Tupper Lake Central School District

TupperLakeCentralSchoolDistrict …Whereexcellenceisnoaccident

TargetedImprovementWorkplan

Because“hope”isnotaplan!

200910SchoolYear

Table of Contents

Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................i

Financial...................................................................................................................................Pages1‐2

UniformDistrictComprehensivePlanning...................................................................... Page2

Facilities .................................................................................................................................Pages4–5

ProfessionalDevelopment .............................................................................................Pages6–7

Technology..................................................................................................................................... Page8

Educational ........................................................................................................................ Pages9–23

BoardofEducation.......................................................................................................Pages24–25

State Report Card - District Accountability Overview Report

Introduction

TheTargetedImprovementWorkplanisdesignedtofocustheAdministrationandStaffonspecificareasidentifiedasprioritiesforasingleschoolyear.Morecomprehensiveplanningtakesplaceoveralongerperiodoftimeandidentifiesgoalsinthreetofiveyearperiodsoftime.TheTargetedImprovementWorkplanextractsthenecessaryannualstepstowardachievingthoselong‐rangegoalsfromeachofthefiveexistingplans.

Note:

Becausethelongrangeplanshavenotnecessarilybeendevelopedatthistime,annualgoalshavebeenestablishedineachofthefiveplanareas.Theyarenotintendedtorepresentallofthegoalsoractivitiesinthoseareas,butsimplyaintermediatestepuntilthecompleteprocessisestablished.

Targeted Improvement Work-plan2009-10 School Year

Revised on 11/17/09 at 2:11 PM

Item System Impact Description Measurable Goal Timeframe Actions Person Responsible

September - October

Implement low-impact cost-saving measures (non-budgeted field trips, non-essential conferences, etc.) across the district

Seth

November

Discuss possible cost-saving methods with Administrative Council & Establish Cost-Savings Task Force

Administrative Council

November

Use Governors Press Release and all available State Education Department information to determine the impact of state aid cuts to current school budget

Seth & Garry

December

Project the cost savings necessary to remain within budget this year

Seth & Garry

December - January

Determine priorities with Administrative Council


January - June

Implement appropriate higher-impact cost-saving measures across the district

Seth

Prepare for possible school budget crisis this year

Develop scenario for 2009-10 if State Aid is reduced or cut mid-year

1 Financial School Budget

Page 1




November

Discuss possible cost-saving methods with Administrative Council


November

Project tax impact using all currently know information (property valuation, contract increase, reduction in State Aid, etc.)

December

Determine impact of Governor's proposed budget on school budget

Solicit feedback from Board of Education, Administrative Council, & Budget Advisory Committee on spending priorities

Seth, Garry, Administrative Council, & Board of Education

Propose budget that is aligned with district priorities

Seth & Garry


NovemberObtain lists of available software supported by BOCES

Seth

DecemberEvaluate Pros and Cons of each package

Seth, Garry, Staff

January - February

View demos of each package

Seth, Garry, Staff

February

Visit other Business Offices using software for evaluation

Seth, Garry, Staff

February - March

Develop Implementation Strategy

Seth, Garry

MarchGet final pricing information from BOCES

Seth, Garry

April Include pricing in 2010-11 Budget Seth, Garry

1-Jul-10

Full Business Management Software Implementation

Business Office Staff

(Budget Calendar)

Prepare for school aid cuts in 2010-11 school year

Use early projections to develop budget for 2010-11 school year

School Budget2 Financial

Seth & Garry

Implementation of WinCap, Finance Manager, etc. for Business Office Operations

Use of a computerized method for Business Office Operations

Financial3 Business Office

Page 2




September - October

Develop a Model for Comprehensive School-wide planning

Seth

Based on District Organizational Chart, determine the administrative oversight responsibilities

Determine committee membership and/or develop committees for each plan

November - January

Study existing plans for consistency, and determine where revisions are necessary

January - June

Reconstitute all plans to unify format (including integration with professional development, budget, 3-tier goals/assessment, etc.) & Infuse goals within the Targeted 2010-11 District Improvement Work-plan

April - June

Develop a Targeted District Improvement Work-plan for 2010-11

October - November

Build an organizational structure to comprehensive school-wide planning that includes short, intermediate, and long-range goals, and which integrates all of the systems within the district

Articulated plans in Technology, Professional Development, School Finance & Budget, Facilities Management, School Safety, and Educational (Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment)

Seth, Pam, Kelly, Carolyn, Garry & committee members

Seth, Pam, Kelly, Carolyn, Garry

School District4

Uniform District

Comprehensive Planning

Page 3




August

Installation of Security/Monitoring System through Capital Project

Seth/Garry

1-Sep Introduce Faculty & Staff to key features Seth

September 24th

Meet with key stakeholders to determine configuration

Administrative Council & Sonitrol

Late September

Issue new ID Badges to staff containing access chip (24/7)

Trish Anrig

October 5 - 9

Begin configuration of Access system (experiment with select group) Customize for Coaches, etc.

Seth/ Admin. Team

October 12 -16

Set Access for Faculty & Staff Using Keys and Cards

Seth/ Admin. Team

October 19 - 23

Begin recording of selected Doors

Pierre/ Admin. Team

1-Nov

Staff will only access buildings through the use of their ID badges

All District Employees

Deploy new security and monitoring system

Provide necessary and appropriate access to faculty and staff using only the eAccess System

District-wide Security5 Facilities

Page 4




September

Create a uniform calendar for the current positions and schedule

Seth

September Review Calendar with Supervisors

Seth, Garry, Pierre, Kevin, Chip

NovemberAppoint a lead cleaner position at LP Quinn

Garry/Seth

October - January

Review the recommendations of the 2001 Facilities Operations and Maintenance Study. Implement as appropriate.

