010 SY2010-11 SY2010-11 2010 SY2010-11 MSA FAST 1 FAST 2 MSA FAST 1 MATH MATH MATH READING READING 98% 80% 98% 98% 96% 100% 99% 99% 97% 92% 100% 99% 100% 100% 96% 99% 100% 99% 99% 99% 100% 99% 100% 100% 96% 97% 96% 99% 98% 99% 100% 97% 90% 99% 94% 100% 98% 96% 100% 99% 100% 99% 100% 100% 97% 91% 90% 95% 99% 89%

SY2010-11 FAST 2 READING 98% 95% 100% 98% 97% 99% 93% 98% 100% 99%

Accokeek Academy TAG CENTER Expansion – Year 2 Update PGCPS expanded the TAG Center Middle School Program to a third middle school in southern Prince George’s County by combining the middle school with an adjacent TAG elementary school to form a Pre-K – 8 TAG Academy. The combined Henry Ferguson Elementary and Eugene Burroughs Middle Schools became a grade 2-8 TAG Center in SY2009-10. In SY2010-11, grade 7 was added, and grade 8 will be added for SY2011-12. The TAG Center program offers a full-day accelerated, enriched, and intensive instructional program to meet the unique and specialized needs of highly able students. Specially selected and trained teachers provide the instruction. Students who qualify for the program using PGCPS identification criteria are accepted through the Center’s Lottery application on a space-available basis in accordance with lottery guidelines. TAG Office staff developed a comprehensive three-year roll-out plan to establish a successful full-day TAG Center Program. Detailed plans for professional development, curricular modifications, instructional resources, and extra-curricular opportunities were included. Throughout spring 2009, the plan was disseminated to multiple stakeholder groups and updated and revised based on feedback. Implementation of the plan is now in progress. Multiple site visits and walk-throughs were conducted throughout year one and more are scheduled as year two of the plan is underway. Meanwhile, the TAG staff at Accokeek Academy has participated in various professional development trainings and instructional materials were provided to support the program. From summer 2009 through spring 2010, middle school teachers participated in a variety of trainings, including attending the College of William and Mary Summer Institute, attending the Junior Great Books training, taking the Teaching the Gifted CPD course, and participating in grade level collaborative planning sessions. Materials to support the expansion were provided. Curriculum Development TRC Author Study Guides The TAG Office has purchased collections of high interest, challenging novels by specific authors for TAG students clustered in TRC Model school sites. Students delve deeply into the author’s life and body of work to critically evaluate themes, 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 236


characters, and writing styles, making connections between the author’s life and work, and ultimately make personal connections between their own experiences and those of the author and his or her characters. Enrichment PGCC Science Enrichment Program The PGCPS TAG Office, in partnership with Prince George’s Community College, continued to offer TAG/honors middle school students the opportunity to participate in advanced science courses. Seventh graders studied biology, and eight graders studied forensics. Each course is 15 hours of instruction on the community college campus during the school day. Data illustrated in Table AV reflect that program enrollment is at or over capacity each semester. (Capacity is 20 students per class.) Waiting lists are established for any last minute cancellations. Due to the time constraints and need for the TAG Specialist’s direct supervision of this program, each course was only offered once during SY2010-11 and increasing the program offerings for SY2011-12 is currently not an option. Semester 7th Biology Fall Semester 7th Biology Spring Semester 8th Forensics Fall Semester 8th Forensics Spring Semester Total Participation

Table AV: Student Participation in Science Enrichment Program 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 22 23 22 22 24 24 23 24 24 22 24 22 89 95 92

2009-10 23 22 24 25 94

2010-2011 24 NA 24 NA 48

EGATE Recognition In SY2010-11, two PGCPS schools applied for MSDE’s prestigious Excellence in Gifted and Talented Education (EGATE) certification. Kenmoor Middle School and Valley View Elementary School submitted applications and portfolios demonstrating how the 21 objectives in MSDE’s Criteria for Excellence Guidelines for Gifted and Talented Programs are implemented in each of the schools. Kenmoor Middle School received EGATE Certification, and Valley View Elementary is an EGATE candidate. There are only five schools in the entire state that have earned this designation, and Kenmoor is the only Prince George’s County school to receive such. In addition, several PGCPS Talented and Gifted educators and principals received recognition as Outstanding Educators of Gifted Students at the annual Gifted Reception in Annapolis. Strategy 1.5.3: Increase the identification of students with disabilities in the TAG program and address their special instructional, learning, and social-emotional needs to ensure their academic achievement through Gifted Students with Special Learning Needs (GSLN) services. GSLN Nominations and Screenings In collaboration with the Department of Special Education, students who exhibited gifted characteristics and special education needs were reviewed at monthly GSLN meetings. Multi-confirming data, record review, IEP documentation, 504 plans, student work samples, and creativity assessments were reviewed to complete the screening process. Information from these assessments was used to identify gifted services for special education students and students with 504 plans. Forty-three (43) students were identified in SY2010-11 as twice-exceptional. Table AW shows the total number of TAG identified students with IEPs or 504s throughout the school system. These students represent 3.7% of the overall TAG student population. Table AW: Gifted Students with Special Learning Needs Participation Special Needs Category TAG students with IEPS TAG students with 504s

2010-2011 278 196

Dr. Susan Baum, a national expert in twice-exceptional students, conducted a district-wide training in February 2011 for professional school counselors, TAG teachers and coordinators, and special educators. Dr. Baum also presented at a parent night. Site-based trainings were offered through consultations and presentations given by Special Education Instructional Specialists (SEIS) for GT/LD Students, IEP Team participation, Secondary Academic Resource Support Class - Honors 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 237


Trainings, and a Collaborative Elementary School Team Training. In an effort to identify more students that need services, SEIS’ and elementary and secondary special education department chairs received trainings on characteristics of twiceexceptional students. The identification of and services for GSLN students were monitored and maintained through monthly GSLN review meetings; trainings for classroom teachers, special educators, professional school counselors, special education instructional specialists, and TAG Coordinators; on-site visits; and demonstration lessons. During site visits, recommendations by the GSLN specialist were made to the team supporting the need to implement either interventions or acceleration on a case-by-case basis. Information obtained from state and national conferences was incorporated into the ongoing district-wide and site-based trainings and Teaching the Gifted CPD Course. In SY2010-11, 278 TAG identified students received special education services. Strategy 1.5.4: Increase program awareness through the establishment of ongoing parent communication designed to facilitate the dissemination of information and encourage community input and recommendations. Parent Community Awareness In an effort to increase parent and community awareness and understanding of PGCPS TAG programs and services, the TAG website was updated and parent information packets were distributed to all newly identified TAG students. TAG related presentations to parents and community members included: three (3) Destination Imagination Parent Information Nights; Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth Parent Nights; the annual PGTAG Back-to-School Night; and TAG program model presentations to the parents of non-public testing applicants. In addition, TAG Office staff distributed the following information and materials to TAG Coordinators for direct distribution to parents in all schools:

ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

TAG Parent Information Packet (English and Spanish) Specialty Programs Lottery Applications (available, paper and on-line) (English and Spanish) Jack Kent Cooke Foundation Young Scholars information and application distributed to all middle schools Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth eligibility lists, information, and application distributed to all students scoring at the “Advanced” level in MSA testing Destination Imagination Parent Information Nights – 3 events Annual Gifted Reception in Annapolis information posted and sent to schools for distribution Center for Talented Youth Information Night – 3 events (one on-line webinar) PGTAG Parent Night – 185 parents attended TAG Information Night – Dr. Susan Baum, The Importance of Talent Development in Gifted Students, 57 parents attended TAG Parent Night – Dr. Carolyn Coil, Strategies for Motivating Gifted Students to Reach Their Full Potential, 65 parents attended TAG website Calendar of Events Updated Non-public Testing Parent Presentation – 174 parents attended

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 238


2. Identify the strategies, including resource allocations that appear related to SY2009-2010 progress. Table AW: Budget Allocation SY2010-2011 TAG Budget Admin./Prof/Specialist Temporaries/Substitutes Classroom Teacher Supplies/Misc. Supplies Facility Rental Educational Consultants Registration Office Supplies Mileage Printing Non-Local Travel Benefits

$575,696.00 $182,570.00 $176,091.00 $106,805.00 $5,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,300.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $4,500.00 $59,345.00

Strategy 1.5.1: Continue to meet the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) standards for the identification of Talented and Gifted Students. ƒ ƒ ƒ

Talented and Gifted Office staff including, Supervisor of Talented and Gifted Programs (12 month position) and Talented and Gifted Program Specialist (11 month position). Professional development to train TAG Coordinators in nomination, identification policies and procedures included: substitute funds, resource manuals, materials, conference registration fees, and non-local travel fees. Testing administration includes materials and scoring costs for global testing (1st and 3rd grade) and off-level assessments (2nd and 4th-7th grades) alternative tests.

Strategy 1.5.2: Continue to implement a Talented and Gifted program which provides all identified students with access to comprehensive instructional services that develop and nurture outstanding talents and high levels of accomplishment in intellectual, creative, and/or leadership areas. ƒ

ƒ

ƒ

Funds were used for implementation of the TRC, TC, and Pull-Out Models by purchasing classroom instructional materials; advanced libraries; First in Math/Math (24 subscriptions); hands-on resources; professional development libraries; professional journals; and instructional materials for the Accokeek Academy TAG Center expansion; TAG PullOut Program and TRC Author Studies. Thirty-five (35) professional development opportunities were sponsored and facilitated by the TAG Office including: four Continuing Professional Development Courses (Teaching the Gifted and Smart Kids with Learning Difficulties); a state conference; two national conferences; two educational consultants; and numerous site-based; and systemic trainings and meetings. Professional development expenses included: substitute funds; workshop funds; training/consultant fees; resource and instructional materials; non-local travel; registration fees; use of facilities; and catering. Over 1,200 PGCPS TAG teachers, coordinators, and administrators participated in these professional development opportunities. Funds were allocated for facility use for TAG Non-Public Testing and Destination Imagination Regional Competition.

Strategy 1.5.3: Increase the identification of students with disabilities in the TAG Program and address their special instructional, learning, and social-emotional needs to ensure their academic achievement through GSLN services. Allocations were used for the Special Education Instructional Specialist for Gifted and Talented Students with Learning Disabilities to work in collaboration with TAG Office staff to identify GSLN students and design and implement professional development opportunities for teachers, professional school counselors, and TAG Coordinators. Professional development opportunities included: two half-day trainings; one full-day training (educational consultant Dr. Susan Baum); conference registration; registration fees for attendance to Maryland State Gifted Conference; and facility use fees. Strategy 1.5.4: Increase program awareness through the establishment of ongoing parent communication designed to facilitate the dissemination of information and encourage community input and recommendations.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 239


In an effort to increase parent awareness of TAG programs and services, allocations were used for human resources including PGCPS TAG teachers and temporary employees, materials and resources to design and host parent information orientations, and update the TAG website. Funding was also used to print the TAG Parent Information Packet (English and Spanish). 3.

Describe where challenges are evident in meeting the Gifted and Talented Program goals, objectives, and strategies. (SEE RESPONSE TO QUESTION #4.)

4. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made, along with the corresponding resource allocations to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate. Table AX: PGCPS Proposed Allocations, SY2010-11 TAG Budget $335,376.00 Admin./Prof/Specialist Temporaries Substitute Classroom Teacher Supplies Building Rental Registration Travel Mileage Staff Development/Misc. Supplies Printing

$187,328.00 0.00 0.00 $89,246.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $5,000.00 $13,944.00 $10,000.00

Strategy 1.5.1: Continue to meet the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) standards for the identification of Talented and Gifted Students. Challenges ƒ Minimal central office human resources/support staff; ƒ Lack of funds for substitutes; ƒ Increasing the identification of under-represented populations, especially ELL, students from poverty (Free and Reduced Meals), and gifted students with special learning needs Strategies to address challenges Increase efforts to identify students for the Talented and Gifted program from across all cultural groups and economic strata by professionally qualified individuals utilizing multiple criteria, including non-verbal assessment data (Naglieri Nonverbal Assessment, Creativity Assessment) by encouraging broader utilization of the NNAT and designing a coordinator training specifically for Title I schools. ƒ Continue to include ESOL and special education with an emphasis focusing on alternate pathways to identification in providing annual district-wide, regional trainings on the behaviors and characteristics of gifted children, gifted ELL, twiceexceptional students, screening procedures for identification, and interpreting data discrepancies. Training for TAG Coordinators from Title I schools will be differentiated to focus on the characteristics of gifted students from poverty and ELL. Representatives from the Department of Special Education and the ESOL Office are invited to present. ƒ Provide follow up communication, as needed, to ensure that all elementary schools complete the screening process for nominated students and re-screen viable candidates recommended from the previous grade.

ƒ

Strategy 1.5.2: Continue to implement a Talented and Gifted program which provides all identified students with access to comprehensive instructional services that develop and nurture outstanding talents and high levels of accomplishment in intellectual, creative, and/or leadership areas. Challenges ƒ Minimal central office human resources/support staff; ƒ Budgetary decreases; ƒ Maintaining information databases and maintaining integrity of record keeping without secretarial support;

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 240


ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Utilization of teachers with other full-time positions, in addition, to implement quality TAG pull-out and TAG in the regular classroom gifted programs and/or serve as TAG Coordinators, responsible for all aspects of TAG screening and identification paperwork; Developing appropriate services for gifted ELL students; Retaining teachers that have specific training in meeting the unique academic, social and emotional needs of gifted students; Maintaining school-based administrative support and accountability for defined program model implementation and curriculum differentiation; No funding for training teachers and administrators in best practices for gifted students; Providing appropriately challenging advanced, above grade resources; and Accessing federal grant funds to support gifted services.

Strategies to address challenges ƒ Monitor and support the implementation of enriched and accelerated activities for gifted students through differentiated instruction using assessment data to modify content, process, product, and/or the learning environment. ƒ Work to ensure that every school, with the support of its instructional leadership, will define its level of service and implement a program (TAG center, pull-out, and TAG in the regular classroom) that meets the instructional needs of its gifted population. ƒ Continue to collaborate with ESOL Office and Special Education staff to explore services opportunities to meet the instructional needs of the increased TAG identified ESOL and GSLN population. Strategy 1.5.3: Increase the identification of students with disabilities in the TAG Program and address their special instructional, learning, and social-emotional needs to ensure their academic achievement through GSLN services. Challenges ƒ Increasing the identification of underrepresented populations, especially ELL, students from poverty (Free and Reduced Meals), and gifted students with special learning needs Strategies to address challenges ƒ Provide information and resources on the behaviors and characteristics of TAG-ELL and GSLN students and procedures for identification. ƒ Monitor the enrollment and achievement of TAG-ELL and GSLN students through data collection in order to provide necessary interventions and instructional modifications when appropriate. Strategy 1.5.4: Increase program awareness through the establishment of ongoing parent communication designed to facilitate the dissemination of information and encourage community input and recommendations. Challenges ƒ Minimal central office human resources/support staff and budget; ƒ Parent awareness of programs and services Strategies to address challenges ƒ Address requests to facilitate and support increased parent information meetings based on community needs and interests. ƒ Continue to participate in PGTAG and Specialty Program Open House. ƒ Continue to update the PGCPS TAG program website to include TAG Coordinator contact information, program features, advanced reading lists, and extra-curricular activities. ƒ Translate additional TAG program documents into various languages and distribute as needed.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 241


SPECIAL EDUCATION OVERVIEW 2011 BRIDGE TO EXCELLENCE MASTER PLAN UPDATE Introduction Guidance instructions provided by MSDE discourage a separate non-integrated approach to addressing special education challenges. However, in light of Prince George’s County Public Schools’ Corrective Action status, system officials felt it was necessary to provide an overview to describe the extensive network of efforts directed at improving the academic achievement of the special education subgroup and ensuring that Maryland State Performance Plan targets are met and Corrective Action Plans can be closed. Special Education Reform 2010-11 Because special education subgroup underperformance in accountability testing is perhaps the school system’s most significant and daunting academic challenge, the Superintendent and the Board of Education have established Special Education Reform as one of the school system’s high profile initiatives in support of the system’s Bridge to Excellence Master Plan. Three goals for Special Education Reform were identified in SY2010-11: 1. Decrease disproportionality in suspensions of students with disabilities. 2. Maintain a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). 3. Improve the identification and placement of Special Education students through the implementation of a robust prereferral process including support of Response to Intervention (RtI) processes and procedures. Reform charters were established and implemented to achieve each of these goals. The first goal was addressed through a Disproportionality Reform Charter that provided training on classroom management and de-escalating student behaviors, a disciplinary removal accountability process for school administrators, and Crisis Intervention Resource Teachers for targeted middle and high schools. The second goal was addressed by means of a FAPE in the LRE Reform Charter that provided intensive training on a range of topics fundamental to successful special education programming, including: effective collaboration and co-teaching models; analyzing assessment data; developing measurable goals and objectives; selecting strategies for struggling learners; differentiating instruction to meet the needs of individual students; using accommodations and modifications appropriately during instruction; implementing effective inclusive practices; and providing instructional interventions to support specialized instruction for students with disabilities. The third goal was addressed through an RtI Reform Charter that utilized four strategies to improve the identification and placement of students in special education: implementation of a K-3 evidence-based reading intervention in all elementary schools; implementation of a K-3 evidencedbased mathematics intervention in 36 targeted elementary schools; development and implementation of an online RtI tracking tool; and provision of high quality differentiated, job-embedded professional development on the RtI process. Disproportionality Reform Charter SY2010-11 The Disproportionality Reform Charter provided a range of supports to decrease the suspension rate of students with disabilities. It was instrumental in providing PGCPS administrators with a system-wide discipline tracking system and two new APEX reports that make it possible to view disaggregated School Max™ cumulative disciplinary removal data by school or by one student at a time. In addition, system-wide monthly discipline data reports were provided by the Department of Special Education to Assistant Superintendents and principals. These charter deliverables greatly enhanced the capacity of the school system to monitor the disciplinary removals of students with disabilities compared with their nondisabled peers. In order to reduce suspensions, training in classroom management and de-escalation of student behaviors was provided for a variety of audiences. Administrators, crisis intervention resource personnel, and classroom teachers were trained to use Life Space Crisis Intervention (LSCI) techniques and Crisis Prevention Institute (CPI) interventions. Training in cultural awareness and cooperative discipline was also provided. All milestones were met for the Disproportionality Reform Charter. In addition to school-based staff, stakeholders involved in this charter were: Area Offices and the High School Consortium; Curriculum and Instruction; Student Services; Budget and Management Services; Purchasing and Supply Services; Information Technology; and School and Leadership Development.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 242


