AGENDA FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408 Monday, February 11, 2013 I. TIME AND PLACE 1. 7 p.m. at the James P. Fugate Administration Building II. ROLL CALL 1. Roll call of board members III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION 1. Written communications 2. Scheduled communications 3. Unscheduled communications 4. Community groups and organizations V. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE VI. STUDENT AND STAFF RECOGNITION 1. School board recognition month VII. STUDENT PARTICIPATION 1. Terminal Park Elementary School art display 2. Requests for travel VIII. SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 1. 2012-13 Rainier Middle School Improvement Plan IX. PERSONNEL 1. Certificated and classified personnel report 2. Requests for travel X. BUILDING PROGRAM 1. Resolution No. 1175 2. Resolution No. 1176 XI. FINANCE 1. Vouchers 2. 2012-13 Revised Budget Hearing 3. Resolution No. 1174
247
Embed
AGENDA FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS Monday, … · Improving Adolescent Literacy: Effective Classroom and Intervention Practices Improving Adolescent Literacy: ... Intervention Practices.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
AGENDA FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408
Monday, February 11, 2013
I. TIME AND PLACE
1. 7 p.m. at the James P. Fugate Administration Building
II. ROLL CALL
1. Roll call of board members
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
1. Written communications
2. Scheduled communications
3. Unscheduled communications
4. Community groups and organizations
V. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
VI. STUDENT AND STAFF RECOGNITION
1. School board recognition month
VII. STUDENT PARTICIPATION
1. Terminal Park Elementary School art display
2. Requests for travel
VIII. SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
1. 2012-13 Rainier Middle School Improvement Plan
IX. PERSONNEL
1. Certificated and classified personnel report
2. Requests for travel
X. BUILDING PROGRAM
1. Resolution No. 1175
2. Resolution No. 1176
XI. FINANCE
1. Vouchers
2. 2012-13 Revised Budget Hearing
3. Resolution No. 1174
XII. DIRECTORS
1. Approval of minutes
2. Waiver closures
3. Discussion
4. Executive session
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE The board will discuss legislative items.
February 11, 2013 Page 2
STUDENT PARTICIPATION
1. Terminal Park Elementary School Art Display
Tom Dudley, Terminal Park Elementary School principal, will introduce Lynneti Aumua, Morgan Collings, Thatcher Foucher, Regan Singer, and Rodger Skaggs, students, who will present the Terminal Park Elementary School art display and answer questions from the board.
2. Requests for Travel
a. Two Auburn High School students and 23 Auburn Riverside High School students request permission to travel to Portland, Oregon, Friday to Monday, February 15-18. The purpose of the trip is to participate in the All-State and All-Northwest Orchestra Festival. Lodging will be at the Double Tree Inn, meals will be at local restaurants, and travel will be by school bus. All expenses will be paid by ASB funds. Dale Johnson, Auburn High School teacher, and Elsa Fager, Auburn Riverside High School teacher, request permission to accompany the students. A substitute is needed for one day.
b. Sixty-three Auburn Riverside High School students request permission
to travel to Portland, Oregon, Friday to Saturday, March 8-9. The purpose of the trip is to participate in the Mt. Hood Community Orchestra Festival. Lodging will be at the Days Inn, meals will be at local restaurants, and travel will be by charter bus. All expenses will be paid by ASB funds. Elsa Fager requests permission to accompany the students. A substitute is needed for one day.
Darren Wohlmacher and Mrs. Tirado, parent chaperones, request
permission to accompany the students. 3. Forty Auburn Mountainview High School students request permission to
travel to Ravensdale, Saturday to Sunday, March 16-17. The purpose of the trip is to attend a music clinic. Lodging and meals will be at Lake Retreat Camp and Conference Center and travel will be by personal vehicles. All expenses will be paid by ASB funds. Karen Frerichs, Auburn Mountainview High School teacher, and Jessamyn Curtin, Auburn Mountainview High School para-educator, request permission to accompany the students. No substitutes are needed.