Garry, Seth, Pierre, Kevin, (TBA), Chip

February - March

Assess the need to replace retirements, etc. based on TAS Study.


March - June

Work schedule developed based on work to be done and employee schedules


Refine the means through which cleaners are assigned, and accountable for work

Create an job-specific work schedule covering all of the district's cleaning needs.

Building staffing6 Facilities

Page 5




October

Develop a model for developing comprehensive professional development

Seth, Kelly

October

Begin the framework with Professional Development sub-committee

Seth, Kelly, Tracy, Louise

November - March

Development and articulation of key components with review by full Professional Development Committee and administrators

Kelly, Professional Development sub-committee

April Final revisions to plan

Seth, Kelly, Professional Development sub-committee

February

Include plans developed by the sub-committee in Technology, and Financial Plans.

Seth, Kelly, Garry

June

Professional Development Plan Published and on File with SED/BOCES

Seth, Garry, Kelly

A well-articulated and sustainable plan for Professional Development in the District

Update of the District Professional Development Plan to include NYS Standards for Professional Development

7 Professional Development

Instructional Staff

Page 6




October

Send BOCES CSV file containing all employee information

Seth

November

Preview WinCap PD with Professional Development Committee

Seth, Kelly

December

Import all current data archived within the District into WinCap PD

Seth, Diane, Kelly, BOCES

January

Transition the development of Professional Development Plan into WinCap PD


February

Include March Professional Development Opportunities in WinCap PD for registration


March Train Staff in the use of software

Seth, Kelly, Staff, BOCES

April

Include all Spring & Summer Offerings in WinCap PD in addition to Faculty Meetings, etc.

Seth, Kelly, Staff, BOCES

May

Provide additional support opportunities for staff in training on WinCap PD

Seth, Kelly, Professional Development Committee

June

All employees access and track professional development opportunities exclusively through WinCap PD

Seth, Kelly, Professional Development Committee

Use of a computerized method for tracking all professional development for school employees

Implementation of WinCap PD for all staff

8 Professional Development

Instructional Staff

Page 7




November

Review the current technology plan/Introduce NYS and ISTE Standards

Seth, Technology Committee

December

Develop a model for a revised Technology Plan including NYS and ISTE Standards

Seth, Technology Committee

JanuaryBegin the framework with Technology sub-committee

Seth, Technology Sub-Committee

February

Development and articulation of key components with review by full Technology Committee and administrators


March Final revisions to plan


May

Include plans developed by the sub-committee in Professional Development and Financial Plans.

Seth, Kelly, Garry

1-Jul-10

Technology Plan Published and on File with SED/BOCES

Seth, Garry

A well-articulated and sustainable plan for Instructional Technology in the District

9 Instructional Staff

Update of the District Technology Plan to include NYS and ISTE standards for students, teachers, and administrators

Technology

Page 8




October

Department Leaders and Curriculum Coordinators issued accounts in NYSTART and DataMentor

Seth with Department Leaders and Curriculum Coordinators

October - November

Informal Practice of Data Accounts

Seth with Department Leaders and Curriculum Coordinators

December-January

Department Leaders and Curriculum Coordinators will review Data Mentor and NYSTART data in grade level groups looking for patters and/or weaknesses

Department Leaders with staff

December-January

Review and prepare for the use of the NERIC answer sheets for January Regents Exams.


January

Use Neric Answer sheets for the January Regents Exams.

Teachers

FebruaryReview history of test data by Department


March

MHS ELA & Math teachers will meet to share curriculum requirements, assessments of students strengths and weaknesses. The group will identify gaps and ways to fix the gaps in the curriculum.


April-May

Review and prepare for the use of the NERIC answer sheets for Regents Exams.


JuneUse Neric Answer sheets for the 9-12 Regents Exams.

Teachers

Department Leaders regularly use data from NERIC sources to inform instructional decision-making within departments

10 Educational MHS Instruction

Train staff on the use of data

Page 9



Summer

MHS ELA & Math teachers modify instructional plans based on data collected from NERIC

Teachers


November

Department Leaders and Curriculum Coordinators will discuss key factors contributing to successful transitions for students and barriers limiting success. Determine how their meeting time can best be arranged.

Department Leaders & Curriculum Coordinators

December - March

Through regularly scheduled meetings, develop plans to address and support successful transitions to Middle School.

Department Leaders & Curriculum Coordinators

March

Include plans developed by the Department Leaders & Curriculum Coordinators in the Professional Development, Technology, and Financial Plans.

Department Leaders & Curriculum Coordinators, Seth, Garry, Kelly

Department Leaders regularly use data from NERIC sources to inform instructional decision-making within departments

Institute a means for teachers to meet and collaborate about curriculum cross grade-levels and buildings

10 Educational MHS Instruction

Train staff on the use of data

11 Educational 5-8 Transition

Coordinate the materials and objectives taught at each grade level and develop methods for achieving greater collaboration and smoother transition to the Middle School.

Page 10




October

Identify regents courses where students have a consistently low rate of taking the regents exam

Pam, Lisa

Develop a profile of the student who takes/does not take the exam in those courses

Discuss changes that can be made to increase the motivation of students to take the exam (consider using the regents exam as factor into final course average.)

November - June

Implement any changes

June

Assess the number of students taking the regents exam for their class


OctoberIdentify students who may be at risk of non-completion

Pam & Lisa

October - November

Identify the classes most likely to cause the student to fall short of graduation requirements.

Pam & Lisa

November

Meet with student & parents to arrange a plan to reduce chance of failure in those classes

Pam & Lisa

Check back monthly to see that students are on track

Lisa

Meet with students and parents in January and March for any necessary corrective action

Lisa (Pam if student is still at risk.)

