View Master Plan - Part I

2011 BTE/RTTT MASTER PLAN UPDATE

PART I

November 22, 2011

2011 Annual Update - Part I Charles County Public Schools i

Table of Contents

Page

Cover Page 1

Local Planning Team Members 2

Responses to Clarifying Questions 4

Section A Executive Summary 5

Introduction 5

Finance 31

Data 48

Race to the Top Scope of Work Update 121

Section B Standards and Assessments 123


Core Content Areas 133

o Reading 133

o Mathematics 148

o Science 159

o Social Studies 167

o High School Assessments 171

o Graduation Requirements 198

Cross-Cutting Themes and Specific Student Groups in Bridge to

Excellence

203

o Educational Technology 203

o Education that is Multicultural 217

o English Language Learners 267

o Career and Technology Education 279

o Early Learning 292

o Gifted and Talented Education 300

o Special Education 313

o Local Goals and Indicators 322

Section C Data Systems to Support Instruction 339


Section D Great Teachers and Leaders 345


Highly Qualified/Highly Effective Staff 353

Professional Development 360

Family Engagement 365

Schools that are Safe, Drug-Free, and Conducive to Learning 367

2011 Annual Update - Part I Charles County Public Schools ii

o Persistently Dangerous Schools 367

o Bullying, Harassment, or Intimidation 367

o Suspensions 368

o Coordination with Community Mental Health Providers 369

o Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports 370

o Habitual Truancy 371

o Attendance 373

o Graduation and Dropout 374

Section E Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools 376


Adequate Yearly Progress 379

o School Improvement 379

Section F General 392


Section G Appendices 393

Appendix A: Budget Tables

2011 Annual Update - Part I Charles County Public Schools 1


Local Planning Team Members

Use this page to identify the members of the school system’s Bridge to Excellence/Race to the Top

planning team. Please include affiliation or title where applicable.

Name Affiliation/Title

Butch Arbin Instructional Technology Resource Teacher

Edward Baker ESOL Teacher

Tammy Barnes Reading Resource Teacher

Gerald Barrett Coordinating Supervisor of Planning and Construction

Lora Bennett Information Technology Manager

Kim Black CRD Teacher

Tim Bodamer Content Specialist in Fine and Performing Arts

Maryann Bourassa Content Specialist for Gifted Education

Don Browder High School Department Chairperson

Frances Bryner ESOL Teacher

Polly Callahan High School Department Chairperson

Joyce Campbell Elementary Gifted Resource Teacher

Kimberly Clements Interactive Media Production Instructor

Michelle Colbert ECE Teacher

Alicia Cordero English Department Chair at La Plata High School

Ryan Dahm Technology Education Teacher

Timothy Emhoff Classroom Teacher

Cliff Eichel Director of Research and Assessment

Betsy Gardiner English Department Chair at McDonough High School

Christopher Gilbert Graphic Communications Instructor

Scott Hangey Director of Science Instruction and Program Development

Natalie Hart Specialist in Early Childhood Education

Kim Hudler Reading Resource Teacher

Meighan Hungerford Elementary Reading Content Specialist

Alicia Jackson Reading Resource Teacher

Diane Jenkins High School English Resource teacher

Drew Jepsky Director of Instructional Assessment

Pauline Johnson Vice Principal – High School

Tony Jones STI Department Chair / Carpentry Instructor

Aparna Joshi Gifted Resource Teacher

Charna Lacey Instructional Specialist for Minority Achievement & Multicultural Education

Mike Larson Social Studies Teacher

Desann Manzano-Lee Middle School Coordinator

Shannon Morris Middle School Department Chairperson

Chris Mulhollan Miller Specialist in Test Development

Barbara Palko Career & Technology Education Coordinator

Jennifer Parrish Instructional Specialist for Special Education

Karen Peters Coordinator of Testing

Sharron Rouse Title I Instructional Specialist ECE

Karen Rowledge Teacher Academy of Maryland Instructor

Mary Lee Sadler Content Specialist for Middle School Math

Dawn Schaeffer Coordinator of Staff Development

Wanda Sellers Instructional Specialist for Business and Computer Science

Mary Seremet Secondary Gifted Resource Teacher

James Short Principal at Henry E. Lackey


Scott Sisolak Algebra Resource Teacher

Christine Smith Science Instructional Specialist

Sarah Smith Content Specialist for English and Language Arts M.S.

Arden Sotomayor Director of Special Education

Kathy Stapleson Gifted Resource Teacher

Jane Thoman ES Math Content Specialist

Elaine Tubb Social Studies Resource Teacher

Jack W. Tuttle Social Studies Content Specialist

Vera Young Content Specialist for English and Language Arts H.S.

Bill Waddell Middle School Department Chairperson

Charlotte Weirich ESOL/World Languages Content Specialist

Jevonna Willis Professional Development

Monique Wilson Coordinator of STEM Ed

Thadine Wright Elementary Principal


Responses to Clarifying Questions

Last revision date – November 7, 2011

Clarifying Questions Location of

Response

Section I. A Executive Summary

On page 11: It was unclear to the panel if the English Language Learner

population paragraph was meant for this section?

Are Student Services personnel included in the Office of Instruction? This

information was not clear to the panel reviewers.

12

Section A: Executive Summary - State Success Factors

Federal RTTT and Ed Jobs Fund grants were released in FY 2011.These

funds should be included in the Prior-Year ARRA Variance Table (PYAVT)

(1.1C), revenue section. Any applicable expenditure should also be included

in this table.

For FY 2011, the Prior Year Variance Table (PYVT) (1.1B), the amount

included as total Federal ARRA Funds revenue does not match the amount

reported in the PYAVT (1.1C). Please explain the difference. Also, Ed Jobs

and Race to the Top (RTTT) funds should be reflected in this table.

There appears to be a calculation error between the Race to the Top Year 1

C-125 Budget and the Project Budget Summary Tables for Project Year 1.

The C-125 for Project Year 1 includes $135,620. However, the Project

Budgets show zero funds budgeted for Project Year 1. Please adjust Project

Budgets to reflect Year 1 as well.

As an FYI; For Project Number 1, Year 2, the Professional Development

budget is understated by $71.

Appendix A

Section B - Core Content Areas - Reading

P. 123: In “Narrative Section B” please reference the data contained in the

chart when answering the question.

P.139: Middle school LEP students were named “poorest performing group,”

what strategies or resources will be used to address the needs of this

population?

124

140

Section B – Core Content Areas - Mathematics

Please reference the data tables 2.4 and 2.5 to respond to proficiency data for

elementary school mathematics.

148

Section B - Core Content Areas - HSA - English II

The panel would like CCPS to note the misspelling of Robert Marzano’s

name as mentioned on page 170.

172

Section C. Data Systems to Support Instruction

Project # 4 on page 343 is not addressed as a bulleted item on page 341, or

fully developed in the narrative. (Purchase additional computers) Please

address action.

340, 342

2011 Annual Update - Part I Charles County Public Schools

5

I.A.

Executive Summary

Introduction

Charles County Public Schools (CCPS) is on a steady and successful path. Our commitment to meeting

state and federal requirements for student performance is evidenced by increased student participation in

Advanced Placement courses, and steady improvement on all accountability testing. In addition the

school system’s 3,453 employees are among the most dedicated in the nation and stand ready to meet

challenges presented by rising standards.

The master planning process provides opportunities for school system leaders, teachers, and community

members to focus on issues specific to student achievement as well as local areas of need, while the

review process assures guidance and support from MSDE staff. The school system’s budgeting practices

prioritize Bridge to Excellence goals and allocate state, local, and federal funds to support initiatives that

address academic achievement, limited English proficiency, highly qualified teachers, safe and drug free

schools, and graduation rates.

The CCPS master plan supports the system’s mission statement which “is to provide an opportunity for

all school-aged children to receive an academically challenging, quality education that builds character,

equips for leadership, and prepares for life, in an environment that is safe and conducive to learning.”

Budget Narrative

SYSTEM PRIORITIES

Recognize national and state economic declines and their impact on education. Maintain

realistic expectations for funding.

Prepare and plan for major budget cuts in response to state or county funding reductions.

Keep the focus on student achievement.

Maintain core programs and progress.

FISCAL OUTLOOK AND CLIMATE CHANGES

The stalled economy continues to present funding challenges for local education. Enrollment growth in

the county remains flat although many schools are at or above capacity. Like most states, Maryland used

federal stimulus funding to fill budget gaps for education; however, the majority of this funding ended

this year with the remainder expiring next year. The President announced new programs to create and

protect jobs, but the stalemate in the House and Senate may offset any real gains. Furthermore, the

impact of additional federal funding for the School System may be offset by state, local or federal

budget cuts in other programs.

It appears that we can expect several more years of slow growth and budget uncertainty. This unstable

economic environment is made worse by legislative changes, mandates and county imposed restrictions

which change the allocation of remaining resources. Continued legislative proposals for relaxing


6

maintenance of effort laws, transferring teacher retirement obligations to school systems, health

insurance coverage requirements, and binding arbitration requirements will have negative impacts on

school system funding.

Funding other post-retirement benefits (OPEB) in accordance with GASB 45 remains a concern, but a

lower budget priority. The Board of Education is committed to honoring union contracts, which provide

health insurance benefits to current and retired employees. Changes have been made to help control

costs, but these changes have little impact on the unfunded liability. Until the economy improves,

funding this obligation is anticipated to be extremely difficult going forward.

The classified pension plan presents another area for concern. While the brief turnaround in the markets

have resulted in the returns meeting the targeted benchmarks, making significant improvements in

funding ratios will require additional contributions or reductions in benefits. We have addressed this

problem in part by funding amounts in excess of the annual required contribution, and by eliminating

late retirement benefits.

Goal Progress

Race to the Top Scope of Work

Charles County Public Schools continues to share and support the state’s vision for reform and fully

supports the current phase as it is outlined in the Race to the Top application. We fully embrace the

revision of the PreK-12 Maryland State Curriculum, assessments, and accountability system based on

the Common Core Standards to assure that all graduates are college and career ready and will adopt the

world-class expectations embodied in the Common Core State Standards. As local leaders in the use of

technology to assist instruction, we will follow the state’s lead to build a statewide technology

infrastructure that links all data elements with analytic and instructional tools to monitor and promote

student achievement. The redesigned model for preparation, development, retention and evaluation of

teachers and principals will also be fully accepted as we strive for high quality teachers for all students.

Charles County Public Schools does not have schools identified as low-performing. However, we

support the State’s innovative approach to school reform through the Breakthrough Center and plan to

replicate strategies that will positively impact CCPS schools that do not make AYP two consecutive

years. Lastly, Charles County Public Schools will participate in state and federal evaluations of the

Race to the Top.

A series of Race to the Top (RTTT) information sessions were held in order to inform stakeholders and

to provide opportunities for input. The sessions covered Maryland’s RTTT application, the four

assurances and the expectations for the CCPS scope of work. The following groups were included:

Board of Education

Central office staff from:

o Human Resources

o Budget and Finance

o Division of Instruction

o Research and Assessment

School administration- Principals and vice principals


7

Members of the Education Association of Charles County

Parent groups: Minority Achievement Committee and Parent Advisory Committee

Standards and Assessments: In order to support Maryland’s ambitious instructional initiatives, Charles

County Public Schools have had CCPS staff lend their experience and expertise to:

Aligning the State Curriculum with the Common Core Standards;

Identifying digital resources and activities that support the development of the Common Core

State Curriculum and the Online Instructional Toolkit;

Participating in all MSDE professional development opportunities on the Instructional

Improvement System in order to assist teachers in developing lessons and differentiated

instruction;

Collaborating with the state in each developmental phase of a state-wide STEM curriculum and

resources;

Participating in the Educator Instructional Improvement Academies and providing master

teachers to support MSDE core curriculum training needs;

Assisting on state committees to provide expertise in the new assessment design along with

CCPS formative and interim assessment tools.

Charles County Public Schools has outlined an effective process for engaging all of its stakeholders—

educators, parents, and community members—in discussions about the system’s transition to the

Common Core Curriculum.

Data and Technology Infrastructure: The continual development of a robust Data Warehouse for

Charles County Public Schools is a priority. The current Data Warehouse allows teachers, administrators

and central office staff to view student data based on the Maryland State Curriculum and Core Learning

Goals. The Data Warehouse has the ability to report the status of a student, a teacher, a school and

county. Student reports are based on the results of formative assessments that are tied to Maryland State

Curriculum or Core Learning Goals. The Data Warehouse is used as a longitudinal tool that houses

historical and current data on students to which all decision-makers have access. This data includes

quarterly county assessments, state assessments, diagnostic assessments and national assessments.

Teachers have the ability to plan and implement differentiated lessons based on information from the

Data Warehouse.

Enhancement of the Data Warehouse will be valuable in improving instruction and continuing progress

toward closing the achievement gap for all students. It will provide a seamless process of linking our

data to resources, curriculum, and daily instruction. The student portal will allow students to take

ownership of their achievement and keep parents informed.

Great Teachers and Leaders: Charles County Public Schools is embracing the student growth model

for evaluation once it is adopted by the State Board of Education. The adoption of this model will fully

support our movement toward eliminating the achievement gap. Charles County Public Schools is also

participating in a pilot evaluation system in December, 2011 to be completed June, 2012. Charles

County Public Schools is also working on the evaluation framework with the bargaining unit

representing teachers and principals.


8

Charles County Public Schools mentors participated in the State’s Teacher Induction Academy and will

continue in SY 2011-12 to participate in the New Teacher Center’s trainings. We strongly believe the

academy experience enhances teacher preparedness and overall instructional effectiveness, thereby,

increase student achievement and eliminate the gap that exists between subgroups. Charles County

Public Schools has complied with COMAR 13A.07.01 in relation to the induction program for teachers,

the mentoring program, orientation and new teacher seminars. The current mentor program has been

revised and is compliant with the COMAR regulations.

Charles County Public Schools is working with our bargaining unit for changes in compensation models

that differentiate salary for effective and highly effective teachers and principals. Tenure decisions will

be made via the evaluation. Evaluations will also be used to place teachers and principals who are rated

satisfactory or better in low performing schools.

Charles County Public Schools will continue to participate in the Educators Effectiveness Academies

and MSDE’s Priority Schools Academy. Support for teachers and principals is essential. Principal

mentoring is in place now and will continue as a support for new principals.

Improvements in technology management tools will help to provide effective support to teachers.

Technologies are now available that can provide teachers with an online catalog of professional

development opportunities and track registration and completion of credits toward recertification. There

are also resources available for online training, observation and mentoring. Careful research must be

done to find effective technologies that will meet these needs.

Turning Around Low-Achieving Schools: Maryland State Department of Education has identified 16

persistently lowest-achieving schools to be improved in this reform effort; however, Charles County

Public Schools currently does not have any schools identified.

In the past, various CCPS schools have been identified for local attention due to failure to make

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Charles County Public Schools has determined that any school that

does not make AYP for two years will be identified as a Low Performing School. Identified schools will

remain on the CCPS Low Performing Schools list until they have made AYP for two consecutive years.

Highly effective administrators and core content teachers will have an opportunity to apply for

comparable positions in CCPS low performing schools for which they will receive a stipend. This

incentive will remain as long as the school moves successfully toward making and sustaining adequate

yearly progress and the availability of local funding. The bargaining unit negotiations will be critical in

this project.

Core Content Areas

Reading

The Charles County Elementary School Reading program is based on the underlying philosophy that

students must move from the most fundamental reading behaviors of identifying letters, sounds and

words to deep and meaningful interpretation of text through a systematic process of instruction aimed at

meeting individual student needs and enhancing the experience of interacting with literature. In an effort


9

to support classroom instruction with this goal in mind, Charles County Public Schools has a variety of

programs and supports in place to enhance the teaching of reading to its students. CCPS focuses on:

professional development for content knowledge and pedagogy of reading instruction

appropriate use and delivery of instruction using a resource rich curriculum and core program

knowledge of how to diagnose and prescribe intervention when necessary,

identification of student needs and interests to accelerate student progress.

The CCPS Reading program employs an integrated instructional program which includes the

components of Shared Reading, Guided Reading, Writing/Grammar and Word Study, which includes

phonics, spelling and vocabulary. Students in the grades 1 and 2 receive 120 minutes of uninterrupted

literacy daily and an additional 15 – 30 minutes of Self-Selected Reading. Students in grades 3 to 5

receive 90 minutes of uninterrupted literacy daily with an additional 15 – 30 minutes of Self-Selected

Reading daily. The expectation is that primary students participate in guided reading daily. The

intermediate students participate four times a week, with the first day of instruction being geared to

introducing the targeted reading strategy and skill through a Shared Reading approach.

Charles County Public Schools uses the Houghton Mifflin Reading Program as the core resource for

Tier 1 reading instruction. In order to ensure effective and consistent delivery of instruction, CCPS has

developed and utilizes its own curriculum based on the state curriculum. These documents to direct

teachers as to how to address student, school and system needs while maintaining fidelity to the

program. Supplemental resources are available for students at all levels of performance, including in-

class interventions, gifted and enrichment materials and supplemental leveled text. The county

curriculum is reviewed and revised on a yearly basis to incorporate best practices in reading.

Tier II and Tier III interventions are available for students who are identified in need based on screening

and diagnostic assessments, including DIBELS, Running Records, and the Performance Series computer

adaptive assessment. Students who are identified through the screening assessments as at-risk receive

additional diagnostic assessment. Classroom and school based Reading Resource Teachers have access

to additional assessments to identify specific student needs in order to assign the appropriate

intervention. Charles County uses approved interventions including Earobics, Fundations, Wilson,

Orton-Gillingham and Lessons in Literacy. Each elementary school has at least one Reading Recovery

Teacher who implements the Reading Recovery Program to four students at a time and offers support to

additional students through Literacy Groups. The Instructional Specialist for Reading Intervention meets

with each school team three times a year to review data on students assigned to intervention.

Each school has a full-time Reading Resource Teacher assigned to the Instructional Leadership Team

with primary responsibility for implementation of the reading program and all supporting interventions.

Reading Resource Teachers meet monthly to receive professional development, discuss program

implementation, share ideas for improving instruction, and develop resources and assessments to support

the curriculum. The Content Specialist for Elementary Reading meets with each Reading Resource

Teacher quarterly to review data and program implementation. In addition to all the Reading Resource

Teachers being fully trained in LETRS, CCPS has 8 Reading Resource teachers that are certified

LETRS trainers, 4 Reading Resource Teachers in the process of becoming Fundations Coaches, and 6

Reading Resource Teachers in the process of becoming Wilson Level III trainers.


10

The Charles County Middle School Reading program, based on a three-tier model, is comprised of

several components designed to meet the needs of individual students. Tier I is comprised of gifted,

enrichment and on-grade level classes. Tier II is designed to address the needs of students who exhibit

reading comprehension deficits that are approximately 2 years below grade level, and the Tier III

program addresses the needs of students whose reading comprehension is significantly below grade

level. All three tiers are supported by a county curriculum based on the state curriculum with the

expectation that all students receive appropriate instruction in grade level content. The county

curriculum is reviewed and revised on a yearly basis to incorporate best practices in reading.

The school system instituted a reading committee in SY 2006 – 2007 which serves as a clearinghouse

for textbook adoption and appropriate interventions. As a result of committee recommendations,

Charles County uses McDougall/Littell Language of Literature as the core curriculum text for Tier I

courses with supplemental materials from Junior Great Books and Great Source Daybook of Critical

Reading and Writing. In SY 2010-2011, SpringBoard, a CollegeBoard curriculum, was implemented in

at least one eighth grade enrichment class at each of the middle schools. SpringBoard has been

expanded to include all middle school seventh and eighth grade enrichment students for SY2011-12.

The Tier II program, Meeting the Middle, uses Sopris West Language! materials as well as McDougall

Littell, Bridges to Literature, and Tier III uses the Wilson program to address reading comprehension

deficits. The central office reading staff and school representatives continue to review, select and

endorse appropriate reading interventions.

The county provides universal screening, via Performance Series testing, for all students in grades six

through eight to determine current reading comprehension levels. Additional screening is done for

students who show reading deficits to pinpoint appropriate interventions that will address specific needs.

Based on the results of testing, students are placed in appropriate interventions.

Each school has a full-time reading resource teacher assigned to the Instructional Leadership Team with

primary responsibility for implementation of the reading/language arts program and all supporting

interventions.

Core Comprehensive Reading Program-Middle

Tier I

To ensure that all students at the middle school meet or exceed the proficiency level in reading, Charles

County Public Schools (CCPS) has designed a program to meet the needs of all students. CCPS

curriculum is aligned to the Maryland State Curriculum (SC) and provides continuity between both the

elementary and high school programs.

The Middle School Language Arts/Reading Program encompasses the philosophy that Language Arts is

comprised of the areas of Reading, Writing, Language, Listening, and Speaking. These five essential

skills are taught through a Comprehensive Literacy Program that includes Strategic Reading, Strategic

Writing, and Self-Selected Reading. In this comprehensive model, teachers employ the techniques of

modeling, guided practice, collaborative practice and independent practice to help students master the

skills and processes necessary to become proficient readers and writers.


11

The area of Strategic Reading is taught with a focus on reading comprehension and vocabulary

development. Students are instructed on General Reading Processes as well as specific skills related to

informational and literary texts. Quarterly curriculum maps for reading are aligned to the Maryland SC

and assist teachers with the planning and implementation of the curriculum. Appendices accompany

each quarter as resources for teachers to use in the instruction of particular skills. Lesson plans,

developed by classroom teachers as well as members of the Instructional Leadership Team (ILT), have

also enhanced the curriculum. In addition, quarterly assessments have been revised by members of the

ILT and match the skills and indicators on the quarterly curriculum maps. This process allows for the

monitoring of instruction and produces data that can be analyzed by teachers in order to assess the

quality of the reading program and address the instructional needs of the students in the classroom.

The Self-Selected Reading (SSR) component of the Comprehensive Literacy Program gives students an

opportunity to improve reading fluency, to practice utilizing the skills acquired in strategic reading, and

gives students the opportunity to choose what they read. Most importantly, SSR is the best route to

increase vocabulary. Teachers use this self-selected time to individually conference with students on

progress or meet with small groups to re-teach any identified needs. SSR also encourages an interest and

appreciation of reading through various opportunities for sharing.

Charles County has also developed a trimester writing program that aligns with the Maryland SC and

addresses expository, narrative and persuasive writing based on the 6 + 1 Writing Traits from Scholastic

Inc. The curriculum is augmented with baseline and benchmark assessments. Instruction is aligned

with the six writing traits with embedded proofs of learning serving as formative assessments during

each trimester.

As programs are implemented in the schools, effective monitoring ensures consistency and enables

improvement. ILT members are updated on program expectations on a monthly basis. In addition, both

RRTs and department chairs meet monthly to receive updates and/or information to be taken back to

their respective staffs. CCPS will continue to update and enhance the curriculum as specific data from

MSDE is made available.

Tier II

The Meeting the Middle program, as designed for CCPS, seeks to meet the needs of students in a Tier II

setting as described by the reauthorization of IDEA. The program’s mission is to provide students who

are reading significantly below their grade level peers with an appropriate reading intervention.

Additionally, the program affords students with opportunities to receive core program instruction at the

student’s grade level. Reading Resource Teachers identify root causes of reading problems through

various assessment and diagnostics such as Oral Reading Fluency Assessments and Spelling Inventories.

Based on the results of the aforementioned testing, students are placed in appropriate interventions.

These interventions include fluency practice with Reading Fluency, The Six-Minute Solution, or

activities outlined by leading researchers in fluency. Issues of comprehension can be addressed through

the use of The Reader’s Handbook, Plugged into Reading, or other strategy-based activities from

leading researchers in reading comprehension.

Students who need instruction in appropriate reading interventions that address one or more of the

following areas: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, are placed in


12

the Meeting the Middle program. Materials used in the Meeting the Middle program are appropriate to

the students’ needs. Language! by Sopris West is utilized on a daily basis as an intervention to reach

extremely poor readers. In addition, students in the program utilize McDougall-Littell’s Bridges to

Literature series to allow students access to the core program components of strategic reading, strategic

writing, and self-selected reading and writing using grade level state standards and indicators.

ELL Population

In the Language! program, there is a component for English Language Learners (ELL) that contains 270

structured lessons for Speaking and Listening to the English Language. Over and above that, all ELL

Students meet with an ELL teacher on a weekly basis. Reading interventions are prescribed to these

students in much the same manner as our regular students. The goal is to match interventions to the

students’ needs.

Prior to SY 2005 –2006, there was no system-wide core reading program in place in the Charles County

Public School System. A committee made up of CCPS central office staff, MSDE staff, principals, and

reading and classroom teachers was convened to select a scientifically researched-based core program to

address the needs of all learners and improve early literacy development for CCPS students. The high

schools implemented the program in 2007-2008. Appropriate interventions to address reading deficits

were selected for those students needing services. The central office reading staff and school

representatives continue to review, select, and endorse appropriate reading interventions

Tier III

Students who exhibit the need for intensive interventions are placed in interventions based on their

specific needs. The Wilson Reading System serves as intensive intervention for students who need

additional phonics instruction.

Core Comprehensive Reading Program-High

Tier I

Charles County Public Schools has designed a program to ensure that all students at the high school

level meet or exceed proficiency in reading. The CCPS curriculum is aligned to the Maryland State

Curriculum (MSC) and provides continuity between the elementary, middle, and high school programs.

The High School Reading English Language Arts Program encompasses the philosophy that English is

comprised of the areas of Reading, Writing, Listening, Speaking, and Viewing. These essential skills

are taught through a Comprehensive Literacy Program. This model balances the areas of reading and

writing. In this comprehensive model, teachers employ the techniques of modeling, guided practice, and

independent practice to help students master the skills and processes necessary to become proficient

readers and writers. Opportunities for speaking, listening, and viewing are woven into the three major

areas.

The area of Strategic Reading is taught with a focus on reading comprehension and vocabulary

development. Students are instructed in general reading processes as well as specific skills related to

both informational and literary texts. The Content Specialist for English/Language Arts and the High

School English resource teacher develop quarterly assessment overviews for reading that are aligned to


13

the MSC and which assist teachers with the planning and implementation of the curriculum. In addition,

quarterly assessments have been revised by the Content Specialist and High School resource teacher to

better match the skills and indicators on the quarterly assessment overviews. This process allows for the

monitoring of instruction and produces data that can be analyzed by teachers in order to assess the

instructional needs of the students in the classroom. Modified quarterly assessments have also been

developed and administered to students who qualify based on their IEP’s. This data, which includes

student, teacher, and school reports, has served as the basis for instructional decisions designed to

support the learning needs of individual students. Additionally, a three hour mock assessment is

administered to the students in order to replicate actual testing conditions. Data from this assessment

provides a high correlation to student achievement on the HSA, thereby, providing a focus for the

teacher and student. Lesson plans, based on the MSC and best practices, have been developed by

English teachers and placed on the CCPS V:drive in order to help teachers with the planning and

implementation of the curriculum.

As programs are implemented in the schools, effective monitoring ensures consistency and enables

improvement. High school resource teachers, department chairpersons, and the teachers implementing

the reading interventions are updated on program expectations on a monthly basis. The Content

Specialist for English will continue to update and enhance the CCPS curriculum as specific data from

MSDE is made available.

Now that Maryland is beginning to transition into the Common Core Standards, the focus will be on the

five strands: Reading Standards for Literature, Reading Standards for Informational Text, Writing

Standards, Speaking and Listening Standards, and Language Standards.

Tier II

The Literacy program in Charles County Public Schools is designed to meet the needs of students in a

Tier II setting as described by the Reauthorization of IDEA. The mission of the program is to provide

students who are reading two or more grade levels below their peers with an appropriate reading

intervention in addition to receiving instruction in the core program at the student’s grade level.

Interventions include fluency practice with activities outlined by Timothy Rasinski. Issues in

comprehension can be addressed through the use of The Reader’s Handbook or other strategy-based

activities from Kylene Beers and Robert Probst. As a system, CCPS is currently in the process of

reviewing vocabulary programs that can serve as a core program as well as other strategies that can be

used for intervention.

Class time is very structured. Students receive instruction in appropriate reading interventions that

address one or more of the following areas: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and

comprehension. In addition, students are instructed in the core program components of strategic

reading, strategic writing, and self-selected reading and writing using grade level state standards and

indicators.

Materials used in the Literacy program are appropriate to the students’ needs. Literacy teachers identify

root causes of reading challenges utilizing various assessments and diagnostics such as Oral Reading

Fluency Assessments and Spelling Inventories. The Language! Program by Sopris West is utilized on a

daily basis as an intervention to reach poor readers in the literacy classroom. In the 2009-2010 school


14

year, the Edge Program by National Geographic was also utilized in the Literacy classes. This program

was geared toward students who have less severe reading challenges and need more instruction in

vocabulary and comprehension. In addition, students in the program utilize McDougall-Littel’s

Language of Literature series to allow them access to the core program. Other interventions are

reviewed periodically by a Central Office reading panel and, if endorsed, placed in County Reading

Handbook which is stored on our county’s website.

LEP Population

Through coordination with the Content Specialist for ESOL, resources and training is provided to

teachers of students with Limited English Proficiency. Professional development opportunities are

scheduled August through February for ESOL, special education, and English teachers. The focus is

best practices for students with limited English proficiency. The Language! Program (Tier II) contains

a component for LEP students, which contains 270 structured lessons for Speaking and Listening to the

English language. This component may also be shared with Tier I teachers. Beyond that, all LEP

students meet with the ESOL teachers on a daily basis. Reading interventions are prescribed to these

students in much the same manner as other students. The goal is to match interventions to the students’

needs.

Tier III

Students who exhibit the need for intensive interventions are placed in interventions based on their

specific needs. The Wilson Reading Program serves as an intensive intervention for students who need

additional phonics instruction. These students may be in regular or special education classes. Students

are placed in this intervention based on screening data.

Progress Monitoring for Tier II and III

As a system-wide initiative, the high school teachers in the intervention programs have been trained in

the use of AimsWeb, a curriculum-based measurement. It is required that special education students be

progress monitored weekly, and regular education students biweekly in order to meet response to

intervention requirements.

Student progress in reading interventions is also monitored through benchmarks administered three

times a year. The benchmarks include the Performance Series (an internet based computer adaptive

program that can pinpoint the proficiency level of students, provide accurate student placement,

diagnose instructional needs, and measure student gains across reporting periods), the Rasinski Oral

Reading Fluency Assessment ( an assessment that assists in monitoring students’ fluency including

accuracy, automaticity, and prosody), and the Spelling Inventories ( an assessment that assesses word

knowledge).

The Content Specialist and the Instructional Specialist for Reading Interventions will oversee this

monitoring and, along with the teacher, make decisions regarding student placement in the appropriate

intervention based on this data.


15

Mathematics

At the elementary level, out of the four groups, All Students, FARMs, LEP, and Special Education,

CCPS maintained in 2 groups and decreased in 2 groups. All Students and FARMs students stayed

within 1 point of the 2010 performance. Special Education decreased by 10 points and LEP decreased

by 3 points.

While FARMs students are still performing below overall performance numbers, the gap continues to

narrow. The gap between African American students and All students has been decreasing over the past

years, but last year showed an increase at each grade level (3-5) of between 1 and 6 points. Data

indicates that special education students are also showing gains as the percentage of students performing

at the basic level has decreased. Special education remains a critical challenge for the county.

In middle school mathematics, subgroup performance has continued to improve during the past seven

years. The percentage of FARMs students performing at the proficient/advanced levels has improved by

41.7% in grade 6, 44.2% in grade 7 and 48.4% in grade 8. African American students have made

similar gains with a 40.5% increase in grade 6, 40.1% increase in grade 7, and a 46.9% increase in grade

8. Finally, the special education population has also experienced gains at all three grade levels. Grade 6

increased by 49.6%, grade 7 increased by 37.5%, and grade 8 increased by 48.4%.

In both elementary and middle school, CCPS provides support to schools in order to improve

instructional programs. Efforts include allocation of school-based resource teachers, professional/staff

development opportunities, intervention and enrichment opportunities, and the infusion of technology as

a part of regular classroom instruction.

In addition, the role of the school-based instructional specialists shifted from one of a generalist to one

which focuses on mathematics. Training was provided and will continue to be provided to assist the

instructional specialists in this changing role.

Each elementary and middle school is assigned an instructional specialist. This is a non-supervisory role

that provides instructional leadership for the school. For example, instructional specialists conduct on-

going staff development sessions for teachers, model lessons, and assist new teachers with classroom

management. They meet with grade level teams on a regular basis to help with long-range planning,

review test data, and discuss interventions for struggling learners.

At the middle school level, central office based math resource teachers are assigned to the middle

schools on a weekly basis in an effort to improve instruction. These resource teachers assist the schools

in a variety of ways, including working with new teachers, modeling lessons, and participating in grade-

level team planning, assisting with data analysis, and implementing best practices in the mathematics

classroom. Additionally, an on-site coach is assigned to each of the middle schools to provide support

in the implementation of Algebraic Thinking.

At the high school level, several strategies were implemented to provide support for Algebra students.

Each high school continues to provide a content planning period for Algebra teachers, so they have an

opportunity to collaborate while analyzing data, developing activities, and looking at resources. In


16

addition, central office resource teachers monitored all six of the high schools in an effort to improve

instruction and assist students. A variety of Extended Learning Opportunities (ELOs) for students are

implemented at each high school, including instructional sessions after school and on Saturdays.

Even though the system continues to make progress, CCPS is not keeping pace with the AMO. This is

especially true for several of the subgroup populations. As a result of examining current instructional

practices, several root causes were identified. The primary root cause is the lack of content knowledge

and sound pedagogy on the part of both general education and special education teachers. In addition,

CCPS is challenged to find diagnostic tools that will aid in identifying the needs of students and

implementing effective interventions that address those needs.

In order to address the identified root causes, CCPS is taking a holistic approach to the re-examination

of facets of the mathematics program. CCPS has established a math staff committee that will serve as

the capstone for our initiatives. This team will determine direction, implementation, and priority of

needed changes. CCPS is shifting the focus from a short term tactical approach to a long term strategic

approach for program improvement. The two main areas that CCPS will be addressing are revision of

the mathematics curriculum based on best practices and the training of teachers to improve their content

knowledge and pedagogy.

Science

Charles County Public Schools’ performance on the Biology HSA over the past three years has shown a

slow increase overall. Further analysis of the subgroups also shows a slow increase in the pass rate.

However, there still exists an achievement gap and instructional concerns regarding the subgroups of

African Americans, ELL, FARMS, and Special Education students across all grades.

Analysis of the MSA for Science in both grades five and eight indicates similar challenges at the

elementary and middle school levels. The achievement in the subgroups of African Americans, FARMS,

ELL, and Special Education falls far below the county average. However, the performance of African

American students at grades 5 and 8 in science remains above the state average.

Student progress in mastering and applying the concepts of science at all levels is first monitored by the

classroom teacher using assessment tools found in the curriculum. At the high school level, quarterly

biology assessments and a mock HSA provide data to the teachers in order to determine if more re-

teaching is necessary.

Science instruction at all levels addresses the content as well as the skills and processes of science.

Science curriculum is being revised at grades 4, 5, 8, and 10 focusing on the 5E model of lesson design

and infusing inquiry into daily lessons. In order to meet the challenges that are apparent in the data, the

system will continue to provide staff development for all individuals involved in the education of our

students in the areas of science content and differentiated instruction. The Science Department will

implement higher order thinking in instruction and assessment through professional development, lesson

planning sessions with teachers, and follow-up classroom visits. By providing resources and support to

the teachers, instructional programs will be put into action that will lead to increased achievement on the

part of the students.


17

Social Studies

The Charles County Public Schools social studies curriculum is currently comprehensively aligned with

the Maryland state curriculum standards. Both the scope and the sequence of the content and

skills/processes are addressed in the overall course, unit, and lesson plan objectives for each of the grade

levels. Particular efforts are focused on ensuring that all goal areas are indicated and lessons developed

for the major goal areas of Political Science, People and Nations of the World, Geography, Economics,

History, and Skills and Processes. The content of each course is also designed to replicate the specific

content requirements consistent with the Maryland state social studies standards.

At each of these grade levels, the appropriate scaffolding of skills and processes is embedded in the unit

development and the lesson activities designed for the course. Curriculum development for these courses

includes trans-disciplinary skills and processes, especially in regards to reading and writing skills used

in both the English/Language Arts and social studies standards.

There are three challenge areas identified in the effective implementation of the current curricula. Each

one of them has been addressed through a variety of instructional and administrative means. Still, all

challenges continue to exist as potential obstacles in making sure the goal of producing civically and

globally literate students is accomplished. The first of these challenges is using effective skills and

processes at a rigorous level in social studies. The second challenge is one of implementing technology

effectively throughout the instructional process. The third challenge is the availability of time and effort

within the classroom for the role of social studies.

Many of the resources needed to address these challenges are available through on-going and quality

professional development for teachers. Teacher workshops and in-services are available at the school-

based and county levels on topics of rigorous classroom instruction and the use of instructional

technology in a general sense. Evening staff development sessions are also offered on an annual basis as

a means of incorporating technology and increasing teacher awareness of web-based and other

resources. The challenge of time devoted to social studies instruction has been addressed through a

variety of measures. These include the use of trans-disciplinary professional development, ongoing

curriculum development to increase alignment and utility of lessons already created, use of targeted and

grade appropriate non-fiction trade books as resources to implement reading strategies, and the creation

of school-based liaisons to increase communication about instructional needs and resources.

Already, the Common Core Standards have encouraged greater collaboration among subject areas,

particularly in social studies. This gives an opportunity for more rigorous and trans-disciplinary

instruction to be developed and implemented than the previous standards had required. While these

challenges to social studies instruction will likely continue, the Common Core Standards will give social

studies the role of providing essential civic, historical, and global content and skills to the essential

literacy skills that are part of those requirements.


18

Graduation Requirements

The early planning and timely implementation of the Bridge Plan for Academic Validation made a

significant contribution to the fact that 100% of the eligible graduating CCPS seniors met the HSA

Graduation Requirement in June 2011

The most serious challenge faced was achieving a balance between working toward AYP and supporting

students who could meet HSA graduation requirements by successful completion of Bridge projects.

Even though these were our challenges for the 2010/2011 school year, we successfully dealt with each

challenge and developed a solution for each of them

Cross Cutting Themes and Specific Student Groups in Bridge to Excellence

Educational Technology

Due to the vision and leadership of the Superintendent, significant progress is evident in the rich variety

of technology resources used by teachers and students. The system maintains a robust infrastructure to

deliver grade level appropriate instructional software and digital resources to classrooms. Teachers have

access to email, digital grade books, attendance software, and parent communications portal which was

introduced in the SY 2010-2011. Data for instructional decision making is available from online

assessments and progress monitoring software, the Online IEP Management System, and the CCPS data

warehouse system. HSA courses have a digital curriculum and with a laptop for every teacher and other

K-12 curriculum is available on a shared network drive and on the Intranet. CCPS has live video

conferencing activities and field trips, online learning tools through Moodle Learning Management

System, as well as access to Google Docs and Google Earth.

Title I extended the one-to-one laptop initiative to all Title I 4th grade students and all Title I teachers at

all grades received a laptop as well. Following the installation of SMART boards in all Title I

classrooms, curriculum workshops added over 200 SMART activities to the online curriculum resources

for reading and math in grades K-5.

CCPS introduced Telepresence as a new high definition video conferencing format for distance learning

and collaboration. Telepresence rooms were installed in 3 locations during the 2010-2011 school year in

conjunction with the Advanced Placement Statistics course. In order to expand courses, CCPS will add

Telepresence to all high schools with courses designed to utilize this technology and collaborative

learning style.

Charles County Public Schools (CCPS) introduced Edline as a new, secure, Internet-based portal that

allows teachers to share course materials with students and parents, and lets parents check grades and

attendance. Parents can connect to Edline through each individual school’s Web site. Student reports are

private, so only parents or guardians who have obtained an access code can see their child’s information.

The school system is using the grade reporting system to empower students to be responsible for their

academic achievement and as a communication tool for parents. It provides students with a way of

checking their classes and homework and helps them keep track of school events. It also provides


19

registered parents a way to check their child’s progress. Parents can create accounts and can freely

monitor class grades and assignments.

Charles County Public Schools also offers the Space Foundation Discovery Institute conducted by the

Space Foundation. This is part of a five-year partnership with the Space Foundation that has grown each

year since 2007. The summer of 2011 had over 200 registrations. The Space Foundation Discovery

Institute is all about hands-on learning and exciting teachers about different ways to make learning fun.

The Institute offers seven, weeklong sessions to teachers. These are cost-free opportunities where

teachers learn about rocketry, the biology of living in space, astronomy principles, space technologies

and robots, the history and geology of Earth, and long term space travel. This year, an early childhood

space exploration class was added to help teachers of our youngest students infuse space science into the

classroom. The sessions are designed to give teachers across all content areas new tools to keep science,

technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education interesting for students. Each project also

models how teachers can incorporate different learning aspects such as kinesthetic, audio, and visual

into lessons.

The school system will provide training opportunities and more convenient access to training for

teachers by developing new online training resources with self-paced online tutorials, online teacher-

lead courses, collaboration and sharing of resources on the network, and technology lessons and

resources linked directly to the digital curriculum. In the coming school year, CCPS will research and

select a robust online professional development management tool to better advertise available

professional development opportunities and track registrations and completion of coursework.

As additional technologies are added for schools, the system will need to invest in additional staff and

continue the work of aligning digital resources with the curriculum. Instructional leaders must model the

use of technology, set high expectations for technology literacy, and schedule time for training and

support. Instructional Technology and Library Media will support these initiatives with research,

collaboration, resources, and training.

Education that is Multicultural

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 identified strengths.

CCPS has identified ten minority achievement requirements; conducting bi-monthly minority

achievement committee meetings; providing equity training for all employees; and implementing

programs for underrepresented student (AVID and STARS)

2. List your Local School System’s major ETMA areas identified that need improvement

1. To continue building more parent/community involvement

2. To create an environment where all CCPS staff employees understand Cultural

Competency

3. To increase minority academic achievement by providing access and opportunity for all

students


20

4. To continue integrating multicultural materials, activities, resources, lesson plans, and

units into the curricula of additional content areas throughout all elementary, middle, and

high schools system-wide

3. List your three major Local School System ETMA goals for the next school year

1. To continue building more parent/community involvement

2. To create an environment where all CCPS staff employees understand Cultural

Competency

3. To increase minority academic achievement by providing access and opportunity for all

students

4. Provide comments related to the compliance status report form, noting any recommendations for

suggested revisions

An area that allows one to provide written responses should be included. This will allow

elaboration to be included beyond what is already being requested as evidence.

English Language Learners

Charles County Public Schools’ Limited English Proficient (LEP) students did make progress in

attaining English proficiency in the 2010-2011 school year. An examination of the spring 2011 LAS

data indicates that 165 of the K through 12 LEPs calculated for AMAO I, or 82%, improved at least 15

points from their previous score on the LAS diagnostic or LAS summative assessment. The ESOL

Program exceeded the MSDE minimum requirement of 60% for meeting the AMAO I target. An

examination of the spring 2011 LAS data indicates that 53 of 201 K through 12 LEPs, or 25%, attained

an overall proficiency level of five, with a minimum of four in each of the language domains. The ESOL

Program exceeded the MSDE minimum requirement of 17% for attaining AMAO II. An examination of

the spring 2011 test data indicates that each CCPS LEP subgroup attained AYP at its respective school.

The CCPS ESOL Program will implement, monitor, evaluate and revise instructional approaches and

professional development. Instructional changes will address the specific language weaknesses of each

LEP indicated by that LEP’s proficiency level on the Spring 2011 Summative Assessment. During the

2011-2012 school year, the ESOL Program will enhance its programs, practices and strategies in order

to focus on the skills that LEPs will need to improve their English proficiency. The changes will

increase instructional time devoted to the listening, speaking, reading and writing domains of second

language acquisition. The ESOL Program staff will work more closely with general education/content

area staff to ensure continuity of instruction for LEPs in grades K through 12. The ESOL Program will

provide professional development for ESOL teachers and for school-based instructional staff of LEPs.

The training will emphasize differentiated instruction, accommodations, modifications and the objective

evaluation of LEPs.

The ESOL Program continues to be the primary intervention for LEPs. The ongoing efforts include the

following: the pullout model for K through 8 LEPs (1—5 times per week, 30-45 minute sessions); 50-

minute elective ESOL I, II and III classes for 9 through 12 LEPs. Emphasis will continue in both social

communication (BICS) and acquisition of academic and standardized language skills (CALP) needed in

specific subjects.


21

The ESOL Program will address the root causes for LEPs’ weaknesses. Those root causes include lack of

formal education of LEPs and their families; interrupted schooling; partial or complete illiteracy in the

native language; difficulty in adjusting to mainstream USA culture and the school environment; rigor of

content area courses; and state assessments that LEPs must pass. The LEPs will receive extended day,

supplemental instruction that focuses on the skills needed to master state assessments.

The ESOL Program will emphasize professional development for ESOL teachers, focusing on refresher

training on the content and administration of the Spring summative assessment. Materials from the

Avenues and High Point textbook series which reflect assessment content will be used during ESOL

classroom instruction.

Part Two’s Attachment 10 Budget Summary describes the ESOL Program’s distribution of Title III’s

resource allocations.

Career and Technology Education

Progress on the implementation and expansion of Career and Technology Education (CTE) Programs

continues to be achieved through:

the implementation of new programs of study

the extension of existing programs

the consistent inclusion of industry standards

updates to program improvement

o equipment

o curriculum enhancement

o professional development opportunities

During the 2010-2011 school:

Manufacturing Engineering Technologies Program of Study was added to the Approved List (List

A)

Project Lead the Way (PLTW) Pre-Engineering Program was expended to three new sites; Westlake,

La Plata and Thomas Stone High Schools

The third course, Medical Interventions, in the PLTW Biomedical Science program was added to the

program at La Plata High School

National Center for Construction Education & Research (NCCER) Site Certifications were earned in

Carpentry and Electrical Construction at North Point High School and HVAC at the Robert D.

Stethem Educational Center

Site re-certifications were earned in National Automotive Technicians Education Foundation

(NATEF) for Auto Technician at North Point High School and PLTW Pre-engineering at Henry E.

Lackey High School

CTE teachers were provided with professional development in Business Management, Child Care &

Guidance, Graphic Communications (Print Ed), Health Occupations, Horticultural Services,

Interactive Media Production, Manufacturing and Teacher Academy of Maryland

Access to CTE programs is continually being improved upon with the following marketing strategies;

Career Cluster posters, program brochures, a Career Awareness event at the Charles County

Fairgrounds, and Tech Prep events in collaboration with the College of Southern Maryland.


22

Early Learning

The early childhood program for Charles County Public Schools is based on the following beliefs.

• The whole child’s physical, social, emotional, and cognitive development is so closely related

that development in one domain influences development in the other domains.

• Research-based developmentally appropriate practices will be implemented to ensure early

childhood students have successful learning experiences.

• Play is integral to children’s construction of knowledge and therefore should be the center of the

early childhood curriculum.

• Technology that is used at the appropriate developmental level can enhance children’s cognitive

and social abilities.

• Community partnerships must be created and maintained to ensure a successful early childhood

program.

Charles County Public Schools (CCPS) will provide early childhood students with a discovery-based,

literature rich learning environment. All children will learn, when exposed to an educational experience

that meets their needs. Charles County Public Schools will continue to recognize the needs of diverse

learners in order to ensure the development of the whole child. The early childhood program is based on

developmentally appropriate practices which emphasize emergent literacy and hands-on learning

experiences. Children are provided with opportunities to explore, make choices, utilize higher-level-

thinking skills and problem solve in a safe and nurturing environment. CCPS also places emphasis on

the social-emotional development of children, as well as the development of interactive communication

skills between children and familiar adults and with their peers.

Charles County Public Schools have implemented a full-day three year- old program at five of the six

Title I schools (Mt. Hope/Nanjemoy, C. Paul Barnhart, Indian Head , J. P. Ryon and Dr. Mudd

Elementary Schools) in an effort to place our most at risk children in a structured learning environment

as early as possible. In addition, at these five schools a full-day prekindergarten program exists to ensure

a smooth transition from the three year-old program to prekindergarten. Non-Title I schools offer two

half-day prekindergarten sessions serving forty of the most at risk students as identified by the selection

guidelines set by the Maryland Department of Education and Charles County Public Schools. Many of

the half-day programs also provide an inclusive opportunity. In these prekindergarten inclusion

classrooms, a special education teacher and a special education instructional assistant work

collaboratively with a regular education teacher and instructional assistant. Children with Individual

Education Plans (IEPs) are being instructed along with regular education students. CCPS has expanded

inclusive opportunities to include the three-year-old program. J. P. Ryon and C. Paul Barnhart’s three-

year-old program has been modeled after the prekindergarten inclusive programs.

Full-day kindergarten is in place at all of our twenty-one elementary schools. Highly-qualified, early

childhood teachers and full-time literacy instructional assistants are in place in all classrooms.

Three of our Title I schools, C. Paul Barnhart, Dr. Mudd and Eva Turner, are provided with services

through the Judith P. Hoyer Early Care and Education grant and their 30 community partners. Children

from birth through kindergarten and their families in these schools receive additional early childhood

experiences through the Judy Center program. The programs offered include: Parent/Provider


23

Workshops, Daytime Playgroups, Childcare Tuition Assistance, Dental Care Financial Assistance,

Vision & Hearing Screenings, Behavior Management Services, Tutoring Services, Family Field Trips,

Parent & Child Home Activities, Family Nights, and community referrals to local agencies. Judy Center

programs in these schools have previously been validated and recognized as having exemplary early

childhood programs by the Maryland State Department of Education. C. Paul Barnhart completed the

re-validation process during the 2010-2011 school year. Dr. Mudd and Eva Turner Elementary Schools

and the

Head Start programs at C. Paul Barnhart and Eva Turner will complete the process during the 2011-

2012 school year. The Judy Center plays an integral part in getting children ready to learn.

Charles County Public Schools will continue to address the on-going needs of our student population

with quality early childhood experiences and programs that promote social-emotional and academic

growth.

Gifted and Talented Education

In 2010-2011, Charles County Public Schools reviewed and enhanced our gifted identification

procedures and services in reading and math. Students in grades two through seven were screened to

identify those with needs beyond the traditional program. Gifted services at the elementary level

include cluster grouping for reading instruction using advanced texts, shared inquiry discussion,

advanced vocabulary development, and novel study and accelerated math groups. In middle school, a

gifted level language arts class and an accelerated sequence of math courses provide advanced

opportunities for gifted learners.

The 2011-2012 goals for gifted education include continuing to build expertise among teachers who

work with advanced learners by offering courses and evening staff development related to the needs of

gifted learners, nurturing potential in diverse student groups through initiatives like our STARS

program, expanding gifted services to high school English, and increasing the number of students who

score advanced on MSA.

Special Education

The goal of special education is to provide CCPS students with disabilities specialized instruction in the

least restrictive environment in order to maximize their access to and progression in the general

education curriculum. The Division of Instruction and the Department of Special Education are

committed to achieving this goal. Implicit in this goal is the expectation that students with disabilities

will demonstrate proficiency on grade level content standards as outlined in the Maryland State

Curriculum. Access to the general education curriculum, targeted staff development opportunities, and

collaboration between general and special education teachers, specialists, and administrators are critical

components in achieving this goal.

To ensure students with disabilities have access to the CCPS Essential Curriculum, special education

teachers are required to develop goals and objectives that are related to student grade level content

standards. The Department of Special Education continues to work closely with school based teams to

assist them in developing these goals through extensive training and monitoring. Additionally, CCPS is

dedicated to implementing a Response to Intervention model, which requires close collaboration


24

between general and special education teachers, particularly when identifying “root causes” of low

performing students and in selecting the appropriate intervention that will address that area. Targeted

interventions will facilitate effective remediation of skill deficits, resulting in greater access to the

general education curriculum. On-going progress monitoring is in place to assist teams in being

prescriptive and focused when developing intervention plans and also in determining the effectiveness

of those plans.

Within the Division of Instruction, collaboration among all professionals is an essential component.

Representatives from Special Education are part of all planning and implementation of CCPS

instructional initiatives. General and special education specialists collaborate in planning for

discretionary grants applications to ensure that intervention initiatives are comprehensive to all targeted

populations.

Additionally, special education central office staff works collaboratively with the Content Specialists to

update the CCPS Essential Curriculum by including strategies and resources for general and special

education teachers that will assist them in meeting the needs of all learners. Special education building-

level case managers attend grade level and/or content department meetings at the elementary, middle

and high school throughout the school year to ensure collaboration between general and special

education teachers. This collaboration is essential when determining best practices for students with

disabilities.

Professional development opportunities are also collaborative and approved through the Department of

Program Support to ensure that all trainings are reflective of the CCPS Master Plan goals and objectives.

Special education teachers are required to attend all content specific training sessions with their general

education counterparts in order to ensure consistent implementation of the CCPS Essential Curriculum

in all settings. Furthermore, evening staff development opportunities for general and special education

teachers have been developed for each content area. These sessions are collaboratively planned with

Special Education Instructional Specialists and include best practices and research-based instructional

strategies for students with disabilities.

Closing the Achievement Gap for Student Groups:

FARMS, African American Males, English Language Learners, and Special Education Students

Pertains to this student group


CCPS Highlighted

Strategies All Students

African

American

Males

FARMS Students English Language

Learners (ELLs)

Special Education

Students

To increase teacher

quality by hiring

knowledgeable

professionals who

effectively meet the

academic, cultural and

social needs of all

students

93.2% of all classes are

taught by highly

qualified teachers

96% of all core academic

classes are taught by

highly qualified teachers

CCPS Staff

attends

recruitment

fairs at

historically

black colleges

and

universities

All CCPS Title I

schools have 100%

certificated and

support staff that are

highly qualified

CCPS hired seven

fulltime, highly

qualified ESOL

teachers teaching

ELLs exclusively

CCPS identified

universities

graduating teachers

in areas of need

especially

secondary special

education

To improve teaching

and learning

Differentiated curricula

that includes addressing

a range of academic

needs by providing

resources and strategies

for struggling learners

and advanced learners

Interventions for

struggling learners

8 ELLs in pullout

format two to four

times per week and

ELL students in

grades 9 through

daily “for credit”

ESOL high school

classes

ELLs receive

online instruction

via ESOL-centered

software

Inclusion classes

and co-teaching

model

Support and

monitor the

implementation of

accommodations

and supplementary

aids and services

required by student

IEPs.





CCPS Highlighted


African

American

Males


Learners (ELLs)

Special Education

Students

Identifying student

potential for high

achievement:

Primary grades- Harrison

Scale; Intermediate and

Middle school – CogAT,

High school- AP

Potential, STARS, AVID

Instructional Leadership

team at all CCPS Schools

Differentiation

professional development

for teachers

Professional

Development for teachers

in Reading and Math

Implemented

constructiveness

approach-based

mathematics programs

To provide school and

district leadership in

closing the achievement

gap

CCPS mandated

Prekindergarten at every

CCPS elementary school

3-year-old program

at 5 Title I schools

Full day

prekindergarten at

all Title I schools

Inclusion 3-year-

old classes at Title

I schools

Inclusion

prekindergarten

classes at many of

CCPS elementary

schools





CCPS Highlighted


African

American

Males


Learners (ELLs)

Special Education

Students

CCPS Board policy:

10 Minority

Achievement

Requirements

Mandated CCPS Equity

Training for all CCPS

staff focused on practices

that provide academic

opportunity and access

for all students

STEM Initiatives –

programs that support

underrepresented

students

Students Targeting

Academic Rigor with

Success (STARS)

program

offered to provide

college readiness

opportunities for high

school students

Providing PBIS training

for teachers and staff in

Title I schools





CCPS Highlighted


African

American

Males


Learners (ELLs)

Special Education

Students

District Level

Administrative meetings

CCPS

principals and

central office

managers are

informed !0

requirements

of Minority

Achievement

CCPS principals

and central office

managers are

informed about all

Title I requirements

CCPS principals

and central office

managers are

informed about all

Title III

requirements

CCPS principals

and central office

managers are

informed about all

Special Education

requirements

To provide student

support

AVID coordinators,

administrators, school

counselors, and resource

teachers offer support

and academic monitoring

for students

STARS advocates serve

as mentors for students

Central office and

school-based funded

college and community

service focused fieldtrips

provided for students





CCPS Highlighted


African

American

Males


Learners (ELLs)

Special Education

Students

To increase family and

community engagement

CCPS communicates in a

variety of ways to

establish partnerships

between parents and

schools that focus on

academics and student

achievement:

Parent portal on each

school’s web site

allowing parents to

securely monitor their

child’s academic

progress on-demand.

The Parent

Handbook/Calendar,

which is distributed each

year to all students,

provides information

about academic standards

and assessments.

Nationally recognized

web site that hosts a

parent page with links to

documents outlining

academic standards,

assessment results,

school report cards, and

more.





CCPS Highlighted


African

American

Males


Learners (ELLs)

Special Education

Students

Parent Advisory

Committee, composed of

a parent representative

from each school, meets

three times a year to

receive updates on

academic standards,

assessments, data, and

other pertinent school

system information.

Minority

Achievement

meetings

Title I Annual

Parent night

Special Education

Citizens Advisory

Committee

Educational Showcase is

held annually to provide

parents with information

on academic standards,

programs offered and

general information

about the school system.

2011 Annual Update - Part I Charles County Public Schools 31 31

I.B

FINANCE SECTION

INTRODUCTION Located south of Washington, D.C., Charles County is considered part of the Washington, D.C.

metropolitan area. Charles County has a population of 133,049 and is located in Southern Maryland.

Elementary schools are composed of students from prekindergarten to grade five; middle schools have

students from sixth to eighth grade; and high schools serve students in grades nine through twelve.

MISSION STATEMENT The mission of Charles County Public Schools is to provide an opportunity for all school-aged children to

receive an academically challenging, quality education that builds character, equips for leadership and

prepares for life, in an environment that is safe and conducive to learning.

GOVERNANCE AND FISCAL POLICY Charles County Public Schools (CCPS) is governed by a local school board, consisting of seven elected

members and a non-voting student member. The vast majority of CCPS funding is provided by the

Charles County government and the State. In addition, the Maryland State Department of Education

(MSDE) exercises considerable oversight through the establishment and monitoring of various financial

and academic policies and regulations, in accordance with certain provisions of the Annotated Code of

Maryland. MSDE also works with CCPS to comply with the requirements and mandates of the federal

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Oversight by the Charles County government is limited, although the

CCPS annual operational and capital budgets require County approval.

Budgets are balanced for all funds. Total anticipated revenues should equal or exceed total estimated

expenditures. In the event that a fund’s projected expenditures in the current year will exceed anticipated

revenues, such deficit will be eliminated by either additional revenues or reduced expenditures. Should

anticipated revenues be insufficient to fund anticipated essential expenditures, then a portion of the

unreserved fund balance from previous years will be used to fund the shortfall. In the event there is

insufficient unreserved fund balance from previous years to fund anticipated expenditures, then such

expenditures will be reduced to equal anticipated revenues.

SYSTEM PRIORITIES

Recognize national and state economic declines and their impact on education. Maintain realistic

expectations for funding.

Prepare and plan for major budget cuts in response to state or county funding reductions.

Keep the focus on student achievement.

Maintain core programs and progress.

FISCAL OUTLOOK AND CLIMATE CHANGES

The stalled economy continues to present funding challenges for local education. Enrollment growth in

the county remains flat although many schools are at or above capacity. Like most states, Maryland used

federal stimulus funding to fill budget gaps for education; however, the majority of this funding ended

this year with the remainder expiring next year. The President announced new programs to create and

protect jobs, but the stalemate in the House and Senate may offset any real gains. Furthermore, the impact

of additional federal funding for the School System may be offset by state, local or federal budget cuts in

other programs.


It appears that we can expect several more years of slow growth and budget uncertainty. This unstable

economic environment is made worse by legislative changes, mandates and county imposed restrictions

which change the allocation of remaining resources. Continued legislative proposals for relaxing

maintenance of effort laws, transferring teacher retirement obligations to school systems, health insurance

coverage requirements, and binding arbitration requirements will have negative impacts on school system

funding.

Funding other post-retirement benefits (OPEB) in accordance with GASB 45 remains a concern, but a

lower budget priority. The Board of Education is committed to honoring union contracts, which provide

health insurance benefits to current and retired employees. Changes have been made to help control costs,

but these changes have little impact on the unfunded liability. Until the economy improves, funding this

obligation is anticipated to be extremely difficult going forward.

The classified pension plan presents another area for concern. While the brief turnaround in the markets

have resulted in the returns meeting the targeted benchmarks, making significant improvements in

funding ratios will require additional contributions or reductions in benefits. We have addressed this

problem in part by funding amounts in excess of the annual required contribution, and by eliminating late

retirement benefits.


ENROLLMENTS

The change in student enrollment correlates with the need for additional teachers, support staff,

transportation, supplies, textbooks and other variable costs. This model assumes the maintenance of

existing ratios for class size and teaching responsibilities. Student enrollment projections are based on

historical data, birthrate change, and registration trends. Although building permits are not used in the

student enrollment projections, building trends are considered in the growth rate adjustments at each

school. Information provided by the Maryland Office of Planning and the Charles County Office of

Planning and Management is combined with historical student enrollment trends. The county ranks 10th

in the state in full-time equivalent (FTE) student enrollment out of 24 counties. FTE student enrollment

is expected to increase by 116 students from last year’s 25,955 student enrollment (.45 percent).

Over the past ten years, full-time equivalent students have increased at an annual growth rate of 1.6

percent. Full-time equivalent is a term used to reflect a students’ time in school or class (e.g., a student

attends half day and would be counted as a .5 full-time equivalent). Full-time equivalent student

enrollment is used to determine the number of students eligible for state aid and generally excludes pre-

kindergarten, evening high school and part-time students.

Change in Head Count and Full-time Equivalent (FTE) Enrollment

0.0

200.0

400.0

600.0

800.0

1,000.0

1,200.0

99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

Fiscal Years

HeadCount

FTE

MSDE


FY2012 USE OF NEW FUNDS

REVENUES State Revenues (Foundation Formula)

Revenues from the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) include block grants for general

operations, transportation, special education and compensatory aid. Projected additional state revenues

are contingent upon state legislation. Generally, the state funds each county on an inverse relationship to

county wealth. Charles County ranks 16th out of 24 counties in the state in wealth per pupil. Fiscal 2012

funding from the state is increased by $5.2 million.

Charles County Commissioners Funding Formula

The county sets funding at 52.4 percent of the total county undedicated revenues. Undedicated revenues

include property taxes, tax credits, income taxes, recordation taxes, hotel taxes, deregulation subsidies for

public utilities and interest income. For FY2012, funding is based on maintenance of effort level

providing $324,100 more than last year.

The minimum Maintenance of Effort funding level according to state law Maryland Annotated Code

Education Article 5-202 states that a county governing body shall appropriate local funds to the school

operating budget in an amount no less than the product of the county's full-time equivalent enrollment for

the current fiscal year and the local appropriation on a per pupil basis for the prior fiscal year.

Other Miscellaneous Revenues

Other revenue adjustments include a decrease in the fund balance transfer. The current expected fund

balance transfer from the prior fiscal year is $2.6 million. Revenue adjustments will reduce the expected

fund balance by half the original budget level to $1,300,000. The fund balance will be generated from

salary savings and delaying both technology upgrades and non-emergency maintenance projects.

Change in General Fund State Revenues (Amount in Thousands $)

-$10,000.0

-$5,000.0

$0.0

$5,000.0

$10,000.0

$15,000.0

$20,000.0

99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

Fiscal Years


MANDATORY COSTS Charles County Public Schools (CCPS) consider mandatory costs (cost elements that are vital to the

operations of the school system) an essential part of the budget development process. Mandatory costs

include contractual requirements, utilities, student transportation and health insurance costs. The

following graph depicts funding sources above stated mandatory costs. Revenue sources in excess of

mandatory costs support instruction enhancements to the school system.

Funding Sources for Mandatory Costs General fund only (Amounts in Thousands $)

-$10,000.0

-$5,000.0

$0.0

$5,000.0

$10,000.0

$15,000.0

$20,000.0

$25,000.0

$30,000.0

$35,000.0

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

Fiscal Years

COLA Reserve

Mandatory CostRevenues

EXPENDITURES

Health Insurance

During the annual renewal meeting with our health care provider, Carefirst, claims may increase

$848,000 or 3.72 percent of current expenditure trends. The expected increase will be offset by several

cost savings measures in prescription drugs and changes in “stop loss” for high level claims.

American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) – ED Jobs Transfer Out to Restricted Funds

The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act – Education Jobs Fund Program (ARRA – ED Jobs) will

sunset September 2012. Programs funded through this initiative for eligible employees include tuition

reimbursement, teacher substitutes, hourly salaries for initiatives funded from the ARRA – SFSF funds

and one-time payments for employees unaffected by the STEP.

American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) – State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) Transfer In

The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act – State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (ARRA – SFSF) will

sunset September 2011. Programs funded through this initiative such as staff development, research and

assessment and the Space Foundation will require new funding in the general operating budget with the

exception of the Summer Reading Academy. The Summer Reading Academy will be delayed until after


July 1, 2012 and will be incorporated into the FY2013 budget request. In addition, this request supports

mandated services due to Individual Education Plan (IEP) requirements, including speech therapist, and

one-on-one nurses. These expenditures were funded from ARRA – IDEA Part B.

Student Transportation

The budget request provides base funds to accommodate fuel price levels averaging $4.25 per gallon.

Funding also includes 25 replacement buses and four additional buses for new bus routes (3 regular

education, 1 special education). Funds do not include compensation adjustments for bus drivers or

potential contract changes.

Utilities

Provides a five percent increase in prices or consumption based on estimates. The average annual

expenditure increase over the past four years has been $430,000. Utilities include electricity, oil,

water/sewage and gas.

Technology Upgrades

Funds will help support a five-year replacement goal to stay current with technological advancements and

keep pace with school system needs for student enrollment growth. Charles County Public Schools’ five

year technology plan and the Maryland State Department of Education Technology Plan requires a five-

year replacement cycle and a goal of 3-to-1 student-to-computer ratio at the elementary level and 1-to-1

student-to-computer ratio at the secondary level. Currently, the school system’s student to computer ratio

is equivalent to 3-to-1 at both elementary and secondary levels and has a computer replacement cycle of 7

years.

The requested funds would support replacing items six years or older; Desk top computers (2550 @ $800

each = $2,040,000), Laptops (700 @ $800 each = $560,000) and design and develop a comprehensive

Telepresence class room in four additional high schools (Lackey, La Plata, Stone, and North Point).

