Lennox School District

10319 Firmona Ave

Lennox, California 90304

(310) 695-4000

http://www.lennox.k12.ca.us/

LEAP Addendum

2008-2010

Introduction

This action plan is submitted as an addendum to the Lennox School District LEA Plan. It is the plan of action for creating and sustaining the roadmap for accelerating student achievement in the district. Student achievement goals have been set for all students: Each student is expected to advance one level on the California Standards Test scale annually.

In setting these goals for its students, the Lennox School District has set a lofty goal for the district as a system and for all of the people who work in the district. Research is clear that students’ best opportunity for achieving at a high level is dependent on every adult acting on the belief that achievement targets can be met – no excuses! High achievement, especially for High Priority students, also requires that every student engages in a well articulated, consistent, and coherent academic program that places students’ academic future at the center of every decision at the district level, at the school, and in the classroom.

The District Assistance Intervention Team (DAIT) Capacity Study pointed to many positive attributes of the Lennox School District. Commitment to students, experienced staff, expertise with special populations, highly qualified teachers, and sound fiscal stewardship are but a few of these attributes. The Capacity Study also called for some significant changes in the way priorities are set, goals are established, staff talent is used, and ways that a standards-based educational program is led and supported through a system wide view.

With this action plan, the Lennox School District is making a commitment to fully implementing the Nine Essential Program Components. The very structure of the plan itself reinforces this commitment. The plan’s first section focuses on curriculum and instruction and is divided into three key content areas: Mathematics, English Language Arts, and English Language Development. Each one of these areas includes specifics about the seven features of core program design:

1. Instructional Materials

2. Instructional Strategies

3. Instructional Time

4. Pacing of Standards

5. Assessment

6. Understanding and Using Assessment Data

7. Professional Development

The area of mathematics is the most fully developed area in the plan since mathematics is next on the major adoption calendar of the California State Materials Adoption Cycle. Because district implementation of SBE-adopted materials was uneven in the past, it was determined to use the mathematics adoption as a prototype for future adoptions. This means mathematics will be the place to begin a system transformation to standards based teaching, learning, and assessment. The objective is to do a full and successful adoption and implementation of mathematics so that students can reap its full benefits and teachers, administrators and the school community can see evidence of student success when there is a consistent, articulated and coherent approach to student learning.

Common threads run through each of the three content areas and within the seven design features:

1. The opportunity to learn a “guaranteed viable curriculum” is the right of every student. To make this guarantee means that California grade level standards and SBE-adopted materials aligned to the standards are the core materials for all students.

2. English learners and students with disabilities are the high priority students for Lennox. Research and exemplary practice point to the most effective instructional strategies for these students. These strategies are to be central to teaching in Lennox. They are all the more powerful by being used across the content areas.

3. Frequent and structured collegial discussion of student assessment data and collaborative decisions about how to improve student achievement are essential to student achievement and teacher professionalism.

4. Many programs serve the same children. Integrated action planning with a student-centered approach is more efficient than writing a separate plan for each program. Therefore, the district’s Title III plan is integrated into this LEAP addendum.

5. The implementation of core programs requires support and monitoring. Full and faithful implementation requires district and school administrators to be competent data facilitators as well as visible support to teachers in the classrooms. It will also require that staff development specialists devote more time to content expertise and coaching to support teachers.

Having established the importance of the core program for every student, Section Two of the LEAP addendum address interventions in general, along with plans for the specialized programs that are in place for English learners and students with disabilities. The schools in Lennox have intervention opportunities for students, but they differ from school to school in entry criteria, frequency, duration, and methodology. There are also a wide variety of program options for EL students. Once again, strong consistency is lacking among the schools.

The special education program is ready to even more fully integrate students with disabilities into the mainstream program. Using the expertise of special education staff is one of the best ways to assist the district in implementing an effective Response to Intervention program that will serve all students with the extra services they may need to advance to proficient in the mastery of core academic standards.

Section 1: Curriculum & Instruction

Part 1: Mathematics

The NCLB target for 2008-2009 is 47.5% of students in grades 2-8 will score proficient or advanced levels on the CST. In order to reach the NCLB AYP targets, the Lennox School District has established district-wide measurable goals based on California proficiency levels.

During the 2008-2009 school year, students in grade 2nd-8th will improve mathematics achievement as measured by growth on the CST results as compared to 2007-2008 year.

· Students at Far Below Basic will move to Below Basic in one year.

· Students at Below Basic will move to Basic in one year.

· Students at Basic will increase 25 scaled score points in one year.

· Students at Proficient or Advanced Proficient will maintain proficiency.

· No students will regress.

Benchmark:

· All students will achieve scores of 75% or better on all unit and trimester assessments.

· 2^nd-6^th grade students will achieve grade level proficiency on their math facts assessments.

A. Materials

In 2004 the district adopted Harcourt Brace Math for grades K-6, Prentice Hall Math for grade 7-8, and McDougal Littell for Algebra. The 2008-2009 mathematics adoption of the new State Board of Education (SBE) adopted materials is underway in the Lennox School District. Table 1 reflects what has been accomplished and planned.

