TC Williams Transformation- Year 3 Update

Similar documents
William Floyd School District Budget Presentation #4

M E M O R A N D U M. FY 2017 Approved

Shenandoah County Public Schools Budget April 23, 2015

Budget Development Update. December 18, 2018

HINGHAM PUBLIC SCHOOLS BUDGET OVERVIEW FOR FY 20. Operating Budget Proposal from the Administration to the School Committee January 3, 2019

Hampton City Schools Job Classification Listing SY 16/17

Budget Overview Daniel G. Lowengard, Interim Superintendent of Schools Everton Sewell, Chief Financial Officer March 19,

Budget Development for Budget Forums May 23 and 24, 2011

Disaggregated by Major and by Fieldwork Placement

Budget Development Update. January 8, 2019

School Year Budget Planning BUDGET FORUM

Maplewood Middle School Balanced Score Card for School Improvement Margaret Goode, Principal

The School District of Clayton s Budget Planning Guide. Zero-Based Budgeting An Overview. Helpful Definitions

Table 4.A: PGCPS Central Support Team Level of Implementation for Table 4.A: Not Met

Board of Education Meeting

O RGANIZATION SUMMARY

O RGANIZATION SUMMARY

HINGHAM PUBLIC SCHOOLS BUDGET OVERVIEW FOR FY 18. Operating Budget Proposal from the Administration to the School Committee January 5, 2017

Summary of Proposed Budget for FY June 11, 2013

AREA ASSOCIATE SUPERINTENDENTS. AREA 3 School Performance

Public Hearing FY13 Operating Budget. School Committee Meeting January 17, 2012

First Period Interim Report Regular Board Meeting December 14, 2017

Budget Update Prototypical School Model

WAYLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS BUDGET HEARING

Q2.1 Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements about the use of time in your school.

Operating Budget Adoption Capital Budget Adoption

Shaping our Future Together. Northfield Sanbornton Tilton

Local District South Title I Meeting

The Public Schools of Brookline Town Hall 333 Washington Street, 5 th Floor Brookline, Massachusetts

FY 19 SCHOOL DEPARTMENT OPERATING BUDGET Annual Town Meeting: March 10, 2018

FY16 Wellesley Public School Budget

HS DEPT. HEAD STIPEND $46,069 $46,806 $55,170 $64,365 $64,402 $ %

Budget Workshop FY

Brunswick County Schools Budget for Presented to Board of Education, August 8, 2017

Community Budget Forum

Wage and Salary Schedules. Stanley-Boyd Area Schools. Approved: September 25, 2017

School Year Budget Planning BUDGET FORUM #2

Registration for Junior Year CLASS OF 2019

Recommended Budget and Local Control & Accountability Plan Committee of the Whole BOARD OF EDUCATION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 20 TH, 2017

FY Superintendent s Proposed Budget. Dr. Catherine Magouyrk Superintendent February 13, 2018

FY20 Budget Process Overview. Reading School Committee December 20, 2018

Wrentham Public Schools

Piscataway Board of Education

HOWARD R. DRIGGS ELEMENTARY

DRAFT Bond & Mill Levy Planning. Mill Levy CPAC Kick-off. Denver Public Schools. February 29, 2012

Regional School Unit Budget Presentation

Pay Plan and Pay Scales

Governor s Budget Recommendation - Implementing Bill

Newark Public Schools Ne FY 2010 FY Budget Hearing 11 Budget Hearing March 29 h , Central High School 6:00 8:00 pm

Superintendent s Proposed CCPS BUDGET FY20

BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS BPS FINANCIAL CONTEXT AND FY17 PLANNING

PENCIL FOUNDATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION JUNE 30, 2007 AND 2006

NEW JERSEY QUALITY SINGLE ACCOUNTABLITY CONTINUUM DISTRICT PERFORMANCE REVIEW (DPR)

SESSION 20: Borrowing

SASKATOON PUBLIC SCHOOLS BUDGET REPORT

MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS (effective 1/1/18) CERTIFICATED SALARY SCHEDULE

Salary Scales

ADMINISTRATION S RECOMMENDED FY14 OPERATING BUDGET. Presented to the Wellesley School Committee December 18, 2012

SOME CIRP ANALYSIS RESULTS

Frederick County Public Schools. Salary Scales Amherst Street Winchester, Virginia

Budget FY 2018 Budget Adoption. Board of Education August 28, 2017

Alleghany County Public Schools

% of Total Population

6230 B Procedures and Definitions: Extended Trips

Proposed Budget. May 21, 2013 Stan Rounds Superintendent of Schools

FY 2017 APPROVED BUDGET. School Operating Budget

Alleghany County Public Schools

2016/2017 Budget Presentation A stable and incremental budget

Preliminary Recommended Budget for School Year. School Board Meeting June 22, 2011

Budget Draft Dated: 3/1/18 William Hogan, Deputy Superintendent of Business and Finance. Revised

FINANCIAL LITERACY AT NK

TUHSD FY16 Budget Update

MAT 121: Mathematics for Business and Information Science OPTIONAL Take-Home "Quest" on Chapter 5: Mathematics of Finance 70 Points Total.

