springbrook elementary school accountability report card ......jan 19, 2016 · 2014-15 school...

2014-15 School Accountability Report Card for Springbrook Elementary of 13

Springbrook Elementary

School Accountability Report Card

Reported Using Data from the 2014-15 School Year

Published During 2015-16

By February 1 of each year, every school in California is required by state law to publish a School Accountability Report Card (SARC). The SARC contains information about the condition and performance of each California public school. Under the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) all local educational agencies (LEAs) are required to prepare a Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP), which describes how they intend to meet annual school-specific goals for all pupils, with specific activities to address state and local priorities. Additionally, data reported in an LCAP is to be consistent with data reported in the SARC. • For more information about SARC requirements, see the California Department of Education (CDE) SARC Web page at

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/sa/. • For more information about the LCFF or LCAP, see the CDE LCFF Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/. • For additional information about the school, parents/guardians and community members should contact the school principal or

the district office. DataQuest DataQuest is an online data tool located on the CDE DataQuest Web page at http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/ that contains additional information about this school and comparisons of the school to the district, the county, and the state. Specifically, DataQuest is a dynamic system that provides reports for accountability (e.g., test data, enrollment, high school graduates, dropouts, course enrollments, staffing, and data regarding English learners. Internet Access Internet access is available at public libraries and other locations that are publicly accessible (e.g., the California State Library). Access to the Internet at libraries and public locations is generally provided on a first-come, first-served basis. Other use restrictions may include the hours of operation, the length of time that a workstation may be used (depending on availability), the types of software programs available on a workstation, and the ability to print documents.

About This School Contact Information (Most Recent Year)

School Contact Information

School Name------- Springbrook Elementary

Street------- 655 Springbrook North

City, State, Zip------- Irvine, CA 92614

Phone Number------- (949) 936-6050

Principal------- Sunny Shen

E-mail Address------- [email protected]

Grades Served K-6

CDS Code 30-73650-6107502


District Contact Information

District Name------- Irvine Unified School District

Phone Number------- (949) 936-5000

Superintendent------- Mr. Terry Walker

E-mail Address------- [email protected]

Web Site------- www.iusd.org

School Description and Mission Statement (Most Recent Year)

Springbrook is located in the village of Woodbridge and has close ties with its community. Most of our students are English-speaking, but we are fortunate to have many other ethnic and language groups represented in our student population. Our attendance area also reflects a variety of housing. Our students live in subsidized housing, apartments, condominiums and single-family homes. We are proud to recognize continued student achievement. Our outstanding program is a direct result of the efforts of the dedicated and talented staff, the incredible support from our community, and the hard work of our students. Our mission at Springbrook is to enable all students to become contributing members of society empowered with the skills, knowledge, and values necessary to meet the challenges of a changing world, by providing the highest quality educational experience we can envision. Student Enrollment by Grade Level (School Year 2014-15)

Grade Number of

Level Students

Kindergarten 128

Grade 1 97

Grade 2 83

Grade 3 115

Grade 4 84

Grade 5 76

Grade 6 79

Total Enrollment 662

Student Enrollment by Group (School Year 2014-15)

Student Percent of

Group Total Enrollment

Black or African American 3

American Indian or Alaska Native 0.8

Asian 34.7

Filipino 3.6

Hispanic or Latino 14.5

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.5

White 33.7

Two or More Races 9.1

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 17.4

English Learners 18.4

Students with Disabilities 14.2


A. Conditions of Learning

State Priority: Basic The SARC provides the following information relevant to the Basic State Priority (Priority 1): • Degree to which teachers are appropriately assigned and fully credentialed in the subject area and for the pupils they are

teaching; • Pupils have access to standards-aligned instructional materials; and • School facilities are maintained in good repair. Teacher Credentials

Teachers School District

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2015-16

With Full Credential 25.6 28 28.80 1352.99

Without Full Credential 0 0 0 0

Teaching Outside Subject Area of Competence (with full credential) 0 0 0 108.806

Teacher Misassignments and Vacant Teacher Positions

Indicator 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Misassignments of Teachers of English Learners 0 0 0

Total Teacher Misassignments * 0 0 0

Vacant Teacher Positions 0 0 0 Note: “Misassignments” refers to the number of positions filled by teachers who lack legal authorization to teach that grade level, subject area, student group, etc. * Total Teacher Misassignments includes the number of Misassignments of Teachers of English Learners. Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers (School Year 2014-15)

Location of Classes Percent of Classes In Core Academic Subjects

Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers

This School 100.0 0.0

All Schools in District 100.0 0.0

High-Poverty Schools in District 100.0 0.0

Low-Poverty Schools in District 100.0 0.0 Note: High-poverty schools are defined as those schools with student eligibility of approximately 40 percent or more in the free and reduced price meals program. Low-poverty schools are those with student eligibility of approximately 39 percent or less in the free and reduced price meals program.