Mr. and Mrs. Madison, parent chaperones, request permission to
accompany the students.
Recommendation: That the above trips be approved as requested.
February 11, 2013 Page 3
SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 1. 2012-13 Rainier Middle School Improvement Plan
Rodney Luke, associate superintendent of K-12 student learning and technology, will introduce Ben Talbert, Rainier Middle School principal, who will introduce Doug Burnham, assistant principal; Tracy Brennan, language arts teacher; and Tracy Lasher, mathematics teacher. The team will present the 2012-13 Rainier Middle School improvement plan, share a PowerPoint presentation, and answer questions from the board. This presentation aligns with the 2009-12 district strategic improvement plan, Goal 1: student achievement, Objective 1.b. school improvement plans and the 2012-13 stated district goals, Standard III “create conditions district wide for student and staff success.”
Recommendation: That the board approve the 2012-13 Rainier Middle School Improvement Plan.
• Instructional Readiness vs. Grade Level – Tiered instruction
• Intervention
• Resources – Master Schedule, Staffing,
Supplemental Resources
Math Results
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
6th 7th 8th
% of Students at Standard in MAPS
Goal: 65% Passing
Actual Achievement 77% Passing
Math Results
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade
2011-2012 Math Map Effect Size Effect Size
2011-2012 Math Map Effect Size Effect Size
Questions from Results
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
6th 7th 8th
% of Students at Standard in MAPS
Goal:
Actual Achievement 77% Passing
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00% Math Overall 2005-2012
Math Overall 2005-2012 6th Grade
Math Overall 2005-2012 7th Grade
Math Overall 2005-2012 8th Grade
Reading Goal Attainment Indicators
VOCABULARY Vocabulary occupies an important position both in learning to read and in comprehending text: readers cannot understand text without knowing most of the words mean (National Reading Panel 2000). According to Nagy (2005), “Of the many benefits of having a large vocabulary, none is more valuable than the positive contribution that vocabulary size makes to reading comprehension.” To comprehend text, students require both fluent word recognition skills (i.e., decoding) and an average or greater vocabulary. According to Biemiller (2005b), “the presence of these two accomplishments does not guarantee a high level of reading comprehension, but the absence of either word recognition or adequate vocabulary ensures a low level of reading comprehension.”
Targeted Intervention
Reading Results
• Goal Attainment
• Questions from Results
• Process has identified additional needs – The solutions of today will present the
challenges of tomorrow
Reading Results
Reading Results
Questions from Results
Examples of Gains Name Fall 2011 RIT Winter 2012 RIT Spring 2012 RIT Difference Effect Size MSP
184 229 228 44 3.08 411
163 215 206 43 3.01 380
189 214 218 29 2.03 337
190 209 217 27 1.89 415
205 216 223 18 1.26 394
Goal III Focused Professional Development
SMART Goal 3
Subject Area:
School Name: Rainier Middle School
Target Population- based on
demographic, discipline and
attendance data analysis:
Certificated and Classified staff members of Rainier Middle School
Our Reality-based on assessment data
analysis:
Staff rated frequent monitoring of teaching and learning, focused professional development, and high standards and expectations with the fewest number of positive responses on the CEE survey.
Our SMART Goal-based on target
population and your reality:
The percentage of staff rating focused professional development and frequent monitoring of teaching and learning will increase from 40% to 60% as measured by the Center for Education Effectiveness Survey will increase from 40% to 60% from October 2010 to October 2012.
