One Goal Monticello Central School District · Area of Improvement # 1 (Elementary ELA) ... Monticello Central School District 2013-2015 SCHOOL YEAR ... High School 2013-2015 Monticello

“Building Excellence

Through Trust”

One Vision

One Goal

One Monticello

COMPREHENSIVE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL PLAN

2013-2015

2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17

Monticello Central School District www.monticelloschools.net

237 Forestburgh Road, Monticello, NY 12701

Tel: 845-794-7700 Fax: 845-794-7710

http://www.monticelloschools.net/

Monticello Central School District

BEDS Code: 59-14-01-06-0000 (Updated June 24, 2014)

2

Comprehensive District Education Plan .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2-3

Signature Page ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

CDEP Plan Committee ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

PART I Comprehensive District Education Plan ............................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Vision/Mission Statement .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

District Statement .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8-9

Monticello Community ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 10-13

Monticello District and the Regents Reform Agenda ........................................................................................................................................................................ 14

Plans Included in CDEP ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Communication Process ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16

Data Analysis Resources ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17-18

District Profile ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19-24

Overview of District Data ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 25-27

District Data Summary – ELA ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28-36

District Data Summary - Math ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 37-45

Data Summary – Schools and Levels ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 46-58

PART 2 Causal Analysis and Planning for Improvement ............................................................................................................................................................... 59

English Language Arts .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 60-63

Math .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 64-70

School Climate/Culture ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 71-73

Graduation Rates/High School Completion ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 74

TABLE OF CONTENTS



3

PART 3 Action Plans ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 75

District Goals ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 76

Area of Improvement # 1 (Elementary ELA) ............................................................................................................................................................................... 77-78

Area of Improvement # 2 (Elementary Math) ............................................................................................................................................................................... 79-80

Area of Improvement #2 (Middle School ELA) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 81-82

Area of Improvement #3 (Middle School Math) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 83-84

Area of Improvement #3 (High School Reading) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 85-88

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)



4


2013-2015 SCHOOL YEAR

Tammy Mangus, Assistant Superintendent for Student Learning

Phone: 845-794-7000 ext. 70928 [email protected]

The Superintendent certifies that: Planning was conducted as a team process

A school profile was developed using all key data elements available

Representatives of all funding/planning areas were involved in the plan development

Building staff, parents, and the school community were informed and involved, as appropriate, in the process

Required building plans (such as Title I school improvement and SURR Comprehensive Education Plan) are on file at the

building level and were a major resource in the establishment of priorities

The plan meets the requirements of State and federal laws and/or regulations that apply to the program covered by this

plan

A board resolution is on file

Daniel A. Teplesky, Superintendent _______________________________________________ Date ____________________

COMPREHENSIVE DISTRICT EDUCATION PLAN

CERTIFICATION



5

The Board acknowledges the involvement, participation, and contribution of the following representatives in the development of this Comprehensive

District Education Plan (CDEP):

NAME POSITION/CONSTITUENCY

REPRESENTED

SIGNATURE

Andersen, Patricia Teacher – Chase Elementary

Bausenwein, Debora Teacher – Special Education RJK Middle

Blais, Sherri Math Teacher – RJK Middle

Bockman, Tavi Teacher – Rutherford Elementary

Duryea, Tanya Pupil Personnel Specialist

Hart, Christine Science Teacher – High School

Horler, Nichole Principal – Middle School

Lauri, Maribeth Social Studies Teacher – High School

Leaney-Levenson, Shannon Parent

Mangus, Tammy Assistant Superintendent

Orlan, Tracey English Teacher – RJK Middle

Pillius-MacKrell, Jodie Educational Research Analyst, BOCES

Potts, Timothy Teacher – Grade 6 RJK Middle

Patterson, Kim Principal – Rutherford Elementary

Rossitto, Shelley Executive Director Instruct. Technology

Speer, Ryan Teacher – Cooke Elementary

Sywalski, Brenda Art Teacher – High School

2013-2015 Monticello CDEP Plan Committee



6

PART 1

COMPREHENSIVE DISTRICT

EDUCATION PLAN



7

The Monticello Central School District is committed to developing students who achieve academic success, practice lifelong learning, and become

productive citizens through the development of inquiring minds, compassionate hearts, creative expression, healthy bodies, and service to the

community.

The mission of the Monticello Central School District is to nurture and enrich the lives of all of its members by providing them with the

opportunities, skills, and knowledge to become contributing and responsible citizens. We will create and maintain a learning environment that

prepares students for a changing, diverse, global society. This will be accomplished through a close partnership with family and community members

with an uncompromising commitment to excellence. The District will provide a network of support to ensure successful outcomes for every student.

Decisions will be made and priorities will be set based on the following core values and beliefs, which are held by every member of the Monticello

Central School District community:

Courage to do the Right Thing

Kindness in Every Exchange

Literacy Focus to Ensure All Students are Approaching or on Reading Level

High Expectations for All Students

Relevant and Rigorous Academic Programs

Skills and Strategies for Lifelong Learning

Reciprocal Responsibility and Accountability

Productivity and Success

Flexibility and Adaptability

Personal Ethics and Integrity

Dignity and Respect

Vision

Mission

Core Values and Beliefs



8

The Monticello Central School District

The Monticello School District is located in Sullivan County, New York. Sullivan County is bordered by the Upper Delaware River Corridor to the

west, the Catskill Park to the north, and the Shawangunk Ridge to the east. It is located within 90 miles of the New York City Metropolitan area.

Sullivan County is almost 1,000 square miles in area and is home to over 70,000 year-round residents, a number that has remained steady the past

several years. The population more than doubles to 150,000 when one takes into account second home ownership and more than quadruples to

350,000 during the summer months from Memorial Day to Labor Day due to an influx of seasonal residents.

Due to its proximity to the NY/NJ Metro Area, tourism continues to be a leading economic driver in Sullivan County, generating more than $290

million annually. Agriculture is the second largest industry in the county with 382 farms that collectively generate total annual revenue of $78

million. Sullivan County is perhaps most famous as the Mecca of Jewish-American comedy in the 1950s to 1960s. The rolling foothills of the

southern Catskills were home to legendary hotels like Grossingers, the Concord, Kutchers, Browns, and the Raleigh, where generations of families

from New York City spent their summers in bungalow colonies. In the 1970s, jet travel became affordable and the tourists of the Catskills started

traveling to other destinations. Now the hotels are empty and crumbling, and abandoned bungalow colonies dot the scenery. At the same time,

farming took an economic hit followed by problems in the industrial sector that had provided many jobs along the Route 17 corridor. Although the

population of the County has been increasing, it has been slow, with a total population change of only 4.8% from 2000-2010. In 2012, Sullivan

County had an unemployment rate of 10.1%, the highest in the Hudson Valley region. Sullivan County’s rate is higher than the New York State 2012

rate of 8.7%.

Monticello Central School District is centrally located in the southern tip of the county, and it is the largest of eight school districts in Sullivan

County. Encompassing 191 square miles, it stretches east on Route 17 to the village of Wurtsboro, west to White Lake, south through the town of

Forestburgh, and north toward the village of Hurleyville.

The residents of the towns of Thompson, Forestburgh, Bethel, Fallsburg, and Mamakating are served by the district, many of which are experiencing

urban sprawl because of its proximity to New York City and to major roads. This has resulted in a population shift in the school district. Originally,

a farming and tourism community, the area has received an influx of families living at or beneath poverty level due to the rising costs in New York

City, and families are moving to the Monticello area seeking subsidized housing and a lower cost of living. According to U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development’s Picture of Subsidized Households for 2009 (reweighted to 2012), there are approximately 417 subsidized

District Statement



9

households that have children in the Village of Monticello alone. There is a very small amount of subsidized housing in Wurtsboro, Rockhill, and

Smallwood as well. The average income for these households is $13,451 with an average rent payment of $326. Along with the influx of urban

population, there has been a steady rise in urban social issues, such as gang activity, unemployment, a growing divide between rich and poor, urban

decay, unplanned pregnancy, and crime, but without the social infrastructures to handle these issues.

The emphasis in the primary grades in Monticello Central School District includes an integrated language arts curriculum supported with early

intervention programs such as Reading Recovery, Title I, and ESL. All K-5 students receive instruction in art, music, physical education, and

technology.

At the middle school level, more accelerated math and science classes are expanding the number of students accessing upper lever coursework to

prepare for the rigors of the global society. The middle school program includes grade level teams, which provide support for students and make

integrated instruction possible. Technology, music, art, home and careers, health, study skills and a foreign language program are part of the

curriculum.

Students in Monticello High School are offered a comprehensive program of academics, sports, and co-curricular experiences. Program offerings

provide college preparation, as well as career and technical training (through BOCES). The high school structure is designed to prepare students for

college and the global economy with access to college level courses, advanced computer technology, a comprehensive foreign language program, and

our Academy of Finance, which is a nationally recognized program that prepares students with skills in computer applications, accounting, banking,

and credit, economics, and international finance.

The National Association of Music Merchants (NAMM) Foundation has announced the results of its 11th annual “Best Communities for Music

Education” survey, which acknowledges schools and districts across the country for their commitment and support of music education. The

Monticello Central School District has been selected, for the fifth straight year, as a Best Communities for Music Education designee for 2012.

Districts receiving this honor scored in the 80th percentile or higher in the survey’s grading process. Participants in the survey answered detailed

questions, including those regarding funding, graduation requirements, music class preparation, and support for the music program.

District Statement (pg. 2)



10

Monticello Central School District serves the students of the following cities/towns: Monticello, Mamakating, Kiamesha Lake, Wurtsboro,

Smallwood, Kauneonga Lake, and Thompsonville. In addition, it serves students in the following cities/towns, but is not the exclusive district:

Forestburgh, Bethel, Glen Wild, Mountain Dale, Swan Lake, White Lake, and South Fallsburg (served mostly by Fallsburg Central School District).

According to the most recent census, 2010, the population is (some communities are not large enough to be on census):

City/Town in School

District

Population Percentage of

School

District

Monticello 6,726 65%

Rock Hill 1,742 17%

Smallwood 580 5%

Wurtsboro 1,246 12%

Total 10,294

Median Household Income:

Monticello $26,879

Rock Hill $61,292

Smallwood $50,667

Wurtsboro $57,098

NY State $54,148

The Monticello School District Community



11

Employment Status (Percentage):

Percentage

Employed

Percentage

Unemployed

Percentage Not in Labor

Force (retired, disabled,

stay-at-home mom, etc.)