June & August

Measure graduation rate Pam & Lisa

Increase the number of students graduating

95% rate (minimize the number needing Summer School to complete requirements)

November - March

13 Educational

November Pam, Lisa, Teachers

Pam, Lisa

12 Educational High School Regents

Increase the number of students opting to take regents exams

High School Graduation

Rate

100% of students enrolled in a regents class should take the corresponding regents exam

Page 11




October

Determine the core writing skills necessary to successfully complete the Senior Research Project.

Louise Lanthier

November

Using existing standardized assessment data, classroom assessments, and other CBMs, identify areas in which students routinely have difficulties

Louise Lanthier, Pam Martin, Matt Southwick

November

Review core skills with teachers to determine where they are already being taught, and what interventions are already in place.

Louise Lanthier

December

Discuss revisions to sequence that will lead to increased success on Research Project

Louise Lanthier and English staff

January - May

Document alignment of sequence to include skills, assessments, and interventions

Louise Lanthier and member of English staff

April - May

Seek input from faculty on practicability of sequence

Louise Lanthier

JunePublish Writing Sequence and distribute to staff.

Louise Lanthier and English Staff

Development of a well-articulated sequence of writing skills, assessments, and interventions appropriate for each grade-level necessary to successfully complete the Senior Research Project.

14 EducationalHigh School Graduation

Rate

Increase expectations by improving Research Skills while still maintaining a high graduation rate.

Page 12




August

Train 3rd grade teachers and staff in the use of the Wilson Fundations Program

Michelle/Carolyn

September

Establish beginning of the year benchmarks in DIBELS

Carolyn/Michelle/Eileen/Karen

September - January

Progress monitor at risk students and report at monthly meetings on at risk students.

Classroom teachers

September - January

Implement Double Dose fundations methods.

Kathy Fortier

Early February -June

Compare midyear benchmarks with previous years and made adjustments in instruction.

Carolyn/Eileen/Classroom teachers

June

Compare end of the year benchmarks with previous school years.

Carolyn

Increase the oral reading fluency in grades K-3

15 Educational Elementary ELA

Successfully implement the Wilson Fundations program for phonics and phonemic awareness at the 3rd grade level

Page 13




September Establish monthly meeting schedule Carolyn

Establish a school wide assessment team to assist in assessments and to provide consistency in data collection.

Carolyn/Eileen/Michelle/Karen

Measure oral reading fluency using benchmark assessment

School wide assessment team

September - January

Train teachers in the use of technology to chart progress monitor scores, and to use the data to adjust instructional practices.

Michelle/Eileen/Karen/Carolyn

September - January

Visit classrooms to observe reading groups and provide instructional guidance to teachers to improve instructional design

Carolyn/Eileen/Michelle

Early February

Measure oral reading fluency using benchmark assessment

School wide assessment team

Early February -June

Visit classrooms to observe reading groups and provide instructional guidance to teachers to improve instruction.


June

Compare end of the year benchmarks with previous school years.

Carolyn

Use research and data based information to inform ELA instruction at the Elementary School Level


September

Increase the oral reading fluency in grades K-6

Page 14




August

Provide staff development in a Writing Workshop summer in-service

Michelle/Eileen/Carolyn

September

Present information to faculty regarding summer in-service training


September

Solicit a volunteer from each grade level to review grade level outcomes and align them with state standards

Writing Focus Group with Michelle/Eileen/Carolyn

October-February

Review writing outcomes at each grade level and gain agreement on each.


March

Document writing outcomes for each grade level on a common form


June

Measure writing proficiency using grade level scoring rubrics

Classroom teachers

Increase the writing performance and proficiency in grades K-6

Gather information and agree upon expected writing outcomes for each grade level


Page 15




September

Meet with curriculum coordinators and school psychologist to develop an RTI team

Carolyn/Eileen/Michelle/Karen

September

Assess the number of students receiving interventions at Tier II and Tier III levels.

Carolyn

October

Present information to faculty regarding new procedures for identification of students with disabilities and to determine effective remediation techniques for students with needs

Karen/Carolyn

November -May

Develop a schedule of RTI meetings Carolyn

June

Assess the number of students receiving interventions at Tier II and Tier III level and compare to September

Carolyn

Improve instructional practices designed to target specific learning needs

18 Educational

Develop an RTI team to improve instruction of students with needs

Elementary General

Instruction

Page 16




September

Develop a list of at risk math students based upon teacher CBM and NYS Math assessment scores.

Ted/Carolyn

September-May

Review the progress of at risk students with grade levels during monthly meeting.

Ted/Carolyn

October -November

Solicit grade level volunteers to work to refine grade level benchmark assessments for review.

Ted/Carolyn

November -February

Conduct workshops during morning meetings to train the teachers in the use of benchmark assessments

Ted

March - June

Compare number of at risk math students from the beginning of the year.

Ted/Carolyn

19 Educational Elementary Math

Use research and data based information to inform Math instruction in grade levels. This information should target specific needs of at risk students.

Improve instructional practices designed to target specific math needs

Page 17




August

Document GRTR and benchmark assessments of PK-grade 2.

Eileen/Carolyn and Parenting committee

September

Meet to develop plans for implementing Parenting Engagement evenings.


October

Implement Family Fun Storytelling/Pizza Night. Document attendance.


November

Debrief and assess evaluations of the first family fun night and begin planning for January literacy evening


JanuaryImplement Mother Goose Family Fun Night


March Implement Dr. Suess Night


JuneCompare GRTR and benchmark assessments of PK-2.


June

Provide parents with an evaluation instrument designed to measure parents perception of literacy skills developed during Family Fun nights.


Increase the reading readiness of primary grade students.