Westlake and McDonough High Schools Telepresence class rooms were developed in 2010. Funding

represents debt service on a $3 million technology loan.

Pension Administration Fee

This request reflects an estimated administrative charge of $163 per participant of the State Retirement

System. Beginning in FY2012, The State Retirement System’s revenue source will be from local

agencies as opposed to the pension trust fund. CCPS has approximately 2,846 participants in the State

Retirement System.

Department of Juvenile Services Agency Reimbursement

This request reflects changes made in the Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act (BRFA) of 2011

House Bill 72 (HB 72). Beginning in FY2012, a county board shall reimburse the department of juvenile

services the amount of the “basic cost” for each child who was domiciled in the county prior to placement

under certain conditions: (1) The child is placed in a non-public residential facility that provides an

educational program.; (2) The child does not meet the criteria for State and local share payment under

special education non-public placement and Infants and Toddler; and (3)The child was included in the


county’s official full-time equivalent student enrollment. Funding would provide for an estimated 20

students on an FTE basis.

Nurses’ Contract

FY2012 estimate provides funding for health benefit expenditures. Estimated expenditures also includes

nursing services for the summer reading academy, funding for a private duty nurse and contractual

obligation for nursing services at the schools.

Reserve for Negotiations

Reserves are set aside for LEVEL/STEP and scale adjustments. The school system would still be one

year behind normal LEVEL/STEP and scale adjustments based on longevity. The full cost of a STEP is

$4.2 million. This request represents net cost offset by retirement and turnover.

Budget Reductions

A reduction of 27.5 vacant positions will provide approximately $1.5 million to fund expected mandatory

increase.

Race to the Top

FY2012 funding for Race to the Top will be used toward the four projects outlined in the RTTT grant

application. Project 1: Standards and Assessments is focused on development of the CCS online toolkit

and transitioning to the Common Core for math and writing. Project 2: Data Systems to Support

Instruction funding is enhancing the data warehouse and developing a reporting tool. Project 3: Great

Teachers and Leaders is structured to support mentor teachers and researching online portals for

professional development for the future. Project 4: STEM is focused on providing professional

development and curriculum development for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math.


1.1A: Current Year Variance Table

Local School System: Charles

Revenue Category

Local Appropriation $145,620,700

Other Local Revenue 2,631,082

State Revenue 151,388,735

Federal Revenue* 84.027 IDEA Part B - Grants to States-Pass-Through 5,870,548

84.010 Title I Part A 3,003,742

84.391 ARRA IDEA Part B - Grants to States-Pass-Through 393,000

84.392 ARRA IDEA Part B - Preschool Grants 71,600

84.393 ARRA IDEA Part C - Infants and Families 73,500

84.394 ARRA State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Education Program 2,072,973

84.395 ARRA Race to the Top 448,167

84.410 ARRA Education Jobs Fund 5,555,572

Other Federal Funds** 4,044,877

Other Resources/Transfers (Includes Food Services) 11,560,724

Total $332,735,220

Expenditures: Source Amount FTE

71% SALARIES & WAGES Unrestricted 36,263,760 524.72

58% SALARIES & WAGES Restricted 5,726,340 63.38

100% SALARY: SUBS, HOURLY WAGES, ONE-TIME PAYMENTS ARRA 84.410 3,703,956

83 % STIPENDS, HOURLY PAY ARRA 84.394 1,372,123

55% SUPPLIES & MATERIALS ARRA 84.391 225,000

64% STIPENDS, HOURLY PAY ARRA 84.395 132,293

81% CONTRACTED SERVICES ARRA 84.393 72,400




100% SUPPLIES & MATERIALS Restricted 700

46% SUPPLIES & MAT., 39% CONT. SERVICES ARRA 84.395 232,484

100% EQUIPMENT ARRA 84.391 10,000

100% SALARIES & WAGES ARRA 84.410 1,703


99% SALARIES & WAGES Unrestricted 139,453,506 2,160.60


100% SALARY: ONE-TIME PAYMENTS ARRA 84.410 563,151

100% OTHER : MILEAGE ARRA 84.395 83,390



Section C - Data Systems to support instruction

Reform Area 2: Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve

instruction.

Section D: Great Teachers and Leaders

Reform Area 3: Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most.

Section B - Standards and Assessments

Reform Area 1: Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy.

FY 12 Budget

Instructions: Itemize FY 2012 expenditures by source (CFDA for ARRA funds, restricted or unrestricted) in each of the assurance areas, mandatory cost of

doing business, and other.






27% CONTRACTED SERVICES, 39% TUITION REIMB.\ FRINGE BENEFITS Unrestricted 126,237,270

70% FIXED CHARGES; FRINGE BENEFITS Restricted 4,118,729

98% FIXED CHARGES: FRINGE BENEFITS ARRA 84.410 1,282,762

94% CONT. SERVICES: BUSES, HIGH SCHOOL RENOVATIONS ARRA 84.394 686,850

94% CONT. SERVICES: GWYNN CENTER RENOVATIONS ARRA 84.391 128,000

100% FIXED CHARGES: FRINGE BENEFITS ARRA 84.392 5,100



59% SALARIES & WAGES Unrestricted 4,027,013 22

96% SALARIES & WAGES Restricted 545,565 0.8


*Indicate non-ARRA IDEA and Title I funds by CFDA in Federal Funds.

**All other federal funds can be consolidated in other federal funds.

***Other Funds includes expenditures related to federal Impact Aid

Section E: Turning Around the Lowest Achieveing Schools

Reform Area 4: Turning around our lowest-achieving schools

Mandatory Cost of Doing Business: Please itemize mandatory costs not attributable to an assurance area in this category. Refer to the guidance for items

considered mandatory costs.

Other: Please itemize only those expenditures not attributable to an assurance area or mandatory costs in this category.


Prior Year Variance Table

REVENUES

Total general fund revenues were $6.8 million less than anticipated budgetary levels due to State

and Other sources. State revenues were $4.6 million less than budget due to held funding of the

foundation program related to the Ed Jobs federal grant to be used for FY2012 funding formula.

Other sources of revenue were $2.6 million less than budget due to not transferring the prior year

fund balance. Revenue shortfalls were offset by federal impact aid recognized revenues.

Total restricted fund revenues were $4.3 million less than anticipated revenues due to reserves

for the summer reading academy ($1.8 million) and ARRA special education summer infant and

toddlers, camp ship and autism programs( $535,000), lapsed salary savings from special

education IDEA and Medical Assistance to be used for hourly instructional staff ($2.0 million).

EXPENDITURES

The following synopsis provides a comparative analysis between the plan and the actual events

in the prior year:

All general fund revenue shortfalls were offset by total planned expenditure savings from

unfilled positions, turnover (including associated employee benefits), utilities, and materials of

instruction throughout the school system.

Master Plan Goal 1 Academic Achievement:

Stated expenditures include activities up to June 30, 2011. Expenditures short of the planned

amounts for ARRA SFSF represent final payment for construction cost to be distributed in the

month of September. Title I provided a two year budget allocation. The planned expenditures

reflect the first year budget adjustment to provide FY2011 funding in the amount of $598,000.

Actual expenditures for this initiative was $581,000 primarily for supplementary materials of

instruction and hourly support staff for Title I Schools. The actual expenditures were $382,000

less than the previous year.

Graduation Rates and Drop-out Rates Special Student Groups:

ARRA IDEA provided a two year budget allocation. The planned expenditures reflect the first

year budget adjustment to provide FY2011 funding in the amount of $3.7 million. Actual

expenditures for this initiative were $3.1 million primarily for contractual speech therapists, and

full-time staff consisting of teachers, psychologists, guidance counselors and instructional

assistants. Actual expenditures increased $1.1 million compared to the previous year.

Mandatory Costs of Doing Business:

Stated planned expenditures reflect the estimated year end projections for lapsed salary savings.

Lapsed salary savings from unfilled positions, and turnover (including associated employee

benefits), increased to help offset reductions in state revenues (mentioned above). Other savings

included utilities, and materials of instruction.


Other:

Stated planned expenditures reflect the reduction in funding from the previous year in the

amount of $1.8 million. FY2011 budget allocations for the restricted funds total $14.9 million.

Actual expenditures were $12.4 million representing $2.5 million less than the previous year.

Actual expenditures were reduced to provide reserves for instructional support staff in IDEA and

Medical Assistance programs.


1.1B Prior Year Variance Table (Comparison of Prior Year Expenditures)

Local School System: Charles FY 2011

Original

Budget

**FY 2011 Actual

Revenues

Revenue Category 7/1/2010 6/30/2011 Change % Change

Local Appropriation* 145,296,600 145,296,600 - 0.0%

State Revenue 146,166,224 141,535,451 (4,630,773) -3.2%

Federal Revenue - - 0.0%

Other Resources/Transfers 2,600,000 - (2,600,000) -100.0%

Other Local Revenue* 2,946,115 3,260,953 314,838 10.7%

Other Federal Funds 12,018,252 10,098,545 (1,919,707) -16.0%

Federal ARRA Funds 9,577,471 7,273,102 (2,304,369) -24.1%

Total 318,604,662 307,464,651.00 (11,140,011) -132.5%

Change in Planned Expenditures

NCLB

Goal Expenditure Description

Planned

Expenditure

Actual

Expenditure Planned FTE Actual FTE

Master Plan Goal 1: Academic Achievement

1 ARRA - State Fiscal Stabilization fund - Infrastructure CTE Programs 1,403,534 1,126,042

1 ARRA - Title I, Part A - School Support, Extended Learning Opportunities (963,038) (381,611)

Total 440,496 744,431

Master Plan Goal 5: Graduation Rates and Drop Out Rates Special Student Groups

5 ARRA - IDEA Part B - Instructional Technology and Instructional Programs (1,973,898) 1,135,279 (11.0) (11.0)

Total (1,973,898) 1,135,279 (11.0) (11.0)

Mandatory Cost of Doing Business

10 Lapsed Salary Savings (439,800) (2,143,000)

Total (439,800) (2,143,000)

Other

25 ARRA grant funding (McKinney-Vento, School Lunch Equipment) (41,568) 85,229

25 IDEA Part B - Formula & Competitive funding (424,419) (793,259)

25 Restricted miscellaneous federal grant carryovers (442,844) (1,742,074)

25 Restricted miscellaneous local revenues (245,697) 615,858

25 Title grant funding (Title IV, Title II Tech Ed., Title III Language Acquisition) (147,439) 20,818

25 Title I formula funding and carryover (321,730) (224,409)

25 Twenty First Century Learning (148,750) (146,402) (1.0) (1.0)

25 Restricted miscellaneous state revenues (379,259)

Total (1,772,447) (2,563,498) (1.0) (1.0)

Total (3,745,649) (2,826,788) (12.0) (12.0)

*Change from 2010 update reclassified from local appropration to other local revenue ($1,127,035)

** Reflects FY11 Actual Revenue


THE AMERICAN REINVESTMENT AND RECOVERY ACT (ARRA)

All programs outlined for the American Reinvestment Recovery Act (ARRA) were successfully

implemented. Unspent amounts are reserved for the continuation of the Summer Reading

Academy, renovation of the F.B.Gwynn Center building for program enhancement and school

development programs.

The State Fiscal Stabilization (SFS) funds were used for specific construction projects, including

classroom modifications for programs such as Career & Technology Education, Project Lead

The Way and Foundations of Technology. The total resources allocated for this project were

$970,021. This schedule reflects expenditures as of June 30 and will not include the final

payments distributed in September. Other one-time uses of SFSF funds, include teacher tuition

reimbursement ($466,000), hourly salaries, staff development stipends ($744,000) and materials

of instruction (MOI) for extended day programs ($209,000).

To sustain programs funded under ARRA SFSF, non-personnel budgets were transferred into the

general fund operating budget while eligible personnel budgets were transferred to the Education

Jobs Bill. The potential “funding cliff” impact discussions will materialize during the FY2013

budget development. Due to the influx of the Education Jobs Bill, the school system was able to

phase-in operating budgets to continue supporting existing programs. Therefore, the system will

continue to provide students, teachers, and other program beneficiaries access to all programs

and activities.


1.1C Prior-Year ARRA Variance Report


Revenue

CFDA Grant Name

10.579 National School Lunch - Equipment Assistance 22,760 37,092 - - 59,852

84.387 Homeless Children and Youth - 5,263 22,585 - 27,848 84.389 Title I - Grants to LEAs, Neglected and Delinquent - 963,036 581,431 - 1,544,467 84.391 IDEA Part B - Grants to States-Pass-Through - 1,934,507 3,123,253 393,000 5,450,760 84.392 IDEA Part B - Preschool Grants - 39,391 19,888 71,600 130,879 84.393 IDEA Part C - Infants and Families - 146,213 92,359 73,500 312,072 84.394 State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Education Program - 3,257,990 3,328,586 2,072,973 8,659,549 84.395 Race to the Top 105,000.00 448,167.00 553,167 84.410 Education Jobs Fund 5,555,572.00 5,555,572 Total Arra Funds 22,760 6,383,492 7,273,102 8,614,812 22,294,166

Description CFDA Planned Amount

Actual

Amount

Planned

FTE

Actual

FTE**

71 - SALARIES & WAGES 84.389 63,489.59 31,975.00 2.00 0.93

84.391 29,520.00 18,175.00 1.00 1.00

84.392 - 1,753.00

84.394 130,796.98 93,825.00 1.00 0.92

72 - CONTRACTED SERVICES 84.389 21,769.33 13,909.00 -

84.391 316,297.23 261,873.00 -

84.394 110,786.64 96,207.00 -

73 - SUPPLIES & MATERIALS 84.394 35,795.32 27,022.00 -

84.391 - 18.00

74 - OTHER CHARGES 84.389 1,460.00 6,036.00 -

84.387 - 1,558.00

84.393 10,000.00 2,125.00 -

84.394 124,896.71 151,243.00 -

78 - FIXED CHARGES 84.389 15,952.65 2,436.00 -

84.391 2,259.00 1,398.00 -

84.394 469,304.59 475,302.00 -

84.392 - 134.00

1,332,328.04 1,184,989.00 4.00 2.85

71 - SALARIES & WAGES 84.391 42,452.41 4,793.00 1.00

84.394 132,973.96 116,479.00 2.00 1.15


84.394 125,533.00 124,242.00 -


84.394 78,488.48 99,206.00 -

84.395 - 105,000.00

74 - OTHER CHARGES 84.394 71,278.49 120,653.00 -

75 - EQUIPMENT 84.391 10,000.00 - -

78 - FIXED CHARGES 84.391 21,610.33 367.00 -

84.394 3,084.12 9,328.00 -

572,317.79 640,569.00 3.00 1.15

FY 09 Budget FY 10 Budget FY 11 Actual FY 12 Budget

Total ARRA

Funds

Instructions: For each of the four assurances, please identify how ARRA funds were used by itemizing expenditures for each assurance. Indicate

the grant CFDA number as the source of the funds for the expenditure.

Assurance 1: Increase teacher effectiveness and address inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers (recruiting, developing, and

retaining effective teachers and principals).

Assurance 2: Establish and use a pre-K through college and career data system to track progress and foster continuous improvement (building

data systems that measure student success and inform teachers and principals how they can improve their practices).




71 - SALARIES & WAGES 84.391 1,060,297.00 830,271.00 37.00 73.53

84.392 49,504.10 - 3.00 0.28

84.393 117,726.58 68,224.00 1.00 2.81

84.394 36,359.49 19,709.00 1.00


84.391 232,301.00 208,774.00 -

84.392 8,802.00 3,292.00 -

84.393 - 3,649.00

84.394 - 22,140.00


84.392 15,552.00 14,709.00 -

84.393 11,582.37 8,848.00 -

84.394 22,479.50 107,320.00 -

74 - OTHER CHARGES 84.394 - 28,299.00 -

75 - EQUIPMENT 84.394 4,000.00 - -

78 - FIXED CHARGES 84.391 268,265.62 141,725.00 -

84.392 3,869.24 - -

84.393 17,016.00 9,513.00 -

84.394 200.54 1,370.00 -

2,376,258.11 1,668,928.00 42.00 76.62

71 - SALARIES & WAGES 84.387 8,000.00 3,139.00 -

84.389 244,612.61 197,125.00 7.00 20.19

84.391 152,634.00 4.5

84.394 1,816,220.41 497,970.00 40.00 82.3


84.389 32,501.00 16,470.00 -

84.394 69,199.40 10,189.00 -


84.389 123,478.01 221,838.00 -

84.394 171,843.92 68,526.00 -

74 - OTHER CHARGES 84.387 16,000.00 2,000.00 -

84.389 4,000.00 5,484.00 -

84.394 6,256.11 1,034.00 -

78 - FIXED CHARGES 84.387 612.00 236.00 -

84.389 16,142.14 14,943.00 -

84.391 - 49,590.00

84.394 33,573.89 37,763.00 -

79 - TRANSFERS 84.389 16,513.03 23,137.00 -

2,580,313.72 1,317,730.00 47.00 106.99

71 - SALARIES & WAGES 84.389 2,150.00 580.00 1.00

84.394 16,284.33 15,655.00 -

72 - CONTRACTED SERVICES 84.387 3,978.50 - -

84.389 14,973.45 475.00 -

84.391 980,470.00 1,182,960.00 -

84.394 595,905.08 1,165,881.00 -


84.394 988,320.25 21,137.00 -

74 - OTHER CHARGES 84.389 8,699.46 9,677.00 -

84.394 51,406.85 17,072.00 -

78 - FIXED CHARGES 84.389 689.47 169.00 -

84.394 49.43 1,014.00 -

79 - TRANSFERS 84.389 10,000.00 10,000.00 -

84.391 34,000.00 27,000.00 -

2,716,253.34 2,460,886.00 1.00 -

Total 9,577,471.00 7,273,102.00 97.00 187.61

*Indicate any other ARRA funds received by the school system, including the CFDA number

**Actual FTE per the ARRA quarterly 1512 reports

* Other

Assurance 3: Make progress towards rigorous college and career-ready standards and high quality assessments that are valid and reliable for

all students, including limited English proficient students and students with disabilities (adopting internationally benchmarked standards and

assessments that prepare students for success in college and the workplace).

Assurance 4: Provide targeted, intensive support and effective interventions to turn around schools identified for corrective action and

restructuring (turning around lowest performing schools).


Race to the Top Monitoring Questions

1. Please provide the reason for the balance of unused funds at the conclusion of Project

Year 1. Where the reason is project-specific, please include this information at the

project level.

a. Standards and Assessments - CCPS had $28,800 unused funds in employee

mileage. Due to the number of briefings and the number of invited CCPS staff,

the system overestimated the number of classroom teachers to be involved in

MSDE Common Core briefings, curriculum and toolkit.

b. Data Systems to Support Instruction - CCPS had $60,713 unused funds from our

data warehouse enhancement development project,$15,000 from staff

development training of the enhancements, and $20,000 from the 4th

project that

being the purchase of a server for the new data warehouse. Due to the start date of

the first project its impact affected the other projects timetable and completion.

c. Great Teachers and Leaders - Great Teachers and Leaders – CCPS had unused

funds in Stipends ($63,900), Fixed charges ($4,889) and employee mileage

(30,900). The district followed the state lead in the design and implementation of

teacher induction programs which meet the revised COMAR 13A.07.01

requirements. MSDE used year 1 for state level research, revisions, and planning.

When plans were enacted in the summer of 2011, year 1 funds were not needed

for participation in the state Teacher Induction Academies or for the Teacher

Effectiveness Academies.

d. STEM - The money was allocated to facilitate teachers meeting at State Meetings

to create STEM teaching materials. Those STEM meetings did not take place as

the new State STEM staff were not hired.

2. How did the availability of unused funds at the conclusion of Project Year 1 impact the

LEA’s planning for Project Year 2 and beyond?

a. Standards and Assessments - CCPS increased funding for substitute in order for

classroom teachers to participate in MSDE Common Core toolkits. CCPS has

made available funds to purchase materials of instruction to all 31 schools to

purchase materials to support the transition to Common Core.

b. Data Systems to Support Instruction - The unused funds have been moved to year

four of each project. It has no impact on the planning for year 2 and assists CCPS

in planning for year 4 with funding.

c. Great Teachers and Leaders – The unused funds will provide an opportunity to

research technology systems to manage professional development and support

mentor teachers.

d. STEM- The impact of the unused funds created the ability to support additional

STEM activities, such as support the training of teachers for our new STEM

Aerospace Academy.

3. What programmatic changes or accelerations have been made to ensure that activities and

goals are met within the grant period?

a. Standards and Assessments – Although funds were allocated for releasing

classroom teachers in year 1 to work on the Common Core toolkits, in actuality

the toolkits will not be worked on until year 2. Therefore, CCPS decreased


substitute funds from year 1 and increased substitute funds for year 2. By doing

this CCPS will be able to follow the State’s lead in including classroom teachers

in the development of the toolkits in year 2. CCPS is also following the State’s

guidance in transitioning into the Common Core in regard to math practices and

increasing writing activities. Therefore, each school has been allotted funds to

purchase materials of instruction.

b. Data Systems to Support Instruction - CCPS now has a time table for completion

of the four projects that has shifted from planning year one thru three to planning

years one thru four.

c. Great Teachers and Leaders - The use of stipends to support mentor teachers will

continue in year 2 and beyond. The timeline for looking at new technology

systems to support professional development and mentor teachers will begin in

year 2 with research and review of existing vendors and software. Year two will

end with the selection of a system to pilot in year 3.

d. STEM - CCPS will also utilize funds to support the training of teachers for our

new STEM Aerospace Academy and will continue to support state efforts to

create STEM teaching materials.

4. What will the LEA do differently in Project Year 2 as a result of lessons learned in

implementing Project Year 1?

a. Standards and Assessments – NA

b. Data Systems to Support Instruction – NA

c. Great Teachers and Leaders - NA

d. STEM - NA

5. Does the LEA anticipate any challenges in implementing Project Year 2? If so, please

identify the challenges at the grant and project level, if applicable.

NA

SEE APPENDIX A for supporting documentation.


Data Tables


Local Appropriation

$0

Other Local Revenue

0

State Revenue

0

Federal Revenue* 10.579 National School Lunch - Equipment Assistance

0

84.386 Education Technology

0

84.387 Homeless Children and Youth

0

84.389 Title I - Grants to LEAs, Neglected and Delinquent 0

84.391 IDEA Part B - Grants to States-Pass-Through

0

84.392 IDEA Part B - Preschool Grants

0

84.393 IDEA Part C - Infants and Families

0

84.394 State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Education Program 0

84.395 Race to the Top

0

84.410 Education Jobs Fund

0 Other Federal Funds**

0

Other Resources/Transfers

0

Total $0

Instructions: Itemize FY 2012 expenditures by source (CFDA for ARRA funds, restricted or unrestricted) in each of the assurance areas, mandatory cost of doing business, and other.

Section B - Standards and Assessments Reform Area 1: Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy.

Expenditures:

Source

Amount

FTE

Section C - Data Systems to support instruction Reform Area 2: Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction.

Expenditures:

Source

Amount

FTE

Section D: Great Teachers and Leaders Reform Area 3: Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most.




Section E: Turning Around the Lowest Achieving SchoolsReform Area 4: Turning around our lowest-achieving schools

Expenditures:

Source

Amount

FTE

Mandatory Cost of Doing Business: Please itemize mandatory costs not attributable to an assurance area in this category. Refer to the guidance for items considered mandatory costs.



Expenditures:

Source

Amount

FTE

**Indicate non-ARRA IDEA and Title I funds by CFDA in Federal Funds.

**all other federal funds can be consolidated in other federal funds.


1.1B Prior Year Variance Table (Comparison of Prior Year Expenditures)

FY 2011 Original Budget

FY 2011 Final

Budget

Revenue Category 40,360 6/30/2011 Change % Change

Local Appropriation 146,423,635

State Revenue 146,166,224

Federal Revenue -

Other Resources/Transfers 2,600,000

Other Local Revenue 1,819,080

Other Federal Funds 12,018,252

Federal ARRA Funds 9,577,471

Total 318,604,662 0.00 - 0.00


NCLB Goal Expenditure Description

Planned Expenditure

Actual Expenditure

Planned FTE Actual FTE


1 ARRA - State Fiscal Stabilization fund - Infrastructure CTE Programs

1,403,534

1 ARRA - Title I, Part A - School Support, Extended Learning Opportunities (963,038)

Total 440,496


5 ARRA - IDEA Part B - Instructional Technology and Instructional Programs (1,973,898)

(11.0)

Total (1,973,898)

(11.0)


10 Lapsed Salary Savings (439,800)

Total (439,800)

Other

25 ARRA grant funding (McKinney-Vento, School Lunch Equipment) (41,568)

25 IDEA Part B - Competitive funding (424,419)

25 Restricted miscellaneous federal grant carryovers (442,844)

25 Restricted miscellaneous local revenues (245,697)

25 Title grant funding (Title IV, Title II Tech Ed., Title III Language Acquisition)

(147,439)

25 Title I formula funding and carryover (321,730)

25 Twenty First Century Learning (148,750)

(1.0)

Total (1,772,447)

(1.0)

Total (3,745,649)

(12.0)



Revenue FY 09

Budget FY 10 Budget FY 11

Budget FY 12

Budget

Total ARRA Funds CFDA Grant Name

10.579 National School Lunch - Equipment Assistance 22,760

37,092

-

84.387 Homeless Children and Youth -

5,263

49,952

84.389 Title I - Grants to LEAs, Neglected and Delinquent

-

963,036

597,757

84.391 IDEA Part B - Grants to States-Pass-Through

-

1,934,507

3,600,673

84.392 IDEA Part B - Preschool Grants

-

39,391

77,727

84.393 IDEA Part C - Infants and Families

-

146,213

156,325

84.394 State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Education Program

-

3,257,990

5,095,037

84.395 Race to the Top

84.410 Education Jobs Fund

Total Arra Funds

22,760

6,383,492

9,577,471

Instructions: For each of the four assurances, please identify how ARRA funds were used by itemizing expenditures for each assurance. Indicate the grant CFDA number as the source of the funds for the expenditure.

Description CFDA Planned Amount

Actual Amount

Planned FTE

Actual FTE

Assurance 1: Increase teacher effectiveness and address inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers (recruiting, developing, and retaining effective teachers and principals).

71 - SALARIES & WAGES 84.389 263,081.59

4.0

84.391 59,040.00

2.0

84.394 257,006.98

2.0

72 - CONTRACTED SERVICES 84.389 282,023.83

-

84.391 796,897.23

-

84.394 226,036.64

-

73 - SUPPLIES & MATERIALS 84.391 24,192.00

-

84.394 63,245.32

-

74 - OTHER CHARGES 84.389 4,880.00

-

84.393 10,000.00

-

84.394 219,986.71

-

78 - FIXED CHARGES 84.389



15,952.65 -

84.391 2,259.00

-

84.394 469,304.59

-

78 - FIXED COSTS 84.389 17,988.07

-

84.391 2,259.00

-

84.394 466,795.00

-

Assurance 2: Establish and use a pre-K through college and career data system to track progress and foster continuous improvement (building data systems that measure student success and inform teachers and principals how they can improve their practices).

71 - SALARIES & WAGES 84.391 101,652.41

2.0

84.394 216,443.96

4.0


-

84.394 217,533.00

-


-

84.394 163,622.48

-

74 - OTHER CHARGES 84.394 94,378.49

-

75 - EQUIPMENT 84.391 10,000.00

-

78 - FIXED CHARGES 84.391 21,610.33

-

84.394 3,084.12

-

78 - FIXED COSTS 84.391 22,800.00

-

84.394 -

-

Assurance 3: Make progress towards rigorous college and career-ready standards and high quality assessments that are valid and reliable for all students, including limited English proficient students and students with disabilities (adopting internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the workplace).

71 - SALARIES & WAGES 84.391 2,839,797.00

74.0

84.392 129,842.10

6.0

84.393 149,774.58

2.0



84.394 64,858.49

2.0


-

84.391 689,701.00

-

84.392 23,802.00

-

84.393 90,000.00

-

84.394 -

-

73 - SUPPLIES & MATERIALS 84.391 1,195,784.67

-

84.392 30,552.00

-

84.393 18,472.37

-

84.394 44,479.50

-

75 - EQUIPMENT 84.391 10,000.00

-

84.394 8,000.00

-

78 - FIXED CHARGES 84.391 268,265.62

-

84.392 3,869.24

-

84.393 17,016.00

-

84.394 200.54

-

78 - FIXED COSTS 84.391 406,227.00

-

84.392 6,228.00

-

84.393 26,600.00

-

84.394 -

-

79 - TRANSFERS 84.392 552.00

-

Assurance 4: Provide targeted, intensive support and effective interventions to turn around schools identified for corrective action and restructuring (turning around lowest performing schools).

71 - SALARIES & WAGES 84.387 16,000.00

-

84.389 468,741.61

14.0

84.391 86,000.00

1.0



84.394 3,448,937.41

80.0


-

84.389 77,001.00

-

84.394 128,099.40

-


-

84.389 789,390.35

-

84.394 314,107.92

-

74 - OTHER CHARGES 84.387 32,000.00

-

84.389 7,500.00

-

84.394 11,756.11

-

78 - FIXED CHARGES 84.387 612.00

-

84.389 16,142.14

-

84.394 33,573.89

-

78 - FIXED COSTS 84.387 612.00

-

84.389 17,732.09

-

84.391 -

-

84.394 57,824.00

-

79 - TRANSFERS 84.389 64,366.03

-

* Other

71 - SALARIES & WAGES 84.389

17,013.00

2.0

84.394

21,444.33

-

72 - CONTRACTED SERVICES 10.579

-

-

84.387

12,978.50

-

84.389

29,973.45

-

84.391

2,080,470.00

-



84.394

1,162,705.08

-

73 - SUPPLIES & MATERIALS 84.389

19,781.52

-

84.394

1,006,520.25

-

74 - OTHER CHARGES 84.389

20,158.46

-

84.394

86,546.85

-

75 - EQUIPMENT 10.579

59,852.00

-

78 - FIXED CHARGES 84.389

689.47

-

84.394

49.43

-

78 - FIXED COSTS 84.389

1,137.00

-

84.394

-

-

79 - TRANSFERS 84.389

30,000.00

-

84.391

78,000.00

-

Total 20,752,672.00

195.0

*Indicate any other ARRA funds received by the school system, including the CFDA number


Table 2.1: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Reading – Elementary PART 1

Subgroup

All Students

2009 2010 2011

# Tested # Prof. % Prof. # Tested # Prof. % Prof. # Tested # Prof. % Prof.

All Students 5375 4541 84.5 5319 4560 85.7 5478 4738 86.5

Hispanic/Latino of any race

294 264 89.8

American Indian or Alaska Native

37 29 78.4

Asian 168 162 96.4

Black or African American

2864 2337 81.6

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

2 2 100.0

White 1831 1688 92.2

Two or more races

281 256 91.1

Special Education

476 294 61.8 470 291 61.9 478 297 62.1

Limited English Proficient (LEP)

50 34 68.0 38 26 68.4 44 32 72.7

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS)

1479 1084 73.3 1653 1278 77.3 1757 1370 78.0

Subgroup

Male

2009 2010 2011


All Students 2749 2221 80.8 2735 2263 82.7 2854 2357 82.6


147 127 86.4


22 15 68.2

Asian 86 85 98.8


1485 1134 76.4


0 0 0.0

White 977 877 89.8

Two or more races

137 119 86.9

Special Education

329 207 62.9 323 200 61.9 351 220 62.7


28 21 75.0 18 14 77.8 21 17

81.0


746 511 68.5 842 619 73.5 913 680 74.5


Table 2.1: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Reading – Elementary PART 1

Subgroup

Female

2009 2010 2011

# Tested #

Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested # Prof. % Prof.

All Students 2626 2320 88.3

2584

2297

88.9

2623

2381 90.8


147 137 93.2


15 14 93.3

Asian 82 77 93.9


137

9 1203 87.2


2 2 100.0

White 854 811 95.0

Two or more races

144 137 95.1

Special Education

147 87 59.2

147 91 61.9

127 77 60.6


22 13 59.1

20 12 60.0

23 15 65.2


733 573 78.2

811 659 81.3

844 690 81.8


Table 2.2: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Reading - Middle

Subgroup

All Students

2009 2010 2011


All Students 6175 4976 80.6 6175 5140 83.2 6076 5030 82.8


274 233 85.0


41 33 80.5

Asian 191 178 93.2


3180 2442 76.8


5 5 100.0

White 2130 1915 89.9

Two or more races

255 224 87.8

Special Education

425 185 43.5 453 214 47.2 463 254 54.9


43 29 67.4 16 10 62.5 16 5 31.3


1565 1066 68.1 1708 1234 72.2 1760 1289 73.2

Subgroup

Male

2009 2010 2011


All Students 3201 2444 76.4 3193 2511 78.6 3105 2427 78.2


131 108 82.4


17 12 70.6

Asian 96 86 89.6


1620 1144 70.6


2 2 100.0

White 1126 980 87.0

Two or more races

113 95 84.1


Table 2.2: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Reading - Middle

Special Education

304 132 43.4 322 154 47.8 323 174 53.9


25 17 68.0 8 5 62.5 11 5 45.5


771 481 62.4 855 570 66.7 874 587 67.2

Subgroup

Female

2009 2010 2011


All Students 2974 2532 85.1 2982 2629 88.2 2971 2603 87.6


143 125 87.4


24 21 87.5

Asian 95 92 96.8


1560 1298 83.2


3 3 100.0

White 1004 935 93.1

Two or more races

142 129 90.8

Special Education

121 53 43.8 131 60 45.8 140 80 57.1


18 12 66.7 8 5 62.5 5 0 0.0


794 585 73.7 853 664 77.8 886 702 79.2


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

Subgroup

All Students

2009 2010 2011


All Students 2061 1696 82.3 2090 1713 82.0 2231 1936 86.8


88 82 93.2


13 11 85.0

Asian 69 64 92.8


1163 946 81.3


1 1 100.0

White 834 777 93.2

Two or more races

63 55 87.3

Special Education

109 49 45.0 148 87 58.8 85 50 58.8


6 3 50.0 8 3 37.5 13 7 53.8


313 212 67.7 429 311 72.5 452 350 77.4

Subgroup

Male

2009 2010 2011


All Students 984 770 78.3 1015 805 79.3 1103 914 82.9


41 38 92.7


9 7 77.8

Asian 33 31 94.0


570 430 75.4


1 1 100.0

White 420 383 91.1

Two or more races

30 24 80.0

Special Education

81 40 49.4 80 59 73.8 56 32 57.1


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


1 0 0.0 6 2 33.3 7 5 71.4


152 86 56.6 183 108 59.0 214 154 72.0

Subgroup

Female

2009 2010 2011


All Students 1077 926 86.0 1075 908 84.5 1128 1022 90.6


47 44 93.6


4 4 100.0

Asian 36 33 91.7


593 516 87.0


0 0 0.0

White 414 394 95.2

Two or more races

33 31 94.0

Special Education

28 11 39.3 68 28 41.2 29 18 62.1


5 3 60.0 2 1 50.0 6 2 33.3


161 126 78.3 246 203 82.5 238 196 82.4


Table 2.4: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Math - Elementary

Subgroup

All Students

2009 2010 2011


All Students 5389 4398 81.6 5311 4512 85.0 5483 4605 84.0


295 259 87.8


37 30 81.1

Asian 168 159 94.6


2866 2222 77.5


2 2 100.0

White 1834 1684 91.8

Two or more races

281 249 88.6

Special Education

477 250 52.4 467 279 59.7 479 264 55.1


50 37 74.0 38 25 65.8 45 32 71.1


1486 1031 69.4 1647 1251 76.0 1762 1338 75.9

Subgroup

Male

2009 2010 2011


All Students 2758 2191 79.4 2732 2274 83.2 2858 2367 82.8


147 128 87.1


22 17 77.3

Asian 86 82 95.3


1487 1134 76.3


0 0 0.0

White 979 886 90.5

Two or more races

137 120 87.6


Table 2.4: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Math - Elementary

Special Education

330 175 53.0 322 194 60.2 352 195 55.4


28 24 85.7 18 12 66.7 22 18 81.8


752 492 65.4 839 616 73.4 917 680 74.2

Subgroup

Female

2009 2010 2011


All Students 2631 2207 83.9 2579 2238 86.8 2625 2238 85.3


148 131 88.5


15 13 86.7

Asian 82 77 93.9


1379 1088 78.9


2 2 100.0

White 855 798 93.3

Two or more races

144 129 89.6

Special Education

147 75 51.0 145 85 58.6 127 69 54.3


22 13 59.1 20 13 65.0 23 14 60.9


734 539 73.4 808 635 78.6 845 658 77.9


Table 2.5: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Math - Middle

Subgroup

All Students

2009 2010 2011


All Students 6185 4439 71.8 6169 4547 73.7 6087 4822 79.2


274 223 81.4


41 29 70.7

Asian 191 173 90.6


3190 2277 71.4


5 5 100.0

White 2131 1893 88.8

Two or more races

255 222 87.1

Special Education

426 148 34.7 455 175 38.5 467 231 49.5


43 33 76.7 16 8 50.0 16 9 56.3


1568 853 54.4 1704 981 57.6 1768 1189 67.3

Subgroup

Male

2009 2010 2011


All Students 3206 2201 68.7 3195 2259 70.7 3111 2356 75.7


131 103 78.6


17 9 52.9

Asian 96 81 84.4


1627 1085 66.7


2 2 100.0

White 1125 977 86.8


Table 2.5: Maryland School Assessment Performance Results - Math - Middle

Two or more races

113 99 87.6

Special Education

305 110 36.1 324 126 38.9 325 155 47.7


25 20 80.0 8 3 37.5 11 6 54.5


773 389 50.3 856 469 54.8 877 551 62.8

Subgroup

Female

2009 2010 2011


All Students 2979 2238 75.1 2974 2288 76.9 2976 2466 82.9


143 120 83.9


24 20 83.3

Asian 95 92 96.8


1563 1192 76.3


3 3 100.0

White 1006 916 91.1

Two or more races

142 123 86.6

Special Education

121 38 31.4 131 49 37.4 142 76 53.5


18 13 72.2 8 5 62.5 5 3 60.0


795 464 58.4 848 512 60.4 891 638 71.6


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

Subgroup

All Students

2009 2010 2011


All Students 1936 1711 88.4 2036 1774 87.1 2005 1814 90.5


76 73 96.1


12 9 75.0

Asian 56 55 98.2


1054 903 85.7


0 0 0.0

White 753 725 96.3

Two or more races

54 49 90.7

Special Education

107 57 53.3 156 98 62.8 47 27 57.5


5 4 80.0 6 6 100.0 3 2 66.6


303 243 80.2 433 332 76.7 430 351 81.6

Subgroup

Male

2009 2010 2011


All Students 940 822 87.4 1025 888 86.6 982 881 88.8


34 33 97.1


7 5 71.4

Asian 29 29 100.0


519 437 84.2


na na na

White 369 356 96.5

Two or more races

24 21 87.5


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

Special Education

78 41 52.6 108 72 66.7 34 20 58.8


1 1 100.0 4 4 100.0 2 1 50.0


147 114 77.6 193 143 74.1 206 165 80.1

Subgroup

Female

2009 2010 2011


All Students 996 889 89.3 1011 886 87.6 1023 933 91.2


42 40 95.2


5 4 80.0

Asian 27 26 96.3


535 466 87.1


1 1 100.0

White 384 369 96.1

Two or more races

30 28 93.3

Special Education

29 16 55.2 48 26 54.2 13 7 53.9


4 3 75.0 2 2 100.0 3 2 66.7


156 129 82.7 240 189 78.8 224 186 83.0


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

Subgroup

All Students

2009 2010 2011


All Students 1894 1162 61.4 1746 1038 59.5 1898 1194 62.9


96 62 64.6


13 9 69.2

Asian 63 49 77.8


1004 520 51.8


2 2 100.0

White 626 485 77.5

Two or more races

94 67 71.3

Special Education

158 53 33.5 151 50 33.1 156 49 31.4


14 8 57.1 9 1 11.1 18 3 16.7


490 200 40.8 527 222 42.1 586 273 46.6

Subgroup

Male

2009 2010 2011


All Students 989 602 60.9 872 510 58.5 961 603 62.7


43 28 65.1


8 6 75.0

Asian 32 25 78.1


499 252 50.5


0 0 0.0

White 333 264 79.3

Two or more races

46 28 60.9



Special Education

115 39 33.9 107 36 33.6 101 37 36.6


7 4 57.1 7 1 14.3 6 1 16.7


250 101 40.4 266 114 42.9 287 129 44.9

Subgroup

Female

2009 2010 2011


All Students 905 560 61.9 874 528 60.4 937 591 63.1


53 34 64.2


5 3 60.0

Asian 31 24 77.4


505 268 53.1


2 2 100.0

White 293 221 75.4

Two or more races

48 39 81.3

Special Education

43 14 32.6 44 14 31.8 55 12 21.8


7 4 57.1 2 0 0.0 12 2 16.7


240 99 41.3 261 108 41.4 299 144 48.2


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

Subgroup

All Students

2009 2010 2011


All Students 2131 1284 60.3 2065 1316 63.7 2167 1442 66.5


104 73 70.2


14 6 42.9

Asian 67 58 86.6


1125 640 56.9


1 0 0.0

White 766 596 77.8

Two or more races

90 69 76.7

Special Education

148 27 18.2 142 23 16.2 138 32 23.2


18 6 33.3 5 3 60.0 8 2 25.0


520 214 41.2 540 235 43.5 609 299 49.1

Subgroup

Male

2009 2010 2011


All Students 1100 647 58.8 1046 645 61.7 1112 704 63.3


53 35 66.0


6 1 16.7

Asian 32 27 84.4


578 304 52.6


0 0 0.0

White 399 307 76.9

Two or more races

44 30 68.2



Special Education

112 22 19.6 97 17 17.5 96 24 25.0


11 5 45.5 3 1 33.3 4 1 25.0


263 108 41.1 267 107 40.1 306 141 46.1

Subgroup

Female

2009 2010 2011


All Students 1031 637 61.8 1019 671 65.8 1055 738 70.0


51 38 74.5


8 5 62.5

Asian 35 31 88.6


547 336 61.4


1 0 0.0

White 367 289 78.7

Two or more races

46 39 84.8

Special Education

36 5 13.9 45 6 13.3 42 8 19.0


7 1 14.3 2 2 100.0 4 1 25.0


257 106 41.2 273 128 46.9 303 158 52.1


Table 2.9: Maryland High School Assessment Performance Results - Science - High (Biology)

Subgroup

All Students

2009 2010 2011


All Students 2040 1705 83.6 2086 1725 82.7 2230 1925 86.3


88 82 93.2


13 11 84.6

Asian 70 64 91.4


1162 926 79.7


1 1 100.0

White 847 782 92.3

Two or more races

62 57 91.9

Special Education

91 62 68.1 106 60 56.6 84 51 60.7


* * * * * * 13 10 76.9


307 230 74.9 425 296 69.6 452 337 74.6

Subgroup

Male

2009 2010 2011


All Students 985 826 83.9 1042 877 84.2 1102 950 86.2


41 39 95.1


8 7 87.5

Asian 33 32 97.0


569 447 78.6


1 1 100.0

White 426 396 93.0


Table 2.9: Maryland High School Assessment Performance Results - Science - High (Biology)

Two or more races

29 26 89.6

Special Education

68 40 58.8 79 49 62.0 55 35 63.6


* * * * * * 7 7 100.0


148 112 75.7 182 136 74.7 214 154 72.0

Subgroup

Female

2009 2010 2011


All Students 1055 879 83.3 1044 848 81.2 1128 975 86.4


47 43 91.5


5 4 80.0

Asian 37 32 86.5


593 479 80.8


0 0 0.0

White 421 386 91.7

Two or more races

33 31 93.9

Special Education

23 12 52.2 27 11 40.7 29 16 55.2


* * * * * * 6 3 50.0


159 118 74.2 243 160 65.8 239 183 76.6


Table 3.1: HSA Test Participation and Status - English 2010

Population: All 10th Grade Students

Subgroup

All Students

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed

% Taken and Not Passed

Number Not

Passed % Not Taken

Number Not

Taken

All Students 2134 74.3 1586 22.4 478 3.3 70



Asian



White

Two or more races

Special Education

105 36.2 38 60.0 63 3.8 4


11 45.5 5 18.2 2 36.4 4


429 56.2 241 38.2 164 5.6 24

Subgroup

Male

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed


Number Not

Passed % Not Taken

Number Not

Taken

All Students 1038 69.7 724 26.7 277 3.6 37



Asian



White


Table 3.1: HSA Test Participation and Status - English 2010 Two or more races

Special Education

76 35.5 27 59.2 45 5.3 4


7 57.1 4 28.6 2 14.3 1


210 48.6 102 46.2 97 5.2 11

Subgroup

Female

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed


Number Not

Passed % Not Taken

Number Not

Taken

All Students 1096 78.6 862 18.3 201 3.0 33



Asian



White

Two or more races

Special Education

29 37.9 11 62.1 18 0.0 0


4 25.0 1 0.0 0 75.0 3


219 63.5 139 30.6 67 5.9 13




Subgroup

All Students

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed


Number Not

Passed % Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 1988 82.6 1642 16.0 319 1.4 27



Asian



White

Two or more races

Special Education

75 41.3 31 58.7 44 0.0 0


5 0.0 0 60.0 3 40.0 2


387 69.8 270 27.6 107 2.6 10

Subgroup

Male

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed


Number Not

Passed % Not Taken

Number Not

Taken

All Students 990 79.3 785 19.7 195 1.0 10



Asian



White


Table 3.2: HSA Test Participation and Status - English 2010 Two or more races

Special Education

49 38.8 19 61.2 30 0.0 0


2 0.0 0 0.0 0 100.0 2


181 64.6 117 33.1 60 2.2 4

Subgroup

Female

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed


Number Not

Passed % Not Taken

Number Not

Taken

All Students 998 85.9 857 12.4 124 1.7 17



Asian



White

Two or more races

Special Education

26 46.2 12 53.8 14 0.0 0


3 0.0 0 100.0 3 0.0 0


206 74.3 153 22.8 47 2.9 6


Table 3.3: HSA Test Participation and Status - Algebra/Data Analysis 2010


Subgroup

All Students

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed


Number Not

Passed % Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 2054 83.2 1708 14.4 295 2.5 51



Asian



White

Two or more races

Special Education

104 40.4 42 56.7 59 2.9 3


10 30.0 3 30.0 3 40.0 4


425 72.5 308 24.2 103 3.3 14

Subgroup

Male

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed


Number Not

Passed % Not Taken

Number Not

Taken

All Students 1002 82.4 826 14.8 148 2.8 28



Asian






White

Two or more races

Special Education

75 42.7 32 53.3 40 4.0 3


6 33.3 2 0.0 0 66.7 4


208 70.2 146 26.0 54 3.8 8

Subgroup

Female

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed


Number Not

Passed % Not Taken

Number Not

Taken

All Students 1052 83.8 882 14.0 147 2.2 23



Asian



White

Two or more races

Special Education

29 34.5 10 65.5 19 0.0 0


4 25.0 1 75.0 3 0.0 0


217 74.7 162 22.6 49 2.8 6




Subgroup

All Students

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed


Number Not

Passed % Not Taken

Number Not

Taken

All Students 1903 88.4 1682 9.5 181 2.1 40



Asian



White

Two or more races

Special Education

76 53.9 41 43.4 33 2.6 2


4 50.0 2 25.0 1 25.0 1


381 80.8 308 17.3 66 1.8 7

Subgroup

Male

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed


Number Not

Passed % Not Taken

Number Not

Taken

All Students 944 87.7 828 9.9 93 2.4 23



Asian



White




Two or more races

Special Education

50 54.0 27 42.0 21 4.0 2


1 0.0 0 0.0 0 100.0 1


175 83.4 146 15.4 27 1.1 2

Subgroup

Female

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed


Number Not Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not

Taken

All Students 959 89.1 854 9.2 88 1.8 17



Asian



White

Two or more races

Special Education

26 53.8 14 46.2 12 0.0 0


3 66.7 2 33.3 1 0.0 0


206 78.6 162 18.9 39 2.4 5


Table 3.5: HSA Test Participation and Status - Biology 2010


Subgroup

All Students

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed


Number Not

Passed % Not Taken

Number Not

Taken

All Students 2124 78.1 1658 18.0 383 3.9 83



Asian



White

Two or more races

Special Education

105 43.8 46 48.6 51 7.6 8


11 18.2 2 27.3 3 54.5 6


428 62.1 266 32.0 137 5.8 25

Subgroup

Male

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed


Number Not

Passed % Not Taken

Number Not

Taken

All Students 1035 76.2 789 19.0 197 4.7 49



Asian



White




Two or more races

Special Education

76 44.7 34 46.1 35 9.2 7


7 14.3 1 14.3 1 71.4 5


210 57.6 121 35.2 74 7.1 15

Subgroup

Female

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed


Number Not

Passed % Not Taken

Number Not

Taken

All Students 1089 79.8 869 17.1 186 3.1 34



Asian



White

Two or more races

Special Education

29 41.4 12 55.2 16 3.4 1


4 25.0 1 50.0 2 25.0 1


218 66.5 145 28.9 63 4.6 10




Subgroup

All Students

Number of

Students

% Taken and

Passed

Number

Passed

% Taken

and Not

Passed

Number Not

Passed

% Not

Taken

Number Not

Taken

All Students 1984 84.6 1678 13.9 276 1.5 30

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 76 44.7 34 53.9 41 1.3 1

Limited English

Proficient (LEP) 6 50.0 3 50.0 3 0.0 0

Free/Reduced

Meals (FARMS) 384 72.4 278 25.3 97 2.3 9

Subgroup

Male

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed


Number Not Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 989 84.3 834 14.3 141 1.4 14



Asian


Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific




Islander

White

Two or more races

Special Education

50 50.0 25 48.0 24 2.0 1


1 100.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0


178 71.9 128 26.4 47 1.7 3

Subgroup

Female

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed

% Taken

and Not

Passed Number Not

Passed % Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 995 84.8 844 13.6 135 1.6 16



Asian



White

Two or more races

Special Education

26 34.6 9 65.4 17 0.0 0


5 40.0 2 60.0 3 0.0 0


206 72.8 150 24.3 50 2.9 6


Table 3.7: HSA Test Participation and Status - Government 2010


Subgroup

All Students

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed

% Taken

and Not Passed

Number Not Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 2131 88.1 1878 9.6 205 2.3 48



Asian



White

Two or more races

Special Education

105 53.3 56 43.8 46 2.9 3


11 36.4 4 18.2 2 45.5 5


427 77.3 330 20.1 86 2.6 11

Subgroup

Male

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed


Number Not

Passed % Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 1039 87.5 909 10.1 105 2.4 25



Asian



White

Two or more




races

Special Education

76 51.3 39 47.4 36 1.3 1


7 28.6 2 0.0 0 71.4 5


210 75.7 159 21.9 46 2.4 5

Subgroup

Female

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed


Number Not

Passed % Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 1092 88.7 969 9.2 100 2.1 23



Asian



White

Two or more races

Special Education

29 58.6 17 34.5 10 6.9 2


4 50.0 2 50.0 2 0.0 0


217 78.8 171 18.4 40 2.8 6




Subgroup

All Students

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed


Number Not

Passed % Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 2036 92.5 1884 6.5 133 0.9 19



Asian



White

Two or more races

Special Education

80 61.3 49 37.5 30 1.3 1


8 25.0 2 62.5 5 12.5 1


399 85.2 340 13.8 55 1.0 4

Subgroup

Male

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed


Number Not

Passed % Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 1016 92.0 935 7.2 73 0.8 8



Asian



White

Two or more races




Special Education

53 64.2 34 34.0 18 1.9 1


2 50.0 1 50.0 1 0.0 0


187 83.4 156 15.5 29 1.1 2

Subgroup

Female

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed


Number Not

Passed % Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 1020 93.0 949 5.9 60 1.1 11



Asian



White

Two or more races

Special Education

27 55.6 15 44.4 12 0.0 0


6 16.7 1 66.7 4 16.7 1


212 86.8 184 12.3 26 0.9 2


Table 3.9: Graduates Who Met the High School Assessment (HSA) Graduation Requirement by Option

School Year

Enrolled

HSA Graduation Requirement Options Total

Passing Scores on Four HSAs 1602 Option Bridge Projects Waivers Met Not Met

# # % # % # % # % # % # %

All Students

2008-2009 2104 1537 72.7 404 19.1 163 7.7 0 0.0 2104 100.0 0 0.0

2009-2010 2105 1543 73.1 369 17.5 190 9.0 3 0.1 2105 100.0 0 0.0

2010-2011 2150 1635 76.1 366 17.0 149 6.9 0 0.0 2150 100.0 0 0.0

Male

2008-2009 996 717 46.7 194 48.0 85 52.2 0 0.0 996 100.0 0 0.0

2009-2010 1053 735 47.6 204 55.3 113 59.5 1 0.0 1053 100.0 0 0.0

2010-2011 1064 772 47.2 198 53.9 94 63.1 0 0.0 1064 100.0 0 0.0

Female

2008-2009 1108 820 53.3 210 52.0 78 47.8 0 0.0 1108 100.0 0 0.0

2009-2010 1052 808 52.4 165 44.7 77 40.1 2 0.0 1052 100.0 0 0.0

2010-2011 1086 863 52.8 168 46.1 55 36.9 0 0.0 1086 100.0 0 0.0

Table 3.10: Bridge Projects Passed

School Year

Algebra Biology English Govern-ment Total

# # # # #

All Students

2008-2009 197 225 213 107 742

2009-2010 209 226 232 141 808

2010-2011 177 196 172 157 702

Male

2008-2009 113 126 140 68 447

2009-2010 123 128 146 69 466

2010-2011 100 110 108 89 407

Female

2008-2009 84 99 73 39 295

2009-2010 86 98 86 72 342

2010-2011 77 86 64 68 295


Table 3.11: Rising Seniors Who Have Not Yet Met the Graduation Requirement

School Year

Enrolled Met

Not Yet Met

Total Needing to Pass 4

Needing to Pass 3

Needing to Pass 2

Needing to Pass 1

# # % # % # % # % # % # %

All Students

2009-2010 2195 1705 77.7 135 27.6 112 22.9 106 21.6 137 28.0 490 22.3

2010-2011 2102 1565 74.5 65 12.1 67 12.5 115 21.4 290 54.0 537 25.5

2011-2012 2180 1960 89.9 0 0.0 95 43.8 85 38.6 40 18.2 220 10.1

Male

2009-2010 1054 804 76.3 72 53.3 59 52.7 57 53.8 62 45.2 250 51.0

2010-2011 1049 763 72.7 36 55.4 36 53.7 63 54.8 151 52.1 286 53.3

2011-2012 1097 960 87.5 0 0.0 66 69.5 51 60.0 20 50.0 137 62.3

Female

2009-2010 1141 901 79.0 63 46.7 53 47.3 49 46.2 75 54.7 240 49.0

2010-2011 1053 802 76.2 29 44.6 31 46.3 52 45.2 139 47.9 251 46.7

2011-2012 1083 1000 92.3 0 0.0 29 30.5 34 40.0 20 50.0 83 37.7




Subgroup

All Students

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed


Number Not Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 1986 84.1 1671 15.9 315 0.0 0



Asian



White

Two or more races

Special Education 90 60.0 54 40.0 36 0.0 0


1 0.0 0 100.0 1 0.0 0


394 75.9 299 24.1 95 0.0 0

Subgroup

Male

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed


Number Not Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 976 79.8 779 20.2 197 0.0 0



Asian



White

Two or more races



1 0.0 0 100.0 1 0.0 0


164 68.9 113 31.1 51 0.0 0




Subgroup

Female

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed


Number Not Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 1010 88.3 892 11.7 118 0.0 0



Asian



White

Two or more races



0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0


230 80.9 186 19.1 44 0.0 0




Subgroup

All Students

Number of Students

% Taken and Passed

Number Passed


Number Not Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 1925 88.7 1708 11.3 217 0.0 0



Asian



White

Two or more races



0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0


390 79.5 310 20.5 80 0.0 0

Subgroup

Male

Number of

Students % Taken and

Passed Number Passed


Number Not Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 950 88.5 841 11.5 109 0.0 0



Asian



White

Two or more races



0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0


165 78.8 130 21.2 35 0.0 0




Subgroup

Female

Number of




Number Not Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 975 88.9 867 11.1 108 0.0 0



Asian



White

Two or more races



0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0


225 80.0 180 20.0 45 0.0 0


Table 3.14: HSA Test Participation and Status - Biology 2010 Population: All 12th Grade Students

Subgroup

All Students

Number of




Number Not Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 1985 84.2 1672 15.8 313 0.0 0



Asian



White

Two or more races

Special Education

90 60.0 54 40.0 36 0.0 0


1 0.0 0 100.0 1 0.0 0


393 71.5 281 28.5 112 0.0 0

Subgroup

Male

Number of




Number Not Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 974 86.1 839 13.9 135 0.0 0



Asian



White

Two or more races

Special Education

67 65.7 44 34.3 23 0.0 0


1 0.0 0 100.0 1 0.0 0


164 76.8 126 23.2 38 0.0 0


Table 3.14: HSA Test Participation and Status - Biology 2010 Population: All 12th Grade Students

Subgroup

Female

Number of




Number Not Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 1011 82.4 833 17.6 178 0.0 0



Asian



White

Two or more races

Special Education

23 43.5 10 56.5 13 0.0 0


0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0


229 67.7 155 32.3 74 0.0 0




Subgroup

All Students

Number of




Number Not Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 2052 94.2 1934 5.8 118 0.0 0



Asian



White

Two or more races

Special Education

91 73.6 67 26.4 24 0.0 0


0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0


413 88.4 365 11.6 48 0.0 0

Subgroup

Male

Number of




Number Not Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 1003 94.7 950 5.3 53 0.0 0



Asian



White

Two or more races

Special Education

67 76.1 51 23.9 16 0.0 0

Limited English 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0




Proficient (LEP)


170 88.8 151 11.2 19 0.0 0

Subgroup

Female

Number of




Number Not Passed

% Not Taken

Number Not Taken

All Students 1049 93.8 984 6.2 65 0.0 0



Asian



White

Two or more races

Special Education

24 66.7 16 33.3 8 0.0 0


0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0


243 88.1 214 11.9 29 0.0 0


Table 4.1: System AMAO I, 2009-2010

N Number Who Met %

Total 201 165 82.1

Table 4.2: System AMAO II, 2009-2010*

N Number Who Met Target %

Total 216 53 24.5

Table 4.3: System AMAO III, 2010

AYP Status for Limited English Proficienct (LEP) Students*

Reading Math

Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle High

2007 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

2008 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

2009 Yes Yes Yes Yes

2010

* Indicate YES If the School System made AYP for LEP Students, or NO of the School System did not make AYP for LEP Students

*Note: In order for a local school system to meet the System AMAO II, 2009-2010, at least 17% of students must meet grade-specific targets for English Language Proficiency.

Note: In order for a local school system to meet the System AMAO I, 2009-2010, at least 60% of students must make a 15 scale score point increase on the 2010 LAS administration as compared to last year's administration.


Table 5.1: Number and Percentage of All Schools Making Adequate Yearly Progress

School Year

Elementary Middle High Special Placement

Total # of

Schools

Schools Making AYP

Total # of

Schools

Schools Making AYP

Total # of

Schools

Schools Making AYP

Total # of

Schools

Schools Making AYP

# % # % # % # %

2002-2003

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

Table 5.2: Number and Percentage of Title I Schools Making Adequate Yearly Progress

School Year


Total # of Title

I Schools

Title I Schools Making AYP

Total # of Title

I Schools


Total # of Title

I Schools


Total # of Title

I Schools


# % # % # % # %

2002-2003

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011


Table 5.3: Number of All Schools in Improvement

2005-2006 Level of Improvement

Exit

ing

in 2

00

5


Exit

ing

in 2

00

6 (based on 2005 AYP) (based on 2006 AYP)

Developing Needs Priority Needs Developing Needs Priority Needs

Year 1 Year 2 CA Restruct-

uring Planning

Restruct-uring

Implemen-tation


uring Planning

Restruct-uring

Implemen-tation

Elementary Schools

Middle Schools

High Schools

Special Placement Schools

Total


Exit

ing

in 2

00

7


Exit

ing

in 2

00




uring Planning

Restruct-uring

Implemen-tation


uring Planning

Restruct-uring

Implemen-tation

Elementary Schools

Middle Schools

High Schools


Total


Exit

ing

in

20

09


Exit

ing

in

20

10

(based on 2009 AYP) (based on 2010 AYP)





uring Planning

Restruct-uring

Implemen-tation


uring Planning

Restruct-uring

Implemen-tation

Elementary Schools

Middle Schools

High Schools


Total


Exit

ing

in 2

01

1


Exit

ing

in 2

01



Year 1 Year 2 CA

Restruct-uring

Planning

Restruct-uring

Implemen-tation Year 1 Year 2 CA

Restruct-uring

Planning

Restruct-uring

Implemen-tation

Elementary Schools

Middle Schools

High Schools


Total


Table 5.1: Number and Percentage of All Schools Making Adequate Yearly Progress

School Year


Total # of

Schools

Schools Making AYP

Total # of

Schools

Schools Making AYP

Total # of

Schools

Schools Making AYP

Total # of

Schools

Schools Making AYP

# % # % # % # %

2002-2003

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

Table 5.2: Number and Percentage of Title I Schools Making Adequate Yearly Progress

School Year


Total # of Title

I Schools


Total # of Title

I Schools


Total # of Title

I Schools


Total # of Title

I Schools


# % # % # % # %

2002-2003

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011




Exit

ing

in 2

00

5


Exit

ing

in 2

00




uring Planning

Restruct-uring

Implemen-tation


uring Planning

Restruct-uring

Implemen-tation

Elementary Schools

Middle Schools

High Schools


Total


Exit

ing

in 2

00

7


Exit

ing

in 2

00




uring Planning

Restruct-uring

Implemen-tation


uring Planning

Restruct-uring

Implemen-tation

Elementary Schools

Middle Schools

High Schools


Total


Exit

ing

in

20

09


Exit

ing

in

20

10






uring Planning

Restruct-uring

Implemen-tation


uring Planning

Restruct-uring

Implemen-tation

Elementary Schools

Middle Schools

High Schools


Total


Exit

ing

in 2

01

1


Exit

ing

in 2

01



Year 1 Year 2 CA

Restruct-uring

Planning

Restruct-uring


Restruct-uring

Planning

Restruct-uring

Implemen-tation

Elementary Schools

Middle Schools

High Schools


Total


Table 5.4: Number of Title I Schools in Improvement


Exit

ing

in 2

00

5


Exit

ing

in 2

00




uring Planning

Restruct-uring

Implemen-tation


uring Planning

Restruct-uring

Implemen-tation

Elementary Schools

Middle Schools

High Schools


Total


Exit

ing

in 2

00

7


Exit

ing

in 2

00




uring Planning

Restruct-uring

Implemen-tation


uring Planning

Restruct-uring

Implemen-tation

Elementary Schools

Middle Schools

High Schools


Total


Exit

ing

in 2

00

9


Exit

ing

in 2

01

0



Table 5.4: Number of Title I Schools in Improvement



uring Planning

Restruct-uring

Implemen-tation


uring Planning

Restruct-uring

Implemen-tation

Elementary Schools

Middle Schools

High Schools


Total


Exit

ing

in 2

01

1


Exit

ing

in 2

01



Year 1 Year 2 CA

Restruct-uring

Planning

Restruct-uring


Restruct-uring

Planning

Restruct-uring

Implemen-tation

Elementary Schools

Middle Schools

High Schools



Table 5.5: Attendance Rates

All Students Male Female

Annual Measurable Objective (AMO): 94% 94% 94% 90%* 94% 94% 94% 94% 90%* 94% 94% 94% 94% 90%* 94%

Subgroups by Level 2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

All Students

Elementary 96.1 95.9 95.8 95.9 95.9 96.1 95.9 95.9 96.0 96.0 96.1 95.9 95.7 95.8 95.8

Middle 95.1 95.4 95.5 95.5 95.5 94.9 95.3 95.4 95.4 95.4 95.3 95.5 95.7 95.5 95.6

High 93.1 93.4 93.7 93.5 93.8 93.2 93.6 93.8 93.9 94.1 92.9 93.2 93.5 93.2 93.5


Elementary 95.9 96.0 95.8

Middle 95.3 95.6 95.1

High 93.7 94.2 93.2



Middle 95.7 94.8 96.4

High 93.0 93.0 92.9

Asian


Middle 97.7 97.6 97.7

High 95.9 96.3 95.6



Middle 95.8 95.6 96.0

High 93.9 94.3 93.6



Middle 96.8 95.8 97.2

High 96.1 96.6 95.8

White


Middle 94.9 95.0 94.9

High 93.5 93.7 93.2


Table 5.5: Attendance Rates

Two or more races


Middle 95.8 95.7 95.9

High 94.5 94.7 94.4

Special Education

Elementary 95.4 95.2 95.0 94.9 95.0 95.4 95.4 95.1 95.2 95.1 95.4 94.9 94.5 94.1 94.8

Middle 92.9 93.8 94.1 94.3 94.0 92.8 93.8 94.0 94.4 94.1 93.5 93.7 94.4 93.9 93.6

High 90.9 91.8 92.1 91.6 91.9 91.1 92.0 92.3 91.9 92.4 90.3 91.5 91.7 90.7 90.6


Elementary 96.8 96.5 96.5 96.0 95.7 96.7 96.5 96.5 95.7 95.8 97.0 96.4 96.4 96.3 95.7

Middle 97.0 96.4 97.4 96.6 96.2 97.4 96.8 97.9 96.6 97.4 96.2 96.0 96.9 96.8 94.2

High 95.0 94.9 94.8 95.1 92.0 96.1 96.3 94.8 94.6 92.7 94.0 93.3 94.8 95.6 91.4


Elementary 95.1 95.0 94.8 95.0 95.0 95.1 95.0 94.8 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.0 94.7 94.8 94.8

Middle 92.9 93.6 94.0 94.0 94.1 92.5 93.4 93.7 93.7 94.0 93.3 93.9 94.4 94.3 94.3

High 90.2 90.7 91.2 91.1 91.4 90.2 90.9 91.7 91.7 91.7 90.1 90.5 90.8 90.4 91.1


Table 5.6: Four-Year Cohort Graduation Rate

Subgroup


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

All Students 85.03 85.96 80.65 82.78 89.38 89.15

Hispanic/Latino of any race 87.06 84.21 89.36

American Indian or Alaska Native 73.08 64.71 N/A

Asian 92.06 94.29 89.29

Black or African American 83.36 79.70 86.99

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 100.00 N/A N/A

White 88.48 85.75 91.32

Two or more races 96.97 ≥ 95 ≥ 95

Special Education 58.70 62.09 * 67.33 * 51.92

Limited English Proficient (LEP) 100.00 50.00 * N/A * N/A

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 73.12 77.16 * 70.37 * 82.59

Table 5.7: Four-Year Cohort Dropout Rate

Subgroup


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

All Students 10.05 9.73 12.49 11.68 7.62 7.78

Hispanic/Latino of any race 9.41 * *

American Indian or Alaska Native 23.08 * *

Asian 3.17 * *

Black or African American 11.09 * *

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.00 * *

White 8.61 * *

Two or more races 1.52 * *

Special Education 15.94 16.34 * * * *

Limited English Proficient (LEP) 0.00 0.00 * * * *

Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) 15.50 14.81 * * * *


Table 6.1: Percentage of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers

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.

