Frederick County Public Schools · Frederick County Public Schools Maryland’s Reform Plan Bridge...

Frederick County Public Schools

Maryland’s Reform Plan

Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools

2017 Annual Update

November 2017

Submitted to:

Maryland State Department of Education Division of Student, Family, and School Support

Division of Academic Policy and Innovation

Office of Finance

Submitted by:

Dr. Theresa Alban, Superintendent

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Frederick County Public Schools—2017 Bridge to Excellence Master Plan

Maryland’s Bridge to Excellence Master Plan ............................................................................. 1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

Submission Cover Page: 2017 Master Plan Annual Update ........................................................ 2

Board of Education of Frederick County ...................................................................................... 3

2017 BTE Master Plan Local Planning Team .............................................................................. 4

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 5

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5

About Frederick County Public Schools ................................................................................. 5

Progress Summary ............................................................................................................... 6

FCPS Strategic Plan and Measurable Goals ......................................................................... 7

Master Plan Reporting ........................................................................................................... 9

Systemic Strategies............................................................................................................. 19

School-Specific Strategies (Targeting Special Student Populations) ................................... 22

Accelerating Achievement and Equity ................................................................................. 27

Local Assessment Framework ............................................................................................ 34

Budget Narrative ................................................................................................................. 35

Finance Section ........................................................................................................................ 37

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 37

Revenue and Expenditure Analysis ..................................................................................... 37

Maryland’s Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ........................................................................... 40

Preface................................................................................................................................ 40

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 40

Special Education (Students with Disabilities) ..................................................................... 40

Limited English Proficiency (English Learners) .................................................................... 51

Monitoring/Measuring Progress ........................................................................................... 59

PARCC English Language Arts Literacy, Grades 3-5 .......................................................... 59

PARCC English Language Arts Literacy, Grades 6-8 .......................................................... 69

PARCC English Grade 10 .................................................................................................. .77

PARCC English Grade 11 ................................................................................................... 84

PARCC Mathematics, Grades 3-5 ....................................................................................... 84

PARCC Mathematics, Grades 6-8 ....................................................................................... 95

PARCC Algebra 1 ............................................................................................................. 102

PARCC Algebra 2 ............................................................................................................. 109

PARCC Geometry ............................................................................................................. 110

MSA Science Grade 5 ...................................................................................................... 110

MSA Science Grade 8 ...................................................................................................... 113

HSA Biology ...................................................................................................................... 116

HSA Government .............................................................................................................. 119

2017 Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Assessment Requirements ........................................ 126

Appendix A: House Bills 999 and 412 ..................................................................................... 134

House Bill 999 ................................................................................................................... 134

House Bill 412 and Section 7.203.3 ................................................................................... 135

Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Goal 1: Performance on Accountability Tests—2017 PARCC ELA Results (Levels 3-5)—ELA State Comparison/Rank ................................................ 10

Figure 2: Goal 1: Performance on Accountability Tests—2017 PARCC Math Results (Levels 3-5)—Math State Comparison/Rank ............................................... 10

Figure 3: Goal 1: Performance on Accountability Tests—2015-2017 PARCC ELA Results (Levels 3-5)—ELA Trend .................................................................... 11

Figure 4: Goal 1: Performance on Accountability Tests—2015-2017 PARCC Math Results (Levels 3-5)—Math Trend ................................................................. 11

Figure 5: Goal 1: Performance on Accountability Tests—PARCC Elementary ELA (Levels 3-5)—Student Group Trends (2015-2017) ........................................... 12

Figure 6. Goal 1: Performance on Accountability Tests—PARCC Elementary Math (Levels 3-5)—Student Group Trends (2015-2017) .......................................... 13

Figure 7. Goal 1: Performance on Accountability Tests—PARCC Middle School ELA (Levels 3-5)—Student Group Trends (2015-2017) ........................................... 14

Figure 8. Goal 1: Performance on Accountability Tests—PARCC Middle School Math with Algebra 1 (Levels 3-5)—Student Group Trends (2015-2017) ................... 15

Figure 9. Goal 1: Performance on Accountability Tests—PARCC English 10 (Levels 3-5)—Student Group Trends (2015-2017) ................................................... 16

Figure 10. Goal 1: Performance on Accountability Tests—PARCC Algebra 1 (Levels 3-5)—Student Group Trends (2015-2017) ................................................... 17

Figure 11. Goal 1. Biology and Government High School Assessments—2015-2017 —HSA Trends ......................................................................................................... 18

Figure 12. FCPS Continuous Improvement—ACTS Pipeline for Student Success ................... 19

Figure 13. Strategies to Enhance Instructional Leadership and Academic Achievement—Capacity Building, Coaching, Conversations, and Courage ............. 21

Figure 14. Continuous Improvement Process and Culture of Inquiry Theoretical Framework............................................................................................................... 23

Appendix B: Response to MSDE Clarifying Questions............................................................ 136ELA and Math, Students with Disabilties...........................................................................136Biology and Government, EL Students & Students Failing to Meet Performance

Standards..............................................................................................................137

Figure 15. Culture of Inquiry Framework by Chaplot, Booth, and Johnstone (2013) ................. 24

Figure 16. English Learners—Growth Trend in Enrollment ....................................................... 30

Figure 17. The “Dimensions of Diversity” Wheel ....................................................................... 33

Table 1. Achievement Gaps (%)—Identified Student Groups Compared to All Students— Based on 2015-2017 PARCC Results, Performance Band 3-5 ................................ 18

Table 2. Current Year Variance Table (MSDE Table 1.1A) .................................................... 38

Table 3. Prior Year Variance Table (MSDE Table 1.1B) ........................................................ 39

Table 4. Special Education and Psychological Services, 2016-2017 Accomplishments ......... 42

Table 5. English Learners—MSDE Criteria and Targets for AMAO I ..................................... 54

Table 6. English Learners—MSDE Criteria and Targets for AMAO 2 .................................... 55

Table 7. English Learners—Progress on Reading and Math AMO Targets ........................... 55

Table 8. 2017-2018 Resource Allocations for English Learner Support ................................. 58

Table 9. PARCC Elementary ELA (Grades 3-5) Performance, 2015-2017 ............................ 60

Table 10. PARCC Elementary ELA (Grades 3-5) Performance (2015-2017), Students with Disabilities ......................................................................................... 61

Table 11. PARCC Elementary ELA (Grades 3-5) Performance (2015-2017), Students with Disabilities—Exited Services ............................................................. 62

Table 12. PARCC Elementary ELA (Grades 3-5) Performance (2015-2017), English Learners ...................................................................................................... 64

Table 13. PARCC Elementary ELA (Grades 3-5) Performance (2015-2017), English Learners—Exited Services .......................................................................... 65

Table 14. PARCC Elementary ELA (Grades 3-5) Performance (2017), Race/Ethnicity and Special Services ........................................................................ 67

Table 15. PARCC Middle School ELA (Grades 6-8) Performance, 2015-2017 ........................ 70

Table 16. PARCC Middle School ELA (Grades 6-8) Performance (2015-2017), Students with Disabilities ......................................................................................... 71

Table 17. PARCC Middle School ELA (Grades 6-8) Performance (2015-2017), Students with Disabilities—Exited Services ............................................................. 71

Table 18. English Language Arts, Grades 6-8—Strategies for 2017-2018 ............................... 72

Table 19. PARCC Middle School ELA (Grades 6-8) Performance (2015-2017), English Learners ...................................................................................................... 74

Table 20. PARCC Middle School ELA (Grades 6-8) Performance (2015-2017), English Learners—Exited Services .......................................................................... 74

Table 21. PARCC Middle School ELA (Grades 6-8) Performance (2017), Race/Ethnicity and Special Services ........................................................................ 76

Table 22. PARCC English 10 Performance, 2015-2017 .......................................................... 78

Table 23. PARCC English 10 Performance (2015-2017), Students with Disabilities ................ 79

FCPS, Final 11.17.17 2017 BTE Master Plan Annual Update Page 12

Table 24. PARCC English 10 Performance (2015-2017), Students with Disabilities— Exited Services ........................................................................................................ 79

Table 25. PARCC English 10 Performance (2015-2017), English Learners ............................. 81

Table 26. PARCC English 10 Performance (2015-2017), English Learners— Exited Services ........................................................................................................ 81

Table 27. PARCC English 10 Performance (2017), Race/Ethnicity and Special Services ........ 83

Table 28. PARCC Elementary Math (Grades 3-5) Performance (2015-2017) .......................... 86

Table 29. PARCC Elementary Math (Grades 3-5) Performance (2015-2017), Students with Disabilities ......................................................................................... 86

Table 30. PARCC Elementary Math (Grades 3-5) Performance (2015-2017), Students with Disabilities—Exited Services ............................................................. 87

Table 31. PARCC Elementary Math (Grades 3-5) Performance (2015-2017), English Learners ...................................................................................................... 89

Table 32. PARCC Elementary Math (Grades 3-5) Performance (2015-2017), English Learners—Exited Services .......................................................................... 89

Table 33. PARCC Elementary Math (Grades 6-8) Performance (2017), Race/Ethnicity and Special Services ........................................................................ 91

Table 34. Elementary Math—Curricular Work Teams .............................................................. 93

Table 35. Elementary Math—Additional Strategies and Resources ......................................... 94

Table 36. Elementary Math—Resource Allocations ................................................................. 94

Table 37. PARCC Middle School Math (Grades 6-8) Performance (2015-2017) ..................... 96

Table 38. PARCC Middle School Math (Grades 6-8) Performance (2015-2017), Students with Disabilities ......................................................................................... 97

Table 39. PARCC Middle School Math (Grades 6-8) Performance (2015-2017), Students with Disabilities—Exited Services ............................................................. 97

Table 40. PARCC Middle School Math (Grades 6-8) Performance (2015-2017), English Learners ...................................................................................................... 99

Table 41. PARCC Middle School Math (Grades 6-8) Performance (2015-2017), English Learners—Exited Services .......................................................................... 99

Table 42. PARCC Middle School Math (Grades 6-8) Performance (2017), Race/Ethnicity and Special Services ...................................................................... 101

Table 43. PARCC Algebra 1 Performance (2015-2017) ........................................................ 103

Table 44. PARCC Algebra 1 Performance (2015-2017), Students with Disabilities ............... 104

Table 45. PARCC Algebra 1 Performance (2015-2017), Students with Disabilities— Exited Services ...................................................................................................... 104

Table 46. PARCC Algebra 1 Performance (2015-2017), English Learners ............................ 106

Table 47. PARCC Algebra 1 Performance (2015-2017), English Learners— Exited Services ...................................................................................................... 106

Table 48. PARCC Algebra 1 Performance (2017), Race/Ethnicity and Special Services ....... 108

Table 49. High School Government Strategies to be Implemented in 2017-2018 .................. 123

Table 50. Maryland High School Assessment Performance Results—Biology (All Administrations) ............................................................................................... 124

Table 51. Maryland High School Assessment Performance Results—Government (All Administrations) ............................................................................................... 125

Table 52. Frederick County Public Schools Assessment Requirements .................................. 126

Maryland’s Bridge to Excellence Master Plan

I NT RODUCTI ON

Authorization

The 2017 Bridge to Excellence (BTE) Master Plan Annual Update is authorized by the following:

Section 5-401, Comprehensive Master Plans, Education Article of the Annotated Code of

Maryland;

Public Law 111-5, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009;

2016 Maryland General Assembly Legislation House Bill 999, Commission on Innovation

and Excellence in Education, Chapter 702;

2016 Maryland General Assembly Legislation House Bill 412, Assessment Administration

and Provision of Information, Chapter 264; and

Section 7-203.3, Education Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, as enacted by

Senate Bill 533/House Bill 412 of the General Assembly of 2016.

Background

In 2002, the Maryland General Assembly enacted the Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools

Act. This legislation provides a powerful framework for all 24 local education agencies (LEAs) to

increase student achievement for all students and to close the achievement gap. The BTE

legislation significantly increased state aid to public education and required each LEA to

develop a comprehensive master plan, to be updated annually. Each LEA is required to develop

and implement a comprehensive master plan that describes the goals, objectives, and

strategies that will be used to improve student achievement in each segment of the student

population. Additionally, each annual update will include detailed summaries of the alignment

between the LEA’s current year approved budget, prior year actual budget, and the master plan

goals and objectives.

In 2016, the Maryland General Assembly passed House Bill 999, the Commission on Innovation

and Excellence in Education, and House Bill 412, Assessment Administration and Provision of

Information. House Bill 999 outlines the reporting structure of the 2016 and 2017 master plan

annual updates, which limits specified requirements to be reported in the master plan for these

two years. House Bill 412 outlines assessment reporting details specified in the new Education

Article Section 7-203.3 for each assessment administered in each LEA, and the information that

shall be provided for each administrated assessment.

Additional details on House Bill 999, House Bill 412 and Section 7-203.3 revisions that must be

included in the 2016 and 2017 master plan annual updates are provided in Appendix A.

FCPS; Final 11.17.17 2017 BTE Master Plan Annual Update Page 1

BOARD OF EDUCATION

Frederick County Public Schools

Brad W. Young, President

Liz Barrett, Vice President

Michael Bunitsky

Colleen Cusimano

Ken Kerr

April Fleming Miller

Joy Schaefer

Will Anderson, Student Member

Superintendent of Schools

Theresa Alban

191 South East Street ● Frederick, Maryland 21701


2017 BTE Master Plan Local Planning Team

Name FCPS Department and Title

Michael Markoe Deputy Superintendent

System Accountability and School Improvement (SASI) Department

Jamie Aliveto Director of SASI

Natalie Gay Coordinator of Data Analysis and Research

Deborah Gilmartin Supervisor of State Assessment and Accountability

Kelly Merrbach Coordinator for Local Assessment and Intervention

Fiscal Services Department

Leslie Pellegrino Chief Financial Officer of Fiscal Services

Heather Clabaugh Budget Officer

Mellissa Rollison Financial Reporting Manager

Curriculum, Instruction, and Innovation (CII) Department

Kevin Cuppett Executive Director of CII

Colleen Beall Secondary Curriculum Specialist for Science

Colleen Bernard Secondary Curriculum Specialist for Social Studies

Peter Cincotta Secondary Curriculum Specialist for Mathematics

Chris Horne Elementary Curriculum Specialist for Science

Karen McGaha Elementary Curriculum Specialist for Language Arts/English

Debra Myers Elementary Curriculum Specialist for Mathematics

Sue Ann Nogle Secondary Curriculum Specialist for Language Arts/English

Accelerating Achievement and Equity (AAE) Department

Keith Harris Executive Director of AAE

Carol Breeze Director of Special Education and Student Support

Michelle Concepcion Director of Special Education Instruction and Student Performance

Margaret Lee Supervisor of Advanced Academics

Eric Phillips Supervisor of AAE

Larry Steinly Supervisor of English Learners (EL)


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Since 2002, when the Maryland General Assembly enacted the Bridge to Excellence (BTE) in

Public Schools Act, school systems have been required to develop a comprehensive master

plan, to be updated annually. Local education agencies (LEAs) have consistently described

goals, objectives, and strategies that are used to improve student achievement for all students

and to close the achievement gap.

For the 2016 and the 2017 annual update, the format of the master plan has been modified.

House Bill 999, the Commission on Innovation and Excellence in Education, and House Bill 412,

Assessment Administration and Provision of Information, are guiding the modifications and

requirements. A significant focus of the plan pertains to goals and strategies relating to the

performance of students receiving special education services and students with limited English

proficiency (i.e., English language learners). School systems must address students failing to

make progress towards meeting state performance standards. Budgetary influence as tied to

the goals continues to be a critical focus in the plan. Finally, school systems must detail all

assessments mandated by local, state, and/or federal authority.

ABOUT FREDE RI CK CO UNTY P UBLIC SCHOOLS

Frederick County Public Schools (FCPS) is a successful school system in a diverse and

growing community. Frederick County bridges rural, suburban, and urban lifestyles near

both the Washington, D.C., and Baltimore metropolitan communities.

In 2016-17, there were 41,3181 students enrolled in FCPS; thus, an increase of 665

students from the 2015-16 school year. The racial/ethnic composition of the student body

was: 61.8% white; 15.5% Hispanic/Latino; 11.9% black/African American; 5.3% Asian; 4.9%

two or more races; 0.4% American Indian/Alaskan Native; and 0.2% Native Hawaiian/Other

Pacific Islander.

FCPS serves students with varying needs, including 4,190 students with disabilities

(10%), 2,388 English learners (EL) (6%), and nearly 11,000 receiving free and/or reduced

meals (FARM) (27%)1.

Frederick County is home to 66 schools, including 36 elementary schools, 13 middle

schools, 10 high schools, three public charter schools, an alternative school, a special

education school, Flexible Evening High, and a Career and Technology Center (CTC). Plans

are underway to add two more elementary schools in the next three years.

FCPS balances top-rate academics with the personal caring and individual attention that

would be expected in a small town community. FCPS understands that the children it

educates today will be the adults caring for the community's health, homes, businesses, and

1 Based on September 30, 2016 enrollment.


neighborhoods tomorrow. Frederick County's investment in public education is an

investment in its future. The FCPS operating budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 is

$578,515,5312 and nearly 47% of its funding comes from its local county government.

Of 5,771 employees (full-time equivalent), approximately 2,940 are teachers, 140 are

principals and assistant principals, 145 are counselors or psychologists, and 860 are

instructional assistants. The remainder are bus drivers, food service workers, custodians,

office staff, and other central office support and administrative staff. FCPS employees are

champions of excellence who collaborate with parents, community members, and local

businesses to create an inspiring, safe, healthy, and nurturing academic environment for

students.

P ROG RESS SUMMARY

FCPS is an outstanding school system in the state of Maryland, and nationally:

Maryland has ranked among America's top states for top-quality public education from 2009-

2017 [Education Week's Quality Counts reports].

While Maryland continues to lead the nation in Advanced Placement (AP) scores, the mean

AP exam score for FCPS students (3.19) exceeded the state (3.01) and the nation (2.87) in

2016. The percent of students with AP scores three or better (i.e., based on a five-point

scale with three typically qualifying for college credit) was 72% for FCPS (n=4,462 exams)

compared to 64% at the state and 60% nationally.

FCPS students consistently outperform their state and national peers in academic

achievement measures, such as the College Board SAT. In fact, the mean SAT score for

FCPS students in 2016 was 1558 compared to the state at 1456 and the nation at 1484.

Students in the FCPS Class of 2017 received $41.1 million in scholarship offers.

(Not all were accepted, as some students received more than one offer.)

2 Includes state contribution to teacher pension fund.


The 2016 graduation rate was at a high of 92%, while the dropout rate was 4.7%.

Out of 1,000 employers surveyed, 99% indicated that FCPS students met or exceeded

workplace readiness standards.

While the master plan primarily focuses on one measure, state assessments, FCPS embraces a

culture of continuous improvement and focuses on multiple measures and outcomes when

evaluating its success. This plan highlights FCPS’ strengths but also the challenges that it

meets with critical reflection and courage.

FCP S ST RATEGIC PLAN AND MEASURABLE G OALS

While FCPS is excited to celebrate its

accomplishments, stakeholders also

recognize persistent gaps in achievement

for some student groups and embrace a

mindset of continual improvement. As

FCPS reflects on its performance from the

2016-17 school year, it is important to note

that it has completed its second year of

work with new aspirations, priorities, and

measurable goals. Along with the

aspirational goals and priorities, FCPS is

reporting regular progress on its 30

measurable goals that focus on both

quantitative and qualitative outcomes, with

many goals focusing on stakeholder

perception.

FCPS Aspirational Goals

Goal 1. FCPS will equip each and every student to be an empowered learner and engaged

citizen to achieve a positive impact in the local and global community.

Priority 1: FCPS will provide each and every student high quality instruction that fosters inquiry,creative thinking, complex problem solving, and collaboration.

Priority 2: FCPS will raise the achievement for all students and eliminate achievement gaps.

FCPS is committed to preparing its students for a variety of post-secondary opportunities. FCPS

recognizes that the quality of K-12 education will impact the lives of each of its students and the

school system embraces this responsibility. By specifying “each and every” student, FCPS is

institutionalizing a promise to ensure students possess the tools necessary to become the type

of learners and citizens that can thrive in the 21st Century. This will empower students to

positively impact the local and global stage, whether that be by pursuing further education or

entering the workforce or military.

Goal 2. FCPS will hire, support, and retain staff who champion individual, professional,

and student excellence.

Priority 3: FCPS will implement strategies to ensure a high quality and diverse workforce.


Priority 4: FCPS will support all staff by providing ongoing opportunities to grow as professionalsthroughout their career.

Research repeatedly demonstrates that great people drive better outcomes for students.3

FCPS has committed itself to creating a workforce that champions excellence from

themselves, their peers, and their students. This extends beyond the teaching staff. FCPS

believes that all staff members in the school system have an impact on student success, and

supports them in expecting and achieving the same level of excellence. FCPS is

determined to hire a workforce that combines a high-quality skillset with the cultural

competency and commitment to respond to its varied student needs.

Goal 3. FCPS will pursue and utilize resources strategically and responsibly to achieve

its objectives and inspire public confidence.

Priority 5: FCPS will provide equitable distribution of resources based on the varied needs ofstudents and schools.

Priority 6: FCPS will promote clear communication and transparency in allocation of resources.

FCPS, like many school systems across the country, is not immune to the vicissitudes and

challenges of the economic climate. Rather than falling victim to the pressures of the economic

situation, FCPS is committed to being proactive. In addition to advocating for the resources it

needs, it will seek to utilize its resources in a strategic manner that ensures the greatest positive

impact on student outcomes and the broader community.

Goal 4. FCPS will nurture relationships with families and the entire community, sharing

responsibility for students’ success and demonstrating pride in all aspects of our school

system.

Priority 7: FCPS will encourage and sustain collaborations with families and the entire communityto support student success.

Priority 8: FCPS will equip staff with the knowledge and tools necessary to be positiveambassadors who build support for our goals and initiatives.

As evident in the vision statement, FCPS prides itself on being an integral part of the larger

Frederick County community. That being said, it also recognizes that strong and lasting

relationships are not guaranteed; strong relationships require work and commitment. The

school system must initiate action to include the larger community in any and all endeavors to

improve student outcomes and ensure student success. FCPS will nurture relationships with

families, individual community members, and community partners to unify support to students

while simultaneously building county-wide pride in the school system.

Goal 5. FCPS will promote a culture fostering wellness and civility for students and staff.

Priority 9: FCPS will promote and maintain a safe and respectful environment.

Priority 10: FCPS will foster personal well-being and health among students and staff throughincreased awareness and engagement on these topics.

FCPS cannot achieve its goals without prioritizing the health and wellness of its students and

staff. Scholastic success can only be built and sustained on the bedrock of safe and healthy

3 http://www.rand.org/education/projects/measuring-teacher-effectiveness/teachers-matter.html


http://www.rand.org/education/projects/measuring-teacher-effectiveness/teachers-matter.html
































































environments for all. This not only includes physical safety, but also extends to health and well-

being in a variety of areas, including emotional and behavioral wellness. FCPS feels these

sentiments need to be expressed explicitly as a goal because it permeates into so much of the

work that the school system does and is necessary to ensure obtainment of the vision.

MASTE R P LAN REPORTI NG

The 2017 Master Plan Annual Update contains important progress updates. However, FCPS

values a multiple-measures approach to the continuous strategic improvement (CSI) process.

Therefore, strategic plan goal reporting provided to the Board of Education (BOE) of Frederick

County will serve as the most comprehensive and current review of system progress.

The BTE Master Plan best aligns to FCPS Aspirational Goals 1 and 3.

Goal 1. FCPS will equip each and every student to be an empowered learner and engaged

citizen to achieve a positive impact in the local and global community.

Priority 1: FCPS will provide each and every student high quality instruction that fosters

inquiry, creative thinking, complex problem solving, and collaboration.

Priority 2: FCPS will raise the achievement for all students and eliminate achievement gaps.

Goal 3. FCPS will pursue and utilize resources strategically and responsibly to achieve its

objectives and inspire public confidence.

Priority 5: FCPS will provide equitable distribution of resources based on the varied needs of

students and schools.

Priority 6: FCPS will promote clear communication and transparency in allocation of

resources.

As shown in Figures 1 and 2 on page 10, FCPS consistently performs well above the state in

English language arts (ELA) and math. Note: FCPS recognizes the Maryland State Department

of Education’s (MSDE) eventual target of the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for

College and Career (PARCC) performance levels 4-5 to evaluate student proficiency. However,

the FCPS 2017 Master Plan Annual Update highlights performance levels 3-5 since MSDE’s

graduation assessment requirement for students who took the test for the first time in the 2016-

17 school year included levels 3-5. Not only does FCPS outperform the state, consistent

positive trends are evident from the 2015 to 2017 PARCC administration in all but two assessed

grades and content areas (see Figures 3 and 4 on page 11).

FCPS continues to see mostly positive trends (some stagnant) in student performance on

PARCC [see Figures 5 and 6 for elementary school (pages 12-13), 7 and 8 for middle school

(pages 14-15), and 9 and 10 for high school (pages 16-17) student group trends]. In addition,

the data reveals a prevalence of positive performance trends among many FCPS student

groups. PARCC performance at the elementary and secondary levels increased among the

following student groups—American Indian, Asian, black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, and

white students, as well as students receiving FARM. American Indian and white students

demonstrated increases in math performance at all three levels, while students with special

needs increased at the elementary and secondary levels.


Figure 2. Goal 1: Performance on Accountability Tests—2017 PARCC Math Results (Levels 3-5)—Math State Comparison/Rank

Figure 1. Goal 1: Performance on Accountability Tests—2017 PARCC ELA Results (Levels 3-5)—ELA State Comparison/Rank


Figure 3. Goal 1: Performance on Accountability Tests—2015-2017 PARCC ELA Results (Levels 3-5)—ELA Trend

Figure 4. Goal 1: Performance on Accountability Tests—2015-2017 PARCC Math Results (Levels 3-5)—Math Trend


Figure 5. Goal 1: Performance on Accountability Tests—PARCC Elementary ELA (Levels 3-5)—Student Group Trends (2015-2017)


Figure 6. Goal 1: Performance on Accountability Tests—PARCC Elementary Math (Levels 3-5)—Student Group Trends (2015-2017)


Figure 7. Goal 1: Performance on Accountability Tests—PARCC Middle School ELA (Levels 3-5)—Student Group Trends (2015-2017)


Figure 10. Goal 1: Performance on Accountability Tests—PARCC Algebra 1 (Levels 3-5)—Student Group Trends (2015-2017)


Figure 8. Goal 1: Performance on Accountability Tests—PARCC Middle School Math with Algebra 1 (Levels 3-5)—Student Group Trends (2015-2017)


Figure 9. Goal 1: Performance on Accountability Tests—PARCC English 10 (Levels 3-5)—Student Group Trends (2015-2017)


Not only is the performance increasing among many student groups, it is increasing for the

overall student population (i.e., “all student group”). Therefore, achievement gaps by

race/ethnicity and special services still exist when compared to “all students”. Table 1 displays

the most significant and consistent gaps that are evident in the FCPS PARCC data.