FAPE in the LRE Reform Charter SY2010-11 The FAPE in the LRE Reform Charter focused on special education service delivery (including delivery of services during disciplinary removal) and its impact on the postsecondary outcomes of students with disabilities. Prince George’s County Public Schools currently has the lowest percentage of students with disabilities in general education classrooms 80% or more of the day of any school system in Maryland, and it is generally understood that increasing access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities is an important strategy in the school system’s overall efforts to raise student achievement. Trainings provided under this charter enhanced the capacity of school staff to analyze data, develop effective IEPs, and expand inclusive learning opportunities. In addition, a range of reading and mathematics interventions were provided at all grade levels to support specialized instruction. Successful postsecondary transition was supported through careful monitoring of transition plans and direct training on employability skills for students in Community Referenced Instruction (CRI) programs. Stakeholders involved in this charter were: Area Offices and the High School Consortium; Human Resources; Student Services; Budget and Management Services; Purchasing and Supply Services; and School and Leadership Development. Percent completion of FAPE in the LRE Reform Charter milestones ranged from 90 to 100%. Response to Intervention (RtI) Reform Charter SY 2010-11 Due to significant discrepancy found in SY2009-10 data for suspension rates for students with disabilities compared to the suspension rates for their nondisabled peers (as measured by weighted risk ratios), Prince George’s County Public Schools was required to set aside 15% of federal IDEA funding for Coordinated Early Intervening Services in SY2010-11. These funds were utilized to establish a robust pre-referral process. The “Leveled Literacy” reading intervention was provided for all elementary schools, and the “Number Worlds” math intervention was provided for 36 elementary schools selected on the basis of their SY2009-10 MSA math performance. Training was provided on the RtI process as well as these specific interventions, and implementation was monitored throughout the school year. Additional professional development resources included Stetson Online courses, after-school book studies, an RtI Google Site, and a training video to demonstrate an effective School Instructional Team meeting utilizing components of the RtI process. In collaboration with the Division of Information Technology (DIT), an online intervention tracking tool was developed and implemented as a pilot in 37 selected schools. Stakeholders for the RtI Reform Charter were: Area Offices and the High School Consortium; Curriculum and Instruction; Student Services; Budget and Management Services; Purchasing and Supply Services; Information Technology and Development; and school-based staff. This past school year 1,465 students received instructional interventions as a direct result of this charter, and of these only 63 (.043%) were referred for special education. Special Education Reform SY2011-12 Special Education continues to be a high-profile initiative in support of the Bridge to Excellence Master Plan in SY2011-12. In light of the foundation laid by the successful activities of the SY2010-11 reform charters, and in response to findings of an MSDE Comprehensive Review of Special Education conducted from March through June of 2011, goals for Special Education Reform in SY2011-12 have been refined as follows: 1. Decrease the suspension rate for students with IEPs and ensure that FAPE is provided according to federal and State requirements during disciplinary removals that exceed 10 days in a school year. 2. Improve the postsecondary outcomes of students with IEPs by implementing strategies to ensure College and Career Readiness. 3. Continue to expand staff capacity to implement best practices for Response to Intervention (RtI) and differentiated instruction. These revised goals will enable reform activities to focus directly on areas where the school system has been in Corrective Action for several years. A Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for Discipline is entering its fourth year, and a CAP for Secondary Transition Planning is entering its third year. Bringing the system into compliance in these areas is a very high priority, and success will require the level of collaboration and support across divisions that reform charters afford. As the drivers of Special Education Reform, these three charters will leverage significant improvement in terms of General Supervision, teacher effectiveness, adherence to regulatory requirements, and student success.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 243


Discipline Reform Charter SY 2011-12 The SY2011-12 Discipline Reform Charter will continue efforts to increase staff capacity to provide positive behavioral supports and decrease disciplinary removals of students with disabilities. Crisis Intervention Resource Teachers will continue to provide support in targeted middle and high schools. A strong emphasis will be placed on strengthening General Supervision, proactive monitoring of the procedures associated with disciplinary removal, and strict adherence to all regulatory requirements regarding the provision of Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) services during disciplinary removal. In accordance with technical assistance provided by MSDE, an enhanced continuum of FAPE services will be developed and implemented. College and Career Readiness Reform Charter SY 2011-12 This charter will expand on the FAPE in the LRE Reform Charter implemented in SY 2010-11 with a shift in emphasis to College and Career Readiness that aligns with Secondary School Reform priorities. Professional development on co-teaching and differentiated instruction will continue to be provided for secondary teachers, as will instructional interventions for students. Expansion of inclusive learning opportunities likewise will continue. The Department of Special Education will collaborate with the Guidance Department and the Office of Career and Technology Education (CTE) to ensure that students with disabilities are included and able to participate in college, career, and workforce readiness programs. Training will be provided for secondary special educators on career research, career readiness, college readiness, and employability skills to support successful student outcomes. In order to close the CAP for Secondary Transition Planning, this charter will focus on ensuring that 100% of students with disabilities aged 16 and above will have an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet post-secondary goals. Rti, Differentiated Instruction, and Universal Design for Learning Reform Charter SY 2011-12 This charter will continue the work initiated in SY 2010-11 to establish best practices for RtI routines and procedures across the school system. The online intervention tracking tool will be made available to additional schools, and training on and monitoring of its use will continue. Implementation and monitoring of the Leveled Literacy and Number Worlds interventions for struggling K-3 students likewise will continue. The scope of the charter will expand to include professional development on differentiated instruction and integration of the principles of Universal Design for Learning into daily instructional planning. In addition, the potential for utilizing iPad technology to increase student engagement and achievement will be explored by means of pilot projects in two Comprehensive Special Education Programs (Springhill Lake Elementary School and Arrowhead Elementary School). Participation of Students with Disabilities in the General Education Curriculum A review of Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) data reveals that Prince George’s County Public Schools continues to lag behind other Maryland school systems with respect to provision of specialized instruction and related services for students aged 6-21 inside general education 80% or more of the day. From SY2005-06 to SY2008-09, only Baltimore City reported a lower percentage than PGCPS. Since that time, PGCPS has had the lowest percentage in the State. As measured by the standards of the State Performance Plan (SPP), PGCPS has been classified as “significantly below the target” every year. Percentages of PGCPS students aged 6-21 removed from class less than 21% of the day were 41.06% in SY2005-06 (State target 57.75%); 45.32% in SY2006-07 (State target 60.11%); 47.68% in SY2007-08 (State target 60.61%); 48.46% in SY200809 (State target 61.11%); 49.08% in SY2009-10 (State target 61.61%); and 52.17% in SY2010-11 (State target 62.11%). The overall rate of improvement in PGCPS, slightly more than 11 percentage points over five years, has lessened the gap between PGCPS LRE performance and the annual State LRE target for students inside regular education 80% or more of the school day. In SY2005-06, PGCPS was 16.69 percentage points below the State target, whereas in SY2010-11, PGCPS had closed to within 9.94 percentage points of the State target. Inclusive Learning Opportunities In order for Prince George’s County Public Schools to increase student achievement and also meet State targets for LRE, it is essential that inclusive learning opportunities continue to be expanded, beginning with Early Childhood. Over the past six years, PGCPS has made dramatic progress in the delivery of services to four-year olds in Natural Environments. During this time, the service delivery model has been transformed from one in which all services for four-year olds were provided in Early Childhood Centers to one in which services are also provided in a variety of other developmentally appropriate settings: Prekindergarten general education classrooms, co-taught classrooms, Head Start classrooms, and community-based 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 244


preschool programs. In SY2011-12, a grant-funded pilot program is making it possible to expand opportunities for three-year old children with disabilities to participate with their typically developing peers through collaborative community partnerships, thereby increasing the percentage of three-year olds in Least Restrictive Environments and Natural Environments. Systematic efforts are also in place at the school-age level. In SY2009-10, the middle school service delivery model was changed and Comprehensive Special Education Programs (CSEPs) were discontinued. Students with IEPs in PGCPS middle schools now receive specialized instruction in intensive resource or co-taught classes. In SY2011-12, students in elementary Comprehensive Special Education Programs (CSEPs), Community Referenced Instruction (CRI), Emotional Disability (ED) Transition, and autism programs will be given increased access to general education classrooms as appropriate. Intensive professional development, to be provided in SY2011-12 in connection with the College and Career Readiness and Discipline Charters, will increase the effectiveness of teachers in inclusive settings. Reducing the number of nonpublic placements by increasing school system capacity to serve students with highly complex needs has been a priority of the Department of Special Education for the past several years. In SY2006-07, there were 1,112 PGCPS students with disabilities aged 6-21 (8.2% of the total) receiving services in private separate day schools. In SY200708, this figure had dropped to 962 students (7.46%), and then in SY2008-09, it rose slightly to 985 students (7.51%). In SY2009-10, placements once again declined, to 932 students (7.18%), and the trend continued in SY2010-11 with a significant drop to 806 students (6.29%). To meet the needs of students with Emotional Disabilities, several hundred staff persons were provided Life Space Crisis Intervention (LSCI) and Crisis Prevention Institute (CPI) training in SY2010-11. Targeted support and professional development will continue in SY 2012 for schools serving students who have returned from nonpublic settings, with a particular focus on those schools that house programs for autism and ED Transition. Academic Achievement Detailed information regarding the academic achievement of students with disabilities and instructional interventions in place to meet the needs of individual students is to be found in the Core Content Areas of Section B – Standards and Assessments.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 245


SECTION C DATA SYSTEMS TO SUPPORT INSTRUCTION Page

ƒ Race to the Top Scope of Work Update

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

246

Page | 246


SECTION C: DATA SYSTEMS TO SUPPORT INSTRUCTION Narrative In creating its data systems plan to support instruction, PGCPS has three overarching goals: 1) to enhance and strengthen its current data system and track the number of users of the data warehouse; 2) to reduce the number of documented errors in data to ensure that teachers, principals, administrators, and the state are getting the best data possible; and 3) to increase the use of data as documented through surveys and classroom observations on the use of data in instructional planning. Descriptions of the scope of work related to the attainment of these three goals for the coming year are presented below. Also presented are successes from Year 1 implementation, challenges to Year 2 implementation, and proposed strategies to meet those challenges. Alignment with State Plan In this second area of reform, the state seeks to build a statewide technology infrastructure that links all data elements with analytic and instructional tools to monitor and promote student achievement. Similarly, PGCPS seeks to enhance and strengthen its current data systems by integrating them into a new data warehouse, substantially reducing the number of documented data errors, and substantially increasing the use of data at the school level to plan and improve instruction. Thus, the above-cited goals and supporting activities align with the state’s assurance of (C) (3) (i) (ii), using data to improve instruction and professional development on use of data. Implementation of a Data Warehouse PGCPS recognizes that the use of data is essential to school reform and improving instruction and learning for students. To that end, the district is developing its existing data systems to building a data infrastructure that will support educational reform, principals, teachers, students, and education policymakers. Expansion of PGCPS’s data systems will integrate data from special instruction programs, special education programs, limited English proficiency programs, early childhood programs, human resources, budget/finance, health, school boundaries, enrollment adjustments, and other relevant areas. These expanded data sets will be managed by a Data Warehouse Office to ensure that stakeholders are empowered in the use of data while ensuring strict security and privacy requirements are met, including compliance with personally identifiable information restrictions. Strengthening the data system to increase data access ensures PGCPS’ ability to meet the state’s assurance (C) (3) i of creating instructional improvement systems to inform and improve teachers instructional practices and overall effectiveness. Successes During SY2010-11, the Prince George’s County School System launched a data warehouse in an effort to provide schools with real time data formatted to the goals of the district. Building principals, the Executive Cabinet, and key central office staff were trained in the use of the data warehouse during Year 1, and implementation was evident as principals and central office supervisory staff utilized data extracted from the warehouse to prepare for performance management meetings. In Year 2, the district will expand warehouse use training to secondary level central and regional office staff, thus ensuring their capacity to access data required for strategic planning purposes. Meanwhile, the district will continue to build relationships with vendors and other stakeholders to refine protocols and construct user-friendly and strategically relevant dashboards. With the assistance of consultants, the DWO will continue to build a student-level data warehouse as well as focus on using data to inform instruction in classrooms. Several meetings and teleconferences were held with vendors to assist in the advancement of this work. Business requirements for the first phase have been met, and the district continues to develop the business requirements for the second phase of the development process. The second phase of the warehouse development will provide access to student, school, district, program, as well as some census and geographic financial data. Some of the required changes to benefits, i.e. the rates and calculations, have already been configured successfully. This will help expedite second phase implementation. The system also looks to fill a vacant programmer position in the DWO who will work on linking various existing data systems to the data warehouse. Challenges The most formidable challenge is developing internal knowledge and technical skills. The district desires to be proficient in managing the life cycle of the data warehouse and its feeder systems beyond the initial implementation period. Another 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 247


challenge is communicating with vendors about the ongoing maintenance required for new systemic requirements, along with finding consultants with the appropriate skill-sets who can help with the implementation process and with “on-the-job” training. Response In Year 2, Data Warehouse Office (DWO) staff plan to work more closely with vendors, attend more trainings, obtain additional certifications, and continue to build collaborative relationships with other stakeholders. Also, DWO will continue to seek qualified consultants. Ultimately, time and experience will resolve all the challenges associated with the data warehouse development. Data Quality PGCPS has made a strong commitment to provide decision makers not only with a strong data infrastructure as evidenced with the launching and continued refinement of the data warehouse, but also to provide them with high, evaluation quality data. To deliver on this assurance, the administration has identified organizational resources to support a Data Quality Director. This director will be responsible for developing and implementing a data governance strategy, overseeing the cleaning of system data for integration into the data warehouse, and creating processes to ensure that future data and the reports are valid and accurate. The Data Quality Director will also work with the data warehouse staff and consultants to develop data protocols and dashboards that provide warehouse users with the best and most convenient views of data. Successes On June 23, 2011, Certify™, an automated data error identification and notification system, was “turned on” and opened to users within the system with five discipline rules. By June 26, a short three days later, close to 1,000 errors had been resolved by schools. As a result, the data quality score for the system improved from 18.62 to 29.99 on a scale of zero to 100 in just three days. During the summer of 2011, work focused on getting final approval for data rules in the Pupil Accounting and Academics areas. Foundation work was also accomplished in preparation for using Certify™ to assist in state report verification. Currently, the district is making the transition from SY 2011 data to SY2012 data, requiring some modifications. Challenges Progress in integrating additional discipline rules was slow during the summer months as the district endured significant staff changes due to a reduction in force and the transitioning of 40 principalships. These staff changes necessitated changes to user accounts, the creation of new accounts, the deletion of inactive accounts, and the training of new users. At this stage of the project, the aforementioned changes to user accounts must be done manually. Response The Office of Data Quality continues to meet with data stewards and review error reports provided by Certify™ with a view toward refining data rules. Once the data stewards are satisfied with the validity of the error reports and the prescriptions associated with those data rules, their sign-off is documented. Only after written approval from the data steward is received are rules included in observations. The Office of Data Quality is also meeting with IT offices regarding improving processes. To address manual entry, the Office of Data Quality is working with Cetica Solutions to determine the costs and timelines of creating an API for the management of accounts. Data Use in Schools To ensure that data are used at the school level, PGCPS will implement the Data Wise © 8-Step Cycle of collaboratively analyzing and interpreting significant quantities and types of data to improve instruction. The Data Wise process was developed at the Harvard University Graduate School of Education. As school teams implement the process, they will utilize the multiple layers of data from various sources extracted from the Data Warehouse. The Data Wise model works particularly well in a collaborative planning environment. The development and implementation of a high-quality instructional improvement system is one of the cornerstones to the data system plan in PGCPS. Finally, building a viable and reliable data system, that can be used as a tool to improve instruction, aligns Prince George’s County’s school system with the statewide longitudinal data system and its ability to make data available and accessible to researchers based on PGCPS protocol.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 248


Successes Ten (10) schools that are in school improvement and alternative governance were selected to participate in the first year of Data Wise implementation. The Data Wise Implementation Process (DWIP) training session for the principals and key team leaders from each of the 10 schools piloting the initiative in Cohort I/Year 1 began on July 1, 2011. Challenges Data Wise was developed at the Harvard University Graduate School of Education, but the school’s Data Wise implementation staff was eliminated due to budget cuts. Response Harvard Graduate School of Education Data Wise staff subcontracted with the Pursue Excellence Company to begin doing the technical assistance work for PGCPS. Pursue Excellence began training school-based staff from pilot schools beginning in July 2011.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 249


Date: August 2011

Year of the Grant (circle one)

1 2

3

4

Correlation to State Plan

Project # Timeline

Key Personnel

Performance Measure

Recurring Expense: Y/N

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 250

(C)(1) (C)(2) (C)(3)(i - iii) Goal 1: Metric: Increase the percentage of users by [10% quarterly] that access the Data Warehouse as measured by the of unique employee identification numbers (EINs) that access the system. 1. Enhance tools that use data to inform instruction and (C)(2) C1 7/2011- 6/2012 Wesley Watts, Chief Assess timeline of implementation of the integration with the state longitudinal data system Information Officer data warehouse given benchmark while ensuring fidelity of the school system timeframes. Generate a list of relevant Youssef Antar, Director N – Years 1-4 queries. Assess accuracy of state level performance management vision. Technology Applications reporting. a. Develop query tool to include one-step reports Senthil Parameswaran Please note it to ensure the novice user can quickly feel Enterprise Systems the answer is comfortable using data. N. Comments Officer b. Allow for state-wide collection of student are needed in Lisa Spencer, Technology assessment information. this column. Training Director c. Develop instructional tools to better connect the cost of programs with the effects of the program Colby R. White, Ed.D. Data Warehouse Officer 2. Create a set of data that is relevant to daily (C)(2) C1 7/2011 – Wesley Watts, Youssef Provide the scope of data to include results 6/2012 Antar, Senthil instructional planning and to long range school from formative and interim assessments Parameswaran, Lisa and additional student data, e.g., student planning that will be available to inform decisions that Spencer, Colby R. White, portfolios. N – Years 1-4 directly impact teaching and learning on a daily Create Key Performance Indicators that basis. This decision making data will have a direct correlation to HR, finance/budget and other relevant define student outcome success and use operating areas them to inform instructional change. 3. Instructional efficacy: (C)(2) C1 7/2011 – Wesley Watts, Youssef Assess student achievement performance a. Identify which instructional practices, programs 6/2012 Antar, Senthil data that is linked data displays in the warehouse. Determine which performance N – Years 1-4 and policies are working for whom and which Parameswaran, Lisa should be scaled up (Key audiences: Spencer, Colby R. White, indicators are served or underserved by the warehouse. superintendents, principals, teachers, unions,

MOU Requirements: (Yes) Activities to Implement MOU Requirements

Section C: Data Systems to Support Instruction

1. Establish a culture of data use Metric: Increase the percentage of users by [10% quarterly] that access the Data Warehouse as measured by the number of unique employee identification numbers (EINs) that access the system. 2. Reduce Data Errors Metric: For the data rules that are implemented, reduce the number of documented Data Errors by 90% within 60 days. 3. Using data to improve instruction – Metric: Increase the percentage of teachers indicating that they have utilized data in instructional decision-making by 10% per year based upon teacher survey data.

