2014-2015 Land Trust Final Report

Posted in SCC

Financial Proposal and Report

This report is automatically generated from the School Plan entered in the spring of 2014 and from the District Business Administrator's data entry of the School LAND Trust expenditures in 2014-2015.

Description

Planned Expenditures
(entered by the school)

Actual Expenditures
(entered by the school)

Actual Expenditures
(entered by the District
Business Administrator)

Remaining Funds (Carry-Over to 2015-2016)

$2,834

N/A

$2,463

Carry-Over from 2013-2014

$60

N/A

$656

Distribution for 2014-2015

$41,774

N/A

$42,145

Total Available for Expenditure in 2014-2015

$41,834

N/A

$42,801

Salaries and Employee Benefits (100 and 200)

$39,000

$42,800

$37,195

Employee Benefits (200)

$0

$0

$3,143

Professional and Technical Services (300)

$0

$0

$0

Repairs and Maintenance (400)

$0

$0

$0

Other Purchased Services (Admission and Printing) (500)

$0

$0

$0

Travel (580)

$0

$0

$0

General Supplies (610)

$0

$0

$0

Textbooks (641)

$0

$0

$0

Library Books (644)

$0

$0

$0

Periodicals, AV Materials (650-660)

$0

$0

$0

Software (670)

$0

$0

$0

Equipment (Computer Hardware, Instruments, Furniture) (730)

$0

$0

$0

Total Expenditures

$39,000

$42,800

$40,338

Goal #1

Goal

80% of our students will meet proficiency in reading on district Common Formative Assessments (CFA) and Curriculum Based Measurements in reading (CBM).

Academic Areas

  • Reading

Measurements

This is the measurement identified in the plan to determine if the goal was reached.

Common Formative Assessments (CFA) in reading. Unit quizzes and tests in reading Curriculum Based Measurements (CBM) in reading

Please show the before and after measurements and how academic performance was improved.

                             

CBM Two Year Comparison

 

                                   2013-2014 CBM Data              2014-2015  CBM Data 

KINDER PSF              83% Proficient                          88% Proficient

KINDER NWF             92% Proficient                          93% Proficient

FIRST RCBM              80% Proficient                          86% Proficient

SECOND RCBM         78% Proficient                          89% Proficient

THIRD RCBM             74% Proficient                          83% Proficient

FOURTH RCBM         79% Proficient                          92% Proficient

FIFTH RCBM              74% Proficient                          88% Proficient

Common Formative Assessment Two Year Comparison

   

2015 %students that met criteria

2014 %students that met criteria

 

Grade 1

CFA #1

85

   
 

CFA #2

89

88

 
 

CFA #3

85

80

 
 

CFA #4

90

84

 
 

CFA #5

 

83

 
         
   

2015

2014

 

Grade 2

CFA #1

81

   
 

CFA #2

85

77

 
 

CFA #3

73

69

 
 

CFA #4

67

75

 
 

CFA #5

73

75

 
   

2015

2014

 

Grade 3

CFA #1

66

na

 
 

CFA #2

81

68

 
 

CFA #3

84

62

 
 

CFA #4

89

47

 
 

CFA #5

76

64

 
   

2015

2014

 

Grade 4

CFA #1

16

na

 
 

CFA #2

69

33

 
 

CFA #3

79

74

 
 

CFA #4

31

29

 
 

CFA #5

42

35

 
   

2015

2014

 

Grade 5

CFA #1

67

na

 
 

CFA #2

71

56

 
 

CFA #3

56

51

 
 

CFA #4

45

46

 
 

CFA #5

 

29

 

 

Action Plan Steps

This is the Action Plan Steps identified in the plan to reach the goal.

Common Formative Assessments (CFA) administered by teacher and submitted to achievement coach and principal. Topic/Content tests administered by teacher after each unit. Collect, analyze, and interpret grade level data as a team. Differentiate instruction in the classroom and as a grade level. Provide professional development on student engagement strategies. Student mastery reports completed, interpreted, and turned in to principal.

Please explain how the action plan was implemented to reach this goal.

Classroom teachers met weekly in IPLCs for professional development and to analyze student data on Common Formative Assessments as well as the Curriculum Based Measures used by the district. Teachers used this data to form small groups in which, skill based instruction was delivered.  Literacy Interventionists were hired to provide instructional support for students in small groups based on information gathered in both assessments.  These aides were supervised and given professional development by the Achievement Coach.  Reading data was analyzed by classroom teachers in weekly IPLCs.   Teachers received professional development on small group instruction, explicit instruction techniques and on engagement strategies.

Expenditures

Category

Description

Estimated Cost

Actual Cost

Actual Use

 

Total:

$19,500

$21,400

 

Salaries and Employee Benefits (100 and 200)

Land Trust funding will be used to hire seven (7) instructional assistants who will work closely with students on a daily basis providing Tier II interventions.  Our instructional assistants and classroom teachers will identify students? specific needs through district directed, research based, Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM) benchmark assessment tools in reading, and then provide the necessary interventions to increase performance.  The instructional assistants will collect data on a consistent basis and meet with the classroom teacher, principal, and achievement coach on a monthly basis to discuss the data and future interventions for each student.  Funds will also be used for professional development to enhance our Tier I instruction in the area of reading.