•Leadership/WEB •Teacher Leadership - ATLA, PLCs •Dean of Students
Additional Assets
Technology After School Programs:
•Robotics •Tutors •Mine Craft •Spirit Club
Adaptive Behavior
Improving Adolescent Literacy:
Effective Classroom and
Intervention Practices
Improving Adolescent Literacy:
Effective Classroom and
Intervention Practices
IES PRACTICE GUIDE
NCEE 2008-4027U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
WHAT WORKS CLEARINGHOUSE
( 1 )
Introduction
The goal of this practice guide is to present specific and coherent evidence-based rec-ommendations that educators can use to improve literacy levels among adolescents in upper elementary, middle, and high schools. The panel purposefully included students in 4th and 5th grades within the realm of adolescents because their in-structional needs related to literacy have more in common with those of students in middle and high school than they do with students in early elementary grades. Many students in grades 4 and up experi-ence difficulty acquiring the advanced lit-eracy skills needed to read in the content areas.1 The target audience for the practice guide is teachers and other school person-nel who have direct contact with students, such as coaches, counselors, and princi-pals. The practice guide includes specific recommendations for educators along with a discussion of the quality of evidence that supports these recommendations.
We, the authors, are a small group with expertise on this topic. The range of evi-dence we considered in developing this guide is vast, ranging from experimental studies in which reading was the depen-dent variable, to trends in the National As-sessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data, to correlational and longitudinal studies, again with reading as the major variable of interest. For questions about what works best, high-quality experimen-tal and quasi- experimental studies—such as those meeting the criteria of the What Works Clearinghouse (http://www.ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc)—have a privileged position. In all cases we pay particular attention to findings that are replicated across studies.
Although we draw on evidence about the effectiveness of specific practices in
1. Biancarosa and Snow (2004); Heller and Green-leaf (2007).
reading instruction, we use this informa-tion to make broader points about im-proving practice. In this guide we have tried to take findings from research or practices recommended by experts and describe how recommendations might ac-tually unfold in school settings. In other words, we aim to provide sufficient detail so that educators will have a clear sense of the steps necessary to make use of the recommendations.
A unique feature of practice guides is the explicit and clear delineation of the qual-ity—as well as quantity— of evidence that supports each claim. To do this, we used a semi-structured hierarchy suggested by IES. This classification system uses both the quality and the quantity of available evidence to help determine the strength of the evidence base grounding each recom-mended practice (table 1).
Strong refers to consistent and generaliz-able evidence that a practice causes bet-ter outcomes for students in measures of reading proficiency.2
Moderate refers either to evidence from studies that allow strong causal conclu-sions but cannot be generalized with as-surance to the population on which a rec-ommendation is focused (perhaps because the findings have not been widely repli-cated) or to evidence from studies that are generalizable but have more causal ambiguity than offered by experimental designs (statistical models of correlational data or group comparison designs for which equivalence of the groups at pretest is uncertain).
Low refers to expert opinion based on rea-sonable extrapolations from research and theory on other topics and evidence from
2. Following What Works Clearinghouse guide-lines, we consider a positive, statistically signifi-cant effect or large effect size (greater than 0.25) as an indicator of positive effects.
Table 1. Institute of Education Sciences levels of evidence for practice guides
Strong
In general, characterization of the evidence for a recommendation as strong requires both studies with high internal validity (i.e., studies whose designs can support causal conclusions) and studies with high external validity (i.e., studies that in total include enough of the range of participants and settings on which the recommendation is focused to support the conclusion that the results can be generalized to those participants and settings). Strong evidence for this practice guide is operationalized as:
A systematic review of research that generally meets the standards of the What Works Clearing-•house (WWC) (see http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/) and supports the effectiveness of a program, prac-tice, or approach with no contradictory evidence of similar quality; ORSeveral well-designed, randomized controlled trials or well designed quasi- experiments that gen-•erally meet the WWC standards and support the effectiveness of a program, practice, or approach, with no contradictory evidence of similar quality; OROne large, well-designed, randomized controlled, multisite trial that meets the WWC standards •and supports the effectiveness of a program, practice, or approach, with no contradictory evi-dence of similar quality; ORFor assessments, evidence of reliability and validity that meets the Standards for Educational and •Psychological Testing.a
Moderate
In general, characterization of the evidence for a recommendation as moderate requires studies with high internal validity but moderate external validity, or studies with high external validity but mod-erate internal validity. In other words, moderate evidence is derived from studies that support strong causal conclusions but where generalization is uncertain, or studies that support the generality of a relationship but where the causality is uncertain. Moderate evidence for this practice guide is opera-tionalized as:
Experiments or quasi- experiments generally meeting the WWC standards and supporting the ef-•fectiveness of a program, practice, or approach with small sample sizes and/or other conditions of implementation or analysis that limit generalizability and no contrary evidence; ORComparison group studies that do not demonstrate equivalence of groups at pretest and there-•fore do not meet the WWC standards but that (a) consistently show enhanced outcomes for par-ticipants experiencing a particular program, practice, or approach and (b) have no major flaws related to internal validity other than lack of demonstrated equivalence at pretest (e.g., only one teacher or one class per condition, unequal amounts of instructional time, highly biased outcome measures); ORCorrelational research with strong statistical controls for selection bias and for discerning influ-•ence of endogenous factors and no contrary evidence; ORFor assessments, evidence of reliability that meets the Standards for Educational and Psychological •Testingb but with evidence of validity from samples not adequately representative of the popula-tion on which the recommendation is focused.