Goal(s):

LEA: Prince George's County Public Schools

ACTION PLAN: SECTION C


8.

7.

6.

5.

4.

b.

C1

(C)(3)(i-iii)

C1

C1

(C)(2)

(C)(3)(i-iii)

C1

Project #

(C)(2)

Correlation to State Plan

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

researchers and policymakers) Establish policies and processes to identify questions, embark on research, obtain input from stakeholders and disseminate research findings. c. Identify promising practices and scale them up. Ensure that instructional data and other systemic operating costs data informs instructional practice and educational programs at the school, district and state level (Key audiences: teachers, principals, superintendents) a. Develop training materials and case studies (enhancing them as more data is added to the SLDS) to use with teachers, leaders and districts. b. Build capacity of teachers and school leaders to use data to inform instructional and programmatic decisions through provision of training at regional centers. c. Provide follow-up, targeted technical assistance to districts, schools and school data teams in how to use data and how to interpret performance reports Enable students and parents to track academic progress (Key audiences: students, parents) toward career readiness and/or postsecondary readiness. Give access to students and parents to data. Provide access to Key Performance Indicators. Establish the scope of data to include results from formative and interim assessments and additional student data, e.g., student portfolios. Require more frequent collections of data to provide real-time access teachers. Create Key Performance Indicators that define student outcome success and use them to inform instructional change. The district will use the data warehouse providing teachers, principals, and administrators, with data to inform instruction and the utilization of resources to achieve our academic goals

Section C: Data Systems to Support Instruction

7/2011 – 6/2012

7/2011 – 6/2012

7/2011 – 6/2012

7/2011 – 6/2012

Timeline

Wesley Watts, Youssef Antar, Senthil Parameswaran, Lisa Spencer, Colby R. White,

Wesley Watts, Youssef Antar, Senthil Parameswaran, Lisa Spencer, Colby R. White,

Wesley Watts, Youssef Antar, Senthil Parameswaran, Lisa Spencer, Colby R. White,

Wesley Watts, Youssef Antar, Senthil Parameswaran, Lisa Spencer, Colby R. White,

Key Personnel

Page | 251

urvey districts to determine which instructional improvement systems they use. Mandate use of the data warehouse to identify instructional success and

Assess reports and add and modify as necessary through focus groups.

Track usage by schools, teachers and parents.

Using Data-Wise rubric, assess the efficacy of collaborative teams and school improvement teams on the use of data and the data warehouse.

Performance Measure

N – Years 1-4

N – Years 1-4

N – Years 1-4

N – Years 1-4

Recurring Expense: Y/N


C1

(C)(3)(i-iii)

9. Teachers, principals, and administrators use these

7/2011 – 6/2012

Timeline

Wesley Watts, Youssef Antar, Senthil Parameswaran, Lisa Spencer, Colby R. White,

Key Personnel

challenges as part of teacher evaluation and professional development processes. Develop and implement training and technical assistance in several phases to meet the levels of educators’ and schools’ sophistication in knowledge of data available, how to interpret them, and how to use to inform instructional practice. Identify a group of educators locally, who use data from LDS and other sources effectively to work with other educators. Ensure that all systems are integrated by using the data warehouse. Assess areas of incompatibility.

Performance Measure

N – Years 1-4

Recurring Expense: Y/N

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

10. Integrate internal and external systems such as

Page | 252

(C)(3)(i-iii) C1 7/2011 – Wesley Watts, Youssef 6/2012 Antar, Senthil SchoolMax, ERP, Statewide Longitudinal Data as Parameswaran, Colby R. well as data from special instruction programs, White, special education programs, limited English N – Years 1-4 proficiency programs, early childhood programs, human resources, budget/finance, health, school boundaries, enrollment adjustments, and other relevant areas. Goal 2: For the data rules that are implemented, reduce the number of documented data errors by 90% within 60 days. 1. Implement additional data rules at a rate no less than (C)(3)(i C2 July 2011 Bruce Hislop, Director Minimum of 100 rules implemented and 15 per month, ensuring that all data rules are December Data Quality operational. N implemented. 2011 Goal 3: Increase the percentage of teachers indicating that they have utilized data in instructional decision-making by 10% per year based upon teacher survey data. Objective 1: Building collaborative cultures of data inquiry, in which classrooms are open to teacher colleagues for observation and analysis to articulate an implementation problem with best practices. Strategy 1: PGCPS will implement the 8-step cycle of collaborative planning: data inquiry as outlined in Data Wise© to improve instruction. 1. Implement training for school leadership teams and (C)(3)(ii) C3 July 2011 – Department of School School leadership and area offices other area and central office staff. 1st suggested personnel will monitor the implementation (E)(2) August 2011 Improvement (DSI) in concert with Curriculum cohort of Schools could be highest needs schools – of the framework. N and Instruction (C&I), 60 schools in improvement and 4 Turn Around Schools. Testing Office 2. All schools will receive technical assistance in (C)(3)(ii) C3 July 2011 – Department of School School leadership and area offices August 2011 Improvement (DSI) in developing a master schedule to support peer personnel will monitor schedules to ensure concert with Curriculum coaching, peer observations and common planning common planning time. N and Instruction (C&I), times. Testing Office 3. DSI in concert with Data Wise©, Performance (C)(3)(ii) C3 October 2011 – Department of School School Leadership will determine pre and Management and Testing will identify metrics to post test metrics for implementation of the December Improvement (DSI) N 2011 monitor and determine effectiveness of training, protocol.

data systems and data analysis to support continuous instructional improvement

Project #

Correlation to State Plan

Section C: Data Systems to Support Instruction


6.

5.

4.

(C)(3)(ii)

(C)(3)(ii)

(C)(3)(ii)

Correlation to State Plan

C3

C3

C3

Project #

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

2nd cohort of 15 schools –begins involvement.

support and influence and effect on teacher practice. PGCPS will analyze student data to determine impact of collaborative planning: data inquiry on student achievement. Identification of best practices appropriate for replication and implementation in each school.

Section C: Data Systems to Support Instruction

December 2011 – January 2012 January 2012 June 2012

December 2011

Timeline

C&I and Teacher Leadership and Development office Department of School Improvement (DSI) in concert with Curriculum and Instruction (C&I), Testing Office, and Performance Management Office

Department of School Improvement (DSI)

Key Personnel

Page | 253

Implementation of the rubric, and monitoring of collaborative planning, feedback loops and data analysis.

School leadership will produce and share a list of best practices including videotaping.

School leadership will modify the protocol based on student data analysis.

Performance Measure

N

N

N

Recurring Expense: Y/N


SECTION D GREAT TEACHERS AND LEADERS Page

ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Race to the Top Scope of Work Update Highly Qualified/Highly Effective Staff Professional Development Family Engagement Schools that are Safe, Drug-Free, and Conducive to Learning □ Persistently Dangerous Schools □ Bullying, Harassment, or Intimidation □ Suspensions □ Coordination with Community Mental Health Providers □ Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports □ Habitual Truancy □ Attendance □ Graduation and Dropout

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

255 261 269 289 293 294 294 298 302 303 304 306 311

Page | 254


SECTION D: GREAT TEACHERS AND LEADERS Race to the Top Scope of Work Narratives and Action Plans Narrative: the narrative for Section D will describe the LEA’s commitment to implementing programs, processes, and procedures that support and develop great teachers and leaders. LEAs must identify all goals and all tasks/activities that will be implemented in year two to achieve the stated goal(s). Prince George’s County fully embraces the Maryland Race to the Top initiative around Great Teachers and Great Leaders. The district has several work streams addressing this initiative. They include examining compensation for teachers, developing intra-school professional learning communities around problems of practice, enhancing the principal pipeline, attracting and retain teachers through alternative certification. Evaluation of Teachers Description Prince George’s County fully embraces the state’s efforts to attract, develop, and retain, great teachers and leaders. Through its Financial Incentive Rewards for Supervisors and Teachers (FIRST) Program, which is funded by a USDOE Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) grant, and through eight strategic initiatives designed to develop widespread teacher effectiveness, which are supported in part by a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the county has positioned itself as a national leader in developing effective teachers and designing compensation packages around highly effective teaching. Prince George’s County is supporting activities pursuant to subsection (D)(2) of Maryland’s RTTT application – i.e. “improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance” by participating as one of seven LEAs in the MSDE Pilot for Teacher Effectiveness. The district will run pilots in 100 classrooms across 38 schools to determine which student achievement measures are correlated to teacher performance. This work is aligned to the rollout of the Framework for Teaching (FFT) Evaluation Model. For the 2011-2012 school year, 25% of the teachers in every school will be observed using the FFT protocol. Successes PGCPS is on schedule to have all its all principals and assistant principals trained in the use of the FFT model by mid-year FY2011-12. The model has proven effective in creating a culture of self reflection and growth. Because of the experience of the FIRST program and the development of the FFT framework, the district is uniquely situated to participate in the state’s pilot program around tying student achievement to teacher evaluations. Challenges One challenge is the electronic platform for the observation tool is unwieldy. A second challenge is the time needed to effectively implement the process, particularly in larger schools. A third challenge is the reliability of the tool with multiple observers. A fourth challenge is determining how to associate a student score to a single teacher. Response Staff is examining multiple platforms to streamline and simplify the FFT Evaluation Model’s electronic observation tool. ƒ ƒ ƒ

To address the time on task issues to implement the evaluation process, the district is developing a cycle for evaluations, so that teachers are not evaluated every year; rather, every other year. To address inter-rater reliability associated with the use of the observation protocol, the district plans multiple training opportunities to standardize the observation and evaluation protocols. To determine the teacher of record for associating student achievement, the district will explore multiple ways to associate scores to teachers, content areas, and school-wide growth. The Development of Highly Effective Teachers

Description Prince George’s County has three projects related to the development of highly effective teachers. The first is to examine the compensation of teachers and to move from an experience/credential track for compensation to a track based on effectiveness in the classroom. The second project is to develop professional learning communities around problems of 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 255


instructional practice. The third project seeks to create teacher leadership roles in the school. Using support from the State of Maryland, the district is working on two projects related to compensation. The first is compensation for teachers who work in low performing schools. The compensation package, however, is not designed to allow cash payments, but to support other teacher incentives such as increased professional development, conference attendance, leadership opportunities and increased classroom materials. The second project is compensation for hard-to-staff positions such as ELL, Special Education, and STEM. In this project, teachers in low performing school who work in the identified content areas are eligible for stipends by extending their instructional knowledge through professional development and exercising leadership opportunities in their schools. Regarding the third project, through the work of the Department of Human Capital Management and the Office of Talent Development, the district is formulating a career pathway with multifaceted opportunities for teachers to serve in teacher leadership roles aligned to the National Education Association Teacher Model Leader Standards and the Core Propositions of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Successes Prince George’s County is currently developing the plans to compensate teachers in low performing schools and to compensate teachers in critical shortage areas. In terms of professional learning communities around problems of practice, the district convened algebra teachers who had demonstrated success in student achievement to share best practices. In terms of leadership opportunities, the district created a position called Instructional Lead Teacher in four turnaround schools. This position allows teachers to exercise leadership opportunities in their schools. Challenges While the Race to the Top application stresses compensation for hard to staff and low performing schools, the teacher bargaining unit is reticent to change the salary structures, particularly in a climate in which budgets have been cut for three consecutive years and teachers have not had any increase in compensation. The bargaining unit cites research that indicates that increased financial compensation has a dubious impact unless the compensation is significant. The research also indicates that other incentives, such as working in an intellectually stimulating environment, increased opportunities for professional development, and opportunities to explore new ideas can be very effective. However, the weak budget outlook has made compensation a difficult variable to manipulate. The budget has also forced a reduction in staff, which has eliminated many teacher coach positions. Response The district has developed plans for compensation around the tenets of teacher incentives to include professional development. In terms of teacher leadership, the district is moving towards a student based budgeting model in which principals have greater leeway in determining how staff will be deployed. However, the budget reductions have significantly reduced resources available to schools. Identifying and Developing Principal Leadership Prince George’s County acknowledges the body of research that correlates high student performance in high-poverty/highminority schools with principals who are effective instructional leaders. Over the past four years, Prince George’s County has partnered with New Leaders for New Schools (NLNS) to identify, train, certify, place, and support outstanding principals and assistant principals in high-poverty/high-minority schools. This partnership has been authorized by MSDE and is prescribed as a preferred alternative certification pathway for developing high-quality principals.13 In its RTTT application, Maryland projects to expand NLNS by only 10 positions in Baltimore City and Prince George’s County (see p. 179 of state’s RTTT application) over the next four years; however PGCPS’ need to recruit, train, certify, and place highly effective principals in chronically low-performing schools is much greater. Consistent with the laws and regulations regarding alternative routes to certification – Section (D)(1)(i) of the state’s RTTT application – PGCPS proposes a corollary School Leadership Fellows Program (SLFP) which will enable PGCPS to develop a complementary cadre of specially trained leaders who will be prepared for the unique leadership demands in chronically under-performing schools. The proposed program will feature the required recruitment and screening, pre-employment training, internship, and residency components of all state-approved MAAPPs. In addition, the SLFP will feature unique leadership succession and replication components. The four main program features are as follows:

13

See Section (D)(1)(ii) of Maryland’s RTTT application, p. 136.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 256


ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Select and prepare principals to provide effective turnaround leadership in identified chronically low-performing schools; Prepare selected assistant principals to work with turnaround principals and to ultimately assume the principalship in resident low-performing schools within a three-year time frame; Select and prepare aspiring teacher leaders to work with turnaround principals and selected aspiring assistant principals and become assistant principals in resident low-performing schools within a three-year time frame; and Place successful turnaround principal in newly identified chronically low-performing school with an aspiring assistant principal and teacher leader team to begin a new three-year turnaround cycle.

The main professional development components for SLFP include the National Institute for Learning (NISL) for selected principals, Leadership Education for Aspiring Principals Program (LEAPP) for selected aspiring assistant principals, the PreLeadership Academy (PLA) for selected aspiring teacher leaders, and the School Leadership Institute, and the School Leaders Network (SLN) for all program participants. Collectively, these programs will facilitate PGCPS’ efforts to develop a pipeline of future administrators while building the professional capacity of current administrators. The integration and sustainability of these programs are vital to our efforts to improve teacher practice and administrator efficacy. PGCPS will use year one as a planning year to develop policies and processes needed for successful implementation, and subsequent sustainability of SLFP. Recruitment of Highly Effective Teachers Description In a continuing effort to develop a pipeline of highly qualified and highly effective teachers, Prince George’s County proposes to continue and enhance current collaborations with local universities under Maryland Approved Alternative Preparation Programs (MAAPPs). Current MAAPPs that would be continued and expanded under this proposal include the Prince George’s County Resident Teacher Program (PGCRT), Notre Dame Dual Certification Program for special education teachers, and a new UMCP Maryland Science and Math Resident Teacher Program (MSMaRT) for middle school math and science teachers, and Teach for America. In addition, the district collaborates with the University of Maryland and Bowie State University to develop teachers in STEM through a National Science Foundation grant. The district seeks to develop a strong pool of teachers, particularly in hard to staff subjects and low performing schools. This includes working with Teach for America to add 50 new teachers a year to work is low performing schools. As a way to increase the retention rate past the two-year commitment cited in section (D)(1), Teach for America corps members will be provided the opportunity to receive additional monetary incentives at the beginning of the third and fourth consecutive years of service. This value added incentive has been proposed to maintain continuity in schools identified as under-performing and where Teach for America corps members have made significant inroads in increasing student achievement within individual classrooms and the school community. Successes The district brought on 50 Teach for America core members for the past year and another 50 for the 2011-12 school year. Challenges The budget reductions significantly impacted the district’s ability to attract new teachers due to a reduction in force. Response The district committed to the 50 TFA members and subsequently placed all in vacancies.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 257


Year of the Grant (circle one) 1

Section D: Great Teachers and Leaders

Correlation to State Plan (D)(3)(i - ii) (D)(5)(i - ii)

Project # Timeline

Key Personnel

D1

D1

(D)(3)(i)

(D)(3)(i) MSDE Projects 50 and 51 September 2011December 2011

July 2011 to June 2012

Duane Arbogast, Ed Ryans, Gladys Whitehead, Lew Robinson (PGCEA)

Matt Stanski, Duane Arbogast

(D)(3)(i)

D2

Sept 2011

Sharon Hodges

1. (D)(3)(i)

D3

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Develop systemic teacher leadership roles in schools in which teachers have reduced teaching loads, but greater leadership responsibilities around mentoring, content leadership, student management leadership and other roles as determined by a committee. In addition, staffing

July 2011 June 2012

Doug Anthony, Sharon Hodges, Lew Robinson, Debra Mahone, Kathy Malloy

Using an inquiry model to solve systemic problems and conduct instructional rounds, monthly meetings will occur over the 10 months of the school year. -These networks September 2011- Doug Anthony, (D)(3)(i) provide a forum for teachers to support one another and to June 2012 Sharon Hodges translate initiatives into real results at the school level. Each meeting will last approximately four hours. Together, teachers collaboratively coach one another. Goal 1, Project 3: Increase the number of highly effective teachers at low performing schools to 85% of the staff.