Table 1. Achievement Gaps (%)—Identified Student Groups Compared to All Students

Based on 2015-2017 PARCC Results, Performance Band 3-5

Black/ African

American

Hispanic/ Latino

ELL Free/

Reduced Meals

Special Education

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

15

20

16

20

17

EL

A

16 15 13 15 14 13 57 56 57 20 20 20 51 50 49

MA

TH

19 15 16 15 14 15 47 45 50 19 20 20 45 45 44

In previous years, High School Assessment (HSA) results have been reported by test

performance status (i.e., only the highest score for a student taking the assessment was

included) by the end of grade 12. However, for both 2016 and 2017 master plan updates, HSA

data are analyzed and reported to parallel PARCC reporting (i.e., each test score for any

student who took the test that year is reported). Thus, Figure 11 data shows all administrations

of HSA in a testing year, including multiple assessments taken by a student (as opposed to the

highest score for a student). As demonstrated by three years of data in Figure 11, student

performance on Biology and Government HSA remains strong.

Figure 11. Goal 1. Biology and Government High School Assessments—2015-2017—HSA Trends


SY STEMI C ST RATEGIES

FCPS’ Division of Academics, Communication, Technology, and Student Achievement (ACTS)4

has recognized that the CSI process must be focused and research-based. Central leaders

have established a multi-year plan to focus professional learning across the school system for

central leadership, school-based leadership, and teachers. There have been significant efforts

across the system to collaborate and coordinate such that all professional learning is connected

and meaningful.

FCPS is implementing a multi-layered, yet highly integrated, approach to closing achievement

gaps. The following frameworks and actions will align the work across central office

departments and ultimately improve schools for students. Figure 12 below illustrates the

strategies being used by FCPS to guide improvement efforts. Four core strategies—accelerated

learning process (ALP), cultural proficiency, Framework for Teaching, and personalized

learning—are guiding all learning and improvement in FCPS schools. A brief description of each

core strategy, i.e., a “compelling why” statement, is provided next.

4 Comprised of the Accelerating Achievement and Equity (AAE), Curriculum, Instruction and Innovation (CII), School

Administration and Leadership (SAL), Communications, Community Engagement & Marketing, Technology Infrastructure (TI), and System Accountability and School Improvement (SASI) departments.

Figure 12. FCPS Continuous Improvement—ACTS Pipeline for Student Success


Accelerated Learning Process

In response to the need for a systemic process that provides ongoing job-embedded

professional learning, educator collaboration, and continuous, collective assessment of student

learning with the specific goal of transforming teaching and learning, FCPS created the ALP.

This process requires regular meetings that offer an opportunity for educators to:

Monitor student learning.

Administer data-driven decisions that promote differentiated instruction.

Share instructional best practices.

Examine student work.

The ALP is designed to ensure systemic terminology, protocols, and research-based practices.

Cultural Proficiency

FCPS students are entitled to a welcoming, inclusive environment where they are highly

engaged in learning and afforded equitable opportunities to participate in a full range of

activities, curricula, and services. FCPS must honor, respect, and value diversity while ensuring

high academic standards and achievement levels for all students.

FCPS must actively:

Promote curriculum that fosters cultural competency.

Expect respect for students’ identities and backgrounds.

Tailor instruction to support diverse learning styles.

Ensure highly effective educators for all students.

Differentiate resources to support varying school and student needs.

Framework for Teaching

The Framework for Teaching5 is an instrument to support and enhance the professional growth

of teachers as they continuously strive towards increased student achievement. When used

with fidelity, the instrument offers a common language that promotes coaching conversations

between teacher and evaluator; thus, resulting in an increase in overall teacher effectiveness. It

shifts the traditional paradigm associated with teacher observation from evaluative to a coaching

model that encompasses goal setting and individualized professional growth in the areas of

planning, classroom management, instruction, and professionalism. These elements assure a

comprehensive arrangement for professional learning.

Personalized Learning

Personalized learning is intended to facilitate the academic success of each student by first

determining the learning needs, interests, and aspirations of individual students, and then

creating learning experiences that are customized, to a greater or lesser extent, for each

5 http://www.danielsongroup.org/framework/


student. Blended learning is the practice of leveraging technology to create a personalized,

competency-based learning experience, including increased student ownership over the time,

place, path, and/or pace of learning. Blended learning brings the best of traditional instruction

together with the most relevant and appropriate online and technology-supported instructional

innovations to create a variety of integrated instructional experiences

ACTS Division’s Strategies to Support System Initiatives

As FCPS division leaders work to engage system and school leaders (as well as teachers in this

work), they champion four strategies to enhance instructional leadership and accelerate

academic achievement for all FCPS students. The four strategies include: (a) capacity building,

(b) coaching, (c) conversations, and (d) courage (see Figure 13). These strategies will support

attainment of FCPS aspirational goals and advance ACTS’ four identified initiatives—ALP,

cultural proficiency with a growth mindset, Framework for Teaching, and personalized learning.

Figure 13 represents the four values that must be embraced to move FCPS forward in learning

and aligned actions.

Figure 13. Strategies to Enhance Instructional Leadership and Academic Achievement—Capacity Building, Coaching, Conversations, and Courage


S CHOOL -SPECI FI C ST RATEGIES ( T A R G E T I N G S P E C I A L S T U D E N T P O P U L A T I O N S )

Collaborative Improvement Process

As a school system, FCPS has many foundational pieces in place to drive continuous

improvement in schools. Data systems are available to provide easy access to essential data

points identified by system leaders, system targets have been set, and a continuous strategic

improvement planning tool exists to support improvement aligned with the FCPS Strategic Plan.

Finally, school teams have shifted from a one-time event to continuous progress monitoring and

adjusting school plans on an as-needed basis.

CIP Workgroup

While FCPS has some critical components in place to be well-poised for the implementation of

Maryland’s Consolidated State Accountability Plan under the new Every Student Succeeds Act

(ESSA), a diverse group of stakeholders gathered to plan the system’s new Collaborative

Improvement Process (CIP). The CIP will be leveraged to support schools identified as

Targeted School Improvement or Comprehensive School Improvement by the state.

CIP Research-Based Approach

The CIP workgroup reviewed extensive research on school improvement, turnaround schools,

and leadership. Using this knowledge as well as knowledge gained from the collective practical

experience of the workgroup, the CIP Plan was proposed. The essence of the CIP Plan is

captured by the thinking from a 2013 study by Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom6:

“Collaborative district cultures nourished by networks and PLCs, according to this study,

stimulate the learning of new forms of instruction and support staff members as they struggle to

implement what they learn. Finally, this study found that a focus on setting targets for improving

learning and uses of evidence by monitoring progress towards these targets, in the absence of

such collaborative district cultures, actually had negative effects on student achievement. So

careful data use for diagnosing weaknesses, setting targets, and monitoring progress?

Absolutely. Multiple sources of data about achievement and improvement strategies? Very

important! But in a collaborative and supportive district context? Essential.”

In a review of the research on school improvement and turnaround schools, it is clear that a

focus on high-yield leadership, high-yield instruction, and building a culture of belief should

provide a framework for the work done in schools. In an article on principal and teacher

effectiveness and school turnarounds, New Leaders for New Schools (2009)7 claim “nearly 60%

of a school’s impact on student achievement is attributable to principal and teacher

effectiveness” and that in order to have breakthroughs in achievement gains, principals need

“strong training programs committed to ongoing improvement as well as policy and system

contexts to support this new vision of effectiveness.”

While many of the previous intervention efforts for FCPS schools have focused on ensuring

quality instruction, previous efforts may not have explicitly focused on leadership and a culture

6 https://www.scoe.org/files/Strong_Districts-Excerpt.pdf 7 http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532064.pdf


of belief. In a study commissioned by The Wallace Foundation (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, &

Wahlstrom, 20048), the authors state:

“It turns out that leadership not only matters: it is second only to teaching among school-related

factors in its impact on student learning and “the impact of leadership tends to be greatest in

schools where the learning needs of students are most acute.”

School systems across the country know the importance of school leadership and often work to

put the best leaders in schools with the greatest needs. However, what makes a school leader

effective? The new 2015 Professional Standards for Educational Leaders9 (released by the

National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA) promote ten standards with 83

effective leader statements. The NPBEA claims these standards “can be a guiding force to

states and leadership preparation programs as they identify and develop the specific

knowledge, skills, dispositions, and other characteristics required of educational leaders to

achieve real student success in school.” By using these standards as a starting point, the CIP

will narrow the focus on high-yield leadership according to the research.

FCPS already has a strong focus on high-yield instruction and uses the 2013 Framework for

Teaching to narrow the focus for school leaders as they explore the concept of quality

instruction in their schools. Finally, one of the components identified by The Urban Excellence

Framework (2009)7 that is critical to achieving transformative results is “developing an

achievement- and belief-based school-wide culture” in which “every aspect of the school’s

work reinforces the messages, “school is important,” “you can do it,” “we’re here to help,” and

“you and we are responsible for your success.”

CIP Theoretical Framework

By using a collaborative culture of inquiry focused on high-yield instruction, high-yield

8 http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/How-Leadership-Influences-Student-Learning.pdf 9 http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2015/ProfessionalStandardsforEducationalLeaders2015forNPBEAFINAL.pdf

Figure 14. Continuous Improvement Process and Culture of Inquiry Theoretical Framework


leadership, and ensuring a culture of belief (see Figure 14), FCPS will achieve the measurable

goals in the FCPS Strategic Plan and ensure FCPS schools meet with success in the state’s

accountability plan.

Culture of Inquiry Process

In the typical CSI process, school teams review data, analyze data to prioritize needs, and then

develop an action plan that is routinely monitored and revised. The Culture of Inquiry process

requires a deeper dive into evidence in an attempt to allow actions to be more impactful. While

the three areas for study are defined—instruction, leadership, and culture—school teams would

use their analysis of the data to identify a focused inquiry area. Once an area of leadership,

instruction, and culture is selected, individuals or teams would determine additional evidence to

gather. A collaborative team would explore this evidence to translate the collective insight into

action. See Figure 15 for illustration of this process. Upon measuring this impact (via additional

aligned evidence), teams either continue to adjust actions based on insights or establish a new

area for focused inquiry. According to Chaplot, Booth, and Johnstone (2013)10, building a

culture of inquiry allows stakeholders to:

“Construct thoughtful questions to better understand the student experience, face realities

about the status quo, collect and examine various types of data, interpret the evidence

among colleagues, and collectively engage in passionate discourse on how to interpret this

evidence and use it to inform action.”

Linking Youth to New eXperiences (LYNX) at Frederick High

It was a deliberate decision to have the Linking Youth to New eXperiences (LYNX) high school

be a comprehensive public school that encompassed all students within the school, not just a

select student population. The overarching goal was to create a totally new model for the 21st

Century high school experience that could be replicated. While LYNX at Frederick High School

10 http://www.completionbydesign.org/sites/default/files/site-uploads/main-site/pdf/ncii-inquiry-guides-building-a-culture-of-inquiry.pdf

Define a Focus of Inquiry

Gather Relevant and Meaningful Evidence

Engage a Broad Range of Practitioners in Exploring the

Evidence

Translate Collective

Insight into Action

Measure the Impact of

Action

Need Continued Refinement Ready for New Inquiry Focus

Figure 15. Culture of Inquiry Framework by Chaplot, Booth, and Johnstone (2013)


(FHS) is being highlighted as a school-specific strategy, it is imperative to note the intention of

FCPS is to replicate this model.

LYNX Goals

The goal of the LYNX program is to accelerate achievement and ensure equity for students. To

accomplish this goal, the program aims to:

Provide individualized, self-directed learning opportunities for every student in

accordance with a personal plan for success that is developed by each student with the

assistance of education and business advocates and parents or guardians.

Allow the student to select academic course work, the method of instruction, and the

pace of learning that works best for the individual student.

Allow the student to participate in and move between project-based learning (PBL)

experiences at the high school and college levels and work, internship, or apprenticeship

experiences focused on college and career readiness competencies as an integral part

of the student’s curriculum.

LYNX Main Program Components

The LYNX Program has four main components:

1. Flexible Schedule—Provide a flexible schedule to

meet the diverse needs of students.

Students at LYNX will have flexibility within a

framework or structure to construct a schedule from

available course offerings that meets their unique

needs and interests. There is no “typical student” at

LYNX; therefore, there is no “typical day.” Students

can schedule face-to-face courses and access

technology and online options during evening hours

in the learning lab. Students may also schedule off-site learning experiences during the

day, such as Career and Technology Education (CTE), dual enrollment, and

opportunities with business partners.

2. Innovative Instruction—Offer innovative instruction (learning) and assessment options

for students.

Students at LYNX will have innovative instruction and assessment options to personalize

their learning experiences. Students in Year 1 will have access to traditional coursework,

blended learning, course options through Frederick County Virtual School (FCVS), and

PBL. Students will also have the ability to explore the option of meeting some course

requirements with “competency by demonstrated mastery.” Transdisciplinary courses,

competency-based learning, and individualized online options are in the development

stages for the future at LYNX.

3. Advocacy—Provide strong advocacy with a focus on personal plans for success.


Students at LYNX will pursue their personal plans for success in school, work, and life

with the continuous support of a coherent network of adults. From grade 8 through

graduation, students will chart their educational path in partnership with parents and

family members, school-based advocates, and business and community partners. At

LYNX, the ultimate goal is for students to advocate for themselves.

4. Partnerships—Utilize business and community partnerships to link students to

experiences.

Students at LYNX will be provided real-world learning experiences with business and

community partners in a variety of settings. From their first year at LYNX through

graduation, students engage with business and community partners through school-

based virtual interactions, field trips, job shadowing experiences, internships,

apprenticeships, and work-study opportunities.

Why Frederick High School?

After careful examination, FHS was selected as the first school for initial implementation of the

LYNX program. FHS, located in an urban area of Frederick County, serves a large majority-

minority student population. In fact, 38% of the first LYNX cohort (n=297) are Hispanic/Latino,

26% are white, 20% are black/African American,

9% are Asian, and 7% are two or more races.

Approximately 15% are EL students and to a

lesser degree, 7% are students with disabilities.

In addition to a diverse student population,

there is evidence of significant achievement

gaps at FHS as measured by various data

points—performance on state assessments,

graduation and dropout rates, and college

enrollment. Considering the many challenges

faced by FHS and its students, implementation

of a new school model, such as LYNX, was

viewed as the best opportunity to support

school improvement while increasing student

achievement and promoting college and career

readiness. Other factors aiding in this

determination were the support by FCPS

leadership and staff, FCPS’ existing relationship with educational and business communities,

and the construction of a new facility for FHS. The design of LYNX will transform FHS, a

majority-minority public high school, into a dynamic learning community encompassing

students, educators, advocates, and families valuing and promoting a “student-first climate.”

LYNX Legislation

In order for LYNX to go from being a mere concept to reality, legislation was necessary to

provide the FCPS superintendent and the BOE of Frederick County unprecedented flexibility to

provide personalized learning opportunities for every student. In May 2016, Senate Bill 1126

was passed to authorize the creation of the Frederick County LYNX School. The legislation


indicates that the LYNX School is a public high school under the authority of the FCPS

superintendent and the local BOE. The legislation acknowledges the purpose of the program.

Senate Bill 1126 required the superintendent to submit an implementation plan—describing the

program, proposed curriculum, evaluation procedures, performance standards, and graduation

standards—for the LYNX School by September 30, 2016. With the exception of a few state

regulations [i.e., Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) personnel, school year/day, and

assessment requirements], the bill authorized waivers to state regulations in other areas in

order to carry out the plan. Most importantly, this allowed the LYNX School to provide flexibility

for students to earn credit for approved learning experiences that are standards-based,

curricula-aligned, and competency-demonstrated rather than rely exclusively on Carnegie units

as the sole performance measure by which students may earn credit.

LYNX Implementation

After a planning year in 2016-17, the 2017-18 freshman class at FHS are the first LYNX cohort

to enter the school. FCPS staff are excited to continue to innovate as FCPS accelerates

learning for all students and eliminate achievement gaps.

ACCE LE RAT ING ACHIEVEME NT AND E QUI TY

As shared in the 2016 Master Plan Annual Update, FCPS created a department for Accelerating

Achievement and Equity (AAE). The department includes advanced academics staff, special

education staff, and EL staff, as well as, staff working to accelerate achievement and equity for

all students with a focus on building cultural proficiency. The sections that follow provide an

overview of the goals set forth in the 2016-17 school year by the AAE department, related

accomplishments, and alignment to the FCPS Strategic Plan.


In addition to the work of the AAE department, the following section also discusses

Collaborative Professional Learning (CPL), which is a systemic collaboration between the

departments of AAE, Curriculum, Instruction and Innovation (CII), School Administration and

Leadership (SAL), and the System Accountability and School Improvement (SASI) to support

schools working with students struggling to meet grade level standards.

Special Education (Students with Disabilities)

FCPS has made great strides in the Special Education and Psychological Services department

(within AAE). With the addition of another director focused primarily on instructional outcomes

for students, along with the continued focus on compliance, thus far, FCPS has been able to

accomplish many things as noted below.

Highly Effective Staff and Professional Learning

Special Education Observation/Evaluation Framework. The Special Education

Teacher Observation/Evaluation Form and corresponding rubric were revised to align

with current standards and expectation for teaching students with disabilities. A

workgroup, led by the President of the Frederick County Teachers Associations (FCTA)

and the executive director of AAE, comprised of teachers and administrators from all

levels and types of programs and related service providers completed these revisions in

2016-17 (aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 2, Priority 4).

Professional Learning. In the 2016-17 school year, professional learning for all FCPS employees was ongoing and included (aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 2, Priority 4):

- Monthly sessions for benefited and non-benefitted special education instructional

assistants (SEIA) were offered system-wide and by feeder. Twenty-five sessions

were conducted and over 500 SEIAs attended. Session topics included: the role

of the SEIA, data collection, disability awareness, behavior strategies, and

fostering student independence.

- Sessions with special education and general education teachers on a variety of

topics related to meeting the instructional needs of students with disabilities.

- Monthly training with school-based administrators on how to support the needs of

struggling learners.

- Monthly training for all central office special education staff to better equip staff in

responding to the needs of school-based staff, families, and the community at-

large.

Standards-Based Individual Education Programs (IEPs). During the February

professional learning day, all special education teachers and related service providers

engaged in a full-day training on developing high-quality standards-based IEPs to

address the individual functional and academic needs of students. An internal audit of

close to 400 confidential files was completed. Follow-up training opportunities will occur

throughout the remainder of the year. (Aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 2, Priority 4)


Curriculum and Service Delivery

Elementary Level ELA Literacy Workgroup. This workgroup has established

guidelines for effective implementation of an elementary ELA program that provides

additional instructional time for struggling learners. Selected schools (5 elementary) will

field test the literacy program with data analysis and progress monitoring to evaluate

program effectiveness in 2017-18. (Aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 2, Priority 4)

Speech and Language Workgroup. This workgroup has established guidelines in

order to promote an equitable and consistent service delivery model for effective

implementation of speech and language services. Selected schools will field test the

implementation of the model and then model speech schedules through recommended

guidelines during 2017-18. The recommendations will support standardized

implementation and practice. (Aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 2, Priority 4)

Special Education Staffing Model. The special education staffing model was revised

and will assign staff based on caseload size per special education teacher. This model

will be implemented in 2017-18. Teachers will realize an overall reduced number of

students for whom they are responsible for providing case management. (Aligned to

FCPS Aspirational Goal 3, Priority 5)

Streamlining the SEIA Request Process. The SEIA request process was streamlined

to make the process less burdensome and to accelerate the timeline when a decision is

made. (Aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 3, Priority 5)

Behavioral Interventions and Supports (BIS). In 2016-17, BIS were implemented in schools. There are currently five certified BIS staff working to support all students. To date, BIS staff has provided consultation and direct services for 199 students (87 of those students are provided ongoing support). On average, FCPS receives 16.6 new referrals per month. Over 1,200 visits to schools have been made to observe

students, consult with school teams, and to provide professional learning and

instructional coaching to staff. (Aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 3, Priority 5)

Behavioral Intervention Plans (BIPs). The BIPs processes for staff and students were

updated in 2016-17. (Aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 5, Priority 9)

Parent/Family Engagement

Several parent/family engagement-related activities occurred in 2016-17. These included (aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 4, Priority 7):

Two family engagement nights were held for students, families, and staff that focused on

developing skills for Pyramid Program students for transition into college and careers.

Family engagement nights for families to learn about and meet with outside agencies

that support transitional assistance. In addition, families were invited to a SUCCESS

dinner to allow students to showcase their skills. This student-hosted event, well-

attended by families and staff, included roundtable discussions for parents.

Two early childhood family nights were offered in an effort to increase family

partnerships with teachers and/or related services providers.


A parent survey was developed and administered to gather feedback from parents to

guide continuous improvement regarding the IEP process.

Continuous Progress Monitoring

Efforts that support compliance, data analysis, and progress monitoring are ongoing. Some of

these efforts include (aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 2, Priority 4):

State Performance Plans (SPP) and Annual Performance Reports (APR). In

collaboration with MSDE, compliance with SPPs and APRs are monitored through the

Notice of Performance Reports. The information is shared and analyzed by staff in the

special education/AAE department in small and large group forums and through

collaboration between special education and general education departments.

Data Analysis and Monitoring. FCPS student and systemic data are monitored and

analyzed through eSchool, RADAR11, and the online IEP by the special education/AAE

department and through collaboration between special education and general education

departments.

Site Visits. Site visits to all specialized and general special education programs were

conducted in 2016-17. These visits have provided opportunities to gather information

and insight on the successes and challenges of meeting the needs of students with

disabilities and to receive feedback from staff on necessary program enhancements and

improvements.

English Learners (Limited English Proficient)

As goals and accomplishments are considered, it is imperative to acknowledge EL enrollment is

an ongoing challenge for FCPS as it has been somewhat unpredictable (see enrollment trends

in Figure 16). FHS alone enrolled 100+ new EL students, many with limited or no formal

schooling, over a four-month period this fall/winter.

11 A FCPS-developed data access tool, Resource for Accountability, Data Analysis, and Reporting (RADAR).

2061

2440

1807

2105

2354

750

1250

1750

2250

2750

1-Aug 31-Oct June

2016-17

2015-16

2014-15

2013-14

2012-13

2011-12

2010-11

2009-10

Figure 16. English Learners—Growth Trend in Enrollment


Even with this challenge, FCPS met established MSDE EL performance standards for both

AMAOs 1 and 2. Further, all students who took English 12 during the summer of 2017 to meet

graduation requirements passed.

EL students are assessed on the same content as all other students and scored in the same

manner as all other students. EL students also must take mainstream assessments after only

one year in the United States. In addition, approximately 10-15% of elementary, 15-20% middle,

and 25-35% of high school EL students have limited or interrupted formal schooling upon

enrolling in FCPS. Therefore, success on PARCC assessments is an onerous challenge for this

student group. PARCC assessments require strong academic language skills in the assessed

areas. Research states that ELs typically learn conversational English within one to two years;

however, academic language/vocabulary skills take five to seven years on average to achieve

success at grade level in English. EL students with interrupted or no formal schooling can take

seven to ten years to reach grade level English language literacy. This data holds true

regardless of the student’s home language, country of origin, and socioeconomic status. In

order for FCPS to accelerate achievement for EL students, strategies and services beyond the

core curriculum program will be required.

Accomplishments from the 2016-17 school year include the following:

Curriculum and Service Delivery

An EL alternative program’s innovative design provides a more flexible schedule and

language development through PBL to support acculturation to Frederick County and

long-term goals of seeking employment or a GED. Program implementation is contingent

on available funding. (Aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 1, Priority 2)

Two newly mathematic courses (Foundations) were developed to be implemented in

2017-18 at the secondary level to help students advance faster in this area. (Aligned to

FCPS Aspirational Goal 1, Priority 2)

EL middle school curriculum has been updated with consistent formative assessments.

(Aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 1, Priority 2)

Plans were developed to decentralize the secondary EL program during 2017-18 at

Governor Thomas Johnson High School and Governor Thomas Johnson Middle School.

(Aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 3, Priority 5)

The ELLevation platform, which organizes all EL information and data into one

dashboard, was successfully implemented. This allows for teachers, specialists, and

administrators to collaborate on individual EL instruction plan and goals, communicate

with parents and access district wide aggregate assessment data. Teacher training has

begun to ensure that the platform is used to its fullest potential. (Aligned to FCPS

Aspirational Goal 4, Priority 7)


Professional Learning

Phase II of the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) was implemented at

designated schools. (Aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 3, Priority 5)

Students Failing to Meet or Make Progress Towards Meeting State Performance

Standards

Achievement Targets and Equity

The ACTS division leadership team conducts ongoing work to collaboratively establish rigorous

and measurable achievement targets for all student groups. Progress monitoring towards

attainment of these targets occurs as part of regularly scheduled ACTS division leadership

meetings with CII, AAE, SASI, and SAL leaders, as well as the larger Administrative

Leadership (AL) and Instructional Leadership (IL), Multiplier, and school-based leadership

meetings (aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 1, Priority 2).

Professional Learning

During 2016-17, several professional learning opportunities related to building cultural

proficiency and ensuring equity were provided to FCPS staff. Specifically, the AAE department:

Provided sessions on competency building on cultural proficiency for all FCPS school-

based administrators, teacher-leaders, and Business Services Group (BSG) members

(aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 2, Priority 4). This included:


- Twenty-one meetings12 with administrators at various leadership meetings—AL,

IL, Superintendent’s Leadership Team (SLT), and Multipliers

- Twenty-one meetings12 with teacher-leaders—Education Equity Act, cultural

proficiency representative

- Ten meetings12 with school-based, teacher groups, and/or central office teams

- Two meetings12 with community groups

- Various small team meetings, led by the equity teacher specialist and AAE

supervisor, with community groups [e.g., YMCA, Boys & Girls Club, Police

Activity League (PAL), Frederick City Police/Fire & Rescue]

Began work with BSG staff and Human Resources to assess the degree to which FCPS

practices are culturally proficient (aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 2, Priority 3).