PENCIL FOUNDATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION JUNE 30, 2008 AND 2007

American University of Armenia 2018 Freshman Student Exit Survey. Prepared by Office of Institutional Research and Assessment

South Orange-Maplewood School District. February 27, 2017

Riley County School District #378

Anacortes School District Budget. Budget Hearing August 11, 2016

Budget Development Update. January 16, 2018

East Hartford Public Schools

William Floyd School District Budget Hearing High School Library 7:00 pm 8:00 pm

William Floyd School District Budget Presentation #5

Q1 What is your current position or job title for the most recent academic year?

CAMPBELL, RAPPOLD & YURASITS LLP Certified Public Accountants 1033 South Cedar Crest Boulevard Allentown, PA 18103

Henrico County Public Schools FY2017 Annual Financial Plan January 28, 2016

Proposed Budget

Caddo Parish School Board

The York County School Division

Budget Presentation March 27, 2017

Creighton Education Association Summary Document Spring 2006

MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS PAY PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2018

REGISTRATION PACKET FOR ACTUARIAL SCIENCE MAJORS (Interdisciplinary Math/Stat Actuarial Science 7AA)

Welcome to the Spring 2018 Budget Forum! Hosted by the President s Budget Advisory Committee

FOLLOW UP FROM FIRST BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING (MAY 1)

MARBLEHEAD PUBLIC SCHOOLS 9 WIDGER ROAD, MARBLEHEAD, MA FAX From: Amanda Maniaci, Business and Finance Administrator

Ohio Linking Study A Study of the Alignment of the NWEA RIT Scale with Ohio s Graduation Test (OGT)*

Council of Great City Schools CFO Conference. November 12,

BUDGET - Draft ( ).v5 (1) A B C D E F G H I J Page 1 of 4

BUDGET ADVISORY MEETING #3 March 12, 2019 HIGH SCHOOL LIBRARY 7:00 PM 7:30 PM

The York County School Division

Transcription:

TC Williams Transformation- Year 3 Update

Key Components of the Transformation Individual Achievement Plans (IAP s) Professional Learning Plans (PLP s) Related School Support Programs and Structures Accounting and monitoring to ensure Individual Student Achievement Collaboration with external partners and organizations

Past Present Future PLA designation Bottom 5% of schools PLA designation/vdoe designation as Priority School Top 50% of schools Removal of any negative labels from VDOE Top 25% of schools AYP 21 out of 29 targets met AYP 27 out of 29 targets met VDOE Meet all benchmarks (ALL students Math & English, Graduation Rate) Full accredidation Discipline problems Positive student behavior Minimal discipline infractions Instruction No curriculum Curriculum implementation Enhanced student learning communities

ICAP s and Progress Monitoring Students have been creating S.M.A.R.T goals during the advisory period and entering them into Naviance. Students in need of support are identified using a variety of data points (Grades, SRI, SMI, CRT, teacher recommendation, attendance, SOL scores) Current areas of Focus English Writing SOL support being offered through Project Graduation and Titan Time SEP plans are used to plan for specific student supports (i.e. students with a lexile under 800 in Science classes) Math support Restart Classes Senior Saturdays Project Graduation

Professional Learning Plans Focus on academic vocabulary, student discourse, engagement and data (Formative) is the basis of our ongoing professional development, department discussions, and a focus area for walk-throughs. All staff have created 3 goals Individual professional Growth Goal, Department Goal, and Student Growth Goal. These goals are reviewed with their Academic Principal. Administrator s and instructional coaches conduct walkthroughs and observations. PLP goals are directly related to teacher evaluation

School Support Programs and Structures International Academy INPS network and IA Titan Time Students reclassified every cycle currently in cycle 3 Project Graduation State funded grant to ensure students in need of verified credits graduate Advisory Period Special Education students meet with their case manager ELL students meet with their advisor All students create S.M.A.R.T goals and monitor their progress. Math/Writing Center Available to all students in need of additional math and English support Saturday School Academic support available to all students In School Suspension In lieu of out of school suspension ISS allows students to stay focused on learning and receive support from the ISS coordinator.

Individual Student Achievement Data Chats are held monthly with department chairs Macro data is discussed. i.e. CRT results by teacher by grade distribution. The expectation is for each teacher to use Schoolnet to review individual student data. SOL tested classroom teachers will receive a detailed list of their student performance and expected performance on the eoc SOL test. Teachers will be required to update this list bi-weekly indicating the interventions being used with the students identified as needing additional support. Titan Time Students are identified by grades and teacher recommendations to receive additional support in all content areas (tiered structure Math (1) through electives (15))

CRT Data Administration #2 CRT subject area Average Score Math 57% English 56% Science 64% History 67% Row Labels Math CRT 0-19 3% 20-39 22% 40-59 33% 60-79 28% 80-100 14% Grand Total 100% Row Labels Science CRT 0-19 2% 20-39 14% 40-59 29% 60-79 34% 80-100 21% Grand Total 100% Row Labels English CRT 0-19 8% 20-39 18% 40-59 33% 60-79 29% 80-100 12% Grand Total 100% Row Labels Social studies CRT 0-19 2% 20-39 9% 40-59 27% 60-79 34% 80-100 27% Grand Total 100% CRT results provide us with a solid indicator of projected SOL performance: Green: Probable Pass Yellow: Bubble students (Pass/Fail) Red: Probable fail The students represented in the yellow band will benefit most from additional support.