2.

school based problems (e.g. algebra, early reading and special education).

Goal 1, Project 2: Increase the number of highly effective teachers at low performing schools to 85% of the staff. 1. Establish cohorts of teachers around specific content and August 2011Doug Anthony,

on the efficacy of each stipend and incentive in terms of student achievement and teacher satisfaction. Identify stipends that results in increased student achievement. This effort will determine the efficacy of the identified stipend and then align the stipends to working in high-need schools. Identify incentives that attract teachers to low achieving schools. Develop “compensation “plans for teachers in low performing schools and in critical areas.

Goal 1, Project 1: Increase the number of highly effective teachers at low performing schools to 85% of the staff. 1. Contract with a consultant, ERS, to examine the research

MOU Requirements: (Yes) Activities to Implement MOU Requirements

2.

2 3

4

Page | 258

Teacher Leadership roles and staffing ratios will be defined.

Formulation of teams. By October 2011, 3 cohorts will be established and functioning. Teams will share reflections and results of action research as a result of the professional learning communities.

Document linking stipends and incentives to professional development opportunities.

Document identifying high leverage stipends in terms of student achievement.

Performance Measure

1. By SY2014-15, increase the percentage of teachers at NLNS and SLFP selected schools who are designated as “highly effective” to 85% of the teaching staff. 2. By SY2014-15, increase the percentage of principals serving NLNS and SLEP selected schools who are designated as “highly effective” to 100%. 3. By SY2014-15, increase the percentage of teachers and administrators across the school district who are designated as “highly effective” to 85%.

Goal(s):

LEA: Prince George’s County Public Schools Date: August 2011

ACTION PLAN: SECTION D

Cost covered in D1 above

N

The project will end in June 2014.

N

N

Y

N

Recurring Expense: Y/N


Principals of low-achieving schools will be allotted additional FTEs based on student performance and the number of new teachers (D)(3)(i)

Correlation to State Plan

Project #

July 2011 June 2012

Timeline

Key Personnel

3. Support facilitation of LEAPP Cohort (4). This program involves 25 days of face-to-face facilitation by PGCPS NISL-certified participants. NISL Faculty will observe select sessions to ensure program fidelity.

4. Support facilitation of LEAPP Cohort (5). This program involves 25 days of face-to-face facilitation by PGCPS NISL-certified participants. NISL Faculty will observe select sessions to ensure program fidelity.

3.

4.

D4

D4

D4

D4

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Support facilitation of LEAPP Cohort (3). This program involves 25 days of face-to-face facilitation by PGCPS NISL-certified participants. NISL Faculty will observe select sessions to ensure program fidelity.

2.

involves 27 days of face-to-face facilitation by NISL Faculty as well as individual preparation, and an action learning project based on a current school/district need.

Jan 2012June 2012

Sept 2011-June 2012

Jan 2011-May 2012

Jan 2011 – May 2012

Members of Leadership Team Cohorts 1, 2, and 3

Members of Leadership Team Cohorts 1, 2, and 3

Pam Robinson Members of Leadership Team Cohorts 1 and 2

potentially include: Juan Baughn; Glenn Smartschan; Jacques Gibble; Mary Ayala; Janet Palmer-Owens

Goal 2, Project 4: Increase the number of Highly-Effective Administrators in low-achieving schools to 100%. Select NISL Faculty to 1. Conduct NISL Leadership Team Cohort 3. This program

2.

ratios will be determined.

Section D: Great Teachers and Leaders

Page | 259

Each member of LEAPP Cohort 3 will identify what it means to be an instructional leader focused on improved instruction leading to higher student achievement—and will gain practical experience through the NISL program. Successful completion of NISL by these aspiring administrators will strengthen leadership potential. Each member of LEAPP Cohort 4 will identify what it means to be an instructional leader focused on improved instruction leading to higher student achievement—and will gain practical experience through the NISL program. Successful completion of NISL by these aspiring administrators will strengthen leadership potential. Each member of LEAPP Cohort 5 will identify what it means to be an instructional leader focused on improved instruction leading to higher student achievement—and will gain practical experience through the NISL program. Successful completion of NISL by these aspiring administrators will strengthen leadership potential.

Each member of NISL Leadership Team Cohort 3 will perform his/ her administrative role as an instructional leader focused on improved instruction leading to higher student achievement

Reduce vacancies in low performing schools. Increase interview pools.

Performance Measure

participant for each year the program operates

Y $4,500 per

participant

$4,500 per

$5000 per participant for first 5. $4,500 per participant for any additional participants

$15,000 per participant for each year the program operates

Y

Program will be discontinued if funding is not available.

N

Recurring Expense: Y/N


Conduct a 1-day re-certification session for NISL Leadership Team Cohort 2 members

Correlation to State Plan D4

Project # Jan 2012

Timeline

Both Teach For America and Prince George’s County observers (Principals, mentors, department chairs, etc) will share notes and plan collaboratively in order to schedule necessary professional development specifically designed to focus on instructional best practices for Teach For America corps members in their first and second years in the classroom to ensure that they are becoming stronger at their craft. Prince George’s County will continue to cluster its new resident teachers to its lowest performing schools.

Teach for America corps members will be provided with the opportunity to receive additional monetary incentives at the beginning of the third and fourth consecutive years of service.

4.

6. D6

D6

(D)(3)(i, ii) (E)(2) (D)(3)(i, ii) (E)(2)

D6

D6

D6

D6

(D)(5)(i, ii)

(D)(3)(i, ii)

(D)(3)(i, ii)

(D)(3)(i, ii)

July 2011-June 2012

July 2011-June 2012

July 2011-June 2012

July 2011-June 2012

July 2011-June 2012

July 2011-June 2012

Doug Anthony Sharon Hodges

Relationship between type of school and placement of TFAs. Retention rates of TFA teachers.

Agendas for professional development trainings. Review of performance evaluations.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 260

Y

N

N

N

Rosters of Curriculum and Instruction committees and professional development trainings.

Gladys Whitehead Doug Anthony Sharon Hodges

Y

N

Recurring Expense: Y/N N Recertification fee of $1,000 per person.

N

Meeting agendas

Count of the number of TFAs secured and disaggregated by content and type of school.

Recommendations and Action items identified

All NISL Leadership Team Cohort 2 members still in PGCPS AND still committed to facilitating NISL sessions will possess the latest materials and will be proficient in facilitating the current curriculum

Performance Measure

Robert Gaskin

Robert Gaskin

Debra Mahone, Doug Anthony

Members of Leadership Team Cohort 2

Key Personnel

Year 3 and 4 Goals: 1. By SY2014-15, increase the percentage of teachers at NLNS and SLFP selected schools who are designated as “highly effective” to 85% of the teaching staff. 2. By SY2014-15, increase the percentage of principals serving NLNS and SLEP selected schools who are designated as “highly effective” to 100%. 3. By SY2014-15, increase the percentage of teachers and administrators across the school district who are designated as “highly effective” to 85%.

5.

3.

2.

Prince George’s County will commit to allocate 50 Teach For America instructors per year over the next four years (2011-2015) to continue the support of High Quality Pathways to teaching. Teach For America will network with faculty, staff, and students to identify prospective corps members and reach out to them on an individual basis. Teach for America corps members will be recommended through an incentivized process encouraging curriculum writing and detailed professional data analysis.

1.

PGCPS will convene a project Advisory Council to ensure that all stakeholders have an opportunity to share their Convene (D)(5)(i-ii) D5 perspectives on the project’s implementation, for the quarterly purpose of addressing project needs, analyzing data, and suggesting refinements. Goal 3, Project 6: Increase the number of highly effective teachers and administrators in the district to 85%.

1.

Goal 3, Project 5: Increase the number of highly effective teachers and administrators in the district to 85%.

5.

Section D: Great Teachers and Leaders


HIGHLY QUALIFIED STAFF No Child Left Behind Goal 3: By 2005-2006, all students will be taught by highly qualified (HQ) teachers. No Child Left Behind Indicator 3.1: The percentage of classes being taught by “highly qualified” teachers, in the aggregate and in “high-poverty” schools. No Child Left Behind Indicator 3.3: The percentage of paraprofessionals working in Title I schools (excluding those whose sole duties are translators and parental involvement assistants) who are qualified. A. Based on the Examination of Core Academic Subject Classes (CAS) Taught by Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) Data (Tables 6.1-6.3) During the 2010-11 school year, 90.7% of all core academic subject classes in Prince George’s County were taught by a highly qualified teacher (HQT). This percentage represents an improvement of 24.4 percentage points over the percent of such classes that were taught by a HQT as recently as SY2006-07 (66.3%). See Table 6.1. 1. Describe where challenges are evident Although PGCPS has maintained a consistently upward trend in the percentage of CAS classes taught by a HQT, the school system fell short of the state’s SY2010-11 target (92%) by 1.3 percent (see Table 6.1). This is can be attributed to several factors, the most impactful of which include expanded state testing requirements for experienced teachers, scheduling challenges, and special education dual certification requirements. In addition, maintaining a fully highly qualified teaching staff at the secondary level and at schools with a high concentration of low income students remains a challenge. Table 6.1: Percentage of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers School Year 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

% of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers 48.6 62.0 62.1 66.3 73.0 82.0 88.7 90.7

% of Core Academic Subject Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers 51.4 38.0 37.9 33.7 27.0 18.0 11.3 9.3

Since SY2005-06, the requirements for highly qualified designation have changed for experienced teachers as a result of new state testing mandates. Therefore, some teachers, who had previously met the experience and certification requirements for the HQ designation, found themselves needing to take an additional test in order to maintain HQ status. Additionally, due to the variety of course offerings and special programs in secondary schools, the system often struggles with placing HQT for all subjects offered. As a result, a teacher who may be highly qualified in one subject may be asked to teach one or more classes that do not align with their current certification. Thus, while 92.6% of elementary level CAS classes were taught by a HQT, only 89.7% of secondary CAS classes were taught by a HQT (see Table AZ).

Table AZ. HQT Status of CAS Classes by School Level, SY2010-11 School Level

HQT

NHQT

Total

% HQT

Elementary

8,912

716

9,628

92.6%

Secondary

14,860

1,713

16,573

89.7%

Total

23,772

2,429

26,201

90.7%

In SY2010-11, while 90.7% of core academic subject classes system-wide were staffed with a HQT, only 88.7% of classes with special education students were so staffed (see Table AZ). Trends in certification requirements have posed a particular challenge. These changes require special education teachers of record to also hold a certification in a core academic subject. As a result, many new teachers opt to become resource teachers or co-teachers to avoid becoming the teacher of record. As special education teachers are required to become certified in core subjects, some are opting to just teach core subjects so as to minimize special education reporting requirements. 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 261


In addition, special education certification requires greater training. While the number of training programs in the area has decreased, the population of special education students continues to increase. The inability of the school system to further accelerate the pace of HQT staffing in special education classes is of particular concern because of the persistent failure of students in these classes to meet state academic performance standards. Another challenge faced by the system in its efforts to staff all CAS classes with a HQT is staffing schools with substantial low-income student populations. At 90.7%, the HQT status of CAS classes with low-income students identically mirrors the HQT status of CAS classes system-wide (see Table BA). Moreover, the HQT staffing percentages for classes with low-income students in secondary English, foreign language, mathematics, science, and reading/language arts are identical to the HQT staff percentages for all CAS classes system-wide. Table BA: Percentage of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers by Class Type School Year System-wide Title I FARMS Special Education 2003-04 48.6 42.6 48.7 47.1 2004-05 62.0 63.0 62.1 60.6 2005-06 62.1 61.9 62.1 59.4 2006-07 66.3 72.1 66.2 63.6 2007-08 73.0 88.4 73.0 69.5 2008-09 82.0 91.6 81.9 78.4 2009-10 88.7 94.4 88.8 85.8 2010-11 90.7 96.6 90.7 88.7

In SY2010-11, although the percent of CAS taught by HQT in Title I schools increased from 94.4% to 96.6%, the school system still fell short of the state’s 100% target (see Table 6.2). Primarily, this can be attributed to mid-year leaves of absence and separations of HQTs. Thus, although a school may start the year with 100 percent of CAS classes being staffed by a HQT, if a leave of absence or a separation occurred during the school year, the system may not have been able to fill vacancies with other teachers who possessed the HQ designation. It is the standard practice of the system to fill short-term vacancies with HQ substitute teachers, but they are often hard to come by. Table 6.2: Percentage of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers in Title I Schools. Include Title I Schools Funded With ARRA Funds. Core Academic Subject Classes % of Core Academic Subject Total Number of Core Academic School Year in Title I Schools Taught by Classes in Title I Schools taught Subject Classes in Title I Schools by HQT Highly Qualified Teachers 2008-2009 1,540 1,411 91.6 2009-2010 5,592 5,280 94.4 2010-2011 4,946 4,777 96.6

Notwithstanding the challenges to staffing all CAS classes with a HQT, significant progress has been made over the past several years in reducing the percentage of CAS classes taught by non-highly qualified teachers (NHQT). In SY2010-11, not only did the overall number of NHQTs in CAS classes decline, but the numbers of NHQTs declined in each of the certification subcategories (see Tables 6.3A and B). This progress is in large part due to focused efforts throughout SY2010-11, including: priority staffing system, assignment monitoring, targeted recruitment, alternative certification programs, and a reduction in the number of conditional teachers. Table 6.3A: Number of Classes Taught by Non-Highly Qualified Teachers (NHQT) by Reason School Year

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

Expired Certificate # classes 648 802 583 216 266 132

Invalid Grade Level(s) for Certification # classes 161 79 67 56 119 105

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Testing Missing Invalid Subject Requirement Certification for Certification Not Met Information # classes # classes # classes 445 1,542 1,453 181 810 1,332 274 647 842 207 657 349 445 1,673 302 392 1,316 209

Conditional Certificate

Total

# classes 2,455 1,499 1,026 869 199 75

# classes 6,704 4,703 3,439 2,354 3,004 2,429 Page | 262


Table 6.3B: Percent of Classes Taught by Non-Highly Qualified Teachers (NHQT) by Reason School Year 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

Expired Certificate % 9.7 17.1 17.0 9.2 8.9 5.4

Invalid Grade Level(s) for Certification % 2.4 1.7 1.9 2.4 4.0 4.3

Testing Requirement Not Met % 6.6 3.8 8.0 8.8 14.8 16.1

Invalid Subject for Certification % 23.0 17.2 18.8 27.9 55.7 62.4

Missing Certification Information % 21.7 28.3 24.5 14.8 10.1 8.6

Conditional Certificate % 36.6 31.9 29.8 36.9 6.6 3.1

Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2. Describe the changes or adjustments and the corresponding resource allocations that were made to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate. In SY2010-11, the school system focused on building its capacity to collect, store, and analyze data in areas that have presented challenges over the past several years. These data have provided Human Resources staff with a greater understanding of the challenges faced, thus informing targeted solutions. In an effort to increase HQT in CAS classes, the system is moving to early identification of HQ designation for newly hired teachers and HOUSSE evaluation for experienced teachers. The HOUSSE evaluation will help to address the test score issues for experienced teachers and will hopefully designate additional teachers as HQ. To address scheduling challenges, the system will continue to focus on placing HQT in a capacity that aligns with their certification. Further, the Division of Human Resources will work with the Divisions of Academics and Business Management Services to determine additional staffing needs based on special course offerings and programs. The system has taken several steps to increase the number of HQT in special education classrooms. One such strategy has been to encourage HQ content certified teachers to add special education endorsements to their teaching certificates. Another strategy has been to focus recruitment efforts on those individuals who are dually certified to teach special education and a CAS. In response to the challenges the system faces to reach and maintain 100% HQTs at Title 1 schools, the Division of Human Resources has identified retired teachers with active substitute teacher cards and who possess the HQ designation. A list of these HQ substitutes is provided annually to Title I schools. B. Based on the Examination of the Equitable Distribution of Highly Qualified Teacher Data (Tables 6.4-6.5) In SY2010-11 the system continued to make steady gains in the percentage of CAS classes taught by HQTs in both high and low poverty schools. In fact, the percentages of CAS classes taught by a HQT in state-designated high poverty schools exceeded the percentages of such classes in low-poverty schools at both the elementary and secondary levels (see Table 6.4). Moreover, among HQTs, the percentage of inexperienced HQTs in high poverty schools did not exceed the percentage of experienced HQTs in low poverty schools (see Table 6.5). Thus, high poverty schools are not being unreasonably inundated with inexperienced teachers. Table 6.4: Core Academic Subject Classes Taught By Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) in High Poverty and Low Poverty Schools By Level Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by HQT High Poverty* Low Poverty School Year And Level Total Classes Taught by HQT Total Classes Taught by HQT # # % # # % 2005-2006 Elementary 1,672 1,091 65.3 127 89 70.1 Secondary 3,496 1,890 59.1 0 0 0.0 2006-2007 Elementary 1,379 1,001 72.6 62 50 80.6 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 263