Quality, Currency, Availability of Textbooks and Instructional Materials (School Year 2015-16) Year and month in which data were collected: September 2015

Core Curriculum Area Textbooks and Instructional Materials/

Year of Adoption

From Most Recent

Adoption?

Percent of Students Lacking Own

Assigned Copy

Reading/Language Arts All students are provided an individual textbook or instructional material as determined by textbook software in September, 2015. All textbooks purchased are state-adopted, and are standards aligned.

Yes 0%

Mathematics All students are provided an individual textbook or instructional material as determined by textbook software in September, 2015. All textbooks purchased are state-adopted, and are standards aligned.

Yes 0%

Science All students are provided an individual textbook or instructional material as determined by textbook software in September, 2015. All textbooks purchased are state-adopted, and are standards aligned.

Yes 0%

History-Social Science All students are provided an individual textbook or instructional material as determined by a survey conducted in September 2015. All textbooks purchased are state-adopted, and are standards aligned.

Yes 0%

Health All students are provided an individual textbook or instructional material as determined by textbook software in September, 2015. All textbooks purchased are state-adopted, and are standards aligned.

Yes 0%

Visual and Performing Arts All students are provided an individual textbook or instructional material.

Yes 0%


School Facility Conditions and Planned Improvements (Most Recent Year)

Springbrook School was constructed in 1989 as is well maintained and up-to-date. The building contains 18 classrooms in the main building, with 6 portables adjacent to the building which are a part of the original construction. An additional 4 portables have been added, with two dedicated to on-site childcare. The building sits on a large parcel of land with ample playground space and is adjacent to a city-owned park and neighborhood pool. During the Fall of 2014, a new shade structure was built. School Facility Good Repair Status (Most Recent Year)

School Facility Good Repair Status (Most Recent Year) Year and month in which data were collected: July 2015

System Inspected Repair Status Repair Needed and

Action Taken or Planned Good Fair Poor

Systems: Gas Leaks, Mechanical/HVAC, Sewer

X

Interior: Interior Surfaces X

Cleanliness: Overall Cleanliness, Pest/ Vermin Infestation

X

Electrical: Electrical X

Restrooms/Fountains: Restrooms, Sinks/ Fountains

X

Safety: Fire Safety, Hazardous Materials X

Structural: Structural Damage, Roofs X

External: Playground/School Grounds, Windows/ Doors/Gates/Fences

X

Overall Facility Rating (Most Recent Year)

Year and month in which data were collected: July 2015

Overall Rating Exemplary Good Fair Poor

X

B. Pupil Outcomes

State Priority: Pupil Achievement The SARC provides the following information relevant to the State priority: Pupil Achievement (Priority 4): • Statewide assessments (i.e., California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress [CAASPP], Science California Standards

Tests); and • The percentage of pupils who have successfully completed courses that satisfy the requirements for entrance to the University

of California and the California State University, or career technical education sequences or programs of study California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress Results for All Students (School Year 2014-15)

Subject

Percent of Students Meeting or Exceeding the State Standards (grades 3-8 and 11)

School District State

English Language Arts/Literacy 63 77 44

Mathematics 64 74 33 Note: Percentages are not calculated when the number of students tested is ten or less, either because the number of students in this category is too small for statistical accuracy or to protect student privacy.