CRT and Grade Distribution (Math) Math CRT by Grade Row Labels A A- B B- B+ C C- C+ D D+ F I NR P WF WP Grand Total 0-0.1 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 7% 0% 7% 7% 13% 47% 0% 0% 0% 13% 0% 100% 0.1-0.2 2% 2% 4% 0% 0% 0% 11% 6% 19% 4% 49% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0.2-0.3 2% 5% 1% 4% 1% 5% 12% 4% 15% 6% 34% 4% 5% 1% 1% 0% 100% 0.3-0.4 2% 2% 5% 4% 3% 9% 13% 4% 17% 4% 34% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 100% 0.4-0.5 2% 3% 4% 7% 3% 9% 9% 8% 20% 7% 24% 3% 0% 0% 1% 0% 100% 0.5-0.6 7% 5% 9% 8% 4% 11% 9% 7% 17% 7% 14% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0.6-0.7 10% 8% 10% 10% 7% 11% 8% 14% 8% 4% 7% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0.7-0.8 16% 7% 11% 7% 8% 13% 8% 10% 8% 5% 4% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 100% 0.8-0.9 17% 13% 14% 12% 8% 12% 5% 8% 5% 3% 4% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 100% 0.9-1 33% 16% 10% 6% 12% 5% 2% 6% 4% 3% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Grand Total 10% 7% 8% 7% 5% 10% 8% 8% 13% 5% 16% 2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 100% Reading the graph from left to right you can clearly see students scoring poorly on the CRT are also receiving a high percentage of F s (red %) in their Math class. Conversely, students scoring well on the CRT are receiving a high percentage of A s (green %) in their Math class.

CRT and Grade Distribution (English) English CRT by Grade Row Labels A A- B B- B+ C C- C+ D D+ F I NR Grand Total 0-0.1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 25% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0.1-0.2 0% 0% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 29% 0% 29% 29% 0% 100% 0.2-0.3 10% 0% 20% 0% 10% 0% 10% 0% 20% 0% 30% 0% 0% 100% 0.3-0.4 5% 5% 16% 7% 3% 7% 7% 8% 10% 8% 16% 5% 3% 100% 0.4-0.5 9% 8% 13% 9% 5% 12% 8% 5% 10% 3% 17% 1% 0% 100% 0.5-0.6 13% 6% 15% 9% 7% 8% 9% 2% 10% 2% 16% 2% 0% 100% 0.6-0.7 20% 8% 15% 8% 13% 5% 3% 8% 6% 4% 9% 1% 0% 100% 0.7-0.8 26% 11% 13% 9% 13% 9% 2% 4% 2% 2% 6% 1% 1% 100% 0.8-0.9 22% 22% 16% 13% 0% 4% 0% 9% 2% 2% 9% 0% 0% 100% 0.9-1 71% 0% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Grand Total 17% 8% 15% 8% 8% 7% 5% 5% 8% 3% 13% 2% 1% 100% Reading the graph from left to right you can clearly see students scoring poorly on the CRT are also receiving a high percentage of F s (red %) in their English class. Conversely, students scoring well on the CRT are receiving a high percentage of A s (green %) in their English class.

Quarter 2 Grade Data Row Labels A A- B B- B+ C C- C+ D D+ F I NR P Grand Total English 19% 10% 13% 8% 9% 8% 5% 6% 7% 3% 8% 2% 0% 0% 100% Math 10% 7% 8% 7% 6% 10% 9% 8% 12% 5% 15% 2% 1% 0% 100% Science 11% 8% 10% 8% 6% 10% 7% 7% 11% 5% 13% 2% 1% 0% 100% Social Studies 17% 9% 12% 8% 8% 9% 7% 6% 9% 4% 9% 1% 1% 0% 100% Grand Total 14% 8% 11% 8% 7% 9% 7% 7% 10% 5% 11% 2% 1% 0% 100% Grade distribution is mostly normal with a higher percentage of D s and F s in Math classes. The high percentage of D s and F s in Math classes correlates with CRT performance.

INPS Q2 Grade Distribution ELL Grade Q2 Row Labels A A- B B- B+ C C- C+ D D+ F I NR P Grand Total INPS (Bonta) 11% 7% 9% 7% 7% 9% 7% 6% 11% 5% 9% 2% 9% 0% 100% Non-INPS (Smith) 13% 8% 10% 8% 6% 7% 6% 5% 10% 4% 16% 2% 5% 0% 100% Grand Total 12% 7% 10% 8% 7% 8% 6% 5% 11% 5% 13% 2% 7% 0% 100% INPS grade distribution shows that students inside of the network are receiving a lower percentage of F s than students outside of the network.