Monticello 87% 13% 42%

Rock Hill 97% 3% 41%

Smallwood 97% 3% 43%

Wurtsboro 86% 14% 33%

NY State 93% 7% 36%

Population by Race (Percentage):

White Black Hispanic Asian Native

Am.

Other Two or More races

Monticello 49% 32% 30% 2% <1% 9% 6%

Rock Hill 81% 9% 12% 5% <1% 3% 2%

Smallwood 93% 2% 7% <1% <1% 1% 3%

Wurtsboro 89% 4% 9% <1% <1% 3% 3%

NY State 66% 16% 18% 7% <1% 7% 3%

People Living at or Below Poverty Level (Percentage):

Monticello 30%

Rock Hill 11%

Smallwood 6%

Wurtsboro 8%

NY State 14%

The Monticello School District Community (pg. 2)



12

Education Age 25 and Older (Percentage of Population):

Less than

High

School

High School

Graduate

Some

College or

Associate

Degree

Bachelor

Degree

Master,

Doctorate or

Professional

Degree

Monticello 20% 37% 31% 7% 4%

Rock Hill 11% 16% 40% 16% 16%

Smallwood 23% 26% 21% 19% 12%

Wurtsboro 16% 40% 29% 8% 8%

NY State 16% 28% 24% 18% 14%

As October 1 2013, there were 3467 Kindergarten through 12th grade students residing within the Monticello Central School District. Out of those

students, 451 did not attend a Monticello Central School District facility. In addition to the total population number of 3467, MCSD served 90 PreK

students. Students living within the boundaries of the Monticello Central School District attended the following schools:

Religious Schools

o Bais Yisroel School (PreK-8, Kiamesha Lake) 100+ students

o Bnos Yisroel Girls’ School of Viznitz (K-12, Monsey) Less than 10 students

o Chapel Field Christian School (K-12, Pine Bush) 10-20 students

o Harmony Christian Day School (PreK-12, Middletown) Less than 10 students

o Hebrew Day School of Sullivan (PreK-8, Kiamesha Lake) 10 – 20 students

o John S. Burke Catholic High School (9-12, Goshen) Less than 10 students

o Middletown SDA Church School (K-8, Middletown) Less than 10 students

o Our Lady of Mt. Carmel (PreK-8, Middletown) Less than 10 students

o St. John’s School (K-5, Goshen) Less than 10 students

o St. Peter’s Regional School (PreK-4, Liberty) 10 – 20 students

o Talmud Torah Imrei Burech (PreK-8, Kiamesha Lake) 100+ students

o Yeshiva Gedolah-Zichron Moshe (PreK-7, S. Fallsburg) Less than 10 students




13

Special Population Schools

o ARC (All Grades, Sullivan and Orange County Chapters) Less than 10 students

o BOCES (K-12, Sullivan or Orange-Ulster) 50 – 100 students

o George Junior Republic School (At-Risk, Pennsylvania) Less than 10 students

o The Homestead School (K-7 Montessori, Glen Spey) 10 – 20 students

o Home Schooled (all grades) 30 – 50 students

o Kaplan Career Academy (9-12, New Windsor) Less than 10 students

o Monticello & SC BOCES GED (9-12, Monticello) 10 – 20 students

o Spring Brook (all grades, Developmental Disabilities, Oneonta) Less than 10 students

o The Woods School (All grades – Multi-Handicapped) Less than 10 students

District Schools

o Monticello Central School District (K-12, Monticello) 3016 Students

o Monticello Pre-K (Pre-K, Monticello) 90 Students




14

The Monticello Central School District is committed to raising student achievement for all students through the NYS reform agenda. This CDEP

Plan acknowledges the three key strategies to raise expectations for all students to be college and career ready.

Data Driven Instruction

Common Core Learning Standards

Teacher/Leader Effectiveness

Furthermore, this document acknowledges the Six Shifts in ELA/Literacy and the Six Shifts in Mathematics that are demanded by the Core:

The Monticello District & the Regents Reform Agenda

6 Shifts in Mathematics Focus: Learn more about less

Build skills across grades

Develop speed and accuracy

Really know it, Really do it

Use it in the real world

Think fast AND solve problems

6 Shifts in ELA/Literacy

Read as much nonfiction as fiction

Learn about the world by reading

Read more challenging material closely

Discuss reading using evidence

Increase academic vocabulary



15

These plans may be included in CDEP

Technology

X Professional Development

Guidance

Local Assistance Plan

Shared Decision Making (100.11)

Academic Intervention Services

Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD)

Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR)

The district used a facilitator: Yes _____ No ___X___

If yes:

Name

Title:

Organization Name & Address:

Phone Number:

Plans Included in this CDEP



16

The CDEP team acts as a shared decision-making team and district inquiry team. The goal of each monthly meeting is to review the goals of the

current plan share new and pertinent data, discuss updates to state and local mandates and expectations, and work towards the creation of an updated

plan to be approved once completed. Additionally, the CDEP team is at the helm regarding communication to all educators within the Monticello

Central School District. The flow for turnkey information is as follows:

To accomplish our tasks and involve more stakeholders, team members were asked to be the liaisons with their respective constituencies During the

CDEP-PD development phase. They were also asked to meet with small sub-group writing teams to review data and update their Action Plans. The

committee discussed the feedback and ideas from the at-large community and revised the documents accordingly

Communication Process for the CDEP Committee

Communication Process to Inform all Constituencies in the Community

CDEP / District

Inquiry Team

Building (BIT)

Teams

Instructional

Coaches

Dept.

Instructional

Leads

Grade level

Leaders Building (BIT)

Teams

Teachers

Thinking

maps Coach

Inclusion

Coaches

STEM

Committee

Thinking maps

Coach

Inclusion

Coaches



17

Data to determine the various needs and areas for improvement will be used in various ways and by various teams throughout the District.

1. School District Report Cards

2. Student Achievement on Outcome Assessments

3. Student Survey (NYU Report)

4. Parent Survey

5. Syracuse Report – Creating a College Based Culture

6. District Basic Educational Data System (BEDS) Information

7. Attendance Rates of Students and Staff

8. School Report Card Performance Data for Student subgroups:

race/ethnicity, gender, disability status, English proficiency status, income level, and migrant status

9. Qualifications of Staff as Defined by NCLB (Highly Qualified)

10. Placement of Experienced and Novice Teachers

11. Patterns of Staff Assignments in Certification Area

12. Quantitative Survey of Teachers

13. Qualitative Survey of Special Education Teachers

14. Special Designation Schools, SURR, Title I

15. Analysis of ELA Assessments- 3 – 8th Grade and HS Regents (including item analysis)

16. Local Assessment of Student Work – ELA K - 9

Data Analysis



18

17. Analysis of Math Assessments- 3 – 8th Grade and HS Regents (including item analysis)

18. Local Assessment of Student Work- Math K – 9

19. Technology Survey

20. U.S. Census 2010 and US Census Bureau American Community 5-Year Survey

21. Enrollment by sub group population

22. Special Education – School Quality Review; Joint Intervention Team; “Quality Improvement Plan” (from the NYS Education Dept.)

23. The New York State center for Rural Schools – Cornell University

24. Analysis of High School Regents Results and Graduation Rates

25. Suspension and Detention data

Data Analysis (pg. 2)



19

MAJOR DISTRICT INITIATIVES EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

Adoption of the NYS Common Core

NWEA MAP testing

Compass Learning for remediation

Adoption of SuperKids Curriculum for K-2

Listening & Learning Program for K-2

Positive Behavior Instructional Strategies

Orchestra, Band, and Chorus beginning in Elementary School.

Jazz Ensemble, Chamber Singers and Dance in High School

Drama productions and school musicals starting in Middle School

Cross Country, Soccer, Football, Cheerleading, Tennis, Skiing, Indoor Track, Basketball, Wrestling, Baseball, Softball, Golf, and Volleyball at Middle School and High School

Club Rec for Elementary Schools

Various academic and community clubs in Middle and High School.

MAJOR COMMUNITY/ IHE PARTNERS PARENT/DISTRICT SUPPORTS

Boys and Girls Club Parent Teacher Association

Parent Teacher Organization

Special Education Parent Teacher Student Association

Every Person Influences Children (E.P.I.C.)

STUDENTS Enrollment (MCSD Buildings Only) Source: BEDS Data Recent Immigrants*

(BEDS Day) 08 - 09 09 - 10 *10 - 11 11 - 12 12 - 13 13 - 14

Percent of Enrollment

2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14

*2010-11 Data has been recreated due to an error in the BEDS system 14 21 26 27

K 278 233 244 292 256 242

1 214 265 230 241 282 247 *Students enrolled as of October 31, 2013, who immigrated to the U.S. within the last 3 years

2 253 216 265 225 236 268 Recent Immigrants' Place of Birth

3 267 256 205 262 216 224

Place of birth/ % of Immigrant Enrollment 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14

4 243 272 248 202 241 219 1st Columbia/8 Columbia/11 Columbia/9 Jamaica/6

5 249 247 274 234 196 236 2nd Ecuador/2 Ecuador/3 Egypt/5 Egypt/5

6 221 252 245 264 231 203 3rd Mexico/2 Egypt/3 El Salv./3 El. Salv./3

7 262 222 252 246 259 221

8 248 250 220 232 238 260

9 315 297 293 247 252 252 Attendance

10 225 258 254 222 201 232

% of days students attended

11 260 268 270 262 246 232 2007 - 08

2008 - 09 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13

12 241 190 193 184 166 140 92 92 93 93 93 93

Ungraded 0 0 0 41 50 44 Total 3276 3226 3193 3154 3070 3020

District Profile



20

Special Education Enrollment

2009 - 10

2010 - 11

2011 - 12

2012 - 13

2013 - 14

Self-contained 182 188 173 180 140

All others 294 331 301 305 329

Total 476 519 474 485 469 English Language Learners (ELL) Enrollment Percentage of Student's Eligible for Free Lunch

Number of students/percentage

2009 - 10

2010 - 11

2011 - 12

2012 - 13

2013 - 14 2007-08

2008-09

2009-10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14

137/4 128/4 126/3 122/3 107/3 49 58 48 44 62 59 68

Ethnicity and Gender Enrollment Suspensions

2009 - 10

2010 - 11

2011 - 12

2012 - 13

2013 - 14

2008-09 2009-10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13

Entire District (including PreK) 3326 3294 3248 3168 3113 Total OSS 1555 1459 1167 968 1224