Low
In general, characterization of the evidence for a recommendation as low means that the recommenda-tion is based on expert opinion derived from strong findings or theories in related areas and/or expert opinion buttressed by direct evidence that does not rise to the moderate or strong levels. Low evidence is operationalized as evidence not meeting the standards for the moderate or high levels.
a. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measure-ment in Education (1999).
b. Ibid.
InTRODuCTIOn
( 3 )
studies that do not meet the standards for moderate or strong evidence.
The What Works Clearinghouse standards and their relevance to this guide
In terms of the levels of evidence indicated in table 1, we rely on What Works Clearing-house (WWC) evidence standards to assess the quality of evidence supporting educa-tional programs and practices. The WWC addresses evidence for the causal validity of instructional programs and practices according to WWC standards. Informa-tion about these standards is available at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc. The technical quality of each study is rated and placed into one of three categories:
Meets Evidence Standards• for random-ized controlled trials and regression discontinuity studies that provide the strongest evidence of causal validity.
Meets Evidence Standards with Res-•ervations for all quasi- experimental
studies with no design flaws and ran-domized controlled trials that have problems with randomization, attri-tion, or disruption.
Does Not Meet Evidence Screens • for studies that do not provide strong evi-dence of causal validity.
Appendix D provides more technical in-formation about the studies and our de-cisions regarding the level of evidence for each recommendation. To illustrate the types of studies reviewed, we de-scribe one study for each recommenda-tion. Our goal in doing this is to provide interested readers with more detail about the research designs, the intervention components, and the way impact was measured.
Dr. Michael KamilDr. Geoffrey D. Borman
Dr. Janice DoleCathleen C. Kral
Dr. Terry SalingerDr. Joseph Torgesen
( 4 )
Improving Adolescent Literacy: Effective Classroom and Intervention Practices
Overview
Data from the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in read-ing report that 69 percent of 8th grade students fall below the proficient level in their ability to comprehend the meaning of text at their grade level.1 Equally alarm-ing, 26 percent of students read below the basic level, which means that they do not have sufficient reading ability to under-stand and learn from text at their grade level. When these data are coupled with reports showing that even high school students with average reading ability are currently unprepared for the literacy de-mands of many workplace and postsec-ondary educational settings, the need for improved literacy instruction of adoles-cents is apparent.2
Reading ability is a key predictor of achieve-ment in mathematics and science,3 and the global information economy requires to-day’s American youth to have far more ad-vanced literacy skills than those required of any previous generation.4 However, as long-term NAEP data5 and other studies show,6 improvements in the literacy skills of older students have not kept pace with the increasing demands for literacy in the workplace. These studies, and those men-tioned earlier, suggest the need for serious
1. Lee, Griggs, and Donahue (2007).
2. Pennsylvania Department of Education (2004); Williamson (2004).
3. ACT (2006).
4. Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998).