ELL students (LEP flag) by content area Row Labels A A- B B- B+ C C- C+ D D+ F I NR P Grand Total ELL 11% 8% 10% 9% 7% 10% 6% 7% 12% 6% 9% 0% 5% 0% 100% ENG 15% 5% 13% 9% 6% 8% 6% 9% 10% 5% 12% 2% 0% 0% 100% MAT 10% 6% 8% 9% 4% 7% 9% 7% 11% 5% 18% 2% 3% 1% 100% SCI 4% 5% 8% 7% 6% 8% 7% 6% 15% 5% 22% 1% 4% 0% 100% SS 11% 8% 10% 7% 8% 9% 7% 5% 14% 5% 13% 0% 3% 0% 100% Grand Total 10% 7% 9% 8% 6% 9% 7% 6% 13% 5% 14% 1% 4% 0% 100% Row Labels A A- B B- B+ C C- C+ D D+ F I NR P Grand Total ELL 97 66 84 74 63 82 55 57 102 52 75 1 47 855 ENG 31 10 28 20 12 17 12 19 22 11 25 5 1 213 MAT 59 37 50 57 22 45 58 42 66 31 109 15 19 7 617 SCI 23 27 43 40 35 45 36 34 82 28 119 7 21 540 SS 64 51 59 45 47 56 40 30 82 31 81 3 17 606 Grand Total 274 191 264 236 179 245 201 182 354 153 409 31 105 7 2831 ELL students with a WIDA level between 1 and 5. The highest percentages of D s and F s can be found in Math and Science classes.

ELL by department by counselor Row Labels A A- B B- B+ C C- C+ D D+ F I NR Grand Total -Students with Bonta as a counselor are a part of INPS -Students with Smith as a counselor are part of the International Academy INPS students have a significantly lower number of F s than students who are not part of INPS. ELL 93 57 72 66 57 76 47 50 89 46 65 1 47 766 Bonta 53 35 48 39 40 56 27 33 52 34 25 1 37 480 Smith 40 22 24 27 17 20 20 17 37 12 40 10 286 ENG 8 2 7 2 2 1 2 4 2 30 Bonta 1 1 Smith 8 2 6 2 2 1 2 4 2 29 MAT 41 30 38 40 18 36 42 23 48 19 67 10 17 429 Bonta 18 14 11 18 12 17 18 14 30 6 18 2 12 190 Smith 23 16 27 22 6 19 24 9 18 13 49 8 5 239 SCI 19 22 33 25 27 26 26 22 56 21 84 5 19 385 Bonta 4 11 15 8 14 11 18 12 36 9 34 2 15 189 Smith 15 11 18 17 13 15 8 10 20 12 50 3 4 196 SS 46 40 44 30 36 39 23 18 54 23 60 2 17 432 Bonta 23 19 14 12 18 22 11 8 17 11 19 2 14 190 Smith 23 21 30 18 18 17 12 10 37 12 41 3 242 Grand Total 207 151 194 163 140 178 140 113 251 109 278 18 100 2042 Row Labels A A- B B- B+ C C- C+ D D+ F I NR Grand Total ELL 12% 7% 9% 9% 7% 10% 6% 7% 12% 6% 8% 0% 6% 100% Bonta 11% 7% 10% 8% 8% 12% 6% 7% 11% 7% 5% 0% 8% 100% Smith 14% 8% 8% 9% 6% 7% 7% 6% 13% 4% 14% 0% 3% 100% ENG 27% 7% 23% 7% 7% 3% 7% 0% 13% 0% 7% 0% 0% 100% Bonta 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Smith 28% 7% 21% 7% 7% 3% 7% 0% 14% 0% 7% 0% 0% 100% MAT 10% 7% 9% 9% 4% 8% 10% 5% 11% 4% 16% 2% 4% 100% Bonta 9% 7% 6% 9% 6% 9% 9% 7% 16% 3% 9% 1% 6% 100% Smith 10% 7% 11% 9% 3% 8% 10% 4% 8% 5% 21% 3% 2% 100% SCI 5% 6% 9% 6% 7% 7% 7% 6% 15% 5% 22% 1% 5% 100% Bonta 2% 6% 8% 4% 7% 6% 10% 6% 19% 5% 18% 1% 8% 100% Smith 8% 6% 9% 9% 7% 8% 4% 5% 10% 6% 26% 2% 2% 100% SS 11% 9% 10% 7% 8% 9% 5% 4% 13% 5% 14% 0% 4% 100% Bonta 12% 10% 7% 6% 9% 12% 6% 4% 9% 6% 10% 1% 7% 100% Smith 10% 9% 12% 7% 7% 7% 5% 4% 15% 5% 17% 0% 1% 100% Grand Total 10% 7% 10% 8% 7% 9% 7% 6% 12% 5% 14% 1% 5% 100%