Male UK UK 1654 1611 1601 High School 1340 1273 759 428 443

Female UK UK 1594 1557 1512 Middle School 194 170 318 488 482

Students with Disab. 672 618 447 440 469 Elementary 21 16 90 52 174

Black 729 866 745 694 657 6+ Days OSS 1 3 8 25 6

Hispanic 654 761 748 768 774 In School Suspension 2546 1675 23 51 32

Asian 55 60 62 53 51 High School 2019 1292 0 0 0

Native American 11 12 6 2 3 Middle School 520 371 0 0 0

White 1665 2141 1633 1564 1538 Elementary 7 12 23 51 32

Eng. Language Learn. 137 128 129 122 98

Economically Dis. 1611 1459 1978 1865 2121 Initial Referrals to Special Education English Language Learners

Number/Percent of District Enrollment

2008-09

2009 - 10

2010 - 11

2011 - 12

2012 - 13

Number/Percent of District Enrollment

2008-09 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13

50/1.5 56/1.7 50/1.5 79/2.4 58/1.8 160/4 153/5 126/4 122/4 107/4

Special Education Enrollment (number/percent of district enrollment) Students Attaining English Proficiency

2008 - 09

2009 - 10

2010 - 11

2011 - 12

2012 - 13

2013 - 14

No./% of ELLs

2008 - 09

2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14

648/15 672/20 618/19 447/14 440/14 469/15 30/16 41/26 22/14 41/33 42/34 NA

District Profile (pg. 2)



21

Number of Staff District Expenditures (MCSD Report Cost per Pupil)

Teachers

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13 Average Spending Per Student

292 291 282 2008-09 2009-10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 2012-13

Teachers teaching within cert. area 99% 99% 100%

District Average 11,634 11,584 12,194 N/A 13,048

State Average 10,874 11,105 10,963 N/A 11,615

Teachers teaching outside of cert. area 1% 1% 0

Uncertified Teachers 0 0 0

Administrators and other professional staff 52 56 30

Educational Paraprofessionals 113 103 96

All full-time and part-time staff 593 628 559

Teachers

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

Percent fully licensed and permanently assigned to schools 92% 92% 91%

Percent more than two years teaching 97% 98% 97%

Percent more than five years teaching 91% 93% 91%

Percent with a masters' degree or higher 89% 90% 92%

Average days absent a year 11.64 11.96 10.11




22

The number of economically disadvantaged students is increasing steadily each year. There has been a 20% increase

since 2010-11 to 2013-14. Sullivan County, and within Sullivan County, Monticello School District, is a rural area

facing not only issues typically faced by rural school districts, but due to its proximity to New York City, it is also

dealing with urban issues. Families are leaving the NYC area to locate Section 8 housing and Sullivan County can

provide that housing. With the growing number of economically disadvantaged students coming from, for the most

part, the New York City area, gang activity has been a growing problem with in the community.

The growing population of economically disadvantaged students requires more resources, including professional

development and social services.




23

Due to the migration of families from the New York City area, the district is becoming more and more culturally

diverse. As the percentage of minority students enrolled in the district is on the incline, the percentage of white

students enrolled in the district is declining. Since 2006-2007, the percentage of white students enrolled has dropped by

5%.




24

Like many rural districts, over the past 8 years, the school district is seeing a declining enrollment. Since 2006-07, the

district has lost 256 Students.




25

Overview of District Data

The 2011-2012 Mathematics data demonstrated the following levels of proficiency for grades 3 – 8:

Proficiency Totals all Students General Ed Only Special Ed Only

2018 Cohort1/Grade 3: 249 students/32% 220 Students/37% 29 Students/3%

2017 Cohort/Grade 4: 200 students/56% 168 students/59% 32 students/32%





The Integrated Algebra data demonstrated that in 2011-2012, 73% of all students tested scored at 65 or above and 9% scored at 85 or

above.

The 2011-2012 ELA data demonstrated the following levels of proficiency for grades 3 – 8:


2018 Cohort/Grade 3: 248 students/26% 219 Students/28% 29 Students/7%






The Comprehensive English Regents data demonstrated that in 2011-2012, 69% of all students tested scored at 65 or above and 17%

scored at 85 or above.

1 A total cohort consists of all students who first entered Grade 9 in a particular year, and all ungraded students with disabilities who reached their seventeenth

birthday in that year, and were enrolled in the school/district for five months. Students are excluded from the cohort if they transferred to another school district,

nonpublic school, or criminal justice facility, or left the U.S. and its territories or died before the report date. Statewide total cohort also includes students who

were enrolled for fewer than five months.

Overview of District Data 2011-2012



26









The Integrated Algebra data demonstrated that in 2010-2011, 70% of all students tested scored at 65 or above and 5% scored at 85 or

above.


















27









The Mathematics B data demonstrated that in 2009-2010, 63% of all students tested scored at 65 or above and 10% scored at 85 or

above. The Integrated Algebra data demonstrated that in 2009-2010, 61% of all students tested scored at 65 or above and 4% scored at

85 or above.


















28

NYS – English Language Arts (Gr. 3-8): 2012-2013 & 2011-2012

2012-2013 SUBJECT # Tested % Level 3 % Level 4 % Levels 3+4 Mean

12-13 Scale

11-12 Scale

12-13 Scale

11-12 Scale

12-13 scale

11-12 scale

Monticello Central School District Grade 3 ELA 216 12% 35% 1% 2% 13% 37% 284.22



Monticello Central School District Grade 6 ELA 231 11% 41% 5% <1% 16% 41% 287.95


Monticello Central School District Grade 8 ELA 237 17% 34% 3% <1% 20% 34% 284.09

Monticello Central School District Grades 3 - 8 ELA 1378 13% 36% 3% 1% 15% 37% 283.50


Monticello Central School District Grade 3 ELA 248 26% 0% 26% 652






Monticello Central School District Grades 3 - 8 ELA 1416 39% 1% 39% 659

**NY State adjusted the way the ELA test was scored for the 2012-13 school year, resulting in a completely

different scale score mean and in an apparent drop in proficiency. However, if the 2011-12 scale had remained the

same, proficiency would have been much higher as shown in the columns labeled “11-12 Scale” above.

District Data Summary – ELA



29

Total Population

School Year

Test

Administered

Number of

Students Tested

Percentage (Number) of Students Scoring at Levels NY State /All

Students

Performance

Index (PI)

District/All-

Students

Performance

Index (PI)

EAMO

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

2009-2010 276 8% 42% 47% 3% 171 163 152

2010-2011 247 15% 47% 37% 0% 144 123 119

2011-2012 197 17% 41% 41% 1% 149 127 147 (133)

2012-2013 247 54% 35% 10% 1% 104 70 75

General Education

School Year

Test

Administered

Number of

Students Tested

Percentage (Number) of Students Scoring at Levels NY State/

General

Education

Performance

Index (PI)

District/General

Education

Performance

Index (PI)

EAMO


2009-2010 239 5% 38% 53% 4% N/A N/A N/A

2010-2011 221 10% 49% 41% 0% N/A N/A N/A

2011-2012 165 10% 43% 45% 1% 161 138 N/A

2012-2013 205 46% 41% 12% 1% 115 78 N/A

Students with Disabilities

School Year

Test

Administered

Number of

Students Tested


Student with

Disabilities

Performance

Index (PI)

District/Students

with Disabilities

Performance

Index (PI)

EAMO

(Safe Harbor) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

2009-2010 37 24% 68% 8% 0% 133 128 148 (91)

2010-2011 26 62% 35% 4% 0% 144 72 115 (91)

2011-2012 32 53% 28% 19% 0% 95 69 94 (86)

2012-2013 36 97% 3% 0% 0% 47 29 20

EAMO = The Effective Annual Measurable Objective is the PI Value that each accountability group within a school/district is expected to achieve to make AYP.

Red = Did not meet accountability criterion

ELA 4 – MCSD (District-Wide)



30

Total Population

School Year Test

Administered

Number of

Students Tested


Students

Performance

Index (PI)

District/All-

students

Performance

Index (PI)

EAMO


2009-2010 256 12% 52% 30% 6% 171 163 152

2010-2011 215 11% 55% 33% 0% 144 123 119

2011-2012 243 6% 51% 42% 1% 149 127 147 (133)

2012-2013 236 44% 36% 17% 3% 104 70 79

General Education

School Year Test

Administered

Number of

Students Tested


General

Education

Performance

Index (PI)

District/General

Education

Performance

Index (PI)

EAMO


2009-2010 213 5% 51% 37% 7% N/A N/A N/A

2010-2011 169 3% 56% 41% 1% N/A N/A N/A

2011-2012 204 3% 49% 47% 1% 161 138 N/A

2012-2013 193 35% 41% 21% 3% 115 78 N/A


School Year Test

Administered

Number of

Students Tested


Student with

Disabilities

Performance

Index (PI)

District/Students

with Disabilities

Performance

Index (PI)

EAMO (Safe

Harbor) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

2009-2010 43 47% 53% 0% 0% 133 128 148 (91)

2010-2011 46 39% 54% 7% 0% 144 72 115 (91)

2011-2012 28 32% 64% 4% 0% 95 69 94 (86)

2012-2013 43 88% 9% 2% 0% 47 29 28



ELA 8 – MCSD (District-Wide)



31

Shifts in ELA Proficiency across the Years in NYS

District Data Summary – ELA (pg. 2)



32

2012 to 2013 Comparison Chart – 2012 Cut Scores and Matching 2013 Cut Scores

Grades 3-8 ELA

ELA 2012 Cut

Score for

Level 2

Matched

2013 Scale

Score

2012 Cut

Score for

Level 3

Matched

2013 Scale

Score

2012 Cut

Score for

Level 4

Matched

2013 Scale

Score

Grade 3 644 264 664 299 695 350

Grade 4 638 253 671 296 723 355

Grade 5 648 257 668 297 700 357

Grade 6 644 256 662 297 695 367

Grade 7 642 252 665 301 699 362

Grade 8 629 248 659 302 708 372




33

Results by Student Sub-Groups: ELA 2012-13

Meeting or Exceeding State Standards: Levels 3+

Accountability Sub-Groups

All Grades Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

2012-2013 ELA #Tested %L3+ #Tested %L3+ #Tested %L3+ #Tested %L3+ #Tested %L3+ #Tested %L3+ #Tested %L3+

District 1353 15% 212 13% 238 12% 187 15% 228 17% 255 19% 233 20%

General Education

1163 18% 193 14% 205 13% 156 17% 197 19% 221 22% 191 24%


185 0% 17 0% 33 0% 31 0% 30 0% 34 0% 40 3%

American Indian or Alaska Native

2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 -

Asian or Pacific Islander

24 23% 0 - 5 75% 7 10% 1 - 6 17% 5 40%

Black or African American

315 8% 49 3% 47 14% 48 6% 52 8% 63 11% 56 11%

Hispanic or Latino

324 10% 56 14% 61 2% 48 10% 53 11% 56 13% 50 14%

Multiracial 31 8% 9 0% 6 0% 3 - 8 25% 2 - 3 -

White 662 20% 98 18% 124 14% 80 14% 114 23% 127 26% 119 27%

Female 656 18% 101 16% 112 16% 96 18% 111 16% 123 27% 113 20%

Male 697 12% 111 11% 126 7% 91 11% 117 17% 132 11% 120 20%

Limited English Proficient

69 0% 12 0% 22 0% 4 - 10 0 15 0 6 0

Economically Disadvantaged

918 17% 142 8% 170 4% 135 6% 157 10% 152 11% 162 12%

**The drop in proficiency from 2011-12 to 2012-13 is due to the change in the NYS ELA test and the adjustment of its scale as shown per the district summary data on page 20.