- Professional learning sessions and collaboration occurred with SASI, Fiscal, and

Construction Management groups.

- SLT and AL meetings provided an opportunity to work with members of BSG.

During the course of the year, professional learning was provided to equity

representatives from each FCPS school on at least five different occasions at educator

effectiveness academy (EEA) meetings and half-day sessions.

The equity teacher specialist was able to conduct two book studies using Culturally

Proficient Teaching & The

Brain with at least 30

school-based equity

representatives.

The “Dimensions of Diversity”

wheel shows the complexity of the

diversity filters through which we

process stimuli and information.

That, in turn, leads to the

assumptions we make (usually

about the behaviors of other

people), which ultimately drive our

own behaviors, which have an

impact on others. Internal, external

and organizational factors make

each of us who we are.

Figure 17 is an illustration of the

dimension wheel that is used by

12 Number of sessions conducted in 2016-2017 with specified group.

Figure 17. Dimensions of Diversity Wheel


AAE department staff when conducting professional learning throughout FCPS on cultural and

equitable practices.

Community Partnerships

The AAE department aims to continue establishing and solidifying relationships within the

community, Maryland school districts, and organizations connected to the work of cultural

proficiency and minority achievement (aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 4, Priority 7).

Presentations and/or meetings occurred with the following groups:

Eliminating Achievement Gaps (EAG); Frederick Center; Family Involvement Title 1

Team (FITT); YMCA; PAL; City Police; Fire and Rescue; Sheriff's Department; Boys &

Girls Club; Frederick County Government; Frederick Rotary

Maryland school districts—Carroll, Howard, Baltimore, Winchester (West Va.), Berkeley

(West Va.); Part of the Education That is Multicultural Act (ETMA) MSDE group

Corwin Publishing to provide professional learning on cultural proficiency.

Collaborative Professional Learning for Intervention

While FCPS has always had a strong Response to Intervention (RtI) model in place to support

any student who may not be achieving at grade level standard, staff are excited to be

participating in Collaborative Professional Learning (CPL) for Intervention in 2017-18. Staff in

the departments of AAE, CII, SAL, and SASI are collaborating to plan, train, and support all

schools as they work with students struggling to meet grade level standards. This professional

learning opportunity pulls together FCPS staff—a content specialist, a special education

teacher, an EL teacher, an interventionist, and the building leader—to build and/or reinforce the

concept of a core literacy team or core math team who will work together to respond to student

needs.

FCPS leaders hold a strong belief that it is only with collective capacity and convergence of skill

sets that will own the learning of each student and ultimately begin to close achievement gaps.

CPL for Intervention is an avenue for accomplishing this goal. Regardless of whether or not a

student is identified with a disability, classified as an English learner, has a learner profile for a

student who may have dyslexia, dyscalculia, or dysgraphia, and/or is a student who is simply

not meeting grade level standards in ELA or mathematics, these core teams will develop their

expertise to intervene for any student.

LOCAL ASSESSME NT FRAME WORK

As a routine practice, FCPS monitors and responds to achievement data throughout the school

year. The FCPS local assessment framework has played a critical role in the system’s ability to

monitor performance and inform action. Accelerating achievement and ensuring equity for all

students is at the forefront of the work in FCPS as detailed in the strategic plan.

To this end, FCPS central office staff conduct regular reviews of systemic data to facilitate a

timely response and support for schools. Staff from the SAL, AAE, CII, and SASI departments

meet to review school and student performance as local assessment results are collected

throughout the year. Schools are responsible for meeting systemic targets in their CSI plans and


use FCPS local assessments to monitor progress along the way. For a comprehensive look at

FCPS required assessments, see Table 52 on page 126.

BUDGET NARRATI VE

System Priorities

The FCPS Strategic Plan served as the foundational document for developing the FY2018

budget as well as planning efforts. The plan includes five aspirational goals and correlating

priorities that reflect the core vision of FCPS schools and students (see FCPS Strategic Plan

and Measurable Goals).

Fiscal Outlook

Enrollment

Over the past several years, FCPS has experienced minimal increases in student enrollment.

However, according to projections, FCPS is entering a period of growth. From 2016 to 2017,

there was an increase of more than 600 students. According to projections, FCPS will need to

accommodate for approximately 3,900 new students between 2016 and 2026. Thus, FCPS will

need additional capital funding during these years considering many of FCPS schools are

currently at or near capacity. In addition to needing funding for new facilities, ongoing

maintenance in the operating budget will be strained as the majority of existing facilities are over

25 years old. Although both state and local formula funding are designed to address enrollment

growth, the additional revenues often lag behind the need.

Unemployment

Unemployment in Frederick County has decreased from a high of 6.8% in 2009 (at the height of

the recession) to a current rate of 3.7%. This rate is below the state unemployment rate, and

almost a full percentage point below the national rate. This faster-than-average decline in

unemployment is often attributed to the proximity of the county to both Baltimore and

Washington D.C., and consequently Frederick County’s per capita income remains in the top

third of all Maryland counties.

Poverty

The number of students who qualified for FARM increased 1.4% from 10,965 students in

October 2015 to 11,115 students in October 201613. The overall FARM percent of total

enrollment remained relatively flat, decreasing slightly from 26.92% to 26.84%13. The FARM

rate is attributable to local economic conditions as well as FCPS management’s efforts to

improve communication and identification techniques for the program. The increase in students

receiving FARM allows FCPS to provide nutritious meals to its neediest students which ultimate

leads to improved student performance.

13 Source: Food and Nutrition Services


Special Needs

The number of students with disabilities increased from 4,424 students in October 2015 to 4,499

in October 2016, a 1.70% increase14. The overall FY2018 Operating Budget included a

$3,916,531 increase in the category of special education. This 6.7% increase over the prior

year’s budget is reflective of the increasing demand for special education services.

English Language Learners

The number of EL students continues to increase. A significant number of students new to

Frederick County have limited English language skills. This year, FCPS will open the school

year with approximately 3,100 EL students in the system15. Typically, that enrollment number

continues growing throughout the school year. In addition, there are 1,787 EL students, not

included in the 3,100 count, who have exited the EL program within the past two school years.

The restructuring of the ELL office will continue to support the instructional programs for

students.

The adopted FY2018 budget includes expenditures that the BOE of Frederick County believes

are needed to continue to provide quality educational services to the students of FCPS in

FY2018. It reflects feedback obtained from engaging individuals from all sectors with a stake in

public education.

In FY2018, FCPS receives more than maintenance of effort (MOE) funding from Frederick

County Government ($10 million more than MOE). The state funding increases by

approximately $7 million, with the majority of the increase due to the increase enrollment

reflected in the State Share of Current Expenses. With a recognition of salary savings due to

staff turnover and the support of Frederick County Government, the BOE of Frederick County is

able to fund its priority of continuing the transition to a new teacher salary scale, thus insuring its

commitment to quality education for all FCPS students.

Climate Changes and Impact

FCPS’ fiscal climate is expected to remain stable in FY2018. The goals identified in the strategic

plan will help to guide the allocation of scarce educational resources. FCPS’ strategic goals are

aligned to master plan goals and objectives. Providing each and every student with high quality

instruction, raising the achievement, and eliminating achievement gaps will remain a master

plan priority for FCPS.

14 Source: Fiscal Services

15 Source: Office of English Learners


FINANCE SECTION

I N T R O D U C T I O N

The following finance section, in conjunction with the budget narrative information in the

executive summary, includes a current year variance table (see Table 2 on page 38), a prior

year variance table (see Table 3 on page 39), and responses to the analyzing questions.

Together, these documents illustrate FCPS’ alignment of the annual budget with the master

plan priorities.

R E V E N U E A N D E X P E N D I T U R E A N A L Y S I S

Actual revenues met expectations. Total revenues were $5.2 million under budget. Federal,

state, and other local revenues were under budget because the FCPS revenue lines included

added authority to allow for unanticipated federal and local funding. Local revenue was also

under budget due to the lower value of Frederick County in-kind services provided to FCPS.

Standards and Assessments

Actual expenditures were $714,758 less than the planned amount. Actual expenditures reflect

the distribution of funds that were budgeted in the curriculum offices and expensed by the

elementary and secondary schools.

Data Systems

Actual expenditures were as planned as FCPS continues its expansion of the one-to-one device

initiative.

Great Teachers

Actual expenditures were $2.4 million less than the planned amount. This variance is the salary

savings from staff vacancies and turnover. In addition, this area includes added budget authority

for restricted grants.

Mandatory Cost of Doing Business

Actual expenditures were $12 million less than the planned amount. Savings came from

employee benefits costing less than expected due to staff turnover. Other savings occurred in

vehicle fuel and building utilities. In addition, this area includes added budget authority for

restricted grants.


Table 2. Current Year Variance Table (MSDE Table 1.1A)


Table 3. Prior Year Variance Table (MSDE Table 1.1B)


MARYLAND’S GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES

P RE FACE

The following section of the 2017 Master Plan Annual Update is submitted in accordance with

requirements specified under House Bill 999, which includes goals, objectives, and strategies

regarding the performance of students receiving special education services, students with

limited English proficiency [LEP; hereafter, English learner (EL)], and students failing to meet or

failing to make progress towards meeting state performance standards. In lieu of state

performance standards, local education agencies (LEAs) were instructed to compare student

group data to the student population as a whole.

Goals/objectives, accomplishments, challenges, and strategies/changes are provided for each

assessed content area (elementary and secondary, where applicable)—English language arts

(ELA), mathematics, science, and social studies (secondary only).

It is important to note that while some content areas have specific goals and strategies for

students receiving special education services and EL students, many of the goals and strategies

are implemented system-wide and pertain to all curricular areas. Thus, stand-alone sections,

capturing these goals and strategies, are provided for special education and limited English

proficiency.

I NT RODUCTI ON

The mission of Frederick County Public Schools (FCPS) is to reach its students with exceptional

teaching and caring support, challenge them to achieve their potential, and prepare them for

success in a global society. FCPS developed its aspirational goals and priorities to help achieve

this mission. As FCPS moves forward, it remains committed to ensuring equity and opportunity

for all of its students.

SPE CI AL EDUCATI ON ( S T U D E N T S W I T H D I S A B I L I T I E S )

Overall Goals and Objectives

It is the expectation that students who receive special education services experience the same

level of instruction, assessment and success on state and local assessments as their general

education peers with the implementation of accommodations and modifications as outlined in

their Individual Education Program (IEP). FCPS is implementing multiple strategies to close the

achievement gap by ensuring that students who receive special education services access the

curriculum in the least restrictive environment, collaborating with all stakeholders, analyzing

data and monitoring progress, implementing evidence-based interventions, and providing

professional learning for all staff.

One of the main responsibility of Special Education and Psychological Services staff within the

Accelerating Achievement and Equity (AAE) department is to pursue and implement innovative

and efficient ways to better support the academic, communication, social, and emotional needs


of all students with disabilities. In addition, staff are responsible for ensuring a greater balance is

given to ensure that compliance is maintained while meeting the appropriate instructional

outcomes for the students such that they are provided with the knowledge, skills, abilities, and

experiences to be empowered learners.

Overall Accomplishments

The Special Education and Psychological Services staff have made great strides over the past

year, with the addition of another director whose focus is primarily on instructional outcomes for

students. Thus far, with an increased focus on instruction and a continued focus on compliance,

the accomplishments are evident by students with disabilities who are approaching, meeting,

and/or exceeding the grade level standards in the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for

College and Career (PARCC) ELA and math when compared to other districts in the state (see

PARCC rankings for students with disabilities below).

2017 PARCC ELA (levels 3-5)

Grade 3 ranked third

Grade 5 ranked among the top eight



Grade 8 ranked fifth

English 10 ranked third

2017 PARCC Math (levels 3-5)



Grade 5 ranked fourth

Grade 7 ranked second

Grade 8 ranked fourth

Algebra 1 ranked third

Other programmatic accomplishments for the 2016-17 school year are described in Table 4.


Table 4. Special Education and Psychological Services, 2016-2017 Accomplishments

Special Education Observation/Evaluation Framework (Revised)

A workgroup was established and co-chaired by the president of the Frederick County Teachers Association (FCTA)and the executive director of AAE. The participants included teachers and administrators from all levels and types ofprograms and related service providers. The workgroup revised the Special Education TeacherObservation/Evaluation form and corresponding rubric to align with current standards and expectations for teachingstudents with disabilities. (Aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 2, Priority 4)

Compliance and Data Analysis (ongoing)

Compliance with State Performance Plans (SPP) and Annual Performance Reports (APR) is monitored throughcollaboration with MSDE via notice of performance reports. The information is shared and analyzed in large andsmall group forums and through collaboration between special education and general education staff. (Aligned toFCPS Aspirational Goal 2, Priority 4)

FCPS student and systemic data are monitored and analyzed through eSchool, RADAR16, and the online IEPthrough collaboration between special education and general education staff. (Aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 2,Priority 4)

Professional Learning for FCPS Employees

Special education instructional assistants (SEIA) were offered monthly sessions for benefitted and non-benefittedSEIAs, by feeder patterns and system-wide. Since the 2016-17 school year, 25 sessions were offered and attendedby over 500 SEIAs. Training on the following topics were provided: role of the SEIA, data collection, disabilityawareness, behavior strategies, and fostering student independence. (Aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 2,Priority 4)

Special education teachers, related service providers, and general education teachers participated in a variety oftopics related to meeting the instructional needs of students with disabilities and supporting the implementation ofcompliance indicators. (Aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 2, Priority 4)

School-based administrators participated in ongoing training on how to support the needs of struggling learners andoversee implementation of compliance indicators. (Aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 2, Priority 4)

Special education staff from central office participated in monthly training to better equip staff in responding to theneeds of school-based staff, families, and the community at-large. (Aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 2, Priority 4)

Service Delivery/

Programs

The SEIA request process was streamlined in order to make the process for schools less burdensome and to

accelerate the timeline when a decision is rendered. (Aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 3, Priority 5)

The Speech and Language Program Workgroup was formed to establish guidelines in order to promote an

equitable and consistent service delivery model for effective implementation of speech and language services.

Selected schools will field test the implementation of the service delivery model and model speech schedules

16 A data access tool, Resource for Accountability, Data Analysis, and Reporting (RADAR), was developed by FCPS to support system and school staff in regularly reviewing student, school, and

system level data to monitor progress and to respond to results.


Table 4. Special Education and Psychological Services, 2016-2017 Accomplishments

through recommended guidelines during 2017-18. The recommendations will support standardized implementation

and practice. (Aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 2, Priority 4)

Behavioral

Interventions

Behavioral interventions and supports (BIS) for schools was implemented. There are five certified staff members

working to support all students. To date, BIS staff has provided consultation and direct services for 199 students.

Actively supporting 87 of those students on an ongoing basis. On average, the team receives 16.6 new referrals per

month through the online referral process, in addition to administrator and “emergency” situation referrals. The team

made 1,217 visits to schools to observe students, consult with school teams, and provide professional learning and

instructional coaching to staff. (Aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 2, Priority 4)

Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs) Processes for staff and students were updated. (Aligned to FCPS AspirationalGoal 5, Priority 9)

Assessments Assessment support was offered to all schools in an effort to assist students and staff during the state assessment windows to meet the testing accommodations of the needs of students with disabilities.

Family

Engagement/Outreach

Family engagement nights were held for families to learn about transition to postsecondary opportunities and meet

with outside agencies that support transitional assistance. In addition, families attended a SUCCESS dinner to allow

students to showcase their skills. This student-hosted event included an opportunity for roundtable discussion for

parents, and was well-attended by families and staff. (Aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 4, Priority 7)

Two family engagement nights that focused on developing skills for students enrolled in the Pyramid Program to

support transition into college and careers were held for students, families, and staff. (Aligned to FCPS Aspirational

Goal 4, Priority 7)

Two early childhood family nights were held in an effort to increase family partnerships with other agencies andteachers and/or related services providers. (Aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 4, Priority 7)

Collaboration There was an increase in collaborative work with other FCPS departments (SAL, CII, and SASI) to support the

needs of students with disabilities. (Aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 1, Priority 2)

Evaluation and

Feedback

Site visits to all specialized and general education program were conducted. These visits provided opportunities to

gather information and insight on the successes and challenges of meeting the needs of students with disabilities

and to receive feedback from staff on necessary program enhancements and improvements. (Aligned to FCPS


A FCPS parent survey was developed and implemented to gather feedback from parents to guide continuousimprovement regarding the IEP process. (Aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 4, Priority 7)


Overall Challenges*While FCPS students with disabilities continue to show progress, challenges remain. Significant

achievement gaps exist for students with disabilities in the areas of elementary and secondary

ELA and math (when compared to the “all student” group).

Elementary ELA and Math

Data from the 2017 administration of PARCC ELA, grades 3-5, indicate that 31% of students

who have disabilities performed at a level three or higher in comparison to 78% of “all” students.

In addition, 69% of students with disabilities who participated in PARCC ELA did not meet or

partially met expectations.

Data from the 2017 administration of PARCC math, grades 3-5, indicate that 39% of students


In addition, 61% of students with disabilities who participated in PARCC math did not meet or


Secondary ELA and Math

Data from the 2017 administration of PARCC ELA, grades 6-8, indicate that 20% of students


In addition, 80% of students with disabilities who participated in PARCC ELA did not meet or


Data from the 2017 administration of PARCC math, grades 6-8, indicate that 21% of students


In addition, 79% of students with disabilities who participated in PARCC math did not meet or


Data from the 2017 administration of PARCC English 10 indicate that 37% of students who

have disabilities performed at a level three or higher in comparison to 82% of “all” students. In

addition, 63% of students with disabilities who participated in PARCC Algebra 1 did not meet or


Data from the 2017 administration of PARCC Algebra 1 indicate that 41% of students who have

disabilities performed at a level three or higher in comparison to 80% of “all” students. In

addition, 59% of students with disabilities who participated in PARCC Algebra 1 did not meet or


Global Strategies and Changes

In support of FCPS’ goal that students receiving special education services will have the same

level of academic success on state and local assessments as their general education peers,

FCPS will newly implement (or in some cases, continue implementation) the following

processes and/or strategies moving forward.

Transition to Standards Aligned to Individual Education Programs

During a system-wide professional learning day in 2017, all FCPS special education teachers

and related service providers engaged in a full-day training on developing high-quality

*For additional information on challenges with students with disabilties in ELA and math,see Appendix B: Response to MSDE Clarifying Questions.


standards-aligned IEPs to specifically address the individual functional and academic needs of

students. FCPS created a standards-aligned monitoring tool to measure special educators’

proficiencies in developing standards-aligned IEPs.

Overall accountability for student learning is a shared responsibility. It is necessary that all

teachers are knowledgeable of and responsible for effective instruction, which is aligned with

curricular standards and implemented with fidelity. It is essential that teachers practices are

supported by way of job-embedded learning opportunities including observable “look fors”,

fidelity checks, data analysis, and progress monitoring. Trained teachers will use a team

meeting approach for the dissemination of information regarding best practices.

Moving forward, FCPS will provide professional learning opportunities for special educators to

refine their skillsets in the development of standards-aligned IEPs. Mastery of this skill is vital in

order to eliminate the achievement gap between general education and special education

students and move students closer to achieving grade/content standards.

Ongoing monitoring and analysis using this tool will occur to identify patterns of improved

practice. Special education central office team members will meet with school teams to address

areas identified through baseline data as areas of improvement. An internal audit of

approximately 400 confidential files were completed. Follow-up training opportunities will occur

throughout the school year.

This is a cost-neutral strategy that does not require resource allocations. (Aligned to FCPS


Special Education Staffing Model

There are currently 4,425 students identified with disabilities in FCPS—over 2,100 at

elementary, 900 at middle, and 1,200 at high school level. In order to provide services for

these students, FCPS needed to explore a staffing formula that considers the need to

differentiate the educational needs of students with disabilities with the aim of providing

increased staffing for schools with greater complexity factors.

In 2017-18, implementation of the special education staffing model will involve:

Expansion of elementary specialized programs—Pyramid and prekindergarten.

Addition of 13 coordinators of specialized programs to support students and staff in

specialized programs (inclusive special education preschools, Challenges, Learning for

Life, and Pyramid programs).

Implementation of a caseload staffing model that will assign special education teaching

staff based on the caseload size per special education teacher. An individual teacher will

realize an overall reduced number of students for whom they are responsible for

providing instruction and case management.

In addition to the yearly state assessment, teachers administer benchmark assessments

throughout the school year to monitor student progress. These assessments provide multiple

data points to measure student progress system-wide.

This is a cost-neutral strategy that does not require resource allocations.


Elementary ELA Literacy Program

In its work with students, FCPS will equip each and every student to be an empowered learner

and an engaged citizen, to achieve a positive impact in the local and global community. A

streamlined literacy program will allow for equitable delivery of services and curriculum while

allowing students the same opportunities for success.

Literacy is the gateway to all other learning. In order to become proficient readers and writers,

students need high quality core instruction and, if necessary, intervention. Students who are not

proficient readers by the end of third grade will likely struggle throughout their schooling and are

at risk for not graduating on time. The first step to improving student achievement is to ensure

that all students have access to high-quality reading instruction and interventions based on best

practice, data, and content knowledge. Communication is also an essential skill for success.

Strong oral and written communication skills are critical in today's postsecondary opportunities.

In 2017-18, FCPS will field test a universal service delivery model for an elementary ELA

literacy program to ensure equitable delivery of a comprehensive program. Five elementary

schools identified core literacy teams to collaboratively deepen their understanding of the

content standards and the use of formative/quantitative assessment data to drive instruction and

student grouping practices.

The FCPS Elementary Literacy Workgroup will identify key elements of high-quality literacy

instruction. These elements will align with best practices and will be implemented with fidelity


across all elementary schools. They also require a strong professional learning system for

teachers and ongoing monitoring of implementation across elementary schools. A direct

correlation between IEP goals and the general education curriculum will allow students with

disabilities to move closer to closing the achievement gap that exists with their general

education peers. If students with disabilities receive instruction in the general education

curriculum, then they will decrease the existing achievement gap.

Progress will be monitored and analyzed five times per school year. Bi-monthly sessions will

occur between September 2017 and May 2018 (no session in December). Literacy teams will

meet with field test schools to collect and analyze quarterly data on student progress. The

benchmarks and county assessments will be used to monitor student progress.

(Costs: restricted # 84-027A, Narrowing Achievement Gaps, $10,620)

Secondary ELA Workgroup

In 2017-18, FCPS will form a secondary ELA workgroup. The same rationale for the elementary

literacy program is used for the purpose of forming this workgoup—literacy is the gateway to all

other learning. The FCPS Secondary Literacy Workgroup will identify key elements of high-

quality literacy instruction. These elements will align with best practices and will be implemented

with fidelity across all secondary schools. They also require a strong professional learning

system for teachers and ongoing monitoring of implementation across schools.

FCPS will provide professional learning opportunities for one special education teacher per

secondary school to further develop their understanding of the ELA standards along with the

secondary literacy specialists at each school. This collaboration will provide special educators

and literacy specialists an opportunity to learn about the standards and discuss how the

standards connect to their work in intervention classroom instruction, and specialized

instruction.

The literacy team will meet quarterly with the school team to review and analyze data from local

benchmark assessment to plan for continuous improvement and progress monitoring.

(Costs: restricted, #84-027A, Narrowing Achievement Gap, $23,973)

Elementary Math Workgroup

In order to become flexible mathematical thinkers, students need high-quality core instruction

and, if necessary, intervention. The first step to improving student achievement is to ensure that

all students have access to high-quality instruction and interventions based on best practices,

data, and content knowledge. Communication is also an essential skill for success. Strong oral

and written communication skills are critical in today's workplace.

The FCPS Elementary Math Workgroup will identify key elements of high-quality mathematics



teachers and ongoing monitoring of implementation across elementary schools.

The ultimate purpose of this workgroup is to equip each and every student to be an empowered

learner and an engaged citizen, to achieve a positive impact in the local and global community.

The focus will be two pronged, to increase academic success of struggling learners as they


navigate the rigorous content standards and educate imaginative learners who grasp concepts

and have the ability and willingness to investigate ideas and solve real-life problems.

Additionally, equip teachers in individual schools to maintain commitment to high expectations

of students; create personalized learning environments; collaborate with other teachers within

the school and the surrounding community; and encourage effective teaching by means of

active inquiry and in-depth learning.


elementary school to further develop their understanding of the mathematics standards along

with the elementary math instructional leaders at each school. This collaboration will provide

special educators and elementary math instructional leaders an opportunity to learn about the

standards and discuss how the standards connect to their work in intervention, classroom

instruction, and specialized instruction.

The workgroup will meet at least five times per school year to research and determine best

practices to ensure struggling learners have access to additional time for high quality instruction

and interventions. The workgroup will then identify approximately five to six schools across all

levels to field test implementation guidelines.


Additional Strategies for Special Education in 2017-2018

Access to the General Education Curriculum. Students with disabilities participating in

the Maryland state assessment, PARCC, receive instruction and assessment with their

general education peers. Instructional programs are implemented in collaboration with

elementary and secondary general educators and special educators. Supplementary aids,

services, and supports are monitored and provided, as necessary, for all students to access

their individualized programs. Accommodations for students with disabilities as listed in their

IEPs and are implemented by general and special educators in collaboration with one

another.

Speech-language pathologists, school therapists, school psychologists and other related

services staff provide individual, small group, and whole class therapy sessions to students

with disabilities in response to IEP needs. Curriculum material is incorporated into the

sessions, as appropriate, to support the speech and language, mental health, emotional,

and behavioral needs of students through evidence-based practice across all curricular

areas.

Collaboration with General Educators. Collaboration between general educators, special

educators, speech-language pathologists, school psychologists, school therapists, and

teacher specialists is implemented across all levels through IEP development and

instructional delivery. The special education staff in the AAE department work collaboratively

with the CII department by conducting joint departmental meetings to plan for curriculum

and instruction and to develop and plan for professional learning for special education and

general education staff. Professional development opportunities are provided by the AAE

and CII departments to all necessary stakeholders. School leadership teams are trained in

data analysis and include general and special educators in order to identify, service, and


monitor student specific achievement. The teams not only include general and special

educators but content specialists as well. In FCPS, co-teaching is highly valued and

encouraged as the service delivery model that is most effective to close the achievement

gap for students with disabilities. In the next school year, cross-departmental collaboration

will continue in an effort to narrow the achievement gap (cost-neutral).