5. Perie and Moran (2005).
6. ACT (2006).
attention to the challenges of improving reading instruction in upper elementary, middle, and high school. Yet reading in-struction as a formal part of the curricu-lum typically decreases as students move beyond upper elementary grades.
To acquire the skills they need, students must work hard to refine and build upon their initial reading skills, and teachers in upper elementary grades and in mid-dle and high school classes should help students acquire more advanced skills once they understand the demands that content area tasks actually present, es-pecially to students who struggle with reading.7 However, many teachers re-port feeling unprepared to help their stu-dents or do not think that teaching read-ing skills in content-area classes is their responsibility.8
For more than 50 years9 the realities of stu-dent reading difficulties and teacher lack of preparation to address them have been met by calls for more instruction in higher-level reading skills for adolescents and for professional development in content-area reading instruction for middle and high school teachers. Although the debate about the role of content-area teachers in reading instruction continues,10 the time has come to consider seriously the support that needs to be given to struggling read-ers and the role that every teacher needs to play in working toward higher levels of literacy among all adolescents, regardless of their reading abilities.
A significant difficulty in working toward higher levels of literacy involves struc-tural barriers at the middle and high school levels that need to be overcome.
7. Heller and Greenleaf (2007).
8. Heller and Greenleaf (2007).
9. Artley (1944); Moore, Readence, and Rickman (1983).
10. Heller and Greenleaf (2007).
OvERvIEW
( 5 )
Researchers11 have found that some teach-ers circumvent the need for students to read texts by adjusting their assignments or methods of presenting content, rather than helping students learn the discipline-specific strategies needed for content-area work. Another researcher12 found that content-area teachers expressed resis-tance to the work of the high school read-ing specialists, whose job is to provide students with additional help outside their regular class structure. And still others13 have suggested that teachers who strive primarily to cover the content of their disciplines are unaware that by increas-ing students’ ability to read their assign-ments they could actually increase the depth and breadth of content that could be covered efficiently. A final barrier14 is that when schools actually institute programs to help struggling adolescent readers, they are housed within special education programs and thus serve only a small proportion of the students whom they could benefit.
In determining what to include in the ado-lescent literacy practice guide, the panel recognized that recommendations for in-structional strategies must be evidence-based. That is, rigorous studies have shown the practices to be associated with improvements in students’ reading pro-ficiency. While fully understanding that all aspects of literacy are important for success in middle and high school, panel members decided to focus specifically on studies about reading, that is, studies in which reading was a dependent variable. Although aware of the challenges faced by English language learners, we also focused on students whose first language was
11. Schoenbach et al. (1999).
12. Darwin (2003).
13. Kingery (2000); O’Brien, Moje, and Stewart (2001).
14. Barry (1997).
English.15 The search for sources focused only on studies of reading programs con-ducted within a school or clinical setting and excluded those offered in organized after school programs. These decisions narrowed the number of empirical stud-ies from which recommendations could be drawn.
Finally, the research that met the crite-ria for inclusion in this guide included few studies involving the use of com-puter technology. Despite great inter-est in and increasing use of software for reading instruction in middle and high schools, there is little experimental or quasi- experimental research demonstrat-ing the effectiveness of that work. Most recently, the National Evaluation of Edu-cational Technology16 assessed the ef-fectiveness of four software packages for literacy instruction at the 4th grade level, using an experimental design with a na-tional sample of 45 schools, comprising 118 teachers and 2,265 students. Although the individual products were not identi-fied by specific results, none of the tested software products produced statistically significant improvements in student read-ing achievement at the end of the first of two years of the study. At the same time, the National Reading Panel suggested that there is some promise in using computers to supplement classroom instruction; how-ever, these conclusions do not rise to the level of a supported endorsement.
A major source for identifying strategies that can have an immediate impact on student reading achievement was the Re-port of the National Reading Panel,17 es-pecially its sections on comprehension
15. The Institute of Education Sciences has pub-lished a practice guide on effective literacy in-struction for English language learners, which can be accessed at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee.