34

Results by Student Sub-Groups: ELA 2011-12




2011-2012 ELA #Tested %L3+ #Tested %L3+ #Tested %L3+ #Tested %L3+ #Tested %L3+ #Tested %L3+ #Tested %L3+

District 1389 39% 248 26% 197 42% 233 47% 236 36% 243 42% 232 43%

General Education 1214 44% 218 28% 162 48% 205 53% 227 41% 200 49% 202 49%


202 7% 30 7% 35 17% 28 0% 36 6% 43 9% 30 3%


5 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 -


25 8% 5 0% 6 17% 1 - 5 - 6 - 2 -


348 28% 49 20% 56 20% 52 40% 68 22% 61 38% 62 31%

Hispanic or Latino 309 32% 53 15% 48 44% 55 38% 59 25% 49 29% 45 29%

Multiracial 25 6% 8 13% 3 - 7 - 3 - 2 - 2 -

White 704 39% 132 31% 82 54% 118 55% 127 47% 125 47% 120 54%

Female 695 45% 116 31% 100 51% 114 51% 129 43% 117 49% 119 48%

Male 721 33% 132 21% 97 33% 119 43% 134 29% 126 35% 113 37%


66 8% 24 0% 11 18% 9 22% 14 0% 6 0% 2 -


860 28% 172 18% 78 31% 152 36% 160 24% 161 32% 137 32%




35

THE GAP BETWEEN NYS AND MCSD

ELA TEST 2009 (5.7%) 2011 (31.8%)

2010 (26.7%) 2012 (29.2%)

2013 (51.8%)

0

20

40

60

80

100

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Monticello

NYS




36

MEAN SCALE SCORES ELA

270

275

280

285

290

295

300

305

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade8

Monticello

NYS




37

NYS – Mathematics (Gr. 3-8): 2012-2013 & 2011-2012

2012-2013 SUBJECT #

Tested

% Level 3 % Level 4 % Levels 3+4

12-13

Scale

11-12

Scale

12-13

Scale

11-12

Scale

12-13

Scale

11-12

Scale

Monticello Central School District Grade 3 Math 218 9% 20% 2% 2% 11% 22%






Monticello Central School District Grades 3 - 8

Math

1377 7% 34% 2% 7% 10% 42%

District Data Summary – Math



38


Monticello Central School District Grade 3 Math 249 31 2 33 676






Monticello Central School District Grades 3 - 8 Math 1424 39 11 50 673

**NY State adjusted the way the Math test was scored for the 2012-13 school year, resulting in a completely

different scale score mean and in an apparent drop in proficiency. However, if the 2011-12 scale had remained the

same, proficiency would have been much higher as shown in the columns labeled “11-12 Scale” above.

District Data Summary – Math



39

-36

Total Population

School Year Test

Administered

Number of

Students Tested


Students

Performance

Index (PI)

District/All-

students

Performance

Index (PI)

EAMO


2009-2010 274 2% 39% 41% 18% 184 183 132

2010-2011 248 10% 37% 42% 11% 157 137 134

2011-2012 200 12% 34% 38% 18% 161 141 161 (146)

2012-2013 224 58% 30% 8% 3% 101 57 76

General Education

School Year Test

Administered

Number of

Students Tested


General

Education

Performance

Index (PI)

District/General

Education

Performance

Index (PI)

EAMO


2009-2010 237 2% 34% 44% 21% N/A N/A N/A

2010-2011 221 6% 38% 44% 13% N/A N/A N/A

2011-2012 168 7% 33% 41% 18% 170 151 N/A

2012-2013 188 52% 35% 10% 4% 112 64 N/A


School Year Test

Administered

Number of

Students Tested


Student with

Disabilities

Performance

Index (PI)

District/Students

with Disabilities

Performance

Index (PI)

EAMO (Safe

Harbor) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

2009-2010 37 3% 73% 22% 3% 152 153 128

2010-2011 27 44% 33% 22% 0% 110 94 130 (105)

2011-2012 32 31% 34% 19% 13% 114 90 115 (108)

2012-2013 36 92% 8% 0% 0% 51 29 30 (30)



Math 4 – MCSD (District-Wide)



40

Total Population

School Year

Test

Administered

Number of

Students Tested


Students

Performance

Index (PI)

District/All-

students

Performance

Index (PI)

EAMO


2009-2010 259 9% 34% 23% 3% 184 140 135

2010-2011 213 10% 43% 42% 4% 157 137 134

2011-2012 234 7% 43% 44% 6% 161 141 161 (146)

2012-2013 237 51% 41% 6% 2% 101 57 76

General Education

School Year

Test

Administered

Number of

Students Tested


General

Education

Performance

Index (PI)

District/General

Education

Performance

Index (PI)

EAMO


\

2009-2010 215 3% 67% 26% 4% N/A N/A N/A

2010-2011 168 4% 42% 49% 5% N/A N/A N/A

2011-2012 205 6% 39% 49% 6% 170 151 N/A

2012-2013 193 42% 48% 8% 2% 112 64 N/A


School Year

Test

Administered

Number of

Students Tested


Student with

Disabilities

Performance

Index (PI)

District/Students

with Disabilities

Performance

Index (PI)

EAMO


2009-2010 44 39% 52% 9% 0% 152 104 112

2010-2011 45 33% 49% 18% 0% 110 94 130 (105)

2011-2012 29 14% 76% 10% 0% 114 90 115 (108)

2012-2013 44 89% 41% 0% 0% 51 29 28



Math 8 – MCSD (District-Wide)



41

2012 to 2013 Comparison Chart – 2012 Cut Scores and Matching 2013 Cut Scores

Grades 3-8 Math

Math 2012

Cut

Score

for

Level 2

Matched

2013 Scale

Score

2012 Cut

Score for

Level 3

Matched

2013 Scale

Score

2012 Cut

Score for

Level 4

Matched

2013 Scale

Score

Grade 3 663 225 684 293 711 341

Grade 4 637 243 677 284 708 320

Grade 5 641 250 676 289 707 321

Grade 6 640 252 674 289 700 318

Grade 7 641 253 671 290 695 319

Grade 8 639 248 674 293 704 330

District Data Summary – Math (pg. 2)



42

Results by Student Sub-Groups: Mathematics 2012-13




2012-2013 Math

#Tested %L3+ #Tested %L3+ #Tested %L3+ #Tested %L3+ #Tested %L3+ #Tested %L3+ #Tested %L3+

District 1354 12% 215 11% 237 18% 188 15% 227 8% 254 9% 233 8%

General Education

1165 13% 196 11% 204 21% 157 18% 197 9% 220 10% 191 9%


184 0% 17 0% 33 0% 31 0% 29 0% 34 0% 40 0%

American In. or Alaska Nat.

2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 -


25 20% 0 - 5 50% 7 36% 1 - 6 17% 6 17%


314 6% 50 2% 47 21% 48 5% 51 2% 63 2% 55 2%

Hispanic or Latino

320 7% 56 7% 55 6% 50 15% 53 4% 56 4% 50 8%

Multiracial 31 1% 9 8% 6 0% 3 - 8 0% 2 - 3 -

White 662 14% 100 15% 124 18% 79 14% 114 13% 126 14% 119 11%

Female 657 12% 103 12% 111 18% 95 14% 111 8% 122 11% 115 6%

Male 697 11% 112 9% 126 17% 93 16% 116 8% 132 6% 118 10%


65 1% 13 0% 23 2% 11 0% 10 0% 2 - 6 0


918 6% 144 4% 169 10% 136 10% 156 4% 151 5% 162 4%

**The drop in proficiency from 2011-12 to 2012-13 is due to the change in the NYS Math test and the adjustment of its scale as shown per the District Summary Data on page 27.




43

Results by Student Sub-Groups: Mathematics 2011-12




2011-2012 Math

#Tested %L3+ #Tested %L3+ #Tested %L3+ #Tested %L3+ #Tested %L3+ #Tested %L3+ #Tested %L3+

District 1463 49% 254 33% 203 55% 236 58% 274 46% 252 54% 244 51%

General Education

1226 53% 219 36% 165 59% 205 63% 230 51% 202 59% 205 55%


237 26% 35 17% 38 34% 31 23% 44 18% 50 30% 39 31%


5 40% 1 - 2 - - - 1 - - - 1 -


25 84% 5 100% 6 83% 1 - 5 80% 6 67% 2 -


365 40% 51 22% 59 39% 53 51% 71 38% 66 44% 65 46%

Hispanic or Latino

322 42% 54 22% 49 61% 56 50% 63 30% 51 55% 49 35%

Multiracial 25 16% 8 13% 3 - 7 29% 3 - 2 - 2 -

White 721 57% 135 42% 84 62% 119 60% 131 56% 127 57% 125 60%

Female 713 50% 120 37% 101 53% 114 54% 134 51% 121 55% 123 50%

Male 750 48% 134 31% 102 56% 122 61% 140 40% 131 53% 121 51%


73 22% 25 16% 13 38% 9 56% 15 13% 5 50% 4 0


946 41% 177 25% 138 50% 153 42% 166 36% 167 49% 145 46%




44

THE GAP - MATH

2009 (2.8%) 2011 (29%)

2010 (23%) 2012 (22.8%)

2013 (66.8%)