School Year

% of Core Academic Subject Classes

Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers

% of Core Academic Subject Classes Not


School Year

Total Number of Core Academic

Subject Classes in Title I Schools

Core Academic Subject Classes in

Title I Schools Taught by Highly

Qualified Teachers

% of Core Academic Subject Classes in

Title I Schools taught by HQT

2003-2004 51.0 49.0

2008-2009

103 103 100.0 2004-2005 60.0 40.0

2005-2006 73.0 27.0

2009-2010

508 508 100.0 2006-2007 82.0 18.0

2007-2008 91.0 9.0

2010-2011

2008-2009 87.0 13.0

2009-2010 92.2 7.8

2010-2011

Table 6.3: Number of Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified (NHQ) Teachers by Reason

School Year

Expired Certificate Invalid Grade

Level(s) for Certification

Testing Requirement Not

Met

Invalid Subject for Certification

Missing Certification Information

Conditional Certificate

Total

# classes

% #

classes %

# classes

% #

classes %

# classes

% #

classes %

# classes

%

2005-2006 31 4.8 12 1.9 226 34.9 51 7.9 51 7.9 276 42.7 647 100.0

2006-2007 19 4.3 13 2.9 179 40.0 67 15.0 44 9.8 125 28.0 447 100.0

2007-2008 0 0.0 15 3.1 72 15.0 58 12.1 144 29.9 192 39.9 481 100.0

2008-2009 38 6.8 13 2.3 28 5.0 175 31.1 45 8.0 279 49.6 562 100.0

2009-2010 0 0.0 8 1.6 25 5.2 165 34.0 34 7.0 253 52.2 485 100.0

2010-2011


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

Total Classes

Taught by HQT Total

Classes Taught by HQT

# # % # # %

2005-2006

Elementary 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

Secondary 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

2006-2007

Elementary 0 0 0.0 183 181 99.0

Secondary 47 18 38.3 286 37 87.1

2007-2008

Elementary 6 0 0.0 162 161 99.4

Secondary 0 0 0.0 928 835 89.9

2008-2009

Elementary 0 0 0.0 165 164 99.4

Secondary 0 0 0.0 1025 950 92.4

2009-2010

Elementary 0 NA NA 964 932 97.0

Secondary 0 0 0.0 758 692 91.0

2010-2011

Elementary

Secondary

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

School Year

Level


Classes Taught by Experienced HQT*

Classes Taught by Inexperienced HQT

Classes Taught by Experienced HQT*

Classes Taught by Inexperienced HQT

# % # % # % # %

2008-2009 Elementary 0 0.0 274 93.0 28 17.0

Secondary 0 0.0 219 90.5 23 9.5

2009-2010 Elementary 0 0.0 1220 94.0 76 6.0

Secondary 0 0.0 0 0.0 1422 95.0 72 5.0

2010-2011 Elementary

Secondary

* 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.


Table 6.6: Attrition Rates

Attrition Due To (Category):

Retirement Resignation Dismissal/Non-renewal Leaves Total Overal Attrition

Numer-ator

Denom-inator

% Numer-

ator Denom-inator

% Numer-

ator Denom-inator

% Numer-

ator Denom-inator

% %

2006-2007 55 1802 3.0 143 1802 7.9 3 1802 0.2 18 1801 1.0

2007-2008 34 2036 1.6 134 2036 6.7 19* 2036 0.9 15 2036 0.7

2008-2009 40 2090 1.9 135 2090 6.5 8 2090 0.4 15 2090 0.7

2009-2010 46 2034 2.2 22 2034 1.1 3 2034 0.2 3 2034 0.2

2010-2011

Use the data available as of September 1st following each of the school years to be reported. Report data for the entire teaching staff or for teachers of Core Academic Subject areas if those data are available. Indicate the population reflected in the data:

____Entire teaching staff or ____ Core Academic Subject area teachers

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

Qualified Paraprofessionals Working in Title I Schools

# %

2008-2009 111 111 100.0

2009-2010 115 115 100.0

2010-2011 115 115 100.0

2011-2012*

*As of July 1, 2011


Table 7.1: Number of Persistently Dangerous Schools

# of Schools

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

2009-2010 2010-2011

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 7.2: Probationary Status Schools

School* 9/30/2010 Enrollment

# of Suspensions

and Expulsions

Percentage of Enrollment

n/a

Table 7.3: Schools Meeting the 2½ Percent Criteria for the First Time

School* 9/30/2010 Enrollment

# of Suspensions

and Expulsions

Percentage of Enrollment

n/a

* Add rows when necessary


Table 7.4: Elementary Schools with Suspension Rates Exceeding Identified Limits

# of Schools

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

Number With a Suspension Rate that

Exceeded 18%

Number With a Suspension Rate that Exceeded

18%

Number With a Suspension Rate that Exceeded

16%

Number With a

Suspension Rate that Exceeded

14%


Exceeded 12%


Exceeded 10%


Exceeded 10%

0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 7.5: Identified Schools That Have Not Implemented PBIS

School*

School year in which the

suspension rate was exceeded

Provide reason for noncompliance

Provide a timeline for compliance

n/a

Table 7.6 Incidents of Bullying, Harassment, or Intimidation

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

Number of Incidents 45 50 42 76


Table 7.7: Number of Suspensions/Expulsions for Sexual Harassment, Harassment, and Bullying

Offense Sexual Harassment Harassment Bullying TOTAL

2003-2004 59 52 111

2004-2005 53 63 116

2005-2006 40 47 17 104

2006-2007 65 32 16 113

2007-2008 40 37 21 98

2008-2009 35 31 12 78

2009-2010 42 42 14 98

2010-2011

Table 7.8: Number of Students Suspended - In School - by Race/Ethnicity (Unduplicated Count)

School Year

Enrolled Hispanic/Latino

of any race American Indian or

Alaska Native Asian Black or African

American


Islander White Two or more

races Total

# # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %

All Students

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

Male

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

Female

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011


Table 7.9: Number of Students Suspended - Out of School - by Race/Ethnicity (Unduplicated Count)

School Year

Enrolled



Asian Black or African

American


Islander

White Two or more

races Total

# # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %

All Students

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

Male

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

Female

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

Table 7.10: In-School and Out-of-School Suspensions by Most Common Offense Category

School Year

In-School Suspensions Out-of-School Suspensions

#1 #2 #3 #1 #2 #3

All Students

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

Male

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

Female

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011


Table 8.1: Percentage of All Kindergarten Students at Readiness Stages

% Fully Ready % Approaching Readiness % Developing Readiness

SP LL MT ST SS TA PD Co

mp

osi

te


mp

osi

te


mp

osi

te

2004-2005

62.0 44.0 55.0 32.0 47.0 55.0 71.0 55.0 32.0 42.0 36.0 55.0 44.0 38.0 26.0 39.0 6.0 14.0 9.0 14.0 9.0 6.0 3.0 6.0

2005-2006

66.0 41.0 51.0 29.0 42.0 60.0 72.0 56.0 29.0 48.0 41.0 63.0 53.0 36.0 25.0 40.0 5.0 10.0 8.0 7.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 4.0

2006-2007

63.0 38.0 52.0 22.0 39.0 58.0 67.0 52.0 28.0 48.0 38.0 67.0 52.0 36.0 29.0 41.0 9.0 14.0 10.0 10.0 8.0 5.0 4.0 6.0

2007-2008

55.0 37.0 46.0 20.0 32.0 52.0 64.0 46.0 36.0 51.0 45.0 69.0 61.0 44.0 32.0 48.0 8.0 12.0 10.0 11.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 6.0

2008-2009

72.0 61.0 68.0 57.0 63.0 74.0 84.0 73.0 24.0 33.0 27.0 38.0 33.0 24.0 14.0 25.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.0

2009-2010

74.0 67.0 72.0 56.0 68.0 77.0 86.0 77.0 21.0 28.0 24.0 39.0 29.0 21.0 13.0 21.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0

2010-2011

80.0 71.0 75.0 66.0 74.0 83.0 91.0 83.0 17.0 24.0 21.0 29.0 22.0 14.0 8.0 15.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 2.0

Table 8.2: Percentage of Kindergarten Students with Previous Prekindergarten Experience

% Fully Ready % Approaching

Readiness % Developing Readiness

LL MT LL MT LL MT

2004-2005 46.0 57.0 44.0 37.0 10.0 6.0

2005-2006 44.0 54.0 49.0 40.0 7.0 6.0

2006-2007 43.0 57.0 44.0 35.0 13.0 8.0

2007-2008 40.0 50.0 49.0 42.0 12.0 8.0

2008-2009 61.0 69.0 34.0 27.0 5.0 4.0

2009-2010 71.0 76.0 23.0 20.0 6.0 4.0

2010-2011 71.0 75.0 24.0 21.0 5.0 5.0


Table 8.3: September 30 Prekindergarten Enrollment

Charles Prekindergarten (4 year old) Enrollment Data - 9.30.10

School Half Day or Full

Day Total Students

Enrolled 9.30.10

Income Eligible Students

(Priority 1)

Students Enrolled Under Other Criteria

(Priority 2)

C. Paul Barnhart full day 42 40 2

Berry half day 42 11 31

Dr. Brown half day 44 19 25

Dr. James Craik half day 41 15 26

William A. Diggs half day 43 20 23

Gale-Bailey half day 46 11 35

Dr. Higdon half day 41 10 31

Indian Head full day 39 39 0

Jenifer half day 42 16 26

Malcolm half day 38 14 24

T. C. Martin half day 42 7 35

Mary H. Matula half day 46 10 36

Arthur Middleton half day 38 12 26

Walter J. Mitchell half day 40 24 16

Mt. Hope/ Nanjemoy full day 41 41 0

Dr. Mudd full day 41 35 6

J.C. Parks half day 42 31 11

J.P. Ryon full day 39 28 11

Eva Turner full day 20 16 4

Wade half day 45 27 18

Mary B. Neal half day 46 26 20

TOTAL 858 452 406


Section A: State Success Factors

Goal(s): To address each of the following components:

Charles County Public Schools vision for reform aligned to the State’s Race to the Top (RTTT) Program

CCPS identified needs and goals

Stakeholder involvement

Proposed strategies for increasing student achievement and closing the achievement gap

Integration of the Final Scope of Work as part of its LEA Comprehensive Master Plan submission beginning with the 2011-

2012 school year

CCPS cooperation with national and statewide evaluations of RTTT

Year 3 Goals:






2012 school year


Section A: State Success

Factors

Correlation

to

State Plan

Project # Start Date End Date Key Personnel Performance

Measures

Recurring

Expense:

Y/N

MOU Requirements:

(No)

Additional Required

Activities

1. Cooperate with

national and

statewide evaluation

(A)(2) October,

2011

September,

2011

Cliff Eichel, Director of

Research and

Assessment

Full participation and

cooperation with

national and state

evaluators

N


Year 4 Goals:






2012 school year



Section B. Standards and Assessments

Participation in Common Core Standards Consortium: Charles County Public Schools

(CCPS) acknowledges and supports Maryland’s acclaimed national leadership in the area of

standards-based reform. We further recognize the Common Core State Standards as an important

development in this reform. As a result, CCPS supports Maryland’s plan to adopt the Common

Core State Standards and will take the necessary steps to make these standards accessible to all

CCPS administrators, teachers, parents, and students. Therefore, CCPS fully supports

Maryland’s efforts in participating in the Common Core Standards Consortium.

Timetable for Standards Adoption: Charles County Public Schools fully supports Maryland’s

timetable for standards adoption as set forth under Maryland Education Code Ann.§2-205(h)

which gives the State Board authority to adopt standards for all public schools in Maryland.

CCPS enthusiastically participated in MSDE content briefing opportunities in English Language

Arts, Mathematics, and STEM. CCPS appreciated the opportunities to offer comments and

feedback regarding the adoption of the Common Core Standards.

Developing and Implementing Common, High-Quality Assessments: As a state leader in the

use of summative, interim, and formative assessment data to inform instruction, CCPS fully

accepts Maryland’s no exceptions, no excuses policy to have students graduate from high school,

who are college and career ready. Likewise, Charles County Public Schools supports Maryland’s

development of a comprehensive assessment system that not only advances student, educator,

school, and district accountability, but supports highly effective classroom instruction for all

students.

As a result of the implementation of these common, high-quality assessments, CCPS teachers

will be able to access formative assessments through the Online Instructional Toolkit. CCPS is

also committed to the use of the multistate consortium – the Partnership for Assessment of

Readiness for College and Career (PARCC). PARCC’s plan to administer assessments when key

skills and concepts are taught will accommodate CCPS’s tradition of timely data reporting for

instructional decision making.

Supporting the Transition to Enhanced Standards and High-Quality Assessments: CCPS is

adopting the world-class expectations embodied in the Common Core State Standards so that all

CCPS high school graduates are ready for college and career. However, we understand the

adoption is only the first step with the standards as the foundation. We are also committed to the

development of the support systems needed to assure the success of all students with a particular

focus on those traditionally underserved. CCPS is dedicated to establishing and funding

effective strategies to this end. CCPS supports the state’s expectation that the standards must be:

(1) translated into challenging and engaging curriculum, lesson plans, classroom projects, and

homework assignments; (2) delivered by effective instructors in schools that are managed by

effective principals; and (3) supported by a technology infrastructure and longitudinal data

system that can identify achievement gaps among students and help educators intervene in a

timely way to close those gaps. Race to the Top will help CCPS re-examine these aspects of its

instructional system.

CCPS continues to make significant progress toward the elimination of our achievement gap.


Closing the Achievement Gap

MSA Elementary Reading and Math

Year Reading Math

2003 25.7 27.0

2011 10.7 13.6

MSA Middle School Reading and Math

Year Reading Math

2003 24.9 28.2

2011 12.5 13.9

The inclusion and implementation of the strategies described in Maryland’s plan will confirm

Charles’ County’s continued success in closing and successfully eliminating its achievement gap

in the near future. The above table shows the overall decrease in the achievement gap between

African-American students and White students at both the elementary and middle school levels

by at least ten percentage points. Moreover, the average scores on all four MSA tested areas for

both sub-groups increased from 2003 to 2011, making the narrowing in the achievement gap a

more significant achievement. However, the achievement gap still exists. Therefore, the school

district’s aspirations toward exceeding national and international standards drive our goal to

graduate college and career ready students, regardless of gender, socioeconomic status, or

ethnicity

Aligned State Curriculum: CCPS staff successfully aligned our district’s essential curriculum

with the Maryland State Curriculum and readily served on numerous state committees. Our

staff’s expertise and knowledge during that process was highly acclaimed. To date, our Content

Specialists and Directors have served on various standards review committees. CCPS staff will

continue to support MSDE curriculum work and Online Toolkit development.

To guarantee that our educators are thoroughly informed about the transition to the Common

Core Standards, CCPS staff has been fully involved and supportive of the statewide process to

revise the State Curriculum and will continue to do so in SY 12.

In year 2, twenty-one master teachers in Reading/ELA, math and STEM will attend MSDE

Common Core curriculum development sessions to develop the State Curriculum. In addition

Content Specialists and Directors will continue to serve on content specific standards review

committees. The CCPS Assistant Superintendent of Instruction will also participate in all

meetings that determine a consistent format for Maryland’s PreK-12 curricular framework and

the appropriate inclusion of technology.

An Effective Process for Engaging Stakeholders: Charles County Public Schools has a history

of involving stakeholders in all major initiatives such as the transition to the Maryland State

Curriculum in 2003, the annual Bridge to Excellence Master Plan update, various curriculum

updates and changes, as well as textbook selections. CCPS has three major stakeholder groups

with scheduled monthly meetings: Minority Achievement Committee, Parent Advisory

Committee, and the Special Education Citizens Advisory Committee. Additionally, we use our


CCPS web site, television station, School Improvement Planning representatives, Parent Teacher

Organizations/Associations, and newsletters to inform a variety of stakeholders.

CCPS’ consistent commitment continues as we transition to the system’s adoption and

implementation of the Common Core State Curriculum. Race to the Top (RTTT) stakeholder

meetings were held in 2010-2012 and will continue in 2011-2012.

In year 2, all stakeholder meetings have been scheduled for 2011-2012 culminating with the

April 21, 2012, CCPS Educational Showcase for parent and community groups.

Online Instructional Toolkit: In 2008, Charles County Public Schools embarked on an

ambitious endeavor to revise and reformat our curricula and provide online access through a

password protected intranet that is also available to teachers from home. The new format of the

curriculum provides teachers with differentiated lesson plans, multimedia resources, and

SMART activities. The intent is to provide curriculum that is a “living document” used before,

during, and after instruction. In addition to the online curriculum, CCPS staff use the MSDE

Online Instructional Toolkit found at www.mdk12.org. Therefore, we believe the Online

Instructional Toolkit, with all of the proposed components, will build on what is presently

available in CCPS.

Teachers also have access to a wide variety of digital library resources with vendors selected to

represent all grade levels and subject areas at http://www2.ccboe.com/library.

In year 2, twenty-five CCPS staff will contribute their experience and expertise in identifying

digital resources and activities that support the development of the Common Core State

Curriculum and the Online Instructional Toolkit.

CCPS is committed to strengthening classroom instruction and having all CCPS students leave

high school ready for college and career. Therefore in year 2, twenty-five CCPS staff members

will participate in all MSDE professional development opportunities on the Instructional

Improvement System that will assist teachers in developing lessons and differentiating

instruction.

Once completed, CCPS will provide professional development on the Instructional Improvement

System at the school, grade, and content levels to ensure the use of the nine-step process as an

integral practice at the classroom level.

STEM Curriculum: Three CCPS STEM staff members will actively collaborate with the state

in each developmental phase of state-wide STEM curriculum and resources. In 2010-2011,

CCPS content supervisors actively participated in the developmental phases of the joint

establishment of a World Language and STEM pipeline. In year 2, content supervisors will

continue to participate. CCPS will also continue its commitment to Gateway to Technology and

Project Lead the Way.

Charles County Public Schools will utilize its teaching staff and students in the creation,

implementation, and assessment of challenging career/technical/STEM programs of study. St.

Charles High School, currently in construction, is committed to the full integration of Career

Technical Education courses and STEM education.

CCPS will continue to develop dual enrollment, internships, co-op, and STEM lab experiences

for our high school students. CCPS is dedicated to providing these opportunities to all students.

http://www.mdk12.org/

http://www2.ccboe.com/library


High School Graduation Requirements: Charles County Public Schools supports Governor

O’Malley’s College Success Task Force. The four recommendations linking high school course

requirements with assessment results will assist with monitoring whether CCPS students are on

track to meet the college- and career-ready proficiency levels.

Professional Development: For several years, Charles County Public Schools employed

instructional leadership teams whose main purpose is to support instruction at the school and

classroom level. Currently, each elementary and middle school has a reading, math, and gifted

team member. At the high schools, there is one resource teacher at each school. In 2008, CCPS

also provided every teacher in every school with access to PD360, an on-demand library of

professional teacher development resources. As a result of these endeavors, our support of

Maryland’s PD vision is fully accepted.

In June 2011, CCPS principals and three teacher leaders - a reading/English Language Arts,

Mathematics, and STEM expert—from each Charles County school will participate in the MSDE

Southern Maryland Educator Effectiveness Academy (EEA). The outcome of the attending the

Academy was an EEA action plan for each school.

In year 2, the system will monitor the implementation of each school’s plan. In June 2012, each

school will meet with their EEA team to revise their EEA plans for the upcoming school year.

Also in year 2, CCPS identified 25 master teachers to support MSDE Common Core curriculum

development. Ten master teachers will be identified to support MSDE Common Core

curriculum training needs.

High-Quality Assessments: Over the past several years, Charles County Public Schools has

developed high-quality assessments to support classroom teachers and administrators in

improving instruction at the classroom level and reducing achievement gaps. Our quarterly

assessments given in reading/English language arts, mathematics, science and the high school

core content areas provide teachers and administrators with reliable data that have a high

correlation with the Maryland State Assessments (MSA) and the High School Assessments

(HSA).

In year 2, in support of MSDE’s priorities, five CCPS staff members will serve on state

committees to provide expertise in the new assessment design along with CCPS formative

assessment tools. At the appropriate time, MSDE will provide on-going professional

development opportunities for CCPS staff to guarantee that all our teachers and administrators

are fully informed at all stages of the new assessment design. In order to deliver assessments,

CCPS has staff at every building to provide the needed support to teachers with online

assessments. We will be ready to implement the new assessments no later than 2014-15.


Action Plan: Section B

Goal(s): Support the transition to enhance standards and high-quality assessments.

Support the development and implementation of the Common Core State Standards and high quality assessments.

Develop a transition plan to involve CCPS stakeholders

Provide effective professional development for teachers and principals

Support the development and implementation of the PreK-12 STEM curriculum

Section B: Standards and

Assessments

Correlation

to

State Plan

Project.

#

Start Date End Date Key Personnel Performance Measure Recurring

Expense:

Y/N

MOU Requirements: (Yes)

Activities to Implement

MOU Requirements

(B)(3)

1. Monitor the

implementation of the

Educational

Effectiveness Academy

(EEA) action plans

(B)(3)

08/2011 06/2012

Ronald

Cunningham,

Deputy

Superintendent

Judy Estep,

Assistant

Superintendent

of Instruction

Completion of goals

listed in EEA plans by

all CCPS schools

N

2. All CCPS school

Educator Effectiveness

Academy teams will

meet to revise and

update plans

(B)(3) 05/2/2012

6/30/2012 Ronald

Cunningham,

Deputy

Superintendent

Judy Estep,

Assistant

Superintendent

of Instruction

Educator

Effectiveness

teams from each

school

Submitted meeting

agendas, sign-in sheets

and revised EEA plans


3. Prepare to host the

Southern MD Regional

Educator Effectiveness

Academy at North

Point High School

(B)(3) 10/2011 6/2012 Judy Estep,

Assistant

Superintendent

of Instruction

and

MSDE

Successfully completed

the event to

accommodate the

academy requirements

N

4. Identify master teachers

to support MSDE CCS

training needs.

(B)(3) 1 5/2012 6/2012 Ronald

Cunningham,

Deputy

Superintendent

Judy Estep,

Assistant

Superintendent

of Instruction

Documented staff

participation

N

5. Participate in Common

Core Standards State

briefings for English

Language Arts

(B)(3) 1 Dates of State

Briefings:

Reading/ELA-

9/27/2011

1/9/2012

3/6/2012

5/22/2012

9/27/2011

1/9/2012

3/ 6/2012

5/22/2012

Meighan

Hungerford,

Content

Specialist for

Elementary

Reading

Sarah Smith,

Reading

Resource

Teacher for

Middle Schools

Vera Young,

Content

Specialist for

English

Submitted participation

record based on MSDE

requests and CCPS staff

attendance

Submitted agendas and

sign-in sheets

N

6. Participate in Common

Core Standards State

briefings for

Mathematics

(B)(3) Math-

10/20/2011

12/ 20/2011

3/22/2012

6/5/2012

10/20/201

1

12/20/201

1

Jane Thoman,

Instructional

Specialist of

Elementary

Mathematics




attendance


3/ 22/2012

6/5/2012

Mary Lee

Sadler, Content

Specialist for

Middle School

Mathematics

Scott Sisolak, Algebra

Resource

Teacher

Drew Jepsky, Director Of

Instructional

Assessment


sign-in sheets

7. Host various

stakeholder forum

(B)(3) N

Parent Advisory Committee

10/25/2011

10/25/201

1 Ronald

Cunningham,

Deputy

Superintendent

Held the forum,

submitted agendas and

sign-in sheets

Minority Achievement

Committee

10/5/2011

10/5/2011 Judy Estep,

Assistant

Superintendent

for Instruction

Held the forum,


sign-in sheets

Special Education Citizens

Advisory Committee

11/9/2011


Assistant

Superintendent

for Instruction

Held the forum,


sign-in sheets

CCPS Educational

Showcase

4/ 21/2012

4/21/2012

Judy Estep,

Assistant

Superintendent

for Instruction

Held the forum,


sign-in sheets

Education Association of (Bi-monthly) 9/2012 Keith Hettel, Held the forum,


Charles County

10/2011

12/2011

2/2012

4/2012

6/2012

8/2012

Assistant

Superintendent

for Human

Resources


sign-in sheets;

Elementary Reading and

Math Resource teachers

Role Alike meetings

10/3/2011

10/ 31/2011

12/5/2011

1/23/2012

2/13/2012

4/11/2012

5/7/2012

10/3/2011

10/

31/2011

12/5/2011

1/23/2012

2/13/2012

4/11/2012

5/7/2012

Meighan

Hungerford,

Elementary

Reading Content

Specialist

Jane Thoman,

Instructional

Specialist of

Elementary

Mathematics

Held the forum,


sign-in sheets;

Middle School Reading

and Math Resource

teachers Role Alike

meetings

Sarah Smith,

Reading

Resource

Teacher for

Middle Schools

Mary Lee

Sadler, Content

Specialist for

Middle School

Mathematics

Held the forum,


sign-in sheets

8. Participate in State

committees developing

the CCS online toolkit

(B)(3) 1 10/ 2011 9/2012 Judy Estep,

Assistant

Superintendent

for Instruction,

Content

Specialists




attendance


sign-in sheets

N


Master Teachers

Instructional

Specialists

Instructional

Resource

Teachers

Classroom

Teachers

9. Participate in STEM

briefings

(B)(3) 4 9/12/2011

12/7/2011

4/30/2012

9/12/201

1

12/7/201

1

4/30/201

2

Scott Hangey,

Director of

Science

Instruction and

Program

Development

Monique

Wilson, STEM

Coordinator




attendance


sign-in sheets

N

10. Support additional

MSDE CCS training

needs with identified

CCPS master teachers

(B)(3) 1 10/ 2011 9/ 2012 Ronald

Cunningham,

Deputy

Superintendent

Judy Estep,

Assistant

Superintendent

of Instruction




attendance


sign-in sheets

N

11. Participate on

committees developing

high quality

assessments

(B)(3) 1 10/ 2011 9/ 2012 Judy Estep,

Assistant

Superintendent

of Instruction

Master teachers




attendance


sign-in sheets

N


Year 3 Goals:





Year 4 Goals:





12. Continue convening the

CCPS Common Core

Transition Committee

(B3) 10/ 2011 9/ 2012 Judy Estep,

Assistant

Superintendent

of Instruction

Principals

Content

Specialists


sign-in sheets

Developed transition

plan

N


Core Content Areas

Reading

Elementary

Question 1 – Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of

grade band(s) and subgroups.

While Charles County Public Schools continues to see growth, it is not increasing at the rate that the AMO goal

does each year. More significant gains need to be made overall and in all subgroups in order to keep pace with

AMO projections.

Eight of the twenty-one Elementary Schools in Charles County Public Schools did not make AYP in the area of

reading for SY 2010-2011. Of those schools, 7 did not make it in the area of Special Education. 6 did not make

it in the area of FARMS. In addition, 4 did not make it in the area of African American. These subgroups

continue to be our challenge. While most schools were within less than 5 children from making AYP through

the confidence band, they still face significant challenges in the upcoming year with the increased AMO.

Percent of Proficiency by Subgroup – Grades 3 to 5

LEP is the lowest achieveing subgroup other than Special Education. In our system, the LEP population is

extremely small, (44 students in grades 3 – 5 total.) The needs of these students will be addressed specifically

at the classroom and school level.

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%


Even though the gap in achievement by subgroups is decreasing, it still exists. The gap in achievement between

African Americans and White students shown below.

2011 Reading MSA - Percent of Students Scoring Basic

African American and White Students

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5

African American 23.2 16.9 15.3

White 11.9 5.8 5.6

Gap 11.3 11.1 9.7

CCPS has a significant discrepancy between the performance in grade 3, grade 4 and grade 5. As

students progress through the grades, the percentage of students scoring basic decreases. The number of

students scoring advanced increases significantly. A challenge is to ensure that our students are ready as

they exit grade 2 to attain or exceed grade level benchmarks.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5

Advanced

Proficient

Basic


Challenge #1 – Integration of Reading and Writing to extend students’ ability to comprehend deeply and

communicate their understanding.

Reading and writing are often see as separate skills and are not integrated and extended beyond literal level to

expand thinking and communicating. Teachers lack pedagogical knowledge in how to instruct writing. In

addition, the system’s current writing curriculum needs to be revised so that it is more easily interpreted and

followed, more model lessons and sample frameworks are available to teachers.

Challenge #2 – Effective use of data to identify needs and prescribe interventions

CCPS utilized DIBELS and Running Records for all students in grades K – 5 as the screening assessment for

reading. While the Running Record levels could measure growth, they are a somewhat subjective tool, and at

the upper levels cannot measure more specific growth in skills as the levels become more broad. The DIBELs

is effective at the upper levels only to ascertain Oral Reading Fluency, but do not adequately assess or produce

comprehension data based on level or objective.

In addition, students in the early grades or students with significant reading deficits may not have been assigned

appropriate interventions due to the fact that not all classroom teachers or Reading Resource Teachers had

adequate ability to diagnose need or prescribe appropriate intervention.

Challenge #3 – Highly effective and rigorous implementation of the CCPS reading program using

Houghton Mifflin as the core.

The Houghton Mifflin reading program has been CCPS’ core program for six years. Professional development

for new and veteran teachers continues to be provided, however, teachers at times rely on the materials provided

in the Teacher’s Editions to build their lessons and instruction. This may not result in the maximum

instructional power, as teachers are not attending to the state curricular objectives and indicators. Teachers may

not all have a thorough understanding of what the reading performance indicators look like when demonstrated

by students, therefore limiting the rigor and demand they require of students.


Question 2 – Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made along with the corresponding

resource allocations to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate.

1. Enhancement of the Writing Curriculum and Professional Development for all teachers in the area of

Writing Instruction.

In August of 2011, a team of classroom and resource teachers was convened to develop daily and quarterly

writing curricular overview documents to assist teachers with understanding and implementing a writing

program that includes process and product. These units were developed for all four quarters, and are aligned to

the new Common Core Standards. Teachers will receive introduction to these at the back-to-school and

September county-wide inservice days.

Quarter Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3

Purpose:

Narrative Informational Opinion

Content/Focus:

baseline writing sample ( birthday

picture)

-Tooth Story

Dragon Gets By ( HM)

Life cycles (science)

Fact and opinion lesson

Dinosaur Munch Activity (trait

book)

Apple Tasting Activity

Writing Standard(s):

#3 #2 #1

Language Standards:

Sorting and classifying

Writing a personal narrative

Complete sentences, capital letters,

punctuation

Sequencing

Topic and details

Research

Paragraph (indenting)

Transition words

Fact and opinion

Descriptive words

Spelling of word wall words

Punctuation

Paragraph skills previously taught

6 + 1 Trait Focus

Ideas

Organization

Voice

Conventions

Ideas

Organization (topic,

details)

Sentence fluency

Conventions (paragraph

writing, indentation)

Ideas

Words Choice

Voice

Conventions (Spelling,

punctuation)

Description of Unit:

The students will be writing a

personal narrative about losing a

tooth.

The students will be creating a

poster about the life cycle of frog,

butterfly, or bird.

The students will write to convince

the reader to eat a type of apple

based on the taste, smell, and

texture using describing words.

Resources

6+1 traits Book.

Activities in resource

folder

HM Anthology

6+1 Traits Book


folder

Fact and Opinion Lesson

6+1 Traits Book


folder


Writing Curriculum Guide: Grade 2 Week 1: narrative

Day 1:

Beginning of School

Activities. Getting to

know you activities.

Day 2:

Beginning of School

Activities. Getting to

know you activities

continued

Day 3:

Have children do a

baseline writing

sample. Using a

birthday party picture.

Give children 15 min.

to write about what

they see in the picture.

See attached picture.

Day 4:

Using the attached

birthday cards.

Distribute cards to

students. Have

children sort

themselves into

different categories.

Discuss how the

categories were made.

Make class web using

pictures

Day 5:

Revisit web from yesterday.

Discuss the biggest picture is

the topic and smaller pics are

the details.

Complete web independently

using “SCHOOL” as topic

categories: supplies, friends,

subjects, teachers.

Week 2: narrative

Day 1:

Labor Day

Day 2:

Introduce the word

Narrative: Pass out

different forms of

narrative writing.

Discuss what a

narrative is. Add

word to Writing Word

Wall. Narrative forms

include: stories,

plays, poems,

Day 3:

Discuss narrative list

from previous day.

Distribute forms of

personal narratives.

Discuss with children

how these stories

plays and poems are

different from

yesterdays. (They are

stories that people are

telling and using the

word I) Introduce

PERSONAL

NARRATIVE. Add

to word wall.

Day 4:

Read a book about

Losing a tooth.

Discuss with class,

that we are going to

be writing a personal

narrative about losing

a tooth. Think about

what it was like when

you lost a tooth. Ask

for some volunteers to

tell you their story.

Day 5:

Tell the students about losing

YOUR tooth. Model how to

fill out the attached graphic

organizer.

Week 3 narrative

Day 1:

Revisit graph

organizer from

yesterday about

teacher lost tooth

story. Have them

complete graphic

organizer

independently.

Day 2:

Model how to take

information from

graphic organizer to

story form using

teacher graphic

organizer. SLOPPY

COPY.

** make sure to leave

out capital letters and

periods for revision

purposes.

Day 3:

Take information

from graphic

organizer to story

form using student

graphic organizer.

SLOPPY COPY.

Have children draw

picture first then

write.

Day 4:

Model revision of

sloppy copy. Look

for capital letters and

periods.

Day 5:

Make final copy of tooth

story using attached

document.

Formative Assessment: student webs, sloppy copy and graphic organizer about events in the tooth story.

Summative Assessment: Tooth Story: look for capital letter and periods. Do they use ”I?”


Reading Resource Teachers will receive training on Writing Across the school day through HM professional

development. They will incorporate this training into the presentation to teachers in August and September. In

addition, they will be charged with supporting the writing program throughout the school year. Writing

benchmarks will be collected each quarter and analyzed at the school and system level to determine next steps

in planning for the writing program.

2. Improvement in identifying needs for at-risk students and providing appropriate intervention.

Charles County Public Schools continues to work towards improving intervention delivery for those students

who are not attaining benchmark. For SY 2011-2012, CCPS has purchased “Just Words.” This is the newest

intervention from Wilson Reading Systems that addresses students with phonics issues who are beyond the

Fundations level yet do not need the intensity of the Wilson program. In addition to adoption the program,

CCPS will now use the WIST, (Word Identification and Spelling Test,) to better identify which students in need

of a phonics intervention qualify for each program. This will assist with making interventions more specific to

student need and more efficient, maximizing the use of intervention time and resources.

Four elementary reading resource teachers will complete their preparation to become Fundations Coaches.

Additionally, eight teachers will be certified as Wilson Level II trainers. This will provide our system internal

support personnel to support the training and implementation of intervention programs.

CCPS will convert from using DIBELS 6 to using DIBELS Next in order to utilize the most up-to-date

materials and support available. Reading Resource Teachers and Classroom Teachers will be trained on the new

version in August, and all corresponding databases will be updated to collect and maintain the data.

The administration and analysis of Running Records will be reviewed for all primary teachers in order to ensure

accuracy of administration. In addition, teachers will be instructed on how to glean more instructional

implications from the assessment.

3. Strenghtening of the Core Reading Program through better understanding of the MSC and the

Common Core Reading/Language Arts standards.

Monthly, the Reading Resource Teachers will meet to review current CCPS reading curriculum documents.

They will then examine closely the correlation between the MSC and the CCSC and MCCSC benchmarks.

RRTs will work with classroom teachers to determine the connection between the different standards. They

will use the language of the CCSC to better understand the demands and intricacies of the objectives and

indicators included in the MSC.

CCPS will purchase supplemental materials to enhance the HM program, including text that includes more

informational text and more rigorous and extended passages. These will be incorporated in the core reading

program to increase the cognitive demand of reading and writing instruction and assessments.


2011-2012 Resource Allocations:

Activity Funded Amount Funding Source

Curriculum

Development/Enhancement for

writing

Professional Development –

Writing Across the Curriculum

Just Words Intervention and

WIST assessment

Training for school-based staff in

Fundations, Just Words, and

Wilson

Training of Fundations Coaches

and Wilson Level II trainers

$10,000

$3000

$20,000

$44,000

(included in above)

ARRA funds

Local Funds

Local Funds

AYP Grant


Middle School

Question 1 – Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of

grade band(s) and subgroups.

Although Charles County Public School continues to show growth, the system is not increasing at the rate the

AMO goal does each year. More significant gains need to be made overall and in all subgroups in order to keep

pace with AMO projections. The system did not make AMO in any grade level, but rather suffered a loss of

2.5% in sixth grade, 1.5% in seventh grade, and 2.4% in eighth grade.

The system did not meet AMO for all subgroups. African American students performed 8.6% below the AMO.

Special Education students performed 23.6% below the AMO. FARMS students performed 11.6% below the

AMO. ELL students performed 35.6% below the AMO. While all other subgroups performed at or above the

AMO, the lack of increased growth within these subgroups proves challenging.

Challenge #1 – While special education students made significant growth overall, they continue to perform

well below expectancy. A total of 41.4% special education students scored Basic on the 2011 MSA. For

students receiving special services, Special Education and ELL, the question arises as to whether or not the

services are efficient. Our students can apply appropriate strategies when accessing the CORE content.

Challenge #2 - In all grades, the FARMS and African American subgroups constitute the largest portion of our

population. Their continued lack of progress brings attention to the need to examine our over-all instructional

approach. Do we provide enough opportunities for writing, inquiry, collaboration and critical reading? Our

instruction will be rigorous enough to engage students in academic work.

Challenge #3 - Performance Series data indicates that our middle school students are weakest on informational

text comprehension. Data further indicates there is a correlation between proficiency on MSA and students’

exposure to quality informational texts. In order to assess and monitor student growth in reading

comprehension of informational text, further analysis of school wide usage of informational text is needed.

Question 2 – Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made along with the corresponding

resource allocations to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate.

Challenge #1 - For special education and ELL students, Reading Resource Teachers will monitor the quality of

their interventions. Students need to apply what they have they have learned in the intervention to their other

classes. RRT’s will be proactive in providing opportunities for meaningful dialogue between case managers,

classroom teachers, and ESOL teachers. This should occur during the school based planning time with RRT’s.

Challenge #2 - Providing access for all students to complex texts supportive of rigorous discussion and

acquisition of higher order thinking skills needs to be a priority. Also, county-wide professional days will offer

focus sessions that support rigorous instruction. Rigorous sessions offered by the county may include topics

such as Literature Circles, Reciprocal teaching, TPCAST, Paul’s Reasoning Wheel, Socratic Seminars, the Art

of Argument, and Questioning the Author. We will monitor the county’s initiative to implement the

SpringBoard curriculum in regards to the sub groups.


Challenge #3 – Performance Series data indicates that middle school students perform lower on informational

text than on literary text for several consecutive years. Due to this trend the county has adopted a Literacy Audit

protocol as outlined by the McDougal Littel/Houghton Mifflin Company. Each school formed a Literacy Audit

Team as prescribed by county-wide training received in April 2011. The focus of the audit is to improve the

quality of Informational text instruction. The Literacy Audit will focus on the Instructional Environment,

Curriculum and Resources, Comprehension, Instructional Pedagogy, and Assessment. The Literacy Audit will

be a part of each middle school’s 2011-2012 School Improvement Plan. Each school will implement their

individual Literacy Audit plan as outlined in their School Improvement Plan.

.

Resource Allocations 2011-2012

Activity Amount of Funds Funding Source

County-wide Staff Development for

Rigorous instruction

$5000.00 Local Funds

Purchase informational/complex text $30,000.00 Local Funds

SpringBoard Consultant $8500.00 Local Funds

Book Study $500.00 Local Funds


Charles County Public Schools Bridge to Excellence

Action Plan #1

Elementary School Reading Program Improvement

Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Content Specialist for Elementary Reading

County Performance Target (if applicable)

90.6 % of students in all subgroups will reach proficiency or advanced on the 2011 Elementary School Reading/Language Arts.

(County AMO)

.

Root Cause: The current writing instructional program is not effectively fostering student process and product development of writing to source.

Strategy: Revise the writing program through curricular development and professional development.

Steps of Implementation: Implemented by: Completion Date

Provide writing professional development for Reading Resource Teachers

through HM Professional Development

Conduct a curricular writing project where the current curriculum is

reviewed, and sample lessons and prompts that include product writing to

source are incorporated – week of July 25

Provide writing professional development for all elementary teachers

(August and September county wide days)

Conduct ongoing work analysis of writing using 6+1 rubric to determine

next steps in instruction – (ongoing at school level with RRTs.)

Include writing benchmarks on quarterly assessments

Content Specialist for Reading, HM

consultant

Content Specialist for Reading

Participating Teachers

Reading Resource Teachers



Coordinator of Testing

August 12 2011

August 1 2011

August 18 and September 16

2011

Ongoing SY 2011-2012

November 2011, January,

March, May 2012

Quarterly Data Analysis (Formative)

Quarter 1

Inservice Evaluations

Notes from team work analysis

Quarterly benchmarks

Quarter 2



Quarter 3



Quarter 4



Evidence of Attainment (Summative)

2012 MSA Reading Results



Action Plan #2





(County AMO)

.

Root Cause: CCPS does not have adequate fully trained staff in intervention to ensure effective delivery for all students in need.

Strategy: Provide training in Fundations and Wilson for staff.


60 teachers will be trained in Fundations for each grade K-2 (total of 180)

Four RRTs will be trained as Fundations coaches and participate in coaching

sessions with Fundations trainer

Six RRTs will complete Wilson Level III training

IS for Reading Intervention will meet three times a year with school teams

to ensure programs are being appropriately administered with fidelity

Purchase and training of Just Words for each elementary and middle school

including training for Reading Resource Teachers

Upgrade from DIBELS 6 to DIBELS Next – with all supporting training

Content Specialist for Reading, IS for

Special Education


Participating Teachers

Participating Teachers/ IS for Special Ed

IS for Reading Intervention



September 2011 and January

2012

May 2012

May 2012

June 2012

August 2011

August 2011


Quarter 1

RTI data

Quarterly benchmarks – DIBELS and

Running Records

Quarter 2

RTI data


Running Records

Quarter 3

RTI data


Running Records

Quarter 4

RTI data


Running Records





Action Plan #3





(County AMO)

.

Root Cause: Teachers need to strengthen their understanding of the state and common core standards in order to enhance in-depth comprehension and response to

more rigorous text and questioning

Strategy: Provide a system by which all classroom teachers will have the opportunity to explore how the MSC and CCSC correlate and what these standards

require of students


Reading Resource Teachers will meet monthly beginning in August and will

unwrap each of the strands of reading

Unwrapped standard documents will be published for system use

Reading Resource Teachers will meet with teacher teams to introduce

unwrapped standards and make direct connection to current MSC

Current CCPS curriculum will be revised to include CCSC indications in

addition to MSC

Quarterly Assessments will be updated so that questioning reflects higher

level of rigor and is more aligned with MSC and CCSC




Reading Resource Teacher



May 2012

Monthly throughout 2011-2012

Monthly throughout 2011-2012

May 2012

August 2011


Quarter 1

Meeting notes

Classroom Assessment data

Quarterly data

Quarter 2

Meeting notes


Quarterly data

Quarter 3

Meeting notes


Quarterly data

Quarter 4

Meeting notes


Quarterly data





Action Plan #1

Middle School Reading Program Improvement

Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Content Specialist for Middle School Language Arts/ Reading


90.38 % of students in all subgroups will reach proficiency or advanced on the 2012 MSA for Reading

(County AMO)

Note: We are striving for the 2012 AMO as reflected in the percentages above.

Root Cause: Instructional needs of special education students are not being met through the current language arts.

Strategy: Monitor and evaluate the application of intervention strategies while in the CORE classes.


Use data to verify correct English/Language Arts placement.

Examine data to determine intervention needs.

Review progress monitoring data to evaluate effectiveness.

Assist CORE teachers in differentiating instruction.

RRT

RRT

RRT and Intervention teacher

RRT, case managers and

classroom teacher

September 2011

September 2011

Monthly 2011-12

September 2011

Monthly2011-12

Quarterly November

2011, February, 2012,

May 2011


Quarter 1

2010-11 Performance Series, MTM

Data Collection Sheets, CCPS

Quarterly

Quarter 2

Classroom Visits, Progress Monitoring

CCPS Quarterly, Winter Performance

Series

Quarter 3

Classroom Visits, Data Collection

Sheets, Progress Monitoring

Quarter 4

Classroom Visits, Data Collection,

Progress Monitoring Sheets, CCPS

Quarterly , 2011-12 Performance

Series




Action Plan #2

Middle School Reading Program Improvement

Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Content Specialist for Middle School Language Arts and Reading


90.38 % of students in all subgroups will reach proficiency or advanced on the 2012 MSA Reading.

(County AMO)


Root Cause: Instructional needs are not being met through our current instructional practices..

Strategy: Monitor and evaluate across all class levels and make necessary adjustments to meet the need of all students in all sub groups.


Identify the course placement for students in specific sub-groups.

Create a classroom data sheet for RRT to use when gathering data on

implementation of appropriate strategies that aligns with rigorous

instruction.

Gather classroom data regarding exposure to rigorous instructional

practices and materials.

Establish a protocol for discussing classroom data at Role- Alike

Meetings.

Read and access the text complexity of current resources.

Implement further staff development in areas of writing, inquiry,

collaboration and critical reading.

RRT/Content Specialist

RRT

RRT

Content Specialist

RRT/GRT

RRT/GRT

September 2011

September 2011

Monthly 2011-12

September 2011

Monthly2011-12

August 25, 2011 Sept.

16, 2011 and February

8, 2012


Quarter 1

In-service session sign-in sheets,

Classroom Visits, Data Sheets


Quarter 2


Quarter 3

In-service session sign-in sheets,


Quarter 4




Action Plan #3

Middle School Reading Program Improvement Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Content Specialist for Middle School Language Arts and Reading


90.38 % of students in all subgroups will reach proficiency or advanced on the 2012 Middle School Reading/Language Arts.

(County AMO)


Root Cause: Performance Series data indicates middle school students score lower on informational text than they do on literary text.

Strategy: Complete all of the prescribed steps of the McDougal Littel literacy auditing process in order to raise students’ understanding of informational text.


Analyze data to determine the focus for the audit

Provide county-wide staff development in order to form each school’s

literacy audit team

Develop a literacy audit plan based on school needs

Implement plan as prescribed by their school improvement plans

Update individual school’s progress at role-alike meetings

Synthesize information for county-wide application

Principals

Content Specialist

Principals & members of each

school’s literacy audit team

Literacy audit teams

RRT’s

Content Specialist, Middle

School Coordinator

June 2010

Fall 2010

Fall 2010

May 2011

Monthly 2011-12

January & May 2012


Quarter 1

Notes from Role Alike Meetings

School Improvement Plan

Quarter 2


Quarter 3


Quarter 4




2011 Annual Update - Part I Charles County Public School 148

Mathematics

Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of grade

band(s) and subgroups.

Based on the data contained in Table 2.4, in elementary school, our system experienced decreases in

performance over the previous year’s scores in All Students, FARMS, LEP, and Special Education, with

the largest decrease in Special Education (-10). At the middle school level, using data from Table 2.5,

CCPS showed gains in all areas. The largest gains were made in Special Education (+11) and FARMS

(+9.7). However, the groups, along with LEP, still performed below AMO target.

Grade/Percent Proficient/Advanced Performance

Elementary School Math

Grades Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5

Year 2003 2010 2011 2004 2010 2011 2003 2010 2011

All Students 65.0 89.0 90.5 72.3 83.1 81.9 56.7 82.5 79.9

African American 51.9 60.1 74.6 34.9 84.7 85.3 23.8 60.5 73.0

Special Education 31.9 60.1 52.1 34.9 59.1 65.2 23.8 60.1 48.4

FARMs 42.5 73.2 73.2 51.5 82.4 84.5 32.4 72.1 69.8 * Data obtained from www.mdreportcard.org

Grade/Percent Proficient/Advanced Performance

Middle School Math

Grades Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

Year 2004 2010 2011 2004 2010 2011 2003 2010 2011

All Students 53.2 80.6 83.8 48.3 72.2 80.2 34.6 68.7 74.4

African American 37.3 73.8 77.79 32.3 64.1 72.4 19.1 59.1 65.99

Special Education 10.1 44.1 59.74 10.6 41.4 48.13 2.2 29.9 44.44

FARMs 32.3 68.0 74.02 24.1 54.2 68.26 12.2 50.4 60.56 * Data obtained from CCPS Oracle Data Warehouse

In elementary school, our system experienced both increases and decreases in performance over the

previous year’s scores. This year, grade 3 either increased or stay about the same for All students,

African American students, and FARMs students, but experienced an 8 point drop with special education

students. Grade 4 made an increase of 6 points with special education students and remained about the

same in the other groups. Grade 5 experienced an increase of almost 13 points with African American

students but a decrease with All students, Special Education students, and FARMs students.

In middle school, our system continues to experience an overall increase in performance over the previous

year’s scores. This year both grade 6 and grade 7 met or exceeded the established AMO grade level goals

which were 79.36 and 78.49, respectively. Grade 8 overall performance of 74.4% fell 3.5% points below

the AMO goal of 77.9. While growth occurred in all subgroup categories at all grade levels, subgroup

performance still lags behind the AMO grade level goals.

http://www.mdreportcard.org/


Subgroup Gap Analysis Percent Proficient/Advanced

MSA 2011 Elementary & Middle School Math

African American Students

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

African American 74.68 85.22 73.04 77.79 72.4 65.99

White 90.82 96.48 88.36 91.44 90.77 85.46

Gap 22.82 11.26 15.32 13.65 17.43 19.47 *Data obtained from CCPS Oracle Data Warehouse



FARMs Students


FARMs 73.29 84.37 69.83 74.02 68.26 60.56

Non-FARMs 86.03 93.37 84.33 88.13 85.69 80.05




Special Education Students


Special Education

52.69 64.94 48.72 59.74 48.13 44.44

Non-Special Education

85.00 92.70 82.62 86.07 83.45 76.59


Leadership Challenges

Appropriate application of school-based personnel continues to be a concern. At both the elementary and

middle school level, special education students are often being taught inn a self-contained setting by

teachers who are not comfortable with math content. Additionally, the special education teacher may be

required to teach multiple grade levels and/or multiple content areas throughout the school day.

CCPS continues to wrestle with counteracting the long-held belief that some students are unable to learn

grade-level content. The effects of this belief system result in setting low expectations for students, which

in the end results in low performance. This issue is compounded when a struggling student is placed with

teachers who are not themselves comfortable with math content. Oftentimes, our best teachers are still

working with high achieving students rather than with the students who need their expertise the most.

There is still a significant discrepancy between the performance of Special Education and non-Special

Education students. While the achievement gap is narrowing by small increments each year, a


disproportionate number of students within this subgroup continue to score Basic. This is also true for

African American and FARMs students.

This past year, the county implemented a universal screening process to help identify students who are

performing significantly below grade level in mathematics. The Performance Series, a product of

Scantron, provides three assessment opportunities during the school year that identifies current student

performance levels with an end of year assessment to measure student growth. All middle schools, Title I

elementary schools and other low performing elementary schools used this product. Because this was the

first year of implementation in mathematics, the school system is still learning how to maximize the

implementation and usage of the program.

Even though we have a process in place to review and approve scientifically based Tier 2 and Tier 3

interventions, we continue to search for an effective diagnostic instrument that will help place students in

appropriate interventions and monitor their progress. At the middle school level, special educators and

resource teachers were trained in the administration of the MCAP progress monitoring tool developed by

AIMSWeb. This tool was selected because it adequately represents the application based design of MSA.

Again, this is the first year of usage so there has been a learning curve in how to best use the tool.

Every elementary and middle school has been allocated a math resource position. However, this year,

both elementary and middle schools faced personnel challenges. At the elementary level, medical issues

precluded some of the personnel from being fully effective in the position. At the middle school level,

two individuals vacated their positions within the first month of the school year and the positions

remained vacant for the school year. Central office personnel had to be deployed to the affected schools

to provide needed support.

Pedagogy and Content Knowledge Challenges

Teacher retention continues to pose a critical problem at the middle school level. Approximately 40% of

all middle school math positions were filled by teachers with less than 5 years of teaching experience. In

three schools, math classes were taught by teachers who were teaching out of their content area. In these

instances students performed well below their counterparts on MSA.

With the constant influx of new math teachers and teachers with weak content knowledge, we continue to

play catch up in terms of content and pedagogical knowledge. This places a constant strain on staff

resources which must be allocated to new teacher issues. This takes away from being able to build

capacity in math instruction.

We are making progress in moving toward a more constructivist approach to mathematics instruction.

Through the implementation of Investigations in elementary school and Algebraic Thinking and

SpringBoard at the middle school level, students are receiving instruction that is exploratory and

experiential in nature. However, teachers still rely on algorithmic approaches to instruction especially if

they are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the math content. When our instructional resource personnel

are focused on new teacher issues, it is a challenge to support best practices models.

Effective collaboration between and among teachers continues to be a concern. Recognizing the value of

collaboration, the system has provided the time and structure for teachers to work in tandem to design

lessons based on best practices. But many teachers are reluctant to adopt a collaborative approach to

planning and instruction for a cadre of reasons. Getting teacher buy-in to the process continues to pose a

challenge.

Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made along with the corresponding resource

allocations to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate.

Several math programs have been implemented during the last two years. At the elementary level,

Investigations was implemented in grades K-3 with 3rd

grade implementation in SY 2010-2011. Next

year the program will be expanded to include grade 4. Teachers will receive a week long initial training

in August and will receive follow-up training three times during the school year. These trainings will

provide for the frontloading of the curriculum on a quarterly basis. Resource teachers at the elementary


schools have been working with the program for four years and will be able to provide on-site support for

implementation in grade 4.

This coming school year will mark the third year of implementation of Algebraic Thinking at the middle

school level. Resource teachers will receive 5 days of training of the beginning of the school year using a

trainer or trainers model. The school system has also contracted with National Training Network, the

producer of Algebraic Thinking, to provide 90 days of on-site coaching support as we transition in the

trainer of trainers model. In addition to on-site coaching support, classroom teachers will receive three

days of training during the school year

SpringBoard, a product of CollegeBoard, is in its second year of implementation in grade 6 and grade 7.

Teachers will again receive on-line and on-site coaching with three days of consultant training during the

school year. Instructional resource teachers will be responsible for monitoring and supporting

implementation of their respective schools.

The school system will continue to use Performance Series as a screening and benchmarking tool to

monitor student growth. Training in how to administer the assessments and how to access supplemental

resource materials will be provided by the Office of Research and Assessment as needed.

Three Instructional Specialists for Special Education have been allocated to support instructional

programs at all elementary and middle schools. They will work closely with Division of Instruction Math

Content Specialists to ensure that special education students receive appropriate content and intervention

support in order to master math objectives. They will also work with special educators in implementing

progress monitoring tools and IEP goals and objectives. Every effort is being made to ensure that special

educators are included in content specific training throughout the school year.

The Instructional Specialist for Minority Achievement and Multi-cultural Education will be working more

closely with the math staff to support student achievement. In addition to providing resources and

strategies to schools, this individual will participate in central office content meetings.

CCPS will continue to provide meaningful professional development on best practices at monthly

Instructional Resource teacher meetings. Using a training of trainers model, math content specialists will

provide these resource teachers with training on effective ways to build math content knowledge of

classroom teachers.

At the elementary school, we are continuing to place emphasis on early childhood education. As part of

this initiative, resource teachers will participate in a book study using Learning and Teaching Early Math:

The Learning Trajectories Approach by Douglas H. Clements and Julie Sarama. They will be expected to

use this information when working with teachers to improve teacher content knowledge and consequently

improve math instruction in grades PreK – 2.

The linchpin for instructional delivery will include continued reliance on data as a way to focus on

numbers to names, names to needs, needs to action, action to results. Instructional resource teachers will

continue to work with classroom teachers in collecting and analyzing formative assessment data in order

to improve instruction. Bi-weekly formative assessments for middle school proved to be a successful

endeavor and will be used again this year as a way to track student progress toward mastery of grade level

math indicators.

Charles County Public Schools will begin its third year of partnership with University of Maryland,

Baltimore County, in offering a program to expand elementary and middle school teachers’ mathematics

education knowledge especially in the areas of inquiry, pedagogy, mathematics and leadership.

Participants will be awarded the Master of Arts in Education with a concentration in K-8 mathematics

instructional leadership.

With the state adoption of the Common Core State Standards, CCOS has chosen to focus on training

resource personnel and classroom teachers in the Standards of Mathematical Practice and how to infuse

these practices into daily instruction. We have also begun to map current resources to Common Core

Standards and unwrap the standards to make them more manageable for classroom


Middle School – Math



AT Coaching 90 days $140,000

UMBC Master of Arts in Education Program (Elem &

Middle)

o 25 participants x $445 per credit hour x 9 credit

hours

o 1 time application fee ($70 x 25 participants)

$100,125.00

$1,750

Title IIA



Action Plan

Elementary Math #1 (Category)

Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Instructional Specialist for Elementary Mathematics


89.7 % of students in all subgroups will reach proficiency or advanced on the 2012 Elementary math MSA . (County AMO) (tested subject)

Root Cause: Teachers do not have strong math content knowledge and pedagogy, which prevents them from making connections when planning instruction and

effectively diagnosing student needs when errors occur.

Strategy: Provide a robust professional development plan to improve teacher content knowledge and math pedagogy


Implementation of Investigations in 4th

grade

Summer workshop: Investigations in the Classroom

Participants will attend a week-long workshop that will help them understand the

mathematical ideas, activities and games in Investigations that help students build

computational fluency.

Follow-up trainings

Three half-day trainings have been scheduled to continue supporting 3rd

grade teachers as

they implement the Investigations in Number, Data, and Space curriculum.

Jane Thoman, Content

Specialist for Elementary

Math

August 8-12, 2011

October, February, April

Provide a system of support for inexperienced teachers

School-based Instructional Specialists/Instructional Resource Teachers will provide daily

support to these teachers

School based IS/IRT

June 2012

Partner with UMBC to offer a 4-year program - Master of Arts in Education with a

concentration in K-8 mathematics instructional leadership

Courses offered in SY 2011-2012:

Culturally Responsive Instruction in Mathematics – Fall ‘11

Teacher Leadership – Spring ‘12

Statistics, Data Analysis, and Probability – Summer ‘12

Elementary and middle

school teachers and

instructional specialists

Summer 2013


Data providing evidence of quarterly progress

Quarter 1

Agendas for team planning sessions

Student performance on Quarter 1

quarterly assessments

Quarter 2

Agendas for team planning

sessions



Quarter 3




Quarter 4


Student performance on quarterly

assessments

End-of-year CCPS data and MSA data


Increase in MSA math scores for all subgroups – especially Special Education

Improved math instruction and assessment



Action Plan





Root Cause: Instructional Specialists are continuing their shift from the role of generalists to the role of a specialist in mathematics. They need to continue to build

their content knowledge in order to successfully oversee the instruction of mathematics.

Strategy: Build content knowledge & pedagogy for Instructional Specialists at the elementary school level


Enhance the content knowledge & pedagogy of Instructional Specialists

Attend Investigations Summer Workshop

Attend Investigations 4th

grade sessions throughout the school year

A book study will be conducted with Instructional Specialists

Attend role-alike meetings where ISs will receive additional training

on content knowledge, pedagogy, and effective ways to transfer this

knowledge to the classroom

Jane Thoman, Content Specialist

for Elementary Math

School based IS/IRT

August 2011

October 2011, February 2012, April

2012

May 2012

SY 2011-2012 - monthly



Quarter 1

Participation in the book study

sessions

Attendance at Investigations

Summer Workshop

Attendance at role alike meetings

Quarter 2


sessions


Evidence of transferring

knowledge at the school level

through observation and notes

from grade level team planning

meetings

Quarter 3


sessions






meetings

Quarter 4


sessions






meetings


Improved math instruction as measured by student performance on quarterly assessments and on MSA



Action Plan





Root Cause: It is very difficult to pinpoint student roadblocks in grasping mathematical concepts and then identifying appropriate interventions.

Strategy: Assist schools in identifying student roadblocks in math and identifying appropriate interventions


AYP Schools:

Provide AYP schools with TEAM (Tools for Early Assessment in Math), a diagnostic

tool that identifies student areas of need (K, 1, 2 starting in September, 2010 and 3, 4,

5 starting in January, 2010.)

Use diagnostic data to assign students to appropriate research-based interventions

Assist schools in reviewing data for response to intervention

Provide new AYP schools with Number Worlds/Building Blocks intervention

Jane Thoman, Content

Specialist for Elementary

Math

Jen Parrish, Instructional

Specialist for Special

Education

June 2011

Assist schools as they identify scientifically research-based interventions that address

student areas of need

Math Staff team will screen and identify new interventions

Math department will collaborate with Special Education department to update/revise

list of approved interventions according to areas of need

Provide schools with updated list of interventions

Central Office Math Staff

Central Office Sp.Ed staff

School-based instructional

specialists

SY 2010-2011 - ongoing



Quarter 1

Attendance sheets from Number

Worlds/Building Blocks training and

TEAM training

Intervention data provided by AYP

schools

Evaluations of possible interventions

Student performance on Q1

assessments

Quarter 2


schools

Evaluations of possible interventions


assessment

Quarter 3


Schools


assessment

Quarter 4


Schools


assessment


Subgroup performance on MSA



Action Plan


Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Instructional Specialist for Elementary Math


89.7 % of students of students in all subgroups will reach proficiency or advanced on the 2012 Elementary math MSA . (County AMO) (tested subject)

Root Cause: Need for a comprehensive math program PreK-12

Strategy: Improve elementary curricular documents

Activity/Action: Revise and rewrite curricular documents


Implementation of Investigations in Number, Data, and Space (TERC)

Begin aligning K-4th

grades Investigations with Maryland Common Core Standards

Create Scope & Sequence to identify which CC indicators are taught in each

Investigations unit, which indicators need supplemental lessons, and which indicators

are not addressed in Investigations

Provide lesson seeds and resources to address any gaps between CC and

Investigations

Jane Thoman, Content Specialist

for Elementary Math

School-based elementary

Instructional Specialists

Classroom teachers

Special Education teachers

Gifted Education Resource

teachers


September 2011




Quarter 1

Review all first quarter units –

check alignment to CC

Feedback on curricula collected

by school-based Instructional

Specialists

Publish scope & sequence chart

for each grade alignment

Quarter 2

Review all first quarter units –

check alignment to CC



Specialists

Quarter 3



Specialists

Quarter 4



Specialists


Units and curriculums completed

Improved instruction as measured by quarterly assessments and MSA



Action Plan # 1

Middle School Math

Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Middle School Math Content Specialist


78.59 % of students in all subgroups will reach proficiency or advanced on the 2011 Middle school math MSA .

(County AMO) (tested subject)

Root Cause: Teachers and Instructional Specialists do not have strong math content knowledge and pedagogy, which prevents them from making connections when

planning instruction and effectively diagnosing student needs when errors occur.

Strategy: Provide curriculum and professional development designed to provide teachers with best practices in math instruction.


o Pre-service training in AT and Springboard Curriculum

o Implement AT and SpringBoard Curriculum MS Math Content Specialist

MS Math Content Specialist


Classroom Teachers

August 2010

On-going

o On-site coaching for Algebraic Thinking


AT Coach


June 2011

Implementation Training for AT and SpringBoard Curriculum

Evening Staff Development – AT Booster Sessions and SpringBoard




May 2011



Quarter 1

Bi-weekly assessment data

Classroom visits

Quarterly Assessments

Teacher feedback

Quarter 2


Classroom visits


Teacher feedback

Quarter 3


Classroom visits


Teacher feedback

Quarter 4


Classroom visits


Teacher feedback


Meet or exceed AYP goals for SY 2010



Action Plan # 2

Middle School Math

Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: MS Math Content Specialist


78.59 % of students in all subgroups will reach proficiency or advanced on the 2011 Middle school math MSA .

Root Cause: Special Education students need to receive both core curriculum and interventions on a regular basis.

Strategy: Restructure instructional delivery format for self-contained math classrooms.


Train Instructional Specialists and Special Education teachers in SRA Number

Worlds

Instructional Specialist for Special

Education


October 2011

o Implement Algebraic Thinking and SRA Number Worlds in self-contained

classrooms Instructional Specialists

Classroom teachers

June 2012

o Monitor and evaluate effectiveness of instructional format MS Math Content Specialist


June 2012



Quarter 1


Classroom visits


Teacher feedback

Quarter 2


Classroom visits


Teacher feedback

Quarter 3


Classroom visits


Teacher feedback

Quarter 4


Classroom visits


Teacher feedback


Reduce achievement gap between special education and non-special education students by 25%


Science

Based on the Examination of 2011 Maryland School Assessment Science Data for Grade 5 (Table 2.7) and

Grade 8 (Table 2.8):

Question 1- Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify the challenges in terms of

grade level(s) and subgroup(s)

Analysis of the MSA for Elementary Science- Grade 5 indicates some positives, but also some areas of concern.

The county average of 62.9% is an improvement over the past three years by 1.5 points even though it comes in

below the state average. The subgroup of FARMS continues to make improvements each year with a three year

increase of 5.8%; however, the subgroup still remains 1.4 points below the state average. The African-

American subgroup continues to improve with a score of 51.8% which is 4.2 points above the state average of

47.6%. Over the past three years males have increased their scores by 1.8 points, while females have shown an

increase of 1.2 points for the same time period. The subgroup of Special Education continues to drop slightly

over the past three years; however, the state average has made the same downward turn.

The results of the MSA for Middle School Science Grade 8 indicate some positives, but also some areas of

concern. The county average of 66.5% is an improvement over the past three years by 5.1 points even though it

comes in below the state average of 69.5%. The subgroups of African-American and FARMS continue to show

improvement over the past three years. The African-American scores are above the state average by 6.8 points.