Table 6.4: Core Academic Subject Classes Taught By Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) in High Poverty and Low Poverty Schools By Level Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by HQT High Poverty* Low Poverty School Year And Level Total Classes Taught by HQT Total Classes Taught by HQT # # % # # % Secondary 3,900 2,249 57.7 0 0 0.0 2007-2008 Elementary 1,500 1,200 80.0 65 59 90.0 Secondary 3,800 2,660 70.0 0 0 0.0 2008-2009 Elementary 1,286 1,188 92.4 46 41 89.1 Secondary 2,970 2,531 85.2 112 89 79.5 2009-2010 Elementary 4,412 4,200 95.2 135 125 92.6 Secondary 5,447 4,894 89.8 194 166 85.6 2010-2011 Elementary 4,260 4,128 96.9 229 201 87.8 Secondary 5,546 5,060 91.2 229 194 84.7 Table 6.5: Core Academic Subject Classes Taught By Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) in High and Low Poverty Schools By Level and Experience Core Academic Subject Classes High Poverty14 Low Poverty Classes Taught by Classes Taught by Classes Taught by Classes Taught by Experienced HQT15 Inexperienced HQT Experienced HQT Inexperienced HQT School Year Level # % # % # % # % Elementary 1,031 86.8 157 13.2 37 90.2 4 9.8 2008-2009 Secondary 2,430 87.2 358 12.8 78 87.6 11 12.4 Elementary 3,735 89.4 445 10.6 121 96.8 4 3.2 2009-2010 Secondary 4,353 89.4 516 10.6 162 97.6 4 2.4 Elementary 3,928 95.2 200 4.8 193 96.0 8 4.0 2010-2011 Secondary 4,421 87.4 639 12.6 189 97.4 5 2.6

During the SY2010-11 wave of retirements, the system lost many experienced teachers which will likely affect the data for SY2011-12. The system will focus on retaining inexperienced HQTs in an effort to continue to build the experience level of all HQT, particularly those in high poverty schools. C. Based on the Examination of Highly Qualified Teacher Retention Data (Table 6.6) 1. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies and corresponding resource allocations to which you attribute progress. What evidence does the schools system have that the strategies in place are having the intended effect? In SY2010-11, although overall teacher attrition increased by 2.5 percentage points over the SY2009-10 rate, PGCPS still managed to reduce teacher attrition in two of the four attrition subcategories – i.e. resignations and leaves of absence (see Table 6.6A and B). In the three-year period from SY2008-09 through SY2010-11, teacher attrition due to “resignations”, which had accounted for more than half (or 53.2%) of teacher attrition in SY2008-09, decreased to 37.2% of total attrition by SY2010-11. During the same period, teacher attrition due to “leaves” of absence, which accounted for 14.4% of teacher attrition in SY2008-09, decreased to 11.6% of overall attrition by SY2010-11. The reductions in both the numbers and the distribution of teachers leaving the school system in these attrition 14

Some local school systems will not have schools that qualify as "high poverty". Experience" for the purposes of differentiation in accordance with No Child Left Behind, is defined as two years or more as of the first day of employment in the 2009-2010 school year.

15

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 264


subcategories is significant because it indicates that the school system is doing a better job of providing both assistance and incentives to retain teachers in whom it has invested considerable resources. Table 6.6A: Teacher Attrition by Subcategory Attrition Retirement Resignation Due To (Category): Num. Denom. Num. Denom. 2006-2007 185 8,955 778 8,955 2007-2008 191 9,200 750 9,200 2008-2009 186 9,077 700 9,077 2009-2010 191 8,976 383 8,976 2010-2011 427 8,459 345 8,459

Dismissal/ Non-renewal Num. Denom. 254 8,955 240 9,200 240 9,077 70 8,976 136 8,459

Leaves Num. Denom. 241 8,955 220 9,200 190 9,077 218 8,976 119 8,459

Num. 1,458 1,401 1,316 862 1,027

Total Denom. 8,955 9,200 9,077 8,976 8,459

Table 6.6B: Percent Attrition by Subcategory Attrition Due To (Category): 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

Retirement % 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.1 5.0

Dismissal/ Non-renewal % 2.8 2.6 2.6 0.8 1.6

Resignation % 8.7 8.2 7.7 4.3 4.1

Leaves % 2.7 2.4 2.1 2.4 1.4

Total % 16.3 15.2 14.5 9.6 12.1

One final area of progress is in the distribution of teacher separations by years of service. As recently as SY2007-08, slightly more than three-in-five teachers (61%) who left the school system had fewer than three years of teaching experience. These separations placed a significant drain on the school system as considerable fiscal and human resources have historically been invested in assisting non-tenured teachers achieve both the standard teacher certification and highly qualified teaching status. In SY2010-11, the percentage of separations from the school system by teachers with less than three years of service was 23.5% indicating a continuing downward trend (see Figure 1). Figure 10: Teacher Separation by Years of Service 100%

75%

61% <3 Years 48%

50%

3-5 Years

48%

6-10 Years 11-15 Years 36%

15+ Years 27%

24% 21% 20%

23%

25%

20% 17%

19% 17% 12% 12%

11%

11%

19%

17%

10%

9%

4%

5%

5%

5%

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

0%

2010-11

Practices, Programs, and Strategies Contributing to Progress By providing effective supports, systematic interventions, and instructional leadership opportunities to teachers, PGCPS creates an environment that incentivizes all educators to remain and prosper in the school system, and become highly qualified and highly skilled in their profession. The school system believes that a strong professional development program is a cornerstone of maintaining a highly effective teacher corps. The system also believes that teacher professional development must be a driving force of the school system's improvement efforts if students are to achieve at high levels. The interdivisional Teacher Professional Development Calendar Review Committee continued to review all professional development requests to ensure that the activities are based on student needs and achievement data. 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 265


The committee also ensured that professional development proposals specify how training will migrate from the system level to the school, are developed using standards for effective teacher professional development, and reflect priorities articulated in the Master Plan and in state and system-wide initiatives. Many of the practices, programs, and strategies for teacher professional development that were implemented in SY2008-09 and SY2009-10 were continued during SY2010-11 to further the improvement and progress towards retaining highly qualified teachers. The supports, systematic interventions, and instructional leadership opportunities to PGCPS teachers during SY2010-11 are as follows: Instructional Coaching Support Instructional coaches support and facilitate change in instructional practices that enable schools to support students to reach high standards. School-based literacy, mathematics, science, ESOL and special education coaches continued to provide support to teachers in high needs schools by modeling lessons, co-teaching, conducting book studies, and collaboratively planning with teachers to support teacher understanding and implementation of the state curriculum. Coaches provided job-embedded professional development through one-on-one conferences, and in small group sessions by grade or content level, by departments, or by skill level. In SY2010-11, fifty-seven (57) instructional coaches provided services in 28 elementary and middle schools. This work was supported through the following allocations: Allocation: $4,876,617 plus the support of one specialist in the Department of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development. National Board Certified Teacher-Leadership Development (NBCT-LD) The NBCT–LD program helps to ensure teacher success by focusing on improving teaching quality and learning experiences for students in the classroom. This is accomplished through various professional development opportunities, including the TakeOne! Program, Full National Board Certification, and site-based professional development at targeted high needs schools. Since the program’s inception in 2007, there has been a concerted effort to inform teaching practice of PGCPS teachers by supporting the candidacy of the National Board Full and Retake Candidates as well as the Take One! participants. In SY 2010-11, fifty-nine PGCPS teachers participated in the TakeOne! Program. Twenty-two (22) teachers participated in the PGCPS/George Washington University Certificate Program, and 180 teachers received the National Board Scholarship of $2,500 scholarship to pursue National Board Certification. Currently there are 257 National Board Certified Teachers in PGCPS. Additionally, support has been provided to teachers not pursuing National Board Certification by providing job-embedded professional development that integrates the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Five Core Propositions into Prince George’s County Public School System initiatives. The alignment of National Board Professional Teaching Standards with the PGCPS curriculum frameworks strengthens teaching and provides a platform for reflective teaching practice. Allocation: $883,658 and grants from National Board, as well as one supervisor and two teacher coordinators at central office. Professional Development Schools The Professional Development Schools (PDS) network continues to establish strong partnerships with local universities to prepare highly qualified teachers. A significant focus of the PGCPS PDS partnerships is improved student performance through research-based teaching and learning. Professional development opportunities offered through the PDS program are a result of PGCPS and the universities engaging in planning that aligns university criteria for training interns with the mission of the division as it relates to teacher effectiveness and student learning. Interns as well as mentor teachers are engaged in action research, professional learning communities, and instruction-based workshops that target school improvement areas. In SY2010-11, thirty (30) PDS schools were operational and contributed to the professional growth and development of 62 Professional Development School interns who were hired as fully certified, highly qualified teachers. Allocation: $368,000 from Title II Part A funding and a specialist from the Department of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development. Professional Educator Induction Program (PEIP) The Professional Educator Induction Program facilitated the entry of nearly 300 new teachers into PGCPS in SY201011. Through this program, new teachers participated in professional development activities designed to assist with more 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 266


fully developing their skills, and to provide them with an understanding of the program implementation and curricula required by the school system. Training focuses on the school system’s instructional programs, on best practices for getting off to a good start, and is differentiated by content area, grade band, and/or program. The 2010- 11 initial PEIP experience was supplemented and reinforced by continuous workshops and seminars which were held at school sites throughout the school year and offered by the administrative area office staff and by specific content area departments that oversee curricula. Additionally, new and experienced teachers participated in the "Classroom Organization and Management Program" and "Cooperative Discipline" Continuing Professional Development courses throughout the school year. Allocation: $100,000 plus $78,555 for materials and supplemental training for the induction of new teachers; and one specialist from the Department of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development. Teacher Mentors The Job-alike Mentor Program, a component of PEIP, pairs school-based master teachers with new teachers to support their early professional growth. School-based teacher leaders provide one-on-one assistance and support to novice teachers teaching in the same content area, department, or at the same grade level. Job-alike mentors' work includes collaborative planning, modeling, co-teaching, book studies, and facilitation of New Teacher Academies. Job-alike mentors are selected by their principals, receive a compensatory emolument, and are eligible to use this professional development activity for renewal credits at the Advanced Professional Certificate level. In SY2010-11, Job-Alike mentors provided support for first and second-year teachers in 91 teachers in 32 schools. The Job-Alike Mentoring Program includes: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

One-on-one mentoring and advisement (25 hours of targeted support); Customized training for Job-Alike Mentors; Resources, materials, and an online network of support for mentors and new teachers; and Substitute funds for collaboration, visitations and observations of best practices.

Allocation: $100,000 and one specialist from the Department of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development. Maryland Approved Alternative Preparation Program (MAAPP) Additionally, mentoring support for new resident teachers continued through the Maryland Approved Alternative Preparation Program (MAAPP). Upon entry into the program, participants are provided with immediate standard professional certification and highly qualified teacher status in exchange for a two- to three-year commitment to teach in the school system. PGCPS partnered with the following five alternative certification programs, all which focused on high needs areas: 1) the PGCPS Resident Teacher Program; 2) Teach for America; 3) the New Teacher Project; 4) the College of Notre Dame Dual Certification Program; and 5) the Maryland Science and Mathematics Resident Teacher Program. A cross-program steering committee met quarterly to provide oversight and guidance to the overall work of alternative teacher preparation support. In SY2010-11, a total of 14 MAAPP mentors provided services for 148 resident teachers. The internal PGCPS Resident Teacher Program experienced a significant achievement in SY 2010-2011, when the program was reviewed by MSDE and approved for five additional years of preparing alternatively certified teachers to work in PGCPS classrooms. PGCPS remains the only LEA in the state having this designation. With 85% of MAAPP teachers over the past three years still teaching in PGCPS, the programs contribute significantly to teacher retention. Allocation: $752,796 local funding plus Title II A Grant funding and one specialist from the Department of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development. Education That is Multicultural Teacher Leadership Program The Office of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development established the Education That is Multicultural (ETM) Teacher Leadership Program in SY2009-10 to address the COMAR 13A.04.05 Regulation and to engage teachers around the work of culturally proficient instruction. Culturally proficient instruction includes the teacher practices and skill sets that provide equitable outcomes for all learners. In SY 2010-11, 47 teachers were selected by their administrators to serve as school-based ETM Teacher Leaders. During collaborative planning meetings and other school-based professional development opportunities, these teacher leaders were responsible for leading and mentoring colleagues on matters related to ETM and culturally proficient instruction as it applies to achievement across the student population. 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 267


Additionally, a Continuing Professional Development ETM course was offered to clarify concepts and share strategies to ensure the infusion of MSDEâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Education That Is Multicultural (COMAR 13A.04.05.01-07) into curriculum and instruction, professional development, assessment, school climate, and instructional resources with the goal of enhanced achievement for all students. Allocation: $100,000 and one specialist from the Department of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development. 2. Describe where challenges are evident. This year, PGCPS experienced significant budgetary reductions which drove an increase in dismissals and nonrenewals. Of the 136 teachers in that category, 44 (or 33.4%) were dismissed due to dismissal for cause or nonrenewal for substandard certificate, while 92 (or two-thirds â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 67.6%) were due to reductions in force and had not been reinstated as of August 30, 2011. The budgetary constraints and subsequent reduction in force posed a significant challenge to retaining new teachers for SY2011-12. In conjunction with the reduction in force, PGCPS offered a one-year retirement incentive program in an effort to mitigate employment separations due to budgetary reductions of positions. This program resulted in a more than doubling of teacher retirements (+123.6%) from the previous year (SY2009-10). As such, the attrition rate due to retirement increased from 2.1% SY2009-10 to 5.0% in SY2010-11 (see Table 6.6B). As a result, the percent of attrition due to retirement greatly surpassed attrition due to other factors, negatively impacting the number of experienced teachers remaining in the system. Moreover, the percentage of total teacher separations by teachers with more than 15 years of service increased by 10 percentage points in SY2010-11 over the percentage for such teachers in SY2009-10 (see Figure 1). Between SY2006-07 and SY2009-10, teacher retirements remained very consistent, ranging between 185 and 191 per year. If SY2010-11 teacher retirements held at the SY2009-10 level (191), overall teacher attrition would have been reduced by 3.8 percentage points, down to 8.3% instead the 12.1% displayed in Table 6.6B. Overall, the system has made significant strides in retaining new teachers entering PGCPS and has reason to believe that the spike in retirements will be short-lived. In SY2011-12 the system expects to see the rates of attrition leveling off across levels of experience as it works to improve retention of both new and experienced teachers. 6.7: Percentage of Qualified Paraprofessionals Working in Title I Schools Table 6.7: Percentage of Qualified Paraprofessionals Working in Title I Schools. Include Title I Schools Funded With ARRA Funds. Total Number of Paraprofessionals Working in Title I Schools

Year 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012*

# 395 442 398 261

Qualified Paraprofessionals Working in Title I Schools

# 395 442 398 261

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 *As of July 1, 2011

The percentage of qualified paraprofessionals working in Title I schools is 100 percent going into the 2011-12 school year. PGCPS has maintained a 100 percent qualification rate for this employee category in each of the past four years (see Table 6.7).

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 268


HIGH QUALITY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Requirements for Reporting on Option 2 Activities Districts that submitted plans for integrating the teacher professional development planning framework included in the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Planning Guide into school improvement planning should report on their progress on each of the four tasks included under this option. The four questions and specific issues to be addressed in the progress reports follow below. 1. Has the district integrated the teacher professional development planning framework into planning district-wide professional development initiatives as well as school-based professional development initiatives? If so, please describe how this was accomplished. If this task has not been completed, include a brief explanation of the challenges and difficulties that were encountered and describe how the task will be completed during the 2011-2012 school year. System-wide Professional Development The teacher professional development planning framework has been integrated in the approval process for system-wide professional development initiatives and offerings. Each central office department offering teacher professional development must have received approvals from the division chief, directors and supervisors before moving through the System Wide Teacher Professional Development Calendar Approval Process. This process ensures that teacher professional development offerings are aligned with the Master Plan and address one or more of the systemic initiatives. Additionally, it encourages collaboration among offering departments and minimized duplication and redundancy of effort. Central to the process is the effort to reduce the number of pull outs of teachers during the school day and adhere that at certain periods during the school year prior to testing, central office did not offer training during the school day. To be considered, professional development offerings have to demonstrate the following: ƒ Articulation of intended impact on student needs which provide the foundational context for designing the professional development activity; ƒ Evidence of need to build teachers’ repertoire of skills in the content or program area; ƒ Evidence that tasks and instructional strategies used by facilitators to engage participants offer high quality adult learning experiences and assist participants to successfully apply what they learn to their leadership and instructional practices; ƒ Articulation of how the professional knowledge and skills teachers gain as a result of participation effectively address the student learning needs; ƒ Alignment of session objectives to the specific goals or initiatives which are identified as systemwide priorities; ƒ Evidence that MSDE teacher professional development and technology standards indicators are used to plan and deliver the content; ƒ Use of appropriately-designed feedback instruments that address the intended workshop outcomes and that can be used to gauge workshop impact; and ƒ Specific evidence of the type of follow-up activities to be used to ensure implementation of the intended learning, including how training will migrate from the system level to the school. Training and Implementation Proposed professional development offerings are submitted electronically using the Professional Development Calendar Submission Form (See Attachment A). The professional development planning framework is incorporated into the form, ensuring that components of high quality professional development are evident in the proposed offering. Training on the use and implementation of the professional development framework is a collaborative effort involving the Office of Instructional Technology and the Office of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development. Central office personnel desiring to offer teacher professional development activities receive training on the calendar approval process and related documents in a session entitled, “Overview of the Professional Development Calendar Process: ERO & Professional Development Workshop Training.” These monthly sessions, facilitated by the Technology Training Team, are designed to help participants understand the professional development approval process and prepare them to successfully complete and submit a proposed workshop offering. Additionally, these sessions guide participants through:

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 269


ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

the electronic access and completion of the Professional Development Calendar Request form, inclusive of the professional development planning framework; an overview of the Ektron electronic portal for professional development submissions; a demonstration of the professional development calendar approval process; Electronic Registrar Online (ERO) training to include adding courses, monitoring attendance and viewing reports; and a demonstration of the Oracle Workshop Payment submission process.