0

20

40

60

80

100

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Monticello

NYS




45

MEAN SCALE SCORES MATH

265

270

275

280

285

290

295

300

305

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

Monticello

NYS




46

64

46

64

71

40

57

75

64

78 78

56

7976

6966

81

53

7473 73

68

76

32

69

ALL STUDENTS BLACK HISPANIC WHITE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED

Monticello CSDGraduation Rates

Four-Year Trend -2010-2013

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

District Data Summary – Graduation Rates



47

74

62 62

83

48

65

77

66

85

79

45

71

79

72

82 82

49

7882

76

86

58

80



Monticello High School English Language-ArtsPercentage of Students Scoring at Level 3 and Above


2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

District Data Summary – ELA Regents



48

77

62

71

86

43

72

80

64

83 85

40

72

80

70

84 83

49

7881

73

85

38

77

ALL STUDENTS BLACK HISPANIC WHITE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED

Monticello CSD Secondary MathematicsPercentage of Students Scoring at Level 3 or Higher


2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

District Data Summary – Secondary Math



49

39

27

32

48

4

28

36

26

29

44

7

26

39

28

32

39

7

28

15

810

20

0

17



Monticello CSD Elementary/Middle-LevelEnglish Language-Arts Percentage Meeting or Exceeding Standards


2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

District Data Summary – Middle Level ELA



50

47

34 35

58

17

25

36

46

33

41

54

15

30

36

49

4042

57

26

22

41

12

6 7

14

0 06

ALL STUDENTS BLACK HISPANIC WHITE STUDENTS WITH

DISABILITIES

LIMITED ENGLISH

PROFICIENT

ECONOMICALLY

DISADVANTAGED

Monticello CSD Elementary/Middle-LevelMathematics Percentage Meeting or Exceeding Standards


2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

District Data Summary – Middle Level Math



51

164157 157

169

122

153

128

117 116

140

77

110

132

119 117

145

76

117



Robert J. Kaiser Middle SchoolEnglish Language-Arts Performance Index

Three-Year Trend -2010-2013

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

District Data Summary – Middle ELA PI



52

180174 170

185

147

172

142

126134

154

99

131

146137 135

154

98

135



Robert J. Kaiser Middle SchoolMathematics Performance Index


2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

District Data Summary – Middle Math PI



53

160

146 148

177

124

151

112

98

110119

31

96

113105

97

128

43

107



Kenneth L. Rutherford SchoolEnglish Language Arts Performance Index


2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

District Data Summary – KLR ELA PI



54

187180

188 192

162

182

136130 127

144

63

123133

119125

144

73

126



Kenneth L. Rutherford SchoolMathematics Performance Index


2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

District Data Summary – KLR Math PI



55

178167

191

178

147

161

143 143

115

145

85

113

153 157

136

155

81

135



Emma C. Chase SchoolEnglish Language-Arts Performance Index


2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

District Data Summary – Chase ELA PI



56

197183

200 199 194 195

161 157

133

167

133 136

171179

171 171

114

159



Emma C. Chase SchoolMath Performance Index


2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

District Data Summary – Chase Math PI



57

112

97

115122

78

106

120

107

127 124

68

112



Cooke SchoolEnglish Language Arts Performance Index

Two-Year Trend -2010-2013

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

District Data Summary – Cooke ELA PI



58

121 120

132126

100

114

130124

130134

92

124



Cooke SchoolMathematics

Two-Year Trend -2010-2013

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

District Data Summary – Cooke Math PI



59

PART 2

CAUSAL ANALYSIS AND

PLANNING FOR

IMPROVEMENT



60

We have summarized the major findings of our analysis of student achievement data and effectiveness of current educational

practices.

Elementary Level (3-5)

The 3rd and 4th grades have shown a loss of proficiency of approximately 10 percent over three years

Students with Disabilities had a proficiency rate in the single digits in grades 3, 4, and 5.

Rutherford Elementary School has been designated a LAP school for 2013-14 for Students with Disabilities, black

students, and economically disadvantaged students due to being below cut points for the Performance Index in ELA and

Math.

Cooke Elementary School has been designated a LAP school for 2013-14 for black students and economically

disadvantaged students due to being below cut points for the Performance Index in ELA and Math.

Middle School Level (6-8)

The following subgroups have been cited as a subgroup for not meeting AYP in grades 6-8 for 2011-12.

All students

Black students

Hispanic students



Economically Disadvantaged.

The 6th grade has shown a loss of proficiency of 10 percent over three years.

Students with Disabilities had a proficiency rate in the single digits in grades 6, 7, and 8.

Middle School has been designated a LAP school for 2013-14 for student with disabilities in ELA.

High School Level

The past four-years of ELA results show a positive trend, however, the high school has not yet taken the Common Core

exams, and last year’s similar students’ scores show that the high school does not grow at the rate of the NYS average.

Additionally, the current 2013 cohort must take the Common Core English exam in grade 11 and pass with a 65 in order to

graduate from high school.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS

Summary of Causal Analysis Findings



61

We have summarized key promising strategies that may increase student performance in our district as follows:

Elementary School

Schools that are not meeting AYP or made AYP using Safe Harbor Target will continue to implement Academic

Intervention for students with disabilities (SWD). These students receive 90 minutes weekly of daily Academic Intervention

(AIS) in ELA and Mathematics. Teachers co-teach using small group instructional strategies.

Limited English Proficient (LEP) students will receive 90 minutes weekly of Academic Intervention Services.

Implementation of Super Kids curriculum for K-2 and adoption of NYS Common Core Modules for grades 3-5

Listening and Learning curriculum used at grades K-2

Continue provision of intensive Academic Intervention Services to each student not meeting state standards in ELA

Students with disabilities (SWD) will be placed in full day (except at KLR) inclusion classrooms with two teachers (one

special education and one general education)

Teachers will use data from multiple assessments to provide instructional emphasis on both students’ strengths and

weaknesses and to assist in the grouping of students.

All students have lexiled reading levels

Test taking strategies and skills will be embedded in the ELA curriculum throughout the year.

Teachers will focus on vocabulary development skills.

Middle School:

K-12 Curriculum for ELA; adopted common core modules

All students have lexiled reading levels

All students on RTI will receive an additional period of instruction.

Students in AIS receive reading throughout the week.

Professional Development received in teacher workshop

Differentiated Instruction

Culture and Climate

Teaching and Learning


Summary of Promising Strategies for Improvement in ELA



62

2 hour delays built into the school calendar for teachers to study data

Lunchtime academic help for students

After school tutoring for students

I Pads for 6th graders, 7th graders, and all teachers

Reorganized 6th grade: 4 teams - 2 teacher teams

Each ELA and math teacher will have their students for RTI

3 teams in 7 and 8 grade with smaller classes

Change to 50 minutes class periods

4 day class rotation in schedule

30 minute lunch for students

Reading intervention technology programs such as Edmentum and Moby Max

Thinking Maps implemented

Collaborative RTI implemented between buildings

Additional Classes added:

Computer Skills

Library Skills

Strategic academic skills

Guidance Counselors do Book Study with the students

High School

Creation of Academic Support Suite

After-school tutorials in reading and writing

Adjusting teaching techniques to include ways to address reading comprehension, especially for our sub-groups of Blacks,

the economically disadvantaged, and SWD.

Reverse collaborative ELA classes led by certified English and Special Education teachers

Common planning time provided for co-teachers

Professional development held jointly for English and Special Education department teachers

Data inquiry teams initiative.

Looking at Student Work (LASW) - to analyze their strengths as well as weaknesses in reading and writing through Data


Summary of Promising Strategies for Improvement in ELA, Continued



63

Inquiry Teams

At risk protocols focused on attendance, discipline and academics.

Professional Development as part of the regular structure of Faculty Meetings and Seminars each month

Re-align current instruction and assessment with Common Core, K-12.


Summary of Promising Strategies for Improvement in ELA, Continued



64

We have summarized the major findings of the analysis of student achievement data and effectiveness of current educational practices

as follows.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Grade 3 has shown a loss of proficiency of 18% over three years

Students with Disabilities have a proficiency percentage in the single digits in 3rd grade

Rutherford Elementary School has been designated a LAP school for 2013-14 for Students with Disabilities, black

students, and economically disadvantaged students due to being below cut points for the Performance Index in ELA and

Math.

Cooke Elementary School has been designated a LAP school for 2013-14 for black students and economically

disadvantaged students due to being below cut points for the Performance Index in ELA and Math.

MIDDLE SCHOOL

The following subgroups have been cited as a subgroup for not meeting AYP in grades 6-8 for 2011-12.

All students

Hispanic students




Students with Disabilities have a proficiency percentage in the single digits in 6th grade.

HIGH SCHOOL

The overall performance of students on the Integrated Algebra Regents exams has stayed steady over the past four years.

Only 38% of Students with Disabilities are performing at proficient.

The current 2013 cohort may take the Common Core Regents in Integrated Algebra and Geometry along with the current

Regents exams, and the higher of the scores will prevail. Students after the 2013 Cohort will take the Common Core Regents

only.

MATHEMATICS




65

We summarized key promising strategies that may increase student performance in the district.

DISTRICT-WIDE

NYS Common Core Modules

Targeted Intervention Plans for Mathematics

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

We believe that the improved student performance on the NYS Math exams are linked to the curriculum work that has been completed

and professional development provided to teachers based on a longitudinal study of data from the NYS Math exams and item analyses

from quarterly benchmark assessments. Additional changes to the curriculum have been made based partly on the results of the 2009-

2011 NYS Grades 3-5 testing information that we had gathered.

Curriculum:

The NYS Mathematics Common Core standards allowed the scope of mathematical concepts to be narrowed at each grade level

to provide opportunities for students to learn concepts in depth.

AIS math instruction is mainly push-in with a combination of pullout that allows basic mathematics operation skills to be

reinforced on a continuous basis while small group instruction increases opportunities to meet student needs.

Teachers of students with disabilities are provided the same curriculum materials as the other teachers in the district. Special

education teachers modify lesson materials to teach students with disabilities the mathematical concepts that they are required to

learn at their grade level.

MATHEMATICS

Summary of Promising Strategies for Improvement in ELA



66

Professional Development:

Teachers received professional development in aspects of Technical Literacy which helps students to read and write more

effectively in mathematics. This program also supports the ELA initiatives. A list of trade books linked to the NYS Common

Core Learning Standards is on the district’s shared drive for teachers to use.

Teachers continue to be given instruction in the use of various activities to improve student basic math skills. The elementary

math liaisons and elementary teachers have shared a number of instructional activities and strategies with teachers that reinforce

the development of number sense. This allowed for the sharing of activities that have been placed in a shared folder on the

district’s computer network so that all teachers can have access and can add to these activities.

