Office of Federal & Special Programs - Title I

Office of Federal & Special Programs - Title I

LSPI – SCHOOLWIDE PLAN ADDENDUM

Duluth High School

Supplemental School Personnel

Duluth High Schoolwill use Title I funds to pay the salaries and benefits of the following supplemental instructional staff:

Supplemental staff / Purpose
4Math teachers / To increase achievement of at-risk students in math/ sustain growth in achievement
1Scienceteachers / To increase achievement of at-risk students in science/ sustain growth in achievement
4 Social Study teachers / To increase achievement of at-risk students in social studies and increase literacy.
Parent Instructional Coordinator / Support parent capacity by providing materials and training to help parents support their student’s learning.
Mid-year Update (due: February 17, 2017)

Highly Qualified Staff

Students at Duluth High Schoolwill receive instruction by highly-qualified teachers who meet the standards established by the State of Georgia.

 100% of the staff at Duluth High School is highly-qualified.

☐ Duluth High School works with the Gwinnett County Public School’s Human Resource Department and the GeorgiaProfessional Standards Commission to assist teachers in earning a Highly Qualified status. Letters will be sent home to parents of students who receive instruction by a non-highly qualified teacher for more than twenty consecutive days. Currently, Duluth High School has select a number teacher(s) who is/are working toward Highly Qualified status through a remediation plan developed in collaboration with the Department of Human Resources.

Duluth High Schooluses the following strategies to attract highly-qualified personnel:

Establishing a differentiated mentoring program for teachers new to the profession and for veteran teachers new toDuluth High School.

Developing a quality staff development program to engage teachers in research-based practices of instruction.

Creating and expanding avenues for teacher leadership in multiple aspects of the school program.

Practicing a shared leadership/professional learning community model through regular department and curriculum area meetings.

Recruiting and hiring teachers from a pool of highly qualified candidates provided through the GCPS job fair and recruiting trips.

Communicating information about the loan forgiveness program for teachers to further their educations.

Communicating information about the Teach Gwinnett Program (GA TAPP) to noncertified teachers toearn their clear-renewable teaching certificate.

Transition Activities

To support families and students who are enteringninth grade, Duluth High Schoolwill implement the following transition activity(ies):

• Intensive transition plan including Wildcat Experience, a day long program designed to acclimate upcoming 9th graders.
• Parent information session on Super Thursday and during Wildcat Experience.
• Intensive and coordinated approach for scheduling 8th grade students for 9th grade classes that attend to academic needs, student interests, and parent input.
• Duluth Staff conducts meetings at the Middle School to communicate directly about scheduling, AP, athletics, special education, etc..
• Spring meetings for upcoming 9th graders and parents.

Prioritized Wish List

If available, additional Title I funds will be used for the following prioritized items. These are linked to our LSPI goals as noted.

Item / LSPI Goal
Additional Personnel / 2.4, 4.6, 4.7
Additional Technology (laptops and Chromebooks) / 4.2, 4.3, 2.5
Transportation / 2.4,4.6

Developing the LSPI/Schoolwide Plan, Budget, Parent Involvement Policy and School-Parent Compact

Duluth High Schoolinvolves families, staff, and community members in the development of the LSPI/Schoolwide Plan, Title I Budget, Parent Involvement Policy (which includes the Title I calendar of events), and School-Parent Compact. Each year the school invites all parents, staff members, students, and community members to attend a Title I Planning Meeting. These invitations are sent by email blast (both to parents and faculty and staff), advertised on the school website, Duluth Cluster App and on the school marquee. During this meeting, a general overview of the Title I program is explained. Participants review the latest academic data to identify trends, strengths, and concerns. Participants are asked to provide input for revisions for the upcoming school year on the following documents: the Schoolwide Plan, Title I Budget, Parent Involvement Policy, and School-Parent Compact. All parents will have an opportunity to provide both oral and written feedback.