Strategies Used to Address the Achievement Gap. Data collection and analysis related

to students identified with intellectual disabilities, emotional disabilities, and autism is

ongoing. This process focuses on providing access to age and developmentally-appropriate

instruction through culturally-relevant practices and strategies. School teams analyze

school-level data with the aim of determining services that best address student needs and

promote student achievement. School psychologists and school therapists work closely with

school staff and directly with students to ensure that students receive appropriate evidence-

based interventions that target their areas of disability. Additionally, the AAE department, in

collaboration with the SASI department, analyzes student and school-level achievement

data to ensure that student-specific IEP progress, formative and summative district

assessments, and state-wide testing participation data are considered when developing

student instructional programs and interventions.

Special education paraprofessionals, administrators, and educators need to be equipped

with the knowledge and tools necessary to support all students and increase student

achievement.


The following are activities and funds associated with targeted grants to improve the

academic achievement outcomes of students receiving special education services.

- The MSDE Local Application of Federal Funds Grant continues to support FCPS goal to

increase parental awareness of agencies and organizations that offer support and

assistance to parents of students with disabilities. FCPS staff and trained professionals

from local agencies will provide workshops and informational materials to enhance the

parental knowledge of students with disabilities related to transition, family support,

accommodations, writing SMART IEPs, behavior or sensory issues, ADHD, and other

special education issues, etc. (Cost: restricted, 84-027A, Family Partnerships, $18,000)

- The AAE department secured a group subscription, Read & Write for Google Chrome™,

to support 3,000 students with disabilities. Students with disabilities will benefit from the

use of this technology tool to gain confidence with reading, writing, studying, and

research. (Costs: unrestricted local funds, $30,000)

- The Pyramid Program provides integrated supports to students with significant social

and emotional needs. Intensive special education and therapeutic services are provided

in a small structured setting within a general education school. Students have

opportunities for inclusion in general education classes with non-disabled peers, as

appropriate, and most are pursuing a high school diploma. The Transitional Planning

Grant will provide ongoing professional learning opportunities to secondary

administrators and teachers in the Pyramid Programs to implement social/emotional

lessons focused on self-advocacy, self-awareness, and self-determination with students

enrolled in a specialized program that provides intensive special education and

therapeutic support in a small, structured setting. These lessons specifically designed for

FCPS are titled “Passport to My Future.” The majority of students enrolled in the

Pyramid programs have a primary disability of emotional disability (ED) or have ED as

part of a multiple disability. In addition, professional learning opportunities will provide

secondary special education staff, transition educators, and school counselors a more

robust approach on the development of digital portfolios. This will provide students with

disabilities a tool to collect, house, and support post-secondary opportunities. FCPS

transition leaders will attend the Division on Career Development and Transition

conference to stay current on recent research in order to enhance the development and

content of students’ transition plans. FCPS will provide professional learning

opportunities to secondary special education staff to enhance the development and

content of students transition plans. (Costs: restricted, 84-027A, Secondary Transition,

$45,839)

Interventions, Enrichments, and Supports to Address Diverse Learning Needs. FCPS

will utilize sensory rooms and incorporate strategies and techniques to allow students with

disabilities opportunities to de-escalate and regain emotional control in order to return to

their instructional settings. Implementing evidence-based strategies with students who

require frequent breaks and/or changes to their sensory input during the instructional day,

specifically students identified with autism or an emotional disability, may allow them to

develop coping and self-regulation strategies in order to decrease time spent away from


instruction. Special education personnel must increase the intensity and frequency of

specialized instruction, targeted intervening supports and progress monitoring to address

the learning needs of students with emotional/behavior goals. Access to a sensory room will

provide an alternate location for students to de-escalate and in turn not require restraint

and/or seclusion as frequently. (Cost: restricted, #84-027A, Sensory Supports, $44,867)

Professional Learning. All individuals working with students must be provided ongoing

opportunities to grow as professionals. Special education teachers and paraprofessionals,

administrators, and general education teachers will be equipped with the knowledge and

tools necessary to support all students in order to increase student achievement (cost-

neutral).

In particular, in 2017-18, professional learning opportunities will continue to keep

administrators apprised of legal updates and strategies for management and oversight of

the IEP/504 plan process. Ongoing special educator and SEIA training will also occur.

Monitoring of attendance and evaluation feedback at the conclusion of each training session

will provide ongoing feedback to measure successful planning and implementation and to

make necessary adjustments, as appropriate (cost-neutral).

Other strategies to be continued or newly implemented in 2017-18 include (cost-neutral; no

additional resource allocations required):

- Monitor the three-year plan and increase progress reporting.

- Provide ongoing internal audit of confidential files and standards-based IEPs.

- Implement speech and language field test and program.

- Develop and implement a staffing model for SEIA allocation.

- Conduct site visits focusing on instruction and implementation of the IEPs.

- Communicate a process to schools to guide and support parents new to the IEP

process.

- Hold ongoing family engagement nights.

LIMIT ED E NG LISH P ROFICIENCY ( E N G L I S H L E A R N E R S )


Within the AAE department, the English Language Learning office supports systemic

instructional programming focusing on eliminating the achievement gap and helping all students

to become contributing members of society. In support of this systemic effort, FCPS will

continue to build the capacity of administrators, teachers, and paraprofessionals to instruct and

support EL students toward attainment of the Maryland College and Career-Ready Standards

(MCCRS) while attaining proficiency in English.


FCPS EL instruction promotes successful integration into mainstream academic programs for

prekindergarten to grade 12 students whose first (or primary) language is not English and/or

who have limited English language proficiency.


In 2016-17, there were a number of goals met, accomplishments, and enhancements related to the support of the EL student population.

Aligned to FCPS Aspirational Goal 1:

The MSDE EL performance standards for both making progress towards proficiency in

English (AMAO 1) and attaining proficiency (AMAO 2) in English were met (see Tables

5 and 6). In this area of achievement, FCPS continues to be consistent.

An EL Alternative Program’s innovative design provides a more flexible schedule and

language development through project-based learning to support acculturation to

Frederick County and long-term goals of seeking employment or a GED. Program

implementation is contingent on available funding.

Middle school EL curriculum has been updated with consistent formative assessments.

Additional EL high school class options were created in the summer of 2017 through

collaborative efforts of teachers from different disciplines. In addition, two mathematics

courses (Foundations) that help ELs with interrupted education or limited formal

schooling were developed so that those students will advance faster in this area.


All sixteen EL students enrolled in English 12 (blended learning course) during the 2017

summer school passed; fifteen of those students earned a grade of B or higher.

Exited EL students at some elementary schools outperformed several other student

groups on PARCC English and math performance.


Plans to decentralize the secondary EL program will be implemented during the 2017-18

school year at Governor Thomas Johnson High School (GTJHS) and Governor Thomas

Johnson Middle School (GTJMS). Thus, EL students at both of these schools will no

longer be bused to Frederick High School to receive EL instructional support. Those

students will receive EL instructional support at their home school.

Phase II of the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) took place

successfully at designated schools. Phase III will begin in the fall of 2017.


The ELLevation platform, which organizes all EL information and data into one

dashboard, was implemented. The platform helps EL instructors (teachers and

specialists) and administrators monitor the instructional progress of EL students,

collaborate on individual EL instruction plan and goals, communicate with parents and

access district-wide aggregate assessment data. Training with teachers is underway to

ensure that the platform is used to its fullest potential.

Overall Challenges

Often unpredictable, the enrollment of EL students remains an ongoing challenge for FCPS.

Figure 16 (see Executive Summary on page 30) provides insight into EL enrollment growth that

FCPS continues to experience. Frederick High School alone enrolled more than 100 new EL

students, many with limited or no formal schooling, over a 4-month period in the fall/winter of the

2016-17 school year.

EL students are assessed on the same content as all other students and scored in the same

manner as all other students. EL students also must take mainstream assessments after only

one year in the United States In addition, approximately 10-15% of elementary, 15-20% middle,

and more than 25% of high school EL students last year had limited or interrupted formal

schooling upon enrollment. Therefore, success on PARCC assessments is an onerous

challenge for this student group. PARCC assessments require strong academic language skills

in the assessed areas. Research states that ELs typically learn conversational English within

one to two years; however, academic language/vocabulary skills take five to seven years on

average to achieve success at grade level in English. EL students with interrupted or no formal

schooling can take seven to ten years to reach grade level English language literacy. This data

holds true regardless of the student’s home language, country of origin, and socioeconomic

status. In order for FCPS to accelerate achievement for EL students, strategies and services

beyond the core curriculum program will be required. As mentioned above, EL students who

have exited services can outperform other students groups after they acquire proficiency in

English.


Progress on ACCESS for ELLs 2.0

The following reports the progress of EL students on the WIDA™ Assessing Comprehension

and Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners (ACCESS for

ELLs) 2.0 assessment in developing and attaining English language proficiency and

achievement in reading/language arts and mathematics.

AMAO 1—Making Progress Towards Proficiency in English

For making annual measurable achievement objective (AMAO) 1 progress, Maryland uses an

overall composite proficiency level obtained from the ACCESS for ELLs 2.0 assessment.

Students are considered to have made progress if their overall composite proficiency level on

the ACCESS for ELLs 2.0 is 0.5 or higher than the overall composite proficiency level from the

previous year’s assessment administration. In order to meet the Indicator 1 target for school

year 2016-17, LEAs must show that 58% of ELs made progress.

Table 5 below illustrates FCPS’ progress made in meeting AMAO 1 for the past four school

years. Data for school year 2016-17 are not yet available. For the past four years, FCPS EL

students exceeded the state’s targets for progressing toward English proficiency.

Table 5. English Learners—MSDE Criteria and Targets for AMAO I ACCESS FOR ELLS—COMPOSITE PROFICIENCY LEVEL GAIN (0.5)

School Year State Target (%) FCPS % Met or Not Met

2012-13 54 63.47 Met

2013-14 55 69.36 Met

2014-15 56 62.60 Met

2015-16 57 58.00 Met

2016-17 58 Not available yet Not available yet

The most challenging areas for EL students on the ACCESS for ELLs 2.0 assessment are

reading and writing; students continue to show strong progress in listening and speaking on this

assessment.

AMAO 2—Attaining Proficiency in English

For determining AMAO 2 attainment, Maryland uses an overall composite proficiency level and

a literacy composite proficiency level obtained from the ACCESS for ELLs 2.0 assessment.

Students are considered to have attained English proficiency if their overall composite

proficiency level is 4.5 or higher. In order to meet the Indicator 2 target for school year

2016-17, LEAs must show that 16% of ELs have attained proficiency.

Table 6 illustrates FCPS’ progress made in AMAO 2 for the past three school years. Data

for school year 2016-17 are not yet available. For the past three years, FCPS EL students

exceeded the state’s targets for attaining proficiency in English.


Table 6. English Learners Students—MSDE Criteria and Targets for AMAO 2 ACCESS FOR ELLS—COMPOSITE PROFICIENCY LEVEL (4.5)

School Year State Target (%) FCPS % Met or Not Met

2012-13 11 21.70 Met

2013-14 12 28.07 Met

2014-15 14 20.61 Met

2015-16 15 19.65 Met

2016-17 16 Not available yet Not available yet

The most challenging areas for EL students on the ACCESS for ELLs 2.0 assessment are

reading and writing; students continue to show strong progress in listening and speaking on this

assessment.

AMAO 3—Making Progress in Math and Reading for ELL Students

Table 7 illustrates whether or not EL students have made progress toward Maryland’s

accountability measures. Significant gaps for students receiving EL services remain when

compared to the PARCC ELA and math performance of “all” students. However, the

performance of the exited EL student group shows some level of progress.

Table 7: English Learners Students—Progress on Reading and Math AMO Targets

2016 AND 2017 PARCC ELA AND MATH (LEVELS 3-5)

2016 2017

Content / Grade All Students EL

Students Exited EL Students

All Students

EL Students

Exited EL Students

ELA Grades 3-5 76.2% 25.1% 72.6% 77.5% 25.8% 74.5%

ELA Grades 6-8 72.9% 8.0% 46.5% 74.1% 7.2% 44.2%

Math Grades 3-5 77.8% 38.5% 70.5% 78.6% 35.3% 73.4%

Math Grades 6-8 71.4% 13.0% 49.6% 72.0% 10.0% 45.9%

The data, rationale, timelines, strategies, and specific resource allocations used to ensure that

ELs meet the targets for the AMAOs are discussed in the goals, accomplishments, and

challenges above and the strategies listed below.

Global Strategies and Changes

To ensure that EL students are making progress towards meeting and/or exceeding standards,

several strategies will continue or will be newly implemented in the 2018 school year. FCPS EL

staff will use data from local (formative) and state (ACCESS and PARCC) assessments and

observations to continuously monitor and track the progress of these EL-specific strategies.


Three-Year EL Achievement Plan

In the fall of 2014, a three-year EL achievement plan was implemented by FCPS. This plan

inspired a number of positive changes to FCPS supporting EL students. Table 8 provides a

quick overview of the resource allocations provided as a result of implementing the Three-Year

EL Achievement Plan.

In 2017-18, the EL office/AAE department will work on finalizing and implementing the next

phase of a new three-year EL action plan (cost-neutral). The new Three-Year EL Action Plan

will address the following areas while focusing on the resources listed in Table 8.

EL Programming and Compliance. Enhance and sustain staff, processes, and metrics

to better support and monitor EL programming/services in schools. Identify and create

high quality instructional models that support EL student needs. Ensure EL program is

not only meeting but also exceeding state and federal regulations.

Curriculum and EL Instruction. Create rigorous, relevant curriculum, assessments,

and supports that allow teachers to seamlessly facilitate learning experiences that

increase Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic

Language Proficiency (CALP) while building confidence and skill sets needed to feel

confident and succeed in mainstream classes.

Data and Assessment. Define quantitative and qualitative assessment measures to

inform instructional practice and monitor and guide the effectiveness of instructional

models and language development.

Additional Strategies or Changes

FCPS remains committed to accelerating achievement for each of its students. In addition to (or

in conjunction with) the new Three-Year EL Action Plan, the following goals and related

strategies will be implemented in the 2017-18 school in order to continue to support the EL

student population. Resource allocations for the strategies are unrestricted and are from local

funds for 2017-18 unless otherwise noted.


Language Proficiency. Increase language proficiency growth and exits from the

program though the following:

EL teachers will have additional training/professional learning on effective usage of

the ELLevation platform, including the “document management” feature, which will

allow EL teachers to upload and monitor elements of student EL instructional plans;

Enhanced SIOP training will continue evolving to provide mainstream teachers with

better instructional support options for their EL students; and

Summer curriculum workshops will focus on the following areas:

- Newcomer academic supports/resources—staff will expand on the existing

repository of academic newcomer lessons and continue to develop and vet

resources that consistently align with and support CCRS standards.

- SIOP model professional learning modules and resource vetting—experienced

SIOP instructors will develop, revisit, and vet resources and professional learning to

support schools.

- Elementary common formatives for writing and speaking areas—staff will create

common formative assessments (primary & intermediate) for language levels 1–5;

those assessments will include language-level appropriate supports and correlate

with the WIDA writing rubric.

- “Can Do” descriptors and evidence table progressions—meld WIDA evidence

tables with “Can Do” descriptors and layer the MD K-12 Clarifications to support

academic instruction for ELs at all language levels.

- American Pop Music for ELs and Foundations of Tech for ELs—infuse academic

language and language instruction goals through these content area courses along

with effective, appropriate EL instructional supports for success in these courses.

Program Delivery/Services. Prepare for another potential decentralization effort at

other secondary schools. Facilitate successful EL programs at both GTJHS and GTJMS.

Focus additional efforts on high school EL programming. Provide quality interpreting and

translation services to the system.

Curriculum/Instructional Support. Reduce the impact that language dominance

testing has on current EL staff members so that they can be in schools each day to

provide instructional support for teachers. Create effective interventions and programs to

reduce the EL dropout rate.

EL Staffing. Work with Human Resources to continue recruiting and developing talented

EL teachers.

Professional Learning. Provide compelling SIOP professional learning for all SIOP

schools. Offer a variety of professional learning opportunities for all stakeholders.

Continue training teachers with respect to the ELLevation platform to help stakeholders

use it to its fullest potential.


Table 8. 2017-2018 Resource Allocations for English Learner Support

Resource Allocation Rationale for Strategy

or Change Timeline

Method of Monitoring Progress

Funding Amount

Source of Funding

Eight Additional EL Teachers To reduce the EL student to teacher ratio and support secondary decentralization.

Summer of 2017 Teacher observation/evaluation Approximately $50,000

per teacher Unrestricted

Two 10-month EL Counselors

EL counselors are needed to provide additional support to growing EL population at both Frederick High and Governor Thomas Johnson high schools.

Summer of 2017 Counselor observation/evaluation $142,341 Unrestricted, local funds

Textbooks and Resources at High School and Middle School Levels

To support decentralization of EL services in Frederick and Governor Thomas Johnson high schools.

Summer of 2017 Formative and summative assessments related to materials

$42,841 Unrestricted, local funds

Part-Time EL Therapist To provide social emotional support for students with interrupted education and/or trauma.

Fall 2017 Regular meetings with therapist an FCPS evaluation

$65,480 Restricted, Title III grant, CFDA# 84.365A

Part-Time Language Specialist To assist in determining language dominance prior to referral for special services testing.

Fall 2017 Monitor assessments results to determine impact

$46,986

Restricted, Title III grant, CFDA #84.365A

Professional Learning (SIOP, One-Credit Courses, and More)

To continue the next stages of SIOP Implementation. To expand effective usage of WIDA English Language Development Standards. To accelerate EL student access to mainstream success.

Fall 2017- Spring 2018

Regular SIOP cadre meetings with participating Schools during the year Individual and school surveys during the year Informal classroom visits to view implementation

$42,729 Unrestricted, local funds

Coordinator of Family Partnerships/Community Partnerships (dropout prevention initiative)

To reduce the dropout rate for EL students by 10% or more.

Fall 2017- Spring 2018

Monthly monitoring of rate throughout 2017-2018

Cost neutral Cost neutral


MONIT ORING /ME ASURI NG P ROGRE SS

To monitor and track the progress of global strategies and plans specific to student groups, as

well as provide evidence, FCPS will carry out the following activities in the next year:

Quarterly reviews will be conducted for each content area utilizing local assessment data

(formative framework). Curriculum staff, assessment and improvement staff, AAE

staff, and instructional directors will be included in this process.

School continuous strategic improvement (CSI) teams are required to conduct regular

progress reviews of their own strategies and report formative data within their fluid plans.

Implementation of strategies are monitored through informal walk-through tools and

quantitative formative data.

Quarterly visits are conducted by instructional directors. Meetings are held with

principals to discuss progress and to discuss any adjustments that are needed related to

the strategies.

Monthly meetings for math and ELA and quarterly meetings for science and social

studies are held by central content specialists with school-based liaisons (e.g., literacy

specialists, math specialists, department chairs, etc.) to discuss progress of strategies

that have been implemented.

In all scenarios, FCPS embraces the continuous strategic process. Joint directors across all

FCPS departments within the ACTS division meet weekly to ensure successful implementation

of noted strategies and achievement results. This group will adjust professional learning plans,

provide clarification in communications, and/or address any barriers to successful

implementation of strategies.

P ARCC E NG LISH LANG UAGE ARTS/LITE RACY Grad es 3 -5


FCPS is committed to ensuring that all students become independent readers and writers for

many different purposes. Students will use their literacy skills to negotiate an increasingly

complex and information-rich world. Students will refine and apply their knowledge of reading,

writing, speaking, and listening by engaging in a variety of diverse texts and writing for authentic

purposes and audiences. Students will find joy in reading and writing.

The FCPS elementary ELA program is based on research and best practices for instruction and

assessment. The goals and objectives of FCPS elementary ELA program are to:

Produce independent and strategic readers and writers;

Provide students with the necessary foundational skills in reading and writing;

Accelerate the reading and writing achievement of all students in language arts;

Differentiate for students who are not yet meeting language arts expectations; and


Provide teachers curricular resources and assessments that are aligned to the Maryland

College and Career (MCCR) framework.


A review of PARCC data from 2015 to 2017 reflects several accomplishments in elementary

ELA. From 2016 to 2017, increases in performance (levels 3-5 and 4-5) in PARCC elementary

ELA occurred in grades 3-5 (see Table 9). With the exception of grade 3, three-year trend data

also show an increase in performance in PARCC elementary ELA.

Table 9. PARCC Elementary ELA (Grades 3-5) Performance SCHOOL YEAR 2015-2017

Levels 3-5 (% OF STUDENTS)


2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017

Grade 3 76.7 72.0 73.9▼ 56.2 48.2 49.8▼

Grade 4 77.3 78.8 79.2▲ 49.4 52.5 53.5▲

Grade 5 77.6 77.9 79.2▲ 49.8 51.1 55.6▲

Grades 3-5 77.2 76.2 77.5▲ 51.8 50.6 53.0▲

▲ or ▼ denotes increase or decrease in three-year trend, 2015 to 2017

In 2017, FCPS continued to outperform the state in PARCC in each performance band (i.e.,

levels 3-5 and 4-5) in elementary ELA (see Figure 1 on page 10).

Grade 3—Levels 3-5: 73.9% and 61.6%; Levels 4-5: 49.8% and 39.8% (FCPS and state,

respectively)


respectively)


respectively)

In addition to overall PARCC performance levels, PARCC sub-claims, i.e., components of the

ELA assessment, are available for analysis. For ELA, these sub-claims are reading information,

reading literature, reading vocabulary, written expression, and written knowledge of language.

One goal of the MCCR framework is to provide elementary students with a balance (50/50) in

reading literature and reading information. In analyzing these data, there appears to be a strong

percent of students who met or exceeded expectations on the PARCC sub-claims. For

elementary grades 3-5, similar performance in reading informational or literacy text continues to

be evident. This reflects the emphasis placed on providing explicit writing instruction during the

language arts instructional block.


Special Education Students

Goals and Objectives

The goals and objectives for students with disabilities in ELA, grades 3-5, are consistent with

the overall goals and objectives for all FCPS students receiving special education services.

Accomplishments

PARCC data continues to reflect success in elementary ELA among students with disabilities

when compared to the state performance. In 2017, students with disabilities in grades 3-5

outperformed the state in elementary ELA. This was also true in 2015 and 2016 with the

exception of grade 4 in 2015.


respectively)


respectively)


respectively)

Likewise, accomplishments can be noted when analyzing three-year PARCC trends among

students with disabilities taking PARCC elementary ELA. Positive trends are evident in each

elementary grade from 2015 to 2017 (see Table 10).

Table 10. PARCC Elementary ELA (Grades 3-5) Performance (2015-2017) STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES



Grade Grade

3 4 5 3-5 3 4 5 3-5

2015 30.0 22.6 22.9 25.1 13.9 7.1 6.5 9.1

2016 27.2 29.3 24.6 27.0 14.3 10.8 8.0 10.9

2017 34.6▲ 30.7▲ 27.4▲ 30.9▲ 15.5▲ 12.0▲ 9.4▲ 12.3▲


Table 11 shows the PARCC elementary ELA performance among students who have exited

special education services. Similar to students currently receiving special education services,

three-year PARCC trends are positive in each performance band. Of noteworthy, approximately

74% of students who exited special education services are approaching, meeting, and/or

exceeding expectations while 45% are meeting/exceeding expectations.


Table 11. PARCC Elementary ELA (Grades 3-5) Performance (2015-2017) STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES—EXITED SERVICES



Grades 3-5 Grades 3-5

2015 73.4 37.4

2016 67.2 38.0

2017 73.5▲ 44.6▲


Challenges

Despite a positive comparison to state performance, challenges remain with students receiving

special education services. When comparing both performance bands (3-5 and 4-5) for FCPS, students receiving special education services (grades 3-5) and all FCPS students (grades 3-5),

data showed a significant gap in performance. In 2017, approximately 31% of students with

disabilities performed at levels 3-5 and 1 2% performed at levels 4-5 on PARCC elementary ELA

(see Table 10). This is compared to

approximately 78% of “all students” who

performed at levels 3-5 and 53% who

performed at levels 4-5.

Strategies or Changes

In its work with students, FCPS will equip

each and every student to be an

empowered learner and an engaged

citizen, to achieve a positive impact in the

local and global community. A

streamlined literacy program will allow for

equitable delivery of services and

curriculum while allowing students the

same opportunities for success.

Literacy is the gateway to all other

learning. In order to become proficient

readers and writers, students need high

quality core instruction and, if necessary,

intervention. Students who are not

proficient readers by the end of third

grade will likely struggle throughout their

schooling and are at risk for not

graduating on time. The first step to


improving student achievement is to ensure that all students have access to high-quality

reading instruction and interventions based on best practice, data, and content knowledge.

Communication is also an essential skill for success. Strong oral and written communication

skills are critical in today's postsecondary opportunities. In 2017-18, FCPS will field test a

universal service delivery model for an elementary ELA literacy program to ensure equitable

delivery of a comprehensive program. Five elementary schools identified core literacy teams to

collaboratively deepen their understanding of the content standards and the use of

formative/quantitative assessment data to drive instruction and student grouping practices.

The FCPS Elementary Literacy Workgroup will identify key elements of high-quality literacy



teachers and ongoing monitoring of implementation across elementary schools. A direct

correlation between IEP goals and the general education curriculum will allow students with

disabilities to move closer to closing the achievement gap that exists with their general

education peers. If students with disabilities receive instruction in the general education

curriculum, then they will decrease the existing achievement gap.

Progress will be monitored and analyzed five times per school year. Bi-monthly sessions will

occur between September 2017 and May 2018 (no session in December). Literacy teams will

meet with field test schools to collect and analyze quarterly data on student progress. The

benchmarks and county assessments will be used to monitor student progress.

(Costs: restricted # 84-027A, Narrowing Achievement Gaps, $10,620)


Systemic strategies are being implemented to ensure progress among students receiving

special education services in elementary ELA. Refer to Global Strategies or Changes in the

Special Education section. In addition, systemic strategies are being implemented to ensure

progress among all students, including special populations; see the Executive Summary.

Limited English Proficient Students


The goals and objectives for ELs

in grades 3-5 are consistent with

the overall goals and objectives

for all FCPS EL students.

Accomplishments

EL students in grade 3 (35%)

outperformed the state (27%) in

PARCC ELA in 2017 (i.e.

performance band 3-5). From

2015 to 2017, the percent of grade

3-5 EL students in PARCC

performance band 3-5 increased

from 20.4% to 25.8%

(see Table 12).