20 Educational Elementary PK-2

Increase the engagement of parents in the literacy development of their children

Page 18




by October

All Teachers will access IEP's via Cleartrack to learn about special education students' strengths, needs, accommodations and modifications

Kelly, Pam, Carolyn, Teachers

by November

Special and General Education Teachers and Supervisors will Complete Collaboration Rating Scale. Establish baseline collaboration score.


by November

Establish schedule of at least bi-weekly collaborative planning meetings to take place during morning meeting, team meeting or tutorial time.


by January

Selected staff will complete Professional Development Modules: Improving Access to the General Curriculum for Students with Disabilities Through Collaborative Teaching


September - June

Collaborative planning of instruction and joint decisions about modifications taking place weekly between general and special education teachers.

General and Special Education Teachers

21 EducationalInstruction of Students with

Disabilities

Increase collaboration between special and general education personnel

Increase level of collaboration as measured by a Collaboration Rating Scale

Page 19



On-going

Anecdotes to celebrate success of students with disabilities as a result of collaboration efforts of general and special education teachers will be shared at faculty meetings.


by May

Focus group of general and special educators will meet with administration to identify barriers to collaboration and explore recommendations for removing those barriers.


by end of June

Special and General Education Teachers and Supervisors will complete Collaboration Rating Scale. Compare collaboration ratings to previous administration.



SeptemberSpecial Ed Teachers join Task Force of their choice

Special Ed Teachers

SeptemberTLCSD Special Education Wiki Created

Kelly

OctoberTraining to add and edit content on Wiki will be provided.

Kelly

September - June

Task Force groups gather, explore, discuss, and identify resources to share with peers.

Special Ed Teachers and Kelly

September - June

Post collected resources to Wiki

Each Task Force Group

March - June

Share information in mini-trainings during faculty meetings.

Each Task Force Group

21 EducationalInstruction of Students with

Disabilities

Increase collaboration between special and general education personnel

Increase level of collaboration as measured by a Collaboration Rating Scale

Special Education Dept. will establish Technology, Universal Design, RTI/Literacy, Team Building w/ Paraprofessionals and Co-Teaching Expertise Teams to gather, evaluate, post and share information on TLCSD Special Education Wiki and at Faculty Meetings.

22 Educational Special Education

Develop expertise teams to gather and share resources within department and with general education staff regularly throughout the school year.

Page 20




October

Identify students with "read to" needs by IEP program modifications and test accommodations

Kelly, Hildred

October

Identify staff resource currently being used to meet these "read to" needs.

Kelly, Special Ed Department

November

Identify potential technology based solutions for text-to-speech

Kelly, Assistive Technology Team

December - June

Match "read to" students with technology based alternatives.

Kelly, Assistive Technology Team

On-going

Provide Technology Committee input regarding needs of SWD in making district technology decisions


June

Staff have at least two reliable text-to-speech options available and are no longer reading all assignments, tests and text to students with "read to" modifications and accommodations on IEP.


23 Educational Special Education

Make greater use of human resources by increasing use of technology to meet student needs where appropriate.

Establish two text-to-speech options that are generally available to use to meet "read to" needs of students with disabilities within the district.

Page 21




September 10th

Voyager Training at the Middle School

Linda Sexton Coordinating a Voyager Trainer

September

Shadowing of Rate per minute measures (DIBELS Benchmark Assessment)

Linda Sexton

September Obtain copies/models of existing plans

Late September

Coordination meeting regarding the plan format

Linda Sexton/Karen Morris

September Articulate roles of Diane and Hildred

Seth, Pam, Kelly, Diane & Hildred

October - January

Develop Building level plans that are consistent to district model

Linda Sexton/Karen Morris

November

Review outcomes of initial instruction during the first ten weeks of MHS and assess the viability of that instruction/grouping/scheduling

Linda Sexton/MHS RTI Group

December - February

Develop draft document of RTI components

Seth

March Joint group meetings to review document

Linda/Karen/Carolyn/Pam/Kelly/Seth

June

Publication of RTI Plan Document and submitted to SED/NERIC

Seth

A complete and annotated document containing all of the required elements of a District-wide RTI plan as outlined by SED and best-practices.

24 Educational PK - 12 ELA

Development of District-Wide RTI Document

Page 22




September

Meet with C & I leaders to gain consensus on the idea of curriculum mapping software

Seth

Before October 1

Establish schedule for exploring different software packages.

Seth

October - February

Scheduled presentations/trials of different packages

Seth

March

Final Decisions about the virtue of mapping/selection of software

Seth

March/April Discussion with StaffC & I Leaders/Principals

April Pricing information Seth

May Include pricing in 2010-11 Budget Seth/Garry

June

Include plans developed by the Department Leaders & Curriculum Coordinators in the Professional Development, Technology, and Financial Plans.

Seth, Garry, Kelly

Summer 2010

Train staff in use of software Staff

25 Educational District-wide Instruction

Explore the use of curriculum mapping software in the District

District-wide adoption of curriculum mapping software.

Page 23




Revisit 5 year facilities & Staffing plan

Sound system & Ventilation in the AuditoriumLibrary to be open on Saturday to use computers at Goff Parking and traffic control at both schools

Audit Committee

Increase technology budget

Staffing needs balanced with facilities

Guidance Program

AD/Dean of Students Grant Writer

26 Board of Education

Revisit 5 year facilities &

Staffing plan

Page 24




27 Board of Education

Page 25

August 10, 2009 Page 1

District

This District’s Report Card

The New York State District Report Card is an important part of

the Board of Regents’ effort to raise learning standards for all students.

It provides information to the public on the district’s status and

the status of schools within the district under the State and federal

accountability systems, on student performance, and on other

measures of school and district performance. Knowledge gained

from the report card on a school district’s strengths and weaknesses

can be used to improve instruction and services to students.