Sharing the LSPI/Schoolwide Plan, Budget, Parent Involvement Policy and School-Parent Compact

The LSPI/Schoolwide Plan, Title I Budget, Parent Involvement Policy and School-Parent Compact are shared with families and stakeholders by:

Posting the plan, budget, policy, and compact on the school website.

Making hard copies of the plan and budget available for parent pick up in the front office or family center.

Distributing a copy of the Parent Involvement Policy and School-Parent Compact to every family in late September and throughout the remainder of the year to new enrollees.

Other:

Providing and Interpreting Assessment Results for Parents

Parents receive individual student results for all required state assessments via student folders or by U.S. mail. Student results are explained at parent teacher conferences, and school personnel conduct parent meetings/workshops to explain the purpose of the assessments and how to interpret the results. Whenever possible, letters explaining the results are translated to the home language. Assessment results are also uploaded to the parent portal for anytime, anywhere access. Included on the parent portal are downloadable guides to help parents interpret the results of these assessments.

In addition to stateassessments, Duluth High School uses district developed assessments. Individual student results and disaggregated data will be available through Schoolnet platform. This formative and summative data available through Schoolnetis shared with parents at conferences to assist them in better understanding their child’s academic progress.

Student Achievement Data Collection and Disaggregation

The GaDOE provides disaggregated data on stateassessments, Georgia Milestones Assessment System, a web-based data system. Data used for student assessment and achievement are collected and disseminated to teachers through the employee portal. Teachers and administrators in local schools view results for both aggregated school information as well as current classroom and individual student results of students. Teachers and administrators can view up to 5 years of historical, disaggregated data for their school or class. Assessment scores obtained from the district-wide assessmentscan be disaggregated based on any criteria and for any subgroup. Teachers and administration work collaboratively to examine and analyze this data for instructional purposes by looking for error patterns and planning remediation, acceleration, or enrichment lessons. Staff uses data from multiple sources to improve instruction.

Valid and Reliable Data

• GCPS follows assessment development procedures that are approved by local and national groups. GCPS uses field tests items, standardized administration and scoring procedures for all assessments to maintain validity, reliability and fairness.
• Standardized test data is not reported for student subgroups having less than ten students. Curriculum planning and instructional decisions are made based on test results for subgroups equal to or greater than forty students. Multiple data sources are used when planning instruction.
• The GCPS Office of Accountability and Assessment offers professional learning to local schools to support the GCPS required assessments. Session topics include: Learning Targets, Deconstructing the Standards, Depth of Knowledge (DOK), software utilization to build and administer tests, data reporting, and best practices when writing local assessments.
• The Georgia Department of Education provides disaggregated data on assessments. In addition, the GADOE Division of Assessment and Accountability offers Formative Instructional Practices(FIP), a professional learning opportunity for all educators. This professional learning opportunity assists educators in learning about formative instructional practices and enhancing their own use of these strategies.

Public Reporting of Data

• The College and Career Ready Performance Index (CCRPI), is a comprehensive school improvement, accountability, and communication platform forall educational stakeholders that will promote college and career readiness for all Georgia public school students. The CCRPI is available to parents and the community on the Georgia Department of Education website (
• Each Gwinnett County Public School publishes district accountability reports annually. The report includes trends in data and highlights programs that schools are implementing to increase student achievement. The most recent version for each school is published on the district website ( Paper copies of the reports are available at each local school.

Translating Title I Documents

Title I parent communications will be translated to the extent feasible.

School Improvement Provisions

The revised schoolwide plan of Duluth High Schoolis subject to the school improvement provisions of section 1116. As stated in the GA Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility Waiver, Georgia is no longer held accountable for requirements of the ESEA that require school districts to identify schools for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring when they have not made Adequate Yearly Progress for two or more years. Instead, the Georgia ESEA Flexibility Waiver requires the State Department of Education to identify Title I schools as having a Priority, Focus, or Reward status.