Males and females continue to improve with females having the largest increase of 8.2 points.

Most subgroups for grades 5 and 8 have a proficiency rate below the county average of 66.5%. The chart below

summarizes the areas of concern for both elementary and middle school science.

Curricular challenges linked to the data:

The elementary and middle school curricula as currently established assists the experienced teacher, but

presents numerous challenges to the beginning or less experienced teachers. The curricular documents are not

fully developed lessons. They are more activities without connectivity or sequencing between them. There were

no opportunities for differentiation based upon the resources.

Pedagogical challenges linked to the data:

There are several challenges that have been indicated by the data. The low performance of the special education

students can be caused by the lack of knowledge by special educators and the need for greater collaboration

between the science classroom teacher and the special education teacher. Special education teachers are

welcomed at inservice meetings and the sharing of MSA data.



Subgroup


2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

All Students

1894

1162

61.4

1746

1038

59.5

1898

1194

62.9

989 602

60.9

872 510

58.5

961 603

62.7

905 560

61.9

874 528

60.4

937 591

63.1


96 62 64.6

43 28 65.1

53 34 64.2


13 9 69.2

8 6 75.0

5 3 60.0

Asian 63 49 77.8

32 25 78.1

31 24 77.4


100

4 520

51.8

499 252

50.5

505 268

53.1


2 2 100.0

0 0 0.0 2 2 100.0

White 626 485

77.5

333 264

79.3

293 221

75.4

Two or more races

94 67 71.3

46 28 60.9

48 39 81.3

Special Education

158

53 33.5

151 50 33.1

156 49 31.4

115 39 33.9

107 36 33.6

101 37 36.6

43 14 32.6

44 14 31.8

55 12 21.8


14 8 57.1

9 1 11.1

18 3 16.7

7 4 57.1

7 1 14.3

6 1 16.7

7 4 57.1

2 0 0.0 12 2 16.7


490

200

40.8

527 222

42.1

586 273

46.6

250 101

40.4

266 114

42.9

287 129

44.9

240 99 41.3

261 108

41.4

299 144

48.2



Subgroup


2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

# Tested

# Prof.

% Prof.

All Students 2131

1284

60.3

2065

1316

63.7

2167

1442

66.5

1100

647

58.8

1046

645

61.7

1112

704

63.3

1031

637

61.8

1019

671

65.8

1055

738

70.0


104 73 70.2

53 35 66.0

51 38 74.5


14 6 42.9

6 1 16.7

8 5 62.5

Asian 67 58 86.6

32 27 84.4

35 31 88.6


112

5 640

56.9

578 304

52.6

547 336

61.4


1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 1 0 0.0

White 766 596

77.8

399 307

76.9

367 289

78.7

Two or more races

90 69 76.7

44 30 68.2

46 39 84.8

Special Education

148

27 18.2

142 23 16.2

138 32 23.2

112 22 19.6

97 17 17.5

96 24 25.0

36 5 13.9

45 6 13.3

42 8 19.0


18 6 33.3

5 3 60.0

8 2 25.0

11 5 45.5

3 1 33.3

4 1 25.0

7 1 14.3

2 2 100.0

4 1 25.0


520

214

41.2

540 235

43.5

609 299

49.1

263 108

41.1

267 107

40.1

306 141

46.1

257 106

41.2

273 128

46.9

303 158

52.1


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.

One of the challenges that prevent all students from attaining proficiency on the MSA for

Science is the lack of county-wide curricular documents for grades 5 and 8. This year, new

curricular documents will be written and implemented in grades 5 and 8 science classrooms that

support the new Science Framework. The move to a new curriculum will increase rigor in the

classroom, and students will be better prepared not only for the assessment, but also for the

future. Teachers need training for the implementation of the new Science Framework, Common

Core Standards, Environmental Literacy Standards, and inquiry strategies all of which support

STEM education. There is also a need for benchmark assessments that mirror MSA so that

teachers can have feedback on the progress of their students and determine the instructional

strategies that will help their students’ achievement. Once the curricular documents are

completed these assessments can be created to help monitor student progress. In the future these

benchmarks will be created by MSDE as the new Science Framework is implemented.

The progress of individual students must be monitored by classroom teachers so that the needs of

specific groups of students can be met. Teachers will continue to focus on differentiated and

tiered lessons, assessment through writing, inquiry, and higher order thinking skills. In the new

curricular documents, lessons will provide the classroom teacher with learning activities that will

support student achievement in these areas.

Elementary Science Teachers will meet monthly with a focus on the new curriculum,

professional development on best practices, and inquiry in lessons. It is important that they

understand the use of the Common Core Standards in the science classroom. The Instructional

Specialist for Science will make classroom visits to see the curriculum in progress along with

student achievement.

Middle School Department Chairs will meet monthly with a focus on the new curriculum,

professional development on best practices, and inquiry in lessons. It is important that they

understand the use of the Common Core Standards in the science classroom and share this

information with science teachers and special educators in their respective buildings. The

Instructional Specialist for Science will make classroom visits to see the curriculum in progress

along with student achievement.

Improving scores in special education is a challenge because many of the special educators do

not have a rudimentary knowledge of science. Special educators will be given the opportunity to

attend professional development trainings with science teachers so they will be informed of best

practices in science. These trainings will not only occur during the regular county-wide in-

service days, but also during evening staff development.


2011-2012 Resource Allocations

Activity Funded Amount Fund Source

Evening Staff Development

Sessions for Teachers

2 evenings X 30 teachers X 1.5

hours X $25/hour

$2,250.00 Title II



Action Plan # 1

Elementary Science

Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Director of Science Instruction and Program Development and the Instructional Specialist for Science

Quarterly Data Analysis (Formative) Data providing evidence of quarterly progress

Quarter 1

Teacher feedback

Teacher-made assessments

Quarter 2

Teacher feedback


Quarter 3

Teacher feedback


Quarter 4

Teacher feedback


Evidence of Attainment (Summative) Results of 2011-2012 MSA for Science – Grade 5


100% of students in all subgroups will reach proficiency or advanced on the 2012 MSA for Science – Grade 5

Root Cause: Teachers do not have a strong understanding of the Common Core Standards, the Next Generation Science Framework, and the

inquiry process.

Strategy: Provide professional development involving Common Core Standards, Next Generation Science Framework, and inquiry.

Activity/Action: Provide staff development and materials of instruction that will enable elementary science teachers to implement lessons which will

utilize the Common Core Standards, the Next Generation Science Framework, and the inquiry process.


1. Provide Professional Development to Elementary Science Teachers

a. Initial in-services on Science Framework, Common Core

Standards, and Inquiry

b. Role-a-Like meetings for elementary science teachers

2. School Based Visits

a. Classroom visitations

b. Individual teacher meetings

Director of Science Instruction and

Program Development

Instructional Specialist for Science


Program Development


August 24, September 16

Monthly beginning in

September, continuing through

May

Monthly beginning in September

2011, continuing through May

2012.



Action Plan # 2

Elementary and Middle School Science

Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Director of Science Instruction and Program Development and the Instructional Specialist for

Science


100% of students in all subgroups will reach proficiency or advanced on the 2012 MSA for Science – Grades 5 and 8

Root Cause: Special Education students require structured lessons that will provide the background and skills needed to achieve proficiency on the MSA for science.

Strategy: Implement the design of science lessons in special education classrooms using the 5E Model and the needed background in the essentials of the six

standards of science.

Activity/Action: Provide staff development and materials of instruction to special educators who teach science.


Professional Development and In-service Training to Special Education teachers in

the essential understandings of elementary and middle school science.

.

1. Designing science lessons using the 5E model





Program Development,



Program Development


August 24 and 25, September 16

Beginning September 2011 and

continuing through May 2012



Quarter 1

Teacher feedback


Quarter 2

Teacher feedback


Quarter 3

Teacher feedback


Quarter 4

Teacher feedback



Results of the 2011-2012 MSA in Science for grades 5 and 8.



Action Plan # 3

Middle School Science

Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Director of Science Instruction and Program Development and the Instructional Specialist for

Science


100% of students in all subgroups will reach proficiency or advanced on the 2012 MSA for Science – Grade 8

Root Cause: Teachers do not have a strong grasp of science instructional strategies and pedagogy, which prevents them from planning effectively

for concept attainment and application of knowledge.

Strategy: Provide professional development to improve teacher knowledge of instructional strategies and pedagogy related to science instruction

that includes an emphasis on higher order thinking skills, assessment, re-teaching, and inquiry.

Activity/Action: Provide staff development and materials of instruction that will enable teachers to develop instructional strategies that will encourage

higher order thinking skills and use of inquiry with their students.


1. Provide professional development to Middle School Science and Special

Education teachers

a. In-service

b. Department meetings

c. Individualized meetings

d. Evening staff development meetings





Program Development



Program Development


Science Department Chairs

Instructional Leadership Team

June 2012

Monthly beginning September

2011and continuing through

May 2012



Quarter 1

Teacher feedback


Quarter 2

Teacher feedback


Quarter 3

Teacher feedback


Quarter 4

Teacher feedback



Results of the 2011-2012 MSA for Science – Grade 8


Social Studies

1. Describe the alignment of your LEA’s Social Studies Curriculum with the State

Curriculum at the elementary, middle, and high school levels.

The county social studies curriculum is currently comprehensively aligned with the

Maryland state curriculum standards. Both the scope and the sequence of the content and

skills/processes are addressed in the overall course, unit, and lesson plan objectives for each

of the grade levels. Particular attention is focused on ensuring that all goal areas are indicated

and lessons developed for the major goal areas of Political Science, People and Nations of

the World, Geography, Economics, History, and Skills and Processes. The content of each

course is also designed to replicate the specific content requirements consistent with the

Maryland state social studies standards.

The sequences for the grade level courses are:

Kindergarten – Integrated Units (Me, My Community, and My World)

Grade 1 – Living in the Family

Grade 2 – Living in the Community

Grade 3 – Regions of the World

Grade 4 – Regions of the United States (A Focus on Maryland)

Grade 5 – United States History: Exploration – A New Nation Begins

Grade 6 – World History: Pre-History through Reformation

Grade 7 – Contemporary Global Studies

Grade 8 – United States History: New Nation through Reconstruction

Grade 9 – Local/State/National Government

Grade 10 – United States History: 1877 to the Present

Grade 11 – World History: 1400 to the Present

Grade 12 – Electives (Advanced Placement and Non –AP Courses)

At each of these grade levels, the appropriate scaffolding of skills and processes is

embedded in the unit development and the lesson activities designed for the course. Curriculum

development for these courses includes trans-disciplinary skills and processes, especially in

regards to reading and writing skills used in both the English/Language Arts and social studies

standards.

A variety of supplementary resources are used to augment the focus on historical

investigation and argumentation, global and civic literacy, and financial awareness. These

resources include the We the People Program, Project Citizen (used in conjunction with the

Service-Learning requirement in Grade 9), History Alive and Government Alive, and the ABC-

Clio Government and History Web-based resources. Regular training on these resources is

scheduled to update teachers on the latest technological and instructional developments available

to meet the state standard requirements.


2. Identify the challenges you LEA faces in ensuring that the Social Studies State

Curriculum is effectively implemented at the elementary, middle, and high school

levels.

There are three challenge areas identified in the effective implementation of the current

curricula. Each one of them has been addressed through a variety of instructional and

administrative means. Still, all challenges continue to exist as potential obstacles in making

sure the goal of producing civically and globally literate students is accomplished.

The first of these challenges is using effective skills and processes at a rigorous level in

social studies. In addition to the course in which they are being taught, these skills are

essential to a student’s understanding of content in relation to themselves and their world. It

is our belief that all social studies courses should be responsible not only for a given set of

content standards, but also for the rigorous skill sets necessary for applying and evaluating

that content in a manner that makes it more personal and relevant. These skills are

particularly important in social studies courses, which give more opportunities for applying

and assessing points of view, cause and effect relationships, and the significance of historical

and contemporary events to students’ lives.

The second challenge is one of implementing technology effectively throughout the

instructional process. This challenge manifests itself as much or more in regards to

instruction at the high school level than it does for elementary or middle school. Much of the

instructional technology today challenges teachers and students directly through rapid change

and mastery of skills needed for usage, as well as how various technologies can be used

appropriately and effectively for instruction. The Charles County school system has a

comprehensive plan for incorporating instructional technology into the curricula, and for

professional development. This plan insures that teachers and other instructional staff are

continuously challenged with learning opportunities for using various technologies for

instructional purposes.

The third challenge is the availability of time and effort within the classroom for the role

of social studies. Particularly at the elementary level, the lack of accountability for social

studies provides challenges for administrators and teachers alike regarding decisions about

time on task for content area instruction that must be weighed against time in preparation for

areas in which assessment accountability does exist. While time in social studies courses is

not always directly sacrificed for the sake of directed instruction for state assessments, it

continuously poses a challenge to effective instruction of important social studies skills and

content that is necessary for success when large numbers of students enroll in Advanced

Placement courses at the high school level.

\

3. Explain how your LEA is addressing those challenges.

Many of the resources needed to address these challenges are available through on-

going and quality professional development for teachers. Teacher workshops and in-services

are available at the school-based and county levels on topics of rigorous classroom


instruction and the use of instructional technology in a general sense. However, in addition to

these opportunities, social studies-specific professional development is conducted on a

continual basis throughout each school year. These trainings are designed to meet the needs

of both experienced and relatively new teachers. They are also conducted in a way that

honors the wide diversity of subject areas encompassed within social studies and unique

skills required of students in those subjects. Particular attention to the scaffolding of

historical investigation skills, as well as rigorous reading and writing skills for the content

area has been incorporated in professional development opportunities at all levels.

School-based and county in-services for teachers are provided in various formats, and

are available at differing dates and times to accommodate as many needs as possible. Social

studies-specific in-services are provided that emphasize the relevance of various types of

technology in content area courses. Evening staff development sessions are also offered on

an annual basis as a means of incorporating technology and increasing teacher awareness of

web-based and other resources. All of these programs are facilitated by social studies

teachers with mastery in a particular form of instructional technology so that the relevance of

the presentation is apparent.

The challenge of time devoted to social studies instruction has been addressed through a

variety of measures at the county level. First, the county specified times for instruction at the

elementary school level are increasingly being unified through trans-disciplinary strategies

which combine social studies content and skills with those of the English/Language Arts

program and assessments. This is currently being done through the use of appropriate and

targeted social studies readers or trade-books that focus on the social studies standards and

are integrated with strategies inherent in the MSA exam requirements. The Common Core

Standards for English/Language Arts have served to increase the need for greater inclusion of

social studies in the cross-curricular process. Finally, work is currently underway to identify

school-based representatives for social studies who will receive content-specific training each

year at the county level. As part of a trainer-of-trainers model, these teachers will act as

facilitators for their schools regarding social studies initiatives and content-area instruction.

At the middle and high school level, professional development is more readily accessible

to teachers since there is content-specific instruction, as well as teachers who regularly attend

social studies in-services and workshops throughout the year. In middle schools, social

studies department chairs often work in cross-curricular teams, offering teachers with

opportunities to provide vital content-based instruction for all subject areas. At the high

school level, a significant number of workshops have been conducted in conjunction with

English/Language Arts in the last four years. Professional development workshops have

included pre, during and post reading strategies, Pre-AP strategies for reading

comprehension, and strategies focused on argumentative writing, thesis development, and

providing evidence to support writing claims. These programs have the purpose of providing

common instructional strategies in reading and writing, especially as they apply to the

necessary pre-AP skills and processes.

Already, the Common Core Standards have already encouraged greater collaboration

among subject areas, particularly in social studies. This gives an opportunity is provided for


more rigorous and trans-disciplinary instruction to be developed and implemented than the

previous standards had required. While these challenges to social studies instruction will

likely continue, the Common Core Standards will give social studies the role of providing

essential civic, historical, and global content and skills to the essential literacy skills that are

part of those requirements.


Maryland High School Assessment (HSA)

English High School Assessment

Based on the examination of AYP proficiency data for English (Table 2.3):

Question 1 – Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges

in terms of subgroups.

Table 2.3 highlights some of the challenges that CCPS faces when examining the gaps in

proficiency between the achievement of White students and other subgroups for the SY 2010-

2011. The gap between African American and White students has narrowed to some extent;

however, there is still a discrepancy in performance. The White subgroup is performing at

93.2%, while the African American subgroup is performing at 81.3%, so there is still a gap of

11.9 points. The LEP and FARMS subgroups have also narrowed the gap – LEP by 16.3 points

and FARMS by 4.9 points. However, this data reveals the challenge of closing the gap between

FARMS and White students, which is still 15.8 points and LEP and White students, which is

39.4 points. The Special Education subgroup remained the same at 58.8 % proficiency, making

the gap between Special Education and the White subgroup 34.4 points. Both the LEP subgroup

and the Special Education subgroups continue to perform significantly lower than the subgroup

of All Students and White Students.

There seems to be several root causes for the overall challenge of having all students pass the

assessment. One of the challenges is the need for more collaboration between special education

teachers, ESOL teachers, Literacy teachers, and English teachers. Many special educators and

ESOL teachers possess a rudimentary knowledge of English content and many English teachers

are not familiar with differentiated instruction; however, Literacy teachers often possess

knowledge of reading, English, and differentiated instruction, but are not always included in

discussions with the other groups.

A root cause for the challenges for LEP students could be the lack of formal education in either

the LEP’s native country or in the U.S.A. Participation in formal school is not always available

due to personal and academic challenges. Even when students do participate in formal

education, it is often interrupted due to an unstable educational environment. Many students are

also partially or completely illiterate in their native language and live with family members who

have limited or no reading and writing skills in their native language, so it is extremely

challenging to acquire skills necessary to read and write in English. Very few LEPs have the

academic background or English language experience to immediately succeed in the rigorous

courses and assessments they are expected to master for the HSA.

Another challenge for students is the lack of rigor in many of the courses. Even though the

curriculum has been updated, some teachers are unclear about what they are supposed to teach

their students. Instituting vertical teams in the schools has helped clarify which skills and

concepts should be taught in each grade. This has made teachers more aware of the information

covered the previous year and helped them spend ample time reviewing information but not


spend an inordinate amount of time teaching what the students have already learned. The vertical

teams have helped immensely; however, as CCPS begins transitioning into the Common Core

Standards, it will be even more important for teachers to back- map reading, writing, speaking

and listening, and language skills in order to prepare students for the level of rigor they will

encounter with these new standards. For example, with the new standards, 9th

grade students will

be expected to write argumentative essays, whereas, in the present curriculum, this assignment

would belong in 11th

grade honors or AP Language & Composition. Therefore, it is imperative

that the vertical teams continue to meet, review action plans, and implement best practices based

on data.

Improving the efficacy of the research based reading interventions in the high schools so that the

needs of the struggling readers are being met is also extremely important. Many African

American, special education, FARMS, and LEP students tend to read below grade level and are

enrolled in the reading interventions. Continued screening for enrollment of other students within

these subgroups who will benefit from an intervention will be identified. Improvements in the

screening process for enrollment in these interventions and improvements in the instruction will

also assist in increasing the number of proficient and advanced students in these subgroups.

Question 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 College Board’s SpringBoard Curriculum will be utilized by selected English II and all

English I Honors teachers this fall. This curriculum was developed using research findings on

best practices. It contains rigorous standards, purposeful learning activities, and differentiated

instruction and assessments. Research-based instructional strategies “have a high probability of

enhancing student achievement for all students…” (Classroom Instruction That Works, Marzano,

Pickering, and Pollock, 2001,p.7). CCPS believes that this curriculum will ensure sufficient

progress for many of the students so that they will have a better grasp of the material necessary

to score proficient or advanced on the HSA . CCPS is also expecting the teachers who implement

this curriculum to share the best practices included in SpringBoard with other teachers to build

teacher capacity within the schools.

During SY 2010-2011, the English teachers received many resources intended to help them

increase the rigor in their classes. Some of these resources were not purchased until the end of

the school year, so training and discussions based on the implementation of these strategies will

occur in SY 2011-2012. Some of these resources include: Jim Burke’s 50 Essential Lessons,

Strategy Central for the Active Reader for Information, Literature, and Nonfiction, Grammar in

Practice: A Foundation, and Grammar in Practice: Sentences and Paragraphs. The training

and discussions will occur in a variety of ways including content team meetings, department

meetings, in-services, and evening professional development sessions.

Each of the English Departments was also given three Smartboards and three sets of CPS

clickers in order to enhance the technology in their classes and engage more of the kinesthetic

learners. The schools also received multiple copies of novels from the CCPS Approved Book


List so that more students could take books home and read, thus freeing up class time for

discussion and more in-depth assignments.

Grammar instruction will be stressed more than ever. All English teachers are expected to teach

grammar. Most of the departments will be using the Daily Grammar Practice Program. At the

end of SY 2010, the middle school Language Arts program also adopted the Daily Grammar

Practice Program, so the expectation is that students will enter high school with a better

understanding of grammar.

Grammar is only one area that is being back-mapped. In order to prepare all students for more

rigorous course work, all of the high school English departments have developed vertical team

action plans. These plans have helped clarify the concepts and skills taught at each level, so that

less time is spent on review and more time on the mastery and successful achievement of

complex skills and concepts. These meetings have also uncovered some gaps in instruction

which will continue to be addressed throughout this year.

Each school will continue to implement a common planning period for English II teachers in

addition to their normal planning period. During this time teachers have the opportunity to

analyze data from state and county assessments and determine instructional implications. The

teachers are then able to collaborate and develop activities and assessments they can use to

enhance the performance of all students. This time also gives teachers the opportunity to drill

down to the root causes of the challenging areas for students, especially the subgroups that are

lagging behind.

A school based resource teacher is available to work with the teachers on a daily basis to help the

teachers in the planning process and in the development of lesson plans. The Content Specialist

and the English resource teacher will continue to meet regularly with each English II team to

provide further support and training to the teachers. This training will be determined through

analysis of the student data at each school.

The Content Specialist, with the assistance of the English resource teacher, administrative staff

and department chairs at the schools, will encourage collaboration and sharing among general

educators, special educators, Literacy teachers, and LEP teachers. This collaboration should

occur at department meetings, after-school sessions, and informally during school hours.

Professional development sessions in the areas of differentiation, rigor in all classrooms, reading

strategies, data driven instruction, grammar, and vocabulary will also be offered to all of the

teachers. The English Content Specialist, English resource teacher, Instructional Specialist for

Special Education, and a host of instructional leaders from the schools will serve as facilitators

for these evening sessions. The Content Specialist will also work with the Literacy teachers and

the Content Specialist for ESOL to make sure specific strategies proven to be useful with LEP

students and struggling readers are shared during these sessions. This past year, Dr. Katy Arnett,

Associate Professor of Educational Studies at St. Mary’s College of Maryland, conducted an

interactive session with ESOL teachers and English teachers who instruct LEP students.

Through a series of short teacher talks, discussions, and hands-on activities, Dr. Arnett shared

specific strategies to help foster students’ linguistic and content development. During the

afternoon, the English teachers collaborated with the ESOL teacher assigned to the same school


in order to develop and refine activities that can support LEP students in the classroom. The

teachers felt that the strategies were great tools to use with any struggling students. CCPS is

hoping that Dr. Arnett can continue to work with these teachers because it is obvious that getting

the LEP students to pass the HSA is a challenge.

The in- service days will be utilized to create an awareness for all teachers about the reading

interventions in high school, and to help teachers understand that using rigor in the classrooms is

important for everyone, and must sometimes be achieved by differentiating instruction. Two

years ago, a cohort of 35 teachers worked with professional consultants and authors, Kylene

Beers and Bob Probst. Beers and Probst facilitated sessions including Assessing Dependent

Readers’ Needs, Explicit Instruction in Comprehension, Helping Students Make Inferences, and

Frontloading Meaning. This year, the cohort of teachers who received the training will be

responsible for sharing these strategies with the other English teachers during County In-

services, Evening Professional Development Sessions, department meetings and content

meetings. Some of this information has already been placed on the Virtual Drive in the English

curriculum folders. The Content Specialist, English resource teacher, and the administrative staff

at each high school will visit classes regularly to look for evidence that the teachers are using the

strategies and materials posted on the Virtual Drive and shared at training sessions.

The Item Writing Committee, which consists of the Content Specialist, the English resource

teacher, and several instructional leaders at the schools, has reviewed the CCPS quarterly

assessments and replaced any problematic items with higher quality items. They have also

included more items per indicator in order to improve the reliability of the assessments. English

teachers will be trained in item writing and expected to use HSA type items for warm-ups,

formative assessments, summative assessments, and closure activities so that students are

familiar with the format and terminology of these assessments. Of course, these will be used in

conjunction with a myriad of other strategies.

The Special Education Instructional Specialist, the Content Specialist for English, and the

English resource teacher will continue to provide professional development in co-teaching and

differentiation for English I, II, III, and special education teachers working at schools where the

data indicates a need for additional training. They will also continue to make regular visits to

these classes to keep track of the implementation of the shared strategies.

Plans for students who receive special education services include the need for more collaboration

and communication among case managers, special education teachers, and regular education

teachers so that individual students’ accommodations are clearly and effectively met on a daily

basis. In addition, the growth of the number of co-taught classes will also benefit the special

needs student. The CCPS quarterly assessments will also include a mod assessment as practice

for those students who will qualify to take the Mod HSA. Teachers will also be trained and

encouraged to create modified assessments for special education students to use in their

classrooms for formative and summative assessments.

The Bridge Plan process was also implemented as part of the summer school program during the

summer of 2008. This program will continue to be utilized for those students who qualify to


participate in it. This past year, several teachers worked with the Content Specialist to create

frontloading activities to assist the Bridge teachers with their lessons. Materials, such as

grammar books, novels, etc. have also been purchased in order to enhance the program.

Assistance will be provided to the students based on needs as demonstrated through the CCPS

assessments. Some of this assistance will include Pull-Out Acceleration Programs, After- School

Acceleration Programs, and the use of Independent Study Packets. The curriculum for English I,

II, III, and IV has also been updated and is available on the Virtual Drive. The lessons are based

on the Maryland State Curriculum.

The development of a system-wide reading program in CCPS encompassing all grade levels

began with SY 2005-06. At the high school level, student identification includes the use of the

Performance Series to identify students in need of reading interventions. Further identification

of student reading needs is accomplished through the Rasinski Fluency Checks and Spelling

Inventories. With the means to accurately place students based upon identified reading needs,

more students will receive the help necessary to become successful.

Expanded training will be given to the teachers of the Tier II and Tier III reading interventions:

Literacy and Supplemental Reading. Language! was introduced to the Tier II teachers and

students four years ago, and the past two years the Edge Program was added for literacy

students who may be strong in phonemic awareness and fluency, but need acceleration in

vocabulary and comprehension. Literacy and Supplemental Reading teachers will continue to

meet with the Content Specialist and the Instructional Specialist for Reading Interventions

bimonthly for training and staff development. The Instructional Specialist for Special Education

will also attend these meetings when needed. There will be monthly visits to the schools in order

to progress-monitor the fidelity of the program. Progress monitoring of the students will be in

collaboration with special educators and an Instructional Specialist for Reading Interventions.

LETRS training will continue to be offered to English, reading, LEP, and special educators.

Professional development that provides training and resources for the education of LEP students

in the English classroom will also be included in professional development plans with PD360 as

an accessible resource. As mentioned earlier, the 270 Lessons in the Language! Program will

also be used with the LEP students. Plans for LEP students will include on-going monitoring of

performance by both the ESOL teacher assigned to the school and the classroom English teacher.

There will be a focus on collaboration between the CCPS English programs and the ESOL

teaching staff. The ESOL Specialist, the English Content Specialist, and the school

administrative staff will work together to ensure the LEPs are receiving differentiated

instruction, accommodations, modifications, and objective evaluations. The ESOL Program will

also provide stipends to content area teachers who conduct extended day opportunities for LEPs

in skill areas in which they are non-English proficient.

Please see Action Plans for corresponding resource allocations and timelines.


Resource Allocations 2010 - 2011


Stipends – Literacy

Training and Monthly

Professional Development

$4,000.00 Local Funds

Evening Professional

Development


Stipends – SpringBoard $10,350.00 ARRA Funds

Materials for SpringBoard $25.00 per student ARRA Funds

Stipends – Assessment

Review and Updates

$100.00 Local Funds

Vertical Team Professional

Development

$0.00 Completed during In-

Services, Department Chair

Meetings, and Department

Meetings

Based on the examination of 2010 High School Assessment (HSA) results for English

(Tables 3.1 and 3.2):

Question 1 - Identify any additional challenges that are evident.

Data indicates that 82.6 % of all 11th

graders have passed the HSA. This number surpasses the

74.3% of all 10th

graders who have passed the HSA. Since the English II assessment is given as

an end-of-course test for tenth grade, this increase most likely reflects the students who passed it

the first time combined with those who have taken the test more than once. According to Table

3.1, 22.4% out of All Students have taken but not passed the HSA and according to Table 3.2,

16% out of All Students have taken but not passed the HSA. Some challenges are evident in

Special Education and FARMS in that the male students are lagging behind the female students.

In 10th

grade students, the Special Education male students are 2.4% behind the females and in

FARMS, the male students are 14.9% behind the female students. In 11th

grade, the Special

Education male students are trailing the females by 7.4% and the FARMS male students are

9.7% behind the female students in the same subgroup.

Question 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 school system will work to improve the interventions that are presently in place to help the

students pass the HSA. Early identification of students in need of acceleration is one key

component which contributes to students passing the HSA. The CCPS quarterly assessments

help teachers to identify the indicators in which individual students are successful and those

which require re-teaching. The Content Specialist for English and the English resource teacher

have reviewed the items on these quarterly assessments, removed any items that were not stellar,

and developed new items that will give the teachers and students the best statistics. The Data

Warehouse allows staff to disaggregate data by subgroup, ethnicity, FARMS, special education,

and grade band. The cross-tabulation charts created by Research & Assessment allows teachers


and schools to project an individual’s degree of proximity to the passing scores and addresses the

student’s instructional needs accordingly. Each quarter, the Content Specialist and resource

teacher will work with the English II teams to analyze the root causes and possible solutions for

student challenges and share this information across the county. Many times, students have the

same challenges and one school might think of strategies that another does not use or one school

might be using strategies that have helped students with a particular indicator and this

information might be able to help students at another school address challenging areas.

Another factor that plays an important role is the development of the reading program in high

schools. Many of the students who are not successful have difficulty reading and

comprehending information in class and items on the test; therefore, as they become more skilled

in literacy, they will become more successful in class and on the test. As the teachers become

better instructors and show more fidelity to the programs, the students have a better chance of

learning. CCPS has certainly seen an obvious correlation between the reading interventions and

student progress.

The school system will continue to keep the interventions mentioned above in place. In

conjunction with those interventions, CCPS will intensify professional development for teachers

by offering evening sessions based on student data. The Literacy teachers will continue with

upgraded training in the Language! and Edge Programs, which will help the struggling readers.

The curriculum guides have also been updated to address all subgroups with up-to-date research

and best practices, which include model lesson plans demonstrating a variety of differentiation

strategies.

Research shows that there is a high correlation between student writing and comprehending

ideas; therefore, the Content Specialist and Instructional Specialists from the Special Education

Department have joined forces and written a grant that will enable Special Education teachers,

English teachers, and Reading Intervention teachers who teach Special Education students to

receive a stipend for attending evening professional development that will focus on writing. This

partnership will help prepare students to meet the Common Core Standards and be prepared for

the 21st Century Learning Skills. The Literacy teachers will continue with upgraded training in

the Language! and Edge Programs, which will help the struggling readers. The Literacy teachers

will also receive stipends to attend evening professional development sessions which will include

data analysis, program fidelity, best practices, up-to-date research, and other sessions based on

the needs of students.


Resource Allocations 2010 - 2011



Development for Reading

interventions


Edge and Language! Training $0.00 Included with purchase of

materials


Development for Writing

$8,100.30 SFY 2012 State

Discretionary Least

Restrictive Grant Program

Upgrading items on CCPS

assessments

$100.00 Local Funds; Most of the

work was completed by the

Content Specialist and the

English Resource Teacher



Action Plan # 1

English

Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Content Specialist for English/Language Arts

County Performance Target (if applicable ) 86.33% of students in all subgroups will reach proficiency or advanced on the 2012

Maryland High School Assessment for English (tested subject)

English

Root Cause: Classroom instructional time and personnel are not being maximized to accelerate student learning.

Strategy: Continue vertical teaming in order to maximize classroom instructional time and increase rigor in grades 9-12.

Activity/Action: Provide time, resources, and professional development for vertical teaming


1. Provide professional development and time during in-

services for

vertical team efforts

2. Provide resources to help teachers with vertical team efforts

and to support the transition into the Common Core

Standards

3. School-based visitations to follow up on training

Content Specialist


Department Chairs

Master Teacher for Educator

Effectiveness Academy

Content Specialist


Instructional Specialist for

Special Education

Content Specialist


August 25, 2011, September

16, 2011, October 5, 2011,

February 8, 2012 (no cost)

Sept. 2011 – June 2012

Monthly school visits from

Sept. 2011 - June 2012



Quarter 1

- Classroom visitations

- Lesson plans

- Informal discussions

- Quarterly assessments

Quarter 2


- Lesson plans



Quarter 3


- Lesson plans



Quarter 4


- Lesson plans



- HSA scores

- Students better prepared for

rigorous courses

- More students entering AP

courses


Evidence of skills and concepts being vertically aligned

Evidence of rigor in classes

Quarterly assessments

HSA scores



Action Plan # 2

English



86.33% of students in all subgroups will reach proficiency or advanced on the 2012 Maryland High School Assessment for English. (tested

subject)English

Root Cause: There is not an effective and consistent process for identifying and addressing the needs of struggling readers at the high school

level

Strategy: Improve the efficacy of the research based reading interventions in high school in order to better address the needs of struggling readers


1. Expanded LETRS training

- Include all teachers of reading interventions

- Include more English I, II, and III teachers

2. Performance Series Training for Reading Intervention teachers

and

other necessary personnel at the high school level

- This will facilitate student placement into appropriate

interventions

3. Provide upgraded Edge and Language! training and materials to

Literacy teachers

4. Provide training in progress monitoring

- Aimsweb

- Fluency Checks and Maze Comprehension Checks

5. Follow-up Training

Content Specialist


Reading Interventions

Content Specialist

Research & Assessment

Content Specialist

Program Trainers

Content Specialist

Special Education Instructional

Specialist



Content Specialist

Sept. 2011- May 2012

Ongoing throughout the year

($75.00 per person for substitutes)

Sept. 7, 2011

( Stipends - $25 per hour per

person)

Sept. 2011

( Materials – $35,000); Training is

free with purchase of materials

Sept. 27, 2011( Stipends - $25 per

hour per person)

Sept. 2011 – May 2012

( monthly visits to classrooms)

Staff development sessions are


- Schedule classroom visitations

- Monthly staff development

6. Provide information and training about the reading interventions

to

- Administration

- School Counselors

- English Department Chairpersons



Special Education Instructional

Specialist

Content Specialist

scheduled for the following dates:

Sept. 27, 2011, Nov.3, 2011, Jan.

24, 2012, March 27, 2012, and May

22, 2012 ( Stipends are $25 per

hour per person)

Sept. 2011- May 2012



Quarter 1


- Proper placement of students

in

the correct intervention

- Results of data analysis

-Roster of names of teachers

attending LETRS training

-Informal discussions with

teachers

about what they learned at the

training

Quarter 2



in



- Roster of names of teachers


- Informal discussions with

teachers about what they

learned

at the training

Quarter 3



in






teachers about what they

learned

at the training

Quarter 4


- Proper placement of students in






teachers about what they learned

at the training

Evidence of Attainment (Summative) 1) Data providing evidence of progress by students in reading interventions

2) Classroom Visitations



Action Plan # 3

English



86.33% of students in all subgroups will reach proficiency or advanced on the 2012 Maryland High School Assessment for English

(tested subject) English

Root Cause : The rigor in English I and II Honors courses is not sufficient enough to ensure that the students understand the concepts and

skills necessary to pass the HSA.

Strategy: Implement a rigorous course of study in Honors’ courses

Activity/Action: Use the College Board’s SpringBoard curriculum in all 9th

grade honors courses and selected 10th

grade honors courses


1. Schedule training sessions for SpringBoard teachers

2. Procure licenses for students

3.Schedule time for all of the teachers using SpringBoard to share

instructional ideas with each other and with other teachers

Content Specialist


Content Specialist

Content specialist


August 9, 10, 11, 2011

( $10,350.00 for stipends

which included 7th

and

8th

grade teachers)

August 2011 ( $25.00

per student)

October 5, 2011 and

February 8, 2012




Quarter 1




Quarter 2




Quarter 3




Quarter 4




- HSA scores


Evidence of skills and concepts being taught


Quarterly assessments

HSA scores


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.

While our system experienced an overall increase in performance over the previous year’s scores

(3.4%), a gap still exists between our white population (96.3% proficient) and all other subgroups except

for Asian/Pacific. CCPS is however making progress in four subgroups and had a slight decrease in two

subgroups.. From 2010 to 2011 the African American subgroup increased by 4.5 %( 81.2% to 85.7%),

Hispanic increased by 6.8 % (89.3% to 96.1%), Farms increased by 4.9% (76.7% to 81.6%), Special

Education decreased by 5.3% (62.8% to 57.5%) from 2010 to 2011, and LEP decreased by 33.3%

(100% to 66.6%).

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.

Three high schools modified the Algebra One Part One and Algebra One Part Two courses by giving the

students a double period of Part One (1st semester) followed by a double period of Part 2 (2nd

semester)and completing the sequence in a single school year instead of two years. Seeing this past

year’s results, we are having additional high schools look at their master schedules to see if adjustments

to their master schedules can be made so that a one year Algebra One Part One & Part Two course will

accommodate students and be in place for the 2011/2012 school year.

High school Administrative teams are also looking at released HSA data and CCPS assessment data and

are making staff adjustments on who is teaching which course and which students. Teachers that have a

majority of students that have been highly successful on the HSA are now being given just one prep and

are being asked to teach an HSA related class all day.

High School – Math



Stipends- 3 Evening Staff

Development sessions /

Curriculum Development


Materials $3,250.00 Local Funds


Based on the Examination of 2010 High School Assessment Results for Algebra/Data Analysis

(Tables 3.3 and 3.4):

1. Identify any additional challenges that are evident.

Of the approximately 10% remaining eleventh grade students (221) that still need to raise their

Algebra/Data Analysis assessment scores, 140 students are African American and 39 students are white.

35 of the 221 have IEP’s, and 73 of the 221 are FARMS students. Comparing tables 3.3 and 3.4, the data

indicates that a higher percentage of students are passing the Algebra assessment by the end of eleventh

grade and the percent passing in all subgroups is increasing though our subgroup data is still a concern.

Seniors who have already taken our Elementary Algebra 2 intervention course and/or participated in one

of the other intervention opportunities, and in many cases having numerous failing scores, now qualify

for the Bridge Plan for Academic validation. The challenge we face with our seniors is a strategic and

timely one in that we must decide when and which project rotation do the students complete.

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 identification process for the Bridge Class will begin much earlier this school year due to the fact

that HSA results are now available in late June. Resource teachers use student data, including past

scores and other baseline data, to flag students and to serve as a monitoring vehicle during the 1st

quarter. Subsequent quarterly assessment data including school, teacher and student binary reports, will

be used to identify strengths and challenges for individual students. Schools exercise latitude in

adjusting schedules and providing additional support for students who are not meeting success in the

classroom.

In addition, parallel CCPS developed Bridge manuals will be shared with all algebra teachers as a

resource to be used during the school year. Replicating how the manuals are used in the Bridge class,

along with the need for teachers and students to be focused, concentrated, and demanding repetition

until concepts are mastered will help our struggling student be successful on the Algebra/Data Analysis

HSA. Teachers who have Elementary Algebra 2 (remediation class for HSA) will be incorporating the

CCPS projects into the first semester of the course along with a concentrated narrow focus of indicators

to be addressed based on data obtained from the data warehouse. This narrow and concentrated effort

should assist the last 10% of our students that have not yet passed the assessment.

Charles County Public Schools has secured $10,950.00 funds that will used for any and all aspects of the

Bridge Plan for Academic Validation. A detailed plan is outlined in the Bridge Action plan and

corresponding responses to the five questions under HSA Graduation Requirement



Action Plan # 1

Algebra

Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Director of Instructional Assessment


100% of students in all subgroups will reach proficiency or advanced on the 2012 Algebra / Data Analysis assessment

Root Cause: Students require more practice in understanding and applying the concepts of Algebra and Data Analysis

Strategy: Increase instruction and the use of differentiation strategies to implement higher order thinking in instruction and assessment.

Activity/Action: Provide staff development and materials of instruction that will enable teachers to develop instructional strategies that will encourage higher order thinking skills

in their students. Plan and present best practices with the county special education resource teacher.


1.Professional Development to High School Algebra Teachers

e. Initial In-service on assessment and Item writing – Regular and MOD

questions

f. Designing Algebra lessons using the 5E model

g. Development of lessons that include application, analysis, and real life

applications

h. Training in the use of the Classroom Performance Systems

i. Provide after school professional development on differentiation


j. Algebra Content Meetings

k. Classroom visitations

l. Individual teacher meetings

m. Departmental and after school meetings

Director of Instructional Assessment and

Algebra resource teachers,


Algebra resource teacher,

September 2011

September 2011 – May 2012


(monthly/weekly)

Quarterly Data Analysis (Formative)Data providing evidence of quarterly progress


Quarter 1

Observation of effective teaching strategies

and assessment strategies

Teacher made assessments and Results on

teacher and county quarterly assessments

Quarter 2

Observation of effective teaching

strategies and assessment strategies

Teacher made assessments and Results

on teacher and county quarterly

assessments

Quarter 3



Teacher made assessments and Results

on teacher and county quarterly

assessments

Quarter 4


and assessment strategies

Teacher made assessments and Results on

teacher and county quarterly assessments

Evidence of Attainment (Summative) Plan is developed, implemented and students were successful on their Algebra/Data Analysis HSA assessment.



Action Plan # 2

Algebra



100% of students in all subgroups will reach proficiency or advanced on the 2012 Algebra / Data Analysis assessment

Root Cause: Many students lack the prior knowledge and have not yet obtained and/or mastered the skills necessary to be proficient on the Algebra / Data Analysis HSA

Strategy: Increase the amount of instructional time students have with an Algebra teacher. Provide specific staff development opportunities for the teacher to master the ability to

teach, assess, and re teach in a timely and effective manner.

Activity/Action: Placement of students in a double block of Algebra


1. Increase the number of students in the Part 1 / Part 2 Class

If no Part 1 / Part 2 class – Students may be assigned the Algebra Apps class

and/or the after school opportunity

2. Closely monitor the students in the class and the progress made in obtaining the

knowledge of the skills taught thru teaching, assessing and then re teaching when

necessary.

3. Algebra resource teacher will meet with these teachers and students bi - weekly

4. Provide strengths and challenges after each assessment

5. Make adjustments and modifications to lesson plans to address challenges

6. Re assess students and check for understanding and obtainment of knowledge

7. Provide additional resources that will allow these students time practicing their

algebra skills at home.

School

Teacher and Algebra Resource Teacher

August 2011


Quarterly Data Analysis (Formative)Data providing evidence of quarterly progress


Quarter 1


Results on teacher made assessments and

results on teacher and county quarterly

assessments

Quarter 2


strategies

Results on teacher made assessments

and results on teacher and county


Quarter 3


strategies



assessments

Quarter 4




assessments


Plan is developed, implemented and students who participated in the double block class will receive a passing score on the Algebra/Data Analysis HSA.



Action Plan # 3

Algebra



100% of students in all subgroups will reach proficiency or advanced on the 2012 Maryland State Assessment for Algebra/ Data Analysis

Root Cause: Many Special Education teachers have a limited knowledge of Algebra content and many Algebra teachers have a limited knowledge of differentiated instruction;

therefore, there is a need for more training and collaboration between these entities in order to accelerate learning by maximizing the use of time, resources, and personnel.

Strategy: Implement the expansion of co-teaching and the use of differentiated lessons

Activity/Action: Provide staff development and materials of instruction that will provide opportunities for collaboration within these groups.


1. Provide specialized staff development, including Algebra content and

methods of differentiation, for co-teachers of all HSA algebra courses

in order to maximize their collaboration in the classroom

Evening Staff Development

Department Meetings

Individualized Training

2. Provide co-teaching models and time for on site collaboration for the

special education and regular education teachers of all HSA algebra

courses at all six high schools

Special Education Resource Teacher

Algebra Resource Teacher

February 2012





Quarter 1

- Informal discussions with teachers about

what they learned in training

- Lesson plans and classroom observations

Quarter 2

- Informal discussions with teachers

about what they learned in training

- Lesson plans and classroom

observations

Quarter 3

- Informal discussions with teachers

about what they learned in training

- Lesson plans and classroom

observations

Quarter 4

- Informal discussions with teachers about

what they learned in training

- Lesson plans and classroom observations


- Observations of co-taught lessons

- Meet with teachers about what they learned through the training and how they used it in the classroom

- Results of data analysis of CCPS quarterly assessments


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.

Analysis of the tenth grade Biology HSA data for all students reveals that 78.1 percent of the

tenth graders passed the Biology HSA exam, with a 3.6 percent difference in the passing rate

between males and females (76.2 percent of males taking the test passed and 79.8 percent of the

females passed the exam). Only 43.8 percent of the tenth grade special education students passed

the exam, with a 3.3 percent difference in passing rate between males and females (44.7 percent

males and 41.4 percent female). The Limited English Proficient students totaled 11, with 6 not

taking the test (54.5 percent). This sub-group showed and overall 18.2 percent passing rate. One

of the two males taking the test (14.3 percent) passed and one of the four females (25.0 percent)

passed a 10.7 percent difference. Focusing on Free/Reduced Meals (FARM) students,

62.1percent passed with an 8.5 percent difference between the males and females (57.6 percent

male and 66.5 percent female).

This data reveals that the lowest passing percentages were shown in the Limited English

Proficient students and the Special Education students. The largest difference in male and female

achievement was shown in Limited English proficient students (10.7 percent) and FARM

students, (8.5 percent). The number of Limited English Proficient students not taking the test

(54.5 percent) was also significant.

Analysis of the eleventh grade HSA Biology data for all students shows a passing rate of 84.6

percent with a 0.5 percent difference between males and females (84.3 percent males and 84.8

percent females). Special Education students had a passing rate of 44.7 percent, with a 15.4

percent difference between males and females (50.0 males and 34.6 percent females). There were

6 Limited English Proficient students the one male student passed the exam representing 100

percent and 40 percent, or 2 of the 5 females passed the test, representing a difference of 60

percent between males and females. Of the Free and Reduced Meals students 72.4 percent passed

with a 0.9 percent difference between males and females (71.9 percent males and 72.8 percent

females).

This data revealed that the lowest passing percentages were again shown by Special Education

students (44.7 percent) and Limited English Proficient students (50.0 percent). The largest

difference in male and female achievement was shown in Limited English Proficient students

(60.0 percent) and Special Education students, (15.4 percent).

Curricular Challenges linked to the Data:

The Biology curriculum as currently established assists the experienced teacher, but presents

numerous challenges to the beginning or less experienced teachers. The resources are not

focused around the 5 E model of instruction. Opportunities for differentiation based upon the

resources are minimal.


Pedagogical Challenges linked to the data:

There are several challenges that have been indicated by the data. The low performance of the

special education students can be caused by the lack of knowledge by special educators and the

need for greater collaboration between the science classroom teacher and the special education

teacher in co-taught classrooms. Special education teachers are welcomed at the Biology team

meetings and the sharing of data from our quarterly benchmarks and HSA data.

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.

Our Biology curriculum is being rewritten during this school year. We are focusing upon written

and verbal discussion/argumentation, differentiation, inquiry, and laboratory/data investigation.

Evening professional development sessions will focus on inquiry. In all sessions, teachers

develop lessons and strategies that are implemented in the classroom. Follow-up sessions and

observations of best practices that are implemented in the classroom allow for feedback and

guidance in a continuing effort to improve instruction. Special educators will be invited to attend

professional development trainings with science teachers so they will be informed on best

practices in science instruction.

Plans for students who receive special education services include the need for more collaboration

and communication between case managers, special education teachers, and regular education

teachers so that individual student’s accommodations are clearly and effectively met on a daily

basis. In addition, the growth of the number of co-taught classes will also benefit the special

needs student. Teachers will also be trained and encouraged to create modified assessments for

their special education students.

Assistance will be provided to the students based on needs as demonstrated through the CCPS

assessments. Some of this assistance will include Pull-Out Remediation Programs, After-School

Remediation Programs, and the use of Independent Study Packets.

2011-2012 Resource Allocations


Evening Staff Development Sessions

for Teachers

2 evenings X 30 teachers X 1.5

hours X $25/hour

$2,250.00 Title II


Based on the examination of 2010 High School Assessment results for Biology (Tables 3.5 and 3.6):



Subgroup


Number of

Students

percent

Taken

and Passed

Number

Passed

percent

Taken

and Not Passed

Number Not

Passed

percen

t Not Taken

Number Not Take

n

Number of Stude

nts

percent

Taken

and Passed

Number

Passed

percent

Taken

and Not Passed

Number Not

Passed

percen

t Not Taken

Number Not Take

n

Number of Stude

nts

percent

Taken

and Passed

Number

Passed

percent

Taken

and Not Passed

Number Not

Passed

percen

t Not Taken

Number Not Take

n

All Students 2124 78.1 1658 18.0 383 3.9 83 1035 76.2 789 19.0 197 4.7 49 1089 79.8 869 17.1 186 3.1 34



Asian



White

Two or more races

Special Education

105 43.8 46 48.6 51 7.6 8 76 44.7 34 46.1 35 9.2 7 29 41.4 12 55.2 16 3.4 1


11 18.2 2 27.3 3 54.5 6 7 14.3 1 14.3 1 71.4 5 4 25.0 1 50.0 2 25.0 1


428 62.1 266 32.0 137 5.8 25 210 57.6 121 35.2 74 7.1 15 218 66.5 145 28.9 63 4.6 10




Subgroup


Number of Stude

nts

percent

Taken

and Passed

Number

Passed

percent

Taken

and Not Passed

Number Not

Passed

percen

t Not Taken

Number Not Take

n

Number of Stude

nts

percent

Taken

and Passed

Number

Passed

percent

Taken

and Not Passed

Number Not

Passed

percen

t Not Taken

Number Not Take

n

Number of Stude

nts

percent

Taken

and Passed

Number

Passed

percent

Taken

and Not Passed

Number Not

Passed

percen

t Not Taken

Number Not Take

n

All Students

1984 84.6 1678 13.9 276 1.5 30 989 84.3 834 14.3 141 1.4 14 995 84.8 844 13.6 135 1.6 16



Asian



White

Two or more races

Special Education

76 44.7 34 53.9 41 1.3 1 50 50.0 25 48.0 24 2.0 1 26 34.6 9 65.4 17 0.0 0


6 50.0 3 50.0 3 0.0 0 1 100.

0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 5 40.0 2 60.0 3 0.0 0


384 72.4 278 25.3 97 2.3 9 178 71.9 128 26.4 47 1.7 3 206 72.8 150 24.3 50 2.9 6


Action Plan # 5

High School Science

Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Director of Science Instruction and Program Development

County Performance Target (if applicable) 100percent of students in all subgroups will reach proficiency or advanced on the 2012 HSA for Biology (tested subject)

Root Cause: Biology and Special Education teachers need to develop a greater range of instructional strategies and pedagogy of teaching concept attainment and application related to the teaching of biology.

Strategy: Continued implementation of concept formation and application in instruction and assessment by providing professional development of teachers.

Activity/Action: Provide curriculum and materials of instruction that will enable teachers to develop instructional strategies that will encourage higher order thinking skills in their students.


1. Provide Professional Development to Biology teachers and Special Education teachers

n. Initial in-services on Science Framework, Common Core Standards, and Inquiry

o. Evening staff development

3. School Based Visits a. Classroom visitations b. Biology Team meetings c. Individual teacher meetings

Director of Science Instruction and Program Development Director of Science Instruction and Program Development , Science Department Chairs and High School Resource Teachers

October 13 and November 3. Monthly beginning September 2011 and continuing through May 2012


Quarter 1 Observation of effective teaching strategies and assessment strategies Teacher made assessments Countywide Quarterly Assessments in Biology.

Quarter 2 Observation of effective teaching strategies and assessment strategies Teacher made assessments Countywide Quarterly Assessments in Biology



Evidence of Attainment (Summative) Results of the 2012 HSA for Biology


Maryland High School Assessment Graduation Requirement

Class of 2011

Based on the Examination of Data for 2011 Graduates Who Met the High School

Assessment Graduation Requirement by Option (Tables 3.9 and 3.10):

1.Describe your school system’s results. In your response, report on the implementation of

the Bridge Plan for Academic Validation.

Charles County Public Schools had a total of 202 students successfully complete 702 bridge

projects. Forty-one of these students had an IEP. Of the 702 bridge projects, 177 projects were

completed in algebra, 196 in biology, 172 in English, and 157 in government (Table 3.10)

All of the 202 “bridge” students successfully met the High School assessment graduation

requirement. As a result, 2150 seniors successfully completed all graduation requirements, and

no senior failed to graduate due to the HSA Graduation Requirement. Additionally, no student

required a Waiver. (Table 3.9) However, 48 seniors will be repeating their senior year in

2011/2012 due to extensive credit issues that could not be addressed over the summer. These

students need to return for the 2011-12 school year in order to meet credit requirements.

Of the 202 students who successfully completed the necessary bridge projects, 53 of those same

students also met the HSA Graduation Requirement by continued administration of the HSA

assessments. In addition to successfully completing required bridge projects, those 53 students

either achieved passing scores on each of the HSA assessments or achieved the 1602 option.

Therefore, 149 students (6.93%) met the HSA graduation requirement through the Bridge

Projects alone while 1635 students (76.05%) achieved passing scores on the four HSAs and 366

students (17.02%) achieved the 1602 option (Table 3.9)

The early planning and timely implementation of the Bridge Plan for Academic Validation made

a significant contribution to the fact that 100% of the eligible graduating CCPS seniors met the

HSA Graduation Requirement in June 2011.

In the spring of 2008, Phase I of the implementation of the Bridge Plan for Academic Validation

involved strategic system planning and garnered the full support of the Superintendent and Board

of Education.

The first step was to identify a centrally located Project Monitor who was responsible for

immediate and continual communication with the schools, students, and parents.

Each of the six high schools and the Robert Stethem D. Educational Center were directed to

include a Bridge Project class period in the Master Schedule.

The core Content Specialists in English, algebra, biology, and government completed the

following: prioritization of Bridge Projects, development of parallel assignments, establishment


of Review Panels, training of teachers and other relevant school personnel, and support of Bridge

Project teachers. Phase I was completed by the end of the 2008-09 school year.

Phase II of the Bridge Plan for Academic Validation began in the summer of 2008. One of the

high schools was named the central site for a Bridge Project class composed of identified rising

juniors from all six high schools in need of a third option to meet the HSA graduation

requirement; the class was supervised by one teacher from each of the core content areas. The

four hour Bridge Project class period was held four days a week from June 16 to July 10, 2008.

During that time, 65 students successfully completed 98 Bridge Projects.

Phase III of the implementation plan included assigning a Bridge Project class period to four

teachers at each high school, one teacher assigned in each core content. The four Bridge project

class periods—English, algebra, biology, and government—were scheduled for the same time,

allowing students in need of Bridge Projects in more than one content to move between content

areas as needed. It provided for student rotation per content, extremely small class sizes, and the

capability for appropriate assistance. This schedule encouraged the use of parallel assignments

in each content and did not require additional staff at the schools.

Phase III extended into a fourth year of summer opportunity for students in need of Bridge

Projects. Three high schools served as a site for rising juniors in need of a third option to meet

the HSA requirement. Four hour sessions, held between July 11 and July 22, 2011, allowed 42

students to successfully complete 57 projects.

2. Identify the strategies to which you attribute the success. Include a discussion of

corresponding resource allocations.

Charles County Public Schools incorporated several strategies that lead to a very successful

Bridge program. The first was the detailed plan of action as described in Question 1 that

included the following:

Full participation at the six high schools and Robert D. Stethem Ed Center

Development of parallel assignments

Use of review panels to evaluate completed Bridge Projects

Bridge Project class period in each Master Schedule assigned to four content

teachers—English, algebra, biology, and government—allowing the flexibility to meet

individual student HSA requirements

Another strategy that brought success to the Bridge program was the single Project Monitor for

the school system. The monitor held conferences with all parents and students prior to

participation in the Bridge Program. He also met on a weekly basis with all students to formulate

individual plans to meet each student’s Bridge needs, to check on student progress, and to update

the students on their specific rotation of projects and the results of submitted projects. He was in

constant communication with all stake holders involved. He also identified the students that only

needed one or two projects and would start the BPAV in April or May.

The on-going inclusion of classroom teachers to develop parallel activities and to participate in

the scoring review panels encouraged teamwork and shared responsibility for the success of the

Bridge students.


Other strategies that contributed to success were weekly meetings with the Assistant

Superintendent of Instruction and daily communication with the Director of Research and

Assessment.

The decision to promote the Bridge program as a means to increase success on the HSA

Assessments meant that students continued to take each HSA assessment while they were

participating in the Bridge Classes. 53 students who successfully completed the required Bridge

projects also achieved passing scores on each of the HSA assessments or achieved the 1602

option.

ARRA III funds were provided to assist with stipends for those members of the numerous

evening scoring panels, professional staff that developed CCPS parallel projects and MOI for

many of the projects and classroom needs.

High School – Math


Stipends/Hourly – Bridge

Review Panels

$9800.00 ARRA III

Material of Instruction /

Software- Bridge

$11,700.00 ARRA III

Other Supplies $1,500.00 ARRA III

Stipends/ Prof.

Development / Training -

Bridge

$4,000.00 ARRA III

3. Describe where challenges were evident.

During the 2010-11 school year, Charles County Public Schools biggest challenges included

receiving in a timely manner the test scores of students entering CCPS from another Maryland

school system. Additionally, maintaining and monitoring an updated tracking/data system on all

of the Bridge students and HSA test results was an ongoing activity, requiring constant

communication between the high schools, Research and Assessment, and the Bridge Project

Monitor.

The most salient challenge faced was achieving a balance between working toward AYP and

supporting students who could meet HSA graduation requirements by successful completion of

Bridge projects.

Even though these were our challenges for the 2010/2011 school year, we successfully

dealt with each challenge and developed a solution for each of them.

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):


1. Identify the challenges that persist.

Addressing the system’s need to meet AYP vs. the student’s need to meet the HSA Graduation

requirement will continue to be a challenge. As the AMO increases each year, CCPS must be

strategic in identifying who and when students will participate in the Bridge Plan for Academic

Validation in algebra and English.

Though our total number of 220 students not meeting the graduation requirement is down from

last year’s high of 537, starting the year with that many seniors, especially 95 seniors that need

to pass all three assessments is yet another challenge that will be addressed either in the Bridge

class or on an individual basis.

Similar to the 2010/2011 school year, those students that need to pass one (40 students)

assessment and/or two (85 students) assessments will be provided with individual interventions

plans that will assist the students in being successful on the next available HSA assessment.

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.

Due to the success of the 2010-11 Bridge Plan for Academic Validation, no logistical

adjustments to the implementation and maintenance of the plan will be made for the 2011/2012

school year.

The Bridge class period will continue to be promoted as the second academic intervention class a

student takes in order to meet the HSA graduation requirement.

For 2011/2012 Charles County Public Schools has secured $10,950.00 of General funds. These

funds will cover, but are not limited to the costs of teacher stipends (review panels), Materials of

Instruction for the different projects, Professional Development for the Bridge teachers, and

development of parallel assignments and teacher resources.

After four years of the BPAV, knowing how to assist each student and what needs to be done in

a timely fashion will help both student and schools with providing the needed support for each

senior who has not yet met the HSA graduation requirement.



Action Plan # 1

Bridge Plan for Academic Validation



100% of students in all subgroups will successfully meet the HSA graduation requirement (tested subject) Algebra, Biology, and English

Root Cause: Students have not yet obtained and/or mastered the skills necessary to be proficient on the Algebra / Data Analysis, Biology, English and / or Government HSA.

Strategy: To develop and implement a system-wide strategic plan that will address the needs of seniors who have not yet passed any of the HSA

Activity/Action: Offer seniors the opportunity to complete projects during school in a Bridge class. Projects will be secure and completed in a timely fashion during the school

day. If taken, this class will be an elective and provide students with an elective credit.


1. Identify Seniors who meet the MSDE requirements and are in need of this

Intervention

2. Schools will schedule a parent / student meeting with the Project Monitor

3. Develop individual student Bridge Plans that include specific rotation information,

start and stop dates, clearly defined student expectations, and provide school and

parent communication information.

4. Communicate with all stake holders on the progress of each student and the

recommendations of the review panels.

5. Meet regularly with R & A and update all HSA data files for both CCPS and

MSDE

School counselor, High school Resource

teacher and administration

High school resource teacher

Director of Research and Assessment

Director of Instructional Assessment

Project Monitor

Project Monitor

Project Monitor

Project Monitor

August 2011

September 2011

September 2011 - May 2012

September 2011 - June 2012

October 2011 - June 2012



Quarter 1

Meet with R & A after each review panel

has completed their work to update student

HSA files and list which students have met

the HSA requirement through the Bridge

Plan

Quarter 2

Meet with R & A after each review

panel, update student HSA files and list

which students have met the HSA

requirement through the Bridge Plan

Quarter 3

Meet with R & A after each review

panel, update student HSA files and list

which students have met the HSA

requirement through the Bridge Plan

Quarter 4

Meet with R & A after each review panel,

update student HSA files and list which

students have met the HSA requirement

through the Bridge Plan


Plan is developed, implemented and students who participated were successful on their projects and thus met the HSA requirement.


CROSS-CUTTING THEMES AND SPECIFIC STUDENT GROUPS

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:

the progress that was made toward meeting these goals and a timeline for meeting

them.

the programs, practices, strategies, or initiatives that were implemented related to the

goals to which you attribute the progress.

supporting data and evaluation results as appropriate.

Significant progress has been made in making technology resources accessible to

teachers and students over the course of the five year plan. According to the Maryland

State Department of Education Technology Inventory, Charles County has consistently

worked toward the state standards in the Maryland Educational Technology Plan for

computer to student ratios, Internet access, and availability of a computer in the

classroom. All classrooms have Internet access and at least 1 computer. Overall students

have access to classroom computers at a ratio of 1 computer for every 2.5 students. All

schools except one elementary are connected to fiber for high bandwidth and all schools

are fully wireless. All classrooms and offices have IP phones with voicemail. Video

conferencing was added to all middle and high schools with check-out video

conferencing stations available for elementary schools. CCPS has introduced

Telepresence for distance learning and collaboration in 3 locations during SY 2010-2011,

in conjunction with the Advanced Placement Statistics course. In order to expand

courses, CCPS will add Telepresence to all high schools with courses designed to utilize

this technology and collaborative learning style.

Students have access to grade appropriate instructional software for reading and math

with Riverdeep and SuccessMaker products, online digital resources such as ProQuest,

SIRS, and e-Library for research and primary source material, and up-to-date

productivity tools such as Microsoft Office, Kidspiration and Inspiration. Extended

learning opportunities are available before and after school and during the summer which

utilize digital resources. CCPS has piloted Balanced Literacy, Cognitive Tutor and

Geometer’s Sketchpad and offered Read 180 for some extended day programs.


LCDs, interactive whiteboards, wireless tablets, and handheld response pads are in use

county-wide to enable teachers to more effectively use digital content in the classroom.

Additional new mobile LCD projector carts have been deployed to classrooms

bringing the ratio of 1 LCD for every 1.4 classrooms. All computer labs have

received ceiling mounted LCD projectors and 9 additional schools have a ceiling

mounted LCD in every classroom. Title I schools have LCDs and SMART Boards in

every classroom. This type of access to technology has brought our library of digital

resources including curriculum, software, and subscriptions of online databases into

the hands of all teachers and students.

Almost 1000 interactive SMART boards and tablets have been deployed. Some are

mounted and some are portable. The devices are a natural compliment to the

presentation of online digital resources in the classroom and increase engagement for

both student and adult learners. As a result of this work, over 200 SMART notebook

activities were created and shared with classroom teachers. Teachers have taken

advantage of after school training opportunities and are using the posted online

training resources. The Professional Development Survey of teachers over the past 2

years continued to show large numbers of teachers using SMART boards and

indicating that they continue to want training. The results from spring of 2011 show

83% of elementary teachers use SMART and 33% would welcome additional training

opportunities. At the middle school level, 70% of teachers use SMART and 53%

want more training. At high school, 56% of teachers use SMART and 51% are

interested in training. Because the interest continues to soar, CCPS organized

summer SMART training. An MSDE 1 credit course was written and approved and

then taught by SMART certified training consultants. Over 40 teachers participated.

Evaluations were very positive. The classes had an overall rating of 4.6 out of 5 and

comments praised the presenter knowledge and quality of examples.

An ongoing initiative has digitized HSA release items and county interim assessments

for use with CPS response pads. These are distributed over a shared network and

available to all classrooms. Middle and high school math teachers now have a vast

library of digital lessons and assessment items. They can drag and drop a complete

assessment or easily select individual questions to create their own tests and quizzes.

Curriculum and lesson materials for all disciplines have been placed online for all

teachers to access both in the system and at home.

Resource teachers and instructional specialists have their own laptops and laptops for

teachers have increased as well. Teachers of HSA courses continue to use the laptops and

curriculum materials developed for their courses which have been moved to the shared

network repository. Additionally, all Title I teachers received laptops. Coaching and in-

school support was provided to teachers by the full-time Technology Resource Teacher at

each Title I school.


Progress is evident in the daily use of technology by teachers and administrators to

communicate and manage instruction with email, digital grade books, and attendance

applications. Administrators have access to data for instructional decision making with

the data warehouse and DIBELS reading website. They have also been trained on using

reports in the MSDE Online IEP Management System. Technology training was offered

to all staff on an ongoing basis through centralized credit and non-credit courses, as well

as school-based in-service and support. In addition, specific training, follow-up, and

support were included in the implementation of any new technologies as they were

acquired. This was true for the deployment of SMART technologies, DIBELS palms, and

CPS response pads. A variety of training opportunities were provided to staff to increase

their technology skills. These included face-to-face, hybrid, and online offerings. Online

initiatives included webinars on instructional applications of technology, self-directed

online tutorials for software training, and 1 teacher-led online course for Boardmaker

software.

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.

Challenge #1

Access to teachers and time for technology training is a huge challenge. CCPS needs

ways to reach more teachers for initial training and ways to provide ongoing support and

follow-up as newly learned skills are tried.