Table 1: Timeline for 2008-2010 Mathematics Textbook Adoptions

Specific Action	Person(s) Responsible / Timeline	Estimated Cost/ Funding Source
Math Adoption Committee made of representatives of grade level and school, along with school and district administrators (MAC) review of California State Framework for Mathematics	Director of Academic Improvement/MAC: February 2008	General funds/Title 1 funding/ $25,000
MAC review of California approved mathematics materials at the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE)	Director of Academic Improvement MAC: March 2008
MAC debrief of the approved materials and establish local criteria based on district math achievement, demographics, district teacher characteristics, etc.	Director of Academic Improvement/MAC: March 2008
MAC narrow selection options	Director of Academic Improvement/MAC: April 2008
MAC develop protocol for review and pilot	Director of Academic Improvement/MAC: April 2008
MAC pilot of materials	Director of Academic Improvement/MAC: September-October 2008	N/A
MAC public display of materials	Director of Academic Improvement/MAC: December 2008	N/A
MAC recommendation to Superintendent for Board adoption	Director of Academic Improvement/MAC: January 2009	N/A
Public Hearing	Director of Academic Improvement/MAC: January 2009	N/A
Board approval with funding recommendations	Board: February 2009	N/A
Purchase materials	Director of Academic Improvement/MAC: February 2009	$600,000 IMF/Lottery
Distribution of materials to teachers	Director of Academic Improvement/MAC/Principals: June 2009	N/A

B. Instructional Strategies

In preparation for the 2008-2009 math adoption, the district is currently training teachers on a common lesson design and instructional strategies (Swun Math). Instructional strategies include:

· Automaticity of Basic Facts

· Student Engagement

o Active participation: i.e.: think-pair-share, wait time, equity sticks*

o Reaching Consensus

· Oral Presentation & Note-taking

o Use of sentence frames based on English Proficiency levels*

o Embedding academic vocabulary*

· Common conceptual problem solving and operational strategies

(*Differentiated for High Priority Students)

C. Instructional Time

The minutes mandated for math instruction are:

Kindergarten 30 minutes daily

Grades 1 60 minutes daily

Grades 2-5 90 minutes daily (30 minutes for math facts)

Grades 6-8 60 minutes/ one period

D. Pacing

The district provides a pacing chart aligned to the state standards and the 2004 mathematics adoption materials. After the selection of the new adoption a revised pacing chart will be completed by Swun math consultants and distributed to all teaching staff.

E. Assessment

Math assessments are administered at weekly, six week and trimester intervals. An assessment calendar for the 2004 mathematics adoption is included in Table 2 & 3. In addition to these assessments, teachers create weekly assessments to guide their instruction.