State assessments are designed to help ensure that all

students reach high learning standards. They show whether

students are getting the knowledge and skills they need

to succeed at the elementary, middle, and commencement

levels and beyond. The State requires that students who are not

making appropriate progress toward the standards receive

academic intervention services.

Use this report to: 1 Get District

Profile information. This section shows comprehensive

data relevant to this district’s learning environment.

2 Review District Accountability Status.

This section indicates whether a district made adequate yearly progress (AYP) and identifies the district’s accountability status.

3 Review an Overview of District Performance.

This section has information about the district’s performance on state assessments in English, mathematics, and science.

For more information:Office of Information and Reporting Services New York State Education Department Room 863 EBA Albany, NY 12234 Email: [email protected]

The New York State District Report CardAccountability and Overview Report 2008 – 09

TUPPER LAKE CENTRAL SCHOOLDISTRICT

District ID 16-01-01-06-0000Superintendent SETH MCGOWANTelephone (518) 359-3371Grades


District Profile1

Intentionally Left Blank


District Accountability2

Understanding How Accountability Works in New York StateThe federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act requires that states develop and report on measures of student proficiency in 1) English language arts (ELA), in 2) mathematics, and on 3) a third indicator. In New York State in 2008–09, the third indicator is science at the elementary/middle level and graduation rate at the secondary level. Schools or districts that meet predefined goals on these measures are making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

For more information about accountability in New York State, visit: http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/accountability/.

1 English Language Arts (ELA)

To make AYP in ELA, every accountability group must make AYP. For a group to make AYP, it must meet the participation and the performance criteria.

englishlanguage arts

mathematics third indicator

Secondary-Level Graduation Rate: For a school to make AYP in graduation rate, the percent of students in the 2004 graduation-rate total cohort in the All Students group earning a local or Regents diploma by August 31, 2008 must equal or exceed the Graduation-Rate Standard (55%) or the Graduation-Rate Progress Target.

Qualifying for Safe Harbor in Secondary-Level ELA and Math: To qualify, the percent of the 2004 graduation-rate total cohort earning a local or Regents diploma by August 31, 2008 must equal or exceed the Graduation-Rate Standard (55%) or the Graduation-Rate Progress Target for that group.

A Participation Criterion At the elementary/middle level, 95 percent of Grades 3–8 students enrolled during the test administration period in each group with 40 or more students must be tested on the New York State Testing Program (NYSTP) in ELA or, if appropriate, the New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test (NYSESLAT), or the New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSAA) in ELA. At the secondary level, 95 percent of seniors in 2008–09 in each accountability group with 40 or more students must have taken an English examination that meets the students’ graduation requirement.

B Performance Criterion

At the elementary/middle level, the Performance Index (PI) of each group with 30 or more continuously enrolled tested students must equal or exceed its Effective Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) or the group must make Safe Harbor. (NYSESLAT is used only for participation.) At the secondary level, the PI of each group in the 2005 cohort with 30 or more members must equal or exceed its Effective AMO or the group must make Safe Harbor. To make Safe Harbor, the PI of the group must equal or exceed its Safe Harbor Target and the group must qualify for Safe Harbor using the third indicator, science or graduation rate.

2 Mathematics

The same criteria for making AYP in ELA apply to mathematics. At the elementary/middle level, the measures used to determine AYP are the NYSTP and the NYSAA in mathematics. At the secondary level, the measures are mathematics examinations that meet the students’ graduation requirement.

3 Third Indicator

In addition to English language arts and mathematics, the school must also make AYP in a third area of achievement. This means meeting the criteria in science at the elementary/middle level and the criteria in graduation rate at the secondary level.

Elementary/Middle-Level Science: To make AYP, the All Students group must meet the participation criterion and the performance criterion.

A Participation Criterion Eighty percent of students in Grades 4 and/or 8 enrolled during the test administration period in the All Students group, if it has 40 or more students, must be tested on an accountability measure. In Grade 4, the measures are the Grade 4 elementary-level science test and the Grade 4 NYSAA in science. In Grade 8 science, the measures are the Grade 8 middle-level science test, Regents science examinations, and the Grade 8 NYSAA in science.

B Performance Criterion The PI of the All Students group, if it has 30 or more students, must equal or exceed the State Science Standard (100) or the Science Progress Target.

Qualifying for Safe Harbor in Elementary/Middle-Level ELA and Math: To qualify, the group must meet both the participation criterion and the performance criterion in science.

District TUPPER LAKE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT District ID 16-01-01-06-0000



Useful Terms for Understanding AccountabilityAccountability Cohort for English and Mathematics The 2005 school accountability cohort consists of all students who first entered Grade 9 anywhere in the 2005–06 school year, and all ungraded students with disabilities who reached their seventeenth birthday in the 2005–06 school year, who were enrolled on October 1, 2008 and did not transfer to a diploma granting program. Students who earned a high school equivalency diploma or were enrolled in an approved high school equivalency preparation program on June 30, 2009, are not included in the 2005 school accountability cohort. The 2005 district accountability cohort consists of all students in each school accountability cohort plus students who transferred within the district after BEDS day plus students who were placed outside the district by the Committee on Special Education or district administrators and who met the other requirements for cohort membership. Cohort is defined in Section 100.2 (p) (16) of the Commissioner’s Regulations.

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) indicates satisfactory progress by a district or a school toward the goal of proficiency for all students.

Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) The Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) is the Performance Index (PI) value that signifies that an accountability group is making satisfactory progress toward the goal that 100 percent of students will be proficient in the State’s learning standards for English language arts and mathematics by 2013–14. The AMOs for each grade level will be increased as specified in CR100.2(p)(14) and will reach 200 in 2013–14. (See Effective AMO for further information.)