To answer training needs, CCPS will continue to increase options for online training and

collaboration utilizing our Learning Management System (LMS) Moodle. Teacher-led

online courses, online self-tutorials, and custom-made multimedia training materials

including text, images, examples, and streaming video will be available through our

shared network repository. Credit and non-credit face-to-face courses will continue to be

offered. Central office staff will model the use of instructional technology equipment and

digital materials, such as SMART products, PD360 videos, etc. whenever appropriate to

principals and instructional leaders during professional meetings and staff in-services.

Challenge #2

CCPS needs to embed technology activities which practice technology literacy standards

into the curriculum for ready access to teachers and students.

The on-going initiative to digitize and share instructional activities has grown into a

substantial learning repository which is available to teachers at school and at home. Links

to the approved digital activities, lessons seeds, and resources are embedded into

curriculum documents. This assists teachers in finding resources that effectively use

technology such as Kidspiration, SMART boards, CPS response pads, streaming video,

and other instructional software. To continue this process, technology and instructional

leaders will need to collaborate during all aspects of curriculum development and

deployment.


Challenge #3

CCPS needs to replace equipment and hardware as it becomes unusable or outdated .

Typically the replacement cycle has been on a 5 year cycle. With the current budgetary

cuts this cycle has been delayed to 7 years.

In order to address this need, Charles County public schools has been receiving donations

of technology equipment from various government agencies as a part of the Federal

Computers for Learning program (CFL). These agencies have been donating equipment

that is new or lightly used and has enabled the school system’s technology department to

strategically place the equipment where it is needed the most. Recently the school

system has acquired a loan to update the infrastructure and replace outdated hardware.

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. Include a description of how the results of the student, teacher, and school

administrator measurements have been used to inform professional development.

CCPS participated in the state consortium’s efforts to develop online technology training

modules. Instructors of computer training classes let staff know what standards are

covered during the course so that educators can find and take appropriate classes. In-

service for library media specialists also review the standards and examine where they

can support technology literacy, research and database skills as teachers utilize the library

and prepare library lessons for students.

A variety of different training strategies are used to support Charles County Teachers.

The most successful training sessions have been those that offer CPD credit, hands-on

activities, or just-in-time support and coaching. Deployment of CPS and SMART

technologies have been most successful when teachers are involved in creating and using

materials for their own classrooms. Just-in-time basic training is offered in the schools as

new technologies are deployed. Follow-up training classes are offered which support

beginning users.

The next tier of training provides extended time (5 – 15 hours) for teachers to use the

technology to develop activities and try them out in their own classrooms. According to

an article on the National Implementation Research Network (NIRN), data from Joyce

and Showers shows that successful implementations in educational settings occur

primarily when combined with coaching in the classroom. In SY 2010-2011, Technology

Resource Teachers in Title I schools were able to provide this additional modeling and

classroom coaching. SMART Club classes also require teachers to use technology in

their classroom and report back to their peers during class time for feedback and

professional critique.

In addition to face-to-face classes, online opportunities are also very important. As

teachers become more computer literate they are also becoming more self-directed


learners and appreciate the opportunity to view webinars, take online courses, collaborate

with their peers, or use self-tutorial materials. To support these learners the repository

also holds training resources for teachers on various technologies such as manuals,

handouts, and links to vendor training opportunities, Thinkport and MSDE online

courses, as well as locally created multimedia tutorials.

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.

Charles County Public Schools ensures effective technology integration by providing

county-wide access to core technologies, training and support, a shared repository on

digital curriculum and activities, embedded links in curriculum documents to direct

teachers to appropriate resources quickly and accurately, and technology rich STEM

programs which target and encourage under represented populations to use technology in

science, math, and engineering applications.

Charles County has continued to build up a robust core of technologies that are available

in all schools and all grade levels. These include equipment, software and online

resources such as:

Equipment: computers, LCDs, response pads, graphing calculators, and

interactive displays and devices such as Airliners, sympodiums and SMART

Boards.

a. Creative software: Notebook, Kidspiration, Inspiration, Microsoft Office

b. Online resources: over a dozen digital library resources such as SIRS, Discovery

Streaming, ProQuest, Groliers, Culture Gram, etc.

c. Online and networked curriculum with linked activities and resources

Training is provided at the school and the district level for technology use. Schools

organize initial training as technologies are deployed and provide peer to peer support

and ideas at the building level. Some schools have organized technology concurrent

sessions on school-based in-service days. Centralized evening classes are offered on

SMART , CPS response pads, IGPro Grade Book, Microsoft Office, Kidspiration and

Inspiration as well as other topics. Online training is offered through vendor webinars,

online video tutorials, Thinkport classes and a CCPS-created online Boardmaker class.

Essential to effective use is the ongoing initiative to embed links within all curriculum

documents to examples of technology use, including such things as links to Discovery

Streaming videos, Kidspiration templates, or SMART Notebook lessons. This embeds

technology use in the planning and delivery of instruction. Content Specialists are also

embedding technology training into their ongoing evening staff development

instructional workshops. Teachers see demonstrations and examples of how to apply the

available technology resources to their own classrooms.


As we all work to prepare our students for college and careers in the 21st Century, we

have a tremendous opportunity to involve students in the STEM areas. Science and

engineering are key fields for the future and will desperately need new workers in the

coming decade. CCPS is implementing a variety of STEM related initiatives that

emphasize these technology rich career paths and target under represented populations

such as girls and minorities. Pre-engineering opportunities are available through the

Gateway and Project Lead the Way programs. Many schools also participate in robotics

programs and all schools participate in MESA (Math, Science, Engineering, Science

Achievement). Over 600 students, 64 teachers, and 50 volunteers participated during the

2010-2011 school year. Student teams competed on 4 different engineering challenges at

the local and state levels. James Craik Elementary School won the MESA State

Champion at the elementary level and La Plata High School won the state champion for

the Wind Energy Challenge and went on to compete at the national competition in June

of 2011. Schools also participate in the tri-county Computer Bowl. La Plata High School

placed first and North Point High School placed third in the region.

In an effort to increase student skill sets and exposure, this past year a pilot underwater

ROV program called Sea Perch was conducted at two middle schools. This year the

program will be expanded to include all middle schools and offered to 8th

grade

students. Sea Perch engages students in engineering design and troubleshooting, as well

as using the robot in real-life environmental applications. Teachers at the elementary

level will be offered several opportunities this year to participate in STEM focused

professional development in order to incorporate STEM at the lower grade levels.

5. Discuss how the local school system is using technology to support low-performing schools.

All schools have access to computers, interactive devices, and digital resources. In

addition, a wide variety of technologies are deployed in low-performing schools. School

improvement planning utilizes the county’s data warehouse to identify and target student

needs based on multiple measures including state test scores, county quarterly data, report

card grades, and data from other assessment tools.

A variety of assessment and monitoring options are available including Achievement

Series, Performance Series, DIBELS, and AIMSweb. Achievement Series is a secure

web-based assessment platform that CCPS uses to develop and administer quarterly

assessments, capture results, and produce standards-based reports. Performance Series is

a computer-adaptive diagnostic test that identifies a student's instructional level and

identifies students who would most benefit from additional instruction or enrichment

activities and measures gains over time. In Performance Series, Maryland state standards

are matched to test items. In reading, student performance data for vocabulary, fiction,

non-fiction, and lexile measures is automatically reported according to appropriate

standards. This is used for all students in grades 3-8 and for high school students in

supplemental reading and literacy classes. In math, student performance data for algebra,

data analysis and probability, geometry, measurement and numbers and operations is

automatically reported to appropriate standards. This is used for all students in schools

where the AMO was not met for math in grades 3-8 and for select students in schools


where the AMO was met for math in grades 3-8. AIMSweb is a Response to

Intervention (RTI) system that provides benchmark and progress monitoring data based

on direct, frequent and continuous student assessment. This is individualized to students

for areas of reading fluency, reading comprehension, and basic math computation. The

DIBELS reading assessment is used county-wide to support evaluation and instruction of

reading at the elementary level. Title I and a few other schools have incorporated

technology to enhance this initiative. Palm Pilots from Wireless Generation automatically

score the assessment and upload the results into an online data warehouse. Teachers,

principals, and instructional leaders can search by district, school, teacher, class, or

student and can drill down to analyze progress and adjust instruction. A primary

database and the data warehouse assemble assessment information from these multiple

sources to help schools analyze students strengths and weaknesses.

Several schools are using Number Worlds Tier III math intervention. This math program

focuses on all of the core mathematic concepts required in order for students to learn and

achieve higher levels of math instruction. An internet training tool called Building

Blocks is available at the selected AYP schools. This program allows students to practice

challenging skills. The computer application responds to the student’s success rate by

increasing or decreasing the difficulty of the problems. Data is then available for the

teachers to reference later when planning additional lessons. The Tool for Early

Assessment of Mathematics (T.E.A.M.) is a diagnostic assessment that accompanies this

intervention to help place students into the correct intervention group. It also provides

challenge areas in the student’s core math program indicating levels for current

instruction. All of these tools are linked to the common core standards. Title I is fully

incorporating technology into daily instruction with a variety of initiatives. The one-to-

one laptop initiative has been expanded to all of 4th grade. The Moodle LMS platform is

used to organize and manage digital learning in these classrooms. All classrooms have a

SMART board and mounted LCD with access to the internet and network digital

repository. In addition, all Title I teachers now have a laptop. This initiative provided a

series of technology integration sessions for teachers throughout the school year focusing

on use of instructional software, accessing the embedded curriculum links, use of online

resources, and teaching and learning with computers.


6. Please update the district’s Accessibility Compliance chart, bolding or underlining any

changes. The district's completed chart from last year can be accessed at:

http://docushare.msde.state.md.us/docushare/dsweb/View/Collection-20709

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.

PROCESS IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING During the 2003-2004 school

year, a review committee was

formed to develop a process for

reviewing educational software

and technology-based

instructional products for their

academic merit and for

determining their compliance

with the technical standards of

Section 508.

Committee members included

special education teachers,

content specialists, technology

coordinators, library media

specialists, and administrators.

The review committee

developed a step-by-step review

process and generated forms to

facilitate the process, among

them:

- a letter to the publisher with a

Section 508 checklist, “Software

Publisher Letter,” and “Section

508 Instructional Product

Evaluation Rubric.”

- contact information for the

assistive technology team who

will consult with teachers to

plan accessibility options or

alternative methods of

instruction.

The process was implemented

during the 2004-2005 school year.

Accessibility compliance and the

technical standards for Section 508

have been shared with staff via

presentations, the MSDE

accessibility compliance video clip,

MSDE credit technology training

classes, and relevant literature.

Accessibility information is

published on our curriculum shared

network. This includes a page

devoted to assistive technology

including contact information.

Staff trained included special

education teachers, technology

coordinators, library media

specialists, technology facilitators,

and teachers who participated in

inclusion classes and technology

training. Trained staff returned to

their building site and shared

information with other staff

members and administrators.

The forms included in the

review process help insure that

software and technology-related

products purchased meet the

special needs of students. On

the form, “Section 508

Instructional Product

Evaluation Rubric,” publishers

complete the checklist

describing how their product

meets or does not meet

accessibility requirements. For

those products that do not meet

the criteria, teachers collaborate

with the assistive technology

team to develop alternative

recommendations based on each

student’s individual needs.

Training continues to be

provided to school-based

technology coordinators who

can support their staff. The

training handouts and videos

are available on the

curriculum shared network

and in a password protected

web area that is available to

all teachers.



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:





Action Plan # 1

Instructional Technology

Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Instructional Technology Staff


NCLB emphasizes the importance of leveraging the power of technology in all areas of K-12 education. ___100%___ of teachers must be technology literate

and learn to effectively employ technology to enhance learning and increase student achievement.

Root Cause: After-school training times are not always convenient for teachers because of their busy lives and various dismissals times of schools throughout

the County.

Strategy: Provide online training opportunities, in addition to the current face-to-face training that is already offered, so that teachers can find more training

opportunities that meet their needs.

Action Steps Implemented by: Completion Date

Add additional content to the training resource area on the intranet by topic

and link to online training materials.

Continue to offer face-to-face computer classes on software and technology skills and instructional applications of technology in the classroom

Continue to offer CPD credit Offer training on Microsoft Office upgrade from 2003 to 2010. Seek out, link to, and advertise to staff the various free training

resources, video tutorials, and live webinars from vendors such as Kidspiration, CPS, and SMART

Offer teacher-led online courses o Advertise MPT,CTE, & other outside online courses to staff o Participate in the pilot of new technology training modules

from the consortium as they are released Create video streaming online training modules for Microsoft

upgrade.

Instructional Technology and Title I

staff

May 2011

Fall and Spring 2011 schedule

Summer2011

Fall 2011

Spring 2012

Summer 2012



Quarter 1

CPS training session dates set and advertised

Fall computer classes posted Advertise online opportunities

from Thinkport, CTE, and

Quarter 2

Review potential use of new online tech training modules when released

Computer classes completed

Quarter 3

Spring computer training posted

Quarter 4

Computer classes completed. Teacher transcripts of classes available. Distribute upon request.

Online New Teacher seminar completed. Get evaluation feedback.


MSDE Use online discussions

(Moodle) with New Teacher seminar series

Summary of all classes Summary of online evaluations for

classes.


Shared training resources available to staff Summary of training evaluation data Summary of LMS usage data where available



Action Plan # 2


Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Instructional Technology Staff


Root Cause: Teachers do not have ready access to digital resources and materials aligned to the curriculum which practice the technology literacy

standards for students and teachers.

Strategy: Develop an online materials and resource area with activities developed within the software for SMART, CPS, and other software platforms

that can be embedded as links into curriculum documents and promote sharing and collaboration around these lessons with teachers district-wide.

Action Steps: Implemented by: Completion Date

Collaborate to develop and post lessons

Content Specialists, Curriculum Committees, Title I Technology Staff

Training:

Develop SMART courses for CPD credit Available Training opportunities will be advertised using online

Sharing

Send out emails for “Spotlight on Training” and “Training Tips”. Post handouts, links to SMART notebook lessons, links to short video tutorials, announcements of training opportunities, etc.

Use shared network folders to provide area for peer to peer sharing of lessons and ideas.

Content Specialists/ Teachers/

Resource Teachers


Staff Development

June 2011

Summer 2011

Summer 2011

Fall 2011

Spring 2012

Summer 2012



Quarter 1

New summer curriculum activity work added

Spotlights and Training Tips sent

Effective Use of SMART

Quarter 2

Advertise and share training opportunities online

Quarter 3


Quarter 4



Boards in the Classroom (1CPD) completed


Lessons revised or completed and posted or shared Training sessions advertised Summary of registrations Summary of participant evaluations from training sessions



Action Plan # 3


Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Technology Staff


MSDE emphasizes the importance of updating equipment on a 5 year cycle to maintain student and staff access to relevant technology.

Root Cause: Budgetary constraints have reduced the amount of equipment refreshed over the past 2 years causing the replacement cycle to change from 5 to 7

years.

Strategy: Provide alternative methods of receiving equipment through alternate funding sources and through government donation programs.

Action Steps Implemented by: Completion Date

Provide equipment through a technology loan

Develop plan of equipment needing replacement o Lab computers o Staff computers o Media computers o Laptop computers

Order and deploy equipment by location and program Request equipment through government donation programs

Participate in the Federal Government Computers for Learning Program

Technology

Technology

June 30, 2012

Oct 30, 2011

Jan. 30, 2012

June 30, 2012



Quarter 1

Deploy first phase of computer replacements (Lab computers)

Begin deployment of laptops Participate in the Federal

Government Computers for Learning program

Quarter 2

Deploy second phase of computer replacements (Staff and Media computers)

Continue deployment of laptops

Participate in the Federal Government Computers for Learning program

Quarter 3

Evaluate any additional needs for technology equipment


Quarter 4

Finalize any additional equipment purchases from technology loan for next school year



Plan of computers to replace Inventory of equipment Invoices of equipment ordered through technology loan


MARYLAND LOCAL SCHOOL SYSTEM

COMPLIANCE STATUS REPORT

EDUCATION THAT IS MULTICULTURAL AND ACHIEVEMENT (ETMA)

Local School System: ____Charles County Public Schools________________________

ETMA Contact Person: ____Charna L. Lacey, Ed.D._____________________________

Title/Position: ___Instructional Specialist for Minority Achievement and Multicultural Education

Address: ____P. O. Box 2770, La Plata, MD 20646__________________________________

Phone: (301) 934-7245______________________ Fax: (301) 934-7401____

E-Mail: [email protected]_____________________________________________________

Date completed: __August 19, 2011_______________________________________________


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

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.

o A copy of the Local School System’s (LSS) ETM vision and mission statement

o A sample curriculum document that infuses Education That Is Multicultural

o A list of ETM mandatory and/or ETM voluntary courses offered

o A list of Professional Development ETMA workshops or seminars provided during the school year

o A sample checklist used to evaluate and approve LSS instructional resources


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.

5. List your Local School System’s major ETMA identified strengths

CCPS has identified ten minority achievement requirements; conducting bi-monthly minority achievement committee meetings;

providing equity training for all employees; and implementing programs for underrepresented student (AVID and

STARS)______________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________

6. List your Local School System’s major ETMA areas identified that need improvement

1. To continue building more parent/community involvement 2. To create an environment where all CCPS staff employees understand Cultural Competency 3. To increase minority academic achievement by providing access and opportunity for all students 4. To continue integrating multicultural materials, activities, resources, lesson plans, and units into the curricula of additional

content areas throughout all elementary, middle, and high schools system-wide_____________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________

7. List your three major Local School System ETMA goals for the next school year

1. To continue building more parent/community involvement 2. To create an environment where all CCPS staff employees understand Cultural Competency 3. To increase minority academic achievement by providing access and opportunity for all

students________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________

8. Provide comments related to the compliance status report form, noting any recommendations for suggested revisions

An area that allows one to provide written responses should be included. This will allow elaboration to be included beyond what is

already being requested as evidence.__________________________________________________________________


I. Mission/Vision/Leadership

Beginning Embedding Sustaining

No action has

been taken

Efforts are

being initiated

Initial

Results are

being gained

Efforts and

results are

being

enhanced and

supported

Practices are

evident,

policies are in

place, and

results are

increasing

1. The LSS has a written mission or vision

statement that includes a stated

commitment to:

Diversity

Education that is Multicultural

Accelerating and enhancing student achievement

Eliminating student achievement gaps

2. 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.

3. A culturally diverse group (including

the LSS ETM liaison) actively engages

in the development of the Bridge to

Excellence (BTE) or other management

plan.

4. The Bridge to Excellence Master Plan

includes specific references (Cross-

cutting Themes) related to Education

that is Multicultural and minority

achievement initiatives.


II. Curriculum


No action has

been taken

Efforts are

being initiated

Initial

Results are

being gained

Efforts and

results are

being

enhanced and

supported

Practices are

evident,

policies are in

place, and

results are

increasing

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

b. valuing the richness of cultural

diversity and commonality.


c. valuing the uniqueness of cultures

other than one’s own.

d. 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.

4. 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. 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

III. School Climate


No action has

been taken

Efforts are

being initiated

Initial

Results are

being gained

Efforts and

results are

being

enhanced and

supported

Practices are

evident,

policies are in

place, and

results are

increasing

1. The LSS has a written policy and

procedure addressing bullying and

harassment.

2. 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.


welcomed and actively involved in

the entire instructional program.

f. that reflects relationships of mutual

respect.

g. that includes activities and

strategies to prevent bullying,

harassment, racism, sexism, bias,

discrimination, and prejudice.

h. that includes multicultural

assemblies, programs, and speakers.

IV. Instruction


No action has

been taken

Efforts are

being initiated

Initial

Results are

being gained

Efforts and

results are

being

enhanced and

supported

Practices are

evident,

policies are in

place, and

results are

increasing

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

d. student organizations and

extracurricular activities

e. student recognition programs and

performances

5. All schools ensure that all students

have access to instructional technology.


B. Instructional Activities

1. All schools engage in instructional

activities that recognize and appreciate

students’ cultural identities, multiple

intelligences and learning styles.

2. All schools use instructional activities

that promote an understanding of and

respect for a variety of ways of

communicating, both verbal and

nonverbal.

3. All schools implement activities that

address bullying, harassment, racism,

sexism, bias, discrimination, and

prejudice.

4. All schools provide opportunities for

students to analyze and evaluate social

issues and propose solutions to

contemporary social problems.

C. 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.


programs, and interventions that


V. Staff Development


No action has

been taken

Efforts are

being initiated

Initial

Results are

being gained

Efforts and

results are

being

enhanced and

supported

Practices are

evident,

policies are in

place, and

results are

increasing

1. ETMA staff development includes

involvement of all staff: (check all that

apply) Administrators __x_ central office staff _x__ teachers x___ support staff _x__ instructional assistants/para-

educators_x__ substitutes _x__ bus drivers ___ custodians _x__ cafeteria workers _x__

volunteers ___

2. Staff development utilizes the MSDE


Competencies for Enhancing Teacher

prevent dropouts as evidenced by data.


programs, and initiatives to eliminate

disproportionality in special education

identification and placement.


Efficacy in Implementing Education

That is Multicultural (ETM) and

accelerating minority achievement.

3. The LSS coordinates and facilitates

ETMA programs and activities:

Voluntary ETM courses are offered

(attach a list of courses)

Mandatory ETM courses are offered

(attach a list of courses)

ETMA workshops or seminars are

provided during the year (attach a list

of programs)

4. 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.

5. 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.

e. to recognize and correct inequitable

participation in school activities by

students and staff from different

backgrounds and redress inequity in

instances of occurrence.

6. All schools provide appropriate

opportunities for staff to attend and

participate in local, state, regional, and

national ETMA conferences, seminars,

and workshops.

7. All schools provide professional

development workshops and courses

that include an ETMA focus.

8. All schools maintain current

professional development references

for educators, support staff and

administrators on education that is

multicultural and student achievement.


VI. Instructional Resources & Materials


No action has

been taken

Efforts are

being initiated

Initial

Results are

being gained

Efforts and

results are

being

enhanced and

supported

Practices are

evident,

policies are in

place, and

results are

increasing

1. LSS maintains a system-wide resource

center with materials for schools at all

grade levels that reflect cultural

diversity and inclusiveness.

2. The LSS uses resource organizations

that promote cultural and ethnic

understanding.

3. 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.

4. Information about available ETMA

resources is communicated throughout

the LSS using a variety of mechanisms

such as newsletters/monthly/and/or

quarterly publications.

5. All schools incorporate multicultural

instructional materials in all subject

areas.

6. All schools encourage, have

representation, and utilize parents and

community members from diverse

backgrounds in school events and

activities and as resources.

7. 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 achievement.

8. 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.


VII. Physical Environment


No action has

been taken

Efforts are

being initiated

Initial

Results are

being gained

Efforts and

results are

being

enhanced and

supported

Practices are

evident,

policies are in

place, and

results are

increasing

1. All schools are barrier free and

accessible for people with disabilities.

2. The physical environment in all schools

reflects diversity and inclusiveness in

displays and materials.

VIII. Policies


No action has

been taken

Efforts are

being initiated

Initial

Results are

being gained

Efforts and

results are

being

enhanced and

supported

Practices are

evident,

policies are in

place, and

results are

increasing

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

2. The LSS has non-discrimination

policies and statements included in staff

and student handbooks, on websites

and publications throughout the school

system.

3. The LSS has established procedures for

students and staff to report

discrimination complaints based on any

of the diversity factors.


4. School system policies assure that all

school publications use bias free,

gender fair language and visual images

which reflect cultural diversity and

inclusiveness.

5. 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).

IX. Assessments


No action has

been taken

Efforts are

being initiated

Initial

Results are

being gained

Efforts and

results are

being

enhanced and

supported

Practices are

evident,

policies are in

place, and

results are

increasing

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. All schools use a multiplicity of

opportunities and formats for students

to show what they know.

4. 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.

5. The LSS requires that teachers allow

multiple opportunities for students to

recover failing assessment and/or

assignment grades.

6. The LSS utilizes assessment

instruments and procedures which are

valid for the population being assessed,

not at random.

7. The LSS utilizes non-traditional

assessment instruments and procedures

to allow students to evidence mastery

of content.

8. The LSS utilizes valid assessment

instruments which are varied and

sensitive to students’ cultural and

linguistic backgrounds.


X. Community Outreach


No action has

been taken

Efforts are

being initiated

Initial

Results are

being gained

Efforts and

results are

being

enhanced and

supported

Practices are

evident,

policies are in

place, and

results are

increasing

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. All school functions are held in

facilities that are accessible to

individuals with disabilities.


Individuals contributing to the completion of the Compliance Report

Print Name Job Title

Charna Lacey Instructional Specialist for Minority

Achievement

Tim Bodamer Content Specialist in Fine and Performing Arts

Vera Young Content Specialist for English and Language Arts

High School

Mary Lee Sadler Content Specialist for Middle School Math

Meighan Hungerford Elementary Reading Content Specialist

MaryAnn Bourassa Content Specialist for Gifted Education

Sarah Smith Content Specialist for English and Language

Arts Middle School

Jane Thoman Instructional Specialist for Elementary Math

Diane Jenkins English Language Arts High School

Resource Teacher

Jack Tuttle Content Specialist for Social Studies


Charles County Public Schools ETM Vision and Mission Statement

Our Mission

The mission of Charles County Public Schools is to provide an opportunity for all school-aged children to receive an academically challenging,

quality education that builds character, equips for leadership and prepares for life, in an environment that is safe and conducive to learning.


Sample Curriculum Document that Infuses Education that is Multicultural

Sample documents are located on the following pages


Social Studies/History Curricula Samples and Resources

Charles County Public Schools

Elementary Trade Book List

Social Studies

2011-12 SY

1. Emeka’s Gift: An African Counting Story (uses illustrations from a Nigerian village to teach counting skills and culture)

2. The Polar Bear Son: An Inuit Tale (description of life in a North American Inuit village)

3. Pig Pig Gets a Job (demonstrates how a pig is able to learn about economic responsibility)

4. How to Make an Apple Pie and See the World (uses the making of an apple pie to demonstrate interdependence among people)

5. America the Beautiful (images and photos of the United States with the America the Beautiful poem as the text)

6. Everybody Cooks Rice (describes how rice is a common food source throughout the world)

7. Ox Cart Man (describe the use of various resources for economic understanding)

8. The Story of Ruby Bridges (historical accounting of the Ruby Bridges story)

9. Masai and I (an urban American child learns what life is like in an east African village)

10. Houses and Homes (a tour in text and pictures of various types of homes around the world)

11. This is My House (A Ticket to Japan (survey of the nation of Japan)

12. Colors of Japan (learning Japanese traditions through the meaning of colors)

13. Light the Lights! – A Story Celebrating Hanukkah and Christmas (traditions of both of these holiday celebrations)

14. My First Kwanzaa Book (story behind the meaning of the Kwanzaa celebration)


15. Nick Joins In (story of how a physically challenged student is included in school events)

16. Fiesta! – Cinco de Mayo (meaning and history behind the Cinco de Mayo celebration)

17. The Legend of the Poinsettia (story of the poinsettia and other Central American traditions)

18. Noisy Nora (demonstration on how to get along with others)

19. Families are Different (comparison of family culture and traditions around the world)

20. You’ll Soon Grow into Them, Titch (story of how children physically grow and learn)

21. Thanksgiving Day (Thanksgiving celebration from the perspective of both European and Native American perspectives)


UNIT TITLE: Africa GRADE: 7 LESSON TITLE: Crisis in Sudan: So What?

Learning/Lesson Plan (Day 1)

Instructional indicator (based on Content Standards/Core Learning Goals)

(What will a student know [content] and be able to do [skills/process]?)

1.C1.1a. Justify responsibilities associated with certain basic rights in a global society such as a commitment to world peace and the

elimination of poverty

1.C2.2b. Debate the need to balance between providing for the common good and how protecting individual rights differ in

governments around the world

Assessment/Evaluation

(How will we know instruction has been successful?)

Students will write a letter to the editor of the school newspaper discussing the crisis in Sudan and our responsibility to act on their

behalf.

Materials Needed

(Include materials for the basic lesson)

Overhead of warm-up Map of Africa

Vocabulary definitions page (class set) Exit Slips

Main idea graphic organizer (class set) Overhead of graphic organizer

Class set of Time for Kids “The Tragedy of Sudan” (October 29, 2004, Vol. 10, No. 7)

Time Allotment

(Use minutes, as the length of class periods may vary from school to school)

45-50 minutes

Setting the Stage/Beginning the Lesson/Engagement


(How will new learning be introduced? How will students get motivated/excited regarding new learning? How will prior

knowledge be tapped and assessed?)

Warm-up (5 min)

Pose the following questions on an overhead and have the students write a quick response.

What rights/responsibilities does a U.S. citizen have? (Members of a nation, owing allegiance, and entitled to full civil rights)

What is a refugee?

How show refugees be treated?

Discuss. Locate Sudan on a map; ask if they know what’s going on in that part of the world. Lead into the situation, but don’t give

away too much. Ask them if other countries in the world should be concerned or help solve the crisis? Why/why not?

Acquisition of Skills/Developing the Lesson/Exploration/Explanation

(What will Modeling, Guided Practice, Independent Practice, and Checking for understanding look like?)

Before: Set purpose for reading- to be informed.

1. Distribute copies of Time for Kids article. Have students look at the cover of the magazine and do a picture walk of the

photos available. Have them write one question they have based on the title “The Tragedy of Sudan” or the pictures at the

bottom of their warm-up. Have a few students share what they wrote.

2. Look at the map of Sudan and some of the statistics. If four million people have been displaced to Darfur, what must

conditions be like. Have them draw a conclusion.

3. Distribute vocabulary lists and graphic organizers while they’re writing. Read each word and have them raise both hands if

they know them, or rest them on their head if they don’t.

4. Point out the three questions they should be thinking about as they read. Remind them to look for the answer to their own

question as they read.

During: Main idea graphic organizer.

Distribute organizers and model how to use.

(If they finish early, have construction paper handy so they can create a folder for their unit on Sudan.)

After: Answer these three questions in a discussion.

1. What is the source of conflict in Darfur? (land, oil, ethnicity)

2. How has the conflict affected the people who live in Darfur? (refugees, death)

3. What do you think should be done about the crisis in Darfur?

4. What was the question you wrote earlier? What is the answer?


Differentiating the Lesson

(What modifications will suit students who need additional support, and/or structure? How can learning be accelerated for

those who need enrichment? What possibilities are offered for students who get engaged in the topic(s)?)

Closing the Lesson/Summary of Learning/Explanation

(How will learning be explained, summarized, applied to assure student understanding?)

Exit Slip/Discussion Question: In the last paragraph of the article it states “The presidents of Sudan, Chad, Egypt, Libya, and

Nigeria…called the crisis in Sudan a “purely African” issue. As a citizen of the world, do you agree or disagree? Explain. (Collect.)

Learning/Lesson Reflection

(What went well? What may need revision the next time I use this lesson? How did students react? Etc.)

Keep track of the time, particularly when asking questions/discussing.

Learning/Lesson Extension

(What web sites, references, field experiences, related topics, or activities might offer enriched or enhanced learning

opportunities?)

Visit www.timeforkids.com/sudan for information about helping refugees in Sudan.

http://www.timeforkids.com/sudan


Warm-up

Write a quick response to the following questions:

1. What rights/responsibilities does a U.S. citizen have?

2. What is a refugee?

3. How should refugees be treated?



Vocabulary Words

Refugees – people who flee, or leave, their homes to escape conflict, war, famine or unfair treatment based on

race, religion or ethnic background

Humanitarian crisis – situation in which action must be taken to avoid loss of life, complete disaster or

breakdown

Nomadic – roaming from place to place without a fixed pattern of movement

Discrimination – the act of treating some people better than others without any fair or proper reason

Predominately – more common

Escalate - to increase in amount or intensity

Human-Rights Groups – organizations that work to protect the rights that belong to all persons

Peacekeeping - acting to enforce a truce between people and/or countries.

Civilian – a person not on active duty in the military or police force.

Intervention – the act of interfering or coming between to prevent harm

Questions:

1. What is the source of conflict in Darfur?

2. How has the conflict affected the people who live in Darfur?

3. What do you think should be done about the crisis in Darfur?




Name: ________________________________

Exit Slip

In the last paragraph of the article it states, “The presidents of Sudan, Chad, Egypt, Libya, and

Nigeria…called the crisis in Sudan a ‘purely African’ issue”. As a citizen of the world, do you agree or

disagree? Explain.

Name: ___________________________________

Exit Slip

In the last paragraph of the article it states, “The presidents of Sudan, Chad, Egypt, Libya, and

Nigeria…called the crisis in Sudan a ‘purely African’ issue”. As a citizen of the world, do you agree or

disagree? Explain



Can Sudan Be Saved? BY NELIDA GONZALEZ CUTLER

Halima was working in her family's field in Darfur, a region of Sudan, in Africa, when she heard "the voice of guns" last

July. "The attackers wanted to kill us," she told TIME. "We had to hide and walk at night. We had nothing to eat." It

took Halima, 30, and her young daughter three weeks to reach the Abu Shouk refugee camp.

Darfur is full of stories like Halima's. Aid workers say the violence that began in February 2003 has killed tens of

thousands and forced some 1.5 million people from their homes. Many people have sought shelter in crowded refugee

camps. At least half of the refugees cannot get enough food and clean water. Because of continuing violence, aid is not

reaching all those who need it.

On October 15, the United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) reported that at least 70,000 refugees have died

since March because of poor conditions in the camps. United Nations (U.N.) officials have called Darfur's situation the world's worst

humanitarian crisis. The U.N. has received only half of the $300 million it needs to help care for the region's people.

Devils on Horseback

Most of Darfur's 6 million people are farmers or herders. The nomadic herders migrate between the region's north and south. Most of the

farmers are African, and most of the herders are Arab. Nearly all are black and Muslim and speak Arabic. Both groups want to work the same

land. In the 1980s, the conflict over land turned violent.

The recent fighting began with an uprising of black Africans against what they viewed as discrimination by the predominately Arab

government. In response, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir called on local tribes to crush the rebellion. Some Arab nomads saw the

president's call as a chance to grab land and livestock from the farmers. By August, armed Arab bandits, called Janjaweed, had begun

attacking African farmers. Janjaweed loosely means "devils on horseback."

What Can Be Done to Help Darfur?

For more than a year, as the violence in Darfur has escalated, most of the world has done nothing about it. The United States says the

Janjaweed are paid and armed by Sudan's government. Last month, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told Congress, "Genocide has been

committed in Darfur, and the government of Sudan and the Janjaweed bear responsibility." Genocide (jeh-nuh-side) is a deliberate attempt to

kill or seriously hurt a race or group of people.

Human-rights groups say the world needs to move rapidly to impose economic and military punishments against Sudan. If nothing is done,

many more people will die, either at the hands of the Janjaweed or from starvation and disease.

So far, the U.N. has refused to punish Sudan, and the United States has ruled out sending U.S. troops. Instead, both the U.N. and the U.S.

support efforts by the African Union, which represents the continent's nations. Last Wednesday, the African Union said that it "welcomed the

http://www.timeforkids.com/TFK/kids/news/white/0,28343,49874,00.html


support of the international community" and would increase the size of its peacekeeping force in Darfur from 390 to 3,320 troops and civilian

police. At a meeting in Libya last week, the presidents of Sudan, Chad, Egypt, Libya and Nigeria stressed that they would reject any foreign

intervention in Sudan. They called the crisis in Sudan a "purely African" issue. It seems that much of the world agrees.

A Look at Sudan

Size: 967,493 square miles; about one-fourth the size of the United States. Sudan is the largest country

in Africa.

Population: 39,148,162

Ethnic groups: Black, 52%; Arab, 39%; and others, 9%

Languages: Arabic, Nubian and others

Capital: Khartoum

Government: The military rules Sudan. The president is Field Marshal Omar al-Bashir.

History: What is now northern Sudan was once the ancient civilization of Nubia. Sudan has more

pyramids than Egypt. In modern times, Egypt and Britain ruled Sudan. The country proclaimed its

independence in 1956. Since 1983, a civil war in the south--unrelated to the Darfur violence--has killed

more than 2 million people and displaced more than 4 million.


http://www.sonirodban.com/images/countries-images/sudan-map.jpg


http://formaementis.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/darfur_idps_camp.jpg


http://citizenx.org/wp-content/janjaweed_killers_on_the_hoof.gif


http://uk.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20110322&t=2&i=369196579&w=460&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=2011-03-22T215635Z_01_BTRE72L1OYD00_RTROPTP_0_SUDAN-DARFUR


http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2007/08/05/darfur30b.jpg


UNIT TITLE: The Muslim World GRADE: 11

LESSON TITLE: Muslim Empires Peer Teaching Project (Honors)

Learning/Lesson Plan

L

earn

ing A

ctiv

itie

s

Instructional indicator (based on Content Standards/Core Learning Goals) (What will a student know [content] and be able to do [skills/process]?)

1. SWBAT research major achievements of the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal Empires.

2. SWBAT develop and implement informative lessons on the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal Empires.

Indicators:

2.1.1 – The student will identify and analyze examples of cultural diffusion.

2.2.1 – The student will describe the motivations of governments to expand their economic, political, and cultural

influence into other areas of the world.

2.3.1 – The student will explain how the consequences of one conflict may sow the seeds for future conflicts.

3.2.1 – The student will analyze the role of social institutions in shaping distinct cultural identities.

3.2.3 – The student will evaluate the impact of culture on a region.

Assessment/Evaluation (How will we know instruction has been successful?)

1. Warm-up/Discussion

2. Muslim Empires Peer Teaching Assignment Progress Check

3. Muslim Empires Peer Teaching Lesson, Assessment, & Presentation

Setting the Stage/Beginning the Lesson/Engagement (How will new learning be introduced? How will students get motivated/excited regarding new learning? How will prior

knowledge be tapped and assessed?)

WARM-UP:

(Answer the following questions using p. 60 of the Modern World History text)

1. What were the 3 major Islamic civilizations that flourished during the 1300-1700s?

2. What advantages allowed these Islamic Empires to flourish & conquer other lands?



Secondary Reading/Egnlish/Language Arts Curricula Samples and Resources

The middle school reading curriculum supports the infusion of multicultural education through our core Reading text-Language of

Literature(enrichment and grade level and Bridges to Literature(Meeting the Middle reading intervention), and SpringBoard.

The middle school approved novel list includes multicultural novels.

We have also provided Professional Development in the areas of “How to teach Minority Students”.

The County-wide spelling bee participants are made up of many different cultural groups.

Summer programs at the different middle schools use multicultural materials and resources and activities.

Students are introduced to many cultures via virtual field trips and/or taking actual field trips to museums, etc.


Library Media Samples of Non-printed and Printed Resources

Available in both hardcopy and online for all Charles County Public School Students

The first day of school for returning teachers is Tuesday, Aug. 23.

Aug 18, 2011 3:16:09 PM About This Site | Contact Us | Home |

QuickLinks

Search

DEPARTMENTS

LIBRARY MEDIA PROGRAM

Digital Library Resources

Elementary School

eLibrary Science Grolier Historical Newspapers

http://www2.ccboe.com/aboutus/about_this_site.cfm

http://www2.ccboe.com/aboutus/contact_us.cfm

http://www2.ccboe.com/

http://portal.bigchalk.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/PikeApp.woa/wa/Authentication/loginMember?username=74-1305&password=bigchalk&sku=DB-ELCLASS2-SCIENCE

http://go-kids.grolier.com/main?page=kids

http://www.bigchalk.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/PikeApp.woa/wa/Authentication/loginMember?username=74-1305&password=bigchalk&sku=DB-HISTNEWS

http://www2.ccboe.com/publicinfo/rss/





SIRS Discoverer World Book - Kids Culture Grams

Early World of Learning

Middle School

Culture Grams eLibrary Science eLibrary Curriculum Edition

Grolier Proquest Learning Literature Historical Newspapers

Gale Science in Context SIRS Discoverer SIRS Knowledge Source

http://discoverer.prod.sirs.com/discoweb/disco/do/frontpage

http://www.worldbookonline.com/kids/Home

http://online.culturegrams.com/secure/kids/index.php

http://www.worldbookonline.com/ewol/home

http://online.culturegrams.com/secure/main/portal.php?a_username=charlesco&a_password=welcome


http://elibrary3.bigchalk.com/elibweb/curriculum/do/search


http://literature.proquestlearning.com/password-login?instit1=charlesco&instit2=welcome


http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itweb/ccps11355


http://sks.sirs.com/


http://www.worldbookonline.com/kids/Home

http://online.culturegrams.com/secure/kids/index.php

http://www.worldbookonline.com/ewol/home











World Book American Indian History Online

Modern World History Online

World Digital Library Ancient and Medieval History Online

Sailor Research Databases

High School

ABC-Clio American Government Black Studies Center Culture Grams

eLibrary Science eLibrary Curriculum Edition ProQuest Platinum

Proquest Learning Literature Bloom's Literary Ferguson's Career Database

http://www.worldbookonline.com/

http://www.fofweb.com/Direct2.asp?ItemID=WE43&ID=20277



http://www.wdl.org/en/



http://www.sailor.lib.md.us/services/databases/Default.aspx?id=56082

http://www.americangovernment.abc-clio.com/login.aspx

http://bsc.chadwyck.com/home/home.do




http://proquest.umi.com/login










http://www.americangovernment.abc-clio.com/login.aspx

http://bsc.chadwyck.com/home/home.do




http://proquest.umi.com/login





History Study Center Historical Newspapers Gale Science in Context

SIRS Knowledge Source World Book American Memory Project

American Indian History Online Modern World History Online Ancient and Medieval History Online

World Digital Library Writer's Reference Center Sailor Research Databases

Teacher Resources

http://www.historystudycenter.com/





http://memory.loc.gov/ammem








http://www.historystudycenter.com/












http://www.eric.ed.gov/

http://streaming.discoveryeducation.com/

http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dghelp_browse.cfm


ERIC Discovery Education Streaming (United Streaming)

New York Public Library

American Memory Project World Digital Library National Library of Virtual

Manipulatives

Teaching Books

Sign in to Trial or Paid Account using your CCBOE email

address.

For questions regarding the library media program

please contact Mrs. Rosemary Venable

ABOUT US | BOARD OF EDUCATION | CALENDARS | DEPARTMENTS | INCLEMENT WEATHER PARENTS & COMMUNITY | PUBLIC INFORMATION & MEDIA | SCHOOLS & CENTERS | STAFF SERVICES | STUDENTS

©1995-2011 Charles County Public Schools

5980 Radio Station Road | P.O. Box 2770 | La Plata, MD 20646

301-932-6610 | 301-870-3814 | TTY: 301-392-7579 | Info Line: 301-932-6656 Nondiscrimination Statement | Privacy Policy | ADA/Section 508 | Web Site Feedback | MSDE | Site Map

| | Powered by Savvy CMS

ETM Mandatory and/or ETM Voluntary Courses Offered

Mandatory Course— Equity Training for all Charles County Public School Employees

Voluntary Courses— Courageous Conversations about Race Course for CPD Credit and Graduate Course Credit

http://www.eric.ed.gov/



http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dghelp_browse.cfm



http://nlvm.usu.edu/en/nav/vlibrary.html


http://www.teachingbooks.net/

mailto:[email protected]?Subject=Library%20Media%20Web%20Site

http://www2.ccboe.com/aboutus.cfm

http://www2.ccboe.com/boe/

http://www2.ccboe.com/calendars/calendars.cfm

http://www2.ccboe.com/departments_main.cfm

http://www2.ccboe.com/inclementweather.cfm

http://www2.ccboe.com/parentscomm/

http://www2.ccboe.com/publicinfo.cfm

http://www2.ccboe.com/schools_main.cfm

http://www2.ccboe.com/staffservices.cfm

http://www2.ccboe.com/students.cfm

http://www2.ccboe.com/legal/nondiscrimination.cfm

http://www2.ccboe.com/legal/privacy.cfm

http://www2.ccboe.com/legal/section508.cfm

http://www2.ccboe.com/forms/feedback_form.cfm

http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/

http://www2.ccboe.com/sitemap.cfm

http://www.besavvy.com/




http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/


List of Professional Development ETM Workshops or Seminars Provided During the School Year

Bi-Monthly Minority Achievement Committee Meetings (September, November, January, March, May)

Teacher In-service Workshops: o Multiculturalism in the Classroom: Eight Best Practices to Enhance Learning o AVID School-wide Initiatives—Cornell Note taking, using writing, inquiry, collaboration, and reading (WICR) strategies, and

interactive journals in secondary science classes


COMPLIANCE STATUS REPORT

I.d.ii LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICENT (LEP) STUDENTS

GOAL 2 BILINGUAL EDUCATION

Local School System: Charles County Public Schools

ETMA Contact Person: Charlotte A. Weirich

Title/Position: Instructional Specialist for English for Speakers of Other

Languages (ESOL) and World Languages

Address: P. O. Box 2770 5980 Radio Station Road La Plata MD 20646

Phone: (301) 934-7208 Fax: (301) 934-7401

E-Mail: [email protected]

Date completed: September 29, 2011


Limited English Proficient Students

A. Based on the examination of assessment data for Annual Measurable Achievable Objectives (AMAOs) I, II and III of

Charles County Public Schools’ (CCPS’) Limited English Proficient Students (LEPS), the following tables indicate

that CCPS’ LEPS made progress during the

2010-2011 school year.

Table 4.1 System AMAO I, 2010-2011

N

Number

Who Met

Target

%

Total

216

165

82 %

Note: In order for a local school system to have met the System AMAO I in

2010-2011, at least 60% of LEPs in grades K through 12 had to improve at least

15 points since their previous summative or diagnostic assessment.

Table 4.2 System AMAO II, 2010-2011

N

Number

Who Met

Target

%

Total

216

53

25%

Note: In order for a local school system to have met the System AMAO II

in 2010-2011, at least 17% of LEPs in grades K through 12 had to attain

grade-specific targets for English Language Proficiency on the Spring 2011

summative assessment.

Note: In order for a local school system to have met the System AMAO III (AYP), its LEP groups had to have attained the overall

countywide AYP target for 2010-2011 set by MSDE. This target is determined by the 2010-2011 MSDE reading and

math assessment results.

Table 4.3 System AMAO III, 2010-2011

AYP Status for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Students

Reading Math


2009 Met Met Met Met Met Met




A.1 Describe where progress is evident.

AMAO I:

Progress in AMAO I is evident among the CCPS LEPs who received ESOL services in 2010-2011. The

total number of LEPs counted for AMAO I was 216. An examination of the test data indicates that 165

LEPs or 82%, met AMAO I, exceeding the 2010-2011 target of 60% that MSDE had set. The majority

of grade bands progressed for AMAO I during the 2010- 2011 school year.

AMAO II:

Progress in AMAO II is evident among CCPS LEPs who received ESOL services in 2010-2011. The

total number of LEPs counted for AMAO II was 216. An examination of the test data indicates that 53

LEPs or 25% met AMAO II, exceeding the 2010-2011 target of 17% that MSDE had set. The majority

of grade bands progressed for AMAO II during the 2010- 2011 school year.

AMAO III:

Progress in AMAO III is evident among CCPS LEP subgroups who received ESOL services in 2010-

2011. Each LEP subgroup in CCPS attained LEP AYP for its school in 2010-2011.

A.2 Identify the practices, programs or strategies to which you attribute the progress of Limited English

Proficient students towards attaining English proficiency.

Practices

The practices to which the progress of CCPS LEPs may be attributed are interventions that the ESOL

Program plans, implements, monitors and evaluates on a regular basis. The practices focus on the

listening, speaking, reading and writing domains of second language acquisition. The CCPS ESOL

Program staff examine and analyze the summative data for each LEP who did not achieve proficiency

and who will continue receiving ESOL services. After determining where each LEP’s weaknesses are

within the specific domain, the ESOL staff develop instructional practices that address that domain. The

ESOL teachers use experiential learning, i.e. field trips, games, drama, Total Physical Response (TPR)

and cooperative learning activities with a focus on vocabulary and reading skills. The ESOL teachers

also use narrative and persuasive models.

The ESOL Program makes language resource materials available to general education and content area

teachers and families of LEPs for use outside the ESOL classroom.

The ESOL Program Office, ESOL staff and ESOL consultants provide professional development for

general education and content area teachers.

The ESOL Program Office and ESOL teachers coordinate school-based training dates, times and

participants with school administrators. The ESOL teachers present information that includes the four

domains of second language acquisition (listening, speaking, reading and writing), differentiated

instruction for LEPs in the mainstream classroom, allowable accommodations and modifications and the

objective evaluation of LEPs.


Specific information about accommodations and modifications would include time and a half for class

work, as well as for county and state assessments; use of a dictionary and/or thesaurus; verbatim

reading, and small group settings without distractions. Modifications would focus on changing the

length of class assignments and class assessments. These modifications do not reduce the rigor of the

general education and core area curricula for LEPs.

The ESOL Program also arranges for ESOL consultants to provide professional development

opportunities to general education and content area teachers. The ESOL consultants are well known,

credentialed experts in the ESOL field. The training sessions may occur during the school day or

afterschool. The afterschool sessions are open to any general education and content area teacher who has

LEPs in his/her class for the school year in which the training opportunity is being presented. The

teachers participating in afterschool sessions receive stipends. The consultants focus on research-based,

reading and writing strategies that general education and content area teachers have used successfully

with LEPs in their classes.

The ESOL and school-based staff coordinate extended day opportunities for LEPs who require more

practice outside the regular school day. Extended day opportunities focus on reading/language

arts/English and assessment strategies. The LEPs also participate in summer enrichment and remedial

reading and writing programs. During the regular school year, families of LEPs are invited to

participate in ESOL Program activities, such as field trips. The ESOL teachers may also attend after

school activities with families of LEPs.

The ESOL Program provides interpreters and translators to assist LEPs and their families at conferences

and school activities. The ESOL Program has created an Interpreters’ Resource List that contains

contact information for interpreters and translators of the most frequently-occurring languages in CCPS.

Title III funds do not cover the fees of interpreters and translators who participate in special education

meetings, i.e. IEP meetings for LEPs.

Programs

The program to which most of the LEPs’ progress is attributed is ESOL, the primary intervention for

second language acquisition.

The pullout model is used for K through grade 8 LEPs (1 to 5 times per week, 30-45 minute sessions).

Elective ESOL classes (levels I, II and III) are offered for LEPs in high school.

Other CCPS programs contribute significantly to LEPs’ English language acquisition. These programs

include daily, double-period, Reading/Language Arts classes; separate literacy classes; Reading

Recovery (K through 5); Extended Day Reading; Accelerated Reader; Meeting the Middle Reading;

and, extended day opportunities focusing on state assessment content and test-taking strategies. In

addition to these programs, quarterly CCPS elementary, middle and high school assessments provide

valuable practice for state assessments.


Strategies

The strategies used in the ESOL Program include focusing on Basic Intercommunication Skills (BICS)

and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). The ESOL teachers emphasize both social

communication among the LEPs and native English speakers and acquisition of academic and

standardized language skills needed in academic programs. The ESOL Program uses supplemental,

ESOL-centered textbooks that emphasize the four domains of language acquisition {High Point at the

high school level and Avenues at the elementary and middle school levels}.

A.3 Describe where challenges are evident in the progress of LEP students toward attaining English

proficiency by each domain in Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing.

AMAO I:

The AMAO I data reveal that 82% of CCPS LEPs, attained or exceeded the minimum target that MSDE

had established for 2010-2011. The root causes for some LEPs not achieving the target include: 1 )

LEPs’ and LEP families' lack of, or complete absence of, formal education; 2) LEPs’ interrupted

education; 3) LEPs’ and LEP families’ partial or complete illiteracy in the native language; 4) LEPs’ and

LEP families’ difficulty in adjusting to mainstream U.S.A. culture and public education; and, 5) rigor of

academic courses and state assessments

AMAO II:

The AMAO II data reveal that 25% of CCPS LEPs attained or exceeded the minimum target that MSDE

had established for 2010-2011. These data indicate that the K through 5 LEPs improved the most in the

listening and speaking domains since the previous LAS testing cycle, but need improvement in reading

and writing.

The majority of 6 through 12 LEPs improved in listening, speaking and reading since the previous LAS

testing cycle, but must improve in writing. Some 6-12 LEPs received an overall “5” with “4s” and “5s”

in all but the writing domain.

AMAO III:

There are challenges evident among the LEPs’ reading scores, even though every LEP subgroup did

attain AYP in its respective school. An examination of the data indicates that some LEPs need support in

reading directions and comprehending what information is actually being requested so that they may

select accurate responses. Some have challenges in writing complete, grammatically correct sentences.

A.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.

The changes or adjustments that will be made to ensure sufficient progress will be based mainly on the

Spring 2011 MSDE Assessment (LAS) results. The ESOL teachers will examine and analyze the

assessment data to determine the specific domain(s) in which LEPs did not achieve proficiency. The


teachers will adjust their instructional strategies to focus specifically on the LEPs’ areas of weakness;

for example, some LEPs attained proficiency or near proficiency in listening, speaking and reading (a

score of “4” or “5”), but did not attain proficiency in writing (a score of “1,” “2,” or “3”). In those cases,

the ESOL teachers will focus on improving LEPs’ writing performance.

AMAO I:

The ESOL Program will continue to fine tune its current strategies in specific domains (listening,

speaking, reading or writing) for those LEPs who did not improve by at least 15 scale points to attain

AMAO I. Changes and adjustments will focus on writing strategies for LEPs. The instruction will

emphasize letter identification, letter-sound relationships and gaining meaning.

AMAO II:

The changes and adjustments to meet AMAO II challenges will emphasize letter identification, letter-

sound relationships, rhyming, and strategies to gain meaning. The LEPs will practice writing sentences

using visual prompts. They will receive additional instruction in writing skills related to summative

assessments, including an increase in the number of activities involving writing exercises.

AMAO III

Changes and adjustments to address AMAO III challenges will focus on collaboration among the ESOL

teachers and the reading/ language arts/English teachers of LEPs. Specifically, teachers will work to

align their classroom instruction so that they are reinforcing specific writing skills that LEPs require to

attain proficiency. The ESOL teachers will continue to use the ESOL Program’s Avenues and High

Point series. The reading and language arts teachers will use the Houghton Mifflin series as a resource

when instructing LEPs. The ESOL teachers and reading/language arts/English teachers of LEPs will

make every effort to meet regularly to discuss the academic progress of their LEPs.

Resource Allocations:

The ESOL Program uses Title III funding to support its practices, programs and strategies. Title III

funding supplements, but does not supplant, activities to overcome academic challenges that LEPs

experience. Title III funding covers activities such as extended day instructional opportunities;

supplemental materials of instruction; professional development for ESOL, general education and

content area teachers of LEPs; and activities for LEP families.

Title III resource allocations for 2011-2012 will focus on assisting LEPs in attaining the AMAO I, II

and III targets. The CCPS Title III program activities are described in Attachment 10 and its

accompanying Budget Summary. A breakdown of Title III funding allotted to each activity follows.


ELP Activity 1.2: improving the instructional program, English proficiency and

academic achievement of LEPs …………………………………1.2: $4,384.

ELP Activity 1.3: providing intensified instruction for LEPs …………………… …1.3 $4,850.

ELP Activity 1.4: improving the English proficiency and academic achievement

of LEPs ………………………………………………………….....1.4 $4,030.

ELP Activity 2.1: providing professional development to improve instruction and

assessment of LEPs ……………………………………….…… 2.1 $1,942.

ELP Activity 2.2: providing professional development to enhance teachers’ understanding

of instruction and assessment of LEPs ………………………..2.2 $5,300.

ELP Activity 3.2: providing programs to assist parents with the academic achievement

of their LEP children …………………………………………….3.2: $9,000.

ELP Activity 4.1: providing tutorials for LEPs ……………….…………………….4.1 $1,346.

ELP Activity 4.2: acquisition of educational technology or materials …………. 4.2: $6,400.

ELP Activity 6.1:$ administration of ELP Program …………..………………… 6.1: $ 760.

FY 2012 Total Title III Resource Allocation for ELP Activities …… …………….. $ 38, 012

B. Describe the corrective action plan specifying action to be taken for not meeting AMAO I.

No corrective action plan for AMAO I is necessary because CCPS LEPs attained a proficiency

level of 82% for AMAO I on the Spring 2011 MSDE Summative Assessment.

C. Describe the corrective action plan specifying action to be taken for not meeting

AMAO II.

No corrective action plan for AMAO II is necessary because CCPS LEPs attained a proficiency

level of 25% for AMAO II on the Spring 2011 MSDE Summative Assessment.

C. 1 Describe what challenges are evident in attaining AMAOs:

Challenges are evident in attaining AMAOs. There are several root causes. The first root cause is

interrupted education and the lack of formal education in either the LEP’s native country or in the

U.S.A. Participation in a formal school setting is sometimes lacking because of the family’s inability to

overcome personal and economic challenges. School attendance and full participation in academic

programs may not be the most critical issue that a LEP’s family is facing. Some LEPs have not attended

formal classes in a stable educational environment on a continuous basis. Some LEPs may have missed

a year or more of formal schooling. Interrupted schooling usually stems from economic hardship in the

native country or in the U.S. A., or from political upheaval in the native country.


A second root cause is partial or complete illiteracy in the native language. The LEPs may have a very

limited academic background in native language acquisition. This challenge may be magnified if their

families have limited or no reading and writing skills in the native language. The only experience with

language learning for the LEPs and their families may have been in basic intercommunication skills

(BICS). The LEPs’ ability to understand language structures in written form may be basic and not

proficient, even in their native language. These LEPs often have tremendous difficulty in understanding

how written language is expressed in their native language, and, therefore, they are challenged when

they try to acquire the skills necessary to read and write in English.

A third root cause for the LEPs not achieving proficiency is their difficulty in adjusting to mainstream

American culture, especially in U.S.A. public education. The Code of Student Behavior in most other

cultures is much more stringent than the code in most U.S.A. public schools. The LEPs may witness

school behavior in U.S.A. classes that surprises them. Often, these LEPs withdraw and do not participate

in their classes in the manner in which their U.S.A. teachers expect.

A fourth root cause for the LEPs not achieving the minimum proficiency is the rigor of the courses and

the state assessments that they are expected to master.

The LEPs must take the same courses and assessments in English as their U.S.A. classmates. Very few

LEPs have the academic background or English language experience to immediately succeed in these

courses and assessments. It may take from five to seven years for a LEP with little or no English to be

academically successful in a U.S.A. school environment.

C. 2 Describe what changes or adjustments will be made in order to meet AMAOs

The ESOL Program will focus on collaborating with CCPS reading/language arts/English programs and

the ESOL teaching staff to in ensuring that CCPS ESOL curriculum meets the state’s standards. The

ESOL specialist will work with other specialists and school administrators to ensure that LEPs are

receiving differentiated instruction, accommodations, modifications and objective evaluations. The

ESOL Program also will provide stipends to general education/content area teachers who will conduct

extended day opportunities for LEPS in skill areas in which they are non-English proficient.

A second focus area for changes and adjustments will be to provide professional development for ESOL

and general education/content area teachers of LEPs. The ESOL teachers will receive training on the

content and administration of state assessments, including the Spring ESOL summative assessment.

General education/content area teachers of LEPs will receive training in differentiation of instruction for

LEPs, ESOL accommodations, modifications and objective evaluation of LEPs.

A third focus area for changes and adjustments will be to provide academic support and community

outreach for LEPs and their families. The ESOL Program will provide family orientation and guidance

for LEP families to assist in their children’s adjustment to the Charles County Public Schools and to the

local environment. The ESOL Program will communicate with local agencies, particularly the Charles

County Social Services Department, on an as-needed basis, to assist LEP families in finding support

services. The ESOL Program also will encourage families to participate in the CCPS Adult Services’

English and citizenship classes.


A fourth focus area for changes and adjustments will be to obtain and implement educational technology

that will assist ESOL teachers and LEPs with instruction. The ESOL Program will purchase software

and ensure training that focuses on specific skill areas for both teachers and students. The training will

consist of webinars and teleconferences during which the software vendor at the company’s home site

will provide step-by-step instruction to ESOL teachers in a Charles County Public Schools’ Technology

Lab. The vendor will be accessible via telephone and email for additional questions. The ESOL teachers

will receive “refresher” training if they request it, via additional webinars and teleconferences.

The software will be distributed via licenses to the ESOL teachers. The teachers, in turn, will decide

which LEPs will have access, via licenses, to the software. The ESOL teachers will train the selected

LEPS on how to use the software. It has been developed specifically to enable LEPs to practice their

listening, speaking and reading skills independently, while under the supervision of their ESOL teachers

during ESOL class time.

Table 4.1 System AMAO I, 2010-2011

N

Number Who Met

Target %

Total

216

165

82 %

Table 4.2 System AMAO II, 2010-2011

N

Number

Who Met

Target

%

Total

216

53

25%

Table 4.3 System AMAO III, 2010-2011

AYP Status for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Students

Reading Math






Action Plan FY 2012 Goal 2 Bilingual Education Limited English Proficient Students (LEPs)

Activities A, B, and C from Attachment 10 page 1 of 3

Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Content Specialist for ESOL

CCPS ESOL Program Targets (MSDE’s English Language Acquisition Office sets percentages):

AMAO I: ___ % of LEPs in CCPS ESOL Program will improve 15 scale points or more between their Spring 2011 LAS and their Spring 2012 WIDA scores

OR ___ % of LEPs will improve between their 2011 diagnostic and their Spring 2012 WIDA scores

AMAO II: ___ % of LEPs in CCPS ESOL Program will achieve an overall proficiency rating of “5” or better on the Spring 2012 WIDA

AMAO III: ___ % of LEP subgroups in CCPS will attain AYP on the Spring 2012 state assessments

Root Causes:1) LEPs’ and LEP families’ lack of, or complete absence of, formal education

2) LEPs’ interrupted education

3) LEPs’ and LEP families’ partial or complete illiteracy in the native language

4) LEPs’ and LEP families’ difficulty in adjusting to mainstream U.S.A. culture and public education

5) rigor of academic courses and state assessments

Strategies: 1) coordinate resources among CCPS Departments of Curriculum and Instruction, Student Services, Data Processing, Program Support, Research and

Assessment and Adult Services to create a comprehensive infrastructure that will academically support LEPs

2) collaborate with content area staff, school administrators and general education/content area teachers to provide academic support to LEPs

3) encourage families of LEPs in CCPS ESOL Program to complete Adult Education courses in English and citizenship

4) ensure ESOL requirements are implemented for each LEP

Activities/Actions: from Attachment 10; Activities A., B., and C.:

1.2 improve the instructional program for LEPs

1.3 provide intensified instruction for LEPs

1.4 improve English proficiency and academic achievement of LEPS

2.1 provide professional development to improve instruction and assessment of LEPs

2.2 provide professional development to enhance teachers’ ability to help LEPs

3.2 provide programs to assist parents in helping their LEPs

4.1 provide tutorials and academic and vocational education for LEPS

4.2 acquire educational technology for ESOL teachers and LEPs

6.1 administer and manage the grant for CCPS Title III Program






1.2 continue supporting MSDE’s efforts to upgrade and align state curriculum and

developing local ESOL curriculum

1.3 monitor ESOL Program services; collaborate with CCPS Title I, FARMS, and

Special Education Programs; assist core area specialists; provide documents to non-

public schools; purchase ESOL textbooks and MOIs

1.4 provide teacher stipends for extended day opportunities; use ESOL centered

textbooks and MOIs

2.1 provide ESOL-centered professional development to core area teachers at their

schools

2.2 provide tuition to classroom teachers of LEPs in the ESOL Program for CCPS

MSDE-accredited course; professional development for ESOL teachers; PD

resources for ESOL teachers

3.2 provide academic support and community outreach for LEP families

4.1 extended day and vocational opportunities for LEPs in ESOL

4.2 provide ESOL-centered software for ESOL teacher and LEPs

6.1 manage administration of ESOL Program

1.2 ESOL Program Office



2.1 ESOL Program Office and ESOL

teachers


3.2 ESOL Program Office and ESOL teachers




1.2 Oct 2011 - May 2012

1.3 Sept. 2011 - Jun 2012

1.4 Sept 2011 – Jun 2012

2.1 Oct. 2011 – Feb. 2012

2.2 Sept. 2011 – Apr. 2012

3.2 Sept. 2011 – Jun 2012

4.1 Sept 2011 – Jun 2012

4.2 Sept 2011 – Jun 2012

6.1 Jul 2011 - Jun 2012





Quarterly Data Analysis (Formative) and Data providing evidence of quarterly progress

Quarter 1

diagnostic results for new LEPs

June 2011 final CCPS report card for LEPs

returning for SY 2011-2012

quarterly CCPS reading/language arts/

English assessment results for K – 12 LEPs

Quarter 2


quarterly interim report card

quarterly reading/language arts/ English

assessment results for K--12 LEPs

Quarter 3


quarterly interim report card

quarterly reading/language arts/

English assessment results for K--12

LEPs

Quarter 4


end-of-year CCPS report card

reading/language arts/English

assessment results for 3--12 LEPs


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

LEP K—12 Spring 2012 WIDA results

LEP 3—12 Spring 2012 Maryland state reading/language arts/English assessment results

LEP K—12 end-of-year CCPS report cards


Career and Technology Education

The Bridge to Excellence legislation 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.

The Office of Career and Technology Education (CTE) continually strives to implement new programs,

expand existing programs, provide teacher professional development, and upgrade curricula and

materials to keep pace with the rigorous standards set by occupations in the job market. During the

2010-2011 school year Charles County Public Schools added one new and expanded another program in

the Manufacturing, Engineering & Technology Career Cluster and upgraded programs in the

Construction & Development as well as the Transportation Technology Career Clusters.

Newly implemented programs:

School Year 2010-11- Charles County Public Schools (CCPS) added Manufacturing to the

Approved List (List A)

o Manufacturing, Engineering & Technology Career Cluster.

Manufacturing began its first year as an approved CTE Program of Study at North

Point High School for Science, Technology & Industry

School Year 2011-12- Three new programs of study proposals are scheduled to be submitted to

MSDE

o Health & Biosciences Career Cluster

Academy of Health Profession: Pharmacy Technician at the Robert D. Stethem

Educational Center

o Consumer Services, Hospitality, & Tourism

Food & Beverage Management (ProStart) at Henry E. Lackey High School

o Business Management &Finance

Administrative Services at all high schools (phase out General Office Clerk)

Expanded programs:

School Year 2010-11- Charles County Public Schools expanded Project Lead the Way (PLTW)

to three high schools which were added to List A

o Manufacturing, Engineering & Technology Career Cluster.