Table 2: 2008-2009 K-6 Assessment Calendar

DATE	GR	ASSESSMENT
August 18-19, 2008	2-6	tDiagnostic Assessment (Beyond the Basic Facts) tT1 Practice Exam #1
September 9, 2008	3	SBA T1 #1; Place Value
September 10, 2008	6	SBA T1 #1; Numbers Sense and Operation
September 15, 2008	3	SBA T1 #1 (SPED); Place Value
	5	SBA T1 #1; Place Value of Whole Numbers / Addition & Subtraction SBA T1 #1 (SPED); Place Value of Whole Numbers / Addition & Subtraction
September 19, 2008	2	SBA T1 #1 (SPED); Numbers to 100
September 23, 2008	4	SBA T1 #1; Place Value of Whole Numbers /Addition & Subtraction Greater Numbers SBA T1 #1 (SPED); Place Value of Whole Numbers
September 25, 2008	6	SBA T1 #2; Algebra / Integers
September 26, 2008	2	SBA T1 #1; Numbers to 100 &1000
	3	SBA T1 #2; Addition & Subtraction
October 10, 2008	3	SBA T1 #2 (SPED); Addition & Subtraction
	5	SBA T1 #2; Multiplication & Division
	6	tT1 Practice Exam #2 (Re-administration)
October 14, 2008	2	SBA T1 #2; Addition SBA T1 #2 (SPED); Addition
October 15-17, 2008	K-1	tT1 Block Assessment tT1 Block Assessment (SPED)
October 17, 2008	5	SBA T1 #2 (SPED); Multiplication & Division
October 22, 2008	2-5	tT1 Practice Exam #2 (Re-administration)
October 23, 2008	6	SBA T1 #3; Fractions Concepts and Operations
October 24, 2008	6	tT1 Exam
October 27, 2008	6	tT2 Practice Exam #1
November 4, 2008	2	SBA T1 #3; Subtraction without Regrouping SBA T1 #3 (SPED); Subtraction without Regrouping
	3	SBA T1 #3; Multiplication SBA T1 #3 (SPED); Multiplication
	4	SBA T1 #2; Multiplication and Division SBA T1 #2 (SPED); Addition, Subtraction / Relating Multiplication and Division
	5	SBA T1 #3; Operations with Fractions SBA T1 #3 (SPED); Fractions
November 5, 2008	2-5	tT1 Exam tT1 Exam (SPED)
November 6, 2008	2-5	tT2 Practice Exam #1
November 19, 2008	2	SBA T2 #1; Subtraction with Regrouping
November 20, 2008	5	SBA T2 #1; Multiplication & Division Fractions SBA T2 #1 (SPED); Multiplication & Division Fractions
November 24, 2008	6	SBA T2 #1; Ratio, Proportion, Percent, and Probability
November 26, 2008	3	SBA T2 #1; Division SBA T2 #1 (SPED); Division
December 3, 2008	4	SBA T2 #1; Fractions
December 8, 2008	5	SBA T2 #2; Fractions, Ratio and Percent SBA T2 #2 (SPED); Fractions, Ratio and Percent
December 12, 2008	4	SBA T2 #2; Decimals
January 5, 2009	6	T2 Practice Exam #2 (Re-administration)
January 9, 2009	2	SBA T2 #2; Money, Time & Calendar SBA T2 #1 (SPED); Numbers to 1000 & Addition
	4	SBA T2 #1 (SPED); Multiplication of Multi-digit Number / Understanding Division
January 14, 2009	3	SBA T2 #2; Fractions and Decimals SBA T2 #2 (SPED); Fractions and Decimals
	6	SBA T2 #2; Geometry and Spatial Reasoning/ Measurement
January 15, 2009	6	tT2 Exam
January 16, 2009	6	tT3 Practice Exam #1
January 23, 2009	2	SBA T2 #3; Fractions & Probability SBA T2 #2 (SPED); Subtraction
	5	SBA T2 #3; Geometry and Measurement SBA T2 #3 (SPED); Geometry and Measurement
	2-5	tT2 Practice Exam #2 (Re-administration)
February 4-6, 2009	K-1	tTrimester 2 Block Assessment tTrimester 2 Block Assessment (SPED)
February 5, 2009	2	SBA T2 #4; Multiplication & Division SBA T2 #3 (SPED); Multiplication
	3	SBA T2 #3; Geometry SBA T2 #3 (SPED); Geometry
	4	SBA T2 #3; Measurement, Algebra, and Graphing SBA T2 #2 (SPED); Fractions and Decimals
	5	SBA T2 #4; Integers SBA T2 #4 (SPED); Integers
February 6, 2009	2-5	tT2 Exam tT2 Exam (SPED)
February 9, 2009	6	SBA T3 #1; Algebra-Expressions and Equations
February 10, 2009	2-5	tT3 Practice Exam #1
February 20, 2009	3	SBA T3 #1; Data, Graphing and Probability
February 23, 2009	6	tT3 Practice Exam #1 (Re-administration)
February 25, 2009	2	SBA T3 #1; Geometry SBA T3 #1 (SPED); Geometry
February 27, 2009	4	SBA T3 #1 (SPED); Algebra and Graphing
	3	SBA T3 #1 (SPED); Data, Graphing and Probability
March 3, 2009	4	SBA T3 #1; Geometry
March 6, 2009	5	SBA T3 #1; Geometry and Coordinate Plane SBA T3 #1 (SPED); Geometry and Algebra
	6	SBA T3 #2; Statistics
March 9, 2009	6	tT3 Exam (#1-25)
March 10, 2009	6	tT3 Exam (#26-50)
March 12, 2009	2-5	tT3 Practice Exam #2 (Re-administration)
March 13, 2009	3	SBA T3 #2; Measurement SBA T3 #2 (SPED); Measurement
	2	SBA T3 #2; Data & Graphing SBA T3 #2 (SPED); Fractions and Probability
April 21, 2009	4	SBA T3 #2; Probability
	5	SBA T3 #2; Analyze Data & Making Graphs
April 22, 2009	2	SBA T3 #3; Measurement
	5	SBA T3 #2 (SPED); Data and Graphs
	4	SBA T3 #2 (SPED); Geometry and Probability
	3	SBA T3 #3; Money and Time SBA T3 #3 (SPED); Money and Time
April 23, 2009	2-5	tT3 Exam, #1-25 tT3 Exam (SPED), #1-25
April 24, 2009	2-5	tT3 Exam #26-50 tT3 Exam (SPED), #26-50
May 8, 2009	4	SBA T3 #3 (SPED); Algebra Review
	2	SBA T3 #3 (SPED); Money and Measurement
May 6-8, 2009	K-1	tTrimester 3 Block Assessment tTrimester 3 Block Assessment (SPED)
May 11-22	2-5	CST

Table 3: 2008-2009 7-8 Assessment Calendar

DATE	GR	ASSESSMENT
August 27, 2008	7	Quiz: 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5
September 3, 2008	8	Quiz: 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6
September 4, 2008	7-8	Chapter 1 Test
September 9, 2008	8	Quiz: 2-1, 2-3
September 17, 2008	7 8	Quiz: 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 3-1, 3-2 Quiz: 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8
September 18, 2008	8	Chapter 2 Test
September 24, 2008	8	Quiz: 2-9, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3
October 2, 2008	8	Quiz: 3-4, 3-5, 3-7, 3-9, 3-10, 3-11
October 3, 2008	7 8	Chapter Test: 3-7, 4-2, 4-4, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 5-9 Chapter 3 Test
October 8, 2008	8	Quiz: 4-2, 4-3
October 13, 2008	8	Chapter 4 Test
October 17, 2008	7-8	t District Quarter I Assessment
October 22, 2008	8	Quiz: 5-1, 5-2
October 27, 2008	8	Chapter 5 Test Part 1 (sections 5-1 to 5-5)
October 31, 2008	7	Chapter Test: 5-2, 6-2, 6-3, 6-5, 6-6, 6-8, 6-9
November 5, 2008	8	Chapter 5 Test Part 2
November 12, 2008	8	Quiz: 6-1, 6-2
November 21, 2008	8	Chapter 6 Test
December 12, 2008	7 8	Chapter Test: Equation & Inequality Chapter 7 Test
January 12, 2009	8	t District Quarter II Assessment
January 16, 2009	7	t District Quarter II Assessment
January 22, 2009	8	Quiz: 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, 8-5
January 23, 2009	8	Chapter 8 Test
January 28, 2009	8	Quiz: 9-1, 9-3, 9-4
January 30, 2009	7	Quiz: 1-10, 8-2, 8-3, 8-4
February 4, 2009	8	Quiz: 9-5, 9-6
February 5, 2009	8	Chapter 9 Test
February 10, 2009	8	Quiz: 11-1, 11-3
February 21, 2009	8	Quiz: 12-4, 13-1, 13-2, 13-4, 13-3
March 2, 2009	8	Chapter 13 Test Part 1 (sections 12-4, 13-1 to 13-4)
March 12, 2009	8	Chapter 10 Test Part 1 (section 10-1 to 10-4)
April 17, 2009	7-8	t District Quarter III Assessment
April 22, 2009	8	Quiz: 10-7, 10-8
April 23, 2009	8	Chapter 10 Test
May 20, 2009	8	Quiz: 11-2, 11-4
May 29, 2009	8	Chapter 11 Test
June 8, 2009	8	Chapter 13 Test
June 19, 2009	7-8	t District Quarter IV Assessment