ELL Grade Distribution by subject by WIDA level (number of students) Row Labels A A- B B- B+ C C- C+ D D+ F I NR P Grand Total ART 23 17 13 10 9 10 5 7 7 5 10 1 5 122-1 1 2 Level 1 5 3 3 3 4 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 31 Level 2 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 18 Level 3 2 4 2 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 21 Level 4 7 6 4 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 2 36 Level 5 5 2 1 1 2 2 13 T - Monitoring Complete 1 1 ELL 97 66 84 74 63 82 55 57 102 52 75 1 47 855-1 1 3 2 7 Level 1 21 24 33 29 25 37 21 23 46 27 30 1 30 347 Level 2 33 15 22 17 14 20 11 9 20 11 18 7 197 Level 3 23 18 13 14 17 15 14 17 20 10 17 8 186 Level 4 19 6 12 9 7 9 9 6 12 4 6 1 100 Level 5 1 3 4 4 2 1 2 1 18 ENG 31 10 28 20 12 17 12 19 22 11 25 5 1 213-1 1 2 Level 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 Level 3 7 3 9 5 1 5 4 7 3 6 1 51 Level 4 16 6 11 10 8 9 6 6 16 2 14 3 107 Level 5 6 1 7 5 2 2 2 4 2 6 4 2 43 T - Monitoring Complete 1 1 1 3 MAT 59 37 50 57 22 45 58 42 66 31 109 15 19 7 617-1 2 1 1 2 1 8 Level 1 10 10 8 13 7 15 14 11 17 3 21 3 10 142 Level 2 12 5 11 9 5 7 14 6 15 4 19 1 4 112 Level 3 10 8 17 19 4 11 12 12 16 9 25 7 4 3 157 Level 4 22 13 10 6 6 8 14 11 14 12 34 1 3 154 Level 5 5 1 3 10 1 3 2 4 2 8 1 1 1 42 T - Monitoring Complete 1 1 2 SCI 23 27 43 40 35 45 36 34 82 28 119 7 21 540-1 1 2 2 6 Level 1 2 3 7 7 4 7 12 10 27 5 39 2 12 137 Level 2 5 8 13 1 9 3 7 1 15 5 24 5 96 Level 3 5 8 9 17 8 14 6 7 15 6 25 3 3 126 Level 4 10 6 10 12 9 14 5 11 20 12 22 1 132 Level 5 1 2 4 2 4 7 6 4 3 7 1 41 T - Monitoring Complete 1 1 2 SS 64 51 59 45 47 56 40 30 82 31 81 3 17 606-1 2 1 1 1 2 8 Level 1 7 7 7 5 14 16 11 9 15 9 24 2 12 138 Level 2 16 9 8 6 6 8 4 2 12 6 19 4 100 Level 3 12 16 20 18 10 17 10 6 31 5 17 1 163 Level 4 25 16 19 10 8 11 8 12 15 9 13 146 Level 5 3 3 3 6 8 4 6 1 8 1 3 1 47 T - Monitoring Complete 1 3 4 Grand Total 297 208 277 246 188 255 206 189 361 158 419 32 110 7 2953 The number of F s increases as WIDA level increases and level of support decreases.