Teachers have been given the NYS Math Scoring Procedures. These fourteen scoring rules and the nine scoring policies are

continuously referred to during meetings. This allows teachers to reinforce the scoring concepts with their students which will

help students prepare for the NYS Math assessments and develop a greater mathematical understanding.

During the year, teachers will collaboratively analyze each unit, list the most important math concept(s) that need to be taught

for each lesson, identify activities to be incorporated for the lesson, identify the most related performance indicators, and list the

main math concepts from the unit. This information will be compiled and shared with all teachers, including AIS and special

education.

Academic intervention will continue to be delivered in an inclusion setting. Small group instruction, using differentiated

instructional strategies, will continue daily in each classroom. The focus of the instruction is two-fold: skill reinforcement and

development of math concepts.

Students will be given quarterly assessments that parallel the NYS Math exams in both format and concepts. Teachers will

continuously assess students informally and formally to monitor progress and conduct periodic formal assessments during each

unit.

The Director of Mathematics, Science, and Technology and principals will monitor the mathematics program and completion of

the mathematics curriculum as well as student results from quarterly assessments.

Teachers have reviewed student work from the 2006 to 2009 NYS math exams and quarterly assessments. From our analysis,

teachers have identified areas of concern for students such as multi-step problem solving. Teachers regularly introduce multi-

step problems to students.



67

MIDDLE SCHOOL

We believe that the improved student performance on the NYS Math exams will be linked to the curriculum work that has been

completed and professional development provided to teachers based on data from the NYS Math exams and item analyses from

module assessments. Additional changes to the curriculum have been made based partly on the implementation of testing on the

Common Core Learning Standards and feedback from module reflections conducted by middle school mathematics teachers.

Curriculum:

The NYS Mathematics Common Core Learning Standards allowed the scope of mathematical concepts to be narrowed at each

grade level to provide opportunities for students to learn concepts in depth.

New curriculum modules aligned to the Common Core Learning Standards, introduced by the state education department, to

provide teachers a guideline for teaching math concepts and promote student centered learning.

Teachers use mathematics word walls in the classrooms to support student learning.

Students who have difficulty in mathematics are scheduled for an addition period of RTI instruction which has helped students

improve their mathematics understanding. This provides additional instruction for students to extend and reinforce learning that

occurs in the classroom.

Teachers of students with disabilities are provided the same Common Core curriculum materials (modules) as other teachers

within the district. Special education teachers modify lesson materials to teach students with disabilities the mathematical

concepts that they are required to learn at their grade level.

Professional Development Middle School:

In grades 6-8, all been training in Thinking Maps. Teachers have created posters to reflect this process. Teachers refer to the

chart when solving problems in all classes.

Teachers received professional development in aspects of the ELA/Math Modules. This helped students to read and write more

effectively in mathematics. This program also supports the ELA initiatives.

Teachers continue to be given articles to read and share their most important ideas in the article with their peers in order to

facilitate the sharing of best practices. Teachers are asked to reflect upon how these articles affect their instruction for students.

Teachers have received professional development in the use of iPads and Apple TV. All of the 6th grade students plus the 6th

grade and 7th grade teachers currently have iPads. Technology professional development for all teachers.



68

Data analysis feedback from unit exams and state exams are shared and discussed with teachers. Teachers are given time within

department meetings and throughout the year within data meetings. The item analysis data lists each question and the

corresponding performance indicator. Teachers identify the strengths and weaknesses of students. Based on the conclusions that

are reached, teachers brainstorm activities and instructional strategies that can reinforce the concepts that students have not done

well and suggestions are made for modifying the curriculum guides for successive years. This provides teachers with the

opportunity to share best instructional practices with each other.

Teachers have been given the NYS Math Scoring Procedures and rubrics. These scoring policies are continuously referred to

during meetings. This allows teachers to reinforce the scoring concepts with their students which will help students prepare for

the NYS Math assessments and develop a greater mathematical understanding.

Academic intervention will be delivered in a separate class with the student’s math or ELA teacher. Students will have both

math and ELA once every four days. As well as the scheduling of additional mathematics instruction during the school day. The

focus of the instruction is two-fold: skill reinforcement and development of math concepts.

HIGH SCHOOL

We believe that the continued improvement of student performance on the NYS Math Regents is linked to the curriculum work that

has been completed and professional development provided to teachers based on data from the NYS Math Regents and item analysis

report from unit assessments. The data continues to inform curriculum and scheduling decisions.

Curriculum:

The revised NYS Mathematics standards allowed the scope of mathematical concepts to be narrowed at each grade level to

provide opportunities for students to learn concepts in depth.

Teachers have begun the development of mathematics word walls in their classrooms to support student learning. The goal is to

ensure that students are using the correct mathematical language when writing, speaking, and discussing mathematics.

The reverse collaborative teaching model is being successful for students with disabilities. Reverse collaborative teaching is the

push-in of a math teacher into special education math classes.

With the advent of the new math programs the high school will continue to devise new curricula guides to help meet the needs of

students. The guide of the curriculum/lessons will continue to be revised each summer to provide teachers a guideline for

teaching math concepts and promote discussion of mathematics. In addition, for each lesson there are supplemental materials to

provide enrichment, remediation, and alternative lessons. Teachers are encouraged to share activities that can be added to the

curriculum on a regular basis.



69

All incoming 9th grade Algebra 1 students will have an 80-minute block of instruction and a 40-minute Lab that meet on

opposite days. This provides the instructional time needed to strengthen basic mathematical skills of the student while providing

the necessary time to teach the mathematics concepts in depth.

The necessity of mathematics instruction (SSS) will be administered as needed and will be determined by the classroom teacher.

Teachers of students with disabilities and teachers of ELL students are provided the same curriculum materials as the other

teachers in the district. Special education teachers modify lesson materials to teach students with disabilities the mathematical

concepts that they are required to learn in their current mathematics course.

As a result of workshops, teachers have developed and revised course organizers and unit organizers to be shared with students

to provide focus on course content and standards.

Professional Development in High School:

Teachers received professional development in aspects of Technical Literacy which helps students to read and write more

effectively in mathematics. This program also supports the ELA initiatives.

Teachers were given instruction in the use of various activities to improve student mathematics understanding. The secondary

math liaisons and mathematics teachers have shared a number of activities to teachers that reinforce the development of

mathematics skills and concepts. This allowed for the sharing of activities that we have begun to place in a shared folder on the

district’s computer network so that all teachers can have assess and add to these activities.

Teachers have received professional development in the use of graphing calculators, Ti-Navigator, and Smartboard technologies

to support instruction in the classroom.

Data analysis feedback from unit exams and state exams are shared and discussed with teachers. The item analysis data lists each

question and the corresponding performance indicator. Teachers identify the strengths and weaknesses of students. Based on the

conclusions that are reached, teachers brainstorm activities and instructional strategies that can reinforce the concepts that

students have not done well and suggestions are made for modifying the curriculum guides for successive years. This provides

teachers with the opportunity to share best instructional practices with each other.

Teachers have been given the NYS Math Scoring Procedures and rubrics. These scoring policies are continuously referred to

during meetings. This allows teachers to reinforce the scoring concepts with their students which will help students prepare for

the NYS Math assessments and develop a greater mathematical understanding.

During the year, teachers will collaboratively analyze each unit, list the most important math concept(s) that need to be taught

for each lesson, identify activities to be incorporated for the lesson, identify the most related performance indicators, and list the

main math concepts from the unit. This information will be compiled and shared with all teachers, including special education.



70

Academic intervention will continue to be delivered in an inclusion setting as well as the scheduling of additional mathematics

instruction during the school day. The focus of the instruction is two-fold: skill reinforcement and development of math

concepts.

Students will be given common unit assessments that parallel the NYS Math exams in both format and concepts. Teachers will

continuously assess students informally to monitor progress and conduct periodic formal assessments during each unit.

Principals will monitor the mathematics program and completion of the mathematics curriculum as well as student results from

the common unit assessments.

Incorporate rubrics as a means for students to analyze and reflect on math processes and concepts.

Teachers have reviewed student work from the 2009 to 2011 NYS math exams and quarterly assessments. From our analysis,

teachers have identified areas of concern for students such as multi-step problem solving. Teachers regularly introduce multi-

step problems to students.

Priorities for Improving Performance in Mathematics

1. Incorporate formative questions as a means for students to analyze and reflect on math processes and concepts

2. Develop course organizers and unit organizers to be shared with students to provide focus on course content and standards

3. Provide students a problem solving process to answer mathematical problems.

4. Provide more direct instructional time for students to learn mathematical concepts

5. Continue the professional development through the AMTNYS, Ten County Math Educators, and Sullivan BOCES

6. K-12 teachers will receive ongoing professional development in the NYS Common Core Standards.



71

We conducted a comprehensive review and analysis of critical issues, other than content, that impact student performance, using:

Findings for School Climate & Culture

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL:

Out of School Suspensions rose from 52 in 2011-12 to 174 in 2012-13.

The number of students sent to the Alternative Learning Center increased from 130 to 226 between the years 2012 to 2013.

The total number of referrals rose from 2090 to 2287 from 2011-12 to 2012-13.

The number of assaults more than doubled from 14 in 2011-12 to 34 in 2012-13.

The number of Harassment/Bullying reports more than doubled from 10 in 2011-12 to 25 in 2012-13.

The number of fights doubled from 17 in 2011-12 to 34 in 2012-13.

MIDDLE SCHOOL:

Out of School Suspensions have remained stable at about 480 per year from 2012 to 2013.

In School Suspension has been eliminated.

The number of students sent to the Alternative Learning Center increased from 2 in 2011-12 to 11 in 2012-13.

The total number of referrals dropped from 2606 to 2372 from 2011-12 to 2012-13.

The number of assaults fell from 110 in 2011-12 to 63 in 2012-13.

The number of Harassment/Bullying reports rose from 8 in 2011-12 to 14 in 2012-13.

The number of fights fell from 61 in 2011-12 to 49 in 2012-13.

The Use/Possession/Sale of Drugs rose from 1 in 2011-12 to 7 in 2012-13.

HIGH SCHOOL

Daily attendance rate has been consistent over the past 4 years at 93%.

Out of School Suspensions have gone up from 428 in 2011-12 to 443 in 2012-13.

The number of referrals rose from 1668 to 2093 from 2011-12 to 2012-13.

The number of fights decreased from 4 in 2011-12 to 2 in 2012-13.