Project Lead the Way (PLTW)Pre-engineering – Introduction to Engineering

Design (IED) was implemented at Westlake, Thomas Stone and LaPlata High

Schools

School Year 2011-12- CCPS plans to expand the PLTW Biomedical Sciences program to two

new sites

o Health & Biosciences Career Cluster


PLTW Biomedical Sciences

New sites - Henry E. Lackey and Westlake High Schools

Expand to add another teacher at LaPlata High School

Upgrades: Students benefit from program upgrades which include implementation, curricula, materials and

equipment, as well as teacher professional development.

Program Implementation:

o Site Certifications earned during the 2010-2011 school year

National Center for Construction Education & Research (NCCER)

NCCER for Carpentry at North Point High School

NCCER for Electrician at North Point High School

NCCER for HVAC at Stethem Educational Center

PLTW for Biomedical Sciences at LaPlata High School

o Site Re-certifications earned during the 2010-2011 school year

National Automotive Technicians Education Foundation (NATEF)

NATEF for Automotive Technician at North Point High School

PLTW for Pre-engineering at Henry E. Lackey High School

o Industry Certifications – Technical Skills Assessments

In 2011, 13 programs gave the technical skills assessment (TSA) for their field of

study, an increase of five programs from the 2010 SY

The expectation for 2012 is for all students enrolled in a CTE program with an

available TSA will take the industry certification in their field of study

o Tech Prep - Charles County CTE Office collaborates with the College of Southern

Maryland (CSM) for Tech Prep college credit opportunities

Perspective graduates meet with employers from their fields of study, apply for

financial aid, meet division chairpersons and tour the campus.

Underclassmen from each county high school, 8-11 graders, interested in tech

prep programs receive program information, opportunities to interact with

employers and professionals in a variety of disciplines, and talk with faculty

representatives.

Articulation Meeting - CTE teachers/administrators and CSM

Faculty/administrators meet to update articulation agreements, discuss changes or

revisions, and explore opportunities for new tech prep agreements for CTE

students

Professional Development:

o Teacher professional development during the 2010-2011 SY and summer of 2011, will

improve the delivery of instruction and provide teachers with updated occupational

practices. Teachers in the following programs attended professional development in their

field of study:

Career Research & Development (CRD)

Three CRD teachers have earned Work-Based Learning (WBL)

endorsement

All staff expecting to teach CRD I and/or CRD II will have WBL

endorsement

Project Lead the Way


PLTW Pre-engineering teachers have been trained in Introduction to

Engineering Design, and Principles of Engineering

PLTW Pre-engineering teacher trained in a specialty course -

Biotechnology

Gateway to Technology teachers were trained in the Air and Space

module

PLTW Biomedical Sciences teachers have been trained in Principles of

Biomedical Sciences and Biomedical Innovations

Teacher Academy of Maryland(TAM)

TAM teacher completed the Towson TAM Summer Institutes I & II

Other Teacher Professional Developments

Teachers in each of the following programs attended an MSDE

professional development opportunity

o Automotive Technology

o Business Management

o Graphic Communications (PrintEd)

o Horticultural Services

o Interactive Media Production

Curricula:

o Teacher Academy of Maryland curriculum overview for Human Growth & Development,

Teaching as a Profession, and Foundations of Curriculum & Instruction course were

updated

Equipment and materials to improve instruction were upgraded in the following programs:

o Auto Technology

o Auto Body Collision

o Carpentry

o Child Care & Guidance

o Cisco

o Cosmetology

o Culinary Arts

o Drafting and Design

o Electrician

o Graphic Communications PrintEd

o Health Occupations

o Horticultural Services

o HVAC

o Interactive Media Production

o Manufacturing

o Project Lead The Way – Biomedical Sciences

o Teacher Academy of Maryland

o Welding


2. What actions are included in the Master Plan to ensure access to CTE programs and

success for every student in CTE Program of Study, including students who are members

of special populations?

Access to CTE Programs of Study is ensured through career awareness activities for all students.

Success for all students is ensured through recruitment and follow-up activities. Targeted

populations include disadvantaged students, Limited English Proficiency (LEP), students with

disabilities, and students enrolled in nontraditional CTE programs.

Career Awareness:

The implementation of Career Cruising, a career information system, is expected to increase

student awareness of career options.

o All school counselors as well as CRD, English, and Business teachers will be trained on

the Career Cruising program in the fall of 2011.

o The Career Cruising program is closely aligned with the Maryland 10 Career Clusters

which will enable counselors make connections to the CTE programs offered in Charles

County Public Schools.

A second Career Awareness Event has been planned for Fair Day Weekend at the Charles

County Fairgrounds.

o Posters, brochures and display tables with hands-on activities, hosted by CTE staff, are

organized by the 10 career clusters.

o This year a schedule of events is being planned for program demonstrations conducted by

current students, which will include non-traditional enrollment participants.

Brochures for each program were developed by students enrolled in the Graphic

Communications program during the 2010-2011SY.

o They are available to secondary guidance counselors, special education department chair

persons, and will be displayed in high school career centers.

o Teachers of completer programs use them for display and distribution to students and

parents during back to school and recruitment orientations.

Posters emphasizing the 10 Career Clusters and depicting non-traditional enrollment students are

available for middle and elementary school counselors to use during career day events at their

schools.

Recruitment:

To recruit applications from eighth graders, CTE programs offered at North Point High School

are presented via a DVD and school visits.

o The DVD depicts CTE students engaged in activities specific to their program

o Non-traditional students currently enrolled in CTE career pathways participate in these

school visits demonstrating hands on activities

o Middle school students and parents are invited to participate in two open house events

during which instructors and current students demonstrate and talk about skills specific to

each program - about 2,400 people attend these events.

o Students consult with school counselors and parents as they complete application packets.

To recruit applications and increase student awareness about CTE programs offered at the



o Representatives from Stethem visit each high school and middle school during the course

selection season to inform students of the CTE programs offered at their facility

o Middle and high school students visit in the spring each year to make students aware of

the programs available and how they can take advantage of those opportunities

To ensure success in the completion of CTE programs of study

o Completion of advanced courses and regular school attendance is required for 9th

grade

entry into many CTE programs at North Point High School

o Applicants must successfully complete all Maryland High School Assessments for 11th

grade entry into CTE programs at Stethem Educational Center

o Prerequisite coursework, demonstrations of personal responsibility, and success on

Maryland High School Assessments are seen as indicators that ensure program

completion.

Follow-up:

The Office of Career and Technology Education continually strives to identify and eliminate barriers to

success for all students enrolled in CTE Programs of Study, particularly students who are members of

special populations.

In addition to the natural assistance and supports provided by teachers and advisory council

members, a job placement coordinator and special education teacher are assigned to North Point

High School to develop/supervise internships and career related employment and provide

academic support to CTE students with disabilities.

The Department of Special Education employs a job placement specialist to provide jobsite

support and services to students graduating with diplomas, including those enrolled in CTE

programs at all county high schools and the Stethem Educational Center.


3. Describe the school system’s strategies for increasing the number of CTE enrollees who

become completers of CTE programs of study. Data points should include the number of

enrollees, the number of concentrators and completers.

According to the Program Quality Index (PQI) for the Program Year 2010, there were 2667 students

enrolled in CTE programs of study. 838 students enrolled in the designated concentrator courses were

expected to graduate completing their career pathway sequence. 486 actually finished all of the career

courses for a 58.00% graduation rate of completion.

Four strategies will insure that CTE enrollees complete CTE Programs of Study:

1. Data Collection process is accurate

a. Ensure the CCPS data office understands the data collection process and the

importance of the PQI results

b. Ensure the CCPS enrollment data provided to the CTE office is accurate

2. A written agreement will be developed for each program requiring students and parents to

commit to completing all courses in the program of study sequence:

o Each student enrolling in a concentrator course will consent to completing the

program of study sequence.

o Each student enrolling in a program at North Point High School will consent to

completing the program of study sequence

3. Include a CTE program of study course sequence with designated concentrator in the 2011-

2012 high school course selection document

4. Create a CTE Program of Study course offering pamphlet for guidance counselors and

students

5. Provide each counselor, at all levels, with the Maryland High School Career & Technology

Education Program of Study Blue Book

a. Encourage students to commit to complete the sequence of courses through individual

counseling sessions

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.

a.) Identify the Core Indicator(s) of Performance that did not meet the 90% threshold.

b.) Analyze why the indicator was not met, including any disparities or gaps in

performance between any category of students and performance of all students.

c.) For FY 12, indicate the section/subsection in the CTE Local Plan for Program

Improvement where the improvement plan/strategy is described.

1. Identify the Core Indicator(s) of Performance that did not meet the 90% threshold.

6S1=Non-Traditional Enrollment

6S2=Non-Traditional Completion

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.

6S1: Non-Traditional Enrollment


The 6S1 Non-Traditional Enrollment core indicator of performance failed to meet 90% of the

local target decreasing from 23.46 % in 2009 to 16.38% in 2010. (Local target was 23.88%,

21.49% was needed to meet the 90% goal)

The goal for the 2011-2012SY is to increase the number of under-represented gender enrolled in

non-traditional CTE completers from 16.38% to 24.50%.

The improvement plan includes:

o Schedule a visit with the MSDE Data Team to meet with the Charles County data office

Ensure the CCPS data office understands the data collection process and the


Ensure the CCPS enrollment data provided to the CTE office is accurate

The 2010 PQI indicates there were zero seniors in Graphic

Communications (Print Ed), Drafting & Design, Food Production &

Management, and Electrical & Electronic Equipment Repair.

The 2010 PQI also indicates three students completed the CISCO program

The following chart indicates the correct data for the 2010 graduating

class, which should have improved the 6S1 PQI data

CTE Program Completion

2010

Non- trad Enrollment

2010

Males Females

Print ED 11 3 8

Food Production

Management

17 7 10

Drafting & Design 7 2 5

Electronics 9 5 4

CISCO 15 10 5


Host a Career Awareness event at the Charles County Fairground during Fair Weekend

o Increase student awareness of the 10 Career Clusters through brochures and posters

emphasizing non-traditional under represented students

o Scheduled program activities and demonstrations throughout the weekend encouraging

under represented students already enrolled to participate

o Host mini- traveling career events at each middle school recruiting non-traditional

enrollment students as ambassadors for future career pathway enrollment

Future non-traditional enrollment:

o Class of 2015 following the implementation of the 2010 improvement plan

6S2: Non-Traditional Completion

The 6S2 Non-Traditional Completion core indicator of performance failed to meet 90% of the

local target decreasing from 40.00 % in 2009 to 21.27% in 2010. (Local target was 40.54%,

36.49% was needed to meet the 90% goal)

The goal for the 2011-2012SY is to increase the number of under-represented students

completing a non-traditional CTE program of study from 21.27% to 31.75 %

The improvement plan includes:

o Schedule a visit for the MSDE Data Team to meet with the Charles County data office

Ensure the CCPS data office understands the data collection process and the


Ensure the enrollment data provided to the CTE office is accurate which is

reflected in the reporting of the concentrator file data to MSDE

o Increase communication with Student Services and Gifted Education about CTE

programs of study, concentrator courses, and the significance of the PQI 6S2 data

Implement the Career Cruising to initiate career explorations in the middle

schools and the awareness of the CTE programs of study opportunities

Include a CTE program of study course sequence with designated concentrator in

the 2011-2012 high school course selection document

Create a CTE Program of Study course offering pamphlet for guidance counselors

and students

Provide each counselor, at all levels, with the Maryland High School Career &

Technology Education Program of Study Blue Book

CTE Program Enrollment

2011

Enrollment 2012 Enrollment 2015

Males Female

s

Males Female

s

Males Females

Print ED 0 11 4 10 7 10

Drafting &

Design

8 7 10 5 5 11

Criminal Justice 18 4 10 12 5 15

Carpentry 14 1 7 2 8 4


Encourage students to commit to complete the sequence of courses

through individual counseling sessions

3. FY 12, indicate the section/subsection in the CTE Local Plan for Program Improvement where

the improvement plan/strategy is described.

The CTE Local Plan for Program Improvement is located in;

o Program Data Analysis Question #1

o Secondary Strategy Worksheet B-2

o Local Perspective B

o Certificate of Participation – Counselors Implementation & Evaluation

o Secondary Strategy Worksheet B -1



Action Plan # 1

Career & Technology Education

Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Coordinator of Career & Technology Education

State Performance Target: Increase the number of CTE enrollees attempting and passing the technical skills assessments from 82.18% to 84.23%

Root Cause: There is a need for instructional practices that support student certification success.

Strategy: Require professional development for CTE instructors.

Activity/Action: CTE instructors will attend professional development sessions emphasizing instructional practices specific to their field of study and strategies to

reinforce content comprehension.


Ensure that CTE instructors attend professional development opportunities specific to

their field of study:

CTE Coordinator

CTE instructors

2011-2012 SY

Summer 2012


Data providing evidence of quarterly progress: Compliance with implementation timeline and increased student interest in CTE Completer Programs

Quarter 1

Record attendance at professional

development workshops

Quarter 2



Quarter 3



Quarter 4




1. All CTE instructors will earn certifications required by the MSDE program of study pathway.



Action Plan # 2

Career & Technology Education

Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Coordinator of Career & Technology Education

State Performance Target: Increase the number of under-represented students completing a non-traditional CTE enrollees program from 16.38% to 27.23%

Root Cause: Student access to CTE Program of Study information.

Strategy: Increase student information regarding availability and value of CTE Completer Programs to make informed course and program selection decisions.

Activity/Action: Develop marketing materials and recruitment procedures.


Develop Program of Study pamphlet

Distribute pamphlets

Secondary counselors and special education chair persons

Teachers of completer programs

Facilitate a Career Awareness Event during Fair Day Weekend.

Posters, brochures and display tables with hands-on activities hosted by CTE staff

available for the entire fair weekend.

The programs of study will be organized by the 10 career clusters.

Participate in Tech Prep Events - collaborate with the College of Southern Maryland

Perspective graduates meet with employers from their fields of study, apply for

financial aid, meet division chairpersons and tour the campus.

Underclassmen, 8-11 graders, interested in tech prep programs receive program

information, opportunities to interact with employers and professionals in a variety of

disciplines, and talk with faculty representatives

.

CTE Coordinator, CTE instructors,

Print ED Program at North Point High

School

Interactive Media Production at


CTE Coordinator, Guidance

Supervisor, Spec Ed Director

CTE Coordinator and CTE Instructors

CTE Coordinator, CTE instructors and

CSM Tech Prep Staff

August – September 2011

January 2012

August – September 2011

Ongoing from October 2011 to

May 2012


Articulation Meeting - CTE teachers/administrators and CSM Faculty/administrators

meet to update articulations agreements, discuss changes or revisions, and explore

opportunities for new tech prep agreements


Data providing evidence of quarterly progress: Compliance with implementation timeline and increased student interest in CTE Completer Programs

Quarter 1

Development of pamphlets

Career Awareness Event

Quarter 2

Distribution of marketing materials

Tech Prep Events

Quarter 3


Tech Prep Events

Quarter 4


Tech Prep Events


1. Increased enrollment of non-traditional students in CTE Completer Programs.

-



Action Plan # 3

Career Technology Education

Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Coordinator of Career Technology Education

State Performance Target: Ensure access to CTE programs and success for every student in CTE Programs of Study, including students who are members of special

populations

Root Cause: Students require assistance with enrollment into CTE Completer Programs as well as supports and services necessary for success.

Strategy: Provide direct enrollment supports to students who are members of special populations.

Activity/Action: Provide direct CRD enrollment and work-based learning supports to students who are members of special populations.


Identify students with post-secondary employment goals through IEP audits and

conduct orientation meetings with eligible students

Facilitate enrollments of eligible 10th

grade students into the CRD program

Administer interest and aptitude inventories and match eligible 11th

grade students

with work-based learning opportunities

Support 12th

grade students and employers during work-based learning

Job Placement Specialist

Job Placement Specialist

September 2010

March 2012

Ongoing to June 2012

Quarterly Data Analysis (Formative)q

Data providing evidence of quarterly progress: Compliance with implementation timeline and student success in CRD program.

Quarter 1

Compliance with implementation

timeline: Identify and meet with 10th

grade students

Quarter 2

Compliance with timeline: Administer

inventories and identify work-based

learning opportunities for 11th

grade

students

Quarter 3

Compliance with timeline: Administer

inventories and identify work-based

learning opportunities for 11th

grade

students

Quarter 4

Compliance with implementation

timeline: Student success at all grade

levels. 12th

grade students exiting with

jobs.


1. Students successfully enrolled in CRD I

2. Students successfully enrolled in CRD II

3. 12th

grade students are successfully employed


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.

Charles County Public Schools continues to participate with St. Mary’s County and Calvert County

in the tri-county training of the Maryland Model for School Readiness/Work Sampling System

(MMSR/WSS). The constant data collection of skills, knowledge and behaviors demonstrated by the 3

year old, prekindergarten and kindergarten children continue to be a system priority. This ensures a

quality early childhood program that meets the needs of all students. As indicated in the 2010-2011

Maryland Model for School Readiness report, the Charles County Public Schools composite score

showed a six point gain with an increase of 10 points in Scientific Thinking. This 10 point gain is

attributed to the additional science resources purchased for the early childhood classrooms, hands-on

exploratory science lessons incorporated into the weekly schedule and professional development

provided to the early childhood educators. Language and Literacy increased by four points, but

continues to be an area of need. Oral language and vocabulary development, as well as phonological

awareness, will be a focal point for professional development this school year.

The Hanen “Teacher Talk” program (a modified version of Learning Language and Loving It) will

be offered in August for early childhood educators. This program promotes the social, language and

literacy development of the children in our early childhood settings. Fostering teacher behaviors

through this staff development encourages children’s use of language and it impacts how students

respond to familiar adults and their peers. Building student confidence and enhancing communication

skills will impact student responses in all content areas. This, in turn, will assist children in being able

to use language for a variety of purposes, such as asking and answering questions, sharing ideas and

information, and hypothesizing. A team comprised of the Content Specialist for Elementary Reading,

Instructional Specialist for Elementary Math, Elementary Gifted Resource Teacher and the Content

Specialist for Early Childhood Education was formed to address the needs of our early childhood

programs. This team met with the Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) in each of the 21 elementary

schools to review and make suggestions for program improvement where necessary. In addition, the

team continues to set goals and outcomes for curriculum development and revision for all CCPS early

childhood programs.

Early childhood educators began training in LETRS for Early Childhood Educators in an effort to

build capacity. Trainer of Trainers (TOT) provided professional development to teachers of the 3 Year

Old, Prekindergarten and Kindergarten programs. Trainers assigned to each elementary school are to

review and provided additional support on skills and strategies presented in the professional

development. Additional training will be provided during the 2011-2012 school year.


Charles County Public Schools early childhood science curricula, as well as the Houghton Mifflin

reading program, have been aligned with the Maryland State Department of Education’s (MSDE) State

Curriculum. When integrated into daily lessons, student achievement in these areas is improved.

Recommended time allotments were drafted to incorporate a science block to be included in the 3 year

old and prekindergarten early childhood classroom schedules. Science instruction occurs a minimum of

two times a week to provide developmentally appropriate, hands–on experimental lessons in addition to

the science that is integrated across the curriculum. Supplemental science materials were purchased for

the classrooms.

CCPS implemented Math Connects from Macmillan McGraw-Hill in the full-day prekindergarten

program in 2009-2010 and in our half-day prekindergarten program during the 2010-2011 school year,

ensuring a consistent delivery of math instruction system wide. This program aligns with the State

Curriculum (SC) and offers opportunities for prekindergarten students to investigate concepts, build

conceptual understanding, learn, review and practice basic skills and applies mathematics to problem

solving situations. Additional literature books that support the core program will be purchased.

Houghton Mifflin Pre-k Reading Comprehensive Program has been used in our full day

prekindergarten programs since 2005 and will be implemented in our half-day programs this school year

to ensure that all prekindergarten students benefit from the same rigorous instructional program. This

program provides a flexible instruction plan that allows children to learn and explore at different levels.

Establishing routines and social emotional development are key entities. Independent explorations in

the curriculum’s center activities are scaffold. In addition each daily lesson includes oral language and

vocabulary development, phonological awareness, shared reading, shared writing and activities to

differentiate the daily instruction. CCPS will also implement Handwriting Without Tears in

prekindergarten and kindergarten. This program meets the criteria listed in research as being

developmentally appropriate for young children.

Teachers of the 3 Year Old program will develop curriculum to address the need for daily oral

language and vocabulary development. In addition, prescriptive phonological awareness lessons will be

developed.

Highly qualified, early childhood teachers and full-time literacy instructional assistants deliver

instruction in all kindergarten classrooms. The focus in the morning is literacy with an integration of

science and social studies. Leveled readers are used to support the Houghton Mifflin core reading

program. Investigations in Data, Number and Space, is the math core program implemented system

wide in kindergarten. Math instruction takes place in the morning with calendar activities and in the

afternoon incorporating whole and small group instruction along with centers.

K Fundations is used as an intervention for kindergarten students identified with deficits in phonemic

awareness. Kindergarten teachers and all elementary Reading Resource Teachers trained in Fundations

participate in a coaching program.


Resource Allocations 2011-2012:


Hanen Teacher Talk

Materials of Instruction

(MOI)

Houghton Mifflin Pre-k

Handwriting Without Tears

Math Connects Literacy

Books

$14,500 consultant and

stipends

$30,540.12

$78,354.95

$10,874.15

MMSR grant

Local funds

Local funds

Local funds

2. What are the school system’s plan to work with other early childhood partners/programs

(i.e., Preschool Special Education; Head Start; Child Care Programs) to ensure that children are

entering school ready to learn?

Thirteen of the CCPS prekindergarten classrooms include a special education component. There

are four staff members in these prekindergarten inclusion classrooms. Children with Individual

Education Plans (IEPs) are being taught in a totally inclusive program. Two 3 year old inclusion

classrooms were implemented during the 2010-2011 school year. This program implementation allows

3 year old special education students to be included with their typically developing 3 year old peers.

Charles County Public Schools and Head Start have established a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) in an effort to work collaboratively to serve underprivileged children in the

community. Head Start Programs are offered at four CCPS sites: Eva Turner, C. Paul Barnhart

Elementary Schools, F.B. Gwynn Center and the Lifelong Learning Center, which are all facilities of

CCPS. In addition, the early childhood staff of CCPS and Head Start will participate in joint staff

development where applicable. Head Start staffs, students, parents, guardians and younger siblings are

invited to participate in workshops and have access to resources and rich experiences offered by the

CCPS Judy Centers.

The Charles County Public Schools Judy Centers continue to work with area child care programs

to achieve accreditation. The staffs from the child care programs are included in trainings sponsored by

the Judy Center. The child care programs are offered support with completing a self appraisal and

constructing a program improvement plan. The Judy Center also gives assistance by purchasing

materials of instruction for those programs seeking accreditation. Good Shepard Education Center and

the St. Charles Children’s Learning Center have entered into partnership with the Judy Center in an

effort to acquire accreditation through the Maryland State Department of Education.

B. Based on the examination of the 2009-2010 Public Kindergarten Enrollment Data (Table 8:3)

1. Please verify the accuracy of the Public Prekindergarten enrollment data for school year

2010-2011.

During the 2010-2011 school year Charles County Public Schools had 858 students enrolled in

prekindergarten as indicated on the official enrollment report from the Department of Student Services.


Six of the twenty-one CCPS elementary schools offered a full-day program that serviced 222 students.

Two half-day programs were offered at the remaining seventeen elementary schools where the

additional 636 students attended.

2. Describe the policies and practices put in place to ensure the enrollment of all eligible

children into the Public Prekindergarten Programs described in COMAR 13A.6.02.

Students are selected for prekindergarten based on the criteria and guidelines set by the Maryland

State Department of Education and Charles County Public Schools. After determining that the child has

met the age requirement for school attendance, student placement in the program is based on need.

CCPS has developed guidelines that place children in one of three categories.

Category 1

Economically disadvantaged children

Homeless (Documented by CCPS Student Services)

Category 2

Prior participation in a state or federally funded program: Head Start, Even Start

English Language Learners (ELL)

Speech IEP (Individual Education Plan), or Child Find Referral Form

Eligible Special Family Circumstances

Category 3

Children who are not eligible for Categories 1 or 2, and if vacancies exist. (To be

determined by the school)

Children in Category 1 and 2 are placed first in the prekindergarten programs. Category 3 children are

placed if space is still available after placement of Category 1 and 2 children. Two spaces are held in

each class until the third week in September for students who may register after school begins and have

been identified as Category 1. These criteria can be found on the CCPS website and are posted at every

elementary school.



Action Plan

___________________Early Childhood Education_____#1_____________

(Category) Title of Person Responsible for Implementation:


75 % of students in all subgroups will reach proficiency or advanced on the 2011-2012 Maryland Model for School Readiness /WSS .


Root Cause: Lack of utilization the MMSR exemplars and regular anecdotal data collection.

Strategy:

.Early childhood educators will take anecdotal notes daily and utilize the exemplars when reporting data on the MMSR.

Activity/Action:

Teachers will be train in the Maryland Model for Readiness/Work Sampling System.


Present MMSR results to the teachers and instructional assistants in the 3 Year Old

Program and Prekindergarten and Kindergarten programs.

Provide training for all Year 1 and Year 2 early childhood teachers.

Provide training for previously trained teachers who desire additional training.

After school training session on using the MMSR Online reporting system

and running reports for data analysis.

After school training session on using the exemplars to report data.

Content Specialist ECE

MSDE Trainers


August 24, 2011

Sept 2011–Jan 2012

Oct –Nov 2011


.

Adjust instruction based on data analysis.


Early Childhood Teachers

January 2011-June 2012



Quarter 1

Analyze data being reported to MSDE

Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4


Results from MSDE identifying percentage of students showing readiness upon entering kindergarten.

Number of 3 year-old, prekindergarten and kindergarten teachers implementing strategy: 133



Action Plan

__________________Early Childhood Education_____#2______________ Title of Person Responsible for Implementation:


75 % of students in all subgroups will reach proficiency or advanced on the 2011-2012 Maryland Model for School Readiness /WSS.


Root Cause:

Daily oral language and vocabulary development and phonological awareness instruction did not exist in the previous teacher created curriculum.

Strategy:

Half-day prekindergarten teachers will implement the Houghton Mifflin Pre-K Core Program during the 2011-2012 school year.

Activity/Action:

Provide staff development quarterly to build capacity in oral language and vocabulary development and phonological awareness.


Provide an initial training on the Houghton Mifflin Pre-K Core Program.

Provide key information and the implantation plan to the elementary principals.

Provide staff development to front load instruction for quarter 1.

Provide addition staff development 1 day each quarter.

HM Trainer


Elementary Principals


Half-day prekindergarten teachers


HM Trainer


August 24, 2011

September 15, 2011

September 16, 2011



Quarter 1

.

Quarter 2

Analyze MMSR data being reported

for prekindergarten.

Quarter 3

Quarter 4

Analyze MMSR data being reported

for prekindergarten.


Results from MMSR data in the area of Language and Literacy will show growth.

Number of prekindergarten teachers implementing strategies: 45



Action Plan

__________________Early Childhood Education_____#3______________ Title of Person Responsible for Implementation:Specialist of Early Childhood Education


75% of students in all subgroups will reach proficiency or advanced on the 2011-2012 Maryland Model for School Readiness/WSS .

(County AMO) (tested subject

Root Cause:

Students require stronger language skills so they can communicate effectively and succeed in all areas of academic learning.

Strategy: Provide training in the Hanen Teacher Talk program.

Activity/Action:

Train teachers and assistants in the 3 year-old and prekindergarten programs.


Meet with CCPS Hanen Trainers

Determine availability of trainers to conduct fall and spring trainings

Set goals and expectations

Train educators of the 3 year-old and prekindergarten programs

Conduct a 8 week training which will include a weekly class and home

assignment

Debriefing with CCPS Hanen Trainers

Evaluate the trainings

Analyze the goals and expectations that were set and determine if they need

to be changed before conducting the next training


CCPS Hanen Trainers

CCPS Hanen Trainers

CCPS Hanen Trainers


Sept 2011

Oct 2011-April 2012

Dec 2011/May 2012



Quarter 1

Meet with trainers

Quarter 2

Meet with trainers

Review class and home assignments

Quarter 3

Meet with trainers

Review class and home assignments

Quarter 4

Teacher Talk

implemented in all trained 3 year old,

prekindergarten programs


Results from MMSR data shows growth in all areas.

Number of early childhood classrooms implementing strategy: 33 classrooms


Gifted and Talented Programs

1. List the goals, objectives, and strategies for the Gifted and Talented Program student

identification and services along with the progress made in 2010-2011 toward meeting those goals,

objectives, and strategies. Include supporting data as needed to document progress.

Charles County Public Schools is committed to providing a quality gifted education program for our

students. Last year the following progress was made toward meeting our goals.

Goal #1: To provide fair and equitable gifted identification procedures.

Objective: Use National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) Gifted Programming Standards to

guide identification procedures

In the spring of 2008, we initiated a gifted identification process for students in grades 2 through 7. This

process includes a broad-based screening using the Cognitive Abilities Test administered to all second

and fifth graders, and parent and teacher referrals. In the spring, a school-based screening committee

conducts in-depth assessments of student needs. Multiple criteria are considered including abilities

tests, achievement data, classroom performance, teacher observation, and parent input.

During SY 2010-2011, we reviewed our identification process and gathered information on national best

practices in gifted identification through books, webinars, attendance at the NAGC annual conference

and the study of the NAGC Pre-K through Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards released in

November 2010. As a result, we revised the data sheet used by the school-based identification

screening committees, moving from a matrix format to a profile format. This form was presented to

principals and school staffs and piloted during the spring, 2011 screening. Initial feedback was that it

promoted deeper discussion about the needs of individual students and led to more specific

recommendations about services.

The chart below indicates the number of students identified for gifted services in reading and math at the

elementary and middle school levels.

Number of Students Identified for Gifted Services

2010 – 2011 2011-2012

Grade Reading Math Reading Math

3rd

197 214 173 180

4th

216 202 203 206

5th

250 264 255 225

6th

337 287 350 304

7th

387 242 387 277

8th

319 208 425 249

An increase in the number of students identified for gifted services in reading in sixth grade was a result

of expanding our services to include cluster grouping of students of potential who are not yet achieving

at high levels of accomplishment.


Objective: To identify and nurture an increased number of economically disadvantaged students

Four years ago there were very few economically disadvantaged students identified for gifted services,

and we began to address the discrepancy. One of our objectives for 2010-2011 was to identify and

nurture more economically disadvantaged students. The table below shows slight growth.

Grade 2010 Total

Identified

Students

2010 Total

Identified

FARMS

Students

2010 %

FARMS

in

Identified

2011 Total

Identified

Students

2011 Total

Identified

FARMS

Students

2011 %

FARMS

in

identified

3 250 32 12.8% 231 33 14.3%

4 258 35 13.6% 255 36 14.1%

5 318 45 14.1% 308 41 13.3%

6 389 47 12.1% 417 58 13.9%

7 411 41 10.0% 427 55 12.9%

8 394 47 11.9% 447 48 10.7%

In addition, this past year was the first year of a CCPS high school initiative designed to support

students of potential – the Scholars Targeting Academic Rigor with Success (STARS) program. In

Spring 2010, rising ninth graders who demonstrated the potential for performing at high levels of

accomplishment, but who may need additional support were identified at all six high schools. Emphasis

was put on selecting students from underserved populations, including economically disadvantaged,

minority, first-generation college, and/or single parent families.

STARS students were grouped as a cohort for Algebra II and honors levels English, science and

government classes for 9th

grade. Students and parents were introduced to the STARS program through a

county-wide kickoff dinner, a summer course on study skills and Algebra II preparation, and a Back to

School Celebration to meet their teachers and advocates. School level support was provided to help

students achieve success in advanced courses, and additional support will continue as they move into

10th

grade. In addition, a new group of 9th

grade STARS students has been identified for the 2011-2012

school year.

Goal #2: To provide appropriate gifted services which address the academic and social-emotional

needs of our students

Objective: Use NAGC Gifted Programming Standards to guide the development and implementation

of gifted services

During 2010-2011, CCPS continued to provide gifted services in reading and math for students who need

“different services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in order to develop the

student’s potential” (CoMAR, § 8-202). Students in grades 3-5 receive reading instruction from their

classroom teachers with support from the gifted education resource teacher. Students are cluster grouped


with peers of similar academic needs for instruction that includes the use of advanced texts, shared

inquiry discussion, advanced vocabulary development, and novel study.

Students in grades 3-5 who have been identified for gifted services in mathematics are placed in an

accelerated math class. Instruction in this class is delivered by the classroom teacher with support from

the gifted resource teacher. The accelerated math classes include advanced content, logic and critical

thinking activities. Some students require services beyond the accelerated math class and advance

through the accelerated curricula at a more rapid pace. These students complete Pre-Algebra by the end

of 5th

grade. In the 2010-2011 school year, nineteen 5th

graders completed Pre-Algebra.

Students in grades 6 – 8 who have been identified for gifted services are enrolled in advanced classes in

language arts/reading and an accelerated sequence of math courses. In the gifted level language

arts/reading class, students explore a variety of texts using overarching concepts, enduring

understandings and essential questions to guide each unit of study toward the final performance

assessment. The school-based gifted education resource teacher collaborates with the classroom teacher

to promote appropriate levels of rigor through accelerated pacing and advanced content. Instructional

strategies focus on critical reading, frequent discussion, advanced vocabulary, research, writing,

speaking, and grammar.

The accelerated math sequence in middle school includes Pre-Algebra in sixth grade, followed by

Algebra I and Algebra II which earn high school credit. A smaller number of very advanced students

complete Algebra I and II in 6th

and 7th

grades and are transported to a high school for Honors Geometry

in 8th

grade. During the 2010-2011 school year, two 8th

graders received geometry instruction at the

high school.

Addressing the social-emotional needs of gifted students has been a focus for the 2010-2011 school

year. In the fall, gifted staff worked with the elementary and middle school counselors to build

understanding of the unique social and emotional needs of gifted students. In October, gifted staff

joined the Supervisor for Counselors in a presentation for all counselors. Follow up in the schools

promoted the beginning of discussion and collaboration between the school counselor and the gifted

resource teacher.

Goal #3: To build expertise among gifted resource teachers and classroom teachers of advanced

learners

Objective: Use NAGC Gifted Programming Standards to promote professional development

opportunities

Professional development for teachers who work with gifted learners is critical. Over the past three

years we have offered online graduate level course work through Case NEX for our gifted resource

teachers. During the 2011summer, 13 gifted teachers completed a 3 credit internship, resulting in 18

graduate credits of gifted coursework for these teachers, who will now apply for the state certificate as a

Gifted Specialist. Additional professional development was available for the gifted resource teachers

through monthly Role Alike Meetings. This included topics related to pedagogy, content knowledge

and leadership. Attendance at state and national conferences was also supported.


Professional development opportunities for classroom teachers included Shared Inquiry training by the

Great Books Foundation and in-service day training sessions related to gifted curricula. Middle school

math and language arts teachers also attended a presentation by national consultant Kristina Doubet on

differentiating instruction and promoting rigor to meet the needs of all learners.

Goal: To increase the number of students scoring at advanced level on MSA reading and math

Objective: Provide differentiated learning experiences for students of potential to accelerate their

achievement

Another goal of our system is to increase the number of students scoring advanced on MSA. Gifted

resource teachers at each elementary and middle school plan with classroom teachers and work with

flexible student groups to accelerate student achievement. While MSA results show a slight decrease

from 2010 in reading, overall growth since in 2009 is evident.

2009 2010 2011 Change

2010 to 2011

Change

2009 to 2011

Reading

Grade 3 18.4 17.2 16.5 - 0.7 - 1.9

Grade 4 20.8 26.6 25.5 - 1.1 + 4.7

Grade 5 45.4 48.5 52.4 + 3.9 + 7.0

Grade 6 35.8 42.3 37.8 - 4.5 + 2.0

Grade 7 37.6 43.7 37.8 - 5.9 + 0.2

Grade 8 33.7 43.0 41.4 - 1.6 + 7.7

Mathematics

Grade 3 22.5 30.3 30.4 + 0.1 + 7.9

Grade 4 42.4 43.1 47.9 + 4.8 + 5.5

Grade 5 18.9 19.9 15.0 - 4.9 - 3.9

Grade 6 28.6 26.5 32.3 + 5.8 + 3.7

Grade 7 19.7 21.7 26.0 + 4.3 + 6.3

Grade 8 27.6 32.1 39.3 + 7.2 + 11.7

2. Identify the strategies, including resource allocations, that appear related to the 2010-2011

progress.

Our progress in 2010-2011 included full implementation of our identification procedures with a revised

data sheet used by the school-based identification screening committees. Moving from a matrix format

to a profile format enabled the teams to better explore individual needs of our students.

Gifted services at the elementary level continued through cluster grouping for instruction and the use of

enhanced curricula for reading and math. In 2011-2012, we continued to increase the level of rigor in

our reading program through the addition of Caesar’s English, Touch Pebbles and advanced novels.

The elementary gifted reading curricula were revised to include these resources.


The gifted level language arts/reading class at the middle school utilizes a curriculum based on complex

concepts, enduring understandings, and essential questions of the discipline and is grounded in the

philosophy of the Parallel Curriculum Model. Units of study differentiate instruction for advanced

learners and integrate Pre-AP strategies, shared inquiry discussion, Socratic seminars, and the analysis

of stylistic devices. In 2010-2011, teachers participated in quarterly curricula planning meetings to

review student work and discuss instructional implications. Learning stations were also created to

enhance units by providing student choice and opportunities for independent investigations. In addition,

we began to develop pre and post assessments and to utilize student portfolios to measure academic

growth.

Our summer opportunities were school based during 2011 to provide schools with the opportunity to

tailor programs to match specific needs of school populations. Enrichment opportunities, STARS

programs and Pre AP activities were included at various sites.

Professional development for teachers working with gifted learners was successful in many ways last

year. Various gifted resource teachers attended state and national conferences, including the NAGC

Annual Conference, Maryland State Gifted Conference and the UVA Fall Symposium on

Differentiation. These teachers then shared valuable information with colleagues at county-wide and

school-based meetings. NAGC webinars were also purchased for specific areas of interest. In addition,

the gifted resource teachers who concluded their graduate coursework with the Models and Strategies

for Teaching the Gifted class and a gifted internship had the opportunity to examine our program in

depth by using the new NAGC Programming Standards to analyze the six components and make

recommendations for change. Many also observed gifted programs at other levels or in neighboring

districts. Individual projects resulted in the draft of a county handbook for gifted programs, exploration

of acceleration procedures, and the creation of tools to better communicate with parents.

Opportunities for professional development were also offered to classroom teachers through Basic

Leader Workshops for Shared Inquiry Discussion taught through the Great Books Foundation. In

addition, Dr. Kristina Doubet, a consultant from James Madison University, addressed middle school

math and language arts teachers on the non-negotiables of differentiation.

In 2010-2011, data analysis was an important strategy to help the gifted staff identify specific needs and

appropriate interventions for gifted learners who show the potential for performing at high levels of

accomplishment, but may not yet demonstrate their abilities. At monthly gifted staff meetings, the

gifted resource teachers monitored student achievement and reviewed disaggregated data by school and

grade to evaluate identification procedures and to promote interventions to accelerate performance for

diverse learners.

The new high school initiative, Scholars Targeting Academic Rigor with Success (STARS), promoted

advanced curricula and college readiness for students of potential through a summer study skills

program, a school-based advocate, cohort placement for core subjects, SpringBoard English curriculum,

promotion of note-taking and goal setting strategies, and on-going support and scaffolding to ensure

student success.

Resource allocations to meet our goals in 2010-2011 included funding for identification (Cognitive

Abilities Test materials and scoring), professional development opportunities, materials to reflect


curriculum revisions and program growth, and costs associated with the STARS program (stipends,

materials, field trips, tutors, county events.)

Funding Allocations 2010-2011


Cognitive Abilities Test

Grades 2 & 5 – Scoring

Test Materials

Shared Inquiry Discussion

Basic Level Training

9/30-10/1 & 11/8-9

State Gifted Conference

NAGC Conference

WOW NAGC Webinars

Case Nex online graduate

courses in gifted education

STARS initiatives

Instructional materials for

program growth

$28,338.55

$14,032.52

$25,430.

$ 1,360.

$25,500

$499

$26,500.

$33,781

$48,724.62

Local funds

ARRA funds

ARRA funds

ARRA funds

Local funds

Local funds

Local funds

Local funds

3. Describe where challenges are evident in meeting the Gifted and Talented Program goals,

objectives, and strategies.

During the last few years, we have found that a disproportionate number of economically disadvantaged

students are identified for gifted services. Our efforts to address this challenge through professional

development this past year brought an increase in the number of disadvantaged students in many

schools, but further work is needed.

While the gifted staff brought attention to this issue through presentations on recognizing potential in

diverse student populations, many teachers, counselors, and administrators still lack knowledge of the

unique needs of gifted learners. Gifted identification committee meetings begin with a discussion of the

characteristics of diverse gifted learners and the importance of recognizing students who are “showing


potential for performing” at high levels of accomplishment but who may not show up on traditional

measures. However, some committee members are still reluctant to include non-traditional learners in

some gifted services. Alternative methods for recognizing potential are needed.

A continuing challenge for our system is developing and maintaining expertise in gifted education

among our classroom teachers. Teacher turnover and reassignments are common, and there is no

required coursework in gifted education. New teachers often lack content knowledge and pedagogy

essential to meeting the needs of diverse gifted learners. General education teachers may not pursue

professional development opportunities related to gifted education.

Another challenge that became more evident this past year relates to whole grade and subject

acceleration. Issues arose in recognizing the need for appropriate acceleration, using consistent and

meaningful data, and following consistent procedures to address the needs of exceptionally advanced

students. Clear system-wide guidelines are needed.

4. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made, along with the corresponding resource


In 2011-2012, we will continue to review our identification procedures to ensure that we are including

underserved student populations, especially economically disadvantaged. Updates to our data

warehouse will allow us to view and sort additional data on students of potential. We will continue to

seek professional development related to the identification and nurturing of students of poverty through

workshops, conferences, and/or consultants. Alternate methods to recognize potential will be explored.

Professional development opportunities will be expanded for classroom teachers in 2011-2012. Evening

professional development sessions using the NAGC WOW Webinar Archives will be introduced. A

CPD credited course on The Gifted Learner will be offered, and the MSDE online version of this course

will be promoted. Quarterly curriculum planning meetings will provide language arts/reading teachers

with opportunities to develop a deeper understanding of the expectations in our gifted curricula and to

promote a consistent interpretation of “excellence” among schools. In addition, professional

development modules will be shared with gifted resource teachers at monthly meetings so that they can

provide training at their schools.

Exceptionally gifted students often require differentiation beyond the existing services. We

will review current practices and research best practices to develop new guidelines for subject and grade

acceleration. We will also increase systematic efforts to monitor these students over time.

We will continue to seek additional opportunities to challenge diverse learners and meet the needs of all

gifted populations.


Funding Allocations 2011-2012


Cognitive Abilities Test

Grades 2 & 5


Basic Shared Inquiry

Training

Evening Staff

Development

MD State Gifted

Conference

WOW NAGC Webinars

$30,000 - scoring

$15,000 - materials

$10,250

$6,600

$1,800

$500

Local funds

Local funds

Title II A

Title II A

Local funds



Action Plan # 1

Gifted Education

Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Content Specialist for Gifted Education

Target: To provide fair and equitable gifted identification procedures

Root Cause: Gifted identification procedures should be monitored in order to evaluate their effectiveness.

Strategy: Use NAGC Gifted Programming Standards to evaluate and revise identification procedures


Continue to review and evaluate current identification process used at elementary and

middle school levels

Review gap analysis of NAGC standards and CCPS identification

procedures (conducted through Case Nex course ending July, 2011)

Share results with stakeholders

Evaluate and adjust current identification practices as needed

Determine final profile sheet for screening

Review and develop guidelines for procedures for accelerations

Grade acceleration

Subject acceleration

Pre Algebra in 5th

grade

Honors Geometry in 8th

grade

Review disaggregated data for identified students over three years to access

effectiveness for diverse populations

Content Specialist for Gifted Education

Acceleration Committee


September, 2011 – January,

2012

September, 2011 – January,

2012

September, 2011 – October,

2011



Quarter 1

Disaggregated data and assessment

data on identified gifted students for

2010-2011 and 2011-2012

Quarter 2

Assessment data

Committee recommendations

Quarter 3

Assessment data

Quarter 4

Assessment data


Disaggregated data on identified gifted students for 2012-2013



Action Plan # 2

Gifted Education


Target: Identify and nurture an increased number of economically disadvantaged students.

Root Cause: Using traditional criteria for gifted identification has resulted in our number of economically disadvantaged students not reflecting our county

demographics.

Strategy: Explore alternate methods for assessing student potential and providing opportunities to nurture potential.


Seek professional development on recognizing potential in economically

disadvantaged students through webinars, workshops, conferences, and/or consultants

Promote opportunities to nurture potential in economically disadvantaged students,

especially at early grades

Promote use of student portfolios

Use as identification tool for nontraditional learners

Use as identification and monitoring tool for underachievers

Provide professional development on use of portfolios

Include student portfolios in spring identification meetings

Examine student work at Gifted Role Alike Meetings

Provide support for economically disadvantaged 9th

graders through Scholars

Targeting Academic Rigor with Success (STARS) initiative. Assist schools to

Provide support for students in advanced courses with study skills, teacher

advocate, mentors, tutors, course selection

Promote college and career planning

Provide county-wide opportunities for summer classes, college visits, test

preparation, field trips, parent workshops


& Gifted Staff


& Gifted Staff

Central and School-based Gifted Staff


September 2011 – January 2012



September 2011 – June 2012



Quarter 1

Disaggregated data reports

Review of student work

Grades & assessment data for STARS

students

Quarter 2

Portfolio reviews


students

Quarter 3

Portfolio reviews


students

Quarter 4

Data from spring gifted screening

committee meetings


students


Increased number of economically gifted students receiving gifted services.



Action Plan #3

Gifted Education


Target: Provide appropriate gifted services which address the academic and social-emotional needs of gifted students

Root Cause: Services must be continuously reviewed for comprehensiveness in order to meet the diverse needs of gifted learners

Strategy: Collect and examine formative and summative data to determine program strengths and challenges.


Review and evaluate current services in reading and math for gifted students in

grades 3 – 8

Review academic services and identify measures of effectiveness

Identify strengths and challenges of gifted services

Provide professional development to support teachers as needed

Review quarterly and MSA data for identified students to monitor progress

Examine student work on selected activities from identified students across the

county to ensure consistent expectations and levels of rigor

Monitor progress of gifted students in various groupings for 9th

and 10th

grade English

to determine continued level of challenge for identified students

Continue initiative with counseling department to provide school-based lessons and

programs that address social and emotional needs of gifted students


& Gifted Staff


& Gifted Staff


& Gifted Staff


& Content Specialist for English


& Supervising Counselor

September – October, 2011







Quarter 1

Assessment data on identified gifted

students for 2011-2012

Teacher feedback

Quarter 2

Observations from student work

Quarterly assessment data

Quarter 3



Quarter 4




Student growth as demonstrated through grades, assessment data, anecdotal information and individual work products



Action Plan # 4

Gifted Education


Target: Build expertise among gifted resource teachers and classroom teachers of advanced students

Root Cause: Teacher turnover, reassignments, and lack of foundational coursework in gifted education contribute to a lack of expertise in the unique needs of gifted

students among teachers.

Strategy: Provide professional development opportunities to increase content knowledge and pedagogy that is essential in order to meet the needs of diverse gifted

learners.


Provide a series of Evening Staff Development opportunities using the NAGC WOW

Webinar Archives from 2010-2011

Offer a series of 1-cpd credit classes and promote the MSDE 3 credit online course on

The Gifted Learner

Provide Basic Leader Training in Shared Inquiry Discussion for new and/or

untrained classroom teachers

Support gifted staff attendance at Maryland State Gifted Conference and NAGC

Annual Conference

Provide professional development at monthly Role Alike meetings for gifted staff

Use modules from An Introduction to Gifted Education by Neumeister and

Burnery in a training of trainers model to take modules back to schools


& Central Gifted Staff

Central Gifted Staff



& Gifted Staff


September, 2011 – May, 2012


October, 2011

October – November, 2010

September 2011 – March 2012



Quarter 1

Agendas from Gifted Role Alike

meetings

Attendance at Evening Staff

Development sessions

Attendance at Maryland State

Gifted Conference and NAGC

Quarter 2

Successful completion of online

CPD courses


meetings



Quarter 3


CPD courses


Meetings



Quarter 4


CPD courses


Meetings


Satisfactory implementation of gifted identification and services as demonstrated through end-of-the-year program evaluation and principal evaluation of teachers.



Action Plan # 5

Gifted Education

Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Content Specialist in Gifted Education

Target: Increase the number of students scoring at advanced level on MSA reading and math.

Root Cause: Opportunities for students to engage in higher order thinking are often limited.

Strategy: Promote teacher awareness and implementation of rigorous instruction to accelerate all students.


Offer professional development in best practices of differentiated instruction for

classroom teachers through various courses, evening opportunities and webinars

Provide basic level training in Shared Inquiry Discussion for classroom teachers

working with advanced readers and promote use of the Great Books materials

Promote use of critical reading strategies and materials, including Jacob’s Ladder,

Paul’s Reasoning Wheel, Spring Board curricula

Promote analysis of data at school and system levels with the purpose of maintaining

and increasing advanced scores

Promote review of student work to ensure consistent interpretation of advanced level

quality

Collaborate with classroom teachers to promote best practices including shared

inquiry discussion, use of advanced texts, flexible grouping, critical reading and

accelerated math content



Elementary and Secondary Gifted

Resource Teachers



Resource Teachers


Resource Teachers


October, 2011







Quarter 1

Results of quarterly assessments

for reading & math

Review of student work at central and

school meetings

Teacher attendance at staff

development opportunities

Quarter 2


for reading & math

Review of student work at central and

school meetings



Quarter 3

Review of student work central and

school meetings



Quarter 4


for reading & math

Review of student work




Results showing increase in advanced performance on Maryland School Assessments in 2012


Special Education

Access to the General Education Curriculum and Strategies Used to Close the Achievement Gap:

1. How are students accessing general education so they are involved and progressing in the

general curriculum at elementary, middle and high school levels and across various content

areas?

2. When the local school system has an achievement gap between special education and general

education, what specific strategies are in place that address this gap?

Students with disabilities at the Elementary, Middle and High School levels have access to the general

education curricula through Individual Education Plans which are created using grade level content

standard goals and objectives. Access to content specific curricula is accomplished by both inclusive

and small group opportunities. Accommodations and modifications are implemented within the general

classroom setting to ensure students with disabilities are progressing in the general education curricula.

Student data are analyzed via school-based Instructional Leadership Teams to track the performance of

students with disabilities on local quarterly assessments and to determine what instructional adjustments

need to occur in order to accelerate student progress. Specific research-based reading and math

interventions are available to all students including students with disabilities during the school day

through increased instructional time and extended learning opportunities. Interventions are

diagnostically selected in order to maximize student outcomes in reading and math. Progress monitoring

of student performance, using curriculum-based measurement and teacher created assessments for these

specific interventions allows teachers to evaluate student responsiveness and adjust the application of

these interventions to individualize instruction for students with and without disabilities.

Elementary School

Access to the general education curricula is maximized at the elementary level through various avenues

including the use of differentiated instruction, implementation of interventions in a tiered model in

reading and math, common planning time for special education teachers and general education teachers

and the implementation of co-teaching in the general education classroom. As a result, there has been

continuous progress in AYP for students with disabilities over the last 8 years, with a reduction in the

achievement gap of 15.1% in reading and 10.9% in Math, as depicted in the graphs below. However, the

performance disparity between special education students and their non-disabled peers continues to be

an area of concern.


23.0

31.2

43.0 46.2

49.8

58.9 60.7 62.0 62.1 64.7

74.9

80.8 80.7 81.8 86.7 86.7 88.0 88.8

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Perc

en

t P

rofi

cie

nt

an

d A

dv

an

ced

CCPS MSA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL READING RESULTS BY SPECIAL EDUCATION

Special Ed

41.8

26.7


To address this issue and continue maximizing access to the general education curricula in the area of

reading, the Houghton Mifflin program, a scientifically research-based core reading program, has been

implemented from kindergarten through 5th

grade for all students. In addition to the full implementation

of the Houghton Mifflin Reading Program, appropriate interventions to address reading deficits have

been selected for students in need of more intensive reading instruction. These interventions include

The Recipe for Reading, Fundations, Six Minute Solution, Soar to Success, and The Wilson Reading

System. All programs are approved for implementation by a Reading Staff, which is comprised of

central office personnel from within the Division of Instruction, including the Department of Special

Education.

In the area of Math, the same process and procedures are in place including the implementation of the

Investigations Series in from kindergarten through fourth grade and the Scott Foresman Math series in

grade five. These core math programs are available for all students. Specific deficits are identified

using progress monitoring data and are addressed through the implementation of interventions such as

Moving with Math by Topic, Number Worlds, FASTT Math, Extended Learning Opportunities, small

group instruction and one-on-one tutoring.

Instructional strategies to support student access to the general education curriculum for both math and

reading include reciprocal teaching, re-teaching of important concepts and ideas, and active listening of

grade level content. Additionally, reading passages with less complex vocabulary, assessments with

fewer answer choices, and tiered instruction to meet students at their instructional level are provided to

assist students with disabilities in accessing and progressing in the general education curriculum.

22.4

32.5

38.6

46.8 46.8 49.6 51.3

59.8 55.1

65.0

73.3 77.2

80.5 80.5 83.2 84.4

87.3 86.8

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Perc

en

t P

rofi

cie

nt

an

d A

dv

an

ced

CCPS MSA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MATH RESULTS BY SPECIAL EDUCATION

Special Ed

42.6

31.7


Middle School

Access to the general education curricula is also maximized at the middle school level through various

avenues including the use of differentiated instruction, implementation of interventions in a tiered model

in both reading and math, common planning time for special education teachers and general education

teachers and the implementation of co-teaching in the general education classroom. As a result of these

initiatives, students with disabilities at the middle school level have also shown continuous improvement

narrowing the achievement gap by 24.4% in reading and 4.9% in math as depicted in the graphs that

follow. However, the disparity between the performance of students with disabilities as compared to

their non-disabled peers in reading and in math remains a significant challenge.

10.9

19.4

27.7 26.4 28.6

36.2

42.8 4.7

54.9

65.5

71.4 73.5 73.8 75.2

82.6 83.4 86.2 85.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Perc

en

t P

rofi

cie

nt

an

d A

dv

an

ced

CCPS MSA MIDDLE SCHOOL READING RESULTS BY SPECIAL EDUCATION

Special Ed

54.6

30.2


To address this disparity, students at the middle school level have access to interventions which address

both reading and mathematics. These interventions have been approved through the Reading and Math

Staffs and include the Wilson Reading System, the Six Minute Solution, the Language! program, and

Moving with Math by Topic. Interventions are available to students during the school day and through

extended day learning opportunities. Additionally, CCPS has implemented Algebraic Thinking at all

middle schools to support and enhance math instruction. Implementation of accommodations and

modifications including less complex reading passages, assessments with fewer distractions, reciprocal

teaching and instruction that is tiered to meet instructional levels of students when in the general

education setting is also monitored to ensure students with disabilities have access to grade level content

standards.

High School

At the high school level, the percentage of students with disabilities who have met the High School

Assessment requirements has improved slightly. However, the disparity between students with

disabilities and their non-disabled peers has remained virtually unchanged. To address this issue in the

area of Algebra, CCPS is continuing an inclusive model which includes the implementation of the

Cognitive Tutor. This computer-based program allows students to work on concepts and skills required

for mastery of content through error analysis and immediate remediation. Progress monitoring of student

performance in the Cognitive Tutor intervention allows teachers to evaluate and adjust instruction for

students with and without disabilities Additional content specific support is offered for students with and

without disabilities through participation in content intervention classes for students who pass the class

and fail the High School Assessment.

2.2 8.1

15.2

20.9 18.5

22.2

35.0 38.3

49.5

39.3

51.6 56.3

64.1 67.4

71.0 71.7 76.7

81.7

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Perc

en

t P

rofi

cie

nt

an

d A

dv

an

ced

CCPS MSA MIDDLE SCHOOL MATH RESULTS BY SPECIAL EDUCATION

Special Ed

37.1

32.2


In the area of English, CCPS has identified the lack of reading proficiency and lack of best instructional

practices as two of the root causes for this decline in performance of special education students. To

address reading, CCPS has implemented a tiered model of intervention, which includes the Wilson

Reading Program and the Language! program. Additionally, the Edge Reading Program has also been

implemented in the supplemental reading classes at the high school level. Progress monitoring of student

performance in these specific interventions allows teachers to evaluate and adjust the application of the

interventions to individualize instruction for students with and without disabilities. To address the lack

of best practices, staff development is being provided for special and general education teachers in the

areas of co-teaching, active listening, reciprocal teaching, differentiated instruction ,and lesson planning

using the assessment limits. Classroom visitation check-list, individualized coaching, and examination

of quarterly data assist in monitoring of best practices. Additional content specific support is offered for

students with and without disabilities through participation in content intervention classes for students

who pass the class and fail the High School Assessment.

Access to the Government and Biology curricula is also affected by the lack of reading proficiency for

students with disabilities and the need for staff development in best practices for special and general

education teachers. Reading interventions provide support in content courses to facilitate comprehension

of grade level text. Additionally, remediation classes are offered for content classes to support students

who pass the class and fail the test. Teachers utilized reciprocal teaching, re-teaching of important

information, and differentiation of instruction to provide support for students who are struggling with

the content. The continued use of Curriculum Based Measurement through vocabulary probes, allows

teachers to closely monitor the progress of students in these remediation classes. Extended learning

opportunities are also offered for students with and without disabilities beyond the school day.

Examples of these opportunities are tutoring and Saturday school, with the desired outcome of increased

access to and progress in the general education curricula.

In addition to specific interventions and teaching strategies that have been implemented across all

content areas and grade levels, the Department of Special Education has closely scrutinized staff and

2010 GRADE 12 HSA STATUS

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

2009 SPED % 2009 NON SPED % 2010 SPED % 2010 NON SPED %

Perc

en

t

Pass 4 comb Bridge


utilization of special education resources in order to allocate staffing to meet the needs of individual

schools. Staffing decisions are made based upon data from student enrollment and achievement data

from each school, and staff is allocated based upon that information. This process allows CCPS to

maximize special education resources and to carefully examine the use of those resources at the school

level.

Collaboration with General Educators 1. How is the local school system ensuring collaboration between general and special education

staff, including such opportunities as joint curricular planning, provision of instructional and

testing accommodations, supplementary aids and supports, and modifications to the curriculum?

An important goal of the Division of Instruction is collaboration and team building among all

departments. In an effort to accomplish this goal, every department is included in all aspects of planning

and implementing quality instruction for all students. This collaborative philosophy is communicated to

individual schools through all special education initiatives. Representatives from special education are

members of the Reading and Math Staffs. These staffs review, discuss and recommend appropriate

interventions for students who struggle in reading and/or math. Additionally, special education

representatives attend the Elementary Instructional Team meeting, the Middle School Instruction Team

meeting and the High School Instructional Team meeting. Special Education Resource personnel also

participate in the weekly Instructional Leadership Team meetings for reading and math to provide

special education input and support for individuals on this team. General education and special

education collaborate in the decisions and planning for discretionary grant applications to ensure that

intervention initiatives are comprehensive to all targeted populations. Staff development plans are

collaborative and approved through the Department of Program Support to ensure that all trainings are

tied to the CCPS Master Plan goals and objectives

Collaboration is also a priority at the school level. All special education case managers must meet with

all teachers across all grade levels and content areas who work with students with disabilities at the

beginning of the school year. The purpose of these meetings is to give the general education teacher

copies of student IEPs and to review the accommodations, goals and objectives and supplementary aids

and services required for each special education student. If there are specific concerns voiced during

these meetings, Central Office personnel from the Department of Special Education are available to

meet with grade level and content area teachers to address issues and provide support where needed.

Special education case managers attend grade level and/or content department meetings at the

elementary, middle and high school levels to maintain the collaboration between general education and

special education teachers throughout the school year. During these meetings, special education

teachers work with general educators to plan instruction so that accommodations and supplementary

aids and services are implemented on a consistent basis. They also review assessment data to monitor

the progress of students with disabilities in the general education curriculum. Special Education

Instructional Specialists plan with targeted site-based ILTs and grade level teams using CCPS student

achievement data, AMO chart data, progress monitoring data, and any other site based data sources to

determine individual student needs. These planning meetings are a collaborative, focused discussion on

student achievement.


Professional Development and Qualified Staff

1. How is the local school system ensuring the participation of special education teachers and

leadership in content-related professional development to promote student achievement?

The Department of Instructional Programs and the Department of Special Education collaborate on

professional development activities scheduled through out the year. When there is system wide content

training, all special education teachers, with the exception of those teachers who teach Functional Life

Skills are directed to attend content professional development sessions.

CCPS continues utilizing a Response to Intervention model, which necessitates the implementation of

interventions and strategies for struggling students in the general education classroom. Continued

professional development opportunities that include both general and special education teachers consists

of information on the identification of root causes and in the selection of appropriate interventions to

address the identified root cause.




17,942 Grant: Comprehensive System of

Personnel Development


Special Education

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009

The Charles County Public Schools Special Education program has allocated the American Recovery

and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 in 5 basics areas to enhance Special Education programs and to

address access, closing the achievement gap, collaboration with general educators, and professional

development. The following areas are where the ARRA funding has been allocated. The total grant

award totals $5,535,180.00 to be spent over a two year period.

Professional Development: Professional development has been designed for school staff that has

students with special needs to receive training on assistive technology equipment. Further training will

be offered in the implementation of strategies that will improve teaching methods in co-teaching,

diagnostics Reading Interventions, Testing Accommodations and Algebraic Thinking. These

opportunities will be held all school year. The ARRA Funds allotted for this area is $480,600.00

Instructional Technology and Instructional Programs: Additional ARRA funding has been invested

in the purchase of assistive instructional technology tools and software upgrades for the Data Warehouse

for the entire county. Assistive technology improves the ability of students with disabilities to access the

general education curriculum and also aids in the reduction of the achievement gap between individuals

with disabilities and their non-disabled peers. Data warehouse enhancements will enable teachers to

closely monitor the performance of students with disabilities as compared to their typical peer and to

document the interventions that have been used with special education students through their school

careers to reduce the achievement gap. Additionally, the implementation of a Year-Round Autism

program began in the 2009-2010 school year. This program focuses on the development of social and

instructional skills for the growing population of students with Autism, which in turn will assist in

reducing the achievement gap by enhancing the engagement of students in daily instruction. The ARRA

Funds allotted for these materials of instruction is $519,482.00.

Salaries and Wages: The ARRA funding for special education is supplementing instruction of

students with disabilities by providing additional staff in the several areas. Special Education has hired

additional special education instructional assistants, special education resource teachers, a technology

analyst, school psychologist and data manager. All of these resources will enhance the collaboration

between general and special educators, as well as address the achievement gap by providing more

instructional support for students with disabilities in the general education setting. The ARRA Funds

allotted for this area is $1,954,220.00.

Contracted Services: The ARRA funding for expenses needed for Speech Therapists, Compliance

Consultants, building improvements to the F. B. Gwynn Center as well as equipment repair totals

$1,911,400.00

Fixed Costs on Salaries & Wages: These costs are related to benefits such as Health, Life, Retirement,

Fica, and Indirect Costs for hired staff. This amounts to $431,286.00.


Local Goals and Indicators

The Local Goals and Indicators of Charles County Public Schools focus predominately upon two

measurable areas: (1) SAT performance, and (2) Advanced Placement enrollment, percentage of

enrolled students sitting for an AP exam, and AP exam performance.

Charles County Public Schools’ local goals for 2011-2012 continue to include attaining average SAT

scores that will exceed the state average by five points in the next three to five years. Second, the

percentage of students enrolled in Advanced Placement courses and the number taking AP exams will

continue to rise. In addition, the county will experience an increase in the average AP exam score

among test takers.

Although the number of seniors who took the SAT in SY 2010-2011 increased by 92 students, the

average score decreased from 1486 in 2009-2012 to 1455 this past year. Additionally, the average score

for each subtest also fell, with critical reading decreasing 8 points, mathematics decreasing 9 points and

writing decreasing 14 points. Charles County’s average score of 1455 is below both the state and

national averages.

2011

Critical

Reading

2011

Mathematics

2011

Writing

2011

Total

County 494 488 473 1455

State 499 502 491 1492

Nation 497 514 489 1500

A variety of SAT preparation programs were utilized in attempting to meet the SAT local goal. During

the 2010-11 school year, CCPS provided access for all high school students to Study Island, which

includes SAT preparation components. Students could access the program from home as well as from

school. In addition, targeted juniors and seniors were given additional test preparation using the Kaplan

Live Online SAT course.

The school system also provided mock SAT testing for juniors and seniors, and some schools held

monthly test-strategy workshops led by English and math consultants the week before students took the

test. Some schools also incorporated SAT preparation into their after school extended learning

opportunities. In addition, four high schools offered a semester SAT prep

course during the year.

Resource allocations for SAT in 2010-11 included $40,000 for online test preparation through Study

Island and Kaplan Live Online SAT and $5,000 to support monthly SAT workshops and after school test

preparation opportunities.

A challenge to our SAT goal has been the number of students who choose to take the SAT only one

time. About fifty percent of the 830 senior test-takers took the SAT only one time in their school

careers.


To address our challenges, Charles County Public Schools created a monthly plan for school

improvement in SAT which includes central office support. Schools have been asked to provide their

plans for first time test takers, repeat test takers, and the use of available data to guide instruction. In

addition, the Director of Instructional Assessments will monitor the use of our online test preparation

programs.

Online SAT preparation through Kaplan Live Online SAT and Study Island and College Board web

based resources like Skills Insight will be available for student use in school, after school and/or from

home.

Throughout the year, schools are encouraged to conduct workshops for students the week prior to their

SAT test date. Mock SAT testing is available for juniors. Additional school-based support includes a

semester SAT Prep class, which is available at four of our high schools, and after school SAT

preparation for students who earn a 350 to 450 on one or more subtests to provide practice and

instruction in the low test area.

In addition, Charles County Public Schools continues to invest in a PSAT Early Participation Agreement

with the College Board, which includes the administration of the PSAT to all 10th

graders at no cost to

students. Data from this test is used to analyze student strengths and weaknesses and to provide

direction for student preparation for the SAT in grades 11 and 12.