F. Understanding and Use of Data

Teachers utilize data sources to analyze local and state assessments to inform math instruction and progress toward district goals. In addition, school sites provide teachers with their students’ English Proficiency level in the four domains of language proficiency to consider when analyzing academic content data during collaborative meetings. Table 4 outlines specific action steps for data analysis meetings.

Table 4: Math Data Analysis Timeline 2008-2010

Specific Action	Person(s) Responsible/ Timeline	Estimated Cost/ Funding Source
Facilitate grade level teacher collaborative meetings with a structured and common protocol using existing meeting structures. State Assessments: CST CELDT Local Assessments: weekly assessment – to inform instruction standards-based assessment- spiral review (problem of the day/ small group instruction/intervention trimester assessment- progress towards District and school goals / intervention	Principals: Trimester Collaboration Meetings: November 2008 February 2009 April 2009	QEIA/HPSG/Site Title I @ $140 per teacher for sub release
Create data forms and data meeting protocols	Principals, Director of Academic Improvement, Education Technology Coordinator: September 25, 2008	N/A
Use district data protocol during collaborative meeting times	Principals: Trimester Collaboration Meetings: November 2008 February 2009 April 2009	QEIA / HPSG funding @ $140 per teacher for sub release
Determine and list evidence that will be collected to demonstrate implementation of plan and progress toward district math goals.	Instructional Services, Principals: October, 2008	N/A
Calendar trimester principal/ superintendent, deputy superintendent and /or director of academic improvement trimester data meetings with each school principal.	Deputy Superintendent: November, 2008 February, 2009 April, 2009	N/A
Principals share trimester results and next steps at cabinet and Board meetings.	Principals: November, 2008 February, 2009 April, 2009	N/A
Superintendent provides Board with progress towards student achievement goals in math.	Superintendent: November, 2008 February, 2009 April, 2009	N/A

G. Professional Development

A minority of site administrators completed the full AB430 Mathematics training. More than half of teachers have completed AB472 training in the current adoption. With the new adoption, training will be mandatory for all teachers and administrators.

Table 5: Math Professional Development Timeline

Specific Action	Person(s) Responsible / Timeline	Estimated Cost /Funding Source
AB 430 Principals / AB 472 Teachers Interview and select AB 430/ AB 472 providers Schedule AB 430 / AB 472 training for all staff on new adoption Complete AB430 / AB 472 training Develop a protocol to ensure that all new staff receive AB 430 / AB 472 training on the 2009 mathematics adoption	Coordinator of Staff Development: February 2009 All teachers: Summer 2009 Coordinator of Staff Development: October 2009 January 2010	AB 430/472 state funding @ 2,100 per teacher / school QEIA/HPSG /Title I corrective action ($200,000)
Swun Math · Understand the Lesson and Beyond the Basic Facts Structure · Use math pacing chart · Administer assessments · Use assessment results to improve instruction · Instructional Strategies o Automaticity of Basic Facts o Student Engagement § Active participation: i.e.: think-pair-share, wait time, equity sticks* § Reaching Consensus o Oral Presentation & Note-taking § Use of sentence frames based on English Proficiency levels* § Embedding academic vocabulary* · Common conceptual problem solving and operational strategies (*Differentiation Strategies for High Priority Students)	Swun consultants, Director of Academic Improvement: 2008-2009 School Year Swun Professional Development Training: August 2008 November 2008 February 2009 April 2009 Swun Consultant Teacher Coaching: once a month	$300,000 /Staff Development Block grant
Additional training · Using district established protocol to conduct grade level data meetings · Accessing and utilizing data to inform instruction and monitor student progress · Establishing a continuous improvement cycle · Setting SMART goals · Conducting effective classroom walkthroughs · Coaching math instruction · Conducting Mathematics Learning Walks	Principals: Collaborative Meetings: November 2008 February 2009 April 2009 Principals/SDS/teachers September – October 2008 Principals/SDS/teachers September 2008- May 2009	N/A N/A

Part 2: English Language Arts

The NCLB target for 2008-2009 is 46% of the students in grades 2-8 will score proficient or advanced levels on the CST. In order to reach the NCLB AYP targets, the Lennox School District has established district-wide measurable goals based on California proficiency levels.

During the 2008-2009 school year, students in grade 2nd-8th will improve English Language Arts achievement as measured by growth on the CST results as compared to 2007-2008 year.

· Students at Far Below Basic will move to Below Basic in one year.

· Students at Below Basic will move to Basic in one year.

· Students at Basic will increase 25 scaled score points in one year.

· Students at Proficient or Advanced Proficient will maintain proficiency.

· No student will regress.