The number of Harassment/Bullying reports increased from 14 in 2011-12 to 19 in 2012-13.

The number of assaults stayed the same at 38 over two years.

SCHOOL CLIMATE AND CULTURE




72

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: SCHOOL CULTURE AND CLIMATE

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) initiative

Infusion of character education and values into PBIS.

Integration of PBIS with existing school programs and student groups.

Specific targeted 3 tier interventions in all buildings.

Chase Elementary: Strong community support and involvement; active PTO. Blended PBIS and RtI Team.

RJK: Attendance improvement through group/classroom incentives. Track and report classroom attendance.

MIDDLE SCHOOL

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) initiative (K-12)

"Culture & Climate" Panther Workshops (staff)

Profession Development on the book, Mindset

Biweekly memos on Professional Development

HIGH SCHOOL

Implementation shows significant improvement from December 2011 to March 2012.

Well developed and documented RtI for Behavior action plan.

SCHOOL CLIMATE AND CULTURE

Identification of Promising Strategies for Improvement



73

We summarized the major findings of the analysis of student achievement data and effectiveness of current educational practices as

follows.

Graduation Rate Findings

HIGH SCHOOL

Students with Disabilities and Economically Disadvantaged Student graduation rates have been on a steady decline for the past

four years.

The black graduation rate has been rising dramatically

All students, white, and Hispanic students have seen a decline in graduation rate from 2011-12 to 2012-13.

GRADUATION RATE/HIGH SCHOOL COMPLETION




74

HIGH SCHOOL

RTI – Behavioral Interventions w/External Coach

Attendance monitoring & interventions

Alternative High School Program

Focus on lexile levels

Literacy week initiative

Student support suite

GRADUATION RATE/HIGH SCHOOL COMPLETION

Identification of Promising Strategies for Improvement



75

PART 3

ACTION PLANS



76

Long Term

Goal #1

Long Term

Goal #2

Long Term

Goal #3

2016-17 - By the end of third grade, Ninety percent all Monticello students will be

approaching or above the NYS average performance levels on the NYS ELA CCLS

assessment.

2016-17 - Every Monticello Middle School student will demonstrate growth

on NYS Math and ELA grades 6-8 assessments.

2016-17 – The number of Monticello Middle School Students achieving

proficiency will increase by 50% on NYS Math and ELA grades 6-8

assessments.

Long Term

Goal #4

2016-17 – Sixty percent of Monticello High

School students will be on reading level by the

beginning of 11th grade as measured by lexile

level.

Monticello Central School District Goals



77

Area for Improvement #1: By the end of 3rd Grade in the 2016-17 school year, MCSD students will be performing at or above the

NYS average performance levels in NYS ELA CCLS assessment.

Items

not in

rank

order

More Specific Area

in Need (Identified District

Gaps in relation to

key indicators)

Primary Cause (what is stopping us

from getting there?)

Implementation

Strategies and

Interventions (How do we

overcome what is

stopping us?)

Implementation

Timeline and

Progress

Monitoring (How do we

implement our

strategies and action

plan?)

Person or Group

Responsible (Who will help

implement our

plan?)

Required

Resources (What do we need

to implement our

plan?)

Measurable

Evidence of

Success (How are we

doing? How will

we know we are

improving?)

1 After school

academic support

No school funded

program currently in

place

Limited parental

support for program

Transportation

issues.

Community

Outreach, STAR

high school students

to tutor (PIG credit?)

Grants

Reallocation of

funding to

elementary schools,

not just middle and

high school

Unable to do without

funding

Central

administration

Funding

Increased

Assessment Scores

2 Communication

throughout the

school level and

within 3 elementary

schools

More understanding

of K-5 vertical and

horizontal teams.

What is the specific

vision?

Lack of time

Lack of flexible

scheduling

Weak

communication

procedures amongst

grade level leaders

between buildings

We have been

concentrating

horizontally because

Monthly grade level

meeting

RTI grade level

meetings

District grade level

meetings

Develop an agreed

upon protocol for

communication

process

Administrators,

Grade levels

Leaders, Teachers,

Data teams,

Instructional

coaches

Professional

development time

Agreed upon

procedures

Assessments

Superkids

NWEA

Consistent

outcomes

throughout all

buildings

District Needs in Priority Order/Areas for Improvement

Implementation Plan/Evaluation



78

Items

not in

rank

order

More Specific Area


Gaps in relation to

key indicators)

Primary Cause (what is stopping us

from getting there?)

Implementation

Strategies and


overcome what is

stopping us?)

Implementation

Timeline and

Progress


implement our


plan?)

Person or Group


implement our

plan?)

Required


to implement our

plan?)

Measurable

Evidence of

Success (How are we

doing? How will

we know we are

improving?)

of new curriculum.

More time needs to

be spent on vertical

teaming.

3 Academic support

for struggling

learners (RTI/LIA)

along with an

understanding of

how to use very

specific data and

programs (NWEA,

DesCartes, etc.) to

determine where

support is needed.

Currently do not

support our students

in this manner

Lack of time to look

at data

Lack of PD from

NWEA/DesCartes

Lack of computer

experience in

younger students

LIA

Grade level meetings

PD on

NWEA/DesCartes

School data team

meetings

Grade level leader

meetings

Compass learning

Student goal

setting/Monthly

Habits of Mind

Monthly meetings

District approval

Administrators,

Grade level leaders,

Teachers, Data

Teams,

Instructional

Coaches

Meeting time

Student access to

computers

PD on

NWEA/DesCartes

Assessments

NWEA Results

Reading levels

4 Struggling learners

both academically

and socially

Lack of a

social/emotional

program

Implementation of a

social/emotional

program

PD on poverty/Eric

Jensen

District leaders to

begin training on

Poverty during

Summer

Entire staff begins

PD in September

Central Admin

should plan for

social/emotional

program during the

Summer

Central

Administration,

Teachers, School

Administration

Funding

Support of Central

Administration

Fewer discipline

referrals

More seat time

Less instructional

interference

Higher assessment

scores



79

Area for Improvement #2: By the end of 3rd Grade in the 2016-17 school year, MCSD students will be performing at or above the

NYS average performance levels in NYS MATH CCLS assessment.

Items

not

in

rank

order

More Specific

Area in Need (Identified

District Gaps in

relation to key

indicators)

Primary Cause (what is stopping

us from getting

there?)

Implementation

Strategies and


overcome what is

stopping us?)

Implementation

Timeline and

Progress


implement our

strategies and

action plan?)

Person or Group


implement our

plan?)

Required


to implement our

plan?)

Measurable

Evidence of

Success (How are we

doing? How will

we know we are

improving?)

1 Academic support

for struggling

learners (RTI/LIA)

along with an

understanding of

how to use very

specific data and

programs (NWEA,

DesCartes, etc.) to

determine where

support is needed.

Currently do not

support our students

in this manner

Lack of time to look

at data

Lack of PD from

NWEA/DesCartes

Lack of computer

experience in

younger students

Moby Max

School data team

meetings

Grade level leader

meetings

Compass learning

Student goal

setting/Monthly

Habits of Mind

Monthly meetings

District approval

Administrators,

Grade level leaders,

Teachers, Data

Teams,

Instructional

Coaches

Meeting time

Student access to

computers

PD on

NWEA/DesCartes/

Mobymax

Assessments

NWEA Results

Reading levels

2 Math Curriculum Lack of a

researched

based/proven

program

Investigate a

researched

based/proven

program

Task force to

investigate

program

District Funding Assessments

NWEA Results



80

Items

not

in

rank

order

More Specific


District Gaps in

relation to key

indicators)


us from getting

there?)

Implementation

Strategies and


overcome what is

stopping us?)

Implementation

Timeline and

Progress


implement our

strategies and

action plan?)

Person or Group


implement our

plan?)

Required


to implement our

plan?)

Measurable

Evidence of

Success (How are we

doing? How will

we know we are

improving?)

3 Quality

Professional

Development in

math

Little PD is given

in the area of math

Professional

development time

Summer planning Central

Administration

Professional

development

Time

Assessments

NWEA Results



81

Area for Improvement #3: By the 2015-16 school year every Monticello MS student will demonstrate growth, and the number of

students achieving performance levels 3 and 4 will increase by 50% on NYS ELA grades 6-8

assessments.

Items

not

in

rank

order

More Specific Area


Gaps in relation to key

indicators)

Primary Cause (what is

stopping us from

getting there?)

Implementation

Strategies and


overcome what is

stopping us?)

Implementation

Timeline and

Progress


implement our

strategies and

action plan?)

Person or

Group


implement our

plan?)

Required

Resources (What do we

need to

implement our

plan?)

Measurable

Evidence of

Success (How are we

doing? How

will we know we

are improving?)

1 A very large

percentage of RJK

students arrive well

below reading level.

Because the reading

level is low, the

writing level also

suffers.

Socioeconomic

barriers

(poverty) create

a breakdown

between parents

and the school.

There is no set

way of teaching

writing and

students

continue to

suffer.

Create outreach

programs in the

community to help

parents better

assist their

children.

Create a

successful AIS/RtI

program coupled

with a proven

reading program.

Literacy for all

professional

training.

Protocols for

writing district

wide needs to be

developed.

A strong program

would take years,

but in the first

year, it would be

beneficial to

establish a number

of community

venues to hold

meetings.

Roll out specific

protocols for

September. Hold

everyone

accountable for

following these

protocols.

A program of

this nature would

require a steering

committee with a

high-ranking

administrator

governing that

committee.

Access to

meeting places

in the

community.

Use programs

like Reading

Recovery for

students who

are years behind

other students.

Protocol packets

and time within

faculty and

department

meetings to

discuss the

protocols.

Attendance at

the meetings

would be

measurable and

the students

associated with

the parents that

attend the

meetings could

be tracked for

progress.

Evidence such

as NWEA, state

assessments and

module

improvement

could be used to

determine if the

student remains

in the program.



82

Items

not

in

rank

order

More Specific Area



indicators)


stopping us from

getting there?)

Implementation

Strategies and


overcome what is

stopping us?)

Implementation

Timeline and

Progress


implement our

strategies and

action plan?)

Person or

Group


implement our

plan?)

Required


need to

implement our

plan?)

Measurable

Evidence of

Success (How are we

doing? How

will we know we

are improving?)

2 Establish an academic

culture

Due to history,

poverty, and

students being

promoted for

many years

without skills,

students become

disconnected

from their

education and

lose sight of

their primary

goals.