Resource allocations for 2011-2012 include $40,000 for Study Island and Kaplan Live Online SAT,

$5,000 for school-based extended day opportunities, and $23,000 for the PSAT Early Participation

Agreement.

Charles County Public Schools made progress in only two of the three areas related to local goals for

Advanced Placement in 2010-2011. While the AP enrollment increased by 169 students and the number

of exams increased by 162, the current mean test score remained constant at 2.13.

AP Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity 2008-09 2009-2010 2010-2011

American Indian 16 27 36

Asian 197 250 230

African American 1030 1290 1309

White 2127 1998 1958

Hispanic 90 141 185

Multi Race 156

Native Hawaiian 1

Total Enrollment 3460 3706 3875

AP Tests Administered 3054 3276 3438

Percent of Enrolled AP Students Tested 88.3% 88.4% 89%


Last year, centrally driven initiatives to increase AP enrollment and raise the number of students taking

AP exams led to improvements in the identification and recruiting of students into AP courses. Our

partnership with the College Board allows for the administration of the PSAT to all 10th

grade Charles

County Public Schools students at no cost to the individuals. The comprehensive administration of the

PSAT encourages the equitable use of AP Potential to identify students who could achieve success in an

AP course, leading to progress in the number and the diversity of students enrolled in AP courses. Our

minority representation in AP courses continues to grow.

Charles County Public Schools experienced an increase in the number of AP exams administered last

year, due in part to our practice of paying for all AP exams beyond the first that a student takes. This

practice allows students to choose to take AP exams based upon their academic strengths rather than

upon economic restrictions.

Year

Number Enrolled Number Tested Average Score

2007 3343 2969 2.11

2008 3625 3285 2.09

2009 3460 3054 2.25

2010 3706 3276 2.13

2011 3875 3438 2.13

Charles County Public Schools provides access to AP training workshops of varying length during the

summer and throughout the school year. All teachers new to an AP course attend a College Board

approved summer institute, and teachers are encouraged to hone their AP teaching skills periodically by

attending one-day workshops.

Changes in 2011-2012 to address our challenges in Advanced Placement and improve our AP exam

scores will include initiatives to increase support for the AP teachers and students.

AP teacher turnover continues to be a challenge. During the summer of 2011, twenty-three teachers

were trained to teach an Advanced Placement course at AP Summer Institutes. Many of these teachers

will teach their first AP course this year. CCPS will continue to provide further support to new teachers

through the Potential AP Teacher Program, an initiative started in 2010-2011 to encourage and support

potential and first year AP teachers. Training, mentorship, and opportunities to delve into AP

philosophy, content and course exposure will continue this year.

In addition, opportunities for direct support of AP students will include school-based tutoring and exam

preparation sessions, early introduction of Pre-AP strategies through vertical teaming efforts, and

College Board Spring Board curriculum for all Honors English I and selected Honors English II classes.




Online SAT Preparation

programs – Study Island and

Kaplan Live Online SAT

SAT Extended Day Programs

PSAT Early Participation

Agreement

AP Exams

AP Summer Institute Training

$40,000

$5,000

$23,088

$127,081

$30,716

ARRA funds

ARRA funds

Local funds

ARRA

ARRA & Local funds



Online SAT Preparation

programs – Study Island and

Kaplan Live Online SAT

SAT Extended Day

PSAT Early Participation

Agreement

AP exams

AP Summer Institute Training

AP Mock Exam scoring – teacher

stipends

$18,000

$5,000

$23,088

$130,000

$30,000

$5,000

ARRA funds

Ed Jobs funds

Local funds

Local funds

Local funds

Local funds



Action Plan

AP Language and AP Literature


Target (if applicable)

Increase the % of students scoring 3 or above on the AP Language & AP Literature exams.

Root Cause:

Some of the classes are not rigorous enough to prepare students to pass the AP exam.

Strategy:

Increase teacher awareness and implementation of effective and rigorous instruction.

Activity/Action:

Provide professional development based on instructional strategies for increased rigor.


Provide in-service training for AP teachers

County in-service schedule

Provide professional AP Workshops

National consultants (Renee Shea and Larry Scanlon)

Administer instructional benchmarks and mock exams

Promote data analysis

Score and analyze data from the mock assessments (instructional

implications)

School-based visitations to follow-up on training

Schedule classroom visitations

Content Specialist


AP Teachers

Content Specialist


AP teachers

Content Specialist


AP Teachers

School Testing Coordinator

Content Specialist


AP teachers

Consultants

Content Specialist


In-service dates: August 25,

September 16, and TBD in

February

October 2011 and March 2012

($4,000 per session = $8,000)

Benchmark – November 7-10,

2011

Mock Exams – February 13-17,

2012

Scoring mock exams – February

21,22,23,24 ($14,000 for

stipends; $1,958 for substitutes)

Analysis of mock exam data -

March 8, 2012 ($4,000 for

consultants; $1,958 for

substitutes)

September 2011 – April 2012


Schedule visits to department meetings



Quarter 1

Classroom visitations

Lesson plans

Analysis of assignments

Informal discussions with teachers

Analysis of classroom data from the

national AP exams

Quarter 2


Lesson plans



Analysis of benchmark data

Quarter 3


Lesson plans


Analysis of mock exam data


Quarter 4


Lesson plans

Student grades

Exam scores


Informal discussion with teachers


Evidence of rigor in the classes and an increase of students scoring 3 or above on the AP exams for Language and Literature



Action Plan

AP Language and AP Literature



Increase the % of students scoring 3 or above on the AP Language and AP Literature exams.

Root Cause:

Classroom instructional time and personnel are not being maximized to accelerate student learning so that students are prepared for AP courses.

Strategy:

Continue vertical teaming to maximize classroom instructional time in grades 9 – 12.

Activity/Action:

Continue providing time for staff development in vertical teaming.


Provide in-service training for English teachers

County in-service

Provide school-based staff development in vertical teaming

After-School sessions


Update school-based plan to expand vertical teaming

Content Specialist


Department Chairs and other school-

based instructional leaders

Content Specialist


Department Chairs and other school-

based instructional leaders

Same as above

September 16, 2011 and TBD in

February


October 2011



Quarter 1


Lesson plans

Informal discussions

Staff participation in professional

development

Number of students signing up for AP

Quarter 2


Lesson plans



development


Quarter 3


Lesson pans



development


Quarter 4


Lesson plans



development




Evidence of skills and concepts being vertically aligned in grades 9-12

Evidence of rigor in assignments

Evidence of rigor when visiting classes

An increase of students prepared for AP courses

An increase of students earning a 3 or above on the AP exams



Action Plan AP Language and AP Literature



Increase the % of students scoring 3 or above on the AP Language and AP Literature exams.

Root Cause:

Due to the lack of rigor in English I, II, and III Honors courses, students do not have the concept knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in AP courses.

Strategy:

Implement a rigorous course of study in Honors courses.

Activity/Action:

Utilize the College Board’s SpringBoard curriculum in all English I Honors and selected English II Honors courses.


Order licenses and materials for the expansion of the SpringBoard curriculum

Provide training for teachers and instructional leaders

Provide time for teacher collaboration

Content Specialist


SpringBoard trainer

Content Specialist


Content Specialist


June 2011 ( $40,000)

August 9, 10, 11 ( stipends =

$10,800; trainer = $3,500)

August 25, 2011, September 16,

2011, and TBD in February



Quarter 1


Lesson plans



Quarter 2


Lesson plans



Quarter 3


Lesson plans



Quarter 4


Lesson plans




Evidence of pre-AP concepts and skills being taught in classes


An increase of students prepared for AP courses

An increase of students earning 3 or above on the AP exams



Action Plan

AP Social Studies

Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Content Specialist for Social Studies


Increase the % of students scoring 3 or above on the AP Economics, Government, U.S. History, and World History exams.

Root Cause: Students and teachers require increased instructional time and access to formative test data for assisting with instructional needs.

Strategy: Submit a proposal for changing AP Economics and Government courses from semester to full year courses.

Increase or maintain the utilization of formative exams and the use of exam data to guide instructional emphasis and decision making.

Activity/Action: Develop proposal for the full-year courses and implement if proposal is approved.

Develop formative exams and provide professional development to teachers on the use of data for instruction.


Provide teacher access to 2011 AP exam data

Teacher access to CCPS data warehouse

Distribution of College Board Instructional Planning Reports

Development and administration of formative exams

Revision of quarterly AP U.S. History comprehensive exam

Administration of quarterly exams

Scoring and professional development on use of formative exams

After-school review sessions on first and second quarter exam

Review and scoring session for the third quarter exam

School-based visitations to follow-up on instructional use of exam data

Schedule of classroom visits to observe lessons

Research and Assessment Dept.

Content Specialist

AP U.S. History teachers

All AP teachers

Content Specialist and all AP teachers

Content Specialist

August 25 and September 16 In-

Services

Sept. 16

Oct. 17-20; Jan. 11-13;

March 26-30

Oct. 27; Feb. 8; April 10-13

($5,000 stipends)

November 2010 – April 2011


Data providing evidence of quarterly progress for AP U.S. History courses.(3rd

Quarter for Human Geography, Psychology, and World History)

Quarter 1

Results of quarterly assessment for AP

U.S. History

Quarter 2


U.S. History, Government, and

Economics

Observation of effective use of data

implications for instruction

Quarter 3

Results of quarterly assessment for

U.S. History and World History



Quarter 4



Final results of AP exams after the

May administration.


Student score data on the May 2012 Advanced Placement exam for Economics, Government, United States History and World History


Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Content Specialist for Social Studies


Increase the % of students scoring 3 or above on the AP Economics, Government, U.S. History, and World History exams.

Root Cause: The students require a high level of rigor throughout the school year that focuses exclusively on the content matter for the course.

Strategy: Increase teacher understanding and implementation of effective and rigorous instruction on essential curricular concepts.

Activity/Action: Provide professional development for teachers on instructional strategies to increase rigor and target instruction.


Provide in-service training for teachers

Yearly goal-setting sessions based on 2011 instructional report data

Provide professional development on rigor and focused instruction

Economics

Government

U.S. History

World History

School-based visitations to follow-up on training session


Coordination of school-based preparatory sessions

Schedule sessions for student in essential test prep rigor

Content Specialist

Gifted Resource Teacher

AP teachers/Content Specialist




Content Specialist

AP teachers

August 25 and September 16 In-

Services

September 22, 2011

November 16, 2011

March 13, 2012

April 26, 2012

November 2010 – April 2011

April 2012


Data providing evidence of quarterly progress for AP U.S. History courses. (3rd

Quarter for World History)

Quarter 1


U.S. History

Quarter 2


U.S. History, Government, and

Economics



Quarter 3

Results of quarterly assessment for

U.S. History and World History



Quarter 4

Observation of rigor and essential

curriculum in classroom instruction

Successful implementation of exam

prep sessions


Student score data on the May 2012 Advanced Placement exam for Economics, Government, United States History and World History



Action Plan

AP Statistics /AP Calculus Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Director of Instructional Assessment


Increase the % of students scoring 3 or above on the AP Statistics exam.

Root Cause: Students and teachers require greater access and use of formative tests and data to assist in focusing on instructional needs

Strategy: Progress Monitor of students as the year progresses. Increase the utilization of exam data to guide instructional emphasis and decision making.

Activity/Action: Develop quarterly free response questions and winter Mock exam- scored & analyzed so that we can provide feedback to students to increase student knowledge.

Provide professional development to teachers on the use of data for instruction.


Provide teacher access to 2011 AP exam data

Teacher access to CCPS data warehouse

Distribution of College Board Instructional Planning Reports

Development and administration of formative exam – Feb. Mock

Fine Tune and adjust second quarter AP free response questions – Review Mock data

and address CCPS challenges

Administration of 2nd

and 3rd

quarter selected response and free response questions

Scoring and professional development on use of formative exams

In-school data review sessions on second and third quarter free response questions

Review and scoring session for the third quarter Mock exam

Use of last years Mock results to adjust instruction

Research and Assessment Dept.

Director of Instructional Assessment

AP Statistics & Calculus teachers




August 2011

September In-service

December 2011, February 2012

December 2011 and February 2012



Quarter 1 Quarter 2

Results of free response assessment

for AP courses

Use of data - implications for

instruction

Quarter 3

Results of Mock assessment for AP

courses

Use of data - implications for

instruction

Quarter 4

Results of quarterly free response assessment for

AP courses

Use of data - implications for instruction


Student score data on the May 2012 Advanced Placement exam for AP Statistics and AP Calculus



Action Plan

AP Environmental Science

Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Content Specialist for Science

County Performance Target (if applicable) Increase the % of students scoring 3 or above on the AP Environmental Science Exam

Root Cause: Students require a high level of rigor throughout the school year that focuses exclusively on the concepts covered in the course.

Strategy: Increase teacher understanding and implementation of effective and rigorous instruction.

Activity/Action: Provide staff development and materials of instruction strategies for increased rigor and feedback.


Provide Professional Development to Science Teachers

Writing for understanding

Curriculum-Instruction-Assessment training

Visitation

Meetings with individual teachers

Classroom observation

Continued Implementation of County-wide free-response items

Administer and analyze data from county assessment

In-service regarding instructional use of data

Goal setting and re-teaching plans

Group scoring of county free-response items

Content Specialist for Science, Gifted

Resource Teachers, AP Teachers

Content Specialist for Science

AP Teachers, Content Specialist

AP Teachers

October – December 2011


December 2011 – April 2012

April 2012


Quarter 1



Teacher made assessments

Countywide Free-Response

Assessments

Quarter 2





Assessments

Quarter 3





Assessments

Quarter 4





Assessments

Evidence of Attainment (Summative) Student Scores on the May 2012 Advanced Placement Exam for AP Environmental Science



Action Plan

AP Biology

Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Content Specialist for Science

County Performance Target (if applicable) Increase the % of students scoring 3 or above on the AP Biology Exam (tested subject)

Root Cause: Students require a high level of rigor throughout the school year that focuses exclusively on the concepts covered in the course.

Strategy: Increase teacher understanding and implementation of effective and rigorous instruction.

Activity/Action: Provide staff development and materials of instruction strategies for increased rigor and feedback.


Provide Professional Development to Science Teachers

College Board

Writing for understanding

Curriculum-Instruction-Assessment training

Investigate new AP Biology curriculum for next school year

Visitation

Meetings with individual teachers

Classroom observation

Continued Implementation of County-wide free-response items

Administer and analyze data from county assessment

In-service regarding instructional use of data

Goal setting and re-teaching plans

Group scoring of county free-response items

Content Specialist for Science, Gifted

Resource Teachers, AP Teachers

Content Specialist for Science

AP Teachers, Content Specialist

AP Teachers

October – December 2011


December 2011 – April 2012

March 2012


Quarter 1





Assessments

Quarter 2





Assessments

Quarter 3





Assessments

Quarter 4





Assessments

Evidence of Attainment (Summative) Student Scores on the May 2012 Advanced Placement Exam for AP Biology.



Action Plan

Potential AP Teachers Program

Title of Person Responsible for Implementation:

County Performance Target (if applicable) Increase the % of students scoring 3 or above on all AP exams

Root Cause: A gap in teacher instructional expertise in AP classrooms exists due to a lack of guidance for new AP teachers

Strategy: Create a mentor program to guide potential and new AP teachers through the process of implementing rigorous instruction within their courses

Activity/Action: Provide professional development opportunities for mentors and mentees identified by building principals as instructional leaders or potential

instructional leaders; Offer instructional leadership opportunities to classroom teachers


Provide in-service training for potential AP teachers

Evening Staff Development sessions

Implement an electronic communication system for teacher discussion and support

Offer opportunities to potential AP teachers for professional growth outside of school

buildings

Partnerships with local colleges/universities

Scoring of county Mock AP Exams

Content Specialists

Selected Mentor Teachers

Content Specialists


Content Specialists


October 2011

December 2011

March 2012

May 2012

June 2012

February 2012


Quarter 1

Feedback from October Evening Staff

Development

Quarter 2

Feedback from December Evening

Staff Development

Monitoring of electronic

communications

Quarter 3

Feedback from March Evening Staff

Development


communications

Quarter 4

Feedback from May Evening Staff

Development


communications

End of the year program survey data

analysis


Teacher retention in AP courses increases

Successful observations of rigor in the classrooms and

An increase of students scoring 3 or above on all AP exams



Action Plan

Local Goals and Indicators: SAT Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Director of Instructional Assessments, High School Principals

Target

Average SAT scores for the school system will exceed the state average by five points in the next three to five years.

Root Cause:

Students focus on one subtest when taking the SAT which creates lower overall scores.

Strategy:

Provide support in all subtests for students prior to taking the SAT.

Activity/Action:

Provide online test preparation and school-based workshops for students prior to their testing date.


Promote the continuation of school-based SAT workshops led by English and math

teacher consultants.

Send list of students who register for each administration of the SAT to schools

Schedule Kaplan Live Online SAT sessions for targeted students.

Conduct monthly SAT prep workshops prior to test dates

Director of Instructional Assessments,

Principals


Director of Instructional Assessments

Consultants, Principals

September, 2011 – June, 2012


August, 2011 – October, 2011




Quarter 1

Attendance list for each workshop at

all high schools

Kaplan enrollment

Quarter 2


all high schools

Kaplan enrollment

Quarter 3


all high schools

Kaplan enrollment

Quarter 4


all high schools

Kaplan enrollment

Evidence of Attainment (Summative) SAT scores for students who participate in workshops and online preparation



Action Plan

Local Goals and Indicators: SAT

Title of Person Responsible for Implementation: Director of Instructional Assessments, High School Principals

Target

Average SAT scores for the school system will exceed the state average by five points in the next three to five years.

Root Cause:

Students focus on one subtest when taking the SAT which creates lower overall scores.

Strategy:

Provide support in all subtests for students prior to taking the SAT.

Activity/Action:

Conduct monthly workshops led by English and math consultants for students prior to their SAT test date.


Train English and math consultants for all high schools

Send list of students who register for each administration of the SAT to schools

Set up schedule of SAT workshops and invite students who have registered to take

the SAT

Conduct monthly workshops

Provide Mock SAT and ACT for juniors

Director of Instructional Assessments


Consultants, Principals

Consultants

SAT Test Coordinators

September, 2011

September, 2011



September, 2011

Winter - Spring, 2011/2012



Quarter 1


all high schools

Quarter 2


all high schools

Quarter 3


all high schools

Quarter 4


all high schools

Evidence of Attainment (Summative)SAT scores for students who attend workshop week prior to test date


Section C. Data Systems to Support Instruction

Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems: Charles County Public Schools embraces the state initiative

of a longitudinal data system.

Accessing and Using State Data: Charles County Public Schools embraces the state initiative of

assessing and using state data.

Using Data to Improve Instruction

Use of Local Instructional Improvement Systems: The continual development of a robust Data

Warehouse for Charles County Public Schools is a priority. The current Data Warehouse allows

teachers, administrators and central office staff to view student data based on the Maryland State

Curriculum and Core Learning Goals. The Data Warehouse has the ability to report the status of a

student, a teacher, a school and the county. Student reports are based on the results of formative

assessments that are tied to Maryland State Curriculum or Core Learning Goals. The Data Warehouse

is used as a longitudinal tool that houses historical and current data on students to which all decision-

makers have access. This data includes quarterly county assessments, state assessments, diagnostic

assessments, and national assessments. Teachers have the ability to plan and implement differentiated

lessons based on information from the Data Warehouse

The Charles County Public Schools Data Warehouse allows administrative staff within a school to

view individual student results, as well as teacher results and school results. The Data Warehouse

encourages the teachers, the schools and the county to address challenges of student performance,

allowing all stakeholders to address the achievement gap that exists within different subgroups. Due to

the availability of this data, Instructional Leadership Teams (ILT) can individualize professional

development opportunities for staff members based on students’ needs and assessment scores which

are linked to curriculum. If a specific challenge exists within a course, grade level or teacher’s class,

the Data Warehouse has the ability to report this information so that appropriate staff development can

address it. Central Office staff has the same capability and can also look at a county view of student

data. Based on that data, Central Office staff can plan appropriate county-wide in-services which allow

teachers to improve instruction based on the needs revealed by student data.

Charles County Public Schools recognizes the Data Warehouse has limitations. We believe. in order

to improve instruction for our students, a seamless process to link our data to the resources,

curriculum, and daily instruction is essential. In order to handle the new applications and

improvements described below, a new server will need to be purchased to be able to handle the

expected increase in use and data. This server will be used in conjunction with the servers we now use

to run our Data Warehouse. The Data Warehouse must be linked to additional resources to provide

individual instructional support to students and inform parents. There are four main components that

need to be added to the current Data Warehouse: a student reporting tool, a teacher portal, a student

portal, and a parent portal. In addition, appropriate staff development needs to occur. This past year,

$30,620.00 was utilized to complete a needs assessment and begin to develop the structure of the

portals. The remaining funds allocated for year one have been moved to year four of RTTT.

In year 2, completion of the needs assessment and the construction of the portals will begin and

$111,334.00 has been allocated for contracted services for construction and development of the

teacher, student, and parent portals.


In order for the teachers, including STEM teachers, to address the weaknesses and strengths of the

students, other components of the Data Warehouse need to be added. A reporting tool that can

individually address the strengths and challenges of student achievement based on formative

assessments is necessary. This tool would allow for interventions and/or enrichment activities for

each student. An individual report for each student will be compiled to help individualize student

instruction and differentiate when necessary.

Once the teachers are able to view individual student reports and determine which standards reveal

strengths and challenges, the addition of another useful component of the Data Warehouse is

necessary. A portal for teachers where activities, resources, and test items from the Core Standards are

housed will be used to help facilitate learning for students. Based on the strengths and challenges of

the student, the teacher will be able to access resources for each Core Standard for students. Using

these resources, the teacher can address specific standards for each student and reassess when

necessary to determine mastery of the content. With the new evaluation that measures student growth

at the local level, our county assessments could be used to determine mastery. With this enhancement,

teachers will have a more precise way of tracking student growth.

A student portal, beginning with students entering grade 6, is another component necessary to

improving our current Data Warehouse. In order for students to take ownership of their achievement,

they must help develop their own instructional plan. They need to be able to monitor their own

progress and have access to the online resources as well as their own data. As students begin to take

ownership of their own achievement, they have the ability to lead parent-teacher data conferences.

STEM teachers and students will also have access to Maryland’s rich inventory of STEM resources

and delivery of online programs and services.

In order for this plan to be successful, additional laptops (computers) will need to be purchased so that

more students will be able to participate in online testing and use the student portal. The entire first

year’s allocation of $105,000.00 was spent on laptops and carts. For year 2, an additional $105,000.00

has been allocated for laptops and carts.

Data from these formative assessments will contribute to our Instructional Improvement Plan.

Students will also use the recently purchased laptops (computers) to access scores through the student

portal which will allow them to participate in their own instructional plan. Students will be able to

view their formative assessment results that will include a diagnostic profile indicating strengths and

weaknesses. Using the laptops (computers) and accessing the student portal, this will link their

assessment scores to resources including the toolkit. In addition students will be able to monitor their

Instructional Improvement Plan online with the assistance of the laptops.0

Another important component that needs to be added to the existing Data Warehouse is a portal for

parents. Parents need to view student data and see how their children are mastering Core Standards.

Parents can identify specifically the strengths and challenges of their children which will improve the

communication of student progress between home and school. Increasing parental involvement leads

to higher academic achievement for our students. It is our goal to increase parental involvement

through the use of a portal for parents.

(C)(3)(ii) Professional Development on Use of Data: With the addition of these new components of

the Data Warehouse, we will work with Staff Development to implement appropriate staff training on


how to use and analyze data to drive instruction. Once these additional components to Data

Warehouse are added, a cadre of data experts at each school will be trained to analyze data and to

facilitate training of school staff in the CCPS Instructional Improvement System (currently the Data

Warehouse). It is imperative that teachers are taught skills that will help them utilize their own

students’ data to make appropriate instructional decisions. Additional training will be provided for

new teachers. Teacher leaders/mentors will be assigned to new teachers and will help facilitate new

staff teaching the Common Core Standards and utilizing data to make instructional decisions. Training

will be provided for the student and parent portal.

In year 2, training of key staff members on the Data Warehouse will take place in the winter/spring

with $15,000.00 allocated for substitutes.

Availability and Accessibility of Data to Researchers: Charles County Public Schools welcomes the

state initiative of providing availability and accessibility of data to researchers.


Action Plan: Section C

Goal(s): To use data to improve instruction by:

Enhancing the current data warehouse.

Providing professional development to staff on the enhanced data warehouse. Purchase additional laptops (computers)

Section C: Data

Systems to Support

Instruction

Correlation

to

State Plan

Project.

#


Expense:

Y/N

MOU Requirements:

(Yes)


MOU Requirements

(C)(3)(i-iii)

1. Planning of initial

enhancements-

Provide updates and

hold progress

meetings

(C)(3)(i) 10/1/2011


Assistant

Superintendent of

Instruction

Cliff Eichel,

Director of

Research and

Assessment

Drew Jepsky,

Director of

Instructional

Assessments

BJ Devkota,

Director of

Technology/CIO

Karen Peters,

Coordinator of

Testing

Agenda, Sign-In

Sheets, Meeting

Minutes

Final list of

enhancements

N


Chris Mulhollan,

Specialist in Test

Development

Ramj

Venkatachari

Project Executive

Steve Pummill

Project Manager

2. Develop a reporting

tool that will

individually

summarize and

address the strengths

and challenges of

each student and

develop the three

portals

(C)(3)(i) 2 10/1/2011

9/20/2012 Cliff Eichel,

Director of

Research and

Assessment

Drew Jepsky,

Director of

Instructional

Assessments

BJ Devkota,

Director of

Technology/CIO

Karen Peters,

Coordinator of

Testing

Chris Mulhollan,

Specialist in Test

Development

Ramj

Venkatachari

Project Executive

Steve Pummill

Project Manager

Successful

implementation of

Data Warehouse and

portals

N

3. Train teachers on the

new enhancements to

(C)(3)(ii) 2 12/19/2011 9/30/2012 Cliff Eichel,

Director of

Staff participation will

be documented

N


the Data Warehouse

and further train

identified data

experts in each

school that will assist

all other teachers in

the school to analyze

data

Research and

Assessment

Drew Jepsky,

Director of

Instructional

Assessments

Office of Staff

Development

4. Purchase additional

computers

(C)(3)(iii) 2 10/1/2011

9/30/2012 BJ Devkota,

Director of

Technology/CIO

Students will use

laptops to engage in

their instructional

programs

N



High Quality Pathways: Charles County Schools will support MSDE’s efforts regarding pathways for

teachers and principals.

Improving Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Based on Performance: Charles County Schools

will embrace the State definition of student growth once it is adopted by the State Board of Education.

Student growth gains will comprise 50% of the teacher and principal evaluation frameworks. 30% of the

evaluation will be based on state administered tests. The remaining 20% of student growth will be linked

to local goals set through a joint committee with Charles County Public Schools representatives and the

Education Association of Charles County representatives. These bargaining units will include both

teachers and administrators. It is our goal to mutually agree on measures of student growth linked to our

local goals and priorities.

The elements in this 50% comprise the areas of planning and preparation, classroom environment,

instruction, professional responsibilities, and any additional mutually agreed domains. For principals,

half of the 50% will be based on the eight outcomes in the Maryland Instructional Framework. The

percentage for each of the eight outcomes will have to be worked through the joint committee assigned

to this task. The remaining 25% will be comprised of domains that are based on our local goals and

priorities. In the event that we cannot reach agreement on an evaluation framework with the

teacher/principal work group, the evaluation system will default to the State default model.

Charles County Schools will also work with its bargaining unit to agree on a process for implementing

annual evaluations of teachers and principals that includes timely and constructive feedback, using the

individual teacher’s student growth metric as the underlying basis for the process.

Beginning in the summer of 2011, Charles County Public Schools will participate in the State’s Teacher

Induction Academies by sending our representative who will coordinate the teacher induction program

in the county along with as many mentors as the State will allocate to the county. Charles County Public

Schools has revised our induction program for new teachers based on COMAR 13A.07.01, resulting in

revisions to our mentor program, orientation, and new teacher seminars.

In 2010-2011, CCPS was using mentors who were teachers, current employees and retired teachers to

support our new teachers. In 2011-2012, ten mentors and the Teacher Induction Coordinator attended

the Teacher Induction Academy and will also participate in follow up online training sessions provided

by the New Teacher Center. This year, Charles County will employ sixteen Instructional Mentors for

new teachers. These individuals are regarded as Outstanding on our current evaluation system and

highly regarded by their principals and peers. They will serve as full-time mentors to approximately 330

non-tenured teachers. Once the new evaluation system is in place, we will hire mentors who are rated

Highly Effective. Mentor positions are funded with general funds, Race to the Top funds, and Title IIA

funds.

In addition, the Office of Staff Development provides monthly training for mentors focusing on subject

matter content, effective instructional strategies, and appropriate mentoring techniques. Successful

fulfillment is measured by utilizing the novice teacher’s evaluation results (including student growth),

administrative input, documentation of support provided, and a survey completed by the novice teacher.


The administration from the novice teacher’s school and personnel from the Central Office will use this

information from the evaluation to provide professional development both in the seminar and through

their individual mentors. We are in compliance with all the requirements of COMAR 13A.07.01.

Once the new evaluation system is in place, Charles County Public Schools will use a similar mentor

approach to support any teacher who is rated ineffective for two years in a row, and who has been placed

on a second-class certificate. We currently have a mentor program for principals and will participate in

the principal mentor-certificating program proposed by MSDE in the Race to the Top application.

It is Charles County Public Schools’ intent to begin development with our bargaining unit’s new

compensation models that would differentiate salary for effective and highly effective teachers and

principals. The school system’s leadership will study the Performance Compensation Workgroup

recommendations. This compensation model may also involve differentiated pay for those teachers and

administrators who agree to be placed in our lowest-achieving schools. Another area of special

incentives will include the recruitment and retention of STEM, special education, and ESOL teachers to

these schools.

Finally, teacher and principal evaluations will be used to make tenure decisions as well as to guide

placement, individual professional development plans, promotion, and removal decisions. This will be

incorporated after staff who are rated ineffective have had sufficient support and time to improve.

Ensuring Equitable Distribution of Effective Teachers and Principals: Once the evaluation system

is in effect, Charles County Public Schools plans to use the evaluation system to make decisions about

where to assign principals and teachers. When Charles County Public Schools designates our low

performing schools, only satisfactory or better teachers and principals will be allowed to transfer to these

schools. Exceptions will be made for teachers who show exceptional promise in their field of study.

Low performing schools will be identified as those not meeting AYP for two (2) consecutive years.

To facilitate equitable STEM instruction and opportunity, current elementary science teacher positions

will be changed to elementary STEM resource teacher positions. To provide high quality instructional

support in reading, math, and gifted education, current instructional leadership team positions will be

changed to instructional coaches for reading, math, and gifted education.

Improving the Effectiveness of Teacher and Principal Preparation Programs: Charles County

Public Schools will support MSDE’s efforts at improving teacher and principal preparation programs. In

addition, improvements in technology management tools will help to provide effective support for

teachers. Technologies now exist that can provide teachers with an online catalog of professional

development opportunities and track registration and completion of credits toward recertification. There

are also resources available for online training, observation and mentoring. Careful research must be

done to find effective technologies. Information from prescreening of three sample professional

development software vendors was used to estimate a pricing structure that requires initial purchase and

setup costs and then continues with an annual maintenance or subscription fee.

Providing Effective Support to Teachers and Principals: Charles County Public Schools will participate

in the Educator Instructional Improvement Academies and the Induction Program Academies. In

addition, CCPS STEM teaching staff and content supervisors will fully collaborate in the development,


implementation, and the evaluation of the elementary, middle, and high school Educator Instructional

Improvement Academies. CCPS will also assign central office personnel to work on a weekly basis

with all schools who attend the Educator Instructional Improvement Academy. This personnel will help

the schools to implement the collaborative planning process. The newest principals will be sent to the

Maryland Principal’s Academy and will participate in the Aspiring Leaders Academy sponsored by

MSDE. Additionally, our executive staff will participate in the regional professional development

opportunities through the Executive Officers Network.

The Office of School Administration and Operations continues to focus on accountable school

leadership and provides support to principals. The Deputy Superintendent of Schools evaluates all

principals in Charles County Public Schools, which includes a review of each principal’s goals and

objectives, a formal mid-year school visit and conference to evaluate the status of annual goals and

objectives, and a year-end conference to review performance. Principals’ professional development

activities include attendance at professional conferences, both locally and nationally, and are part of the

evaluation process.

Assistants in the Office of School Administration and Operations serve as the administrators assigned by

the Deputy Superintendent of Schools to provide guidance and support to all principals in the areas of

overall school management, fiscal responsibility, staff/personnel matters, parental concerns, facility, and

transportation issues. New principals are also provided mentors (highly effective principals of high

performing schools) during the first year of their principalship. This office also provides training and

support for all principals at monthly meetings, and all new school administrators at separate monthly

meetings. Topics at these meetings cover instructional topics, student services, safety and security, fiscal

responsibilities, school law, and other current MSDE and LEA initiatives.

The Office of School Administration holds an annual leadership institute prior to the opening of school

each year. This three day comprehensive conference features a keynote address by the Superintendent

of Schools reviewing the school system’s accomplishments and achievements from the past year and

setting the direction for the new year and the future. Additionally, all assistant superintendents are asked

to provide a summary of the previous year’s accomplishments and future direction for each of their

divisions. These presentations are followed by seminars addressing new LEA instructional initiatives,

education law, school management, fiscal management, personnel, facilities management, management

tools using current technology and equipment, and other pertinent topics related to “Accountable School

Leadership,” which is the overall theme of the institute. For both the monthly meetings and the

annual institute, we invite our highly effective principals to share their expertise and knowledge gained

from conference attendance and share strategies and skills used in practice as exceptional school leaders.

The use of technology continues to be expanded and enhanced for principals, teachers, students and

parents. Over the last two years, the school system began using Edline, a secure Internet-based resource

that allows teachers to share course materials with students and parents, and parents can check their

child’s grades and attendance. Parents can connect to Edline through each individual school’s website.

Student reports are private; only parents or guardians who have obtained an access code can see their

child’s information. We continue to use the LEA Data Warehouse to retrieve and disaggregate student

performance data and teachers’ instructional effectiveness.


Finally, Charles County Public Schools will participate in MSDE's evaluation of professional

development as part of its Race to the Top application.


Action Plan: Section D

Year 2 Goal(s):

Implement an pilot evaluation system that complies with the State Framework

Implement a mentoring system that complies with regulations of the Comprehensive Teacher Induction Program


Year 2

Section D:

Great Teachers and Leaders

Correlation

to

State Plan

Project

#

Start

Date

End Date Key Personnel Performance Measure Recurring

Expense

Y/N


Activities to Implement MOU

Requirements

(D)(2)(i –

iv)

(D)(3)(i - ii)

(D)(4)(i - ii)

(D)(5)(i - ii)

1. Continue to use the State

Framework and implement a

teacher and principal pilot

evaluation system.

(D)(2) 12/2011 06/2012 Keith Hettel,

Assistant

Superintendent of

Human Resources

EACC (bargaining

unit)

Teacher and principal

evaluations align to the State

Framework

(Note that Charles County Public

Schools is a pilot system and has

begun pilot evaluation planning)

N

2. Begin to train selected

principals and vice principals

on the use of the new teacher

pilot evaluation and explain

the new principal evaluation

procedures to principals

(D)(2) 7/2011 9/2012 Ronald

Cunningham,

Deputy

Superintendent

Keith Hettel,

Assistant

Superintendent

of Human Resources

Principals demonstrating the use

of the evaluation tool effectively

as observed by Human

Resources and the Office of

School Administration

N


3. Begin implementing the teacher

and principal pilot evaluations

(D)(2) 12/2011 6/2012 James Richmond,

Superintendent

Ronald

Cunningham,

Deputy

Superintendent

Keith Hettel,

Assistant

Superintendent of

Human Resources

Ronald

Cunningham,

Deputy

Superintendent

(principal evaluation)

Review of completed principal’s

evaluations of teachers for

proper implementation

Review Deputy Superintendent’s

evaluations of principals for

proper implementation

N

N

4. Continue to develop and use

procedures to assign principals

and teachers who have been

rated Satisfactory/Effective or

Highly Effective in our low

performing schools

(D)(3) 10/2011

9/2012

Ronald

Cunningham,

Deputy

Superintendent

Keith Hettel,

Assistant

Superintendent of

Human Resources

Data on teacher evaluation

ratings compared across all

schools in LEA

N


5. Research available technology

and compare multiple vendors

to select tools to manage

online advertising and

registration of quality

professional development and

mentor observations and

feedback.

(D)(4) 11/2011 9/2012 Dawn Schaffer

Staff Development

Coordinator Sean

McDonald

Human Resource

Specialist

Jevonna Willis

Teacher Mentor

Coordinator

Compare specifications and

pricing for at least 3 online

Professional Development and

observation tools

Y

Start-up costs

then annual

maintenance/

subscription

fee

Additional Required Activities:

1. Continue to implement

the induction program for

new teachers

(D)(5) 11/2011

09/2012

Judy Estep, Assistant

Superintendent of

Instruction

Division of

Instruction Staff

Keith Hettel,

Assistant

Superintendent of

Human Resources

Division of Human

Resources Staff

Overview for the induction

program

Collect and analyze written

feedback from new teachers

regarding the effectiveness of the

training

Analyze new teacher evaluation

ratings

Review new teacher retention

data

N

3. Provide monthly training for

mentors

(D)(5) 3 10/2011 9/2012 Judy Estep,

Assistant

Superintendent of

Instruction

Jevonna Willis,

Instructional

Specialist for Staff

Development

Collect written feedback from

mentors regarding the

effectiveness of the training

Observe mentors working with

and providing feedback to

teachers to determine

effectiveness in enhancing

teachers’ performance

N


Year 3 Goals:

Implement an evaluation system that complies with the State Framework

Continue to implement a mentoring system that complies with regulations of the Comprehensive Teacher Induction Program

Continue to provide effective professional development for teachers and principals

Year 4 Goals:

Continue to implement an evaluation system that complies with the State Framework

Sustain the mentoring system that complies with regulations of the Comprehensive Teacher Induction Program


Provide an incentive for highly effective staff to work in a low-achieving school

4. Assign mentors to work with

the new teachers and teachers

on a second-class certificate

(D)(5) 3 7/2011 9/2012 Judy Estep,

Assistant

Superintendent of

Instruction

Division of

Instruction Staff

Keith Hettel,

Assistant

Superintendent of

Human Resources

Division of Human

Resources Staff

Observe mentors working with

and providing feedback to

teachers to determine

effectiveness in enhancing

teachers’ performance

Collect evaluation data on

teachers with 2nd

class

certificates.

Y

Current

partial

funding

5. Continue to participate in

MSDE’s Educator

Effectiveness Academies and

Induction Academies for

teachers, Priority Schools and

Maryland Principals’

Academies for appropriate

principals, Aspiring Leaders’

Academy, and Executive

Officer professional


(D)(5) 3 6/2012 9/2012 Ronald

Cunningham,

Deputy

Superintendent

Judy Estep,

Assistant

Superintendent of

Instruction

Appropriate designated staff will

attend all MSDE sessions

Y

Current

funding

Optional Activity:


I.D.vi

Highly Qualified Staff

Charles County Public Schools has achieved all the base criteria. Thus, please find a response to the

prompt:

Identify the priority areas that will move the district to achieving 100% of critical area shortages

taught by highly qualified teachers, particularly in hard to staff schools and critical area

shortages, as well as establish an equal distribution of highly qualified teachers in high level low

poverty schools.

Charles County does not have any issues related to high/low poverty schools. There are no issues in

staffing any of our schools. Applicants are available and accept positions in any of our schools.

Priority areas to achieving 100% of highly qualified teachers teaching core academic classes continue

to be the same. Charles County Public Schools has been successful because of the previously

established priorities set in this area. Outlined below are the areas that continue to be prioritized and

show success with 100% of teachers teaching core academic classes.

Charles County Public Schools has constantly improved the percentage of highly qualified teachers

employed by the school system since 2003. Currently 5,707 classes out of a total class count of 6,123

are being taught by highly qualified teachers. This is 93.2% of all classes. This 6.2% increase since

2008-2009 is due to the following:

Improved teacher recruitment

Teacher retention

Certificate management

School level tracking by principals

The major priority areas continue to be:

Recruiting and hiring highly qualified teachers

School level tracking by principals

Replacing conditional certificate holders with highly qualified teachers

Monitoring of certification issues

Retention of highly qualified staff


Recruiting and hiring highly qualified teachers:

For 2011-2012, Charles County Public Schools has identified the future needs of staff in critical

shortage areas. This has led the Human Resources Division to pinpoint universities that will be

graduating teachers in these areas. This includes looking at university majors in these areas and in areas

of the country that have more graduates than positions available. These areas continue to be New York,

Michigan, and Ohio. The division was successful in filling critical shortage areas with highly qualified

teachers. The one area that still continues to be problematic is secondary special education. Hiring of

highly qualified teachers occurs before conditional teachers are hired.

School level tracking by principals:

School level interventions by principals have been successful in boosting our highly qualified

percentage. Principals continue to place teachers in classes specifically by their highly qualified status.

This includes elementary and secondary levels. Principals have also partnered with Human Resources

Certification to check highly qualified status. Principals are also a conduit of information to teachers

from Human Resources Certification. They support certification efforts to convey the requirements

needed to keep highly qualified certification status along with obtaining additional endorsements or

coursework needed. Principals cannot be left out of the loop in this area between Human Resources and

the teachers. The result is an increase in teachers teaching in their highly qualified subject area and also

achieving/keeping the proper certification for highly qualified status.

Replacing conditional certificate holders with highly qualified teachers:

Human Resources have continued to replace conditional teachers with highly qualified teachers. In

spring of 2011, all teachers not meeting highly qualified status in relation to a valid certificate in his/her

area of teaching were identified. Forty-six teachers were notified of their status and informed they

would not be employed by Charles County Public Schools as of July 1, 2011 if all coursework was not

completed for a valid certificate. Five teachers could not complete the requirements for a certificate and

were non-renewed. The remaining teachers completed certification requirements for highly qualified

status and were offered contracts for the 2011-2012 school year. This strategy will continue to be

implemented on a yearly basis.

Monitoring of certification issues:

Monitoring of certification issues with staff continues on a daily basis. Monitoring and informing staff

of requirements for continuing proper certification of highly qualified status is done through email,

telephone conversations, direct mailing, conferences with the Human Resources staff, and principal

tracking. This has improved highly qualified status by keeping the employee informed and monitored

on a regular basis to complete the necessary requirements.

Retention of highly qualified staff:

Retention of highly qualified staff is important in the quality of training for these staff members. This

year the retention of teachers was 92.6%. Retention strategies include helping staff own a residence. A

House Keys for Employees program has enabled 52 employees to purchase homes in Charles County.

Teachers continue to receive support through Human Resources’ staff. Teachers feel they have a direct

support system through Human Resources.


Highly Qualified Teachers

Charles County Public Schools has constantly improved the percentage of highly qualified teachers

employed by the school system since 2003. Currently, 5,707 classes out of a total class count of 6,123

are being taught by highly qualified teachers. This is 93.2% of all classes and a 1% increase from the

prior school year. This has been accomplished by a continuing effort to improve teacher recruitment,

teacher retention, certificate management and school level interventions by principals.

Initiatives such as continued support in tuition reimbursement with a pre-payment component and

successful negotiated contracts with the teachers association have been on-going. Current economic

conditions have affected teacher cost of living adjustment and step for the 2011-2012 school year; no

COLA was granted, but 1 step was awarded. Teachers continue to be one 1 step behind.

No furloughs or teacher layoffs were incurred for the 2011-12 school year. Twenty-five positions were

eliminated as they became vacant.

The House Keys for employees program has been successful by helping 52 employees purchase homes

in Charles County. This program assists employees with down payment support. This is an additional

23 employees over last year who purchased homes.

Charles County Public Schools does not have any “high poverty” schools. Title I schools are staffed

with 100% highly qualified teachers and instructional assistants.


Table 6.1: Percentage of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers

Table 6.2: Percentage of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers in Title I Schools

School Year

% of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by

Highly Qualified Teachers

% of Core Academic Subject

Classes Not Taught by Highly

Qualified Teachers

Total Number of Core Academic

Subject Classes in Title I Schools

Core Academic Subject Classes in Title I Schools


% of Core Academic Subject Classes in Title I Schools

taught by HQT

2003-2004 51.00 49.00 2008-2009

103 103 100%

2004-2005 60.00 40.00

2005-2006 73.00 27.00 2009-2010

508 508 100%

2006-2007 82.00 18.00

2007-2008 91.00 9.00 2010- 2011

483 483 100%

2008-2009 87.00 13.00

2009-2010 92.2 7.8

2010-2011 93.2 6.8

Table 6.3: Number of Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified (NHQ) Teachers by Reason

School Year

Expired Certificate Invalid Grade Level(s) for Certification

Testing Requirement Not

Met

Invalid Subject for Certification

Missing Certification Information

Conditional Certificate

Total

# % # % # % # % # % # % NHQ

Classes All

Classes

2005-2006 31 5.00 12 2.00 226 35.00 51 8.00 51 8.00 276 42.00 647 2,385

2006-2007 19 4.00 13 3.00 179 40.00 67 15.00 44 10.00 125 28.00 447 2,445

2007-2008 0 0 15 3.00 72 15.00 58 0.12 144 30.00 192 40.00 481 5350

2008-2009 38 6 13 2.00 28 4 175 31 45 8 279 49 562 4349

2009-2010 0 0 8 1.6 25 5.1 165 34 34 7 253 7.8 485 6190

2010-2011 0 0 7 1.4 51 12.2 125 30 30 7.2 204 6.8 416 6123


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

Total Classes

Taught by HQT Total

Classes Taught by HQT

# # % # # %

2005-2006

Elementary 0 0 0 0 0 0

Secondary 0 0 0 0 0 0

2006-2007

Elementary 0 0 0 183 181 98.99

Secondary 47 18 38.3 286 37 87.1

2007-2008

Elementary 6 0 0 162 161 99.4

Secondary 0 0 0 928 835 89.9

2008-2009

Elementary 0 0 0 165 164 99.4

Secondary 0 0 0 1025 950 92.4

2009-2010

Elementary 0 NA NA 964 932 97

Secondary 0 0 0 758 692 91

2010-2011

Elementary 0 NA NA 975 963 98.7

Secondary 0 0 0 762 721 94.6


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


School Year

Level

Classes Taught by Experienced

HQT*

Classes Taught by Inexperienced

HQT

Classes Taught by Experienced

HQT*

Classes Taught by Inexperienced

HQT

# % # % # % # %

2008-2009

Elementary 0 0 274 93 28 7

Secondary 0 0 219 90.5 23 9.5

2009-2010

Elementary 0 0 0 0 1220 94 76 6

Secondary 0 0 0 0 1422 95 72 5

2010-2011

Elementary 0 0 0 0 938 96 37 4

Secondary 0 0 0 0 732 96 30 4

* 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.


Table 6.7: Percentage of Qualified Paraprofessionals Working in Title I Schools

Total Number of Paraprofessionals

Working in Title I Schools

Qualified Paraprofessionals

Working in Title I Schools

# %

2008-2009 111 111 100

2009-2010 115 115 100

2010-2011 115 115 100

2011-2012* 86 86 100

*As of July 1, 2011

T able 6.6: Attrition Rates

Attrition Due To (Category):

Retirement Resignation Dismissal/Non-renewal Leaves

Numer-ator

Denom-inator

% Numerator Denominator % Numer-

ator Denom-inator

% Numer-

ator Denom-inator

%

2006-2007 55 1802 3 143 1802 7.9 3 1802 0.16 18 1801 1

2007-2008 34 2036 1.6 134 2036 6.7 19* 2036 0.9 15 2036 0.7

2008-2009 (projected) 40 2090 1.9 135 2090 6.5 8 2090 0.4 15 2090 0.7

2009-2010 46 2034 2.2 22 2034 1.1 3 2034 0.15 3 2034 0.2

2010-2011 56 2030 2.7 80 2030 3.9 6 2030 .2 9 2030 0.4

Use the data available as of September 1st following each of the school years to be reported. Report data for the entire teaching staff or for teachers of Core Academic Subject areas if those data are available.

_X_ Entire teaching staff or

___ Core Academic Subject area teachers

Total=151/2030=7.4% Turnover


High Quality Professional Development

Option 1

Final Evaluation Report

Through a systematic process of observing classroom instruction and analyzing student work,

CCPS determined that in order to continue to meet our AMO goals, especially for our

subgroup populations, we needed our classroom teachers to further develop their

instructional delivery. This would require teachers to make a shift in their essential

philosophy towards math instruction to a more constructivist approach to the content.

Principals and school-based Instructional Specialists reported that in many classrooms, math

instruction was very focused on procedures. Students were learning computational steps

without real understanding of the underlying mathematical concepts. By middle school,

many students were floundering in math classes. For example, many students found it very

difficult to apply what they had learned in math classes to the real world. CCPS felt this was

due to limited understanding of the math concepts. To address this, CCPS concluded that, in

the elementary schools, students needed to be given more time to explore math concepts and

build their own understandings. In order to do this, the instructional program needed to shift

to a constructivist model, which in turn would require teachers to build their own

understandings of the math they are teaching.

Sopris West, a part of the Cambium Learning Group, was instrumental in providing teacher

training for the CCPS reading program by providing a series of professional development

opportunities for teachers. When faced with the task of building teacher content knowledge

in math, we turned to Sopris West again for advice. Dr. John Woodward was recommended

because he was in the process of developing four math modules called NUMBERS modules

that address math content knowledge and pedagogy. The modules are in the areas of algebra,

geometry, number sense, and rational numbers. After attending a Sopris West conference to

observe Dr. Woodward, we met with Dr. Woodward to discuss bringing the trainings to

Charles County. At that time, we decided to proceed with a multi-year plan of

implementation. Two to three modules would be offered each year and repeated as needed in

following years. The plan included the “Trainer of Trainers” model to build capacity within

our county so that we could provide the training in-house.

Two of the NUMBERS modules were offered in SY 2009-2010, the Rational Numbers

module and the Geometry module. The Rational Numbers module was presented to selected

middle school math teachers, elementary 5th

grade teachers, and all middle school and

elementary Instructional Specialists. The module was a 2-day workshop in November, 2009,

and took place as planned.

The second module offered was the Geometry module in February, 2010. This module was

presented to selected middle school math teachers, elementary 4th

and 5th

grade teachers, and

all middle school and elementary Instructional Specialists. This module did not take place as

planned due to snow. The module was planned as a 2-day workshop, but due to inclement

weather, the second day was cancelled. The consultants met with the math team the morning

of the first day of training and adjusted the workshop to include as much of the critical

concepts as possible in one day.


To help ensure that the activities took place as planned, the training information for each

session was sent from the Assistant Superintendent of Instruction directly to principals. Each

principal identified the teachers that would attend from his/her school and confirmed their

attendance with the Division of Instruction. The Instructional Specialist from each school

also attended all trainings and served as a team leader for teachers from his/her school.

Attendance was verified each day of training through sign-in sheets. At the end of each

session, the math team members debriefed with the presenters, Dr. Woodard and his

associate, Dr. Douglass, in order to identify what went well, what needed clarification, and

what needed to be changed or adjusted to meet the needs of the participants.

For both modules, all necessary materials and equipment were available, as planned. Many

of the activities required the use of math manipulatives. Schools were given a list of these

manipulatives to bring with them. Central office math staff provided other materials such as

chart paper and markers, along with LCD projectors, speakers, and documents cameras.

In order to judge participants’ perceptions of the training, they were asked to fill out a session

evaluation sheet at the end of each day of training. In addition, the participants were asked to

complete a survey that was sent electronically approximately five weeks after the training.

This was to allow teachers time to reflect on the professional development, as well as

implement new strategies and activities. The Evaluation Coordinator at the central office

compiled and analyzed the results of the survey. Once this was completed, the planning team

met to go over the results. Results from the session evaluations and the survey were used to

plan any future training sessions.

The survey following the Rational Numbers workshop was administered and the results

compiled for the planning team. After the survey was given and the results tallied, the survey

team (Evaluation Coordinator, Elementary Math Specialist, and Instructional Specialist for

Staff Development-) met to review the results. Overall, the results were positive.

The survey for the Geometry workshop, however, did not take place. As a result of cutting

the training short due to snow cancellation, the intended electronic survey was not sent to

participants.

CCPS supports a constructivist approach to mathematics instruction and has included this in

the county’s “Philosophy of Mathematics” document. Paragraph 3 of the document states,

“The classroom should evolve from a traditional approach of teacher-directed instruction to a

laboratory where students experience learning by exploring premises, constructing meaning,

posing conjectures, developing argument and formulating proof.” CCPS also recognizes that

to achieve this shift in the instructional approach, teachers need to build their own

understandings of mathematics and of how students learn mathematics. Therefore, the

primary purpose for all professional development is to build teacher content knowledge and

pedagogy that would carry over into instruction. The desired outcome for the rational

numbers module was for teachers to improve their own understandings of fractions,


decimals, and percents. Teachers’ instruction would then evolve to encourage student

exploration and mastery of rational numbers through a variety of modalities such as using

manipulatives, models, and alternate problem solving strategies. By addressing concepts in a

variety of modalities, students will develop a deeper conceptual understanding of rational

numbers and will be able to broadly apply this knowledge.

Another measure of success was our quarterly assessments. Specifically, in SY 2008-2009,

the county average for the 5th

grade indicator 6C1d (addition and subtraction of fractions)

was 37.44 on the 5th

grade end-of-year assessment. In SY 2009-2010, the county average for

the same indicator was 54.70. While recognizing that improvement on quarterly assessments

could be attributed to a variety of factors, we felt this does support that the Rational Numbers

training did have a positive impact on instruction and on student performance. In addition,

several school-based Instructional Specialists felt that the students in classrooms where

teachers used the new curricular units tended to do better on the assessments.

Determining the effectiveness of the training through measurable means was difficult

because there are many factors that affect a teacher’s instruction. The use of test scores is

one indicator of success as factors. There is a heavy reliance on teacher responses and

informal observations. In addition, CCPS has an Instructional Specialist in each elementary

school whose sole responsibility is to focus on math instruction. CCPS relies heavily on

feedback from Instructional Specialists concerning the math program in their schools.

However, the feedback has been on an informal basis. By creating an observational tool, the

feedback from the Instructional Specialists would be more focused and therefore more

helpful when determining the effectiveness of the training.

In addition, quarterly data scores are used to trace student performance to specific teachers.

However, this data, while used to inform instruction for the current year, has not been used

for a longitudinal study. It was then suggested that the data for the past three years could be

compiled to see if there are any trends in student performance related to assigned math

teacher. If any trends emerge, this information would be one more piece that could be used

to help rate teacher content knowledge. CCPS is a data-driven county and always looking for

trends that emerge from MSA data. In the past, this has not been possible with the county

quarterly assessments because we have been piloting test items. At present, however, we are

confident that the psychometric properties of the test items are sound and we have begun

longitudinal comparisons of student performance within the indicators

In the SY 2010-2011, CCPS made the decision to discontinue the training provided by Dr.

Woodward and Sopris West. This decision was made because the county is phasing in

Investigations in Number, Data and Space by TERC which is an elementary math program

that fully supports a constructivist approach to teaching. The NUMBERS modules provided

a strong foundation for our schools that CCPS will continue to build upon through

professional development provided through Investigations in Number, Data and Space.

The Investigations in Number, Data and Space program provides built in professional

development in each of the instructional units k-5. In addition, a week-long training for


teachers called Investigations in the Classroom Workshop is offered every year by TERC.

CCPS offered this training in the county because it not only helped teachers to implement

Investigations, but also built teacher content knowledge and pedagogy. Since this program

continues the initiative from the NUMBERS modules for improving teacher content

knowledge, CCPS decided to focus the professional development around Investigations and

the training opportunities the program provided.


CCPS Mentor Program

Description

Charles County Public Schools Mentor Teacher Program consists of 16 part-time mentors who

provide support to first and second year teachers. Mentor Teachers will provide support in all

schools. They orient and guide new teachers toward effective best practices. They also lend

support to new teachers in the areas of curriculum, instruction and classroom management, while

encouraging new teachers to become reflective practitioners. In addition, they assess the needs

of new teachers, disseminate specific information, and accompany new teachers on classroom

visits to other schools. When necessary, Mentor Teachers also lend support to third year teachers

who have been identified by their principal as needing this additional support.

In addition, at the secondary level, new teachers are provided support with their specific content.

New teachers also receive support in teacher leadership skills, problem solving challenges and

collegial support.

Data regarding the scope of the program

Charles County Public Schools has approximately 300 probationary teachers. Each of the 16

Mentor Teachers will mentor up to 15 new teachers each.

Process used to measure program effectiveness

Induction program effectiveness will be measured by a beginning and an end of the year survey

given to all new teachers. New teachers are asked to provide anecdotal evidence about the

strengths and weaknesses of the mentor program. Adjustments to the program will be made

based on the survey results. The Staff Development Office will also review new teacher retention

data, provide professional development to mentors, and make program changes as needed.


Family Engagement

Describe how the local school system shares information with parents about student academic

standards, assessments, and data with parents?

Charles County Public Schools (CCPS) shares information with parents about student academic

standards, assessment and data in a number of ways. This communication establishes partnerships

between parents and schools that focus on academics and student achievement.

During the 2010 school year, CCPS installed a parent portal on each school’s Web site that allows

parents to securely monitor their child’s academic progress on-demand. Parents can access Edline

accounts which provide data including their child's grades and attendance. There are also individual

teacher pages that outline academic standards and assessment information.

The Parent Handbook/Calendar, which is distributed each year to all students, provides information

about academic standards and assessments. Additionally, the document is posted on the school system’s

Web site.

CCPS has a nationally recognized Web site that hosts a parent page with links to documents outlining

academic standards, assessment results, and school report cards.

CCPS annually mails individual student assessment scores to parents and provides copies of a school

and system report card to every parent. Maryland School Assessment and High School Assessment

reports are sent home with every elementary school child and mailed to the parent of every middle and

high school parent.

An Educational Showcase is held annually to provide parents with information about academic

standards, programs offered, and general information about the school system. This annual event is

hosted by CCPS in the spring. Additionally, a Parent Advisory Committee, composed of a parent

representative from each school, meets three times a year to receive updates about academic standards,

assessments, data and other pertinent school system information. Parent representatives take this

information back to their schools to share with parent groups.

Does the local system provide professional development to instructional and non-instructional

staff, grades preK-12, on working with parents? If yes, please describe.

Charles County Public Schools provides professional development to instructional and non-instructional

staff on working with parents at two levels: system-wide and school-based.

At a system level, CCPS provides a variety of ways in which staff, both instructional and non-

instructional, can participate in professional development opportunities which focus on working with

our parents. The following is a list of these opportunities, many of which are for new teachers:

New Teacher Orientation

Mentoring program

Evening staff development


Countywide In-services

Since CCPS believes that parents are a critical component to student success, school staff receives

professional development on working with parents. At a school level, all Charles County Public Schools

have school-based staff development built into the school year.

In addition, all Title I schools have a parent component that mandates parental involvement. To ensure

that staff has the knowledge and skill to work with parents, they have just completed the second year of

intensive Comer training in working with parents and creating an inviting parent –family environment.


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.

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 (2 ½%) 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.

A. Based on the Examination of Persistently Dangerous Schools Data (Table 7.1 – 7.5):

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 moving into probationary status?

Charles County Public Schools had no schools identified as persistently dangerous.

Annually, local school systems are required to report incidents of bullying, harassment, or intimidation as

mandated by the Safe Schools Reporting Act of 2005.3

B. Based on the Examination of Data on Incidents of Bullying, Harassment, or Intimidation (Table 7.6):

1. How would you characterize the prevalence on bullying, harassment, and intimidation in the

schools in your system? If you have seen an increase or decrease in reports over the past three

school years, explain those in terms of programs and/or procedures that you have implemented.

There has been a steady increase in the reported incidents of bullying, harassment, and intimidation in Charles

County Public Schools over the past three years. Reported incidents ranged from 42 in 2007/2008, 76 in

2008/2009, to 95 in 2010/2011. Data from the 2010/2011 school year is not yet available.

Charles County Public Schools continues to make system wide efforts to define and identify these behaviors and

to make this information readily available to school staff, parents, and students. Our policy is posted on our

school system website, and regulations concerning bullying, harassment, and intimidation are outlined in our

Code of Student Conduct and the Parent Handbook/Calendar. Both of these documents are updated and

distributed annually to all students and parents. The Harassment or Intimidation (Bullying) Reporting Form is

sent home to all parents, along with back to school information, at the beginning of each school year.

All staff from the Department of Student Services, along with school administrators, attended a mandatory in-

service presentation on bullying, harassment, and intimidation during the 2010/2011 school year. Policies and

procedures were reviewed, along with the Harassment or Intimidation (Bullying) Reporting Form. The

importance of offering parents and students the option of completing the Reporting Form when incidents occur

was stressed.


The Pupil Personnel Special in the Department of Student Services met with over 1,125 fourth graders during the

2010/2011 school year and presented lessons from the Be-Cool series. This endeavor continues to receive

outstanding evaluations.

2. What methods has your school system used to make staff, parents, and students aware of the

Bullying, Harassment, and Intimidation Form?

Charles County Public Schools has posted the Harassment or Intimidation (Bullying) Form on our website, along

with our policy and procedures. An anti-bullying statement is also contained within our Parent

Handbook/Calendar which is sent to every student home. This serves to reinforce the anti-bullying rules and

procedures that are delineated in our Code of Student Conduct which is distributed to each student at the

beginning of the school year. Each parent is sent a copy of the Harassment or Intimidation (Bullying) Reporting

Form at the beginning of the school year. Staff in-service presentations continue to stress the importance of

making the form available to parents in the event of a complaint or concern.

C. Based on the Examination of Suspension and Expulsion Data for Sexual Harassment, Harassment, and

Bullying (Table 7.7):

1. Identify the system-wide strategies that are being used to prevent/reduce suspensions and expulsions

for sexual harassment, harassment, and bullying.

The number of suspensions for sexual harassment, harassment, and bullying has shown minor fluctuations over

the past few years. From the 2006/2007 school year to 2010/2011, the suspensions for sexual harassment have

ranged from 35 to 65(51 for 2010/2011), harassment suspensions ranged from 31 to 43(43 for 2010/2011), and

bullying suspensions ranged from 12 to 21 (20 for 2010/2011). Charles County Public Schools presented several

mandatory in-service presentations for staff during the 2010/2011 school year. These presentations reviewed

definitions of bullying and harassment as well as recent research and intervention strategies. All staff from the

Department of Student Services as well as school administrators attended an in-service on bullying, harassment,

and cyber-bullying. A presentation entitled “Battling the Bully: A Brain-Inspired Approach to Bullying” was

available to staff in the Department of Student Services this summer. Two staff members (identified as school-

based sexual harassment coordinators) also attended a training on sexual harassment policies and procedures. In

addition, all staff members of Charles County Public Schools were required to complete an on-line Sexual

Harassment Training entitled: Sexual Harassment: Staff-to-Staff.

Charles County Public Schools will continue to emphasize the importance of Student Support Teams in

identifying target behaviors such as bullying and harassment, and designing, implementing, and monitoring

behavioral supports to reduce these numbers. Training has been provided to school level teams on identifying

and modifying these behaviors. Thirty of Charles County Public Schools continue to implement PBIS and

receive periodic training on behavioral issues. Each summer, active PBIS teams participate in an annual PBIS

conference where ideas and best practices are shared.

D. Based on the Examination of Suspension Data (Tables 7.8 – 7.10):

1. Identify the system-wide strategies that are being used to prevent/reduce suspensions. If applicable,

include the strategies that are being used to address the disproportionate suspensions among the race/ethnicity

subgroups and between genders.

Charles County Public Schools continues to utilize programs such as PBIS, Capturing Kid’s

Hearts, and Character Education to reduce/prevent suspensions. High schools in Charles County will also be part

of the Maryland Safe and Supportive Schools Initiative (MDS3). Both PBIS and MDS3 emphasize the

importance of using data-based decision making in developing behavioral interventions. Use of the School Wide


Information System (SWIS) continues to be an essential tool to aid in discipline decision making. SWIS allows

schools to enter on-going information about discipline events in their schools (in reference to who, when, where)

and provides summaries which are utilized to design effective behavior support for individual students, groups of

students, or the entire student body. With accurate and timely information at their disposal, schools can help

make schools safe, orderly, and supportive environments.

School Student Support and PBIS teams have received training on reviewing suspension and discipline data that

is broken down by race and gender. While the data from Charles County Public Schools remains fairly consistent

over the past few years, it clearly indicates that both males and African American students have the highest

number of suspensions. During the 2010/2011 school year, African American students represented 51.5% of our

student population and accounted for 74.4% of our suspensions. Fifty one percent of our student population

during the 2010/2011 school year were males, and these students were responsible for 68% of the suspensions

during this time period. These figures represent a slight increase for both subgroups from the previous year.

Examining discipline data using the SWIS data base allows schools to identify times, locations, and which

students are struggling so preventative measures can be put into place. Several of our middle and high schools

have had the benefit of a program entitled “Connections” which serves as a mentoring program for students

identified with ongoing behavioral issues. School psychologists have received updated training on conducting

Functional Behavioral Assessments and developing behavior intervention and support plans. Charles County

Public Schools now has full time Pupil Personnel Workers in all middle and high schools and full time school

psychologists in three high schools. Plans are to add an additional full time school psychologist to an additional

high school in 2011/2012. School administrators have provided positive feedback that the additional time of

these staff members has made a positive impact with at-risk students. In addition, all staff employed by Charles

County Public Schools are required to attend a training session entitled “Courageous Conversations” which

explores racial stereotypes and attitudes among staff.

2. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made, along with the related resource allocations, to

ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate.

Funding remains a primary obstacle to increasing the utilization of PBIS and Capturing Kid’s Hearts, along

with any other prevention or positive behavior support programs. Not only are the initial and ongoing trainings

costly, utilizing discipline data systems such as SWIS requires annual financial support. As the Safe and Drug

Free School grants have ended, we will rely on local funding for much of our efforts with PBIS and other

prevention programs. The high schools will all be participating in a new grant, the Maryland Safe and Supportive

Schools Initiative (MDS3), which will provide feedback from a climate survey to all high schools, and program

support and training to the three schools selected to be intervention schools. This grant should provide support for

a three year period.

The Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) requires that each local school system provide a coordinated

program of pupil services for all students (13A.05.05.01.A)4,5,6 and that the program of pupil services focus on

the health, personal, interpersonal, academic, and career development of students (13A.05.05.01B).