AMAO 3 data indicates that for the last five years the Lennox English Learner (EL) student subgroup has increased achievement in English Language Arts (ELA) above the rate of the EL subgroup statewide. However, the District fails to meet AMAO 3 in English Language Arts. In analyzing the sub-scores of both CST and CELDT, reading comprehension is one of the lowest skill areas. Upon further study of the CST ELA performance data for EL students considered to be proficient on the CELDT, the majority of these students are mainly clustered at the basic level on CST. Approximately 80% of the district’s EL students do not reach proficiency on the CELDT. These students lack English and comprehension skills. Students with disabilities are displaying similar results. Therefore, implementation of the core curriculum for ELA will include a focus on English language development, frontloading, academic vocabulary and reading comprehension.

A. Materials

In 2004 the district adopted Houghton-Mifflin Language Arts for grades K-5 and Holt Language Arts for grades 6-8. Both the District Assistance Intervention Team (DAIT) and William’s Compliance teams certified there are adequate core materials in every classroom and for every student. However, there are varying degrees of implementation at the elementary level. The DAIT team’s review of the APS results, classroom observations and interviews determined that implementation of Houghton-Mifflin ranged from “some” to “partial”. The implementation of Holt is stronger at the middle school and ranges from “partial” to “full”. Full implementation of the core program is critical. Therefore, SBE-adopted English Language Arts materials will be fully implemented.

Table 6: Timeline for 2009-2010 English Language Arts Textbook Adoption

Specific Action	Person(s) Responsible / Timeline	Estimated Cost/ Funding Source
Identify teachers and administrators to serve on the ELA/ELD Adoption Committee (EAC)	Instructional Services Staff -February 2009	$25,000/ Title II Part A/General funds
EAC review of California State Framework for ELA/ELD.	February 2009
EAC review of California approved ELA/ELD materials	March 2009
EAC debrief of the approved materials and establish local criteria based on district ELA/ELD achievement, demographics, district, teacher characteristics, etc.	March 2009
EAC narrow selection options	September 2009
EAC develop protocol for review and pilot	September 2009
EAC pilot of materials	October –November 2009	N/A
EAC public display of materials	January 2010	N/A
EAC recommendation to Superintendent for Board adoption	January 2010	N/A
Public Hearing	January 2010	N/A
Board Approval with funding recommendations	February 2010	N/A
Purchase materials	February 2010	$1,000,000 +/ IMF-Lottery
Distribution of materials to teachers	June 2010	N/A

B. Instructional Strategies

To assist teachers in the implementation of the ELA core curriculum, with appropriate adaptations for high priority students the current district focus on embedding academic vocabulary and using sentence frames for oral and written language in math will carry over and adapted in English Language Arts. Additionally, reading comprehension strategies will be emphasized.

Table 7: English Language Arts Instructional Strategies

Specific Action	Person(s) Responsible/ Timeline	Estimated Cost/ Funding Source
Teachers at two pilot schools will use scaffolding strategies in Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing during ELD, Language Arts and other content areas with an emphasis on academic vocabulary and sentence frames.	Instructional Services Staff/Grant English Learner coach/ Pilot School Principals: Pilot Schools: October 2008 –June 2010	AB 2117/ HPSG /School EIA funds
Teachers at two pilot schools will focus the following reading comprehension areas: · Inference/Drawing Conclusions · Classifying/Categorizing/Main Idea · Sequence and Cause/Effect · Fact/Opinion & Author’s Purpose · Compare/Contrast · Point of View	ELA Staff Development Specialists/Consultant/ Instructional Services staff/principals: Pilot Schools: September 2008-June 2009
All teachers will integrate the use of academic vocabulary and sentence frames during English Language Arts.	Teachers: October 2008	N/A
Teachers will use the district developed Reading Comprehension Resource Guide based on current SBE-adopted/approval materials.	ELA Staff Development Specialists/Consultant/ Instructional Services staff/principal: September 2008-June 2010	N/A

C. Instructional Time

The minutes mandated for English Language Arts instruction are:

Kindergarten 60 minutes daily

Grades 1-3 2.5 hours daily

Grades 4-5 2 hours daily

Grades 6-8 60 minutes / one period

D. Pacing

The district is developing a pacing chart that links SBE-adopted materials to reading comprehension strategies. This pacing chart will be distributed to staff.

E. Assessment

Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) is administered to students in grades K-5. Students in grades 6-8 are administered a standards-based reading comprehension assessment.

Table 8: English Language Arts Assessment

Specific Action	Person(s) Responsible/ Timeline	Estimated Cost/ Funding Source
District will research options for ELA benchmark assessments linked to CST	DAIT providers/Instructional Services staff/ principals/Teachers: October 2008	Title I/EIA ($5,000)
Purchase/ create ELA benchmark assessments	DAIT providers /Instructional Services staff/ EAC: November 2008	General funds ($7,000)
Implement ELA benchmark assessments	Instructional Services staff/ EAC: Pilot School- January 2009	N/A

F. Understanding and Use of Data

Teachers utilize data sources to analyze local and state assessments to inform instruction. In addition, school sites provide teachers with their students’ English Proficiency level in the four domains of language proficiency to consider when analyzing academic content data during collaborative meetings. Table 9 outlines specific action steps for data analysis meetings.