Table 12. PARCC Elementary ELA (Grades 3-5) Performance (2015-2017) ENGLISH LEARNERS



Grade Grade

3 4 5 3-5 3 4 5 3-5

2015 28.9 10.8 10.1 20.4 10.7 5.9 ≤5 7.6

2016 31.5 23.5 9.4 25.1 8.9 ≤5 - 5.7

2017 34.5▲ 19.4▲ 11.3▲ 25.8▲ 7.2▼ ≤5▼ ≤5▼ ≤5▼


Significant gaps for ELs remain related to performance on the PARCC assessment. However,

the performance of the exited EL student group shows progress over time. In comparison to the

“all student” group (77.5%, levels 3-5), exited EL students (74.5%, levels 3-5) performed

somewhat similar in 2017 in PARCC elementary ELA (see Table 13). In several elementary

schools, this student group actually outperformed a number of other groups on the PARCC

assessment.


Table 13. PARCC Elementary ELA (Grades 3-5) Performance (2015-2017) ENGLISH LEARNERS—EXITED SERVICES




2015 74.7 40.7

2016 72.6 35.5

2017 74.5▼ 32.2▼


Challenges

Significant achievement gaps remain for the EL group. Research states that ELs typically learn

conversational English within one to two years; however, academic language/vocabulary skills

take five to seven years on average to achieve success at grade level in English. EL students

with interrupted or no formal schooling can take seven to ten years to reach grade level English

language literacy. This data holds true regardless of the student’s home language, country of

origin, and socioeconomic status. In order for FCPS to reduce the current achievement gap for

EL students, EL staff and mainstream instructors will need to work collaboratively, with a sense

of urgency, to narrow the current gap.

Success on PARCC assessments can be a challenge for EL students who experienced very

little to no (or interrupted) formal schooling prior to FCPS enrollment. PARCC assessments

require strong academic vocabulary skills in the assessed area. EL students with lack of formal

schooling can take several years to reach grade level English language literacy.


Phase II of the SIOP was completed last year. FCPS will begin the next wave of SIOP

implementation at specific schools. The SIOP model is a research-based and validated model of

sheltered instruction that has been widely and successfully used across the U.S. for over 15

years. Professional learning in the SIOP model helps content area teachers plan and deliver

lessons that allow ELs to acquire academic knowledge as they develop English language

proficiency (cost-neutral). Local and state (ACCESS and PARCC) data will be used to monitor

and track the progress strategies implemented as well as the progress of EL students.

Systemic strategies continue to be implemented to ensure progress among EL students in

elementary ELA. Refer to Global Strategies or Changes in the Limited English Proficiency

section. In addition, systemic strategies are being implemented to ensure progress among all

students, including special populations; see the Executive Summary.

Progress on ACCESS for ELLs

See Progress on ACCESS for ELLs 2.0 in Limited English Proficiency section.


Despite reading and writing being the most challenging for EL students on the ACCESS for

ELLs 2.0 assessment, FCPS is encouraged by the performance of EL students in grade 3 on

the PARCC assessment as they outperformed the state. This performance indicates that EL

students’ progress in learning English is impacting achievement on academic measures.

Students Failing to Meet or Make Progress Towards Meeting State Performance Standards


The goals and objectives for students failing to meet or make progress towards meeting state

performance standards are similar to the overall goals for all FCPS elementary ELA students. In

addition to these overall goals, the following are specific goals related to reading intervention.

Elementary ELA reading intervention aims to:

Encourage administrators to place highly qualified instructional teachers in reading

intervention positions according to revised job descriptions and staffing guidance.

Provide elementary intervention trainings to support curriculum connections, data literacy,

and student self-regulation.

Train elementary interventionists on developing, implementing, and monitoring customized

evidence-based instructional program (EBIP) to address students’ specific reading needs.

Support and monitor elementary intervention tagging within the student information system

(SIS) for progress monitoring and longitudinal intervention history.

Encourage collaboration between special education and EL staff in the AAE department for

consistency with intervention expectations and delivery.

Accomplishments

With the exception of EL students, all student groups—by race/ethnicity and special services—

outperformed the state in grades 3-5 for ELA in 2017. In addition, all student groups except

students identifying as Pacific Islanders showed increases from 2016 to 2017 in PARCC

performance (levels 3-5) (see Figure 5 in Executive Summary). Figure 5 on page 12 also

shows that there is a positive three-year trend among the following student groups—“all”,

American Indian, Hispanic/Latino, two or more races, white, EL students, students with

disabilities, and students receiving FARM.

Challenges

Although increases were noted from 2016 to 2017, achievement gaps by race/ethnicity remain

in PARCC elementary ELA. Achievement gaps are evident among black/African American

students (65.3%, 38.9%) and Hispanic/Latino (64.4%, 35.3%) when compared to “all students”

(77.5%, 53.0%) (performance bands 3-5 and 4-5, respectively) (see Table 14).

Likewise, in comparison to “all” students, students receiving special services (students with

disabilities and EL) are not meeting state performance standards (described in prior sections). A

coherent instructional delivery model that connects the intervention to general education

classroom instruction will continue to be important. Providing professional learning for all

instructional stakeholders to understand the rigor and expectations of the MCCRS frameworks


requires time and funding. Another challenge involves implementing literacy best practices

necessary for accelerating struggling readers. This requires consistency with both intervention

programs matched to the general education classroom expectations. Materials for instruction

and materials for necessary intervention remain limited in scope and quantity. The frameworks

require all students to read and comprehend complex texts at their grade level. Accessibility

to high-quantity and high-quality reading materials remains significantly below what research

shows is needed to accelerate growth.

Table 14. PARCC Elementary ELA (Grades 3-5) Performance (2017) RACE/ETHNICITY AND SPECIAL SERVICES




All Students 77.5 53.0

American Indian 80.5 68.3

Asian 87.9 69.5

Black/African American 65.3 38.9

Hispanic/Latino 64.4 35.3

Pacific Islander 77.8 51.9

Two or More Races 77.7 53.4

White 82.4 58.9

EL 25.8 4.9

FARM 60.2 31.7

Special Education 30.9 12.3


The following are strategies that will either be newly implemented or continued moving forward

to ensure the progress of students who are failing to meet or make progress towards state

performance standards.

Kindergarten-Grade 5 Guide to Support EL Writers. ELA curriculum staff created

supportive instructional documents in the area of writing. These grade level documents

for K-5 provide the additional scaffolding necessary within explicit writing instruction in

order to allow struggling writers to fully participate in writing instruction. The local on-

demand writing assessment measures student growth in writing craft and writing

mechanics. These K-5 assessments are administered three times per year. The lesson

accommodations for struggling writers documents help general education teachers and

service providers to plan appropriate instruction. During the 2016 summer curriculum

workshops, the lesson accommodations for struggling writers were developed by a


group of classroom teachers, literacy specialists and EL teachers. Unrestricted funds

(curriculum writing funds) were used to pay the teachers to participate in the workshop.

The total cost of the workshop was $8,921.

Kindergarten-First Grade Comprehension Strategy Instruction. FCPS created

kindergarten and first grade comprehension strategy instruction lessons. These lessons

provide standards-based instruction for how to comprehend complex text and make

meaning which is the ultimate goal. The local reading assessment (Benchmark

Assessment System by Fountas and Pinnell) measures student growth in oral reading

accuracy and oral reading comprehension of increasingly complex text. Kindergarten

and first grade students are administered these assessments three times per year. The

kindergarten and first grade comprehension strategy instruction lessons support general

education teachers with planning standards-based reading instruction. During the 2016

summer curriculum workshops, these comprehension strategy instruction lessons were

developed by a group of classroom teachers. Unrestricted funds (curriculum writing

funds) were used to pay the teachers to participate in the workshop. The total cost of the

workshop was $13,306.

Local Benchmark/Guided Reading. Guided reading continuums for readers level A-Z

were created. These continuums outlined the specific lesson components for an

effective guided reading lesson: familiar rereading, new book introduction, reading the

text, discussing the meaning, teaching for processing, and word work. The local reading

assessment (Benchmark Assessment System by Fountas and Pinnell) measures

student growth in oral reading accuracy and oral reading comprehension of increasingly

complex text. These K-5 assessments are administered throughout the year to monitor

progress. The guided reading continuums support general education teachers with

planning differentiated small group reading instruction that is based on student need.

During the 2016 summer curriculum workshops, the guided reading continuums were

developed by literacy specialists. Unrestricted funds (curriculum writing funds) were

used to pay the literacy specialists to participate in the workshop. The total cost of the

workshop was $5,947.

In addition, the SASI department staff have created elementary ELA strategies specific to

reading intervention goals.

Shared Vision. A shared vision for reading intervention was created to define desired

achievements, to provide guidance and inspiration for advancing student achievement,

and to elicit collaboration toward common goals. The vision was created by FCPS

reading intervention teams at a professional learning session in the fall and revisited

throughout the year to verify goal alignment and monitor progress towards reading

intervention goals. The reading intervention vision was created and reviewed at quarterly

professional learning sessions. Interventionists were also trained in the intervention

placement tool and Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI). Unrestricted funds were used for

procuring substitutes so that teachers could attend these sessions. The total cost for the

year for substitutes was $3,036.20. Unrestricted funds were also used to provide

teachers workshop pay to create materials related to the intervention training and


development of and training for the intervention placement tool. The total cost for the

year for workshop pay was $7,515.73.

Intervention Placement Tool/Training. An intervention placement tool and related

training was created to ensure struggling readers were placed accurately in interventions

and that their progress in interventions was monitored to evaluate the effectiveness of

the interventions. The rollout of and training for the intervention placement tool occurred

during the quarterly professional learning sessions attended by reading intervention

teachers. These trainings allowed interventionists to verify student intervention

placement and monitor progress with the guidance of the SASI staff. (Cost-neutral)

Leveled Literacy Intervention. The SASI department acquired LLI, a research-

validated, comprehension intervention with in-depth progress monitoring capabilities, as

well as materials of instruction for corrective reading, an intervention to address students

with deficits in decoding. SASI provided ongoing training for LLI during quarterly

professional learning sessions for reading intervention teachers. Unrestricted funds were

used to purchase the intervention materials for LLI and corrective reading. The total cost

for the initial purchase in 2015-16 was $191,073.21. For 2017-18, additional costs,

totaling $73,843, were associated with intervention materials to ensure the alignment of

resources.

In addition, systemic strategies are being implemented to ensure progress among all students,

including special populations; see the Executive Summary.

P ARCC E NG LISH LANG UAGE ARTS/LITE RACY Grad es 6 -8

Like elementary ELA, the FCPS secondary ELA program supports the goal of ensuring that all

students are independent readers, writers, and critical thinkers. In addition to finding joy in

reading and writing, the secondary ELA program focuses on students working toward college

and career readiness as they progress through the curriculum.


The FCPS middle school ELA program is based on research and best practices for instruction

and assessment that enable students to be successful in the 21st century. Specifically, and

similar to elementary ELA, the middle school ELA program aims to:

Produce independent and strategic readers, writers, and critical thinkers;

Provide students with the necessary skills to read and analyze a wide variety of increasingly

challenging texts including poems, short stories, nonfiction and novels;

Teach students to respond to both fiction and nonfiction by writing to express ideas via

argumentative, narrative and explanatory formats;

Accelerate the reading and writing achievement of all students in ELA;

Differentiate for students who are not yet meeting language arts expectations; and


Provide curricular resources and assessments that are aligned to the MCCRS frameworks

for ELA.


A review of PARCC data from 2015 to 2017 reflects several accomplishments in grades 6-8

ELA. Approximately 74% of students in grades 6-8 taking PARCC performed at a level three or

higher; 50% at four or higher (see Table 15). From 2016 to 2017, increases in performance

(levels 3-5 and 4-5) in PARCC ELA occurred in grades 6-8. With the exception of grade 6,

three-year trend data also show an increase in performance. In addition, FCPS continues to

outperform the state in grades 6-8 ELA (see Figure 1 on page 10).

Table 15. PARCC Middle School ELA (Grades 6-8) Performance SCHOOL YEAR 2015-2017



2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017

Grade 6 79.3 73.8 75.5▼ 48.1 44.1 48.8▲

Grade 7 67.7 73.2 74.6▲ 40.2 48.2 52.6▲

Grade 8 68.9 71.8 72.0▲ 41.0 47.3 49.0▲

Grades 6-8 72.0 72.9 74.1▲ 43.1 46.5 50.1▲


In addition, data shows a strong percentage of students who met or exceeded expectations on

the PARCC ELA grades 6-8 sub-claims. In comparison to 2016, the 2017 PARCC data reflects

growth in the number of students who met or exceeded expectations on most of the PARCC

sub claims with small decreases in reading literature and reading vocabulary. Similar to

elementary ELA, the data show there is a balanced performance on whether students are

reading information or literary text. Written expression and knowledge and use of language are

two areas where students have the most difficulty.



The goals for students receiving special education services in grades 6-8 ELA are consistent

with the overall goals for all FCPS students with an emphasis on differentiating for students who

are not yet meeting language arts standards.

Accomplishments

In 2017, students with disabilities in grades 6 and 7 outscored the state in the performance band

of 3-5. Likewise, accomplishments are noted when analyzing three-year trends among students

with disabilities taking PARCC in grades 6-8. Overall, grades 6-8 combined showed an increase


from 2015 to 2017 (19.4% to 20.2%, respectively). When looking at performance band 4-5,

increases are evident in each grade from 2015 to 2017 (see Table 16).

Table 16. PARCC Middle School ELA (Grades 6-8) Performance (2015-2017) STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES



Grade Grade

6 7 8 6-8 6 7 8 6-8

2015 23.3 17.6 17.3 19.4 ≤5 6.9 ≤5 ≤5

2016 20.4 19.7 23.1 21.1 ≤5 6.3 6.9 6.1

2017 23.3 22.6▲ 14.2▼ 20.2▲ ≤5▲ 9.7▲ 5.5▲ 6.3▲


Table 17 shows the PARCC grades 6-8 ELA performance among students who have exited


three-year trends are positive in the PARCC performance band 4-5. In 2017, about half of

students who exited special education services are performing at levels 3-5; 20% at levels 4-5.

Table 17. PARCC Middle School ELA (Grades 6-8) Performance (2015-2017) STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES—EXITED SERVICES




2015 54.5 17.5

2016 51.0 21.1

2017 50.4▼ 19.7▲


Challenges

Data from the 2017 administration of PARCC ELA grades 6-8 indicate that approximately 20%

of students who have disabilities were in the performance band 3-5 in comparison to 74% of all

FCPS students. Thus, 80% of students with disabilities did not meet/partially met expectations.


Table 18 outlines the work that the ELA curriculum staff will be conducting in 2017-18 in terms

of strategies to ensure that students with disabilities are making progress towards meeting

and/or exceeding expectations.


Table 18. English Language Arts, Grades 6-8—Strategies for 2017-2018 School Year

Strategy Rationale Timeline Measurement of Student

Progress Funding Source

Additional Instructional Time

As part of established FCPS secondary literacy program guidelines, additional instructional time with teacher who possess a comprehensive expertise in ELA/literacy is proven to increase reading comprehension scores.

Extended learning opportunities (ELO) take place throughout the school year either during the regular school day

or after school.

Increased success on FCPS ELA required benchmark and

PARCC scores.

During school: no funding source

After school: FCPS budget for ELO positions

Access to Research-based Reading Interventions

Early identification and placement of students into interventions based on needs are proven to increase reading comprehension scores.

Reading intervention classes are available throughout the

school year.

Increased success on FCPS ELA required benchmark, HMR Reading Inventory and PARCC

scores.

FCPS SASI budget allocations

Personalized Educational Opportunities

Instruction based on individual student data effectively meets the needs of all students.

Teacher training throughout the school year on research-based strategies such as blended learning, scaffolding of instruction and Universal Design for Learning (UDL).


PARCC scores.

ELA teacher training takes place during the August Curriculum Day and throughout the school year via literacy specialist meetings All of these opportunities are part of the FCPS operating budget.

Increased Formative Assessment Opportunities

The use of formative assessments on a regular basis to adjust instruction give teachers a better picture of student needs and skill gaps.

Teacher training throughout the

school year.


PARCC scores.

ELA teacher training takes place during the August Curriculum Day and throughout the school year via literacy specialist meetings All of these opportunities are part of the FCPS operating budget.


Secondary ELA Workgroup

In its work with students, FCPS will equip each and every student to be an empowered learner

and an engaged citizen, to achieve a positive impact in the local and global community. Literacy

is the gateway to all other learning. In order to become proficient readers and writers students

need high quality core instruction and, if necessary, intervention. Students who are not proficient

readers by the end of third grade will likely struggle throughout their schooling and are at risk for

not graduating on time. The first steps to improving student achievement is to ensure that all

students have access to high quality reading instruction and interventions based on best

practice, data, and content knowledge. Communication is also an essential skill for success.

Strong oral and written communication skills are critical in today's workplace.

The FCPS Secondary

Literacy Workgroup will

identify key elements of

high quality literacy

instruction. These

elements will align with

best practices and will be

implemented with fidelity

across all elementary

schools. They also require

a strong professional

learning system for

teachers and ongoing

monitoring of

implementation across

elementary schools.

FCPS will provide

professional learning

opportunities for one

special education teacher per secondary school to further develop their understanding of the

ELA standards along with the secondary literacy specialists at each school. This collaboration

will provide special educators and literacy specialists an opportunity to learn about the

standards and discuss how the standards connect to their work in intervention classroom

instruction and specialized instruction.


benchmark assessment to plan for continuous improvement and progress monitoring. (Costs:

restricted, #84-027A, Narrowing Achievement Gap, $23,973)


special education services in secondary ELA; refer to Global Strategies or Changes in the






The goals for EL students in grades 6-8 ELA are consistent with the overall goals and objectives

for all FCPS EL students with an emphasis on differentiating for students who are not yet

meeting language arts standards. In short, EL students need to meet the same achievement

standards as all other students.

Accomplishments

Significant gaps for ELs remain related to performance on the PARCC assessment. Only 7.2%

of ELs scored proficient in this area in FCPS (see Table 19).

Table 19. PARCC Middle School ELA (Grades 6-8) Performance (2015-2017) ENGLISH LEARNERS



Grade Grade

6 7 8 6-8 6 7 8 6-8

2015 16.1 5.8 5.1 9.4 - - - -

2016 9.0 5.9 9.1 8.0 ≤ 5 ≤ 5 ≤ 5 ≤ 5▼

2017 5.5▼ 9.1▲ 7.4▲ 7.2▼ - - - -


However, the performance of the exited EL student group shows some progress. Forty-four

percent of exited EL students performed at a level three or higher while approximately 24%

performed at a level four or higher in 2017 in PARCC grades 6-8 ELA (see Table 20).

Table 20. PARCC Middle School ELA (Grades 6-8) Performance (2015-2017) ENGLISH LEARNERS—EXITED SERVICES




2015 62.4 18.8

2016 46.5 12.4

2017 44.2▼ 24.4▲



Challenges



















proficiency (cost-neutral). Local and state (ACCESS and PARCC) data will used to monitor and

track the progress strategies implemented as well as the progress of EL students.

In addition to the strategies outlined in Table 18, systemic strategies are being implemented to

ensure progress among EL students in secondary ELA; refer to Global Strategies or Changes in

the Limited English Proficiency section. Also, systemic strategies are being implemented to

ensure progress among all students, including special populations; see the Executive Summary.

Progress on ACCESS for ELLs



The following student groups are identified as performing at a lower achievement level in grades

6-8 ELA when compared to the overall student population: black/African American,

Hispanic/Latino, and students with disabilities, and EL students, and students receiving FARM.


Identifying sound, research-based instructional strategies and making them available to all

student populations are the main goals for eliminating the achievement gap. The continued use

of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) as well as the move toward more personalized learning

help support classroom instruction. Early identification of students who need extra support as

well as continued work with the AAE and SASI departments round out goals for helping

students make progress toward meeting state performance goals.


Additional goals related to reading intervention include the following:

Encourage administrators to place highly qualified instructional teachers in reading intervention positions;

Reinforce the recommended research-based delivery model for secondary intervention

programs;

Provide secondary intervention trainings to support curriculum connections, data literacy,

and student self-regulation;

Train secondary interventionists on utilizing embedded intervention materials;

Support and monitor secondary intervention courses within the SIS for progress monitoring

on local assessment performance; and

Collaborate with ELL and special education staff in the AAE department for consistency with

intervention expectations and delivery.

Accomplishments

Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, and FARM students outperformed the same student

groups from the 2016 administration of PARCC grades 6-8 ELA (see Table 21). Figure 7 in the

Executive Summary on page 14 shows evidence of increases among all student groups

except EL students during the past three years.

Table 21. PARCC Middle School ELA (Grades 6-8) Performance (2017) RACE/ETHNICITY AND SPECIAL SERVICES






Asian 92.2 78.0





White 78.4 54.4

EL 7.2 ≤ 5

FARM 51.6 26.2



Challenges

Data from the 2017 administration of PARCC reflects challenges among student groups

identified as performing at a lower achievement level in grades 6-8 ELA.

These data indicate that approximately:

Fifty-nine percent of black/African American students were in the performance band 3-5

in comparison to 74% of all FCPS students.

Sixty-one percent of Hispanic/Latino students were in the performance band 3-5 in

comparison to 74 of all FCPS students.

Fifty-two percent of students receiving FARM were in the performance band 3-5 in

comparison to 74% of all FCPS students.

Twenty percent of students with disabilities were in the performance band 3-5 in


Seven percent of EL students were in the performance band 3-5 in comparison to 74%

of all FCPS students.


In addition to the strategies outlined in Table 18, systemic strategies are being implemented to

ensure progress among all students in secondary ELA and are described in the Executive

Summary and sections on Global Strategies or Changes for students with disabilities and EL

students. Also, systemic strategies are being implemented to ensure progress among all


P ARCC E NG LISH G RADE 10


FCPS’ high school English program is based on research and best practices for instruction and

assessment that enable students to be successful in the 21st century. The goals and objectives

of FCPS’ high school English program are similar to middle school ELA (see Overall Goals and

Objectives in PARCC English Language Arts/Literacy, Grades 6-8).


Data for PARCC English 10 reflects several accomplishments for the 2016-17 school year (see

Table 22). In comparison to 2016 PARCC data, the 2017 data reflects growth in the number of

students reaching proficiency levels.

Proficiency levels 4-5 increased from 56.0% in 2016 to 64.1% in 2017.

Proficiency levels 3-5 increased from 73.8% in 2016 to 81.5% in 2017.

A strong percentage of students met or exceeded expectations on the PARCC sub-claims with

students in 2017 outperforming students in 2016. In addition, FCPS rankings compared in the

state for PARCC English 10 are as follows—4th in the state (levels 3-5) and 6th in the state

(levels 4-5) in 2017.


Table 22. PARCC English 10 Performance 2015-2017



2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017

High School 69.6 73.8 81.5▲ 50.9 56.0 64.1▲




The goals and objectives for students with disabilities in secondary ELA are consistent with the

overall goals and objectives for students with disabilities in FCPS.

Accomplishments

Data from the 2017 administration of PARCC reflects accomplishments among students with

disabilities in English 10—proficiency levels 3-5 increased from 29.3% in 2016 to 37.3% in 2017

(see Table 23). In addition, a positive trend is evident from 2015 to 2017 in both performance

bands, 3-5 and 4-5.


Table 23. PARCC English 10 Performance (2015-2017) STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES



High School High School

2015 25.9 14.0

2016 29.3 9.5

2017 37.3▲ 15.8▲


Table 24 shows the PARCC English 10 performance among students who have exited special

education services. Similar to students currently receiving special education services, three-year

PARCC trends are positive in each performance band. Of noteworthy, approximately 68% of

students who exited special education services are approaching, meeting, and/or exceeding

expectations while 50% are meeting/exceeding expectations.

Table 24. PARCC English 10 Performance (2015-2017) STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES—EXITED SERVICES




2015 54.2 37.5

2016 60.0 30.0

2017 68.2▲ 50.0▲


Challenges

A significant performance gap exists between students with disabilities (37.3%) and all FCPS

students (81.5%) in 2017.


In 2017-18, FCPS will form a secondary ELA workgroup. The same rationale for the elementary

literacy program is used for the purpose of forming this workgroup—literacy is the gateway to all

other learning. The FCPS Secondary Literacy Workgroup will identify key elements of high

quality literacy instruction. These elements will align with best practices and will be implemented

with fidelity across all secondary schools. They also require a strong professional learning

system for teachers and ongoing monitoring of implementation across schools.



secondary school to further develop their understanding of the ELA standards along with the

secondary literacy specialists at each school. This collaboration will provide special educators

and literacy specialists an opportunity to learn about the standards and discuss how the

standards connect to their work in intervention classroom instruction, and specialized

instruction.


benchmark assessment to plan for continuous improvement and progress monitoring.


In addition, along with strategies outlined in Table 18 on page 72, systemic strategies are being

implemented to ensure progress among students receiving special education services in

secondary ELA. Refer to Global Strategies or Changes in the Special Education section. Also,

systemic strategies are being implemented to ensure progress among all students, including

special populations; see the Executive Summary.



The goals for EL students in English 10 are consistent with the overall goals and objectives for

all FCPS students with an emphasis on differentiating for students who are not yet meeting


language arts standards. In short, EL students need to meet the same achievement standards

as all other students.

Accomplishments

Data from the 2017 administration of PARCC reflects accomplishments among EL students in

English 10—proficiency levels 3-5 increased from 20.6% in 2015 to 25.4% in 2017 (see Table

25).

Table 25. PARCC English 10 Performance (2015-2017) ENGLISH LEARNERS




2015 20.6 8.8

2016 13.8 1.7

2017 25.4▲ 6.3▼


The performance of the exited EL student group shows progress. Approximately 56% of exited

EL students performed at a level three or higher while 31% performed at a level four or higher in

2017 in PARCC English 10 (see Table 26).

Table 26. PARCC English 10 PARCC Performance (2015-2017) ENGLISH LEARNERS—EXITED SERVICES




2015 35.3 23.5

2016 45.5 31.8

2017 56.3▲ 31.3▲


Challenges




















proficiency (cost-neutral). Local and state (ACCESS and PARCC) data will used to monitor and

track the progress strategies implemented as well as the progress of EL students.