16. Dynarski et al. (2007).
17. National Reading Panel (2000a).
OvERvIEW
( 6 )
and vocabulary. What makes the National Reading Panel evidence so important is that the eligible research for vocabulary consisted mostly of studies of students in grades 3 and above, while the research on comprehension involved mostly students in grades 4 and above. The analysis of adolescent literacy practices presented in summary form in Reading Next: A Vision for Action and Research in Middle and High School Literacy18 has also been influential in shaping discussions on adolescent lit-eracy and has provided a starting point for developing this guide.
Adolescent literacy is a complex concept because it entails more than the scores that students achieve on standardized reading tests. It also entails reading to learn in subjects that present their ideas and content in different ways. Students need to be able to build knowledge by comprehending different kinds of texts, mastering new vocabulary, and sharing ideas with others. Although causal links have not been empirically established between improvements in reading and increases in course grades and scores on subject-based tests, students’ reading dif-ficulties will obviously impede their ability to master content-area coursework fully. Test score data and research continually confirm that many adolescents first need to improve their reading comprehension skills before they can take full advantage of content-area instruction.
In determining what to include in this practice guide, panel members also recog-nized that recommendations must be prac-tical. Teachers must perceive the value of each recommendation so that they envi-sion themselves integrating the recom-mendations into their instruction to make content-area reading assignments acces-sible to all students—those who are learn-ing to make sense of new and unfamiliar academic areas, those whose skills are
18. Biancarosa and Snow (2004).
marginal at best, and also those who strug-gle with reading. The first two recommen-dations focus on strategies for vocabulary and comprehension instruction: Provide explicit vocabulary instruction (Level of evidence: Strong) and provide direct and explicit comprehension strategy instruc-tion (Level of evidence: Strong) (table 2).
Although its research base is not as strong as that for vocabulary and comprehension, the third recommendation concerns dis-cussion of and about texts. Most, if not all, the studies that examined instruction in comprehension strategies indicated the im-portance of practicing those strategies in the context of discussions about the mean-ing of texts. Further, there is evidence that encouraging high-quality discussion about texts, even in the absence of explicit in-struction in reading comprehension strate-gies, can have a positive impact on reading comprehension skills. Small- and large-group discussions also provide teachers with an important window into students’ thinking that can inform future instruc-tion. Therefore, the third recommendation focuses on the use of discussion in improv-ing the reading outcomes of students: Pro-vide opportunities for extended discussion of text meaning and interpretation (Level of evidence: Moderate).
The fourth recommendation concerns stu-dent motivation and engagement. These two factors are widely recognized as im-portant moderators for learning, but there is limited scientific evidence that links these factors directly to student achieve-ment in reading. Nonetheless, all teachers can recognize the importance of bolster-ing students’ motivation and finding ways to increase students’ engagement with the material they are asked to read. The recommendation provided in this prac-tice guide ties motivation and engage-ment specifically to literacy outcomes: Increase student motivation and engage-ment in literacy learning (Level of evi-dence: Moderate).
OvERvIEW
( 7 )
Panel members also recognized that some students need more intense help to im-prove literacy skills than classroom teach-ers can provide. Because of this, our fifth recommendation concerns struggling read-ers, those students who probably score well below their peers on state reading tests and whose reading deficits hinder successful performance in their coursework. Under normal classroom instructional conditions, these students are unable to make needed improvements in their reading skills, so they typically cannot meet grade-level standards in literacy throughout middle and high schools. They need additional help that the classroom teacher cannot be expected to provide. Unless their read-ing growth is dramatically accelerated by
strong and focused instruction, they will continue to struggle to make sense of the materials assigned to them in their course-work, and they are at serious risk of being unable to use literacy skills successfully in their postsecondary lives. However, if they are identified from among their peers as being struggling readers and if their weak-nesses in reading are carefully assessed by trained specialists using measures that de-tect strengths and weaknesses, and this as-sessment is followed by intensive interven-tions that are focused on their particular needs, they will have more opportunities to improve their literacy skills substantially. This improvement should then translate into gains in content-area achievement (Level of evidence: Strong).