Approval Process Following electronic submission, proposed professional development offerings are reviewed by the System Wide Teacher Professional Development Calendar Committee, an interdivisional group of instructional specialists, supervisors and directors. The committee meets monthly based on the volume of submissions received, to review and approve districtlevel teacher professional development offerings. Once the teacher professional development offerings are approved, they are electronically posted system-wide on the Teacher Professional Development Calendar. All teachers and administrators have access to the online calendar and are able to view and register for system-wide professional development appropriate to their needs. Teachers register for professional development through the ERO system. After attending the professional development offering, teachers provide feedback to the program facilitators and presenters through an online survey automatically generated by ERO. This electronic submission, review, and approval process provides the system with real time data on teacher enrollment and participation in professional development, the ability for each teacher to track her/his own participation in professional development, and the cost of the professional development offerings by content and program. Using this submission process, the System Wide Teacher Professional Development Calendar Committee reviewed and approved 168 system-wide teacher professional development offerings during 20102011. School-based Professional Development The professional development planning framework was integrated into the planning of school-based professional development in Title 1 schools, Alternative Governance schools, and other schools in improvement. This targeted approach allows for more individualized support for these schools as they incorporate the teacher professional development planning framework into their school plans. In order to prepare the schools to implement high quality professional development that is reflective of state professional development standards, the Office of School Improvement has revised reporting templates (Attachment B and Attachment C) to reflect the planning framework and developed reference documents to assist school teams as they create and/or revise their plans. Implications for SY2011-2012 The district will continue to integrate the teacher professional development planning framework into planning for districtwide and school-based professional development. The review and approval process will be reviewed and modified to support district priorities regarding professional development for teachers and administrators. ƒ ƒ

ƒ

ƒ

The newly-formed Office of Talent Development (formerly the Offices of School Leadership and Teacher Leadership and Professional Development) will coordinate the review of proposed system-wide professional development offerings for teachers and administrators. Additionally, the Office of Talent Development (OTD) will ensure that persons planning professional development opportunities for teachers are introduced to the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Planning Guide and have an understanding of how the teacher professional development planning framework should be reflected in proposed training opportunities. OTD will work with the new team of Area Instructional Directors to provide an introduction to the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Planning Guide and the planning framework. Area Instructional Directors will be responsible, in part, for designing, planning, and implementing extensive professional development opportunities for schools and school leadership teams in their respective Areas and in the High School Consortium. In support of the system-wide Teacher Effectiveness initiative, the teacher professional development planning framework will be used as a guide to create new professional development courses that teachers will access to enhance their professional growth in areas identified during the observation process.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 270


2. Has the district implemented a plan to prepare principals, other school leaders, and school-based professional development staff to use the teacher professional development planning framework? If so, describe how this was accomplished. If the district has not implemented a plan to prepare principals and others to use the planning framework, discuss the reasons for not doing so and describe how such a program will be completed during the 2011-2012 school year. Since 2008-2009, the school district has provided opportunities to prepare principals, other school leaders, and schoolbased professional development staff at schools in improvement and Title 1 schools to use the teacher professional development planning framework. The Offices of School Improvement and the Department of Talent Development have worked collaboratively to ensure that experiences such as workshops and trainings, school improvement institutes, collaborative reviews, and technical support are provided for those who are integral to the planning and implementation of professional development at their schools. The professional development opportunities in which school staff participates prepares them for their work as members of collaborative review teams during the annual Bridge to Excellence School Improvement Institute. The institute provided school leadership teams with the opportunity to collaborate with other school staffs to review professional development plans and school-based professional learning activities in which teachers would engage to improve instructional practices and impact student learning. Chart K: Professional Development Opportunities Using the Teacher Professional Development Planning Framework School Year

2008-2009

Professional Development Opportunities

ˆ School-based Technical Assistance

ˆ Performance Management Analysis and Planning Process (PMAPP) Preparation

2009-2010 ˆ Professional Development Calendar Sessions

Description

Specialists from the Department of School Improvement provided face-to-face assistance and feedback for principals and school teams regarding the development of their school improvement plans and how to integrate the elements of high quality professional development into their calendar of activities. The professional development calendars were modified to reflect the elements of high-quality professional development as indicated in the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Planning Guide. School Improvement specialists worked with school teams to prepare for quarterly PMAPP sessions in which needs for professional growth opportunities were identified and incorporated into schools’ professional development calendars. School Improvement Specialists responsible for providing technical assistance to school teams participated in this training to review the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Planning Guide and prepare to assist teams in incorporating the elements of high-quality professional development in their calendar of activities.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

School-based Personnel

ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Principals Assistant Principals School Improvement Team Instructional Coaches Selected School-based Leaders

ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

ƒ

Principals Assistant Principals School Improvement Team Instructional Coaches Selected School-based Leaders

ƒ

School Improvement Specialists

Page | 271


Chart K: Professional Development Opportunities Using the Teacher Professional Development Planning Framework School Year

Professional Development Opportunities

ˆ Accountability Portfolio Review Training

ˆ Using the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Planning Guide ˆ School-based Assistance

Technical

ˆ Facilitator and Reviewer Training for the Bridge to Excellence Institute

ˆ Annual Bridge to Excellence Institute

2010-2011

ˆ Developing Action Plan

the

ˆ Developing the Governance Plan

Corrective

Alternative

ˆ Accountability Portfolio Review Training

Description

School Improvement Specialists collaborated with school teams as they planned professional development opportunities for teachers and prepared school personnel to monitor and follow up on the sessions in which teachers participated. This session engaged participants in a review of the components of high-quality professional development and introduced staff to the professional development planning guide. School Improvement Specialists provided professional development and assistance to support school teams as they prepared their professional development calendar Review team members and session facilitators reviewed the professional development planning process and explored sample professional development plans in preparation for participation in the annual institute. Participants received training on the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Standards and how to incorporate the elements of highquality professional development in to their school professional development calendars. School teams worked together to identify components of the Corrective Action Plan and review professional development plans created to support identified areas of need. School teams worked together to identify components of the Alternative Governance Plan and review professional development plans created to support identified areas of need. School Improvement Specialists collaborated with school teams as they planned professional development opportunities for teachers and prepared school personnel to monitor and follow up on the sessions in which teachers participated.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

School-based Personnel

ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Principals Assistant Principals School Improvement Team Selected School-based Leaders

ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Instructional Coaches Selected School-based Leaders Area and Central Office Staff School Improvement Specialists

ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Principals Assistant Principals School Improvement Team Instructional Coaches Selected School-based Leaders Central and Area Office Staff Title 1 Staff Instructional Coaches

ƒ

Schools Teams Implementing Alternative Governance Plans Area Directors Area Achievement Coaches Review Team Members

ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

School Teams in Newly-identified Corrective Action Schools Central and Area Office Staff

ƒ

School Teams in Newly-identified Alternative Governance Schools Central and Area Office Staff

ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Principals Assistant Principals School Improvement Team Selected School-based Leaders

Page | 272


Chart K: Professional Development Opportunities Using the Teacher Professional Development Planning Framework School Year

Professional Development Opportunities

ˆ Reviewer Training for School Improvement Plan

Description

the

ˆ eBridge to Excellence Institute Preparation

Area staff participated in this training that prepared them to review school plans for approval and to ensure alignment with the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Standards and planning framework. Using an electronic protocol, school teams uploaded their draft School Improvement plan and professional development calendar to the School Improvement Google Site in preparation for the modified eBridge to Excellence Institute.

School-based Personnel

ƒ ƒ

Central and Area Office Staff Title 1 Staff

ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Principals Assistant Principals School Improvement Team Selected School-based Leaders

Implications for 2011-2012: Many of the professional development opportunities in which teachers and school teams participated to explore the use of the teacher professional development framework are coordinated and/or facilitated by central office personnel. Given the limited capacity of central and area offices to provide a similar level of support during 2011-2012, the following modifications have been made: ƒ

The eBridge to Excellence collaborative reviews and feedback will be conducted electronically, and a Google site including pertinent training documents and supplemental resources has been developed to prepare and guide staff through the review process. In preparation, the Office of School Improvement presented the modified review process and eBridge to Excellence Google site to principals and area office staff, including Instructional Directors;

ƒ

The Office of Talent Development (OTD) will work with the new team of Area Instructional Directors and their principals to provide an introduction to the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Planning Guide and the planning framework. Area Instructional Directors will supervise approximately 15 principals, and while their primary focus will be developing principal capacity, they will also be responsible, in part, for collaborating with school instructional teams to design, plan, and implement professional development opportunities for schools and school leadership teams;

ƒ

In support of the work of building school-based teacher capacity, and the potential need to strengthen cross-school learning communities, OTD will provide an overview of the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Planning Guide and the planning framework that school-based teacher leaders may access online; and

ƒ

The session “Overview of the Professional Development Calendar Process” will continue for central office personnel desiring to offer teacher professional development activities. OTD will collaborate with the Technology Training Team to ensure that participants understand the professional development approval process and are prepared to successfully prepare and submit a proposed workshop offering.

3. Has the district implemented a program to prepare district staff for reviewing and providing feedback on school-based professional development plans? If so, describe the program. If the district has not implemented a program to prepare district staff for reviewing and providing feedback on the professional development plans, discuss the reasons for not doing so and describe how such a program will be completed during the 2011-2012 school year. Selected central office and area administrative office staff were responsible for reviewing and providing feedback to schools throughout the year as they created, implemented, and monitored their professional development plans. Schools often included central office staff in their plans as partners in their school improvement efforts. Staff that could articulate and recognize high quality professional development and its impact on a teacher’s instructional practices were engaged in this process as they could provide invaluable support to the schools they served. Central offices providing such services 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 273


included the area administrative offices, the High School Consortium, the Departments of School Improvement and Curriculum and Instruction, Teacher Leadership and Professional Development, and the Title 1 and Testing Offices. The Office of School Improvement and the Office of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development worked collaboratively to provide training for principals, school leaders, and central office staff so that they could review submitted School Improvement and Alternative Governance plans during the beginning months of the following school year. Prior to their review of school plans, central office staff participated in training consisting of a comprehensive overview of pertinent documents, including the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Planning Guide and selected School Improvement/Alternative Governance Plans and Professional Development Calendars. Schools in improvement and all Title 1 schools participate in the annual Bridge to Excellence Institute. As recommended by the Bridge to Excellence Master Plan, the institute provides opportunities for school improvement teams to participate in collaborative peer reviews and enhance their school improvement plans by engaging in meaningful discussions with administrators, central and area office staff and parents. During the institute, school improvement teams consisting of the principal, school planning and management team members, a parent/community representative, and other members of the school leadership team collaborate on research-based strategies and best practices to improve student performance. The review process has been modified for the 2011-2012 school year to provide continued support for schools in light of limited central and area office resources. In the spring of 2011, the Office of School Improvement introduced the eBridge to Excellence School Improvement Institute to enable schools to receive meaningful feedback on strategies and activities that address student achievement in the 2011-2012 School Improvement Plan (SIP). The eBridge to Excellence collaborative reviews and feedback will be conducted electronically, and a Google site including pertinent training documents and supplemental resources has been developed to prepare and guide staff through the review process. To further prepare school leaders, the Office of School Improvement presented the modified review process and eBridge to Excellence Google site to principals in August 2011 during the annual Summer Leadership Institute. Additionally, the Office of School Improvement provided an overview of the eBridge to Excellence School Improvement Institute to Area Office staff, including Instructional Directors. In August 2011, principals assembled collaborative teams consisting of key school-based stakeholders to participate in the review process. In addition to the principal, team members could have included a parent, parent liaison, core academic subject teacher coordinators/ reading specialists and/or department chairs, a special education and/or ESOL teacher. Areas and central office staff specialists as well as experienced, trained reviewers from various content areas comprised the remainder of the review team. The plan to be reviewed was emailed by the school improvement specialist to the principal of the partner school for distribution and to selected area/central office reviewers. Using the reflection documents, guidelines, school improvement plan templates, and other supporting documents downloaded from the eBridge Google site, reviewers worked individually or joined with other team members to review and prepare feedback for their partner school. Table BB provides an overview of timelines and review protocols for the eBridge to Excellence School Improvement Institute. Teams began the review process by examining any data about their partner school on mdreportcard.org and fourth quarter PMAPP data forwarded to them by the school. Team members individually reviewed Section V: Performance Management Analysis and Planning Process (PMAPP) strategies with â&#x20AC;&#x153;Activities to Increase Student Achievement/Teacher Capacity.â&#x20AC;? After a review of proposed activities, recommendations and commendations were listed on the Reflection Document. Following the independent reviews, teams scheduled time to meet to formally review the activities and come to consensus on recommendations, which were recorded on the CPR Reflection Document for their partner school. Upon completion, the review team emailed their CPR Reflection Document and the Verification Form to the Office of School Improvement. Team members were provided link and asked to share feedback on the Google site and the electronic format for the 2011-2012 eBridge to Excellence School Improvement Institute.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 274


Table BB: Timeline for the eBridge to Excellence School Improvement Institute Review Process Timeline

Review Protocols

May 2, 2011 – July 14, 2011

Draft School Improvement plan uploaded to the School Improvement Google Site for schools in improvement and all Title 1 schools Collaborative Peer Reviews take place. ƒ Checklists emailed to the Office of School Improvement ƒ Principal secures signatures of the school-based reviewers on the verification form and sends original to OSI via interoffice mail delivery. Final plan should be uploaded to the school’s folder on the School Improvement Google Site. Consensus checklist posted in the school’s folder on the School Improvement Google Site SIP reviewed by Instructional Director Final checklists emailed to the Office of School Improvement Final checklist uploaded to the school’s folder All SIP revisions should be posted to the school’s folder on the School Improvement Google Site.

August 3-29, 2011

By August 26, 2011 By August 31, 2011 August 29, 2011 – September 16, 2011 September 23, 2011 September 26, 2011 October 14, 2011

In September 2011, school plans will be reviewed prior to baseline school PMAPP meetings. Activities listed in the plans will be reviewed at quarterly PMAPP sessions coordinated by the area assistant superintendents, and schools will have the opportunity to modify activities and strategies based on teacher need and/or student progress. 4. How is the district monitoring implementation and impact of the school-based professional development activities? If so, discuss the results of the review process and any lessons learned about the need for additional and/or different kinds of training and support for school and district staff. What specific strategies are in place for working with schools to monitor implementation and impact of school-based professional development in 2011-2012 and beyond? Through the Performance Management Analysis and Planning Process (PMAPP), a collaborative method of monitoring critical student achievement and performance data, the district was able to review the implementation and impact of school-based professional development activities. Both central office and school staff participates in PMAPP, and sessions for schools include an assessment of professional development needs, activities, and the impact on teacher performance and effectiveness. Each principal reports to his or her area assistant superintendent three to four times a year (Table BC) and shares analyses of school data, reflections on lessons learned, evaluations of strategies, and next steps. Additionally, school-based PMAPP gives principals the opportunity to identify any needs for professional development activities based on student data and state how teachers are implementing differentiated instruction based on data and their participation in professional development activities.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 275


High School Consortium Turn-Around Schools

4

1 2 3

Area

November 15,17, and 19, 2010 November 7, 2010

November 15 and 22, 2010 November 15, 2010 November 15,18, and 22, 2010 November 10, 11, 15,16, and 17, 2010

1st Quarter Review of formative metrics and the School Improvement Plan monitoring tool

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

September 16-17, 2010 September 29-30, 2010 September 13, 16, and 20, 2010 October 1, 2, and 5, 2010

Baseline PMAPP Sessions Review of baseline metrics and the top five activities from the School Improvement Plan for each school at area meetings with cohorts of principals

February 14, 17, and 18, 2011 February 16, 2011

February 17, 23, and 24, 2011 February 17, 2011 February 24 and 28, 2011 February 24 and 28, 2011 March 2-3, 2011

2nd Quarter Review of formative metrics and the School Improvement Plan monitoring tool

June 20, 22, and 23, 2011 June 8, 2011

June 1, 2011 June 1-2 and 8-10, 2011

June 1-2, 2011

4th Quarter Discussion of April and May assessments and other formative metrics for the third quarter

Page | 276

April 11, 13, and 14, 2011 No PMAPP due to MSA

No PMAPP due to MSA

3rd Quarter Review of formative metrics and the School Improvement Plan monitoring tool

Table BC: Area and High School Consortium Performance Management Analysis and Planning Process (PMAPP) 2010-2011 Meeting Dates


Lessons Learned and Strategies to Address The school-based PMAPP presentations provide an opportunity for school-based and central office officials to discuss the impact of professional development activities and identify the support teachers need to teach more effectively and prepare students for success. These discussions also include data from benchmark assessments and classroom observations. In SY2010-11, the school-based PMAPP process revealed the following: ƒ

There is a need for planning professional development activities that are data driven and have a lens on teacher effectiveness. At both the systemic and school-house levels, professional development needs will be driven by the data collected in the principal PMAPP sessions as well as surveys from teachers and student achievement data.