E. Based on the Examination of Programs and Services Coordinated with Community Mental Health Providers

and Agencies to Support Students with Emotional and Behavioral Needs:

1. Describe how the local school system coordinates programs and services with community mental

health providers and agencies that provide services for students with personal and/or interpersonal needs (i.e.,

emotional and/or social needs) in order for these students to progress in the general curriculum.

Charles County Public Schools maintains a close working relationship with county agencies and local mental

health providers. The Director of Student Services attends monthly meetings with the Local Management Board

and the Mental Health Advisory Committee (Core Service Agency). We contract services through Tri-County


Youth Services Bureau to provide mental health support in our elementary schools. Starting at the beginning of

the 2011/2012 school year, a new vendor, Hope Health Systems, Inc., will provide like services to our middle

schools. These contracts provide for individual counseling for students, communication and support to families,

and consultation with staff.

The Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 13A.08.06.01-2 requires that each local school system ensure that

any elementary school with a suspension rate7 of 10% or higher implement Positive Behavioral Intervention and

Supports (PBIS) or another behavior management system. If a school meeting that target has already been trained

in PBIS or another behavior management system, the local school system, in collaboration with the Maryland

State Department of Education, will ensure that additional training is provided to expand the school’s capacity to

intervene. In addition, COMAR 13A.08.06.01-2 requires that each local school system ensure that ALL schools

with a habitual truancy rate8 of 6% (SY2009/2010) implement PBIS or another behavior management system.

This percentage decreases to 4% in SY 2010/2011; 2% in SY 2011/2012; and 1% in SY 2012/2013.

Once again, if a school meeting that target has already been trained in PBIS or another behavior management

system, the local school system, in collaboration with the Maryland State Department of Education, will ensure

that additional training is provided to expand the school’s capacity to intervene.

F. Based on the number of schools in the LSS currently implementing PBIS, please describe the district’scapacity

to provide ongoing support and training to the school teams and coaches in your system.

Where does the responsibility for PBIS sit in your system? Is there an FTE (or a portion of an FTE)

assigned to provide local support, sustain the initiative and attend statewide activities?

Responsibility for PBIS is located within the Department of Student Services. In November, 2010, an FTE was

hired to oversee PBIS, Safe and Drug Free Schools, as well as other programs that support Charles County Public

Schools. Previously, there had been a FTE supporting just PBIS. The transition from a full-time PBIS position to

an FTE that manages other programs continues to be an ongoing process. Roughly 60% of the staff person’s time

is utilized for PBIS.

G. Based on the examination of Suspension data:

1. Identify how many elementary schools have a suspension rate of 10% or higher, how many of those

schools have already been trained in PBIS, and how many have not.

Charles County Public Schools had only one elementary school, Dr. Gustavus Brown, with a suspension rate that

exceeded 10% in 2010/2011. Dr. Brown Elementary is a PBIS trained school and received initial training during

the 2003/2004 school year.

2. For those schools previously trained, please describe strategies to support/improve the implementation

of the PBIS framework in those schools. Finally, please project the number of elementary schools that will

require New Team PBIS Training in the summer of 2012, based on this regulation.

The Dr. Brown PBIS team has most recently participated in a June, 2011 county-wide annual PBIS training where

they received various new tools and information to share and integrate into their school program. The trainings

centered around topics such as bullying, utilizing Check In/Check Out in light of data, engaging disengaged

parents, and supports for mental illness.

All high schools in Charles County will be participating in the Maryland Safe and Supportive Schools Initiative

(MDS3). Three of the high schools will serve as control groups while the remaining three, who will be direct

participants in this initiative, will be “implementation” schools. The schools designated as “implementation”

schools will be afforded the opportunity to receive training and support in an evidence based practice. The

evidence based practice selected will be determined based on a climate survey that students, parents, and staff in


the high schools will be taking each spring. The results of the survey will help the schools select the most

appropriate evidence based practice based on the needs of their school.

It is anticipated that one new elementary school will require New Team PBIS Training in the summer of

2012.

3. Please identify other district level strategies to address the needs of schools that meet the target for

suspension. Do they need additional training? Are there Technical Assistance needs to ensure fidelity of

implementation?

The Department of Student Services will continue to provide support through training and presentations on topics

such as bullying, alternatives to suspension, and utilizing data for school- wide change. Training and

presentations will be made available to both PBIS and non-PBIS schools in order for all schools to have

information that will assist in reducing negative behaviors within schools. The anticipated trainings will

emphasize information sharing and utilize data-driven and evidence based practices to empower schools. These

efforts will also provide skills and information to help staff understand and address the needs of the population

of students that exhibit behavioral difficulties.

H. Based on the examination of Habitual Truancy10 data:

1. Identify how many schools have a habitual truancy rate of 4% or higher, how many of those schools

have already been formally trained in PBIS, and how many have not.

Charles County Public Schools does not have any schools with a habitual truancy rate of 4% or higher. The

Robert D. Stethem Educational Center which offers programs for middle and high school students who are

placed through the disciplinary hearing process, meets the criteria as defined by the Maryland State Department of

Education. The Stethem Center has a habitual truancy rate of 4% or higher. The Stethem Center is not defined as

a school but rather as a center, and students generally attend for only an interim period. The Robert D. Stethem

Center does not utilize PBIS.

2. For those schools previously trained, please describe strategies to support/improve the implementation

of the PBIS framework in those schools. Finally, please project the number of schools that will require New

Team PBIS Training in the summer of 2012, based on this regulation.

Charles County Public Schools will continue to utilize PBIS in 30 schools that have received previous training.

PBIS and non-PBIS schools will both receive the benefit of training and in-service presentations developed by the

Department of Student Services. Recent trainings have centered around bullying and harassment, as well as crisis

prevention and intervention. Similar efforts will continue this year and presentations concerning dating violence

and suicide prevention have been scheduled. Charles County Public Schools was fortunate to be included in the

grant awarded by the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools at the United States Department of Education. The

grant is entitled Maryland’s Safe and Supportive Schools Initiative (MDS3). It is funded to develop a sustainable

state-wide system to measure school climate, the school environment, student engagement, and school safety in

high schools. Three of our participating high schools will receive training, resources, support, and coaching in the

implementation of evidence-based programs to meet the needs of our students and school community. MDS3

provides the opportunity to build on the existing PBIS framework in schools. Based on the results of an annual

survey which assesses school needs, schools participating in MDS3 will select an evidence based practice to

implement. Examples are Botvin’s Life Skills Program, Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, and Check and

Connect. The schools will receive training and support to assist them in implementing the selected program.

These programs are designed to reduce discipline problems, prevent bullying and truancy, and increase student

engagement.


It is anticipated that one school will require New Team Training for PBIS in the summer of 2012.

3. Please identify other district level strategies to address the needs of schools that meet the target for

Truancy. Do they need additional training? Are there Technical Assistance needsto ensure fidelity of

implementation?

No schools in Charles County meet the habitually truant criteria.


Attendance

Attendance rates are an additional measure used in Maryland’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

calculations.

Based on the Examination of the Attendance Data (Table 5.5):

1. Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of grade

band(s) and subgroups.

In Charles County, our greatest challenge with respect to attendance is our high school population. In the

All Students category, the following subgroups of high school students failed to meet the Annual

Measurable Objective (AMO) of 94%: All Students; Hispanic/Latino of any race; American Indian or

Alaskan Native; Black or African American; White; Special Education; Limited English Proficiency

(LEP); and Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS).

Male high school students showed a higher rate of attendance than female high school students in most

subgroups. High school male students in the American Indian or Alaskan Natives, White, Special

Education, LEP, and FARMS subgroups failed to meet the AMO. In contract, high school female

students in the All Students, Hispanic/Latino of any race, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Black or

African American, White, Special Education, LEP, and FARMS subgroups did not meet the AMO of

94%. One subgroup of elementary students (female American Indian or Alaskan Native) and one

subgroup of middle school students (female Special Education) did not meet the AMO.

2. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made along with the corresponding resource


During the 2011/2012 school year, all of Charles County’s high schools will participate in the Maryland’s

Safe and Supportive Schools (MDS3) Initiative. The initiative is a collaborative effort between the

Maryland State Department of Education and the United States Department of Education. The project

will provide the participating schools the opportunity to improve their school climate and reduce

discipline problems, bullying and substance abuse through the implementation of multi-tiered

interventions. The data, coaching, professional development, and ongoing technical assistance provided

by MDS3 will improve conditions for learning, and as a result, student attendance and achievement.

In addition, all Charles County high schools will have a full time Pupil Personnel Worker (PPW). They

monitor adherence to the attendance policy of Charles County Public Schools. They are encouraged to

refer severe attendance cases to the central office for attendance reviews. During these reviews, the

hearing officer spends a great deal of time and energy working with the family to help them realize the

importance of regular attendance, and to let them know how seriously the school system views truancy.

If the student continues to miss school, the case may be referred to court. This has been most effective for

students under the age of 14 as the court system may not pursue cases of truancy for older students.


Graduation and Dropout Rates

No Child Left Behind Goal 5: All students will graduate from high school.

No Child Left Behind Indicator 5.1: The percentage of students who graduate

each year

with a regular diploma.

No Child Left Behind Indicator 5.2: The percentage of students who drop out of

school.

Graduation rate is an additional measure used in Maryland’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

calculations.

Based on the Examination of Graduation and Dropout Rate Data (Tables 5.6 and 5.7):

1. Describe where challenge are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of

subgroups.

The graduation and dropout rates are now being calculated by the cohort rate which does not as

yet allow for comparisons over time across most subgroups. Using the four-year cohort

graduation rate, there was an increase in All Students and Males between the 2008/2009 and

2009/2010 school years. Female showed a slight decrease during this same time frame. Looking

at specific subgroups during these time periods, our biggest challenges are with the graduation

rates of American Indian/Alaskan Natives, Black or African American Males, Special Education

students, and Free/Reduced Meals (FARMS) students.

For the four-year cohort dropout rate, there was a decrease in dropouts in the All Students and

Males between the 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 school years, while Females demonstrated a slight

increase during this time period. No information is available for subgroups within Male and

Female categories. In the All Students category, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Black or

African American, Special Education, and FARMS students had higher dropout rates in

comparison to other subgroups.

2. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made along with the corresponding resource


Charles County Public Schools continues to increase communication with parents and students

concerning educational progress. During the 2010/2011 school year, a new on-line

communication system called Edline was implemented. This is an Internet-based resource that

allows parents to check their student’s grades and attendance. It also provides students an

additional way to check their assignments. School counselors also meet with students

concerning their progress toward graduation and Pupil Personnel Workers help monitor student

attendance. Parents/guardians of middle and high school students also receive interim reports

four times a year in addition to quarterly report cards.


During the 2011/2012 school year, all high schools in Charles County Public Schools will be

participating in the Maryland Safe and Supportive Schools (MDS3) grant. This grant provides

support for schools who will be implementing evidence-based practices to improve school

climate, student discipline, and graduation/dropout rates. The focus of these practices will be

determined by surveys completed by students, parents and school staff.

Charles County Public Schools has a full-time Pupil Personnel Worker assigned to each middle

and high school. School psychologists are assigned at least two days a week to each school, and

four high schools now have full time school psychologists. Each school has several school

counselors (number determined by school population). These professionals all serve on the

school Student Support Team (SST). The SST reviews student concerns such as attendance and

academic progress, and designs individual plans to improve student performance. Students at-

risk for dropping out are referred to the SST and their progress is monitored.


Section E: Turning Around Lowest Performing Schools

Section E. Turning Around Lowest Achieving Schools: Maryland State Department of

Education has identified 16 persistently lowest-achieving schools to be improved in this reform

effort; however, Charles County Public Schools currently does not have any schools identified.

In the past, various CCPS schools have been identified for local attention due to failure to make

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Charles County Public Schools has determined that any

school that does not make AYP for two years will be identified as a Low Performing School.

Identified schools will remain on the CCPS Low Performing Schools list until they have made

AYP for two consecutive years.

In year 3 and year 4 of Race to the Top, administrators and core content teachers will have an

opportunity to apply for comparable positions in CCPS low performing schools. Race to the Top

funds will be used to provide stipends to support the lowest performing schools. This incentive

will remain in place as long as the school moves successfully toward making and sustaining

Adequate Yearly Progress.

After the grant ends, the funding will be built into the general fund under salaries, subject to

negotiations.

CCPS had six schools that did not make AYP for the 2010 school year:

One middle school in school improvement year 2


One middle school in local attention

Three elementary schools in local attention

Currently CCPS has sixteen schools that did not make AYP for the 2011 school year:

One middle school in corrective action


One middle school and one elementary school in school improvement year 1

Two middle schools in local attention

Ten elementary schools in local attention

In addition to a variety of reform strategies, all sixteen schools are being monitored using the

data acquisition methods below:

Use of the Performance Series online assessment for additional data analysis

A state mandated climate survey and implementation of two to three outcomes from the

climate survey to be included in school improvement plans

Ongoing data meeting with the Department of Research and Assessment Director and

staff

Instructional meetings regarding the instructional program and school improvement plan

with the Assistant Superintendent of Instruction

Assign exemplary administrative and teaching staff to low performing schools. These schools

will also be required to address the following in their school improvement plans:


High academic expectations for all students

Identification of root causes

On-going instructional data collection and analysis based on desired outcomes

Year 2

Charles County Public Schools provides a variety of STEM enrichment opportunities at low-

performing schools. This school year, low-performing elementary schools will have “We Do”

robotics integrated into their science and technology classes at the third grade level.

Additionally, each school will have the opportunity for their students to participate in a school

day event, Youth in Technology Summit, hosted by the College of Southern Maryland at its

LaPlata Campus. Each of our low-performing schools will form MESA teams; our school system

is its own MESA region. Additionally, grade level appropriate STEM opportunities are available

for each school through our partnership program with Naval Surface Warfare Center at Indian

Head, through programs like In-School Robotics and Math and Science Can Take You Places.

Schools are actively encouraged to participate in STEM focused opportunities such as the after-

school Lego Robotics Program funded through a partnership with the College of Southern

Maryland, Calvert and St. Mary’s County Public Schools.


Action Plan: Section E

Goal(s): Turning around the lowest performing schools.

Section E: Turning

Around the Lowest –

Achieving Schools

Correlation

to

State Plan

Project.

#


Expense:

Y/N



MOU Requirements

(E)(2)(i)

(E)(2)(ii)

Provide a variety of STEM

enrichment opportunities to

low performing school staff

and students Such as: “We

Do” Robotics, Math and

Science Can Take You

Places and After-school

Robotics

MESA

In-School Robotics

(E)(2)(ii) 11/2011

9/2011

9/2011

5/2012

6/2012

5/2012

Judy Estep,

Assistant

Superintendent

of Instruction

Scott Hangey,

Director of

Science

Instruction and

Program

Development

Monique

Wilson, STEM

Coordinator

Staff and student STEM

participation

N


Adequate Yearly Progress

Based on the Examination of School-level AYP Data (Tables 5.1 and 5.2)

Identify the challenges, including those specific to Title I schools, in ensuring that schools

make Adequate Yearly Progress. Describe the changes or adjustments, and the

corresponding resource allocations, which will be made to ensure sufficient progress.

Include timelines where appropriate.

Eleven of the twenty-one elementary schools within Charles County Public Schools made AYP

in 2011. Four of the six Title I schools did not meet the benchmark for Adequate Yearly

Progress. The biggest challenges for Title I schools are in areas of reading, math, FARMS at

three schools and special education at one school.

Charles County Public Schools (CCPS) continues to work with all schools including Title I

schools to ensure that each school makes Adequate Yearly Progress. CCPS provides support to

schools through local, state, and federal resources to meet the academic needs of identified

subgroups in order to increase student achievement. CCPS provides resources at Barnhart

Elementary, a Title I school identified for improvement, to improve student achievement through

the following strategies:

Continued implementation of SRA McGraw Hill interventions

Incorporating technological support through Successmaker and Education City software

for targeted subgroups that require additional reinforcement on the CCPS curriculum;

Continuation of the Moving with Math intervention as a core curriculum for the Extended

Learning Opportunities (ELO) program

Targeted professional development training for teachers in all Title I schools

Collaboration between the Instructional Leadership Teams and Content Specialist for

Elementary Reading and Math.

Providing Hand held devices and subscriptions for students in grades K – 3. Teachers

can use the devices to administer the DIBELS Next screening assessment. Wireless

Generation Mclass provides data analysis and instructional implications based on student

performance.

Continuing implementation of the following four interventions: Origo Math, Teacher

Created Materials Exploring Math, and SRA Number Worlds, and Moving with Math.

Title I funds will be used at Barnhart to provide additional instructional assistants at each grade

level in grades 1-5. The instructional assistants will work directly with students who are not

meeting grade level expectations in reading and mathematics. Instructional assistants will

provide academic reinforcement focused on best practices that align to the core instructional

program offered by the classroom teacher. The goal of additional instructional staff is to ensure

each child reaches grade level proficiency. Title I resources at Barnhart will be used to provide


support services to students by hiring an additional special educator and a half-time guidance

counselor. The special educator will provide intensive instructional intervention in the

classroom with the regular classroom teacher. The special educator will work with small groups

of special needs students who are not working at grade level expectations in reading and math.

The guidance counselor is hired to work with large groups of students who require a myriad of

support services including emotional, social, and psychological needs that might impact their

learning in the classroom.

Adequate Yearly progress- Barnhart - Reading

Describe the actions that the school system is taking including the changes and

adjustments, and the corresponding resource allocations to ensure that the No Child Left

Behind and Title 1 requirements for school identified for Developing needs(Improvement

Year 1; Improvement Year 2 and Corrective Action) and Priority needs (Restructuring –

Planning and Restructuring-Implementation) are being addressed.

Writing Curriculum

Charles County Public Schools has developed a comprehensive writing curriculum which will

help students not only with writing fluency, composition and mechanics, but will also aid in the

consolidation of thinking and learning within and among content areas. Reading Resource

Teachers received training in writing across the curriculum which they then used to plan system-

wide professional development for classroom teachers.

Content Integration

In addition to writing, Barnhart teachers are moving forward with content integration, where

reading and writing are pivotal aspects of all instruction. In addition to regular classroom

teachers, special area teachers, such as music and art, are receiving inservice training in how to

support literacy initiatives in their lessons and disciplines.

Performance Series

The school system continued to provide universal screening, via Performance Series testing, for

all students in grades three through five at the beginning of the school year to determine current

reading comprehension levels of all students. Teachers received immediate feedback on student

performance in three ways: National Norm Reference Scale Score, Grade Level Equivalency,

and Standard Item Pool scores derived from student grade level performance within content

units. Additional screening is done for students who show reading deficits to pinpoint

interventions that will address specific needs. Based on the results of testing, students are placed

in appropriate interventions. Each school has a full-time Reading Resource Teacher assigned to

the Instructional Leadership Team with the primary responsibility of implementing the

reading/language arts program and all supporting interventions. Benchmark testing is done in


the fall, winter, and spring. The school based Reading Resource Teacher meets with classroom

teachers to discuss and analyze the data from these benchmark tests. Instructional adjustments

are then put into place based on the data analysis.

Extended Learning Opportunities ( ELO)

Barnhart will provide Extended Learning Opportunities for their students. Bus transportation

will be provided to facilitate these after-school activities. These programs are designed to give

students additional time on specific skills and were differentiated to address the individual needs

of students. The following programs may be used based on data: Fundations/Just Words/Wilson

and Targeted Reading interventions. Barnhart also provides drop in/pull out interventions with

targeted student groups.


Full time Reading Resource Teachers are assigned to each middle school in Charles County.

These teachers oversee the implementation of the reading programs within each middle school

and monitor interventions in order to ensure proper identification of students and fidelity to the

implementation of instructional reading programs. Additionally, they analyze benchmark data

with classroom teachers, deliver staff developments related to best practices, and provide

feedback on state and county assessments.

Additionally, the Content Specialist for Elementary Reading visits Barnhart on a regular basis in

order to ensure adherence to curriculum, monitor interventions, and ensure needed resource

materials are readily available to classroom teachers. The Content Specialist also oversees

implementation of county-wide common reading assessments that are aligned to Maryland State

Curriculum Indicators.

Interventions and Progress Monitoring

During the 2011-2012 school year, CCPS will provide teacher training for the Wilson Reading

Program and Fundations for those teachers who will be providing the intervention. CCPS will

also continue with the R. I. S. T. (Reading Intervention Support Team) meetings at the

elementary school level. This support team is comprised of school administrators, the reading

resource teacher, classroom teachers and the CCPS Reading Intervention Specialist. This team

meets 3 times a year to review and ensure proper intervention placement and monitors student

progress. This team is also responsible for the articulation of student data for next school year.

Adequate Yearly Progress – Barnhart-Math

Describe the actions that the school system is taking including the changes or adjustments,

and the corresponding resource allocations to ensure that the No Child left Behind and

Title I requirements for school identified for Developing Needs (Improvement Year 1;


Improvement Year 2 and Corrective Action) and Priority Needs (Restructuring – Planning

and Restructuring – Implementation) are being addressed.

The school system will implement several school-based initiatives designed to support the

mathematics programs at Barnhart Elementary School during SY 2011-2012.

Math Investigations in Number, Data, and Space

During SY 2011-2012, Investigations in Number, Data, and Space is being implemented in 4th

grade throughout the county. Previously, it was implemented in grades K-3. This program was

selected because it addresses most of the major concerns that were identified by classroom

teachers, Instructional leadership teams and central office personnel. Included among these

concerns were:

Computational fluency especially related to multiplication facts

Manipulative-based instruction designed to develop conceptual understanding of

mathematics

Recursive practice

Professional development for classroom teachers

Alignment with the Maryland State Mathematics Curriculum

As part of the implementation plan, 4th

grade teachers received 5 days of professional

development during the summer. During this training, teachers continued to build on their

knowledge of the program and refine implementation. Teachers will also receive three half-days

of professional development during the school year. During these days, upcoming units of

instruction will be front-loaded. In addition, teachers will be provided with training in content

knowledge and pedagogical practices relevant to the units.

Assessments

The county administers quarterly assessments that are aligned with Maryland State curricula for

Grades 1-5. Barnhart will have the option of administering the 4th

and 5th

grade assessments via

computer or paper/pencil. If Barnhart opts for computer-based assessments, feedback on student

performance will be immediate. Otherwise, data will be provided within one week of test

administration. The data will be disaggregated by course, by teacher and by student. This

facilitates teachers in pinpointing student strengths and challenges in preparation for MSA

testing in March.

Extended Learning Opportunities (ELOs)

Barnhart will be provided with funding to implement Extended Learning Opportunities

programs. The program will be designed to give students additional time on topics in math. The

program will be differentiated to address the individual needs of their students. Research-based

intervention materials including “Moving With Math by Topic”, a product of Math Teachers


Press, SRA “Number Worlds” and “Exploring Math” from Teacher Created Materials will be

used for instruction. Bus transportation will be provided to facilitate after-school components of

each school’s program. In addition, Barnhart will developed in-school intervention opportunities

where students receive small group instruction.

Instructional Specialist (IS)

A full-time Instructional Specialist has been assigned to Barnhart to support math instruction in

the building. In addition to analyzing data and monitoring student performance, the IS will

provide a cadre of instructional support services to classroom teachers. This support includes

assisting with long and short-range planning, accessing resources, modeling lessons, delivering

staff development related to best practices in mathematics, developing assessment tools, and

using data to inform classroom instruction.

Central Office math resource personnel will visit Barnhart on a regular basis to provide

additional support. The school Instructional Leadership team will be provided with direction on

how to improve classroom instruction, assist teachers in developing connections between and

among content topics, locate appropriate classroom resources, model lessons, interpret Maryland

State Curriculum indicators and assessment limits, and support the effective use of formative

data.

The Instructional Specialist will participate in a book study with other elementary ISs using the

book, Learning and Teaching Early Math by Douglas H. Clements and Julie Sarama. The book

covers math that is most important for young learners; the concepts and skills that are

foundational for their reaching the next level of math understanding.

Performance Series

Barnhart will use the Performance Series as a universal screening and benchmarking tool for

mathematics. Performance Series, a product of Scantron, is a computer-adaptive diagnostic test

that identifies a student’s instructional level. The test will be administered three times during the

school year to all students in these schools. Baseline testing will take place in September,

benchmark testing will occur in January and end-of year testing will take place in May.

Teachers will receive immediate feedback on student performance in three ways: National Norm

Referenced Scale Scores, Grade Level Equivalency scores and Standard Item Pool scores

derived from student grade level performance within content units. Teachers can also access

individual performance by item by content to assist in identifying areas of strength and

challenge. Customize ancillary practice and re-teaching materials are also available through this

program.



The Instructional Specialist and the special education teachers and instructional assistants will

receive training for SRA Number Worlds. SRA Number World resources will be used for Tier 2

and Tier 3 interventions.

In addition to the initiatives listed above, the county has allocated an Instructional Specialist for

Special Education to work with Barnhart to support mathematics instruction in self-contained

and inclusion classes. This individual will also assist with the implementation of approved

interventions and the collection and analysis of data, including progress monitoring.

The Instructional Specialist for Minority Achievement and Multicultural Education will

participate in county-level math staff meetings to provide input on how to best meet the needs of

subgroup populations.

Adequate Yearly progress- Mattawoman, Smallwood and Stoddert

Describe the actions that the school system is taking including the changes and adjustments, and

the corresponding resource allocations to ensure that the No Child Left Behind and Title 1

requirements for school identified for Developing needs(Improvement Year 1; Improvement

Year 2 and Corrective Action) and Priority needs (Restructuring –Planning and Restructuring-

Implementation) are being addressed.

Describe actions that the school system took during the 2010-2011 school year.

The school system implemented several school-based initiatives designed to support the

reading/language arts programs at Mattawoman Middle School, Smallwood Middle School and

Stoddert Middle School during SY 2010-2011.

SpringBoard

SpringBoard, a curriculum developed by CollegeBoard, was implemented in one Grade 8

Enrichment Language Arts class at each middle school. This program is designed to expose

students to rigorous instruction in preparation for AP and college level course work. Teachers

received four days of professional development prior to implementation and three days of

professional development during the school year. These sessions were led by a CollegeBoard

consultant and one session was devoted to aligning the Maryland State Curriculum with the

SpringBoard curriculum. Teachers had access to all SpringBoard resources, including

instructional support materials and assessment tools, as well as on-line coaching support.


Building Vocabulary

The school system continued to implement the Building Vocabulary from Word Roots

Vocabulary program by Tim Rasinski as a means of intensifying the reading program related to

vocabulary. Teacher resources and class sets of workbooks were purchased for students.

Teachers received one day of professional development from the co-authors (Evangeline and

Rick Newton) on the implementation of Building Vocabulary Word Roots vocabulary program.

Building Vocabulary offers three primary goals to improve student scores i. e. MSA.

Increase students’ knowledge of words, particularly those words they need to be

successful in school

Give students strategies to figure out the meaning of new words on their own

Enable students to develop an extensive vocabulary to better express themselves in

written and oral communication

Performance Series

The school system continued to provide universal screening, via Performance Series testing, for

all students in grades six through eight at the beginning of the school year to determine current

reading comprehension levels of all students. Teachers received immediate feedback on student

performance in three ways: National Norm Reference Scale Score, Grade Level Equivalency,

and Standard Item Pool scores derived from student grade level performance within content

units. Additional screening is done for students who show reading deficits to pinpoint

interventions that will address specific needs. Based on the results of testing, students are placed

in appropriate interventions. Each school has a full-time Reading Resource Teacher assigned to

the Instructional Leadership Team with the primary responsibility of implementing the

reading/language arts program and all supporting interventions. Benchmark testing is done in

the fall, winter, and spring. The school based Reading Resource Teacher meets with classroom

teachers to discuss and analyze the data from these benchmark tests. Instructional adjustments

are then put into place based on the data analysis.

Extended Learning Opportunities ( ELO)

Smallwood, Stoddert and Mattawoman provided Extended Learning Opportunities for their

students. Bus transportation was provided to facilitate these after-school activities. The

following programs were designed to give students additional time on specific skills and were

differentiated to address the individual needs of students. The following programs were used:

Plugged into Reading- Literary Text and Targeted Reading interventions. All three schools also

provided drop in/pull out interventions with targeted student groups.

Reading Comprehension

Data from the MSA and Performance Series showed that students had a deficit in comprehension

of non-fiction texts. The school system purchased a subscription to the National Geographic


Magazine for Kids for each middle school. These magazines were used in the

Reading/Language Arts classrooms in order to expose students to more non-fiction texts to

increase their vocabulary skills. The system also conducted a Reading Literacy Audit that

revealed gaps in curriculum and classroom practices in the area of non-fiction literature. The

initial steps of the reading audit (inventory of non-fiction reading materials, classroom

observations, and analyzing data) revealed the need for the schools to develop an implementation

plan that would improve instruction of non-fiction reading.


Full time Reading Resource Teachers were assigned to each middle school in Charles County.

These teachers oversee the implementation of the reading programs within each middle school

and monitor interventions in order to ensure proper identification of students and fidelity to the

implementation of instructional reading programs. Additionally, they analyze benchmark data

with classroom teachers, deliver staff developments related to best practices, and provide

feedback on state and county assessments.

Additionally, a Central office Reading Resource Teacher visits schools in order to ensure

adherence to curriculum, monitor interventions, and ensure needed resource materials are readily

available to classroom teachers. The Central Office Reading Resource Teacher also oversees

implementation of county-wide common reading assessments that are aligned to Maryland State

Curriculum Indicators.


During the 2010-2011, CCPS provided teacher training for Wilson Reading Program and a

refresher course Sophis West Language! , Meeting the Middle Reading Intervention Program

(for tier 3 students). CCPS also implemented the R. I. S. T. (Reading Intervention Support

Team) meetings at the middle - school level. This support team is comprised of school

administrators, the reading resource teacher, classroom teachers and CCPS Reading Intervention

Specialist. This team met 3 times a year to review and ensure proper intervention placement and

monitors student progress. This team is also responsible for the articulation of student data for

next school year.

Describe the actions that the school system will take once school improvement status is

determined for the 2011-12 schoolyear.

The following charts show the growth in student performance by school and by grade on MSA.


Mattawoman

SY 2010 SY2011 Change

Grade 6 84.64 79.66 -4.98

Grade 7 80.81 81.43 +0.62

Grade 8 76.09 78.2 +2.11

Smallwood

SY 2010 SY 2011 Change

Grade 6 82.08 84.66 +2.58

Grade 7 76.02 80.01 +3.99

Grade 8 79.78 80.36 +0.58

Stoddert

SY 2010 SY 2011 Change

Grade 6 79.23 70.00 -9.23

Grade 7 77.1 75.09 -2.01

Grade 8 79.18 79.18 +6.82

Results indicate that the SY 2010-2011—initiatives have had some positive impact on student

performance on MSA. However, scores at these schools still lag behind State established

AMO’s especially within the subgroup population.

The county has expanded the SpringBoard curriculum to all 7th

and 8th

grade enrichment classes.

Teachers will participate in three days of SpringBoard training this summer and will receive on-

going professional development throughout the school year.

In addition to the initiatives listed above, the county has allocated a Reading Instructional

Specialist for Special Education to work with Mattawoman, Stoddert, and Smallwood to support

reading instruction in self-contained and inclusion classes. This individual will also assist with

the implementation of approved interventions and the collection and analysis of data and

progress monitoring.

The Instructional Specialist for Minority Achievement and Multicultural Education will

participate in county-level reading staff meetings to provide input on how to meet the needs of


Adequate Yearly Progress – Mattawoman, Smallwood and Stoddert

Describe the actions that the school system is taking including the changes or adjustments, and the

corresponding resource allocations to ensure that the No Child left Behind and Title I requirements for


school identified for Developing Needs (Improvement Year 1; Improvement Year 2 and Corrective

Action) and Priority Needs (Restructuring – Planning and Restructuring – Implementation) are being

addressed.

Describe actions that the school system took during the 2010 – 2011 school year.

The school system implemented several school-based initiatives designed to support the mathematics

programs at Mattawoman Middle School, Smallwood Middle School and Stoddert Middle School during

SY 2010-2011.

Algebraic Thinking

SY 2010-2011 marked the second year of implementation of the Algebraic Thinking (AT) program in the

county. AT serves as a core curriculum for students who perform at or below proficiency on MSA. It

was selected because it addressed most of the major concerns that were identified by classroom teachers,

Instructional leadership Teams and central office personnel. Included among these concerns were:

Computational fluency especially related to multiplication facts

Manipulative-based instruction designed to develop conceptual understanding of mathematics

Recursive practice

Professional development for classroom teachers

Alignment with the Maryland State Mathematics Curriculum

As part of the implementation plan, teachers received 4 days of professional development during the

summer. During this training, teachers continued to build on their knowledge of the program and refine

implementation. An on-site AT Coach was also deployed to each of the schools bi-weekly. The coach

provided direct support to classroom teachers by modeling lessons, assisting with pacing of instruction

and effective classroom management techniques, developing lessons and classroom strategies that support

differentiation and creating classroom assessment tools. The coach also communicated, via e-mail, with

AT teachers on a weekly basis in order to frontload teaching strategies for upcoming lessons. The coach

also offered evening class development for teachers to further support implementation of the program.

Teachers also received three days of professional development during the school year. During these days,

teacher met with their counterparts to discuss concerns regarding implementation, share teaching

strategies and develop lesson plans.

SpringBoard

SpringBoard, a curriculum developed by CollegeBoard, was implemented in Grade 6 General Math,

Grade 6 Enrichment, Grade 7 General Math and Pre-Algebra classrooms. This program is designed to

expose students to rigorous instruction in preparation for AP and college level course work. Teachers

received four days of professional development prior to implementation and three days of professional

development during the school year. These sessions were led by a CollegeBoard consultant. Teachers

also had access to all SpringBoard resources, including instructional support materials and assessment

tools, as well as on-line coaching support.

Assessments


The county administered quarterly assessments that are aligned with Maryland State curricula for Grades

6, 7 and 8. Schools had discretion in deciding whether to administer assessments via computer or

paper/pencil. If schools opted for computer-based assessments, feedback on student performance was

immediate. Otherwise, data was provided to schools within one week of test administration. The data

was disaggregated by course, by teacher and by student. This facilitated teachers in pinpointing student

strengths and challenges in preparation for MSA testing in March. Quarterly review packets, which

contain questions that mimicked the assessments for each course, were posted at the beginning of the

school year so that teachers could frontload content during instruction. Item review match documents

were also provided to schools. These documents matched individual assessment items with review items,

indicators assessed and county-wide performance data by question.

During SY 2010-2011, these schools were also provided with Bi-weekly Mini-Assessments. These

assessments were aligned with the quarterlies and provided teachers with an additional formative

assessment tool to track student progress toward mastery of Maryland State Curricula. Delivery systems

included paper/pencil and student response systems. Bi-weeklies were posted prior to the beginning of

each quarter to support teachers in frontloading tested items.

Extended Learning Opportunities (ELOs)

Smallwood, Mattawoman and Stoddert were provided with funding to implement Extended Learning

Opportunities programs at their schools. These programs were designed to give students additional time

on topic in math. The programs were developed by each school and were differentiated to address the

individual needs of students in their buildings. Research-based intervention materials including “Moving

With Math by Topic”, a product of Math Teachers Press, SRA “Number Worlds” and “Targeted

Mathematics Intervention” from Teacher Created Materials were used for instruction. Bus transportation

was provided to facilitate after-school components of each school’s program. In addition, schools

developed in-school intervention opportunities where students received small group instruction.

Instructional Resource Teachers (IRTs)

Full-time Instructional Resource Teachers have been assigned to each of the schools to support math

instruction in the building. In addition to analyzing data and monitoring student performance, the IRT

provides a cadre of instructional support services to classroom teachers. This support includes assisting

with long and short-range planning, accessing resources, modeling lessons, delivering staff development

related to best practices in mathematics, developing assessment tools, and using data to inform classroom

instruction.

Central Office math resource personnel were also deployed to each of these schools on a regular basis to

provide additional support. These individuals provided the IRTs with direction on how to improve

classroom instruction, assist teachers in developing connections between and among content topics, locate

appropriate classroom resources, model lessons, interpret Maryland State Curriculum indicators and

assessment limits, and support the effective use of formative data.

Performance Series

Mattawoman, Smallwood and Stoddert used the Performance Series as a universal screening and

benchmarking tool for mathematics. Performance Series, a product of Scantron, is a computer-adaptive


diagnostic test that identifies a student’s instructional level. The test was administered three times during

the school year to all students in these schools. Baseline testing took place in September, benchmark

testing occurred in January and end-of year testing took place in May. Teachers received immediate

feedback on student performance in three ways: National Norm Referenced Scale Scores, Grade Level

Equivalency scores and Standard Item Pool scores derived from student grade level performance within

content units. Teachers could also access individual performance by item by content to assist in

identifying areas of strength and challenge. Customized ancillary practice and re-teaching materials were

also available through this program.


During SY 2010-2011, IRTs and special education teachers received training in the administration of the

MCAP progress monitoring tools available through AIMSWeb. The MCAP was determined to be an

effective progress monitoring tool because the questions are better aligned with the application-based

style of MSA.

IRTs, special education teachers and instructional assistants received training for SRA Number Worlds.

Each of the schools were outfitted with complete sets of SRA Number World resources to be used for

Tier 2 interventions.

Describe the actions that the school system will take once school improvement status is determined for

the 2011-2012 school year.

The charts, below, shows the growth in student performance by school and by grade on MSA.

Mattawoman

SY 2010 SY 2011 Change Grade 6 76.9 78.7 +1.8

Grade 7 62.6 76.8 +14.2

Grade 8 52.0 64.7 +12.7

Smallwood


Grade 7 54.9 74.1 +19.2

Grade 8 68.9 67.1 -1.8

Stoddert


Grade 7 66.8 73.8 +7.0

Grade 8 63.5 68.4 +4.9


Results indicate that the SY 2010-2011 initiatives have had a positive impact on student performance on

MSA. However, scores at these schools still lag behind state established AMOs especially within


In addition to the initiatives listed above, the county has allocated an Instructional Specialist for Special

Education to work with these middle schools to support mathematics instruction in self-contained and

inclusion classes. This individual will also assist with the implementation of approved interventions and

the collection and analysis of data, including progress monitoring.

The Instructional Specialist for Minority Achievement and Multicultural Education will participate in

county-level math staff meetings to provide input on how to best meet the needs of subgroup populations.


Section F: General

Section F: General

Narrative: the narrative for Section F will describe the LEA’s commitment to ensuring successful

conditions for high performing charter schools and other innovative schools. LEAs must identify

all goals and all tasks/activities that will be implemented in year two to achieve the stated

goal(s).

Charles County Public Schools has no charter schools.


Section G: Appendices

Appendix A: Budget Tables

1.1A: Current Year Variance TableLocal School System: Charles

Revenue CategoryLocal Appropriation $145,620,700Other Local Revenue 2,631,082 State Revenue 151,388,735 Federal Revenue* 84.027 IDEA Part B - Grants to States-Pass-Through 5,870,548

84.010 Title I Part A 3,003,742 84.391 ARRA IDEA Part B - Grants to States-Pass-Through 393,000 84.392 ARRA IDEA Part B - Preschool Grants 71,600 84.393 ARRA IDEA Part C - Infants and Families 73,500 84.394 ARRA State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Education Program 2,072,973 84.395 ARRA Race to the Top 448,167 84.410 ARRA Education Jobs Fund 5,555,572

Other Federal Funds** 4,044,877 Other Resources/Transfers (Includes Food Services) 11,560,724 Total $332,735,220




100% SALARY: SUBS, HOURLY WAGES, ONE-TIME PAYMENTS ARRA 84.410 3,703,956

83 % STIPENDS, HOURLY PAY ARRA 84.394 1,372,123






66% SALARIES & WAGES Unrestricted 3,482,674 39.00 100% SUPPLIES & MATERIALS Restricted 700 46% SUPPLIES & MAT., 39% CONT. SERVICES ARRA 84.395 232,484 100% EQUIPMENT ARRA 84.391 10,000 100% SALARIES & WAGES ARRA 84.410 1,703


99% SALARIES & WAGES Unrestricted 139,453,506 2,160.60 91% SALARIES & WAGES Restricted 4,264,851 48.90 100% SALARY: ONE-TIME PAYMENTS ARRA 84.410 563,151 100% OTHER : MILEAGE ARRA 84.395 83,390 100% CONTRACTED SERVICES ARRA 84.391 30,000 100% SUPPLIES & MATERIALS ARRA 84.394 14,000


Section C - Data Systems to support instruction

Reform Area 2: Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve

instruction.


Reform Area 3: Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most.

Section E: Turning Around the Lowest Achieveing Schools

Reform Area 4: Turning around our lowest-achieving schools

Mandatory Cost of Doing Business: Please itemize mandatory costs not attributable to an assurance area in this category. Refer to the guidance for items

considered mandatory costs.

Section B - Standards and Assessments

Reform Area 1: Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy.

FY 12 Budget

Instructions: Itemize FY 2012 expenditures by source (CFDA for ARRA funds, restricted or unrestricted) in each of the assurance areas, mandatory cost of doing

business, and other.

1.1A: Current Year Variance TableLocal School System: Charles

FY 12 Budget


27% CONTRACTED SERVICES, 39% TUITION REIMB.\ FRINGE BENEFITS Unrestricted 126,237,270

70% FIXED CHARGES; FRINGE BENEFITS Restricted 4,118,729

98% FIXED CHARGES: FRINGE BENEFITS ARRA 84.410 1,282,762

94% CONT. SERVICES: BUSES, HIGH SCHOOL RENOVATIONS ARRA 84.394 686,850

94% CONT. SERVICES: GWYNN CENTER RENOVATIONS ARRA 84.391 128,000




59% SALARIES & WAGES Unrestricted 4,027,013 22

96% SALARIES & WAGES Restricted 545,565 0.8


*Indicate non-ARRA IDEA and Title I funds by CFDA in Federal Funds.

**All other federal funds can be consolidated in other federal funds.

***Other Funds includes expenditures related to federal Impact Aid


1.1B Prior Year Variance Table (Comparison of Prior Year Expenditures)Local School System: Charles

FY 2011

Original

Budget

**FY 2011 Actual

Revenues

Revenue Category 7/1/2010 6/30/2011 Change % Change

Local Appropriation* 145,296,600 145,296,600 - 0.0%State Revenue 146,166,224 141,535,451 (4,630,773) -3.2%Federal Revenue - - 0.0%Other Resources/Transfers 2,600,000 - (2,600,000) -100.0%Other Local Revenue* 2,946,115 3,260,953 314,838 10.7%Other Federal Funds 12,018,252 10,098,545 (1,919,707) -16.0%Federal ARRA Funds 9,577,471 7,273,102 (2,304,369) -24.1%Total 318,604,662 307,464,651.00 (11,140,011) -132.5%


NCLB

Goal Expenditure Description

Planned

Expenditure

Actual

Expenditure Planned FTE Actual FTE


1 ARRA - State Fiscal Stabilization fund - Infrastructure CTE Programs 1,403,534 1,126,042

1 ARRA - Title I, Part A - School Support, Extended Learning Opportunities (963,038) (381,611)

Total 440,496 744,431


5 ARRA - IDEA Part B - Instructional Technology and Instructional Programs (1,973,898) 1,135,279 (11.0) (11.0)

Total (1,973,898) 1,135,279 (11.0) (11.0)


10 Lapsed Salary Savings (439,800) (2,143,000)

Total (439,800) (2,143,000)

Other

25 ARRA grant funding (McKinney-Vento, School Lunch Equipment) (41,568) 85,229

25 IDEA Part B - Formula & Competitive funding (424,419) (793,259)

25 Restricted miscellaneous federal grant carryovers (442,844) (1,742,074)

25 Restricted miscellaneous local revenues (245,697) 615,858

25 Title grant funding (Title IV, Title II Tech Ed., Title III Language Acquisition) (147,439) 20,818

25 Title I formula funding and carryover (321,730) (224,409)

25 Twenty First Century Learning (148,750) (146,402) (1.0) (1.0)

25 Restricted miscellaneous state revenues (379,259)

Total (1,772,447) (2,563,498) (1.0) (1.0)

Total (3,745,649) (2,826,788) (12.0) (12.0)

*Change from 2010 update reclassified from local appropration to other local revenue ($1,127,035)

** Reflects FY11 Actual Revenue

Revenue

CFDA Grant Name

10.579 National School Lunch - Equipment Assistance 22,760 37,092 - - 59,852

84.387 Homeless Children and Youth - 5,263 22,585 - 27,848 84.389 Title I - Grants to LEAs, Neglected and Delinquent - 963,036 581,431 - 1,544,467 84.391 IDEA Part B - Grants to States-Pass-Through - 1,934,507 3,123,253 393,000 5,450,760 84.392 IDEA Part B - Preschool Grants - 39,391 19,888 71,600 130,879 84.393 IDEA Part C - Infants and Families - 146,213 92,359 73,500 312,072 84.394 State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Education Program - 3,257,990 3,328,586 2,072,973 8,659,549 84.395 Race to the Top 105,000.00 448,167.00 553,167 84.410 Education Jobs Fund 5,555,572.00 5,555,572 Total Arra Funds 22,760 6,383,492 7,273,102 8,614,812 22,294,166

Description CFDA Planned Amount Actual Amount

Planned

FTE

Actual

FTE**

71 - SALARIES & WAGES 84.389 63,489.59 31,975.00 2.00 0.93

84.391 29,520.00 18,175.00 1.00 1.00

84.392 - 1,753.00

84.394 130,796.98 93,825.00 1.00 0.92


84.391 316,297.23 261,873.00 -

84.394 110,786.64 96,207.00 -


84.391 - 18.00

74 - OTHER CHARGES 84.389 1,460.00 6,036.00 -

84.387 - 1,558.00

84.393 10,000.00 2,125.00 -

84.394 124,896.71 151,243.00 -

78 - FIXED CHARGES 84.389 15,952.65 2,436.00 -

84.391 2,259.00 1,398.00 -

84.394 469,304.59 475,302.00 -

84.392 - 134.00 1,332,328.04 1,184,989.00 4.00 2.85

71 - SALARIES & WAGES 84.391 42,452.41 4,793.00 1.00

84.394 132,973.96 116,479.00 2.00 1.15


84.394 125,533.00 124,242.00 -


84.394 78,488.48 99,206.00 -

84.395 - 105,000.00

74 - OTHER CHARGES 84.394 71,278.49 120,653.00 -

75 - EQUIPMENT 84.391 10,000.00 - -

78 - FIXED CHARGES 84.391 21,610.33 367.00 -

84.394 3,084.12 9,328.00 - 572,317.79 640,569.00 3.00 1.15

71 - SALARIES & WAGES 84.391 1,060,297.00 830,271.00 37.00 73.53




Total ARRA

Funds

Instructions: For each of the four assurances, please identify how ARRA funds were used by itemizing expenditures for each assurance. Indicate the

grant CFDA number as the source of the funds for the expenditure.

Assurance 1: Increase teacher effectiveness and address inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers (recruiting, developing, and

retaining effective teachers and principals).

Assurance 2: Establish and use a pre-K through college and career data system to track progress and foster continuous improvement (building data

systems that measure student success and inform teachers and principals how they can improve their practices).

Assurance 3: Make progress towards rigorous college and career-ready standards and high quality assessments that are valid and reliable for all

students, including limited English proficient students and students with disabilities (adopting internationally benchmarked standards and

assessments that prepare students for success in college and the workplace).




Total ARRA

Funds

84.392 49,504.10 - 3.00 0.28

84.393 117,726.58 68,224.00 1.00 2.81

84.394 36,359.49 19,709.00 1.00 72 - CONTRACTED SERVICES 84.389 12,000.00 17,911.00 -

84.391 232,301.00 208,774.00 - 84.392 8,802.00 3,292.00 - 84.393 - 3,649.00 84.394 - 22,140.00

73 - SUPPLIES & MATERIALS 84.391 516,302.67 183,174.00 - 84.392 15,552.00 14,709.00 -

84.393 11,582.37 8,848.00 -

84.394 22,479.50 107,320.00 -

74 - OTHER CHARGES 84.394 - 28,299.00 -

75 - EQUIPMENT 84.394 4,000.00 - -

78 - FIXED CHARGES 84.391 268,265.62 141,725.00 -

84.392 3,869.24 - -

84.393 17,016.00 9,513.00 -

84.394 200.54 1,370.00 -

2,376,258.11 1,668,928.00 42.00 76.62

71 - SALARIES & WAGES 84.387 8,000.00 3,139.00 -

84.389 244,612.61 197,125.00 7.00 20.19

84.391 152,634.00 4.5

84.394 1,816,220.41 497,970.00 40.00 82.3


84.389 32,501.00 16,470.00 -

84.394 69,199.40 10,189.00 -


84.389 123,478.01 221,838.00 -

84.394 171,843.92 68,526.00 -

74 - OTHER CHARGES 84.387 16,000.00 2,000.00 -

84.389 4,000.00 5,484.00 -

84.394 6,256.11 1,034.00 -

78 - FIXED CHARGES 84.387 612.00 236.00 -

84.389 16,142.14 14,943.00 -

84.391 - 49,590.00

84.394 33,573.89 37,763.00 -

79 - TRANSFERS 84.389 16,513.03 23,137.00 - 2,580,313.72 1,317,730.00 47.00 106.99

71 - SALARIES & WAGES 84.389 2,150.00 580.00 1.00

84.394 16,284.33 15,655.00 -

72 - CONTRACTED SERVICES 84.387 3,978.50 - -

84.389 14,973.45 475.00 -

84.391 980,470.00 1,182,960.00 -

84.394 595,905.08 1,165,881.00 -


84.394 988,320.25 21,137.00 -

74 - OTHER CHARGES 84.389 8,699.46 9,677.00 -

84.394 51,406.85 17,072.00 -

78 - FIXED CHARGES 84.389 689.47 169.00 -

84.394 49.43 1,014.00 -

79 - TRANSFERS 84.389 10,000.00 10,000.00 -

84.391 34,000.00 27,000.00 -

* Other

Assurance 4: Provide targeted, intensive support and effective interventions to turn around schools identified for corrective action and restructuring

(turning around lowest performing schools).




Total ARRA

Funds

2,716,253.34 2,460,886.00 1.00 -

Total 9,577,471.00 7,273,102.00 97.00 187.61

*Indicate any other ARRA funds received by the school system, including the CFDA number**Actual FTE per the ARRA quarterly 1512 reports

Page 1 of 5

Local School System:Project Name:Associated with Criteria:

Project Number: 1Project Project Project ProjectYear 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

1. Salaries and Wages - 11,975 3,800 - 15,775

2. Contract Services - - - - -

3. Supplies and Materials - 20,000 - - 20,000

4. Other Charges - 46,015 45,390 45,100 136,505

5. Property - - - - -

6. Transfers (Indirect Costs) - - - - -

7. Total Costs (lines 1-6) - 77,990 49,190 45,100 172,280

Project Budget Summary Table

Charles County Public SchoolsCore Standards Curriculum

(B) (3) Supporting the transition to enhanced standards and high quality assessments

Budget Categories

Columns (a) through (d): For each project year for which funding is requested, show the total amount requested for each applicable budget object. Column (e): Show the total amount requested for all project years.

Race to the Top Project Budget Summary Table Prepared by MSDE, Office of Finance

Page 2 of 5

Local School System: Charles County Public SchoolsProject Title: Criteria: (associated reform criteria)

1

Host various stakeholder forumsIdentify master teachers to support MSDE CCS training needsParticipate in common core standard state briefingSelect staff to participate on committees developing the CCS online toolkitSelect staff to participate on committees to develop high quality assessments

Race to the Top funds will be used to provide mileage reimbursement, substitutes for activities related to Core Standards Curriculum, and transitional materials for 31 schools.

Year by Year Description:Year 2: Staff to participate on high quality assessments committee, to participate in the CCS online toolkit committee, and master teachers will support MSDE CCS training needs. Funding will also provide transitional materials for 31 schools. Years 3‐4: Staff to participate on high quality assessments committee, to participate in the CCS online toolkit committee, and master teachers will support MSDE CCS training needs.

Core Standards Curriculum(B) (3) Supporting the transition to enhanced standards and high quality assessments

Project Number:

Project Budget Narrative

Project Description:

Funding:

Race to the Top Project Budget Narrative Prepared by MSDE, Office of Finance

Page 3 of 5

Project Name:LEA:Project Number: 1

Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* TotalFTE - - ‐ Substitutes 11,975 3,800 15,775 Total - 11,975 3,800 - 15,775

Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Totalitem ‐ item ‐ Total - - - - -

Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* TotalMOI 20,000 20,000 item ‐ Total - 20,000 - - 20,000

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2‐4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Supplies and Materials: expenditures for articles or materials which meet one or more of the conditions outlined on page 66 of the Local Financial Reporting Manual. Please provide a brief description of the supplies and materials inlcuded with this project. In the table below, please itemize the supplies and materials. Add rows if necessary.

Contract Services: expenditures for services performed by persons who are no on the LEA payroll, including equipment repair. Please provide a brief description of the contracted services included with this project. In the table below, please itemize the services provided. Add rows if necessary.

Core Standards CurriculumCharles County Public Schools

Project Details by ObjectSalaries and Wages: provide a brief description of the salaries and wages included with this project. Please provide information by employee classification. If necessary, repeat the FTE table for each classification. Include the number of FTE multiplied by the annual salary for each year.

Year 2: Professional Development: Budget includes 50 teacher substitute days at (50 days x approx. $76.00 p/day) to allow master teachers to support MSDE's CCS training needs, and 108.5 teacher substitutes at (31 schools x 3.5 subs x approx. $76.00 p/day) for transitional planning. Year 3: Professional Development: Budget includes 50 teacher substitute days at (50 days x approx. $76.00 p/day) to allow master teachers to support MSDE's CCS training needs.

Race to the Top Project Budget Template Prepared by MSDE, Office of Finance

Page 4 of 5



Project Details by Object

Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* TotalEmployee Mileage - 45,100 45,100 45,100 135,300 Fixed Charges 915 290 1,205 Total - 46,015 45,390 45,100 136,505

Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Totalitem ‐ item ‐ Total - - - - - Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2‐4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Transfers (Indirect Costs): payments to other LEAs or transfers between major fund types within the LEA. Please provide a brief description of the transfers included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the transfers. Add rows if necessary.

Year 2 ‐ MOI for transitional plans 31 schools @ $645.16 each

Other Charges: expenditures for employee benefits and other miscellaneous expenditures that cannot be classified elsewhere. Please provide a brief description of the other charges included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the other charges. USDE guidance requires specificity for this item. Add rows if necessary.

Year 2: Travel for 55 staff members to various briefings/committee meetings and training. (Calculation: 25 staff @ 10 events @ 137 miles @.55 p/mile, 25 staff @ 12 events @ 136 miles @ .55 p/mile, 5 staff @ 10 events @ 139 miles @ .55 p/mile). Fixed Charges: FICA on substitutes. Years 3‐4: Travel for 55 staff members to various briefings/committee meetings and training. (Calculation: 25 staff @ 10 events @ 137 miles @.55 p/mile, 25 staff @ 12 events @ 136 miles @ .55 p/mile, 5 staff @ 10 events @ 139 miles @ .55 p/mile). Fixed Charges: FICA on substitutes.

Property: expenditures for the acquisition of new or replacement fixed assets inlcuding equipment, vehicles, buildings, school sites, other property, to the extent allowable under the American Recovery and Reinvestmanet Act. Please provide a brief description of the property expenditures included in this project. In the table below, please itemize property expenditures. USDE guidance requires specificity for this item. Add rows if necessary.


Page 5 of 5





Total Project Costs

Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Total- 77,990 49,190 45,100 172,280




Page 1 of 5



(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

1. Salaries and Wages - 15,000 15,000 15,000 45,000

2. Contract Services - 111,334 109,557 60,713 281,604

3. Supplies and Materials - 105,000 105,000 - 210,000

4. Other Charges - 1,150 1,150 1,150 3,450

5. Property - - - 20,000 20,000



Column (e): Show the total amount requested for all project years.

Columns (a) through (d): For each project year for which funding is requested, show the total amount requested for each applicable budget object.


Budget Categories

Charles County Public SchoolsData Warehouse

(C) (3) Using data to improve instruction: (i) Use of local instructional improvement systems (ii) Professional

Development on use of data


Page 2 of 5


2

Year 2: Consultant contract to develop the enhanced data warehouse during last three years of the Race to the Top grant. Train teachers on how to use and analyze data in the new enhancements to data warehouse by providing substitutes for 200 days each year for teacher training. Purchase 150 laptops in years 2 & 3 for students to engage in their instructional programs. Year 3 ‐ 4: Consultant contract to develop the enhanced data warehouse. Purchase server(s) as needed to implement enhancements to data warehouse. Train teachers on how to use and analyze data in the new enhancements to data warehouse by providing substitutes for 200 days each year for teacher training, and purchase 150 laptops for students to engage in their instructional programs.

Project Number:


Project Description:Reporting Tool/Portals: Develop a reporting tool that will individually summarize and address the strengths and challenges of each student and develop the three portals, and purchase additional laptops for every level of middle and high school. Train teachers on the new enhancements to the data warehouse and further train identified data experts in each school that will assist all other teachers in the school to analyze data.

Data Warehouse

Funding:Race to the Top funds will be used to upgrade existing data warehouse, purchase additional laptops and provide training to staff. Infrastructure upgrades necessary to implement RTTT mandates will be dependent upon available funding.

(C) (3) Using data to improve instruction: (i) Use of local instructional improvement systems (ii) Professional Development on use of data

Year by Year Description:


Page 3 of 5


Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* TotalFTE - - - ‐ Substitutes - 15,000 15,000 15,000 45,000 Total - 15,000 15,000 15,000 45,000

Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* TotalConsultants 111,334 109,557 60,713 281,604 item ‐ Total - 111,334 109,557 60,713 281,604

Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* TotalLaptops - 105,000 105,000 210,000 item ‐ Total - 105,000 105,000 - 210,000


Year 2 ‐ 3: Purchase of 150 laptops at every level of middle and high school, total of 16 schools (Calculation: 150 laptops each year @ $700 each = 450 laptops total).


Year 2 ‐ 4: Substitutes (200 days x $75.00 p/day) to allow training of 200 teachers on new enhancements on data warehouse.

Year 2 ‐ 4: Estimate based on prior contracts for data warehouse implementation, contract scope will be bid awarded and contractor will provide necessary labor to complete the upgrades.

Supplies and Materials: expenditures for articles or materials which meet one or more of the conditions outlined on page 66 of the Local Financial Reporting Manual. Please provide a brief description of the supplies and materials inlcuded with this proje

Contract Services: expenditures for services performed by persons who are no on the LEA payroll, including equipment repair. Please provide a brief description of the contracted services included with this project. In the table below, please itemize the

Salaries and Wages: provide a brief description of the salaries and wages included with this project. Please provide information by employee classification. If necessary, repeat the FTE table for each classification. Include the number of FTE multiplie


Page 4 of 5




Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* TotalFixed Charges - 1,150 1,150 1,150 3,450 item ‐ Total - 1,150 1,150 1,150 3,450

Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* TotalEquipment - 20,000 20,000 item ‐ Total - - - 20,000 20,000

Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* Totalitem ‐ item ‐ Total - - - - - Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2‐4, please provide an estimate of costs and also provide the basis for this estimate here.

Year 2 ‐ 4: FICA on substitutes

Year 4 : Purchase multiple servers capable of handling the necessary data warehouse upgrades.

Other Charges: expenditures for employee benefits and other miscellaneous expenditures that cannot be classified elsewhere. Please provide a brief description of the other charges included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the other ch

Transfers (Indirect Costs): payments to other LEAs or transfers between major fund types within the LEA. Please provide a brief description of the transfers included in this project. In the table below, please itemize the transfers. Add rows if necessa

Property: expenditures for the acquisition of new or replacement fixed assets inlcuding equipment, vehicles, buildings, school sites, other property, to the extent allowable under the American Recovery and Reinvestmanet Act. Please provide a brief descri


Page 5 of 5




Total Project Costs




Page 1 of 5



(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)



3. Supplies and Materials - - - - -

4. Other Charges - 85,193 82,562 82,561 250,316

5. Property - - - - -






Budget Categories

Charles County Public SchoolsGreat Teachers and Leaders(D)(2) Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance: (ii) Design and implement evaluation systems (D)(2) Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance: (iv)(a) Use evaluations to inform professional development (D)(3) Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals: (i) High-poverty and/or high-minority schools (D)(3) Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals: (ii) Hard-to-staff subjects and specialty areas (D)(3) Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals: (ii) Hard-to-staff subjects and specialty areas


Page 2 of 5


3

Year 2: Assign mentors to work with the new teachers and teachers on a second‐class certificate; have mentors participate in the Educator Instructional Improvement Academies; have staff participate in MSDE's Educator Instructional Improvement and Induction Academies for teachers, Priority Schools and Maryland Principals' Academies for appropriate principals, Aspiring Leaders' Academy, and Executive Officer professional development; provide monthly training for mentors, and revise and implement the induction program for new teachers. Research available technology and compare multiple vendors for online portal and tools to support quality professional development, effective mentoring and to provide data for decision making.Year 3‐4: Continue with mentor assignments and staff training, as well as provide stipends for staff at lowest performing schools during year 3 and 4. Implementation of selected online portal/tools .

Project Number:


Project Description:The mentor program will be revised and will be compliant with the COMAR regulations. Charles County Public Schools will begin to work with our bargaining unit for changes in compensation models that would differentiate salary for effective and highly effective teachers and principals. Charles County Public Schools will participate in the Education Instructional Improvement Academies and MSDE’s Priority Schools Academy, and research and implement quality online portal or digital tools for managing quality professional development and mentor observations /feedback. Principal mentoring is in place now and will continue as a support for new principals.

Great Teachers and Leaders

Funding:Race to the Top funds will be used provide stipends to support lowest performing schools for improvement, and to train and provide teacher mentoring program. Future funding for this initiative is dependent on the available funds and union negotiations.

(D)(2) Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance: (ii) Design and implement evaluation systems (D)(2) Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance: (iv)(a) Use evaluations to inform professional development (D)(3) Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals: (i) High‐poverty and/or high‐minority schools (D)(3) Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals: (ii) Hard‐to‐staff subjects and specialty areas (D)(3) Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals: (ii) Hard‐to‐staff subjects and specialty areas



Page 3 of 5


Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* TotalFTEStipend Staff Development - 47,100 47,100 47,100 141,300 Total - 47,100 47,100 47,100 141,300

Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* TotalFTE - - ‐ Stipend - - 31,129 31,129 62,258 Total - - 280,161 280,161 560,322

Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* TotalConsultants - - - ‐ item ‐ Total - - - - -


Year 2‐4: Stipends for 14 Mentor Assignments (14 mentors x 11 events x $240.26 p/event, and 42 staff participating in overview of new teacher induction program (42 members x 1 event x $240.48 p/day).

Charles County Public SchoolsGreat Teachers and Leaders


Year 3‐4: Stipends for 9 staff (1 principal, 1 V.Principal, 5 teachers, 2 Instructional Specialists) at $20,000 ‐ $40,000, based on union negotiated salary and tenure of staff.

Please provide complete details for year 1. For years 2‐4, please provide an estimate of costs and also




Page 4 of 5





Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* TotalFixed Charges - 3,604 27,162 27,161 57,927 Employee mileage - 30,900 30,900 30,900 92,700 Other Charges 50,689 24,500 24,500 99,689 Total - 85,193 82,562 82,561 250,316


Year 2: Fixed Charges: FICA on bonuses and stipends. Employee Mileage: 14 Mentors mileage for assignments (Calculation: 14 staff x 4 assignments x 36 weeks x 27.32 miles @ .55 p/mile), and 60 staff to participate in Educator Academies (Calculation: 60 staff x 1 event x 18.18 miles @ .55 p/mile). Other Charges: collaboratively research and select robust online portal/tools to support quality professional development and effective mentoring (Budget based on 3 sample vendors, start‐up costs in Year 2, annual maintenance in Year 3‐4) Years 3‐4: Fixed Charges: FICA on bonuses and stipends. Employee Mileage: 14 Mentors mileage for assignments(Calculation: 14 staff x 4 assignments x 36 weeks x 27.32 miles @ .55 p/mile), and 60 staff to participate in Educator Academies (Calculation: 60 staff x 1 event x 18.18 miles @ .55 p/mile). Other Charges: collaboratively research and select robust online portal/tools to support quality professional development and effective mentoring (Budget based on 3 sample vendors, Annual maintenance in Year 3‐4)


provide the basis for this estimate here.



Page 5 of 5






Total Project Costs








Page 1 of 5



(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)



3. Supplies and Materials - - - - -

4. Other Charges - 1,524 1,332 1,332 4,188

5. Property - - - - -






Budget Categories

Charles County Public SchoolsSTEM Program



Page 2 of 5


4

Year 2: Travel for 3 staff members to attend state briefings and committee meetings (estimated at 6 monthly meetings per year). Substitutes for staff to attend state briefings, curriculum writing and Aerospace Program training. Year 3 ‐ 4: Travel for 3 staff members to attend state briefings and committee meetings (estimated at 6 monthly meetings per year). Substitutes for staff to attend state briefings, curriculum writing and Aerospace Program training.

Project Number:


Project Description:Three CCPS STEM staff members will actively collaborate with the state in each

developmental phase of state‐wide STEM curriculum and resources. CCPS content supervisors will also actively participate in the developmental phases of the joint

establishment of a World Language and STEM pipeline.

STEM Program

Funding:Race to the Top funds will be used to provide mileage reimbursement for activities related to STEM briefings and curriculum.




Page 3 of 5


Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* TotalFTE ‐ Substitutes 3,876 1,368 1,368 6,612 Total - 3,876 1,368 1,368 6,612






Year 2: 51 subs (18 for curriculum writing, 18 for state meetings, 15 for Aerospace Academy) @ approx. $76 p/day. Year 3‐4: 18 subs for state meetings @ approx. $76 p/day.






Page 4 of 5




Year 1 Year 2* Year 3* Year 4* TotalEmployee Mileage - 1,227 1,227 1,227 3,681 Fixed Charges 297 105 105 507 Total - 1,524 1,332 1,332 4,188



Year 2: Employee mileage: Travel for 3 staff members to attend state briefings,committee meetings and training for Aerospace Academy (Calculation: 3 staff @ 6 events @ 123.94 miles @ .55 p/mile). Fixed Charges is FICA on substitutes. Year 3 ‐4: Employee mileage: Travel for 3 staff members to attend state briefings,committee meetings and training for Aerospace Academy (Calculation: 3 staff @ 6 events @ 123.94 miles @ .55 p/mile). Fixed Charges is FICA on substitutes.






Page 5 of 5




Total Project Costs





Documents

View Master Plan - Part I