Continuously Enrolled Students At the elementary/middle level, continuously enrolled students are those enrolled in the school or district on BEDS day (usually the first Wednesday in October) of the school year until the test administration period. At the secondary level, all students who meet the criteria for inclusion in the accountability cohort are considered to be continuously enrolled.

Effective Annual Measurable Objective (Effective AMO) The Effective Annual Measurable Objective (Effective AMO) is the Performance Index (PI) value that each accountability group within a school or district is expected to achieve to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The Effective AMO is the lowest PI that an accountability group of a given size can achieve in a subject for the group’s PI not to be considered significantly different from the AMO for that subject. If an accountability group’s PI equals or exceeds the Effective AMO, it is considered to have made AYP. A more complete definition of Effective AMO and a table showing the PI values that each group size must equal or exceed to make AYP are available at www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts.

Graduation-Rate Total Cohort This term is defined on the graduation-rate accountability page.

Performance Index (PI) Performance Index is a value from 0 to 200 that is assigned to an accountability group, indicating how that group performed on a required State test (or approved alternative) in English language arts, mathematics, or science. Student scores on the tests are converted to four performance levels, from Level 1 to Level 4. (See performance level definitions on the Overview Summary page.) At the elementary/middle level, the PI is calculated using the following equation: 100 × [(Count of Continuously Enrolled Tested Students Performing at Levels 2, 3, and 4 + the Count at Levels 3 and 4) ÷ Count of All Continuously Enrolled Tested Students]

At the secondary level, the PI is calculated using the following equation: 100 × [(Count of Cohort Members Performing at Levels 2, 3, and 4 + the Count at Levels 3 and 4) ÷ Count of All Cohort Members]

A list of tests used to measure student performance for accountability is available at www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts.

Progress Target For accountability groups below the State Standard in science or graduation rate, the Progress Target is an alternate method for making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) or qualifying for Safe Harbor in English language arts and mathematics based on improvement over the previous year’s performance.

Safe Harbor Safe Harbor provides an alternate means to demonstrate Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for accountability groups that do not achieve their Effective Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) in English or mathematics.

Safe Harbor Targets The 2008–09 safe harbor targets were calculated using the following equation: 2007–08 PI + (200 – the 2007–08 PI) × 0.10

Science Progress Target The elementary/middle-level 2008–09 Science Progress Target is calculated by adding one point to the 2007–08 PI. The 2009–10 Science Progress Target is calculated by adding one point to the 2008–09 PI. The 2008–09 target is provided for groups whose PI was below the State Science Standard in 2008–09.

Science Standard The criterion value that represents a minimally satisfactory performance in science. In 2008–09, the State Science Standard at the elementary/middle level is a Performance Index (PI) of 100. The Commissioner may raise the State Science Standard at his discretion in future years.




Understanding Your District Accountability StatusThe list below defines the district status categories applied to each accountability measure under New York State’s district accountability system, which is divided into a Federal Title I component and a State component. Accountability measures for districts are English language arts (ELA), mathematics, elementary/middle-level science, and graduation rate. A district may be assigned a different status for different accountability measures. The overall status of a district is the status assigned to the district for the accountability measure with the most advanced designation in the hierarchy. If the district receives Title I funds, it is the most advanced designation in the Title I hierarchy, unless the district is in good standing under Title I but identified as DRAP under the State hierarchy. A district that does not receive Title I funding in a school year does not have a federal status in that year; however, all districts receive a state status even if they do not receive Title I funding. Consequences for districts not in good standing can be found at: http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/accountability/.

For the 2009–10 accountability status of component schools in your district, see http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/accountability/designations/.

Federal Title I Status (Applies to all New York State districts receiving Title I funds)

New York State Status (Applies to New York State districts)

District in Good Standing A district is considered to be in good standing if it has not been identified as a District in Need of Improvement or a District Requiring Academic Progress.

District in Need of Improvement (Year 1) A district that has not made AYP for two consecutive years on the same accountability measure is considered a District in Need of Improvement (Year 1) for the following year, if it continues to receive Title I funds.

District Requiring Academic Progress (Year 1) A district that has not made AYP on the same accountability measure for two consecutive years is considered a District Requiring Academic Progress (Year 1) for the following year.

District in Need of Improvement (Year 2) A District in Need of Improvement (Year 1) that does not make AYP on the accountability measure for which it was identified is considered a District in Need of Improvement (Year 2) for the following year, if it continues to receive Title I funds.

District Requiring Academic Progress (Year 2) A District Requiring Academic Progress (Year 1) that does not make AYP on the accountability measure for which it was identified is considered a District Requiring Academic Progress (Year 2) for the following year.





District in Need of Improvement (Year 5 and above) A District in Need of Improvement (Year 4 and above) that does not make AYP on the accountability measure for which it was identified is considered a District in Need of Improvement (Year 5 and above) for the following year, if it continues to receive Title I funds.

District Requiring Academic Progress (Year 5 and above) A District Requiring Academic Progress (Year 4 and above) that does not make AYP on the accountability measure for which it was identified is considered a District Requiring Academic Progress (Year 5 and above) for the following year.

Pending – A district’s status is “Pending” if the district requires special evaluation procedures and they have not yet been completed.




AYP Status

4 MadeAYP

✔SH MadeAYPUsingSafeHarborTarget

✘ DidNotMakeAYP

— InsufficientNumberofStudents toDetermineAYPStatus

Accountability Status Levels Federal State GoodStanding GoodStanding

Improvement(Year1) RequiringAcademicProgress(Year1)




Improvement(Year5&Above) RequiringAcademicProgress(Year5 &Above)

Pending–RequiresSpecialEvaluation

Title I Part A Funding Years the District Received Title I Part A Funding

Summary

Overall Accountability Status

ELA Science

Math GraduationRate

On which accountability measures did this district make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and which groups made AYP on each measure?