ƒ

A repository of best practices for assisting teachers and administrators seeking to improve teacher effectiveness is needed. The development of the best practices repository began in the spring of 2010 through a series of focus groups consisting of central office, school-based administrators, and a cross-section of teachers. Once completed, the repository will serve as a resource to school communities of practice as they seek to facilitate and transfer content and pedagogy to the classroom setting. This will support the system’s aim to tie closely with accountability measures for teacher effectiveness linked to student achievement.

ƒ

Moving forward, there remains a need to think critically about how professional development is provided in light of limited systemic resources. Building the capacity of school–based instructional leaders will be essential as these leaders play a crucial role in the planning and implementation of the school’s instructional and professional development program. Professional learning opportunities for these leaders and the teachers they support will be more targeted in order to address specific needs of each school. Additionally, Instructional Directors will work with the principals and instructional leadership teams of their assigned schools to design, plan, and implement needed professional development opportunities.

ƒ

Increased capacity of school-based leaders to lead collaborative planning and instructional conversations is critical. Collaborative Planning will remain the vehicle through which instructional teams are able to reflect on what is needed to support teaching and learning in individual schools. During regularly scheduled collaborative planning sessions, teams will review data, design instructional modifications, and plan follow-up support, inclusive of needed professional development activities. As the efforts to improve teaching and learning continue, professional development will be approached collaboratively and be informed more by student data.

ƒ

The traditional “sit and get” approach to professional development should not be the norm. This will become an area of focus for the 2011-2012 school year, and teachers will be provided an opportunity to share what professional development opportunities would help them and their colleagues perform their work better. A special PGCPS email account will be set up to receive and respond to the feedback shared by system employees, and results will used to guide planning and implementation of professional development opportunities at the system and school levels.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 277


New for 2011: COMAR regarding teacher induction/mentoring and new reporting requirements as part of the Master Plan process were submitted to the State Board of Education for approval in March, 2011. Each LEA must provide the following information regarding their teacher induction/mentoring program: A description of the mentoring program; Data regarding the scope of the mentoring program, including the number of probationary teachers and the number of mentors who have been assigned; and The process used to measure the effectiveness of the induction/mentoring and the results of that measurement. Program Description: The Professional Educator Induction Program (PEIP) facilitates the professional development of teachers during the induction period. Through this program, new teachers in Prince George's County Public Schools receive guidance and training designed to assist them in developing their skills and facilitating understanding in implementing programs and curricula required by the school system. An integral component of PEIP is the August pre-service induction program for teachers new to teaching in PGCPS. During this three-day training, new teachers are introduced to school system leaders and fellow educators, and receive information regarding curriculum, systemic initiatives and priorities. Sessions are led by master teachers and content supervisors and are differentiated according to instructional level and/or content area. Attendance at the August 2010 induction session totaled 272 new PGCPS educators, including 151 resident teachers. In addition to the initial August training, follow-up sessions were available during the year to further assist new teachers with their professional development needs and to encourage reflection upon their practice. During 2010-2011, the program’s induction activities support first- and selected second-year teachers only. Induction activities will be expanded to include third-year non-tenured teachers in 2011-2012. Number of Mentors and Teachers Receiving Mentoring Support: Mentoring support for new teachers was provided in a variety of ways: Chart L: New Teacher Mentor Support by Type of Mentor Type of Mentoring Support/Program Alternative Teacher Preparation (ATP) Mentors

Description ƒ

ƒ ƒ

Instructional Coaches

School-based “Job-Alike” Mentors

ƒ

Provide full-time mentor support to 1st year and identified 2nd year resident teachers in Maryland Approved Alternative Preparation Programs (MAAPP) Interact with new teachers at a minimum of one (1) 45-minute visit per week Collaborate with principal and other schoolbased leaders to provide instructional support to new and experienced teachers in identified schools Provide content-based support to identified new and experienced teachers at a minimum of one (1) 90-minute classroom visit/instructional interaction per week at selected high-needs schools, Alternative Governance Schools, and schools in improvement

ƒ Provide a minimum of 25 hours of mentoring support to new teachers (1st -year and selected 2nd -year resident teachers) during the course of the school year

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Number of Teachers Supported

Number ƒ 15 ATP Mentors ƒ

57 instructional coaches; 25 coaches indicating instructional support provided for 1st and 2nd year teachers

98 Job-Alike Mentors

ƒ

141 first- and identified second-year resident teachers Ratio of up to 1:10 (mentor to new teachers)

60 first- and second-year teachers supported, including resident teachers

ƒ 132 1st- and identified 2nd-year resident teachers not receiving mentor support from ATP mentor ƒ Ratio of up to 1:12 (mentor to new teachers) Page | 278


Approach Used to Determine the Effectiveness of the Program: Mentoring and Coaching are identified as core services provided by the Office of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development in its 2010-2011 Performance Plan. The school system’s Performance Management Analysis and Planning Process (PMAPP) provides the opportunity to assess, reflect upon, and report on ”performance measures,” aspects of the program’s effectiveness in meeting the needs of the teachers and increasing retention rates. The Office of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development facilitated the process for obtaining feedback regarding program effectiveness. Resulting feedback was shared and discussed during February 2011 and June 2011 PMAPP central office sessions and used to make needed program refinements. Examples of the program’s performance measures for 2011-2012: Chart M - Performance Measures for Mentoring and Coaching 2010-2011 Program Component / Core Service Mentoring and Coaching

Performance Measures ƒ

ƒ

ƒ

ƒ

ƒ ƒ

Percent of surveyed mentor teachers rating their resident teachers as “adequately prepared” or “well prepared” in their teaching practice Percent of surveyed resident teachers rating their mentoring support as “very effective” and “effective” Percent of surveyed principals rating their resident teachers as “satisfactory” (year-end evaluation process) Percent of resident teachers successfully completing their first year of teaching and returning for the second year Percent of surveyed principals rating their instructional coaches as “effective” or “highly effective” Percent of surveyed teachers rating instructional coaching services as “effective” or “highly effective”

ƒ Percent of surveyed teachers rating instructional coach-led professional development as helpful with “agree” or “strongly agree” designation ƒ Percent of schools receiving coaching services that demonstrate academic progress on School Performance Index (SPI)

Timeline/Frequency February 2011 June 2011 Midyear End of year 88%

74% 83% FINAL: 84% ND (No data -- yearend survey)

93% FINAL: 93%

95.7%

95.7% FINAL: 95.7%

100%

100% FINAL: 100%

ND (No data -- yearend survey)

93% FINAL: 93%

ND (No data -- yearend survey)

97% FINAL: 97%

B – Basic; P – Proficient; A – Advanced

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

99% FINAL: 93%

Implications for SY2011-2012 ƒ Data suggested that there seems to be a need to provide a more comprehensive network of new teacher support and to clearly define the components and types of support available: □ Identify various new teacher supports, including school-based mentors, full-time itinerant mentors, program/content specific follow-up training and support, etc. □ Use the 2011 Teaching, Empowering, Leading and Learning (TELL) Maryland Survey data to identify additional areas of focus for program revision.

B – Basic; P – Proficient; A – Advanced

Page | 279


New Teacher Induction for 2011-2012 Attendance at the August 2011 induction session totaled 134, including 79 resident teachers. For 2011-2012, new teacher induction will be modified to include differentiated approaches in an effort to meet the needs of the teachers during various stages of growth throughout the extended induction period (See Chart N). With the loss of instructional coaching positions, additional opportunities for non-traditional teacher support will be offered. Additionally, job-alike mentor support will be offered based on available funding provided to the Office of Talent Development and will be modified to provide more focused support to identified second- and third-year teachers. Job-alike mentors are experienced master teachers selected by their principals to provide a minimum of 25 hours of onsite support for up to two (2) of their non-tenured colleagues. These mentors help new teachers transition to their school assignment, and they provide additional support that includes lesson planning and delivery, and classroom management as needed. Teachers who are selected to serve as job-alike mentors participate in training provided by the Office of Talent Development and receive an emolument for their support. Training for school-based mentors will be provided at a minimum of one face-to-face and/or virtual session per semester, with ongoing communication via a dedicated online site for job-alike mentors. Chart N - New Teacher Induction and Support: School Year 2011-2012 Element a. Orientation program before the school year begins (1st year teachers)

Content

Structure

Participant Outcomes

The pre-service August orientation for new teachers includes the following sessions: ƒ Welcome to Prince George’s County Public Schools ƒ Enhancing Professional Practice: An Introduction to the Framework for Teaching ƒ Conscious Classroom Management: Maximizing Student Behavior ƒ Content-specific Training

ˆ Three-day pre-service orientation with whole group, small-group and differentiated sessions; ˆ Sessions taught by master teachers, content supervisors, and central office personnel in model classrooms; ˆ Supporting texts distributed to new teachers: ƒ Enhancing Professional Practice: a Framework for Teaching (Danielson) ƒ The Teacher’s Guide to Success (Kronowitz) ƒ Discipline Survival Kit for the Secondary Teacher (Thompson)

ˆ Develop awareness of systemic organization and structure, priorities and processes; ˆ Access and examine PGCPS curriculum and principles of learning and teaching that form the framework for planning, implementing and assessing instruction; ˆ Acquire and practice strategies for effective classroom management; and ˆ Plan and prepare for successful opening of school year ˆ Practice effective instructional and classroom management strategies; ˆ Make instructional decisions based on student data; ˆ Complete successful year of teaching and return for another year of service

b. Support from a Mentor support includes: mentor ƒ Strategies for effective classroom management and organization st (1 and identified ƒ Collaborative lesson planning nd rd 2 and 3 year and feedback and probationary ƒ Review of student work and teachers) assessment data Additionally, full-time mentor support includes: ƒ Demonstration lessons in new teachers’ classrooms ƒ Classroom visits with pre- and post-conferencing ƒ Professional portfolio guidance and feedback for new resident teachers

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

New teachers are provided mentor support as follows: ƒ Alternative Teacher Preparation (ATP) Mentors: □ Full-time mentor support for 1st year and identified 2nd year resident teachers; □ mentors to interact with new teachers a minimum of one (1) 45-minute visit per week ƒ School-based “Job-alike” mentors”: □ provide a minimum of 25 hours of mentoring support to new teachers during course of the school year. ƒ Online “virtual” mentors: □ provide resources, instructional strategies, opportunities for reflection and collaboration with network of mentors, master teachers and other new teachers □ Google and Moodle sites for new teachers □ Webinars and online discussion boards facilitated by experienced mentors and master teachers

Page | 280


Chart N - New Teacher Induction and Support: School Year 2011-2012 Element

Content

c. Regularly scheduled opportunities to observe or coteach with skilled teachers

Observation and co-teaching episodes are planned on a biweekly basis, at minimum, and include the following elements: ƒ Pre-conferencing and planning opportunities (includes goal-setting and look-fors); (1st and selected ƒ Observation or co-teaching 2nd year teachers) episode; and ƒ Post-conferencing, reflections, and next steps. d.Ongoing ƒ Professional Educator Induction Program follow-up professional sessions to include a development minimum of two (2) in domains of Framework for (1st, 2nd , and 3rd Teaching (FFT) year teachers) ƒ Continuing Professional Development coursework, with emphasis on classroom management and organization, available in a three semester format ƒ New Teacher Academies led by job-alike mentors and assigned school-based instructional leaders with emphasis on classroom management, instructional strategies, and collaborative planning ƒ Periodic content-based trainings led by curriculum supervisors e. Ongoing ˆ Formal and informal observations by schoolformative review based administrators, of new teacher including walkthroughs performance ˆ Classroom visits and based on clearly observations by coaches defined teaching and mentors with debriefing standards and feedback ˆ Comprehensive professional portfolios created by (1st, 2nd and 3rd identified resident teachers year teachers) organized around domains in Danielson Framework.

Structure

Participant Outcomes

To provide new teachers opportunities to observe or co-teach with skilled teachers, mentors will be assigned as follows: ƒ Alternative Teacher Preparation Mentors to first-year and identified second-year resident teachers ƒ School-based “Job-Alike” Mentors to support first-year and identified secondyear teachers in like content/grade levels

ˆ Implement effective instructional and classroom management strategies using a variety of resources ˆ Participate in collaborative lesson planning with colleagues ˆ Make instructional decisions based on student data

Ongoing support through professional development to include: ƒ Professional Educator Induction Program Follow-up Sessions ƒ Continuing Professional Development Courses ƒ School-based New Teacher Academies and Collaborative Planning Sessions ƒ Content-based Sessions (Systemic)

ˆ Implement effective instructional and classroom management strategies using a variety of resources ˆ Plan collaboratively with colleagues ˆ Make instructional decisions based on student data ˆ Increase curriculum content knowledge and improve lesson instruction

ˆ Observation and feedback from schoolbased administrators ˆ Mentor visitation and consultation ˆ Professional portfolios

ˆ

Enhance reflective teaching practices

Mentor Training and Preparation Full-time mentors will participate in ongoing statewide and systemic training to ensure that they are prepared to provide the most effective assistance possible to their teachers. Highlights of the training opportunities for mentor teachers are detailed in Chart O.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 281


Chart O: Highlighted Mentor Training and Preparation 2011-2012 Training Opportunity Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) Teacher Induction Academy

Mentor Teacher Team Meetings

Harvard University Online Course – “Face to Face Coaching for Understanding”

Common Core Curriculum Training

Framework for Teaching Training

Training on Systemic Instructional Initiatives

Description Mentors will participate in new teacher induction training sponsored by MSDE and delivered by The New Teacher Center. During the summer academies and follow-up online sessions, mentors will develop techniques for gathering, analyzing, and using student data/work to guide instructional decisions that lead to student achievement. Additionally, the training will provide the opportunity for mentors to develop knowledge of the Maryland Common Core State Curriculum and instructional strategies incorporating Universal Design for Learning, identify tools to differentiate instruction and develop practical strategies to support new teachers in effectively meeting the challenges they commonly face when entering the profession. These half-day, bi-weekly sessions, led by the Office of Talent Development, are designed to engage mentors in professional development activities, provide time for data review, reflection and program improvement, and allow opportunities for collaboration with coordinators and managers of the alternative teacher programs supported through mentoring. This 13-week online course will introduce participants to Harvard Graduate School’s “Teaching for Understanding” framework and explore how to use its design to develop a coaching plan focused on pedagogical concerns. Participants will learn how to use various Face to Face coaching techniques, have the opportunity to reflect on the strategic goals of PGCPS and use these to design a school-wide coaching plan, learn how to use protocols and other tools to support teachers and help them develop a deeper understanding of pedagogical ideas, and discover how to work towards the development of a culture of understanding, engaging colleagues in collaborative inquiry to improve learning. This session, led by the Division of Academics, will feature an overview of the Common Core Standards, highlighting the system’s timetable for implementation of the Standards and the supports that will be used to be ready for full implementation by 2012-2013. Participants will experience an hour session in both Reading/English Language Arts and Mathematics. Participants will gain an understanding of the common core standards and the impact on instruction and assessments. Led by the Office of Talent Development, these sessions will each focus on a specific domain of the Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching to enhance the mentors’ capacity to provide support for and feedback to new teachers through the lens of the identified instructional practices. These trainings will focus on systemic instructional priorities, including Collaborative Planning, Disciplinary Literacy, and Cognitive Demand, and will provide continued opportunities for mentors to increase their knowledge and strengthen their capacity to support teachers in the implementation of associated instructional practices.

Timeline August 2-4, 2011 Fall 2011 Spring 2012

September 2, 2011 and continuing biweekly throughout the school year September 8, 2011 with online modules continuing through December 2011

September 16, 2011

October 13, 2011 December 9, 2011 February 10, 2011 May 11, 2011 Minimum one training per quarter or semester as appropriate

Mentors will be surveyed during the year to assess the impact of the training opportunities on their daily work and will be expected to use skills acquired to strengthen their mentoring practice. Feedback will also be requested from principals and teachers receiving mentor support to determine how effective mentor support is in the areas in which they received training. In an effort to keep the mentors’ skillset current, additional training in targeted areas may be added throughout the year.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 282


ATTACHMENT A Professional Development Calendar Submission Form Prince George’s County Public Schools y Office of Talent Development View Teacher Professional Development Calendar Scoring Rubric Title of Professional Development offering, activity, or program: Brief Program Description: Use this space to provide a brief (not to exceed 100 words) description of the professional development. Note the intended outcomes, list intended audience.. Division Department Type of Professional Development offering (i.e., institute, Conference, Workshop, Seminar, Course, Module, etc): One time only? ‰ Yes ‰No Recurring - Same workshop offered multiple times to Series - workshops for same audience with different topic each accommodate large number of participants Recurring?

‰ Yes ‰No

‰ Yes ‰No

Series

Recurring, No. of Times

Series No. of Times

List dates if Recurring

List dates if Series

Total Number of Hours for this Activity How many total hours of professional development are you requesting for this specific group this year? Are you collaborating with any other departments to provide this ‰ Yes ‰No type of professional development to this specific group? If When? Beginning Date

Ending Date

Beginning Time

Ending Time

yes, with

whom?