Table 2. Recommendations and corresponding levels of evidence to support each
Recommendation Level of evidence
Provide explicit vocabulary instruction.1. Strong
Provide direct and explicit comprehension strategy instruction.2. Strong
Provide opportunities for extended discussion of text meaning and 3.
interpretation.Moderate
Increase student motivation and engagement in literacy learning.4. Moderate
Make available intensive and individualized interventions for strug-5.
gling readers that can be provided by trained specialists.Strong
( 11 )
Recommendation 1. Provide explicit vocabulary instruction
Teachers should provide students with explicit vocabulary instruction both as part of reading and language arts classes and as part of content-area classes such as science and social studies. By giving students explicit instruction in vocabulary, teachers help them learn the meaning of new words and strengthen their independent skills of constructing the meaning of text.
Level of evidence: Strong
The panel considers the level of evidence supporting this recommendation to be strong, based on six randomized con-trolled experimental studies and three well designed quasi- experiments that dem-onstrated group equivalence at pretest.1 An additional six studies with weaker de-signs provided direct evidence to support this recommendation.2 A single subject de-sign study also provided evidence about the effect of vocabulary instruction on stu-dents’ outcomes.3 The research supporting explicit vocabulary instruction includes students in upper elementary, middle, and high schools from diverse geographic regions and socioeconomic backgrounds and addresses a wide variety of strategies of vocabulary instruction.
1. Barron and Melnik (1973); Baumann et al. (2002); Baumann et al. (2003); Bos and Anders (1990); Brett, Rothlein, and Hurley (1996); Lieberman (1967); Margosein, Pascarella, and Pflaum (1982); Nelson and Stage (2007); Xin and Reith (2001).
2. Beck, Perfetti, and McKeown (1982); Jenkins, Matlock, and Slocum (1989); Koury (1996); Rud-dell and Shearer (2002); Stump et al. (1992); Ter-rill, Scruggs, and Mastropieri (2004).
3. Malone and McLaughlin (1997). The standards for judging the quality of a single subject design study are currently being developed.
One caveat is critical to interpreting the research on vocabulary instruction. While all of these studies show effects on vo-cabulary learning, only some show that explicit vocabulary instruction has effects on standardized measures of reading com-prehension. Although reading comprehen-sion is clearly the ultimate goal of reading instruction, it is important to note that the construct of comprehension includes, but is not limited to, vocabulary. While it is likely that the cumulative effects of learn-ing vocabulary would eventually show effects on reading comprehension, we be-lieve additional research is necessary to demonstrate this relationship.
Brief summary of evidence to support the recommendation
In the early stages of reading most of the words in grade-level texts are familiar to students as part of their oral vocabulary. However, as students progress through the grades, print vocabulary increasingly contains words that are rarely part of oral vocabulary. This is particularly the case for content-area material. In many content-area texts it is the vocabulary that carries a large share of the meaning through special-ized vocabulary, jargon, and discipline-re-lated concepts. Learning these specialized vocabularies contributes to the success of reading among adolescent students. Re-search has shown that integrating explicit vocabulary instruction into the existing curriculum of subject areas such as science or social studies enhances students’ ability to acquire textbook vocabulary.4
Children often learn new words inciden-tally from context. However, according to a meta-analysis of the literature, the probability that they will learn new words while reading is relatively low—about 15 percent.5 Therefore, although incidental
4. Baumann et al. (2003); Bos and Anders (1990).
5. Swanborn and de Glopper (1999).
1. PROvIDE ExPLICIT vOCABuLARy InSTRuCTIOn
( 12 )
learning helps students develop their vo-cabulary, additional explicit instructional support needs to be provided as part of the curriculum to ensure that all students acquire the necessary print vocabulary for academic success. In many academic texts, students may use context clues within the text, combined with their existing seman-tic and syntactic knowledge to infer the meaning of unfamiliar words.6 Explicit vocabulary instruction may be essential to this development of these types of in-ference skills.