ELL Grade Distribution by subject by WIDA level (percentage) Row Labels A A- B B- B+ C C- C+ D D+ F I NR P Grand Total ART 19% 14% 11% 8% 7% 8% 4% 6% 6% 4% 8% 1% 4% 0% 100% - 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Level 1 16% 10% 10% 10% 13% 3% 3% 3% 6% 3% 10% 3% 10% 0% 100% Level 2 22% 11% 11% 11% 6% 6% 6% 11% 0% 0% 11% 0% 6% 0% 100% Level 3 10% 19% 10% 5% 5% 10% 10% 14% 5% 5% 5% 0% 5% 0% 100% Level 4 19% 17% 11% 8% 8% 8% 3% 3% 8% 8% 6% 0% 0% 0% 100% Level 5 38% 15% 8% 8% 0% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 0% 0% 0% 100% T - Monitoring Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% ELL 11% 8% 10% 9% 7% 10% 6% 7% 12% 6% 9% 0% 5% 0% 100% - 0% 0% 0% 14% 0% 14% 0% 0% 43% 0% 29% 0% 0% 0% 100% Level 1 6% 7% 10% 8% 7% 11% 6% 7% 13% 8% 9% 0% 9% 0% 100% Level 2 17% 8% 11% 9% 7% 10% 6% 5% 10% 6% 9% 0% 4% 0% 100% Level 3 12% 10% 7% 8% 9% 8% 8% 9% 11% 5% 9% 0% 4% 0% 100% Level 4 19% 6% 12% 9% 7% 9% 9% 6% 12% 4% 6% 0% 1% 0% 100% Level 5 6% 17% 22% 22% 0% 0% 0% 11% 6% 0% 11% 0% 6% 0% 100% ENG 15% 5% 13% 9% 6% 8% 6% 9% 10% 5% 12% 2% 0% 0% 100% - 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Level 2 14% 0% 14% 0% 14% 14% 0% 14% 0% 29% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Level 3 14% 6% 18% 10% 2% 10% 8% 14% 6% 0% 12% 0% 2% 0% 100% Level 4 15% 6% 10% 9% 7% 8% 6% 6% 15% 2% 13% 3% 0% 0% 100% Level 5 14% 2% 16% 12% 5% 5% 5% 9% 5% 14% 9% 5% 0% 0% 100% T - Monitoring Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 33% 33% 0% 0% 0% 100% MAT 10% 6% 8% 9% 4% 7% 9% 7% 11% 5% 18% 2% 3% 1% 100% - 0% 0% 13% 0% 0% 25% 13% 0% 0% 13% 25% 13% 0% 0% 100% Level 1 7% 7% 6% 9% 5% 11% 10% 8% 12% 2% 15% 2% 7% 0% 100% Level 2 11% 4% 10% 8% 4% 6% 13% 5% 13% 4% 17% 1% 4% 0% 100% Level 3 6% 5% 11% 12% 3% 7% 8% 8% 10% 6% 16% 4% 3% 2% 100% Level 4 14% 8% 6% 4% 4% 5% 9% 7% 9% 8% 22% 1% 0% 2% 100% Level 5 12% 2% 7% 24% 0% 2% 7% 5% 10% 5% 19% 2% 2% 2% 100% T - Monitoring Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 100% SCI 4% 5% 8% 7% 6% 8% 7% 6% 15% 5% 22% 1% 4% 0% 100% - 0% 0% 0% 17% 17% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 100% Level 1 1% 2% 5% 5% 3% 5% 9% 7% 20% 4% 28% 1% 9% 0% 100% Level 2 5% 8% 14% 1% 9% 3% 7% 1% 16% 5% 25% 0% 5% 0% 100% Level 3 4% 6% 7% 13% 6% 11% 5% 6% 12% 5% 20% 2% 2% 0% 100% Level 4 8% 5% 8% 9% 7% 11% 4% 8% 15% 9% 17% 1% 0% 0% 100% Level 5 2% 5% 10% 5% 10% 17% 15% 10% 7% 0% 17% 2% 0% 0% 100% T - Monitoring Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 100% SS 11% 8% 10% 7% 8% 9% 7% 5% 14% 5% 13% 0% 3% 0% 100% - 13% 0% 25% 0% 13% 0% 13% 0% 0% 13% 25% 0% 0% 0% 100% Level 1 5% 5% 5% 4% 10% 12% 8% 7% 11% 7% 17% 1% 9% 0% 100% Level 2 16% 9% 8% 6% 6% 8% 4% 2% 12% 6% 19% 0% 4% 0% 100% Level 3 7% 10% 12% 11% 6% 10% 6% 4% 19% 3% 10% 0% 1% 0% 100% Level 4 17% 11% 13% 7% 5% 8% 5% 8% 10% 6% 9% 0% 0% 0% 100% Level 5 6% 6% 6% 13% 17% 9% 13% 2% 17% 2% 6% 2% 0% 0% 100% T - Monitoring Complete 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 75% 0% 0% 0% 100% Grand Total 10% 7% 9% 8% 6% 9% 7% 6% 12% 5% 14% 1% 4% 0% 100% The number of F s increases as WIDA level increases and level of support decreases.

ELL Grade Distribution INPS vs. International Academy (Numbers) Row Labels A A- B B- B+ C C- C+ D D+ F I NR Grand Total ELL 12% 7% 9% 9% 7% 10% 6% 7% 12% 6% 8% 0% 6% 100% Bonta 11% 7% 10% 8% 8% 12% 6% 7% 11% 7% 5% 0% 8% 100% - 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 100% Level 1 6% 7% 10% 9% 8% 12% 6% 6% 13% 8% 6% 0% 10% 100% Level 2 17% 10% 13% 9% 6% 10% 6% 6% 9% 6% 4% 0% 6% 100% Level 3 18% 6% 9% 3% 18% 18% 3% 18% 6% 3% 0% 0% 0% 100% Level 4 47% 7% 0% 0% 13% 13% 0% 7% 0% 7% 0% 0% 7% 100% Smith 14% 8% 8% 9% 6% 7% 7% 6% 13% 4% 14% 0% 3% 100% - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 60% 0% 20% 0% 0% 100% Level 1 8% 10% 8% 5% 3% 3% 5% 10% 15% 5% 26% 0% 3% 100% Level 2 16% 4% 9% 9% 7% 12% 6% 3% 12% 4% 18% 0% 0% 100% Level 3 12% 9% 7% 10% 6% 6% 8% 8% 13% 4% 11% 0% 6% 100% Level 4 25% 6% 11% 14% 8% 6% 11% 3% 8% 6% 3% 0% 0% 100% Level 5 14% 14% 29% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% 0% 14% 100% ENG 27% 7% 23% 7% 7% 3% 7% 0% 13% 0% 7% 0% 0% 100% Bonta 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Level 3 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Smith 28% 7% 21% 7% 7% 3% 7% 0% 14% 0% 7% 0% 0% 100% - 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Level 2 0% 0% 50% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Level 3 17% 8% 25% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 25% 0% 17% 0% 0% 100% Level 4 33% 8% 17% 8% 8% 8% 8% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Level 5 50% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% MAT 10% 7% 9% 9% 4% 8% 10% 5% 11% 4% 16% 2% 4% 100% Bonta 9% 7% 6% 9% 6% 9% 9% 7% 16% 3% 9% 1% 6% 100% - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Level 1 7% 8% 5% 11% 6% 11% 10% 8% 13% 3% 10% 2% 8% 100% Level 2 10% 8% 10% 8% 8% 6% 10% 4% 16% 2% 12% 0% 4% 100% Level 3 21% 0% 0% 7% 7% 0% 7% 7% 36% 14% 0% 0% 0% 100% Level 4 33% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Smith 10% 7% 11% 9% 3% 8% 10% 4% 8% 5% 21% 3% 2% 100% - 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 20% 20% 0% 0% 0% 40% 0% 0% 100% Level 1 11% 5% 5% 0% 0% 11% 11% 5% 0% 0% 47% 5% 0% 100% Level 2 12% 2% 9% 9% 2% 7% 16% 5% 10% 5% 19% 2% 3% 100% Level 3 4% 7% 14% 13% 2% 9% 7% 5% 7% 7% 18% 6% 3% 100% Level 4 19% 14% 12% 2% 7% 5% 12% 0% 7% 7% 16% 0% 0% 100% Level 5 29% 14% 0% 29% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% 0% 14% 0% 0% 100% Grand Total 12% 7% 10% 9% 6% 9% 7% 6% 12% 5% 11% 1% 5% 100%