Proposed Location: Confirmed Location

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 283


Audience/Participants: Use the following matrix to indicate who will participate in the professional development. Program Grade Specialty Audience America's Choice

ECC

Adapted Physical Education

Assistant Principals

Art

PreK

Assistive Technology

Chairs

Business Education

Head Start

Autism

Coaches

Dance

Kindergarten

CRI

Coordinator

Data Coaching

Grade 1

CSEP

Guidance Secretary

Drama

Grade 2

Emotional Impairment

Home and Hospital Teachers

Early Childhood

Grade 3

Deaf and Hard of Hearing

Mentors

English - HS

Grade 4

Dual Language Assessment Team

Paraprofessional

ESOL

Grade 5

Early Childhood

Parent Liaisons

Family and Consumer Science

Grade 6

Intensive

Peer Mediation Coordinator

Foreign Language

Grade 7

Occupational Therapy

Principals

Guidance

Grade 8

Physical Therapy

Professional School Counselors

Head Start

Grade 9

Resource

Professional School Nurses

Health Education

Grade 10

Speech Language Pathologist

Pupil Personnel Workers

Instructional Technology

Grade 11

Vision

Reading Specialists

JROTC

Grade 12

MEANS

Records Secretary

Library Media

Elementary

Compliance

Regional Teachers

Mathematics

Middle

Nonpublic

Registrars

Montessori

High

Infant/Toddlers

School Test Coordinator

Music - Instrumental

Reading Recovery

Specialists

Music- Vocal

AVID

Supervisory Staff

Physical Education

IFL

Teacher

Psychological Services

IFL/DL

Zone Staff

Reading - ELA

Regional

Science

Vocational

Social Studies

School Psychology

Special Education

Early Childhood General Ed

Student Services

Counselors

Technology Education

Health Services

Testing

Office Support

Title 1 Others: 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 284


Estimated number of participants: Mandated? Required opportunity: MSDE Required: Funding Source:

Stipend provided:

Credit-bearing course: CPD Course?: CPD Tuition or fee: Cost: Substitute required: Meal provided:

‰ Yes ‰ No ‰ Yes ‰ No ‰ Yes ‰ No ‰ System Funded ‰ Grant Funded Grant Title: Approved by:

(grant manager)

‰ Yes ‰ No ‰ Half day - $87.50 ‰ Full day - $175.00 ‰ Curriculum Development - $200.00 ‰ Curriculum Development - Instructional Capacity - $250.00 ‰ Yes ‰ No How many credits? ‰ Yes ‰ No ‰ Yes ‰ No ‰ Yes ‰ No ‰ Yes ‰ No ‰ Breakfast ‰ Lunch ‰ Dinner

Brief Statement of Need: (not to exceed 75 words) Briefly describe (1) student learning needs identified; (2) professional knowledge and skills teachers need to master to effectively address the student learning needs; and (3) the data reviewed to identify the student learning needs. Adult Learning Strategies: Describe the tasks and instructional strategies that facilitators will use to engage participants in a high-quality adult learning experience. How will these activities assist participants to successfully apply to their leadership and instructional practices? Materials Required: (i.e. text, articles, laptop, etc.) Register by:

What master plan goal(s) does this address? (Use CTRL+ Left click to select more than one)

Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5

Which System Initiative(s) does this address? (Use CTRL + Left click to select more than one) Institute for Learning America's Choice (ES/MS)

Other System Initiative not listed above: 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 285


Which MSDE Teacher PD Standard and indicator(s) does the professional development address? See List of Standards(double-click to view) Content Standards I. Content knowledge and quality teaching

II. Research-based

III. Collaboration

Indicators: ‰ 1a ‰ 1b ‰ 1c IV. Diverse Learning Needs

Indicators: ‰ 2a ‰ 2b ‰ 2c V. Student learning standards

Indicators: ‰ 3a ‰ 3b ‰ 3c VI. Family Involvement

Indicators: ‰ 4a ‰ 4b ‰ 4c

Indicators: ‰ 5a ‰ 5b ‰ 5c

Indicators: ‰ 6a ‰ 6b ‰ 6c

Process Standards VII. Data-Driven

VIII. Evaluation

IX. Design and teacher learning

Indicators: ‰ 7a ‰ 7b ‰ 7c ‰ 7d ‰ 7e

Indicators: ‰ 8a ‰ 8b ‰ 8c ‰8d

Indicators: ‰ 9a ‰ 9b ‰ 9c ‰ 9d ‰ 9e

Follow-up: Briefly describe (not to exceed 50 words) what types of follow-up activities will be used to ensure implementation of the intended learning?

Evaluation How will the evaluation be done? ERO Evaluation Form Other Form Title Contact Information Name Position Title Department Email Telephone Number Approvals Level One (director) Calendar Committee Comments

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 286


2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 287


Participants:

Justification(s)/Need(s):

MSDE PD Standard:

Participants:

Justification(s)/Need(s):

MSDE PD Standard:

Participants:

Justification(s)/Need(s):

MSDE PD Standard:

Participants:

Justification(s)/Need(s):

MSDE PD Standard:

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Timeline:

Targeted subgroups:

Person(s) responsible:

Timeline: Topic/Title:

Master Plan Goal(s):

Targeted subgroups:

Person(s) responsible:

Timeline: Topic/Title:

Master Plan Goal(s):

Targeted subgroups:

Person(s) responsible:

Timeline: Topic/Title:

Master Plan Goal(s):

Targeted subgroups:

Person(s) responsible:

Person(s) Responsible/ Participants (Audience)

Topic/Title:

Professional Development (PD) Activity

Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Goal(s)/Maryland Teacher Professional Development Standard: Master Plan Goal(s):

(RP, RI, and Title 1 Schools Only)

Section XI: Professional Development Calendar

Learning Outcomes of Participants

Page | 288

Evaluation Plan

Expenditure amount:

Funding Source:

Expenditure amount:

Funding Source:

Expenditure amount:

Funding Source:

Expenditure amount :

Funding Source:

Budget Implications


FAMILY ENGAGEMENT Introduction The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) -- the main federal law affecting education from kindergarten through high school. One of the four principles of NCLB includes more choices for parents. In addition to a natural parent, NCLB defines a parents as a legal guardian or other person standing in loco parentis (such as grandparent or stepparent with whom the child lives, or a person who is legally responsible for the child’s welfare). Under NCLB, the participation of parents is regular, two way, and meaningful communication involving student academic learning and other school activities. Questions 1. Describe how the local school system shares information with parents about student academic standards, assessments, and data with parents? (ex. publications, website, workshops, etc.) The Prince George’s County Public School District uses multiple methods to share information with parents about student academic standards, assessments, and data. These methods include: 1) meeting with parents; 2) an electronic student information system; 3) multiple language translation services; 4) traditional media, including the website and television services; 5) various social media; 6) formal community meetings; 7) parent academies; and 8) specialized services and programs. Each of these methods is briefly discussed below. Meetings with Parents School administrators and school leadership meet regularly with parents both individually and in groups to share student academic standards, assessments, and performance data. Meeting can take a variety of forms, including PTA or PTO meetings, Back-to-School Night, individual parent-teacher meetings, and annually at the District’s Back-to-School Fair. PTA and PTO meetings are opportunities to share information with parents about the school’s academic expectations for all students, convey the schedule for and the importance of annual assessments, and communicate aggregate school-level data. Each school is expected to have either a PTA or a PTO, and principals are being held increasingly accountable for ensuring their respective schools have one or the other. Goal 4 of the school system’s five strategic goals is to establish strong community partnerships and strengthen connections with constituents and stakeholders. To measure the extent to which this goal is being accomplished, the Superintendent’s Executive Cabinet has established three Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) with accompanying baseline and future target performance levels. Increasing the percentage of schools with an active formal parent organization is one of the three KPIs established for Goal 4. In SY2009-10 (the baseline year), 85 percent of the district’s schools had either a formal PTA or a PTO. By the 2016-17 school year, every school (100%) is expected to have a formal parent organization Each school hosts a Back-to-School Night program at the beginning of the school year to share school trend data disaggregated by subgroup, as well as academic standards by grade level. During the 2011-12 Back-to-School Night programs, academic performance targets were shared with parents. In addition, school leaders shared the strategies and programs to be implemented throughout the year that are intended to result in improved student academic performance. Parents are also encouraged to participate in curriculum nights, hosted by many schools, throughout the school year. Sessions provide information on content specific standards as well as how parents can support students at home. Schools offer many hands-on opportunities for parents to experience the lessons and skills students are taught each quarter. At individual parent-teacher meetings, parents receive data specific to their child which conveys the student’s academic challenges, successes, and testing results. These meetings also provide an opportunity for parents and teachers to openly discuss their expectations and establish goals, objectives, and strategies for high academic achievement. Electronic Student Information System The district’s student information software system, SchoolMax®, provides parents with real-time data about their child’s academic progress and performance. Parents can obtain an individual access code to the SchoolMax® Parent Portal and view their child’s grades, class schedules, attendance, transcripts, and discipline history (see attached). Additionally, using the web-based software, parents can retrieve their child’s mid-quarter progress reports and end-of-quarter report cards. 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 289


The link to access the SchoolMax® Parent Portal is available on parent page of the system’s website. Login information and “how to” user guides and videos are available for first-time users. A guide to assist parents in understanding progress reports and report cards is also included on the site. To view one such parent access, go to: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=en&tl=ht&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww1.pgcps.org%2F. To view a “how to” video, go to: https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B_gfTRQDkvqhYmUxMzM0MzYtNjc4ZS00MjczLWIyOGUtMjFmNjY0YjQ0MzZm&hl=en_US Multiple Language Translation Services PGCPS shares information with parents about student academic standards, assessments, and data in multiple languages to ensure the parents of students from diverse origins can receive the same information about their children as English-speaking parents can. Language and sign interpreters translate information and data sharing opportunities in schools and in offices for parents during parent conferences, IEP meetings, and PTA meetings. PGCPS procures document translation services to translate forms and documents which share student academic standards, testing schedules, and student-specific data. The translation services are intended to increase parents’ understanding of system expectations and requirements. Beginning in SY2011-12, non-English speaking parents will be able to speak with PGCPS staff using the new telephonic interpreting service, LanguageLink. This telephone interpreting service is used in place of on-site interpreting when on-site interpreting is not readily available or during meetings when parents are not required to be present. Schools are able to communicate with parents in up to 128 languages. It is through the LanguageLink service that PGCPS shares information with non-English speaking parents about student academic standards, assessments, and data. Also, now on the PGCPS website, with a click of a button, a parent or community stakeholder can have the website automatically translated from English into more than 50 languages, including Arabic, Czech, Haitian Creole, and more. (Go to http://www1.pgcps.org/.) Traditional Media including Website and Television Services From the PGCPS website homepage parents can view information about academic standards, assessments, and data, including: ƒ

ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Multi-year school district-wide and individual school level Maryland School Assessment (MSA) and High School Assessment (HSA) data disaggregated by subgroup; assessment briefs; home reports; the annual testing schedule; a “how to” guide for interpreting test results; and “The Top Ten Things Parents Need to Know” about the MSA and HSA in both English and Spanish, and MSA prep videos; Advanced Placement scores for the system and each school; Grading and Reporting Administrative Procedure with explanation for elementary, middle, and high school grading policies, make-up work, and grade appeals; Curriculum and Instruction link provides an overview of standards for each grade level and content specific course; PGCPS produced articles and newsletters outlining the system’s academic initiatives and programs; Course offerings and programs of study for elementary, middle, and high schools; High school graduation requirements and the four-year course planner; and Available extended learning opportunities to support algebra and biology performance.

From the television station TV 96/38 parents can watch test preparation features, interviews regarding academic achievement across the district, and helpful practice sessions to ensure their child’s success. District-wide meetings, including Board of Education meetings, are televised to share with parents Board policy and initiatives, including Secondary School Reform, the annual budget, boundary reviews, and more. Various Social Media The district also now uses various social media to convey information, data, academic successes and achievements, and standards with parents. Parents are increasingly requesting and relying on the use of email, Facebook, Twitter, blogs, and texting to share valuable information about program expectations, measures of success, performance, outputs, and outcomes. To access available social media view the lower right hand corner of the PGCPS homepage at http://www1.pgcps.org/.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 290


Community Meetings Annually, PGCPS hosts a series of town hall meetings in each school board district to share with parents district-side achievement opportunities for academic improvement, new programs and services, and goals for the year. The town hall meetings as well as the community forums convened by each Board of Education (BOE) member (see attached), also provide an opportunity for parents to share their goals and expectations for the school year with district leaders. Additionally, the sharing exchange throughout the fall provides input for the Superintendent and his executive staff as they begin to prepare the school system’s budget for the making during the budget preparation process. Parent Academies The Prince George’s County Public Schools System has partnered with several community organizations to establish Parent Academies in throughout the county. The goal of the Parent Academy is to provide parents with an opportunity to learn more about their child’s educational needs and experiences and, at the same time, learn more about the school system in general. Parents receive an orientation to Prince George’s County Public Schools which includes information on interpreting test scores, learning to read a report card, accessing their child’s student enrollment data – including, grades, attendance, test scores, and more. The Parent Academies are an ideal way to share information with parents about student academic standards, assessment, and data. The Parent Academy model is ideal because parents are participating in an informal community setting, while receiving information from a school system professional, and sharing their comments, questions, and ideas with other parents. The experience of parents learning together and teaching one another is empowering. Specialized Services and Programs Title I, Head Start, ESOL, Special Education services, and Early Childhood Education programs each have requirements for sharing information with parents’ regarding academic standards, policy and procedures, assessment results and requirements, and overall program data. The district’s Head Start program shares information with parents using the Policy Council and Parent Committees. The district established and maintains a formal structure of shared governance through which parents can participate in policy making and other decisions about the program. Head Start program parents also obtain information and data from parent trainings identified through the Self Assessment and Community Assessment process. The Head Start Parents’ Bulletin Board, which exists in each Head Start classroom, is used to share daily postings of information with parents about program-related data and standards. Title I, ESOL, special education, and early childhood education services also offer parent workshops on a number of topics. Parent trainings and information sharing occur at the Early Childhood Summer Institute. 2. Does the local school system provide professional development to instructional and non-instructional staff, grades preK-12, on working with parents? If yes, please describe. (ex. New teacher/staff training, administrative meetings, district wide conferences/workshops, etc.) The training for principals, assistant principals, and other staff members was developed by a work group consisting of staff from the Division of Student Services, the ESOL Office, and the Title I Office. Together, representatives from these departments planned a series of comprehensive parent engagement training workshops (The ABCs of Parent Engagement) designed to provide administrators with information on effective parent engagement around academics, attendance, behavior, and communication and through collaboration and connections. All principals received training during the Superintendent’s Summer Leadership Conference on the expectations for parent engagement for SY2011-12. The training sessions were differentiated by school levels. The focus of the training was to ensure that all administrators received information on the elements of parent engagement to support the development of Goal 4 of the school system’s strategic goals. Five additional sessions will be conducted during the SY2011-12. The Parent Engagement Google site will be updated with best practices around homework, academics, socio-emotional support, and attendance and discipline interventions parents can use at home. Developmentally appropriate strategies for engaging parents were shared by principals in small group sessions to strengthen school and home connections in the learning process. TV 96/38 TV 96/38 provides parents the opportunity to see inside Prince George’s County Schools. The 24-hour cable station produces hours of original programming spotlighting students, schools, curriculum and the arts. The educational programs offered provide an opportunity for parents to know what skills teachers are addressing at various points throughout the school year. 2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 291


Teachers provide academic assistance to parents and students via the homework help line and the Count on Us math program. Family Academies The Department of Student Services, in collaboration with members of the Prince George’s County Board of Education, worked with external partners, mostly faith-based groups, to establish locations for family academies. The academies were designed to provide training developed by PGCPS to parents. These external partners assist with providing space, refreshments, and child care for community-based parent education programs. Some Family Academies also offer ESL classes to parents based on the needs of the community. Some of the classes to be provided include an “Orientation to Prince George’s County Public Schools”, “How to Support Your Child at Home”, “Parenting for Student Success”, “Parent Portal”, “Student Code of Conduct”, and “Charter and Specialty Schools”. The goal is to develop a system-wide network of Family Academies to not only encourage parents to be involved in their children’s schools, but also to build their knowledge and capacity to support their children’s academic success. The classes are offered in English and Spanish, with the Spanish classes funded by the Title III program, and English classes funded by the supporting organization. The system will use existing staff to develop and deliver the training sessions.

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

Page | 292


SCHOOLS THAT ARE SAFE, DRUG-FREE, AND CONDUCIVE TO LEARNING No Child Left Behind Goal 4: All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug-free, and conducive to learning. ¾ No Child Left Behind Indicator 4.1: The number of persistently dangerous schools, as defined by the state. NCLB requires states to identify persistently dangerous schools. In Maryland, a “persistently dangerous” school means a school in which each year for a period of three consecutive school years the total number of student suspensions for more than 10 days or expulsions equals two and one-half percent (2½%) or more of the total number of students enrolled in the school, for any of the following offenses: arson or fire; drugs; explosives; firearms; other guns; other weapons; physical attack on a student; physical attack on a school system employee or other adult; and sexual assault. Schools are placed into “persistently dangerous” status in a given school year based on their suspension data in the prior year. Note: Information associated with Safe Schools is also included in Part II, Additional Federal and State Reporting Requirements and Attachment 11: Title IV Part A, Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities. Table 7.1: Number of Persistently Dangerous Schools # of Schools

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

20102011

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Table 7.2: Probationary Status Schools School*

9/30/2010 Enrollment

NA

NA

# of Suspensions and Expulsions NA

Percentage of Enrollment NA

Table 7.3: Schools Meeting the 2½ Percent Criteria for the First Time # of Percentage 9/30/2010 Suspensions School* of Enrollment and Enrollment Expulsions NA NA NA NA

# of Schools

Table 7.4: Elementary Schools with Suspension Rates Exceeding Identified Limits 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 Number With a Number With a Number With a Number With a Number With a Number With a Suspension Rate Suspension Rate Suspension Suspension Suspension Suspension that Exceeded that Exceeded Rate that Rate that Rate that Rate that 18% 18% Exceeded 16% Exceeded 14% Exceeded 12% Exceeded 10% 0 0 1 0 0 0 Table 7.5: Identified Schools That Have Not Implemented PBIS School year in Provide reason which the School* for suspension rate noncompliance was exceeded NA NA NA

2011 Annual PGCPS Part I Master Plan Update

2010-2011 Number With a Suspension Rate that Exceeded 10% 0

Provide a timeline for compliance NA

Page | 293


A. Based on the Examination of Persistently Dangerous Schools Data (Table 7.1 – 7.5): ƒ

Where first-time schools are identified, what steps are being taken by the school system to reverse this trend and prevent the identified school(s) from movin