In addition to the strategies outlined in Table 18 on page 72, systemic strategies are being

implemented to ensure progress among EL students in secondary ELA; refer to Global

Strategies or Changes in the Limited English Proficiency section. Also, systemic strategies are

being implemented to ensure progress among all students, including special populations; see

the Executive Summary.

Progress on Access for ELLs



Students Failing to Meet or Make Progress Towards State Performance Standards


The goals and objectives for students failing to meet or make progress towards performance

standards in PARCC English 10 are consistent with the overall goals for all students in high

school ELA. These include a focus on reading intervention-specific goals. See Overall Goals

and Objectives in PARCC English Language Arts/Literacy, Grades 6-8.

Accomplishments

The 2017 noteworthy accomplishments of students failing to meet or make progress toward

meeting state performance standards in ELA/literacy for grade 10 include:

Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, students with disabilities, EL students, and

students receiving FARM outperformed the same student groups from the 2016

administration of PARCC English 10 (see Table 27).

Increases in performance from 2016 to 2017 are noted for all students groups (see

Figure 9 on page 16 of the Executive Summary).

Table 27. PARCC English 10 Performance (2017) RACE/ETHNICITY AND SPECIAL SERVICES






Asian 93.6 80.8

Black/African American

67.9 43.8



Two or More Races

78.8 62.5

White 85.8 70.3

EL 25.4 6.3

FARM 60.3 35.2

Special Education

37.3 15.8


Challenges

Based on the review of 2017 PARCC data, challenges among students failing to meet or make

progress toward state performance standards in English 10 continue to exist. That is,

approximately:

Sixty-eight percent of black/African American students were in the performance band 3-5

in comparison to 82% of all FCPS students.

Seventy percent of Hispanic/Latino students were in the performance band 3-5 in


Sixty percent of FARM students were in the performance band 3-5 in comparison to 82%

of all FCPS students.

Thirty-seven percent of students with disabilities were in the performance band 3-5 in


Twenty-five percent of EL students were in the performance band 3-5 in comparison to

82% of all FCPS students.


See Strategies or Changes in Students Failing to Meet or Make Progress Towards Performance

Standards in PARCC English Language Arts/Literacy, Grades 6-8. In addition, systemic

strategies are being implemented to ensure progress among all students, including special

populations; see the Executive Summary.

P ARCC E NG LISH G RADE 11 ( O p t i o n a l R e p o r t i n g )

In addition to MSDE’s graduation assessment requirements, Maryland law requires all students

to take an assessment by the end of grade 11 to determine if the student is college and career

ready. The first year that Maryland set forth this requirement was in 2015-16. Thus, to ensure

that all students were offered a free assessment to meet the state CCR requirement, all

students taking English 11 in 2015-16 or later were offered to take the PARCC English 11

assessment [if CCR was not met by other means, such as SAT, ACT, Accuplacer or Advanced

Placement (AP) scores]. This means that not all FCPS students took PARCC English 11 in the

2016-17 school year. Beginning in the 2017-18 school year, PARCC English 11 will no longer

be administered to English 11 students who are not college and career ready. Instead, all

students in grade 11 will be offered the SAT in both English and math at no cost to the student.

P ARCC MAT HEMATI CS Grad es 3 -5

As children learn mathematics they develop skills and concepts they will use in science,

technology, business, and in a wide range of career areas. Children learn to value, understand,

and use math not only at school but also in their world and are successful in the mathematical

applications they encounter. The elementary school curriculum encourages students to enjoy

learning and doing math and helps them to apply their growing base of knowledge as successful


thinkers, problem solvers, and communicators. In encouraging the development of mathematics

proficiency, staff works to develop conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, strategic

competence, adaptive reasoning, and a productive disposition. These attributes are developed

in all areas of study within all domains of study: counting and cardinality, number and operations

in base ten, operations and algebraic thinking, measurement and data, geometry, number and

operations-fractions.


Systemic goals exist for mathematics within the framework of state assessments and local

assessments. Targets for achievement on the PARCC assessments are listed below as well as

targets for achievement within the local assessment platform.

PARCC-Specific Goals

Using a five-year PARCC target model, elementary math will achieve annual increases

for each student group with 10 or more students.

2014-2015 baseline: FCPS will cut the gap in half from baseline to 100%; Target student

groups: FCPS will cut the gap by three quarters.

Increase the percent of students who demonstrate growth by one performance level and

the percent of students who score four and five from 2014-2015 baseline.

Local Math Assessments

Reporting will occur for measurement of mastery of quarterly unit outcomes.

For grades 1 and 2, 80% of students will score 75% or better on mastered unit outcomes

for each benchmark (one through four) and/or demonstrate an increase from 2016 to

2017.

For grades 3-5, 70% of students will score 75% or better on mastered unit outcomes for

each benchmark (one through three) and/or demonstrate an increase from 2016 to

2017.

For each student group, there will be no more than a 10% gap in performance.


Based upon the available data, the following accomplishments are noted (see Table 28):

Over half of all test takers (52%) scored at levels four or five, which indicates a gain from

2016.

Seventy-nine percent of test-takers performed at a level three or higher which also

indicates a gain from 2016.

Across all elementary grades, a positive three-year trend is evident in PARCC math.


Table 28. PARCC Elementary Math (Grades 3-5) PARCC Performance 2015-2017



2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017

Grade 3 77.1 78.2 80.4▲ 51.6 54.6 55.4▲

Grade 4 73.0 77.8 77.7▲ 43.9 53.3 49.8▲

Grade 5 75.0 77.3 77.7▲ 43.1 51.8 50.1▲

Grades 3-5 75.0 77.8 78.6▲ 46.3 53.2 51.7▲




The goals and objectives for students with disabilities in elementary mathematics are consistent

with the overall goals and objectives for all FCPS students receiving special education services.

Accomplishments

Students with disabilities showed a growth of 8.3% points from 2015 to 2017. In addition, over

the past three years, increases are noted for each elementary grade in PARCC math (see

Table 29).

Table 29. PARCC Elementary Math (Grades 3-5) Performance (2015-2017) STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES



Grade Grade

3 4 5 3-5 3 4 5 3-5

2015 37.5 26.6 29.4 31.0 12.5 7.4 5.1 8.3

2016 39.3 37.4 31.2 35.9 16.5 13.1 11.0 13.4

2017 46.5▲ 36.5▲ 34.9▲ 39.3▲ 22.6▲ 12.4▲ 10.7▲ 15.2▲


Table 30 shows the PARCC math grades 3-5 performance among students who have exited


three-year PARCC trends are positive in each performance band. Of noteworthy, approximately


79% of students who exited special education services are approaching, meeting, and/or

exceeding expectations while 48% are meeting or exceeding expectations.

Table 30. PARCC Elementary Math (Grades 3-5) Performance (2015-2017) STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES—EXITED SERVICES




2015 75.4 43.5

2016 76.6 46.0

2017 78.9▲ 47.6▲


Challenges

One of the system goals is there will be no more than a 10% gap in performance for students

with disabilities compared to their nondisabled peers. The current gap that exists between the

top performing student group and students with disabilities far exceeds 10% (78.9% for all

students compared to 39.3% for students with disabilities).


In order to become flexible mathematical thinkers, students need high quality core instruction

and, if necessary, intervention. The first steps to improving student achievement is to ensure

that all students have access to high quality instruction and interventions based on best

practices, data, and content knowledge. Communication is also an essential skill for success.

Strong oral and written communication skills are critical in today's workplace.

The FCPS Elementary Math Workgroup will identify key elements of high quality mathematics



teachers and ongoing monitoring of implementation across elementary schools.

The ultimate purpose of this workgroup is to equip each and every student to be an empowered

learner and an engaged citizen, to achieve a positive impact in the local and global community.

The focus will be two pronged, to increase academic success of struggling learners as they

navigate the rigorous content standards and educate imaginative learners who grasp concepts

and have the ability and willingness to investigate ideas and solve real-life problems.

Additionally, the workgroup will equip teachers in individual schools to maintain commitment to

high expectations of students; create personalized learning environments; collaborate with other

teachers within the school and the surrounding community; and encourage effective teaching by

means of active inquiry and in-depth learning.


elementary school to further develop their understanding of the mathematics standards along


with the elementary math instructional leaders at each school. This collaboration will provide

special educators and elementary math instructional leaders an opportunity to learn about the

standards and discuss how the standards connect to their work in intervention, classroom

instruction, and specialized instruction.

The workgroup will meet at least five times per school year to research and determine best

practices to ensure struggling learners have access to additional time for high quality instruction

and interventions. The workgroup will then identify approximately five to six schools across all

levels to field test implementation guidelines.



special education services in elementary mathematics. Refer to Global Strategies or Changes in

the Special Education section. In addition, systemic strategies are being implemented to ensure




The goals and objectives for EL students in elementary mathematics are consistent with the

overall goals and objectives for all FCPS EL students. In short, EL students need to meet the

same achievement standards as all other students. In addition, specific PARCC and local

assessment goals are described in Overall Goals and Objectives for PARCC Mathematics

Grades 3-5.

Accomplishments

Significant gaps for ELs remain related to the PARCC assessment performance. Overall, only

35.3% of all EL students scored earned a proficiency level of 3-5 on recent PARCC results (see

Table 31).


Table 31. PARCC Elementary Math (Grades 3-5) Performance (2015-2017) ENGLISH LEARNERS



Grade Grade

3 4 5 3-5 3 4 5 3-5

2015 43.9 17.8 18.8 31.5 13.2 5.9 2.5 9.0

2016 46.6 35.4 19.8 38.5 17.4 7.1 4.7 12.4

2017 51.7▲ 19.3▲ 13.8▼ 35.3▲ 18.5▲ 3.7▼ 1.3▼ 11.0▲


However, the performance of the exited EL student group shows progress in comparison to

those currently receiving EL services (see Table 32). In several elementary schools, this

student group actually outperformed a number of other groups on the PARCC assessment.

Table 32. PARCC Elementary Math (Grades 3-5) Performance (2015-2017) ENGLISH LEARNERS—EXITED SERVICES




2015 74.5 41.1

2016 70.5 41.8

2017 73.4▼ 33.8▼


Challenges










little to none (or interrupted) formal schooling prior to FCPS enrollment. PARCC assessments





Phase II of SIOP finished last year; FCPS will begin the next wave of SIOP implementation at

specific schools. The SIOP Model is a research-based and validated model of sheltered

instruction that has been widely and successfully used across the U.S. for over 15 years.

Professional learning in the SIOP Model helps content area teachers plan and deliver lessons

that allow English learners to acquire academic knowledge as they develop English language

proficiency.

Systemic strategies are being implemented to ensure progress among EL students in

elementary mathematics; refer to Global Strategies or Changes in the Limited English

Proficiency section. In addition, systemic strategies are being implemented to ensure progress

among all students, including special populations; see the Executive Summary.





Systemic goals exist for all students for mathematics within the framework of state assessments

and local assessments. Targets for achievement on the PARCC assessments and targets for

achievement within the local assessment platform are described in Overall Goals and

Objectives for PARCC Mathematics Grades 3-5.


Accomplishments

Based on the review of data (see Table 33), overall accomplishments among students failing to

meet or make progress towards state performance standards in PARCC grades 3-5 math for

the 2016-17 school year are noted below:

More than 60% of FARM, Hispanic/Latino, black/African American, and two or more

races scored within levels 3-5 (60.1%, 64.7%, 63.6% and 78.7%, respectively).

Approximately 91% of Asians, having the highest student group performance, scored

with levels 3-5.

A gap of 15% or less exists between all students and black/African American and

Hispanic/Latino student groups.

All student groups—American Indian, black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Pacific

Islander, two or more races, white, FARM, students with disabilities—with the exception

of the EL student group, showed evidence of an increasing trend from 2015 to 2017.

Table 33. PARCC Elementary Math (Grades 3-5) Performance (2017) RACE/ETHNICITY AND SPECIAL SERVICES






Asian 90.5 70.9





White 84.2 58.8

EL 35.3 11.0

FARM 60.1 29.0



Challenges

Based upon available PARCC data and school-based discussions, challenges and barriers for students failing to meet standards can be related to the following root causes:

Procedural fluency;

Making sense of problems, story problems, two and three step problems;

Fraction/decimal/percent connections and equivalences;

Place value—number base ten, rule of 10;

Reasoning—concept of quantity, context of number, ability to critique/defend;

Early number sense skills—jumping decades, number sequences, flexibility in composition

and decomposition of number;

Math vocabulary and language;

Organizing data, pictures, writing, equations, etc.;

Perseverance with tasks;

Test taking skills—phobias, lack of precision;

Organizing and showing work—manipulative and visual modeling; and

Use of strategies within the operations and algebraic thinking domain.


Systemic strategies are being implemented to ensure progress among all students, including

special populations; see the Executive Summary. In the 2017-18 school year, the elementary

math specialist group is underway providing the structure for growth changes and strategies.

Continue focus on curricular framework established based upon Sinek and DuFour’s work

(the what, the why, and the how; and how it pertains to curriculum design).

Develop Curriculum Now homepage to identify framework, math proficiency, the

instructional block, etc.

Continue to establish the common understandings of the “what” and “how do we know.”

Proceed with unit and quarter unpacks in order develop deep conceptual understanding.

Continue to model response to data professional learning opportunities based upon state

and local data.

Facilitate an EMS book study using Hattie’s Visible Learning for Mathematics.

Facilitate collaborative professional learning opportunities within the system to include a

core math team per building. The core team includes members of school staffs critical to

special education and EL student groups.

Continue the structure within the elementary math instructional leader (EMIL) program—

EMIL Leadership Team (ELT).


Focus EMIL curricular work using a work team model with teams established to support

initiatives and growth opportunities. Team charges are directed by the curriculum specialist

for elementary mathematics, the teacher specialist for elementary mathematics, the ELT and

the EMS group related to the curriculum structure, the Curriculum Now website and

professional learning.

The ever-present implied rationale for such work is to build teacher capacity which results in

student achievement. The rationale for the comprehensive work team strategy is found

within the charge of such group (see Table 34).

Table 34. Elementary Math—Curricular Work Teams

Grade Level Work Team

Tasks

Charge/Rationale Timeline

Quarterly Assessment

Refine, revise quarterly assessments for grades 1-5 for determining growth towards target.

Per timeline established

Unit Formatives Develop form B of unit formatives for each unit grades 1-5 for the purpose of monitoring progress and informing instruction. Refine, revise existing form A unit formatives.

Establish timeline for delivery within unit window

Instructional Strategy Guide

Update site documents on Curriculum NOW to include and focus work on pedagogical resources; particularly video clips.

Per ending of each quarter

Home School Connection Resources

Refine and re-construct grade level curriculum pamphlets. Prepare for family/community events (e.g., Math Nights). Update FCPS.org parent resource site. All charges designed to support parents as “first teachers.”

Per event timeframe-Ongoing

Resource Development

Update FCPS.org. Develop a recommended classroom inventory by grade. Create technology resource page. All charges designed to support teacher and parent accessibility to curricular information.

Ongoing

Response and Advocacy Statements

Respond to current topics, issues, concerns. Provide advocacy and visionary statements when necessary in order to clarify and provide directions in process and procedures.

As-needed

Tables 35 and 36 provides the additional strategies (including rationale, associated resources,

and timelines for monitoring progress) that are being implemented in the elementary math

program to ensure student progress.


Table 35. Elementary Math—Additional Strategies and Resources

Strategies Charge/Rationale Timeline

Professional learning opportunities for intervention teachers

Provide interventionists with professional learning opportunities to support growth and understanding of the “learner,” the resources, curriculum, etc.

Monthly

Tier 1 curricular materials within site

Provide general educators access to materials that enable them to respond to struggling students.

Annually

Extended learning opportunities (ELOs)

Provide before or after school math sessions for accelerating achievement towards standards.

Annually

Math intervention opportunities

Provide pull-out or push-in services to children identified at school level. Identification based upon multiple measures (PARCC, local assessments, teacher ranking, etc.).

Establish timeline for delivery within unit window

What Now—Intervention Team- Subgroup

(Math Inventory resources)

Field-test Math Inventory in three schools. Provide parameters for evidence-based instructional programs. Stabilize math structure/block within full day schedule. Charges designed to provide quality extended learning opportunities.

School year 2016-17

Pursue research based interventions

Update current resource pool containing Math Navigator and Dreambox with resources to support an evidence-based instructional practice approach.

Per ending of each quarter

Table 36. Elementary Math—Resource Allocations

Resource Allocation Funding Source of Funding

Local MSDE 3 credit math courses

FCPS professional learning budget—to be determined based upon enrollment

Unrestricted

Summer curricular workshops

FCPS Curriculum Instruction and Innovation Department funding ($25,488)

Unrestricted

School-based Elementary Math Specialist monthly professional learning meetings

FCPS elementary math budget ($36,088) Unrestricted

Materials of instruction and text

FCPS elementary math budget ($23,150) Unrestricted


P ARCC MAT HEMATI CS Grad es 6-8


The middle school mathematics program offers students strong academic preparation for

success in high school and future careers. Students learn important Pre-Algebra and Algebra 1

skills and concepts. They also continue to master skills in:

Ratio and proportional relationships.

The number systems.

Expression and equations.

Geometry.

Patterns and functions.

Statistics.

Probability.

Additionally, students build skills in the following mathematical practices:

Make sense of problems and

persevere in solving them.

Reason abstractly and quantitatively.

Construct viable arguments and

critique the reasoning of others.

Model with mathematics.

Use appropriate tools strategically.

Attend to precision.

Look for and make use of structure.

Look for and express regularity in

repeated reasoning.


One measure of student achievement is the results of the PARCC assessment. PARCC was

first administered in math in 2015. In 2017, 72% of students who took the PARCC assessment

in grades 6-8 combined performed at a level three or higher (n=8,650) (see Table 37).

As shown in Table 37, a positive three-year trend is evident in PARCC math grades 6, 7, and 8

when analyzing the results for both performance bands, 3-5 and 4-5. Some variation in

achievement is evident between the different grades. Students in grade 7 yielded the best

results with three-quarters (75.3%) of students performing at a level three or higher in 2017 (see


Table 37 below). Students in grade 6 had similar but slightly lower results with 73.6%

performing at a level three of higher. For grade 8, approximately 66% of students performed at a

level three or higher.

Table 37. PARCC Middle School Math (Grades 6-8) Performance 2015-2017



2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017

Grade 6 72.7 75.7 73.6▲ 41.1 47.2 45.7▲

Grade 7 71.3 74.3 75.3▲ 35.9 41.8 42.7▲

Grade 8 59.0 62.8 66.3▲ 26.0 34.1 37.2▲

Grades 6-8 68.3 71.4 72.0▲ 35.0 41.5 42.2▲




The middle school mathematics program gives all students, including students with learning

disabilities, strong academic preparation for success in high school and future careers. Students

learn important Pre-Algebra and Algebra 1 skills and concepts. They also continue to master

skills in Algebra, pattern and functions, geometry, measurement, statistics, probability, and

number relationships and computation.

Accomplishments

Approximately one-fifth (21% in each of the

last three years) of students receiving special

education services performed at a level three

or higher on PARCC math among middle

school students. These students comprise

approximately 10% of middle school students.

While the performance of student with

disabilities is low, three-year trends

demonstrate small increases in grades 7 and

8 for performance band 3-5 and grades 6 and

9 for performance band 4-5 (see Table 38).


Table 38. PARCC Middle School Math (Grades 6-8) Performance (2015-2017) STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES



Grade Grade

6 7 8 6-8 6 7 8 6-8

2015 22.8 22.2 17.7 21.0 6.2 7.3 ≤5 5.6

2016 24.4 20.1 17.8 20.8 7.2 7.4 5.7 6.8

2017 18.3▼ 25.3▲ 19.2▲ 20.9▼ 6.9▲ 7.1▼ 6.3▲ 6.8▲


Table 39 shows the PARCC elementary math performance among students who have exited

special education services. Of noteworthy, half of students who exited special education

services are approaching, meeting, and/or exceeding expectations.

Table 39. PARCC Middle School Math (Grades 6-8) Performance (2015-2017) STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES—EXITED SERVICES




2015 52.3 18.3

2016 55.2 21.0

2017 50.0▼ 17.5▼


Challenges

Students receiving special education services demonstrate weak results on the middle school

PARCC mathematics tests. In 2017, only 21% of these students (n=858) earned a score of

three or higher. This is essentially the same result that FCPS has seen over the past three

years. The 2017 results represent a gap of over 50% when compared with the entire test-taking

population; and an even higher gap of 58.1% with the non-disabled, test-taking population.

Students receiving special education services comprise about ten percent of the middle school

test-taking population.


Mathematics intervention classes are available to middle school students who are significantly

below grade level in terms of demonstrated content knowledge. Teachers of mathematics


intervention classes in middle schools attend four professional development days each year.

Substitute funds are provided by the SASI department for math intervention professional

learning.

Collaboration meetings are held four times in the school year to address the needs of special

education students who struggle with mathematics. Attendees to these meetings are school

mathematics teachers, school administrators, school special education teachers, and central

office leaders in mathematics. These meetings provide professional learning to school staff with

the intent of addressing the special academic needs of students of students with learning

disabilities. These meetings provide substitute funds to the schools and these funds are

provided by the central office.

Secondary mathematics professional learning days occur two times over the course of the

school year: once in August and once in October. These meetings provide information to

teachers regarding instructional strategies and resources (digital and otherwise). These

meetings are attended by all secondary mathematics teachers and are part of their regular work

schedule over the course of the school year. No additional funding is required for these two

meetings regarding substitutes (no need for substitutes), workshop pay (meetings occur during

the school day), nor materials.


special education services in secondary mathematics; refer to Global Strategies or Changes in

the Special Education section. In addition, systemic strategies are being implemented to ensure




The middle school mathematics

program gives all students—

including students with limited

English proficiency—strong

academic preparation for success

in high school and future careers.

Students learn important Pre-

Algebra and Algebra 1 skills and

concepts. They also continue to

master skills in Algebra, pattern

and functions, geometry,

measurement, statistics,

probability, and number

relationships and computation.

Accomplishments

Students receiving EL services demonstrate weak results on the middle school PARCC

mathematics tests. In 2017, only 10% of these students (n=249) earned a score of three or


higher. This is essentially the same result that FCPS has seen from this subgroup over the past

three years—10% in 2015, 13% in 2016, 10% in 2017 (see Table 40).

Table 40. PARCC Middle School Math (Grades 6-8) Performance (2015-2017) ENGLISH LEARNERS



Grade Grade

6 7 8 6-8 6 7 8 6-8

2015 10.5 9.2 9.6 9.8 ≤5 -- ≤5 ≤5

2016 14.3 12.3 12.5 13.0 ≤5 ≤5 ≤5 ≤5

2017 3.3▼ 9.1▼ 18.5▲ 10.0▲ ≤5▼ -- ≤5▲ ≤5▼


The performance of the exited EL student group shows progress over time when looking at

performance levels 4-5 (see Table 41). In addition, approximately 46% of the exited EL student

group approaching, meeting, and/or exceeding expectations on PARCC math grades 6-8.

Table 41. PARCC Middle School Math (Grades 6-8) Performance (SY 2015-2017) ENGLISH LEARNERS—EXITED SERVICES




2015 56.4 11.5

2016 49.6 16.3

2017 45.9▼ 18.8▲


Challenges

Significant achievement gaps remain for the EL group. The 2017 results represent a gap of over

60 percentage points (62) when compared with the entire test-taking population; a slightly

higher gap of 64.2 percentage points with the non-EL test-taking population. Students receiving

EL services comprise less than three percent (2.9%) of the middle school test-taking population.

Research states that ELs typically learn conversational English within one to two years;

however, academic language/vocabulary skills take five to seven years on average to achieve




regardless of the student’s home language, country of origin, and socioeconomic status. In

order for FCPS to reduce the current achievement gap for EL students, EL staff and mainstream

instructors will need to work collaboratively, with a sense of urgency, to narrow the current gap.


little to none (or interrupted) formal schooling prior to FCPS enrollment. PARCC assessments




Phase II of SIOP finished last year; FCPS will begin the next wave of SIOP implementation at

specific schools. The SIOP model is a research-based and validated model of sheltered

instruction that has been widely and successfully used across the U.S. for over 15 years.

Professional learning in the SIOP Model helps content area teachers plan and deliver lessons

that allow ELs to acquire academic knowledge as they develop English language proficiency.


secondary mathematics; refer to Global Strategies or Changes in the Limited English

Proficiency section. In addition, systemic strategies are being implemented to ensure progress






The middle school mathematics program gives all students—including students who have failed

to meet or make progress towards state performance standards—strong academic preparation

for success in high school and future careers. Students learn important Pre-Algebra and

Algebra 1 skills and concepts. They also continue to master skills in Algebra, pattern and

functions, geometry, measurement, statistics, probability, and number relationships and

computation.

Accomplishments

One measure of students failing to meet or make progress towards state performance

standards is the results of the assessment known as the PARCC. This assessment is taken by

students in grades 6-8. It was administered for the first time in 2015 for mathematics. Of the

students taking PARCC math in grades 6-8, 72% performed at a level three or higher while

approximately 42% performed at a level four or higher (see Table 42).

Students who earn a level of “2” on this test are considered to have only partially met

expectations, and students who earn a level of “1” on this test are considered to have not yet

met expectations. In 2017, 28.0% of students in grades 6-8 (combined) earned a one or two on

their respective PARCC mathematics test.


Table 42. PARCC Middle School Math (Grades 6-8) Performance (2017) RACE/ETHNICITY AND SPECIAL SERVICES






Asian 91.2 70.1


54.4 22.0




White 78.1 47.7

EL 10.0 1.2

FARM 50.1 19.3


Challenges

Among middle school students who scored a one or two on the PARCC mathematics test

(n=2,422), 48.5% were white, 19.4% were black/African American, and 24.2% were

Hispanic/Latino. Additionally, 1.0% were in the EL group, 28.0% were students with disabilities

and 45.1% were students receiving FARM.


Mathematics intervention classes are available to middle school students who are significantly

below grade level in terms of demonstrated content knowledge. Teachers of mathematics

intervention classes in middle schools attend four professional development days each year.

Substitute funds are provided for this purpose from the SASI department.

Secondary mathematics professional learning days occur two times over the course of the

school year: once in August and once in October. These meetings provide information to

teachers regarding instructional strategies and resources (digital and otherwise). These

meetings are attended by all secondary mathematics teachers and are part of their regular work

schedule over the course of the school year. No additional funding is required for these two


meetings regarding substitutes (no need for substitutes), workshop pay (meetings occur during

the school day), nor materials.