Table 9: Data Analysis Timeline 2008-2010

Specific Action	Person(s) Responsible/ Timeline	Estimated Cost/ Funding Source
Facilitate grade level teacher collaborative meetings with a structured common protocol using existing meeting structures. State Assessments: CST CELDT Local Assessments: Standards-based Assessment DRA Assessment	Principals: Trimester Collaboration Meetings: November 2008 February 2009 April 2009	N/A
Use district data protocol during ELA/ELD collaborative meeting times.	Principals: Trimester Collaboration Meetings: November 2008 February 2009 April 2009	N/A
Determine and list evidence that will be collected to demonstrate implementation of plan and progress toward district English Language Arts goals.	Instructional Services, Principals: October, 2008	N/A
Calendar trimester principal/ superintendent, deputy superintendent and /or director of academic improvement meetings with each school principal.	Deputy Superintendent: March 2009 November 2009 February 2010 April 2010	N/A
Principals share student ELA/ELD progress and next steps at cabinet curriculum meetings.	Principals: April 2009 November, 2009 February, 2010 April, 2010	N/A
Superintendent provides Board with progress toward student achievement goals in ELA/ELD.	Superintendent: April 2009 November, 2009 February, 2010 April, 2010	N/A

G. Professional Development

A minority of site administrators completed the full AB430 English Language Arts training. More than half of teachers have completed AB472 training in the current adoption. With the new adoption, training will be mandatory for all teachers and administrators.

Table 10: Professional Development Timeline

Specific Action	Person(s) Responsible / Timeline	Estimated Cost /Funding Source
AB 430 Principals / AB 472 & ELPD Teachers Interview and select AB 430/ ELPD/ AB 472 providers Schedule AB 430 / ELPD/ AB 472 training for all staff on new adoption Complete AB430 / ELPD /AB 472 training Develop a protocol to ensure that all new staff receive AB 430 / ELPD/ AB 472 training on the 2009-10 English Language Arts adoption	Coordinator of Staff Development: February 2010 Coordinator of Staff Development: July – August 2010 Coordinator of Staff Development: October 2010 Coordinator of Staff Development: October 2010	AB 430/472 state funding @ 2100 per teacher ($50,000) School QEIA/HPSG /Title I /Title III ($300,000)
Provide training on reading comprehension modules to pilot group of teachers and literacy staff development specialists.	Consultant/ English Learner coach: October 2008- June 2009	AB 2117 Grant Funding ($20, 000 consultant) & 24 subs per day for 6 days ($20,000)
Pilot the reading comprehension strategies/skills modules.	Consultant/ English Learner coach: October 2008- June 2009	N/A
Provide professional development training on Frontloading English Language Instruction for State Adopted materials	Instructional Services staff/consultants: July-August 2009	Staff Development block Grants/ EIA/ Title III/ ($ 300,000)
Design an integrated Reading Comprehension Resource Guide based on SBE-adopted/approval materials.	Instructional Services staff/consultants: July-August 2009
Create professional development modules on each reading comprehension area.	Instructional Services staff/consultants: July-August 2009
Additional training · Using district established protocol to conduct grade level data meetings · Accessing and utilizing data to inform instruction and monitor student progress · Establishing a continuous improvement cycle · Setting SMART goals · Conducting effective classroom walkthroughs · Coaching English Language Arts instruction · Conducting English Language Arts Learning Walks	Principals: November 2008 – June 2010 Principals: October-November 2008 Principals: October 2008-June 2010	School QEIA/HPSG/Title I/ Title II part A

Part 3: English Language Development

The 2008-2009 school year NCLB AMAO 1 target is 51.6%, AMAO 2 target is 30.6% and AMAO 3 target is 46%. In order to reach AMAOs targets, the Lennox School District has established district-wide achievement goals in English Language Development.

· During the 2008-2009 school year, English Learners will move one proficiency level as measured by the 2008-2009 CELDT results.

· During the 2008-2009 school year, English Learners, who have attended Lennox schools for five or more consecutive years, will achieve English language proficiency (Early Advanced / Advanced with no sub-score less than Intermediate level) as measured by the 2008-2009 CELDT results.

The demographic profile of the Lennox School District is composed of approximately 90% Latino students. Many of the students come from immigrant families with low Social Economic Status (SES) and limited English skills. Lennox School District currently has a population of 65% English Learners.

Students are not consistently receiving differentiated instruction in English Language Development. Due to the lack of differentiated ELD and content area instruction and materials, students remain at the Intermediate level, failing to show progress in ELD reading and writing. This results in low ELA CST achievement. The goal is to work system-wide to ensure a strong foundation in ELD to accelerate progress toward English Proficiency.

A. Materials

In 2004 the district adopted Rigby for English Language Development (ELD) in grades K-5 and Hampton Brown for ELD in grades 6-8. The DAIT team’s findings indicate that there are varying degrees of implementation at the schools. Full implementation of the core program is critical. Therefore, SBE-adopted English Language Development materials will be fully implemented. The process of the 2010 ELA/ELD adoption will begin in January 2009 (see table 11).

B. Instructional Strategies

Teachers will include strategies to teach academic vocabulary and sentence frames in ELD instruction. Additionally, strategies for ensuring active student engagement will be used. Teachers will use these strategies to increase student use of English in oral and written work to improve CELDT reading and writing scores and move more students beyond the Intermediate level.