ELL Grade Distribution INPS vs. International Academy (Numbers) Row Labels A A- B B- B+ C C- C+ D D+ F I NR Grand Total SCI 5% 6% 9% 6% 7% 7% 7% 6% 15% 5% 22% 1% 5% 100% Bonta 2% 6% 8% 4% 7% 6% 10% 6% 19% 5% 18% 1% 8% 100% - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Level 1 1% 3% 6% 4% 3% 6% 9% 8% 23% 3% 24% 2% 10% 100% Level 2 4% 12% 14% 2% 14% 6% 10% 0% 12% 8% 10% 0% 6% 100% Level 3 0% 7% 7% 14% 14% 7% 14% 7% 14% 7% 7% 0% 0% 100% Level 4 17% 17% 0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 33% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 100% Smith 8% 6% 9% 9% 7% 8% 4% 5% 10% 6% 26% 2% 2% 100% - 0% 0% 0% 20% 20% 0% 0% 0% 20% 0% 40% 0% 0% 100% Level 1 6% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 6% 6% 0% 13% 63% 0% 0% 100% Level 2 7% 2% 11% 0% 4% 0% 4% 2% 20% 2% 42% 0% 4% 100% Level 3 3% 7% 7% 13% 6% 13% 3% 7% 9% 6% 20% 3% 2% 100% Level 4 19% 6% 14% 11% 8% 11% 6% 6% 6% 11% 3% 0% 0% 100% Level 5 13% 25% 25% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 13% 0% 0% 100% SS 11% 9% 10% 7% 8% 9% 5% 4% 13% 5% 14% 0% 4% 100% Bonta 12% 10% 7% 6% 9% 12% 6% 4% 9% 6% 10% 1% 7% 100% - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% Level 1 6% 6% 5% 4% 10% 13% 8% 6% 10% 7% 13% 2% 10% 100% Level 2 22% 16% 8% 10% 8% 10% 2% 0% 8% 4% 6% 0% 4% 100% Level 3 14% 29% 14% 14% 7% 7% 0% 7% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Level 4 50% 0% 33% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Smith 10% 9% 12% 7% 7% 7% 5% 4% 15% 5% 17% 0% 1% 100% - 17% 0% 17% 0% 17% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 100% Level 1 0% 0% 6% 0% 6% 0% 6% 13% 19% 6% 44% 0% 0% 100% Level 2 10% 2% 8% 2% 2% 6% 6% 4% 16% 8% 32% 0% 4% 100% Level 3 6% 6% 13% 12% 6% 11% 5% 4% 20% 4% 12% 0% 1% 100% Level 4 21% 23% 15% 6% 10% 4% 2% 4% 4% 6% 4% 0% 0% 100% Level 5 0% 22% 22% 11% 33% 0% 0% 0% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Grand Total 8% 8% 9% 7% 8% 8% 6% 5% 13% 5% 18% 1% 4% 100%