Systemic strategies are being implemented to ensure progress among all students, including

special populations, in the Executive Summary. In addition, systemic strategies are being

implemented to ensure progress among all students, including special populations; see the

Executive Summary.

P ARCC ALGEBRA 1


The secondary mathematics program includes and goes beyond the oft-considered

mathematical content of mere manipulation of numbers via addition, subtraction, multiplication,

and division. High school math teachers use a variety of instructional resources and technology

to help students communicate, reason, think critically, look for and identify patterns, persevere

in solving problems, construct viable arguments, critique the reasoning of others, and become

lifelong learners. It is these skills that will help students be successful and productive citizens

who can use mathematics in their daily lives.

The high school mathematics program:

Provides instruction in Algebra 1,

Geometry, and Algebra 2;

Encourages students to select electives

from a wide range of courses, such as

Advanced Algebra with Trigonometry,

Contemporary Mathematics, Pre-

Calculus, and Statistics and Probability;

Provides opportunities for advanced,

honors-level study in courses, such as

AP Calculus I and II, Calculus III, AP

Statistics, IB Math Methods and Studies, as well as other college courses; and

Encourages students to participate in curricular activities inside and outside the classroom

such as science fair and internships.

Additionally, students build skills in the following mathematical practices:

Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.

Reason abstractly and quantitatively.

Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.

Model with mathematics.

Use appropriate tools strategically.

Attend to precision.


Look for and make use of structure.

Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.


First administered in mathematics in 2015, PARCC is one measure of student achievement in

Algebra 1. Results from the PARCC administrations continue to show an increase in

performance in Algebra 1. In 2015, approximately 72% of students (n=3,962) taking PARCC

Algebra 1 performed at a level three or higher (see Table 43). In 2017, approximately 80% of

students (n=3,226) who took the PARCC Algebra 1 assessment performed at a level three or

higher. This positive trend is also evident when looking at PARCC performance levels 4-5—

approximately 44% in 2015 to 60% in 2017.

It is important to note that there is great variation in achievement among students in different

grades taking PARCC Algebra 1. For example, in 2017, the majority (87%) of PARCC Algebra 1

test-takers are in grade 9 (n=2,280) or a lower grade (grade 7-8; n=528). Among this group of

students, approximately 86% performed at a level three or higher in 2017 (see Table 43).

Among students who took the PARCC Algebra 1 test in grade 10 or higher (n=415; 13% of test-

takers), approximately 43% performed at a level three or higher in 2017.

Table 43. PARCC Algebra 1 Performance 2015-2017



2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017

All Grades 71.7 76.5 80.3▲ 43.9 50.9 59.6▲

Grades 7-8 99.7 99.8 99.6▼ 96.0 97.6 98.7▲

Grades 7-9 77.7 83.8 85.8▲ 53.4 58.7 66.0▲

Grades 9-12 66.5 72.4 76.6▲ 34.3 42.5 51.9▲

Grades 10-12 57.7 44.1 43.3▼ 21.6 15.9 16.3▼




The goal of secondary mathematics is that there is no more than a 10% gap in performance for

students with disabilities when compared to their peers.

Accomplishments

In the last three administration years, approximately 9-10% of students taking PARCC Algebra 1

are students with IEPs. In 2017, 41% of students with disabilities taking PARCC Algebra 1


(n=315) performed at a level three or higher (see Table 44). This represents a significant

increase from the 2015 PARCC Algebra 1 results where 32% of students with disabilities taking

PARCC Algebra 1 (n=386) performed at a level three or higher.

Table 44. PARCC Algebra 1 Performance (2015–2017) STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES



All Grades All Grades

2015 32.1 9.8

2016 40.3 15.3

2017 40.6▲ 15.2▲


Table 45 shows the PARCC Algebra 1 performance among students who have exited special

education services. Of noteworthy, half of students who exited special education services are

approaching, meeting, and/or exceeding expectations, and 30% are meeting or exceeding

expectations.

Table 45. PARCC Algebra 1 Performance (2015–2017) STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES—EXITED SERVICES




2015 57.6 22.0

2016 70.0 40.0

2017 51.9▼ 29.6▲


Challenges

While it is encouraging that the PARCC Algebra 1 results have greatly improved over the last

three years, a significant achievement gap between students with disabilities and those not

receiving special education services still remains.

Students receiving special education services are tested on the same content as their non-

disabled peers and the scoring regime is the same. Students with disabilities often find it difficult

to keep pace with their non-disabled peers. As a result, many of these students may not master


the content as readily. Over time, a lack of mastery of learning content makes it difficult for

students in this student group to maintain grade-level performance status.


In the 2017-18 school year, FCPS secondary math curriculum specialists will create a

professional learning course or “experience” for current (and interested) high school Algebra 1

teachers. To aid in the development of the course, input from will be obtained from current high

school Algebra 1 teacher leaders. The course will focus on effective and rigorous instructional

methods specific to the teaching of Algebra 1. Secondary math curriculum specialists will

supervise the course and it will be administered throughout the school year.

During this time, the teacher participants will receive instruction and will implement the ideas

and strategies in their Algebra 1 classrooms. The teacher participants will focus their efforts on

addressing the individual needs of all students. Achievement results from local (Algebra 1

benchmark exams) and state-level (PARCC Algebra 1) assessments will provide data on the

results of this professional learning experience.

The total cost for the creation and administration of the course is approximately $25,500

(unrestricted)—$18,000 for teacher-leaders who be instructors/mentors for the course (i.e.,

costs for substitutes, workshop, and salary) and $7,500 for materials and equipment.

Systemic strategies are being implemented to ensure progress among students with disabilities

in secondary mathematics; refer to Global Strategies or Changes in the Special Education






The goals and objectives for EL students in secondary mathematics are consistent with the

overall goals and objectives for all FCPS EL students.

Accomplishments

In both 2016 and 2017, approximately 4% of PARCC Algebra 1 test-takers in 2017 were EL

students. In 2017, only about one in four (24%) of EL students performed at a level three or

higher on the PARCC Algebra 1 assessment (see Table 46). This represents a decrease from

the 2016 PARCC Algebra 1 results in which 33% of EL students performed at level three or

higher. Given the small group size (<5% of the total population), it is common to have more

extreme achievement results from year to year.

Table 46. PARCC Algebra 1 Performance (2015–2017) ENGLISH LEARNERS




2015 32.8 7.5

2016 32.8 9.6

2017 24.1▼ 8.6▲


However, it is important to note that more than half of students who exited EL services and took

PARCC Algebra 1 performed at a level three or higher over the past three years—approximately

67% in 2015, 62% in 2016, and 56% in 2017 (see Table 47). The percent who performed at a

level 4-5 were approximately 44% in 2015, 31% in 2016, and 31% in 2017.

Table 47. PARCC Algebra 1 Performance (2015–2017) ENGLISH LEARNERS—EXITED SERVICES




2015 66.7 44.4

2016 61.5 30.8

2017 56.3▼ 31.3▼



Challenges

In 2017, EL students were the lowest performing (levels 3-5, 24.1%; levels 4-5, 8.6%) among all

racial/ethnic and special services student groups. This trend is also evident in previous

administrations. It is less than one-third of the achievement level of the full population of PARCC

Algebra 1 participants (80%) and is more than 30% lower than students who receive FARM.

EL students are tested on the same content as all other students and scored in the same

manner as all other students; EL students also must take mainstream assessments after only

one year in the United States. In addition, approximately 25% of EL students attending high

school have limited or interrupted formal schooling upon enrolling in FCPS. Therefore, success

on PARCC assessments is a very difficult challenge for this student group. PARCC

assessments require strong academic vocabulary skills in the tested areas like Algebra.

Research (Thomas & Collier) states that ELs typically learn conversational English within one to

two years; however, academic vocabulary skills take five to seven years on average to achieve



regardless of the student’s home language, country of origin, and socioeconomic status.


High school Algebra 1 teachers will have the opportunity to participate in a professional learning

course in the 2017-18 school year that will focus on effective and rigorous instructional methods

specific to teaching Algebra 1. Teachers will focus on their efforts on addressing the needs of all

students, including EL students. Additional details about this course are provided above; see

Strategies or Changes in the PARCC Algebra 1, Special Education section.


secondary math; refer to Global Strategies or Changes in the Limited English Proficiency







The goals and objectives for students failing to meet or make progress towards state

performance standards in secondary mathematics are consistent with the overall goals and

objectives for all FCPS students in secondary math.

Students performing at level three or below on the PARCC Algebra 1 assessment struggle to

understand the mathematical concepts sufficiently to demonstrate this understanding. They lack

the acquisition of the mathematical practices which include:

Making sense of problems.

Perseverance in solving problems.

Reasoning abstractly and quantitatively.


Constructing viable arguments.

Modeling with mathematics.

Attending to precision.

Making use of math structure.

Expressing regularity in repeated reasoning.

It is the goal of FCPS secondary math to help teachers to impart these mathematical practices

to students so that students can build their abilities in these practices.

Accomplishments

From 2015 to 2017, an increase in performance on the PARCC Algebra 1 assessment can be

noted for all student groups when looking at performance levels 4-5 and all student groups

except EL students when looking at levels 3-5 (see Table 48).

Table 48. PARCC Algebra 1 Performance (2017) RACE/ETHNICITY AND SPECIAL SERVICES



All Grades

7-8 Grades

9-12 All

Grades 7-8

Grades 9-12

All Students 80.3 ≥95 76.6 59.6 ≥95 51.9

American Indian 69.2 ≥95 66.7 38.5 ≥95 33.3

Asian 91.8 ≥95 84.4 83.0 ≥95 67.8


63.5 ≥95 61.1 33.5 ≥95 29.2

Pacific Islander 75.0 - 75.0 50.0 - 50.0

Hispanic/Latino 64.4 ≥95 61.6 41.3 ≥95 36.9

Two or More Races

81.9 ≥95 78.5 61.4 ≥95 53.3

White 86.1 ≥95 83.2 66.8 ≥95 59.9

EL 24.1 - 24.1 8.6 - 8.6

FARM 57.8 - 55.8 31.6 94.1 28.6

Special Education

40.6 - 40.1 15.2 - 14.4


Challenges

Despite overall successes, achievement gaps in race/ethnicity and special services remains.

FCPS had 634 students (approximately 20% of the test-taking population) that performed at a

level three or lower on the PARCC Algebra 1 test. FCPS had five student groups that

demonstrated achievement lower than 80% (proficiency rating of all students performing at

levels 3-5)—black/African American (63.5%), Hispanic/Latino (64.4%), students receiving FARM

(57.8%), students with disabilities (40.6%), and EL students (25%). When examining proficiency

at levels 4-5 (59.6% for all students), similar patterns exist among the same five student groups.

Approximately 86% of white students performed at a level three or higher on PARCC Algebra 1,

which was higher than the overall test-taking student population. However, only about two-thirds

(64%) of the black/African and Hispanic/Latino students combined performed similarly. For

black/African and Hispanic/Latino students combined, this represents a 9% increase from 2016

results (54.8% vs 64.0%). However, in comparison to white students, the gap remained nearly

unchanged (21.8% gap in 2016 vs. 22.1% gap in 2017).

Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino students comprise about one-quarter (26%) of the

students who took the PARCC Algebra 1 assessment. Of similar concern is the gap between

students receiving FARM (n=737) and students who do not receive these services (57.8% vs.

87.0%), a gap of nearly 30 percentage points.

Among this group, one-third (33%) received FARM and 30% received special education

services. Nearly half (48%) of this group were black/African American or Hispanic/Latino

students and 45% were white.

Strategies and Changes

As mentioned previously, high school Algebra 1 teachers will have the opportunity to participate

in a professional learning course in the 2017-18 school year that will focus on effective and

rigorous instructional methods specific to teaching Algebra 1. Efforts will focus on addressing

the individual needs of all students, including underperforming students.



P ARCC ALGEBRA 2 ( O p t i o n a l R e p o r t i n g )

The goals and objectives for Algebra 2 are similar to those of Algebra 1. In addition to MSDE’s

graduation assessment requirements, Maryland law requires all students to take an assessment

by the end of grade 11 to determine if the student is college and career ready. The first year that

Maryland set forth this requirement was in 2015-16. Thus, to ensure that all students were

offered a free assessment to meet the state CCR requirement, all students taking Algebra 2 in

2015-16 or later were offered to take the PARCC Algebra 2 assessment (if CCR was not by

other means, such as SAT, ACT, Accuplacer or AP scores). This means that not all FCPS

students took PARCC Algebra 2 in the 2016-17 school year. However, beginning in the 2017-18

school year, Algebra 2 will no longer be administered to students who are not college and

career ready. Instead, all students in grade 11 will be offered the SAT (without the essay) in


math at no cost to the student. This opportunity will replace the PARCC Algebra 2 assessment

for juniors. It is important to note that even though PARCC Algebra 2 will be eliminated for grade

11 students, PARCC Algebra 2 will still be required for students who took Algebra 1 in middle

school. This is to meet ESSA requirements that students are assessed every year in grades 3-8

and then once in high school.

P ARCC GE OMETRY ( O p t i o n a l R e p o r t i n g )

Students taking the Geometry course develop mathematical skills and reasoning abilities

needed for problem solving; demonstrate the processes of mathematics by making connections

and applying reasoning to solve problems and to communicate their findings; choose

appropriate technological tools to solve problems, and demonstrate positive attitudes towards

mathematics in school, culture, and society.

Instruction is based on the MCCRS and student assessments are aligned to these standards.

Such assessments include frequent, formative assessments that help students and teachers to

judge the level of student understanding of concepts during the learning process, and

summative assessments that help students and teachers to measure the level of procedural and

conceptual understanding.

The Geometry course utilizes skills from mathematics classes taken in previous school years,

including Algebra 1, and it prepares students for future mathematics classes such as Algebra 2

and Pre-Calculus.

Similar to PARCC English 11 and Algebra 2, PARCC Geometry will no longer be offered to

grade 11 students as juniors will be offered the SAT in math to meet CCR requirements.

However, to meet ESSA requirements of being assessed at least once in high school, PARCC

Geometry will be offered to students who took Geometry in middle school.

MSA SCIE NCE GRADE 5

The FCPS elementary science vision states, “Teachers have the resources and knowledge they

need to teach science. Students are engaged in meaningful scientific investigations and look

forward to science every day.”


FCPS’ elementary science program aims to ensure that students learn science through

investigations and experiments, reading, technology, and problem solving. The overall goal for a

quality science education (Taking Science to School, National Research Council, 2007) is to

develop student proficiency in:

Knowing, using, and interpreting scientific explanations of the natural world (disciplinary coreideas and crosscutting concepts);

Generating and evaluating scientific evidence and explanations (practices);

Participating productively in scientific practices and discourse (practices); and


Understanding the nature and development of scientific knowledge (practices and cross-cutting concepts).

In support of classroom instruction, FCPS’ Earth and Space Science Laboratory (ESSL)

(https://education.fcps.org/essl/) provides an extension and/or enrichment to the elementary

science curriculum. All students in grades 1-5 visit the ESSL during the school year in

connection with their earth/space science unit. In addition, the FCPS Science Center also

supports instruction of life science units by delivering a variety of living organisms in the

classroom. Students in grade 5 also participate in field-based experiences facilitated through the

FCPS Outdoor School Program (http://education.fcps.org/outdoorschoolfcps/) where classroom

investigations are applied to real-world settings.


In the 2016-17 school year, grade 5 science standards were aligned to the new Maryland State

Science Standards (MSSS). Four new kit-based units—life, earth, space, and physical

science—were developed. Professional learning activities associated with this curriculum were

provided to each grade 5 teacher. These new units incorporate cross-cutting concepts,

disciplinary core ideas, and science and engineering practices around real-world topics. MSSS

standards support MSCCS in ELA and math. MSSS standards are “hands-on” as well as

“minds-on”. Students act like scientists in science classrooms and employ higher level thinking

strategies. The new units were also created using UDL. Students in grade 5 field-tested the new

Maryland Integrated Science Assessment (MISA) in the spring of 2017.



The goals and objectives for students with disabilities in elementary science are consistent with

the overall goals and objectives for all FCPS students receiving special education services. The

MSSS were written with the intent of reaching all students. FCPS science is consistent with that

vision. Elementary school science standards are taught to all students who receive instruction in

all standards. UDL was used as curriculum units were developed.

Accomplishments

The MISA Grade 5 was a field test in 2016-17 and no data are currently available.

Challenges



Grade 5 teachers received professional development and new hands-on, kit-based units of

instruction during the 2016-17 school year. 2017-18 will be the second year of implementation

of science curriculum aligned to the MSSS. Hands-on, kit-based units of instruction aligned to

the MSSS will be provided for each classroom at grades 3 and 4. These new curricular

resources are being created and distributed to assist teachers in reaching all students. Each

grade 3 and grade 4 teacher received a half day of professional development in August 2017

that will focus on implementing the new curriculum and differentiating instruction for all students

(unrestricted costs).


https://education.fcps.org/essl/
































































http://education.fcps.org/outdoorschoolfcps/

































































special education services in elementary science; refer to Global Strategies or Changes in the





The goals and objectives for EL students in elementary science are consistent with the overall

goals and objectives for all FCPS EL students. The MSSS were written with the intent of

reaching all students. FCPS science is consistent with that vision. Elementary school science

standards are taught to all students who receive

instruction in all standards. UDL was used as

curriculum units were developed.

Accomplishments

The MISA Grade 5 was a field test in 2016-17

and no data are currently available.

Challenges

The MISA Grade 5 was a field test in 2016-17

and no data are currently available.


The same strategies are being implemented for

EL students as students with disabilities in terms

of professional development and new curricular

resources aligned to MSSS. Refer to Strategies

and Changes under Special Education Students

in MSA Grade 5 for additional details.

Systemic strategies are being implemented to

ensure progress among EL students in

elementary science; refer to Global Strategies or

Changes in the Limited English Proficiency section. In addition, systemic strategies are being

implemented to ensure progress among all students, including special populations; see the

Executive Summary.



The goals and objectives for students failing to meet or make progress towards state

performance standards in elementary science are consistent with the overall goals and

objectives for all FCPS students in elementary science.

Accomplishments



Challenges



The same strategies are being implemented for underperforming students as EL students and

students with disabilities in terms of professional development and new curricular resources

aligned to MSSS. Refer to Strategies and Changes under Special Education Students or

Limited English Proficient Students in MSA Grade 5 for additional details.


including those failing to meet or make progress towards state performance standards, in

elementary science; refer to Global Strategies or Changes in the Limited English Proficiency

and Special Education sections; also see Executive Summary.

MSA SCIE NCE GRADE 8

Students learn science by acquiring knowledge and constructing explanations of natural

phenomena. Students test those explanations and communicate findings both in oral and

written forms. Through this process, students develop a deep understanding of science that

combines knowledge and facts with reasoning and critical thinking.


FCPS’ secondary science program, specific to middle school, aims to ensure students learn to

use and apply scientific knowledge through an array of science classes. Each grade level

science course in middle school is an integrated study of life, Earth, and physical sciences

through four overarching strands—change, movement, organization, and systems. Science and

engineering practices, disciplinary core ideas, and cross-cutting practices are integrated in all

modules to provide a comprehensive, hands-on laboratory experience in middle school science.

Students also participate in field-based experiences facilitated through the FCPS Outdoor

School Program (http://education.fcps.org/outdoorschoolfcps/) where classroom investigations

are applied to real-world settings.

The overall goal for a quality science education (Taking Science to School, National Research

Council, 2007) is to develop student proficiency in:

Knowing, using, and interpreting scientific explanations of the natural world (disciplinary core

ideas and crosscutting concepts);



Understanding the nature and development of scientific knowledge (practices and cross-

cutting concepts).


In the 2016-17 school year, all middle school science courses were aligned to the new science

standards, MSSS. Four new integrated modules were implemented in each of the three grades.


































































The modules integrated the science and engineering practices, cross-cutting concepts, and

disciplinary core ideas of the MSSS. Students in eighth grade field tested the new MISA.



The goals and objectives for students with disabilities in secondary science are consistent with

the overall goal and objectives for students with disabilities in FCPS. The MSSS were written

the intent of all students, all standards. FCPS science is consistent with that vision. Middle

school science classes are heterogeneously grouped and all students receive instruction in all

standards. UDL was used as curriculum modules were developed.

Accomplishments


Challenges



In FCPS’ second implementation year of the science curriculum aligned to the MSSS, more

curricular resources are being created and distributed to assist teachers in reaching all students.

Local course benchmarks were field tested in 2016-17 and will be used in 2017-18 to assess

student progress. The benchmarks are administered via an online platform and mimic, to the

best of FCPS’ ability, the MISA. Local benchmarks will be analyzed this year in order to identify

underperforming groups. Each middle school grade level will be receiving one full-day of

professional development in the fall focused on implementing the new curriculum and

differentiating instruction for all students. The cost of this professional development is

unrestricted funding, substitute coverage in the amount of $3,000 per day.


special education services in secondary science; refer to Global Strategies or Changes in the





The goals and objectives for EL students in secondary science are consistent with the overall

goals and objectives for all FCPS EL students. The MSSS were written the intent of all students,

all standards. FCPS science is consistent with that vision. Middle school science is

heterogeneously grouped and all students receive instruction in all standards. UDL was used as

curriculum modules were developed.

Accomplishments


Challenges




FCPS aligned its science curriculum with MSSS in accordance with MSDE expectations and in

preparation of the MISA. Local benchmarks will be analyzed this year in order to identify

underperforming groups. Professional development on implementing the new curriculum and

differentiating instruction for all students is planned for 2017-18 (unrestricted funding; substitute

coverage in the amount of $3,000 per day).

Systemic strategies are being implemented to ensure progress among all FCPS EL students in

secondary science; refer to Global Strategies or Changes in the Limited English Proficiency





FCPS’ goals and objectives for all students, including underperforming students, is to promote

academic growth and equity while reducing the achievement gap.

Accomplishments


Challenges




FCPS aligned its science curriculum with MSSS in accordance with MSDE expectations and in

preparation of the MISA. To accomplish this, FCPS has developed new curricular modules.

These new units incorporated cross-cutting concepts, disciplinary core ideas, and science and

engineering practices around real-world topics. MSSS standards support MSCCS in ELA and

math. MSSS standards are “hands-on” as well as “minds-on”. Students act like scientists in

science classrooms and employ higher level thinking strategies. The new units were also

created using UDL. All middle school science courses are aligned to the MSSS.

Local benchmarks will be analyzed this year in order to identify underperforming groups.

Professional development on implementing the new curriculum and differentiating instruction for

all students is planned for 2017-18 (unrestricted funding; substitute coverage in the amount of

$3,000 per day).



HSA BIOLOGY

High school students learn science by acquiring knowledge and constructing explanations of

natural phenomena and then testing explanations and communicating findings. This process

results in a deeper understanding of science that combines knowledge and facts with reasoning

and critical thinking. These student learning experiences incorporate a variety of instructional

resources and technology. The experiences help to develop successful and productive citizens

who understand the impact of science on their daily lives.


Similar to middle school students, the goal of the FCPS’ secondary science program for high

school students is to ensure that all high school students can use and apply scientific

knowledge.

High school science classes actively involve students in learning science concepts using the

processes and tools of science to explore their scientific interests. To obtain a Maryland

diploma, three credits in laboratory science are required. Science instruction must include

instruction in earth and space science, life science, and physical science curricula to be aligned

to the MSSS and prepare for the MISA.

The goal for a quality science education (Taking Science to School, National Research Council, 2007) is to develop student proficiency in:

Knowing, using, and interpreting scientific explanations of the natural world (disciplinary core

ideas and cross-cutting concepts);



Understanding the nature and development of scientific knowledge (practices and cross-

cutting concepts).



In FCPS’ effort to align to the MSSS, a new ninth grade course, Physics of Earth and Space,

was created. The course incorporates earth and space standards with physical science

standards, which will be a prerequisite for Biology. Biology’s curriculum is aligned to the MSSS

for the 2017-18 school year.

The 2016-17 school year was the last year of the Maryland High School Assessment (HSA) for

Biology. Students took the exam for graduation credit. Based on performance results for Biology

HSA, all student groups, except Hispanic/Latino, showed some level of increase in performance

in Biology HSA from 2015 to 2017 (see Table 50 on page 124). This is also true for male

student test-takers in Biology HSA.



The goals and objectives for students with disabilities in secondary science are consistent with

the overall goals and objectives for all FCPS students with disabilities.

Accomplishments

The Biology HSA pass rate of students with disabilities increased from 2015 (29.3%) to 2017

(32.9%) despite a small decline in 2015 (see Table 50). Since 2016, students with disabilities

showed a 4% increase in pass rate on the 2017 Biology HSA. The achievement gap between all


FCPS students and students with disabilities decreased by approximately 2% from 2015 to

2017.

Challenges

Challenges for students with disabilities accessing instruction in Biology remain. When

analyzing 2017 Biology HSA results for students with disabilities, a 32.9% pass rate gap

remains (compared to all FCPS students).


FCPS’ Biology curriculum is aligned to the MSSS for 2017-18. The secondary science course sequence is now fully aligned to the MSSS.


special education services in secondary science; refer to Global Strategies or Changes in the





The goals and objectives for EL students in secondary science are consistent with the overall

goals and objectives for all FCPS EL students.

Accomplishments

FCPS has few accomplishments for EL students taking Biology HSA. The EL student group size

increased by 18%. EL students showed a decline of 8.6% proficiency on the 2017 Biology HSA

compared to the 2016 data but showed a .2% increase from the 2015 data (see Table 50). Male

EL students also showed an increase in the Biology HSA pass rate over the last three years

(9.7% to 18.5%, respectively).

Challenges*EL students remain the lowest performing FCPS student group in HSA Biology (15.2%

proficiency in 2017) with the largest achievement gap of 58.2% in 2017 (when compared to all

FCPS students) (see Table 50).


FCPS’ Biology curriculum is aligned to the MSSS for 2017-18. The secondary science course

sequence is now fully aligned to the MSSS. FCPS schools with a high EL population have been

trained on SIOP and teachers are incorporating this training into their daily instruction.

Systemic strategies are being implemented to ensure progress among all EL students in

secondary science; refer to Global Strategies or Changes in the Limited English Proficiency



*For additional information on challenges with EL students in Biology,see Appendix B: Response to MSDE Clarifying Questions.




The goals and objectives of all FCPS students, including those failing to meet or make progress

towards performance standards, in secondary science is to reduce the achievement gap.