$19,500

$21,400

As Described


Goal #2

Goal

80% of our students will meet proficiency in reading on district Common Formative Assessments (CFA) and Curriculum Based Measurements in math (CBM).

Academic Areas

  • Mathematics

Measurements

This is the measurement identified in the plan to determine if the goal was reached.

Common Formative Assessments (CFA) in math. Unit quizzes and tests in math Curriculum Based Measurements (CBM) in math.

Please show the before and after measurements and how academic performance was improved.

 

  CBM Two Year Comparison

                                  2013-2014 CBM Percent Proficient                         2014-2015 CBM Percent Proficient  KINDER QDM                     80%

KINDER MNM                     86%

FIRST MCOMP                    80%                                                                   92%

SECOND MCOMP               92%                                                                   95%

THIRD MCOMP                   91%                                                                   89%

FOURTH MCOMP               84%                                                                   90%

FIFTH MCOMP                    74%                                                                   88%                  

Common Formative Assessment  Two Year Comparison

   

2013-14

2014-15

1st Grade

CFA #1

93

66

 

CFA #2

70

62

 

CFA #3

90

81

 

CFA #4

91

90

   

2013-14

2014-15

2nd Grade

CFA #1

76

92

 

CFA #2

83

94

 

CFA #3

67

95

 

CFA #4

94

77

   

2013-14

2014-15

3rd Grade

CFA #1

74

78

 

CFA #2

94

90

 

CFA #3

50

87

 

CFA #4

80

91

   

2013-14

2014-15

4th Grade

CFA #1

83

69

 

CFA #2

85

83

 

CFA #3

58

82

 

CFA #4

73

59

   

2013-14

2014-15

5th Grade

CFA #1

63

69

 

CFA #2

60

67

 

CFA #3

47

50

 

CFA #4

63

70

                        

Action Plan Steps

This is the Action Plan Steps identified in the plan to reach the goal.

Common Formative Assessments (CFA) administered by teacher and submitted to achievement coach and principal. Topic/Content tests administered by teacher after each unit. Collect, analyze, and interpret grade level data as a team. Differentiate instruction in the classroom and as a grade level. Provide professional development on student engagement strategies. Student mastery reports completed, interpreted, and turned in to principal.

Please explain how the action plan was implemented to reach this goal.

Classroom teachers met weekly in IPLCs for professional development and to analyze student data on Common Formative Assessments as well as the Curriculum Based Measures used by the district. Teachers used this data to form small groups in which, skill based instruction was delivered.  Literacy Interventionists were hired to provide instructional support for students in small groups based on information gathered in both assessments.  These aides were supervised and given professional development by the Achievement Coach.  Reading data was analyzed by classroom teachers in weekly IPLCs.   Teachers received professional development on small group instruction, explicit instruction techniques and on engagement strategies.

Expenditures

Category

Description

Estimated Cost

Actual Cost

Actual Use

 

Total:

$19,500

$21,400

 

Salaries and Employee Benefits (100 and 200)

Land Trust funding will be used to hire seven (7) instructional assistants who will work closely with students on a daily basis providing Tier II interventions.  Our instructional assistants and classroom teachers will identify students? specific needs through district directed, research based, Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM) benchmark assessment tools in math, and then provide the necessary interventions to increase performance.  The instructional assistants will collect data on a consistent basis and meet with the classroom teacher, principal, and achievement coach on a monthly basis to discuss the data and future interventions for each student.  Funds will also be used for professional development to enhance our Tier I instruction in the area of math.

$19,500

$21,400

As Described


Increased DistributionEdit

The school plan describes how additional funds exceeding the estimated distribution would be spent. This is the description.

Additional Land Trust funds will be used to provide professional development and to purchase teacher materials supporting student achievement and improve Tier I interventions available to all teachers in reading and math.  By addressing Tier I interventions with additional funds, this would limit our need for as many Tier II interventions.  If additional funds were substantial enough, we would hire other instructional assistants to help meet the needs of all students at Lone Peak in reading and math.

Description of how any additional funds exceeding the estimated distribution were actually spent.

As described

Publicity

The following items are the proposed methods of how the Plan would be publicized to the community:

  • School newsletter
  • School website

The school plan was actually publicized to the community in the following way(s):

  • School newsletter
  • School website

Policy Makers

The school community council has communicated with the following policy makers about the School LAND Trust Program. Communication with Policy makers is encouraged and recommended. It is not required.

State Leaders

Governor: Gary R. Herbert.

U.S. Senators

Mike Lee
Orrin Hatch

U.S. Representatives

Jason Chaffetz

State Senators

Dist. 9 Wayne Niederhauser
Dist. 11 Howard Stephenson

State Representative

Dist. 32 Christensen, LaVar
Dist. 51 Hughes, Gregory H.

State School Board

David L. Crandall

Summary Posting Date

A summary of this Final Report was provided to parents and posted on the school website on 2015-10-26