Research-based Reform Strategies

INTERVENTION
Technology resources
(Classworks, IPass, etc.) / Pitler, H., Hubbell, E.R., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Technology in content areas / Pitler, H., Hubbell, E.R., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Writing intervention / Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., & Anthony, H. M. (1988). A case for writing intervention: Strategies for writing informational text. Learning Disabilities Focus, 3(2), 98-113.
Graham, Steve; Perin, Dolores. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445-476.
Saddler, Bruce, Asaro-Saddler, Kristie. (2013). Response to Intervention in Writing: A Suggested Framework for Screening, Intervention, and Progress Monitoring. Response to Intervention, 29 (1) 20-43.
Differentiated instruction / Hewitt, K. & Weckstein, D. (2011).Differentiation is an expectation: A school leader's guide to building a culture of differentiation. Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.
Differentiated instruction for ELs / Tomlinson, C. (2001).How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Extended learning time / Little, P.M., Wimer, C., & Weiss, H.B. (2008). After School Program in the 21s Century: Their Potential and
What it Takes to Achieve it. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Family Research Project.
Silva, E. (2007). On the Clock: Rethinking the Way Schools Use Time. Washington, D.C.: Education Sector.
AKS/CQI model / Bernhardt, V. (2009).Data, data everywhere: Bringing all the data together for continuous school improvement. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education
Hawley, W. (2007).The keys to effective schools educational reform as continuous improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hubbard, D. (1993).Continuous Quality Improvement: Making the transition to education. Maryville, MO: Prescott
Park, S., Hironaka, S., Carver, P., & Nordstrum, L. (2013).Continuous improvement in education. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation. Retrieved June 3, 2014, from
LITERACY
Balanced Literacy / Bitter, C. (2009). What Works to Improve Student Literacy Achievement? An Examination of Instructional Practices in a Balanced Literacy Approach. Journal Of Education For Students Placed At Risk, 14(1), 17-44.
Frey, B. (2005). Balanced Literacy in an Urban School District. Journal Of Educational Research, 98(5), 272-280.
Document-based writing / Bangert-Drowns, R. (2004). The Effects of School-Based Writing-to-Learn Interventions on Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis.Review Of Educational Research,74(1), 29-58.
Reading strategies for complex texts / Witter, Maddie. (2013)Reading without limits: teaching strategies to build independent reading for life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, a Wiley imprint.
Guided reading / Collins, J. & Gunning, T. (2010).Building struggling students' higher level literacy: practical ideas, powerful solutions. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Literacy in content areas / Pinnell, G. & Fountas, I. (2011).The Continuum of Literacy Learning, grades 3-8: a guide to teaching. Portsmouth, N.H: Heinemann.
Vertical team in literacy / Bertrand, L., Roberts, R. A., & Buchanan, R. (2006). Striving for success: Teacher perspectives of a vertical team initiative. National Forum of Teacher Education Journal-Electronic 16(3), 1-10.
DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (1998).Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN, Alexandria, VA: National Education Service ASCD
Eaker, R., DuFour, R. & DuFour, R. (2002).Getting started: Reculturing schools to become professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service
Kowal, P.H. (2002). Vertical teaming: Making connections across levels. Middle Ground 6(1), 20-22.
Vocabulary development / Alexander-Shea, A. (2011). Redefining Vocabulary: The New Learning Strategy for Social Studies. Social Studies, 102(3), 95-103.
Braker, J. C. (2013). Linking Vocabulary Acquisition with Word Knowledge to Improve Reading Comprehension for ELLs. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 42(1), 28-36.
Elgort, I., & Warren, P. (2014). L2 Vocabulary Learning From Reading: Explicit and Tacit Lexical Knowledge and the Role of Learner and Item Variables. Language Learning, 64(2), 365-414.
Writing across the curriculum / Hill, A. E. (2014). Using Interdisciplinary, Project-Based, Multimodal Activities to Facilitate Literacy Across the Content Areas. Journal Of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(6), 450-460.
Peterson, S. (2012). An Analysis of Discourses of Writing and Writing Instruction in Curricula Across Canada. Curriculum Inquiry, 42(2), 260-284.