Research / Visit

schools from

similar

demographics that

are building

success in spite of

their

circumstances and

model our school

after these

successful schools

Year one- research

and visit

successful

schools.

Year two – Begin

modifying

programs in

Monticello to

match the

programs of

successful

schools.

A volunteer

committee could

perform the

research and

visitations and

report back to the

faculty and

administration.

Time to do the

research and

visitations.

Commitment by

the district to

follow through

with an

improvement

plan.

Initial measures

could include

homework

returns, student

averages,

discipline, and

attendance

records. Long

term measures

would use

student test

scores.

3 Meaningful/mandatory

after school programs

for those not

proficient.

After school

programs focus

mainly on

completing

assignments

rather than

building skills.

Create after school

programs based on

researched

successful

programs that will

build skills rather

than complete

assignments.

Initially, research

should be done to

find programs that

are successful and

engaging for

students. This

program could

start as a pilot and

then be expanded

if/as it proves

successful.

A committee of

teachers, DILs

and

administrators

Funding for the

after school

programs as

well as staffing.

Student scores

on NWEA and

state testing

should rise.



83

Area for Improvement #4: By the 2015-16 school year every Monticello MS student will demonstrate growth, and the number of

students achieving performance levels 3 and 4 will increase by 50% on NYS Mathematics grades 6-8

assessments.

Items

not

in

rank

order

More Specific Area



indicators)


stopping us from

getting there?)

Implementation

Strategies and


overcome what is

stopping us?)

Implementation

Timeline and

Progress


implement our

strategies and

action plan?)

Person or

Group


implement our

plan?)

Required


need to

implement our

plan?)

Measurable

Evidence of

Success (How are we

doing? How

will we know we

are improving?)

1 Large gaps in number

sense and basic

computation skills

Failure to assure

that all students

have mastered

basic math facts

before exposure

to higher level

operations

Assess and expand

the pre-K program

to assure that

students do not

progress without

basic computation

skills. Remediate

students as gaps

emerge.

Administration

and elementary

teachers in the

early stages.

Consistent

remediation

programs need to

be created for

every level in the

Middle School by

the math

department and

administration

Financial

support for

remediation

programs and

metrics for

determining

when students

should enter

that program.

Students should

be able to

demonstrate

measurable

competence in

basic math

skills. This

could be

determined with

very simple

testing.

2 Meaningful/mandatory

after school programs

for those not

proficient.

After school

programs focus

mainly on

completing

assignments

rather than

building skills.

Create after school

programs based on

researched

successful

programs that will

build skills rather

than helping

students do

homework.

Initially, research

should be done to

find programs that

are successful and

engaging for

students. This

program could

start as a pilot and

then be expanded

if/as it proves

successful.

A committee of

teachers, DILs

and

administrators

Funding for the

after school

programs as

well as staffing.

Student scores

on NWEA and

state testing

should rise.



84

Items

not

in

rank

order

More Specific Area



indicators)


stopping us from

getting there?)

Implementation

Strategies and


overcome what is

stopping us?)

Implementation

Timeline and

Progress


implement our

strategies and

action plan?)

Person or

Group


implement our

plan?)

Required


need to

implement our

plan?)

Measurable

Evidence of

Success (How are we

doing? How

will we know we

are improving?)

3 Current instruction

does not extensively

support mathematics

in the content

classroom.

NYS standards

and testing in

non-

mathematics

classes do not

currently

incorporate

much math.

Modification of

the curriculum of

science, social

studies and

elective classes to

include regular

math based

lessons.

Implementation

would be over a

series of years as

the curricula were

rewritten.

Departments,

DILs and

administrators

PD time and

funding.

Student scores

on NWEA and

state testing

should rise.

Students should

show

proficiency on

math

applications in

these other

content courses.

4 Communicate on how

to raise students’

performance.

All teachers

don’t get trained

as a whole on

how to improve

student

expectations and

performance.

All teachers need

to have the same

goals and student

expectations

inside and outside

the classroom.

All teachers

should teach the

same strategies

and skills from the

start of the year.

Administration

and teachers need

to be held

responsible for

giving and

receiving

information.

All teachers, not

just the core

teachers, need

the same

training.

All teachers

need to analyze

benchmark

results, test

scores and

NWEA.

5



85

Area for Improvement #5 The average MHS student lexile level will increase by 10% each year per the NWEA test based on the

lexile level of the current 2013-14 cohort.

Items

not in

rank

order

More Specific


District Gaps in

relation to key

indicators)


us from getting

there?)

Implementation

Strategies and


overcome what is

stopping us?)

Implementation

Timeline and

Progress Monitoring (How do we

implement our


plan?)

Person or

Group


implement our

plan?)

Required


need to

implement our

plan?)

Measurable

Evidence of

Success (How are we

doing? How

will we know

we are

improving?)

1 A very large

percentage of

students enter

with low reading

levels.

Due to large

numbers of

students who are

living in low

socioeconomic

homes, students

without the proper

skill levels are

being promoted

Create a culture in

which all teachers

feel comfortable with

teaching reading

strategies.

Create a culture

where building

student skills are a

focus out of school as

well as in school.

Create a culture

where all students see

the importance of,

and who complete, all

skill building tasks

including those

outside of school.

Professional

development in teaching

reading strategies must

be received by those

departments outside of

ELA.

All teachers will be held

accountable for

following these

protocols.

Modify Student Agenda

books by removing all

hall pass pages, making

the calendar, not the hall

passes, the focus of these

books. Require all

assignments to be

recorded in the agenda

book, along with daily

hall passes.

Reinstitute an In-School

Suspension program with

a “Reading Recovery”

component.

Upper Level

administration

A steering

committee, the

BIT, with an

administrator

governing the

committee

Hall pass pages

can be removed

from Agenda

books before they

go to print.

All teachers will

write hall passes

on the correct date

in the calendar

section.

All teachers will

ensure students

write assignments

in the calendar.

Professional

development –

teaching reading

across the

curriculum

Time in faculty

meetings to

ensure ongoing

understanding of

goal.

Student Agenda

books are already

provided to

students

Funding for the

buses and ISS

Teacher

Students will

show continuous

improvement on

NWEA Reading

Tests.

Student grades

will improve

within classes

An increase in

students

documenting

when

assignments are

due; increase in

outside of school

tasks coming to

completion

More students

will stay after for

help to build

skills



86

Items

not in

rank

order

More Specific


District Gaps in

relation to key

indicators)


us from getting

there?)

Implementation

Strategies and


overcome what is

stopping us?)

Implementation

Timeline and


implement our


plan?)

Person or

Group


implement our

plan?)

Required


need to

implement our

plan?)

Measurable

Evidence of

Success (How are we

doing? How

will we know

we are

improving?)

Reinstitute the 3:30 late

bus

2 Students have

poor writing

ability.

Increased skills

in writing will

automatically

increase reading

level and skills.

Due to large

numbers of students

who are living in

low socioeconomic

homes, students

without the proper

skill levels are being

promoted

There is no set way

of teaching reading

and writing to

students.

There is not a

dedicated Reading

Program with a

certified Reading

teacher.

Create a culture in

which all teachers

feel comfortable

teaching writing

strategies

Develop a HS writing

protocol that will be

adopted and included

in the Student Agenda

book

Create a Reading

Program that includes

a certified Reading

teacher. Link the

reading program to

In-School

Suspension.

Writing protocol ready to

distribute for the 2015-

2016 school year.

In-School Suspension

and Reading Recovery

can be a team and will be

implemented in 2015-

2016.

A steering

committee, the

BIT, with an

administrator

governing the

committee

Principal will

add writing

protocol

package to

agenda books

before they go

to print

Professional

development

time for the

steering

committee, and

BIT to create

document

Funding for

Reading Teacher

and printing of

documents

Students will

show

continuous

improvement

on NWEA

Reading Tests.

Student grades

will improve

within classes

3 Success on the

NWEA and the

Science, Math,

and SS Regents

exams rely

heavily on student

reading ability.

Time and

scheduling are still

an issue.

Some of the

information about

Literacy in the

Continue to develop

and utilize Literacy in

the Content Area

Strategies

Professional

development and

By the end of 2015-2016

departments outside of

ELA will have received

training and will be able

to document the

strategies they have

implemented toward

Upper-level

administration

will provide

support for

professional

development

Time for

professional

development on

LiCAS

Students will

show

continuous

improvement

on NWEA

Reading Tests.



87

Items

not in

rank

order

More Specific


District Gaps in

relation to key

indicators)


us from getting

there?)

Implementation

Strategies and


overcome what is

stopping us?)

Implementation

Timeline and


implement our


plan?)

Person or

Group


implement our

plan?)

Required


need to

implement our

plan?)

Measurable

Evidence of

Success (How are we

doing? How

will we know

we are

improving?)

Content areas has

come from “memos

and newsletters”

only.

training in Literacy in

the Content Areas

Strategies (LiCAS)

Literacy in the Content

Area in a user-friendly

packet to be shared with

every department.

Departments

will create

documentation

Professional

development

time to document

strategies

Student grades

will improve

within classes

4 In the 2013-

2014 year

student reading

scores on

NWEA exams

decreased from

the Fall to

Spring.

Data shows that

there is a direct

relationship to

student success

and the amount of

time they spent

taking the exam.

Students are not

taking the NWEA

test seriously.

Create a culture in

which the NWEA

test is understood to

be a valuable and

helpful

measurement of the

student’s skills

Create an award

system for students

improving their

NWEA scores.

Have students track

their NWEA scores

over time to see

their growth.

Will be implemented in

2014-2015 school year. A NWEA

committee with

an administrator

governing

Hand out

progress charts in

September for

students to keep

track of their

progress.

Determine what

subject area the

charts will be

held in.

Have the faculty

determine what

the reward

should be for

improvement on

the NWEA and

what kind of

growth needs to

be shown.

Have NWEA

committee create

school wide

events to

promote student

Student NWEA

scores will

increase during

each period.



88

Items

not in

rank

order

More Specific


District Gaps in

relation to key

indicators)


us from getting

there?)

Implementation

Strategies and


overcome what is

stopping us?)

Implementation

Timeline and


implement our


plan?)

Person or

Group


implement our

plan?)

Required


need to

implement our

plan?)

Measurable

Evidence of

Success (How are we

doing? How

will we know

we are

improving?)

success on

NWEA

Documents

One Goal Monticello Central School District · Area of Improvement # 1 (Elementary ELA) ... Monticello Central School District 2013-2015 SCHOOL YEAR ... High School 2013-2015 Monticello