Table 11: Instructional Strategies 2008-2010

Specific Action	Person(s) Responsible/ Timeline	Estimated Cost/ Funding Source
Create task force of Staff Development Specialists to unpack ELD Standards.	ELA/ELD Staff Development Specialists/Instructional Services, DAIT providers: December 2008 – January 2009	EIA/Title III ($ 50,000)
Based on unpacked standards, task force of Staff Development Specialists will create scope and sequence for ELD in four domains – listening, speaking, reading, writing – for all grade levels.	ELA/ELD Staff Development Specialist/Instructional Services/DAIT providers: January – March 2009
Use scope and sequence, along with student needs, to guide adoption of ELA/ELD materials.	ELA/ELD Staff Development Specialist/Instructional Services/ DAIT providers: February - March 2009	N/A
Teachers will integrate content area academic vocabulary and sentence frames into their ELD instruction.	Principals/ Teachers: December 2008- January 2009	N/A

C. Instructional Time

The minutes mandated for ELD instruction are:

Kindergarten 30 minutes for ELD

Grades 1-8 45 minutes for ELD

D. Pacing

The district has identified essential standards and created an English Language Development (ELD) pacing plan for the current materials. After the adoption of the new ELD materials, a more comprehensive pacing plan for ELD will be completed guided by DAIT providers and external consultants and distributed to all instructional staff.

Table 12: ELD Pacing/Standards

Specific Action	Person(s) Responsible/ Timeline	Estimated Cost/ Funding Source
Identify essential ELD standards	SDS / Coaches: May-June 2008	Title III ($5,000)
Create pacing plans for ELD utilizing current ELD materials and resources	SDS/Coaches: May-June 2008
Distribute essential ELD standards and pacing plans	Instructional Services: August 2008	N/A

E. Assessment

An ELD Progress Profile is completed for all English Learners at the end of every reporting period to track student progress in English Language Development. Table 13 outlines specific activities to enhance assessment of ELD. After the adoption of the new ELD materials, a more comprehensive assessment system plan for ELD will be completed guided by DAIT providers and external consultants.

Table 13: ELD Assessment

Specific Action	Person(s) Responsible/ Timeline	Estimated Cost/ Funding Source
Calibrate teacher ratings on ELD Progress Profiles across schools with exemplars and anchor papers.	ELD/ELA Staff Development Specialist; Instructional Services; DAIT providers: February 2009	N/A

F. Understanding and Use of Data

While some teachers know their students’ overall CELDT levels, there is little understanding of specific student proficiency levels in the four domains: listening, speaking, reading and writing. The focus of this area is to increase teacher understanding of the domain scores, how they relate to the ELD profile, and how to use these two data sources to inform instruction of the English Language and across all content areas.

Table 14: Data Analysis Timeline 2008-2010

Specific Action	Person(s) Responsible/ Timeline	Estimated Cost/ Funding Source
Student language proficiency levels in all domains will be provided to teachers.	ELA/ELD Staff Development Specialist/Instructional Services /Principals: January 2009	N/A
Use district data protocol during ELA/ELD collaborative meeting times.	Principals/Teachers: November 2008 – June 2010	Schools QEIA/EIA/ District Title III/ title II part A ($100,000)
Facilitate meeting with principals to determine what evidence will be collected to demonstrate implementation of plan and progress towards district English Language Development goals.	Instructional Services/ Principals: 2008-2009	N/A
Calendar trimester principal/ superintendent, deputy superintendent and /or director of academic improvement meetings with each school principal.	Deputy Superintendent: March 2009	N/A
Principals share student ELD progress and next steps at cabinet curriculum meetings.	Principals: April 2009	N/A
Superintendent provides Board with progress toward student achievement goals in ELD.	Principals: April 2009	N/A

G. Professional Development

Teachers of ELs will receive training on strategies specifically targeted to English Learners. Increased Language Development Instruction will lead to higher English Language Proficiency and improved English Language Arts achievement. Additionally, teachers who have been trained in the SB 472 ELA Professional Development will receive SB 472 EL Professional Development.

Table 15: Professional Development for Principals and Teachers

Specific Action	Person(s) Responsible/ Timeline		Estimated Cost /Funding Source
Principals, SDSs, instructional coaches, teachers and paraprofessionals will receive training on a Systemic focused approach to English Language Instruction including Academic Language with emphasis on academic vocabulary and frontloading sentence frames in ELD and across content areas.	ELA/ELD Staff Development Specialist/Instructional Services/ Consultant/Principals/Paraprofessionals/ Teachers: July- August 2009		Title III/EIA/school EIA/Title II part A ($300,000)
Principals, SDSs, instructional coaches, teachers and paraprofessional will receive training on active student participation and engagement.	Instructional Services /Principals: January 2009
Principals and ELD teachers will receive training on calibrating ratings on ELD Progress Profiles with exemplars and anchor papers.	Instructional Services/ Consultant/Principals/ Teachers: March 2009
Training of the scope and sequence for ELD in four domains – listening, speaking, reading, writing	Instructional Services/ Consultant/Principals: July- August 2009
Develop a protocol to ensure that all administrators, teachers and paraprofessionals who are new to the district receive training on the 2010 ELD/ELA adoption.	Instructional Services: October 2010
Additional training · Using district established protocol to conduct grade level data meetings · Accessing and utilizing data to inform instruction and monitor student progress · Establishing a continuous improvement cycle · Setting SMART goals · Conducting effective classroom walkthroughs · Coaching English Language Development instruction · Conducting English Language Development Learning Walks		Principals: November 2008 – June 2010 Principals: October-November 2008 Principals: October 2008-June 2010		N/A NA N/A

Section 2: Meeting the Needs for Priority Students

While priority students receive core instruction appropriately differentiated for their needs, additional programs and processes are needed to ensure their academic success. The following section describes programs for high priority students: English Learners, Students with Disabilities, and students scoring below grade level.