ELL raw data by content area Row Labels A A- B B- B+ C C- C+ D D+ F I NR Grand Total ELL 93 57 72 66 57 76 47 50 89 46 65 1 47 766 Bonta 53 35 48 39 40 56 27 33 52 34 25 1 37 480-1 1 2 Level 1 18 20 29 26 24 36 19 19 39 24 19 1 29 303 Level 2 22 12 16 11 8 12 7 7 11 8 5 7 126 Level 3 6 2 3 1 6 6 1 6 2 1 34 Level 4 7 1 2 2 1 1 1 15 Smith 40 22 24 27 17 20 20 17 37 12 40 10 286-1 3 1 5 Level 1 3 4 3 2 1 1 2 4 6 2 10 1 39 Level 2 11 3 6 6 5 8 4 2 8 3 12 68 Level 3 16 12 9 13 8 8 10 10 17 5 15 8 131 Level 4 9 2 4 5 3 2 4 1 3 2 1 36 Level 5 1 1 2 1 1 1 7 ENG 8 2 7 2 2 1 2 4 2 30 Bonta 1 1 Level 3 1 1 Smith 8 2 6 2 2 1 2 4 2 29-1 1 Level 2 1 1 2 Level 3 2 1 3 1 3 2 12 Level 4 4 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 12 Level 5 1 1 2 MAT 41 30 38 40 18 36 42 23 48 19 67 10 17 429 Bonta 18 14 11 18 12 17 18 14 30 6 18 2 12 190-1 1 Level 1 8 9 6 13 7 13 12 10 15 3 12 2 10 120 Level 2 5 4 5 4 4 3 5 2 8 1 6 2 49 Level 3 3 1 1 1 1 5 2 14 Level 4 2 1 1 2 6 Smith 23 16 27 22 6 19 24 9 18 13 49 8 5 239-1 1 1 2 5 Level 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 9 1 19 Level 2 7 1 5 5 1 4 9 3 6 3 11 1 2 58 Level 3 4 7 15 14 2 10 7 5 8 7 19 6 3 107 Level 4 8 6 5 1 3 2 5 3 3 7 43 Level 5 2 1 2 1 1 7 SCI 19 22 33 25 27 26 26 22 56 21 84 5 19 385 Bonta 4 11 15 8 14 11 18 12 36 9 34 2 15 189-1 1 Level 1 1 3 7 5 4 7 11 9 27 3 28 2 12 119 Level 2 2 6 7 1 7 3 5 6 4 5 3 49 Level 3 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 14 Level 4 1 1 1 2 1 6 Smith 15 11 18 17 13 15 8 10 20 12 50 3 4 196-1 1 1 2 5 Level 1 1 1 1 1 2 10 16 Level 2 3 1 5 2 2 1 9 1 19 2 45 Level 3 3 6 6 11 5 11 3 6 8 5 17 3 2 86 Level 4 7 2 5 4 3 4 2 2 2 4 1 36 Level 5 1 2 2 2 1 8 SS 46 40 44 30 36 39 23 18 54 23 60 2 17 432 Bonta 23 19 14 12 18 22 11 8 17 11 19 2 14 190-1 1 Level 1 7 7 6 5 12 16 10 7 12 8 16 2 12 120 Level 2 11 8 4 5 4 5 1 4 2 3 2 49 Level 3 2 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 14 Level 4 3 2 1 6 Smith 23 21 30 18 18 17 12 10 37 12 41 3 242-1 1 1 1 2 6 Level 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 7 16 Level 2 5 1 4 1 1 3 3 2 8 4 16 2 50 Level 3 7 7 15 13 7 12 6 4 23 4 14 1 113 Level 4 10 11 7 3 5 2 1 2 2 3 2 48 Level 5 2 2 1 3 1 9 Grand Total 207 151 194 163 140 178 140 113 251 109 278 18 100 2042

Attendance Average Daily Attendance Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 All 94.1% 94.3% 93.0% 92.4% Sped 92.0% 89.1% 90.0% 87.6% ELL 94.0% 93.5% 92.6% 93.2% Percentage of Students with 5 or more Tardies Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 All 10.5% 10.9% 10.3% 4.4% Sped 2.4% 5.6% 3.5% 1.3% ELL 6.6% 14.1% 10.4% 9.7% Data taken from most recent state reporting submission

Student Attendance & Q2 GPA Days missed Q2 GPA Row Labels 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 Grand Total 0-2 4% 2% 8% 10% 4% 28% 2-4 1% 3% 8% 8% 3% 23% 4-6 1% 4% 6% 5% 2% 16% 6-8 1% 3% 3% 2% 1% 9% 8-10 1% 2% 2% 1% 0% 7% 10-12 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 4% 12-14 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 3% 14-16 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 16-18 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 18-20 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% >20 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 3% Grand Total 15% 20% 29% 26% 10% 100% Students missing fewer days are more likely to have a higher GPA.

Discipline Number of disciplinary infractions Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 All 53 102 35 4 Sped 21 34 9 2 ELL 3 9 3 0 21 suspensions during this reporting period (1/15 to 2/14)

Collaboration with External Partners and Organizations Lead turnaround partners meet monthly with transformation steering committee to guide processes. 2 days devoted to Special education plan development Lead discussions regarding the transition out of PLA status and VDOE grant funding Conduct walk-throughs and provide feedback in instruction.

ICAP Goal Completion Summary 70% of students in grades 9 through 11 have completed at least 1 S.M.A.R.T Goal (Math, English, or Post Secondary) and entered that goal into Naviance. Counselors will be working with students to complete their goals by the end of quarter 3. ELL students have been working with their advisors to develop goals. These goals will be entered into Naviance by the end of quarter 3.

Research-based Changes Math and English teachers will teach 5 classes (instead of 4) next year. Guidance counselor ratios will be maintained. Changed the process for scheduling students into Titan time Continue to focus on relationships

Looking Ahead Year 4 priorities Special Education STEM Enhanced Supervision and Evaluation of staff (New Evaluation System) Increased attention to preferred instructional strategies Improving Relationships International Academy Cohort 2 Other Focus Areas MYP Student discourse and engagement