CAASPP Assessment Results - English Language Arts (ELA) Disaggregated by Student Groups, Grades Three through Eight and Eleven (School Year 2014-15)

Student Group Grade

Number of Students Percent of Students

Enrolled Tested Tested Standard Not Met

Standard Nearly Met

Standard Met

Standard Exceeded

All Students 3 120 116 96.7 25 16 17 42

4 85 82 96.5 16 23 26 35

5 84 80 95.2 16 28 30 26

6 80 77 96.3 10 12 49 29

Male 3 62 51.7 35 18 18 29

4 45 52.9 24 29 24 22

5 50 59.5 16 34 34 16

6 40 50.0 18 15 43 25

Female 3 54 45.0 13 13 17 57

4 37 43.5 5 16 27 51

5 30 35.7 17 17 23 43

6 37 46.3 3 8 57 32

Black or African American 3 1 0.8 -- -- -- --

4 2 2.4 -- -- -- --

5 5 6.0 -- -- -- --

6 1 1.3 -- -- -- --

American Indian or Alaska Native 5 1 1.2 -- -- -- --

Asian 3 39 32.5 13 13 13 62

4 23 27.1 4 9 30 57

5 24 28.6 4 29 21 46

6 22 27.5 9 0 45 45

Filipino 3 6 5.0 -- -- -- --

4 5 5.9 -- -- -- --

5 6 7.1 -- -- -- --

6 2 2.5 -- -- -- --

Hispanic or Latino 3 17 14.2 47 6 29 18

4 23 27.1 30 17 22 30

5 9 10.7 -- -- -- --

6 10 12.5 -- -- -- --

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

4 1 1.2 -- -- -- --

White 3 40 33.3 33 23 15 30

4 24 28.2 17 50 25 8

5 30 35.7 20 27 30 23

6 35 43.8 9 17 63 11

Two or More Races 3 13 10.8 8 8 23 62


Student Group Grade



Standard Nearly Met

Standard Met

Standard Exceeded

4 4 4.7 -- -- -- --

5 5 6.0 -- -- -- --

6 5 6.3 -- -- -- --

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 3 21 17.5 48 24 14 14

4 17 20.0 29 29 0 41

5 15 17.9 20 47 13 20

6 14 17.5 21 29 21 29

English Learners 3 22 18.3 32 18 23 27

4 14 16.5 36 14 21 29

5 13 15.5 23 46 8 23

6 8 10.0 -- -- -- --

Students with Disabilities 3 13 10.8 69 8 15 8

4 13 15.3 54 8 15 23

5 11 13.1 45 9 36 9

6 8 10.0 -- -- -- --

Foster Youth 3 -- -- -- -- -- --

4 -- -- -- -- -- --

5 -- -- -- -- -- --

6 -- -- -- -- -- --

Double dashes (--) appear in the table when the number of students is ten or less, either because the number of students in this category is too small for statistical accuracy or to protect student privacy. Note: The number of students tested includes students that did not receive a score; however, the number of students tested is not the number that was used to calculate the achievement level percentages. The achievement level percentages are calculated using students with scores.

CAASPP Assessment Results - Mathematics Disaggregated by Student Groups, Grades Three through Eight and Eleven (School Year 2014-15)