Part 1: Programs for English Learners

To ensure the Structured English Immersion (SEI), Alternative (e.g., Transitional Bilingual Education, Dual Language Immersion, if requested and deemed feasible), and English Language Mainstream (ELM) programs are available for English Learners, the District will form an EL Committee of teachers and administrators. This committee with the assistance of a DAIT provider will review the research of effective instructional programs for English Learners and develop research-based program models for SEI, AP, and ELM in the district (see table 16). These models will then inform the revision of the district EL Master Plan that will guide instruction for English Learners.

Table 16: Programs for English Learners

Specific Action	Person(s) Responsible/ Timeline	Estimated Cost /Funding Source
District existing EL Committee will review current research on characteristics of instructional programs for ELs with the assistance of DAIT Providers and will develop appropriate models.	DAIT Provider/EL Committee Members: August 2008- May 2009	EIA/Title III ($50,000)
Based on the review of research, the EL Committee will recommend specific program structures, program model (e.g., time allocations, language, teacher use of language, entry/exit/reclassification criteria, assessments, etc.) for approval by Board with the assistance of DAIT Providers.	DAIT Provider/ EL Committee Members: May 2009
Revise district EL Master Plan based on the recommended specific program structures with the assistance of DAIT Providers.	DAIT Provider/ EL Committee Members:November 2008-December 2009

Part 2: Tiered Interventions Process / Structure (Response to Intervention)

Response to Intervention is a dynamic process that demands staff working collaboratively to develop and continually refine an integrated system of instruction and intervention that is guided by student outcome data. The Lennox School District is committed to developing a common framework of support so that no child is left behind. The schools will adapt this framework to the particular talents of its staff and the needs of their students.

Table 17: Intervention Needs Assessment

Specific Action	Person(s) Responsible/ Timeline	Estimated Cost /Funding Source
Submit current grade level schedules reflecting common time frames for ELA/ELD/Math instruction.	Instructional Services/ Principals: October 2008	N/A
Analyze school schedules to establish support for tiered intervention and coaching opportunities.	Instructional Services/ Principals: October 2008	N/A
Submit current intervention programs and identified students.	Instructional Services/ Principals: October 2008	N/A
Determine efficacy of current intervention programs (materials, strategies, assessment, and entering and exiting criteria matched to students needs) with support of DAIT providers.	Principals/ Instructional Services/ DAIT providers: November 2008	Title I Corrective Action ($ 30,000)
Research will begin for an appropriate K-2, 3-5, 6-8 intervention programs; the goal is to implement programs for the 2009-2010 school year with the support of DAIT providers.	Principals/ Instructional Services/ DAIT providers: November 2008
District will refine the current RtI structure at identified school.	Principal/Staff at identified school/Instructional Services/DAIT providers: January 2009	Title I LEA Program Improvement ($50,000)
District will pilot revised RtI model at pilot school.	Principal, Staff at identified school/Instructional Services/DAIT providers: January 2009
District will determine the effectiveness of the RtI model at the pilot school.	Principal/ SDS/Instructional Services/DAIT providers: January 2009-Aug 2009
District will create a district-wide RtI model to include materials, assessment and monitoring system delineating core, strategic and intensive interventions with support of DAIT providers.	Principals/SDS/Instructional Services/ DAIT provider: August 2009
District will recommend RtI model for approval by the Board.	Superintendent: 2009-2010
District will adopt and implement a Response to Intervention (RtI) model.	District-wide: 2009-2010
A plan for implementation and professional development for adopted RtI model is created.	Principals/SDS/Instructional Services/DAIT provider: 2009-2010
District-wide training for all staff on adopted RtI model.	Principals/SDS/Instructional Services/DAIT provider: 2009-2010

The following are current interventions in place to support high priority students. Read 180 is a current intervention used at all schools for students at the Intermediate levels who are scoring far below basic and below basic on CST. Compass Learning is used as a math intervention program for students in grades 7-8. Additionally, for students in grade 6, English Now is used for all students at the Early Intermediate level.

Table 18: Current Interventions

Specific Action	Person(s) Responsible/ Timeline	Estimated Cost /Funding Source
ELD: After School Intervention Program for Long-Term English Learners The English Language Development (ELD) Intervention Specialist implements the strategic after-school intensive intervention program for program tailored to students grades 3-6 who have been enrolled in our district at least 4 years and have made limited progress in ELD.	ELD Intervention Specialist/Grant Evaluator/selected teachers: 2008-2011	$1,000,000 / Weingart Foundation
Intersession with a Reading Comprehension Focus: To increase student achievement of a targeted group of English Learner (EL) students on the upcoming California Standards Test (CST) exam, the district will hire a consultant specializing in reading comprehension. To train staff to teach a focused intervention in reading comprehension called Reading Comprehension Skills: Aligning the Language of Instruction with the Language of Assessment to include the following: Academic Vocabulary Frontloading (Use of sentence stems)	ELA/ELD Staff Development Specialist/Instructional Services/staff/principals/consultant 2008-2010	Intersession funds/ Title I/EIA school centralized funding/ Title III ($100,000)
Special Education Reading Intervention: LANGUAGE! implementation will begin at the elementary schools in the special education classrooms (RSP and SDC) grades 3-5. LANGUAGE! implementation will continue in grades 6,7, and 8. All teachers will be provided with support and professional development at their level as they begin or continue to teach LANGUAGE!	Instructional Services / Special Education support staff staff/principals: 2008-2010	Title I LEA Program Improvement /IDEA Staff Development ($30,000)