Elementary/Middle Level Secondary Level

Student GroupsEnglish

LanguageArts Mathematics Science

English

LanguageArts Mathematics GraduationRate

All Students

Ethnicity

AmericanIndianorAlaskaNative

BlackorAfricanAmerican

HispanicorLatino

AsianorNativeHawaiian/OtherPacificIslander

White

Multiracial Other Groups

StudentswithDisabilities

LimitedEnglishProficient

EconomicallyDisadvantaged

Student groups making AYP in each subject


(2009–10)Good Standing

Good Standing Good Standing

Good Standing Good Standing

2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

YES YES YES

✔

–

–

–

–

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

–

–

–

–

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

–

✔

–

–

✔

✔

–

✔

–

–

✔

✔

✔4 of 4 4 of 4 1 of 1 2 of 2 2 of 2 1 of 1



Accountability Status for This Subject

Accountability Measures

Prospective Status

How did students in each accountability group perform on

Student Group (Total: Continuous Enrollment)1

AYP Participation2 Test Performance3 Performance Objectives

StatusMet Criterion

Percentage Tested

Met Criterion

Performance Index

Effective AMO

Safe Harbor Target2008–09 2009–10

All Students

Ethnicity

American Indian or Alaska Native

Black or African American

Hispanic or Latino

Asian or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander

White

Multiracial

Other GroupsStudents with Disabilities4

Limited English Proficient5

Economically Disadvantaged

Final AYP Determination

AYP Status

4 Made AYP

✔SH Made AYP Using Safe Harbor Target

✘ Did Not Make AYP

— Insufficient Number of Students to Determine AYP Status

notes1 These data show the count of students enrolled during the test administration period (used for Participation) followed

by the count of continuously enrolled tested students (used for Performance). For accountability calculations, students who were excused from testing for medical reasons are not included in the enrollment count.

2 Groups with fewer than 40 students enrolled during the test administration period are not required to meet the participation criterion. If the participation rate of a group fell below 95 percent in 2008–09, the enrollment shown is the sum of 2007–08 and 2008–09 enrollments and the percent tested is the weighted average of the participation rates over those two years.

3 For districts with fewer than 30 continuously enrolled tested students in the All Students group in 2008–09, data for 2007–08 and 2008–09 were combined to determine counts and PIs. For districts with 30 or more continuously enrolled students in the All Students group in 2008–09, student groups with fewer than 30 continuously enrolled tested students are not required to meet the performance criterion.

4 If the district failed to make AYP solely because of the performance of students with disabilities, met the 95% participation requirement for this group, and would meet or exceed the AMO for this subject if 34 points were added to the PI, then the district is considered to have made AYP for students with disabilities.

5 If the count of LEP students is equal to or greater than 30, former LEP students are also included in the performance calculations.

‡ This student group did not make AYP in science; therefore, it did not qualify for Safe Harbor.


Elementary/Middle-Level English Language Arts

(2009–10)

Good Standing

4 of 4 Student groups making AYP in English language arts

✔ Made AYP

This district will be in good standing in 2010-11. [201]

elementary/middle-level English language arts accountability measures?

✔

–

–

–

–

✔

✔

✔

✔

–

–

–

–

✔

✔

✔

100%

–

–

–

–

100%

100%

100%

✔

–

–

–

–

✔

✔

✔

183

–

–

–

–

184

141

175

139

–

–

–

–

139

132

136

–

–

–

–

✔ 4 of 4

(417:414)

(1:1)

(4:3)

(3:3)

(1:1)

(408:406)

(0:0)

(68:68)

(0:0)

(174:172)





Prospective Status




StatusMet Criterion

Percentage Tested

Met Criterion

Performance Index

Effective AMO


All Students

Ethnicity



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial





AYP Status

4 Made AYP







3 For districts with fewer than 30 continuously enrolled tested students in the All Students group in 2008–09, data for 2007–08 and 2008–09 were combined to determine counts and PIs. For districts with 30 or more continuously enrolled students in the All Students group in 2008–09, student groups with fewer than 30 continuously enrolled tested students are not required to meet the performance criterion.



‡ This student group did not make AYP in science; therefore, it did not qualify for Safe Harbor.


Elementary/Middle-Level Mathematics

(2009–10)

Good Standing

4 of 4 Student groups making AYP in mathematics

✔ Made AYP


elementary/middle-level mathematics accountability measures?

✔

–

–

–

–

✔

✔

✔

✔

–

–

–

–

✔

✔

✔

100%

–

–

–

–

100%

100%

100%

✔

–

–

–

–

✔

✔

✔

188

–

–

–

–

189

160

181

114

–

–

–

–

114

107

111

–

–

–

–

✔ 4 of 4

(416:412)

(1:1)

(4:3)

(3:3)

(1:1)

(407:404)

(0:0)

(68:68)

(0:0)

(172:170)



Elementary/Middle-Level ScienceAccountability Status for This Subject


Prospective Status

How did students in each accountability group perform on elementary/middle-level science accountability measures?



StatusSafe Harbor Qualification

Met Criterion

Percentage Tested

Met Criterion

Performance Index

State Standard

Progress Target

2008–09 2009–10

All Students

Ethnicity



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Other Groups

Students with Disabilities




AYP Status

4 Made AYP







3 Groups with fewer than 30 continuously enrolled tested students are not required to meet the performance criterion. For districts with fewer than 30 continuously enrolled tested students in 2008–09, data for 2007–08 and 2008–09 were combined to determine counts and performance indices.