Student Group Grade



Standard Nearly Met

Standard Met

Standard Exceeded

All Students 3 120 119 99.2 21 13 23 43

4 85 84 98.8 12 29 30 30

5 84 81 96.4 20 25 32 23

6 80 78 97.5 9 18 33 40

Male 3 65 54.2 31 12 26 31

4 46 54.1 17 28 26 28

5 51 60.7 20 24 33 24

6 41 51.3 12 12 29 46

Female 3 54 45.0 9 15 19 57

4 38 44.7 5 29 34 32

5 30 35.7 20 27 30 23


Student Group Grade



Standard Nearly Met

Standard Met

Standard Exceeded

6 37 46.3 5 24 38 32

Black or African American 3 1 0.8 -- -- -- --

4 2 2.4 -- -- -- --

5 5 6.0 -- -- -- --

6 1 1.3 -- -- -- --

American Indian or Alaska Native 5 1 1.2 -- -- -- --

Asian 3 41 34.2 10 10 15 66

4 24 28.2 4 8 29 58

5 25 29.8 8 12 36 44

6 23 28.8 4 9 22 65

Filipino 3 6 5.0 -- -- -- --

4 5 5.9 -- -- -- --

5 6 7.1 -- -- -- --

6 2 2.5 -- -- -- --

Hispanic or Latino 3 17 14.2 53 6 29 12

4 23 27.1 26 30 22 22

5 9 10.7 -- -- -- --

6 10 12.5 -- -- -- --

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

4 1 1.2 -- -- -- --

White 3 41 34.2 27 22 24 27

4 25 29.4 8 52 24 16

5 30 35.7 20 33 33 13

6 35 43.8 11 20 40 29

Two or More Races 3 13 10.8 0 8 31 62

4 4 4.7 -- -- -- --

5 5 6.0 -- -- -- --

6 5 6.3 -- -- -- --

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 3 21 17.5 43 29 19 10

4 17 20.0 12 47 24 18

5 15 17.9 27 33 33 7

6 14 17.5 14 36 29 21

English Learners 3 25 20.8 44 12 12 32

4 16 18.8 31 13 19 38

5 14 16.7 29 21 29 21

6 9 11.3 -- -- -- --

Students with Disabilities 3 13 10.8 54 15 23 8


Student Group Grade



Standard Nearly Met

Standard Met

Standard Exceeded

4 13 15.3 54 15 8 23

5 11 13.1 55 27 9 9

6 8 10.0 -- -- -- --

Foster Youth 3 -- -- -- -- -- --

4 -- -- -- -- -- --

5 -- -- -- -- -- --

6 -- -- -- -- -- --

Double dashes (--) appear in the table when the number of students is ten or less, either because the number of students in this category is too small for statistical accuracy or to protect student privacy. Note: The number of students tested includes students that did not receive a score; however, the number of students tested is not the number that was used to calculate the achievement level percentages. The achievement level percentages are calculated using students with scores.

California Standards Tests for All Students in Science (Three-Year Comparison)

Subject

Percent of Students Scoring at Proficient or Advanced (meeting or exceeding the state standards)

School District State

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Science (grades 5, 8, and 10) 85 90 78 87 88 88 59 60 56 Note: Scores are not shown when the number of students tested is ten or less, either because the number of students in this category is too small for statistical accuracy or to protect student privacy.

California Standards Tests Results by Student Group in Science (School Year 2014-15)

Student Percent of Students Scoring at

Group Proficient or Advanced

All Students in the LEA 88

All Students at the School 78

Male 81

Female 73

Black or African American --

American Indian or Alaska Native --

Asian 80

Filipino --

Hispanic or Latino --

White 82

Two or More Races --

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged --

English Learners 57

Students with Disabilities 50

Foster Youth -- Note: Scores are not shown when the number of students tested is ten or less, either because the number of students in this category is too small for statistical accuracy or to protect student privacy.


California Physical Fitness Test Results (School Year 2014-15)

Grade Level

Percent of Students Meeting Fitness Standards

Four of Six Standards Five of Six Standards Six of Six Standards

---5--- 8.60 25.90 46.90 Note: Percentages are not calculated when the number of students tested is ten or less, either because the number of students in this category is too small for statistical accuracy or to protect student privacy.

C. Engagement

State Priority: Parental Involvement The SARC provides the following information relevant to the Parental Involvement State Priority (Priority 3): • Efforts the school district makes to seek parent input in making decisions for the school district and each schoolsite. Opportunities for Parental Involvement (Most Recent Year)

Parents are actively involved in the program at Springbrook. On a daily basis, parents volunteer in classrooms to support student learning, partner with teachers, and provide engaging activities. A strong Parent Teacher Association provides structure to volunteering, family educational programming, and other activities such as a Family Fun Night, Jogathon, Physical Education, Lunch Time Activities, Technology, Book and Author Festivals, and other student centered celebrations. Parents also support Teamkids and The Ambassador Program to support service learning in the community. Parents participate in Family Math Night, Family Science Night, and Family Art Night. Over 25 community members and parents participated in Read Across America in celebration of Dr. Seuss' Birthday. A parent created an original artwork for the library. Another group of parents led a team of student to participate in Kids Run the OC for health and fitness education. A large group of industry professionals are members of the Educational Technology committee that advises a vision, goals, and budget with the site leadership team.