Academic language development in the content areas / Gottlieb, M. & Slavit, G. (2013).Academic language in diverse classrooms: Mathematics Grades K-2: Promoting content and language learning. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin, a SAGE company.
Gottlieb, M. & Slavit, G. (2013). Academic language in diverse classrooms: Mathematics Grades 6-8: Promoting content and language learning. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin, a SAGE company.
Zwiers, J. (2008). Building academic language: essential practices for content classrooms, grades 5-12. San Francisco, CA Newark, DE: Jossey-Bass International Reading Association.
Zwiers, J. & Crawford, M. (2011). Academic conversations: Classroom talk that fosters critical thinking and content understandings. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers
MATH
Guided math / Sammons, L. (2010). Guided math: A framework for mathematics instruction. Huntington Beach, CA: Shell Education.
Walle, J. A., & Lovin, L. H. (2006). Teaching student-centered mathematics. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
Vertical teams in math / Bertrand, L., Roberts, R. A., & Buchanan, R. (2006). Striving for success: Teacher perspectives of a vertical team initiative. National Forum of Teacher Education Journal-Electronic 16(3), 1-10.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. E. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service.
Eaker, R., DuFour, R. & DuFour, R. (2002).Getting started: Reculturing schools to become professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service
Kowal, P.H. (2002). Vertical teaming: Making connections across levels. Middle Ground6(1), 20-22.
Math Exemplars / Black, Paul and Dylan Wiliam (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education Policies and Practice 5(1).
Black, Paul and Dylan Wiliam (1998). Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment. Phi Delta Kappan.
Bryk, Anthony S., Jenny K. Nagoaka, and Fred M. Newmann (2002). Authentic Intellectual Work and Standardized Tests: Conflict of Coexistence?Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Academic language of mathematics / Zwiers, J. (2008). Building Academic Language: Essential practices for content classrooms, grades 5-12. San Francisco Newark, DE: Jossey-Bass International Reading Association.
Zwiers, J. & Crawford, M. (2011). Academic Conversations: Classroom talk that fosters critical thinking and content understandings. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers
TEACHER CAPACITY
Collaborative planning / Davenport, P., & Anderson, G. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: No excuses. Houston, TX: American Productivity Quality Center.
Marzano, R. J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Professional learning / Davenport, P., & Anderson, G. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: No excuses. Houston, TX: American Productivity Quality Center.
Guskey, T.R. (2003). Using Data to Improve Student Achievement: How Classroom Assessments Improve Learning.Educational Leadership, 60(5).
PARENT CAPACITY
Program information for parents / Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority children's academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 202-218.
Materials and training for parents / Faires, Joan, Nichols, William Dee, Rickelman, Robert J. (2000). Effects of Parental Involvement in Developing Competent Readers in First Grade. Reading Psychology, 21 (3), p195-215.
Ingram, Melissa; Wolfe, Randi B.; Lieberman, Joyce M. (2007).
The Role of Parents in High-Achieving Schools Serving Low-Income, At-Risk Populations. Education & Urban Society, 39(4), p479-497
Transition coordination / High School
Hertzog, C. J., & P.L. Morgan, P. L., (1997). From middle to high school: Ease the transition. Education Digest, 62(7), 29–31.
Queen, J. (2002).Student transitions from middle to high school: Improving achievement and creating a safer environment. Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.
Seidman, E., Aber, J. L., Allen, E. L., & French, S. E. (1996). The impact of the transition to high school on the self-system and perceived social context of poor urban youth. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24(4),489–515.
Communication with parents / Epstein, J.L. and Dauber, S.L. (1991), School programs and teacher practices of parent involvement in inner city elementary schools. The Elementary School Journal, 91(3) pp. 289-305.
Communication with linguistically diverse parents / Rasinski, T. (2003). Parental involvement: key to leaving no child behind in reading. The New England Reading Association Journal, 39 (3), 1-5.

Page 1 of 9

GCPS Revised: March 22, 2016