(2009–10)

Good Standing

1 of 1 Student groups making AYP in science

✔ Made AYP


✔ ✔

–

–

✔

–

✔

100%

–

–

100%

–

100%

✔

–

–

✔

–

✔

187

–

–

188

–

175

100

–

–

100

–

100

–

–

–

Qualified

–

–

Qualified

–

Qualified

✔ 1 of 1

(135:134)

(0:0)

(2:2)

(1:1)

(0:0)

(132:131)

(0:0)

(25:25)

(0:0)

(57:56)





Prospective Status


Student Group (12th Graders: 2005 Cohort)1


StatusMet Criterion

Percentage Tested

Met Criterion

Performance Index

Effective AMO


All Students

Ethnicity



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial





AYP Status

4 Made AYP




notes1 These data show the count of 12th graders in 2008–09 (used for Participation) followed by the count of students

in the 2005 cohort (used for Performance).2 Groups with fewer than 40 students in the 12th grade are not required to meet the participation criterion.

If the participation rate of a group fell below 95 percent in 2008–09, the enrollment shown is the sum of 2007–08 and 2008–09 Grade 12 enrollments and the percent tested is the weighted average of the participation rates over those two years.

3 For districts with fewer than 30 students in the 2005 cohort, data for 2004 and 2005 cohort members were combined to determine counts and PIs. For districts with 30 or more students in the 2005 cohort in the All Students group, groups with fewer than 30 students in the 2005 cohort are not required to meet the performance criterion.



‡ This student group did not make AYP in graduation rate; therefore, it did not qualify for Safe Harbor.


Secondary-Level English Language Arts

(2009–10)

Good Standing

2 of 2 Student groups making AYP in English language arts

✔ Made AYP


secondary-level English language arts accountability measures?

✔

–

✔

–

–

✔

–

✔

–

–

99%

–

99%

–

–

✔

–

✔

–

–

177

–

181

–

–

160

–

160

–

–

–

–

–

✔ 2 of 2

(85:78)

(0:0)

(3:4)

(0:0)

(0:0)

(82:74)

(0:0)

(10:10)

(0:0)

(22:24)





Prospective Status


Student Group (12th Graders: 2005 Cohort)1


StatusMet Criterion

Percentage Tested

Met Criterion

Performance Index

Effective AMO


All Students

Ethnicity



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial





AYP Status

4 Made AYP




notes1 These data show the count of 12th graders in 2008–09 (used for Participation) followed by the count of students

in the 2005 cohort (used for Performance).2 Groups with fewer than 40 students in the 12th grade are not required to meet the participation criterion.

If the participation rate of a group fell below 95 percent in 2008–09, the enrollment shown is the sum of 2007–08 and 2008–09 Grade 12 enrollments and the percent tested is the weighted average of the participation rates over those two years.

3 For districts with fewer than 30 students in the 2005 cohort, data for 2004 and 2005 cohort members were combined to determine counts and PIs. For districts with 30 or more students in the 2005 cohort in the All Students group, groups with fewer than 30 students in the 2005 cohort are not required to meet the performance criterion.



‡ This student group did not make AYP in graduation rate; therefore, it did not qualify for Safe Harbor.


Secondary-Level Mathematics

(2009–10)

Good Standing

2 of 2 Student groups making AYP in mathematics

✔ Made AYP


secondary-level mathematics accountability measures?

✔

–

✔

–

–

✔

–

✔

–

–

98%

–

98%

–

–

✔

–

✔

–

–

191

–

192

–

–

155

–

155

–

–

–

–

–

✔ 2 of 2

(85:78)

(0:0)

(3:4)

(0:0)

(0:0)

(82:74)

(0:0)

(10:10)

(0:0)

(22:24)


Graduation Rate InformationFor a school or a district to make AYP in graduation rate, the percentage of 2004 graduation-rate total cohort members earning a local or Regents diploma by August 31, 2008 for the “All Students” group must equal or exceed the Graduation-Rate Standard or the Graduation-Rate Progress Target for 2008–09.

The Graduation Rate Standard is the criterion value that represents a minimally satisfactory percentage of cohort members earning a local diploma. The State Graduation-Rate Standard for the 2004 cohort is 55 percent. The Commissioner may raise the Graduation-Rate Standard at his discretion in future years.

The 2008–09 Graduation-Rate Progress Target is calculated by adding one point to the percentage of the 2003 cohort earning a local or Regents diploma by August 31, 2007. The 2009–10 Graduation-Rate Progress Target is calculated by adding one point to the percentage of the 2004 cohort earning a local or Regents diploma by August 31, 2008. This target is provided for each group whose percentage earning a local or Regents diploma by August 31, 2008 is below the Graduation-Rate Standard in 2008–09 (55%). Groups with fewer than 30 cohort members are not subject to this criterion.


How did students in each accountability group perform on graduation rate accountability measures?

Student Group (Cohort Count)

Graduation Objectives

AYPMet Criterion

Graduation Rate1

State Standard

Progress Target

2008–09 2009–10

All Students

Ethnicity



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Other Groups

Students with Disabilities




notes1 Percentage of the 2004 cohort that earned a local or Regents diploma by August 31, 2008.2 If the count of LEP students is equal to or greater than 30, former LEP students are also included

in the performance calculations.

Graduation RateAccountability Status for This Indicator


Prospective Status


(2009–10)

Good Standing

1 of 1 Student groups making AYP in graduation rate

✔ Made AYP


✔ ✔

✔

–

74%

74%

–

55%

55%

–

(100)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(100)

(0)

(19)

(0)

(0)

✔ 1 of 1


Overview of District Performance3

Intentionally Left Blank

Documents

Tupper Lake Central School District