State Priority: School Climate The SARC provides the following information relevant to the School Climate State Priority (Priority 6): • Pupil suspension rates; • Pupil expulsion rates; and • Other local measures on the sense of safety. Suspensions and Expulsions

Rate School District State

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Suspensions------- 1.00 0.00 0.42 1.96 1.33 1.37 5.07 4.36 3.80

Expulsions------- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.13 0.10 0.09

School Safety Plan (Most Recent Year)

As a part of our commitment to safety, staff and students participate in scheduled fire, earthquake and lockdown preparedness drills. Our disaster plan is updated yearly, and we have supplies on hand in the event of an emergency. Springbrook School has developed a comprehensive Safe School Plan. Our plan is evaluated yearly and amended, as needed by the School Site Council. Key elements of the plan include: 1. Assessing the current status of school crime committed on the school campus and at school-related functions, 2a.Child Abuse Reporting Procedures, 2b. Disaster Procedures-Routine and Emergency, 2c. Policies for Suspension, Expulsion and Mandatory Expulsion, 2d. Procedures for Notification of Staff Regarding Dangerous Students, 2e. Policies on Sexual Harassment, 2f.Policy Relating to School Dress Code (especially gang-related apparel), 2g. Procedures for Safe Ingress and Egress of Pupils, Parents, and School Employees To and From School, 2h. Procedures that Create a Safe and Orderly Environment Conducive to Learning at School, 2i. Rules and Procedures on School Discipline.


The staff implemented Positive Behavior Intervention Systems (PBIS) for the 2013-2014 school year. This second year of implementation began with a school kick-off in fall of 2012. Staff identified the values and norms that we live by as a school community followed by a vision statement created with a school-wide motto (SEAL). The PBIS Leadership Team led the staff through the development of a matrix identifying the behavioral expectations in multiple locations inside and outside the school grounds. Student expectations are supported according to positive values. The teachers and staff have a common lesson plan for addressing PBIS so that the language and lessons are consistent across settings and experiences. The SEAL Motto is as follows: S – Show Respect E – Embrace Friendships A – Act Responsibly L – Listen First, Then Problem Solve Springbrook is a PBIS school which employs a behavioral Pyramid of Interventions. Three tiers support students behaviorally and create safety nets for all students. First Tier programs include PBIS, Second Step, and common language in modeling and labeling desired behaviors. Second Tier interventions include Tool Kit lessons from the Early Mental Health Initiative (EMHI) counselor, the Ambassador Leadership Program, social stories, and behavior contracts. Third Tier behavior supports are one-to-one guidance with the EMHI counselor, behavior plans and goals, social cognitive work, parent involvement, suspension and expulsion. Springbrook suspension data reflects an decreased rate from 3.08 to 0% students between the 2011-2012 and 2013-2014 school years.

D. Other SARC Information

The information in this section is required to be in the SARC but is not included in the state priorities for LCFF. Adequate Yearly Progress Overall and by Criteria (School Year 2014-15)

AYP Criteria School District State

Made AYP Overall Yes No Yes

Met Participation Rate: English-Language Arts Yes Yes Yes

Met Participation Rate: Mathematics Yes Yes Yes

Met Percent Proficient: English-Language Arts N/A N/A N/A

Met Percent Proficient: Mathematics N/A N/A N/A

Met Attendance Rate Yes Yes Yes

Met Graduation Rate N/A No Yes

Federal Intervention Program (School Year 2015-16)

Indicator School District

Program Improvement Status In PI In PI

First Year of Program Improvement 2012-2013 2012-2013

Year in Program Improvement* Year 2 Year 3

Number of Schools Currently in Program Improvement N/A 7

Percent of Schools Currently in Program Improvement N/A 46.7 Note: Cells with N/A values do not require data.


Average Class Size and Class Size Distribution (Elementary)

Grade Level

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Avg. Class Size

Number of Classes Avg. Class Size

Number of Classes Avg. Class Size

Number of Classes

1-20 21-32 33+ 1-20 21-32 33+ 1-20 21-32 33+

K

31 4 25 1 4 26 1 4

1

30 2 28 2 30 3

2

31 4 32 4 27 3

3

29 3 26 1 4 28 4

4

27 1 1 1 31 2 32 1 1

5

32 1 1 36 2 31 2

6

29 1 3 35 3 29 1 3

Other

14 1 14 1 Note: Number of classes indicates how many classes fall into each size category (a range of total students per class).