Accomplishments

Pass rates on the Biology HSA have continued to increase over the last three administration

years in all student groups except Hispanic/Latino students (see Table 50). In fact, black/African

students showed an increase of 6.2% for 2017 and students receiving FARM showed an

increase of 2.8% for 2017.

Challenges*Despite these incremental accomplishments, challenges are still evident among certain student

groups—black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, and students receiving special services

(students with disabilities, EL, and FARM). These students are performing at a lower

achievement level than the FCPS student population as a whole. In fact, Hispanic/Latino

students showed a 6.4% decrease in proficiency in 2017 (see Table 50).


As previously stated, FCPS’ Biology curriculum is aligned to the MSSS for the 2017-18 school

year. The secondary science course sequence is now fully aligned to the standards. The new

curriculum incorporates the science and engineering practices, cross-cutting concepts, and

disciplinary core ideas around real-world phenomena. The Biology curriculum also integrates a

few physical, earth, space science standards. Biology is the second of a three-course

sequence, which integrates all of the MSSS that will be assessed by the MISA. MISA will be

field tested in high school in 2017-18. Year-long professional learning communities on the

new science curriculum are being established to support teachers as they transition to the

new standards for which $10,500 in unrestricted funding has been allocated.



HSA GOVERNMENT

FCPS’ social studies program promotes the preparation of global

citizens for a dynamic and diverse world. FCPS’ social studies

offerings provide an opportunity for students to experience history,

economics, government and geography from multiple perspectives.

Students engage in authentic disciplinary activities to gain a greater

understanding of themselves and the world in which they live. All

social studies coursework from grades 6 through 12 is supported

with skills and processes in reading and writing aligned with the

college and career ready standards.

* For additional information on challenges with students failing to meet performance standards in Biology,see Appendix B: Response to MSDE Clarifying Questions.


https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=3o0w173z&id=E9B4341CBF13A07586E01649348336D80D7626AA&thid=OIP.3o0w173zg0MhshBMhyo-bQEsEs&q=images,+government+symbol&simid=607997161310719150&selectedIndex=21

































































FCPS’ secondary social studies program will focus on the following three goals during the 2017-

18 school year.

Goal 1. Implement disciplinary literacy standards across all courses. Develop and revise

activities that emphasize these standards including formative document based question

(DBQ) assessments.

Goal 2. Prepare for sequence change in high school that is expected to improve

Government HSA scores by moving American Studies II to grade 9 and Government to

grade 10.

Goal 3. Continue development of web-based resources to support social studies

instruction for all learners in grades 6-12.


From 2015 to 2017, there was a 6.5% increase in the number of Government HSA test-takers

(see Table 51 on page 125). Despite decreases in the pass rates from 2015 to 2017, increases

in pass rates occurred from 2016 to 2017 for five student groups. Additional accomplishments in

the 2016-17 school year are noted below.

The pass rate for all students increased from 68.6% to 70.8% (+2.2%) for all

Government HSA test takers, with male test-taker pass rate increasing 3.8% and

females increasing .6%.

An overall increase of 4.6% in the pass rate for black/African American students with

black/African American males increasing 6.5% and females increasing 2.1%

White males showed a significant increase in pass rate, i.e., increase of 6.3% from 2016

to 2017 while white female pass rates increased 1.8%.

Gains were made for both males and females students with disabilities with an overall

increase of 5.5%; males increasing by 6.1% and females by 5.2% (from 2016 to 2017).

Students receiving FARM increased in Government HSA pass rates with an overall

increase of 2.2%; 3.2% for males, and 1.3% for females.



The goals and objectives for students with disabilities in secondary social studies are consistent

with the overall goals and objectives for students with disabilities in FCPS.

Accomplishments

Despite a decrease from 2015 to 2017, an increase in the Government HSA pass rate for

students with disabilities increased in the last year. In fact, from 2016 to 2017, the pass rate

increase by 5.5% overall for students with disabilities, with male test takers increasing by 6.1%

and female test takers by 5.2%.


Challenges

Although a significant increase in pass rate occurred, students with disabilities still

underperformed their general education peers by approximately 48% in 2017. Female students

with disabilities underperformed their male counterparts by 12.5%.


The intensive reading, writing, and vocabulary skills required for the Government course and

HSA present a challenge for all students and especially those with disabilities. Table 49 on

page 123 summarizes the strategies that will be implemented in the 2017-18 school year to

support all students in Government, including students with disabilities.





The goals and objectives for EL students in secondary social studies are consistent with the

overall goals and objectives for all FCPS EL students in secondary social studies.

Accomplishments

Data continues to support the large achievement gaps that exist between EL students and their

student peers. Thus, very few accomplishments can be noted in Government HSA for this

student group. The pass rate for female EL students increased by 3.2% from the previous year.

However, EL students remain the lowest performing group in Government HSA across the past

three administrations.

Challenges*ELL students underperformed on the Government HSA when compared to their peers.

According to Table 51, this disparity for all test administrations (i.e., EL compared to all student

group) increased from 2015 to 2017. The declining overall pass rates (-1.3% from 2016 to 2017)

from all test takers are reflected in this data. Disparities between male and female EL student

pass rates are observed in all administration years with males outperforming females. In 2017,

the pass rate for male LEP students dropped by 5.6% from the previous year.

Strategies

Similar strategies that will be implemented with students receiving special education services

will also be implemented for EL students in the 2017-18 school year (see Table 49). In addition,

systemic strategies are being implemented to ensure progress among all students, including

special populations; see the Executive Summary.


The social studies program supports the success of all learners. For students to meet the goal

of global citizenship, all students must show proficiency on these standard measures of

achievement.

* For additional information on challenges with EL students in Government,see Appendix B: Response to MSDE Clarifying Questions.



The restructuring of the high school schedule, development and implementation of disciplinary

literacy standards, and the identification and implementation of research-based instructional

strategies are the main goals for eliminating the achievement gap. The continued evaluation of

student needs and move towards personalized learning, use of project-based/inquiry-based

instruction, UDL, and the mapping of the curriculum using Understanding by Design will work

in concert to reduce gaps in student achievement.

Additional goals related to Government intervention include:

Encouraging administrators to place highly qualified social studies teachers in classroom

and intervention positions, specifically seasoned Government teachers in extended learning

opportunity positions;

Developing and deploying instructional materials that target Government content and

reinforce the skills and processes disciplinary literacy standards;

Continuing to map curricular standards using the Understanding by Design framework that

requires depth of understanding with continued professional development for all

Government teachers; and

Developing personalized learning materials and utilization of strategies.

Accomplishments

As mentioned previously, despite decreases in Government pass rates since 2015, increases in

pass rates occurred among several student groups—all students, white, black/African, students

with disabilities, and students receiving FARM—from 2016 to 2017.

Challenges*Although black/African American, students with disabilities, and students receiving FARM

experienced gains in the 2016-17 school year, achievement gaps still exist when compared to

their peers. In addition, there was a decline in Government HSA pass rates among

Latino/Hispanic and EL students in 2017.


Table 49 summarizes the strategies that will be implemented in the 2017-18 school year to

support all students in Government, including those students not meeting expectations or

making progress. In addition, systemic strategies are being implemented to ensure progress


* For additional information on challenges with students failing to meet performance standards in Government,see Appendix B: Response to MSDE Clarifying Questions.


Table 49. High School Government Strategies to be Implemented in 2017-2018

Strategy Rationale Timeline/Measurement Resource Allocation

Implementation of Disciplinary Literacy Standards and Activities

The Government HSA is reading intensive and requires critical analysis as well as writing skills. These standards emphasize the skills and processes needed for success on the assessment.

Training on new standards occurred in August 2017 and will continue during the 2017-18 school year. Standards-based activities will be developed and implemented during 2017-18.

Baseline data will be available in 2017-18; however, increases between benchmarks will be used to measure efficacy of the standards.

Development of the new standards and resources began during summer 2017 curriculum writing workshops. Funds were unrestricted curriculum writing funds totaling $5,100.

Preparation for Resequencing the High School Schedule

It is expected that Government HSA pass rates will increase by providing students with more time to grow their reading, writing, and analysis skills and providing additional content of American Studies II.

To align courses for implementation in 2017-18, new standards were written for American Studies I and II. Development of inquiry-based instructional materials aligned to standards has also begun and will continue during 2017-18.

Measurement of progress will begin in 2018-2019.

Development of standards and instructional activities began during summer 2017 curriculum writing workshops. Unrestricted funds totaling approximately $15,000 were used. Additional funding for curriculum writing will continue throughout the 2017-18 totaling approximately $5,000.

Increased Formative Assessment activities

Creation of materials based on new disciplinary literacy standards that help teachers in the instruction of the standards and implementation of formative assessment DBQs in all core classes.

DBQ formative assessments have been retooled with a standards-based rubric.

Measurement of progress will be based on student performance on the benchmark DBQ assessments.

This work was completed during summer 2017 curriculum writing on the DBQ assessments as well as ancillary instructional support materials. Funds to cover this work are subsumed within the literacy standards development and resequencing preparation activities.

Personalization of Learning

In concert with the course sequence change construction of personalized courses in American Studies II and Government that allow students to work at their own pace, and frees the teacher to provided individual assistance are being developed.

During the 2017-18 school year, social studies high school Vanguard teachers will be developing these courses.

Measurement of success will include comparison of benchmark data.

Unrestricted funds allocated for the development of these courses include $2,000 for support in instructional design.




2017 BRIDGE TO EXCELLENCE MASTER PLAN ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS

FCPS uses a variety of tools and instructional strategies to observe and analyze how students are performing on their enrolled grade-level

curriculum. Curricular expectations are monitored formally and informally through assessments (state and local), quizzes, assignments, and

conferencing with students about their progress. Based on these measures, instruction is modified to support student needs toward mastery of

Maryland College and Career-Ready Standards.

In accordance with the reporting requirements under House Bill 412 and Section 7.203.3, FCPS’ assessments mandated by the state and local are

specified in Table 52 below. These assessments are used by teachers to “measure a student’s academic readiness, learning progress, and skill

acquisition.” These assessments assist in identifying and closing achievement gaps, ensuring equity in instruction, and informing strategies to

increase performance across all student groups.

Table 52. Frederick County Public Schools Assessment Requirements

Title of Assessment Purpose of

Assessment

Mandatory by a Local, State, or Federal Entity

As Appropriate, to Which Assessment is Administered

(Grade Level / Subject Area)

Testing Window of the Assessment

Accommodations Available for

Students with Special Needs

Type of Accommodations Available

Maryland Integrated Science Assessment

Accountability program that measures the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)

State Grade 5 Grade 8 Once in high school

Science March 2018 January 2018

(high school) May – June 2018

(high school)

Yes Included in Section 5 of the Maryland Accommodations Manual, pages 5-1 to 5-32

The Alternate Maryland Integrated Science Assessment

Alternative assessment for accountability of 1% of the population with alternative learning outcomes

State Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 11

Science March – May 2018 Yes To Be Determined

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)

Accountability program that measures the Maryland College and Career-Ready Standards (MCCRS)

State Grades 3-8 Algebra 1 English 10

English Language Arts (ELA)

Math

Fall Block: December 2017 - January 2018

Spring Block: April - June 2018

Yes Included in Section 3 of the PARCC Accessibility Features and Accommodations Manual, pages 27-44




Assessment








The Multi-State Alternate Assessment (MSAA)

Alternative assessment for accountability of 1% of the population with alternative learning outcomes

State Grades 3-8 Grade 11

ELA Math

March - May 2018 Yes Included in the MSAA Test Administration Manual, page 22

High School Assessments

Maryland graduation requirements

State High school Government January 2018 May 2018 July 2018


Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA)

The KRA identifies children's individual needs, enabling teachers to make informed instructional decisions.

State Random sample of kindergarten students

Measures: - social

foundations - physical well-

being and motor development

- language and literacy

- mathematics

September – October 2017

Yes Included in Guidelines on Allowable Supports for the KRA, page 7

ACCESS for ELLs English Language Proficiency Assessment

State Kindergarten, Grades 1-12, non-English speaking students

Measures English language proficiency in the areas of:

- listening - speaking - reading - writing - comprehension

and literacy

Entry into the school system, then again in 2nd semester (January - February 2018)

No Not Applicable




Assessment








Elementary School Math Interviews

Measure progress on MCCRS

Local Prekindergarten Kindergarten

Math Quarterly Yes Included in Section 5 of the Maryland Accommodations Manual, pages 5-1 to 5-32

Elementary School Math Benchmarks


Local Grades 1-5 Math Grade 1-2: Quarterly

Grades 3-5: three times per year


Math Performance Series

Computer Adaptive Universal Screener

Local Grade 2 Grade 5

Math January – February 2018


Elementary School ELA Oral Language Acquisition Inventory


Local Prekindergarten ELA Quarterly Yes Included in Section 5 of the Maryland Accommodations Manual, pages 5-1 to 5-32

Elementary School ELA Benchmark Assessment System


Local Prekindergarten Kindergarten-Grades

1-2 Grades 3-4 Grade 5

ELA Prekindergarten: Quarter 4

Kindergarten, Grades 1-2: Quarters 1, 2, and 4

Grades 3-4: Quarters 1 and 3

Grade 5: Quarter 1


Elementary School ELA Fluency Assessment


Local Grades 3-5 ELA Quarter 1 Yes Included in Section 5 of the Maryland Accommodations Manual, pages 5-1 to 5-32

Elementary School ELA Writing and Foundational Assessments


Local Prekindergarten ELA Quarterly Yes Included in Section 5 of the Maryland Accommodations Manual, pages 5-1 to 5-32




Assessment








Elementary School ELA On-Demand Writing Types


Local Kindergarten Grades 1-5

ELA Kindergarten: Quarters 2, 3, and 4

Grades 1-5: Quarters 1, 2, and 3


Reading Performance Series


Local Grade 2 Grade 5

ELA January – February 2018


Elementary Visual Art Common Formative Assessments

Term benchmarks of artistic progress

Local Grades 3-5 Visual Art Quarters 1-4 Yes Included in Section 5 of the Maryland Accommodations Manual, pages 5-1 to 5-32

Elementary Visual Art Common Summative Assessments

Semester summary of student achievement

Local Grades 1-5 Visual Art January 2018 May 2018


Elementary General Music Common Formative Assessments

Term benchmarks of artistic progress

Local Grades 3-5 General Music Quarters 1-4 Yes Included in Section 5 of the Maryland Accommodations Manual, pages 5-1 to 5-32

Elementary General Music Common Summative Assessments

Semester summary of student achievement

Local Grades 1-5 General Music January 2018 May 2018


Elementary School Physical Education Benchmarks

Measure progress on FCPS PE standards

Local Grades K-5 Physical Education

Year-long (3-5 times per term)


Middle School Math Benchmarks


Local Grades 6-8 Math Quarters 2 and 3 Yes Included in Section 5 of the Maryland Accommodations Manual, pages 5-1 to 5-32




Assessment








Math Performance Series


Local Grade 8 Math January - February 2018


Middle School English/Language Arts Narrative Writing Task Benchmark


Local Grades 6-8 ELA November 2017 Yes Included in Section 5 of the Maryland Accommodations Manual, pages 5-1 to 5-32

Middle School English/Language Arts Literary Writing Task Benchmark


Local Grades 6-8 ELA February 2018 Yes Included in Section 5 of the Maryland Accommodations Manual, pages 5-1 to 5-32

Middle School English/Language Arts Research Simulation Task Benchmark


Local Grades 6-8 ELA April 2018 Yes Included in Section 5 of the Maryland Accommodations Manual, pages 5-1 to 5-32

Reading Performance Series


Local Grade 8 Math January – February 2018


Middle School Social Studies Performance Task 1

Measure progress on Maryland State Social Studies Standards (MSSSS)

Local Grades 6-8 Social Studies Quarter 1 or 2 (Grades 6-7: January 2018; Grade 8: December 2017 – January 2018)


Middle School Social Studies Performance Task 2

Measure progress on MSSSS

Local Grades 6-8 Social Studies Quarter 3 or 4 (All grades: March/April 2018)





Assessment








Science Performance Task 1 and 2

Measure progress on Maryland State Science Standards (MSSS)

Local Grades 6-8 Science Quarters 1 and 2 Yes Included in Section 5 of the Maryland Accommodations Manual, pages 5-1 to 5-32

Science Performance Task 3 and 4

Measure progress on MSSS

Local Grades 6-8 Science Quarters 3 and 4 Yes Included in Section 5 of the Maryland Accommodations Manual, pages 5-1 to 5-32

Middle School Physical Education Benchmarks

Measures progress on essential curriculum

Local Grades 6-8 Physical Education

2 assessments per term


Middle School Health Education


Local Grades 6-8 Health Education 2 assessments per term


High School ELA Narrative Writing Task Benchmark


Local Grades 9-11 ELA October 2017 March 2018


High School ELA Literary Writing Task Benchmark


Local Grades 9-11 ELA November 2017 April 2018


High School ELA Research Simulation Task Benchmark


Local Grades 9-11 ELA January 2018 May 2018


Algebra 1 Benchmark 1 Measure progress on MCCRS

Local High School Algebra 1

Math (Algebra 1) October 2017 March 2018





Assessment










Math (Algebra 1) December 2017 May 2018


Geometry Benchmark 1 Measure progress on MCCRS

Local High School Geometry

Math (Geometry) October 2017 March 2018


Geometry Benchmark 2 Measure progress on MCCRS

Local High School Geometry

Math (Geometry) December 2017 May 2018




Math (Algebra 2) October 2017 March 2018




Math (Algebra 2) December 2017 May 2018


Government Benchmark 1


Local High School Government

Social Studies (Government)

October 2017 March 2018


Government Benchmark 2



Social Studies (Government)

November - December 2017

April - May 2018


American Studies II Benchmark 1



Social Studies (American Studies II)

October 2017 February - March

2018





Assessment








American Studies II Benchmark 2



Social Studies (American Studies II)

November – December 2017

April – May 2018


Modern World History Benchmark 1



Social Studies (Modern World History)

October 2017 February – March

2018


Modern World History Benchmark 2



Social Studies (Modern World History)

December – January 2018

May – June 2018


Biology Benchmarks Measure progress on MSSS

Local High School Biology Science (Biology)

Throughout Semester


High School Physical Education Benchmarks


Local High School Physical Education

Fitness For Life

1 assessment per term


High School Health Education


Local High School Health Education 2 assessments per term



APPENDIX A: HOUSE BILLS 999 AND 412

HOUSE BI LL 999

According to HB 999, Section 3, the following are reporting requirements for the master plan

annual updates for 2016 and 2017. Section 3 and be it further enacted, that:

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for calendar years 2016 and 2017, a county

board of education’s annual update of the comprehensive master plan required by § 5–

401(b)(3) of the Education Article shall include only:

(1) the budget requirements required by § 5–401(b)(5) of the Education Article;

(2) the goals, objectives, and strategies regarding the performance of:

(i) students requiring special education, as defined in § 5–209 of the 9 Education Article;

(ii) students with limited English proficiency, as defined in § 5–208 of the Education

Article; and

(iii) students failing to meet, or failing to make progress toward meeting, State

performance standards, including any segment of the student population that is, on

average, performing at a lower achievement level than the student population as a

whole;

(3) the strategies to address any disparities in achievement for students in item (2) (iii) of this

subsection; and

(4) the requirements of § 7–203.3 of the Education Article, as enacted H.B. 412/ S.B. 533 of

the Acts of the General Assembly of 2016.

(b) (1) The State Department of Education shall convene a group of stakeholders to review the

current statutory and regulatory requirements of the master plan and the new requirements

of the federal Every Student Succeeds Act.

(2) On or before October 1, 2017, the Department shall report to the State Board of

Education, the Commission on Innovation and Excellence in Education, as enacted by

Section 1 of this Act, and, in accordance with § 2–1246 of the State Government Article, the

General Assembly on recommendations regarding:

(i) what information future comprehensive master plans should contain; and

(ii) whether future comprehensive master plans should be completed in a digital form

that can be updated periodically.

Section 3.4. And it further enacted, that this Act shall take effect June 1, 2016. It shall remain

effective for a period of 2 years and, at the end of May 31, 2018, with no further action required

by the General Assembly, this Act shall be abrogated and of no further force and effect.


HOUSE BI LL 412 and SE CTI ON 7 -203.3

The 2016 General Assembly House Bill 412, Assessment Administration and Provision of

Information, Chapter 264 includes the new §7-203.3, Education Article of the Annotated Code of

Maryland. As enacted by House Bill 412/Senate Bill 533, §7-203.3 reporting requirements are

specified below:

(A) (1) In this section, “ASSESSMENT” means a locally, state, or federally mandated test that is

intended to measure a student’s academic readiness, learning progress, and skill

acquisition.

(2) “ASSESSMENT” does not include a teacher-developed quiz or test.

(B) This section does not apply to an assessment or test given to a student relating to:

(1) A student’s 504 Plan;

(2) The federal individuals with disabilities education Act, 20 U.S.C.1400; or

(3) Federal law relating to English Language Learners

(C) For each assessment administered in a local school system, each county board shall

provide the following information:

(1) The title of the assessment;

(2) The purpose of the assessment;

(3) Whether the assessment is mandated by a local, state or federal entity;

(4) The grade level or subject area, as appropriate, to which the test is administered;

(5) The testing window of the assessment; and

(6) Whether accommodations are available for students with special needs and what the

accommodations are.

(D) On or before October 15th of each year, the information required under subsection (A) of this

shall be:

(1) updated;

(2) posted on the website of the county board; and

(3) included in the annual update of the county board’s master plan required under § 5–401

of this article section.

Section 2. And be it further enacted, that this shall take effect July 1, 2016.


APPENDIX B: RESPONSE TO MSDE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS

E L A A N D MA T HS T U D E N T S W I T H D I S A B I L T I E S

MSDE Review Panel Clarifying Question: What are the challenges for special education students in

ELA? What are the challenges for special education students in mathematics? Additional Clarification

from MSDE: Please describe why these students are not performing and what they are considering doing

to improve their performance. For example, What is the delivery of instruction for special education

students? Co-taught, self-contained? How many students are in co-taught classes? How many of the

special education students are attendance issues? Discipline issues? Do the special educators have

certification in the content they are instructing? Do they attend planning meetings?

A consistent area of weakness in ELA for FCPS students with disabilities is in written expression. Depending on grade, students most struggle with literary text, informational text, or vocabulary. For math, these challenges for students with disabilities (scoring at level three; approaching expectations) is in the PARCC sub-claims of additional and supporting content, along with mathematical reasoning, and modeling. All staff members, including general education teachers are strengthening their understanding of the rigorous expectations of the content, using tools such as Pearson’s Data Management and Reporting System (DMRS), performance level descriptors, and evidence tables. Strengthening the quality of Tier 1 instruction is a significant portion of FCPS’ plan to support students with disabilities, while also supporting a strong approach to Tiers 2 and 3 using EBIPs that are aligned and custom designed to meet the needs of individual students.

Attendance and Suspensions

Some students with disabilities struggle with attendance when compared to their grade level peers. While the 2017 FCPS attendance rate for “all students” was 95%, the attendance rate for students with disabilities was 93.5%. Attendance for students with disabilities wanes (ranging from 90.9% to 92.4%, depending on grade) as students move into high school.

Students with disabilities also face out-of-school suspension at a disproportionate rate. While 10.3% of students in FCPS receive special education services, the student group makes up 32% of FCPS suspensions.

Standards-Based IEPs

As FCPS leaders have evaluated the quality of current IEPs in its county audit, staff have identified an area of weakness in well-aligned, rigorous, standards-based IEPs. While FCPS IEPs certainly meet the expectations of the state department, local leaders recognize that students with disabilities must have IEP goals and objectives that align to the new core standards. Because special education teachers are often not content trained, a significant focus of AAE staff is to train their special education teachers on the content.

Additional Information Regarding FCPS Strategies

Students with disabilities in FCPS receive services in the least restrictive environment. Self-contained classes no longer exist aside from students who may be enrolled in one of FCPS’ special programs (i.e., Challenges, Learning for Life, Pyramid, etc.). A primary service delivery model in FCPS is co-teaching. Staff have engaged in ongoing professional learning using resources from Marilyn Friend to ensure quality implementation of the various models that


should be promoted (i.e., station rotation, parallel teaching, etc.). A focus on creating positive partnerships between colleagues is a continual area of focus.

FCPS has embarked on a multi-year journey in promoting cultural proficiency to assist with this challenge and has system targets for each school in the way of reducing disproportionality. In addition, many school CSI teams are engaging in restorative practices. Staff training is occurring and school teams are finding these interventions effective in re-engaging students who may be struggling through issues with their peers.

In addition, and per previous discussion in the regarding CPL for intervention, FCPS is establishing the concept of “core literacy teams” and “core math teams.” These teams consist of an administrator, EL teacher, special education teacher, interventionist, and content specialist from each school. Together, these staff are participating in ongoing professional learning throughout this school year with the following objectives:

● Improve understanding of curriculum resources available to support targeted interventions

that address standards (i.e., curriculum maps, evidence tables, performance level

descriptors, learning progressions, etc.).

● Improve understanding of intervention offerings available to support varied student

populations and/or enhance awareness of characteristics of students with disabilities and/or

EL.

● Review EBIP components that facilitate high-quality implementation. Provide opportunities

for school teams to learn how to develop curricular programs to meet the varied needs of

students.

● Review relevant assessment and progress monitoring tools available to school teams.

● Create opportunities to discuss and reflect upon school Response to Intervention (RtI)

processes and learn from innovative school teams.

B I O L OG Y A ND G O V E R NME N T E L S T U D E N T S & S T U D E N T S F A I L I N G T O M E E T P E R F O R M A N C E S T A N D A R D S

MSDE Review Panel Clarifying Question: What challenges exist for ELs and students failing to meet

performance standards? What challenges exist for ELs and students failing to meet performance

standards?

Additional challenges that can affect student performance, including biology and government, include attendance and suspension rates. Attendance rates among the students groups—black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, two or more races, EL students, and students receiving FARM—tend to be slightly lower than “all students” (95%). In fact, attendance rates were 94.9%, 94.3%, 94.6%, 94.2%, and 93.4%, respectively, in 2017. For the most part, attendance rates begin to decline as students enter high school; however, for students receiving EL and FARM services, this occurs as early as middle school. In addition, out-of-school suspension is disproportionate for black/African American (30.4%), two or more races (6.5%), students receiving FARM (54.9%).

As discussed in prior sections, systematic strategies are being implemented to ensure progress among all student groups, including EL students and students failing to meet performance standards.


Date post:	23-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times