Academic Counselors and Other Support Staff (School Year 2014-15)

Title Number of FTE

Assigned to School Average Number of Students per

Academic Counselor

Academic Counselor------- 0 0

Counselor (Social/Behavioral or Career Development) 0.6 N/A

Library Media Teacher (Librarian) 0.65 N/A

Library Media Services Staff (Paraprofessional) 1.2 N/A

Psychologist------- 0.8 N/A

Social Worker------- 0 N/A

Nurse------- 0.2 N/A

Speech/Language/Hearing Specialist 1.8 N/A

Resource Specialist------- 1.0 N/A

Other------- 0 N/A Note: Cells with N/A values do not require data. One Full Time Equivalent (FTE) equals one staff member working full time; one FTE could also represent two staff members who each work 50 percent of full time.

Expenditures per Pupil and School Site Teacher Salaries (Fiscal Year 2013-14)

Level

Expenditures Per Pupil Average Teacher Salary Total

Supplemental/ Restricted

Basic/ Unrestricted

School Site------- $4,779 $385 $4,393 $81,610

District------- N/A N/A $4,650 $75,749

Percent Difference: School Site and District N/A N/A -5.5 7.7

State------- N/A N/A $5,348 $72,971

Percent Difference: School Site and State N/A N/A -17.9 11.8 Note: Cells with N/A values do not require data.


Types of Services Funded (Fiscal Year 2014-15)

The Local Control Funding Formula has replaced California’s previous method of allocating funds to school districts. In place of more than 40 specific funding categories, the new model has essentially established three sources of state funding with increased local discretion to determine how best to spend those funds in the service of students. All districts now start with a base level of per-student funding that varies slightly depending on grade levels. Then there’s supplemental funding, which adds 20 percent of the base for each English-language learner, low-income student and foster youth. Finally, there’s a third pot called a concentration grant that is equal to 50 percent of the entire base. But that’s only for schools and districts where English-learners, low-income students and foster youth exceed 55 percent of the total enrollment, and IUSD isn’t eligible. Teacher and Administrative Salaries (Fiscal Year 2013-14)

Category District Amount State Average for Districts In Same Category

Beginning Teacher Salary $41,630 $43,165

Mid-Range Teacher Salary $74,349 $68,574

Highest Teacher Salary $96,107 $89,146

Average Principal Salary (Elementary) $119,550 $111,129

Average Principal Salary (Middle) $127,346 $116,569

Average Principal Salary (High) $142,899 $127,448

Superintendent Salary $249,900 $234,382

Percent of Budget for Teacher Salaries 39% 38%

Percent of Budget for Administrative Salaries 5% 5% For detailed information on salaries, see the CDE Certificated Salaries & Benefits Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/cs/. Professional Development (Most Recent Three Years)

Professional development needs for teacher in ELA are to continue to implement the CCSS with greater depth and alignment. IUSD is providing 2 full days for every teacher in ELA. Professional development needs for teacher in Math are to continue to implement the CCSS with greater depth and alignment. IUSD is providing 3 full days for every teacher in Math. Springbrook Title 1 funds are providing a literacy coach to provide presentations, coaching, demo lessons, and planning support to grade levels. Balanced Literacy, Readers' Workshop, and Writers' Workshop will be the emphasis of the training. Giving teachers time to develop learning progressions based on CCSS is most needed. Then, assessments can be aligned to give better information for intervention. IUSD is also offering to some teachers, BTSA, Primary Literacy Project, Common Formative Assessment Training, Jr. Great Books, Depth and Complexity, and Launch Point, . Springbrook Technology leaders provide instruction in On-line testing, applications for iPads, Canvas, Google Accounts for Education, and Microsoft Office Suite and other projects such as Mystery Skype, Kid Blog, Discovery Streaming, Sally Ride Science First in Math, ST Math, Kahn Academy and more. To monitor individual placement, create flexible groups and change teaching strategies based on data, PLC Teams must meet multiple times per month and at least four times per year with Springbrook administration. Substitutes are provided by IUSD and Springbrook Title 1 funds. IUSD has provided training on Safety, PBIS, Truancy Hunter, Bullying and more. These trainings have been reviewed with the entire staff as Springbrook aligns the systems for the site. PBIS training is in year 4. More training will be given to the PBIS Team for Tier 3 interventions. The staff will be trained in the use of the SRSS screener. The PBIS Team as part of the Multi-Tiered System of support Team will continue to train the staff in teaching positive responses, giving appropriate feedback with SEAL Tickets, the need for ODR and data, and the three new interventions HUG, ZOT, and Tool Kit.

springbrook elementary school accountability report card ......jan 19, 2016 · 2014-15 school...

Documents