Words are best learned through repeated exposure in multiple contexts and do-mains. Many content-area texts, such as those in biology and physics, however, include specialized vocabulary, jargon, and discipline-related concepts that stu-dents may not encounter outside their textbooks. This aspect of presenting content -area material limits the amount of exposure students will have with these unfamiliar terms. If students encounter unknown words in almost every sen-tence in a textbook, learning the content becomes daunting and discouraging. Ex-plicit instruction in specialized vocabu-laries is an important way to contribute to successful reading among adolescent students.7
Research has shown that integrating ex-plicit vocabulary instruction into the ex-isting content-area curriculum in content areas such as science or social studies enhances students’ ability to acquire text-book vocabulary.8 Additional studies that examined students’ scores on the vocab-ulary subtests of standardized reading tests demonstrated that explicit vocabu-lary instruction had a substantial effect on students’ vocabulary acquisition in the context of a variety of texts, including
6. Swanborn and de Glopper (1999).
7. Beck et al. (1982).
8. Baumann et al. (2003); Bos and Anders (1990)
prose, expository texts, and specialized word lists.9
Explicit vocabulary instruction is a name for a family of strategies that can be di-vided into two major approaches: direct in-struction in word meaning and instruction in strategies to promote independent vo-cabulary acquisition skills. Direct instruc-tion in word meaning includes helping stu-dents look up definitions in dictionaries and glossaries, read the words and their definitions, match words and their defini-tions, participate in oral recitation, memo-rize definitions, and use graphic displays of the relationships among words and con-cepts such as semantic maps. Strategies to promote independent vocabulary acqui-sition skills include analyzing semantic, syntactic, or context clues to derive the meaning of words by using prior knowl-edge and the context in which the word is presented. Research shows that both ap-proaches can effectively promote students’ vocabulary.10 The first approach can add to students’ ability to learn a given set of words, whereas the second approach has the added value of helping students gen-eralize their skills to a variety of new texts in multiple contexts. In that respect, the two approaches are complementary rather than conflicting.
Some students acquire words best from reading and writing activities, whereas other students benefit more from visual and physical experiences.11 For exam-ple, short documentary videos may help students learn new concepts and terms because they provide a vivid picture of how the object looks in the context of its
9. Barron and Melnik (1973); Baumann et al. (2002); Beck et al. (1982); Brett et al. (1996); Nel-son and Stage (2007)
10. Baumann et al. (2003); Bos and Anders (1990); Jenkins et al. (1989)
11. Barron and Melnik (1973); Xin and Reith (2001).
1. PROvIDE ExPLICIT vOCABuLARy InSTRuCTIOn
( 13 )
environment or specialized use.12 Using computer software to teach vocabulary is an effective way to leverage instructional time and provide a variety of practice modes—oral, print, and even multimedia elaborations of words and concepts. Pro-grams that allow students to engage in independent practice can free teachers to work with other students in other instruc-tional modes.
Other studies have shown that students also learn vocabulary through rich discus-sions of texts (see recommendation 3). For instance, one study showed that discus-sion improved knowledge of word mean-ings and relationships for students reading biology texts.13 Discussion was also used in another study as part of the interven-tion.14 Discussion seems to have its effects by allowing students to participate as both speakers and listeners. While this is not explicit instruction, it does have some additional benefits. For example, discus-sion might force students to organize vo-cabulary as they participate, even testing whether or not the vocabulary is used ap-propriately. It also presents opportunities for repeated exposure to words, shown to be a necessary condition for vocabulary learning. Vocabulary learning in these cases did not result from explicit instruc-tion, but teachers who recognize potential of this kind of learning can supplement these interactions with new vocabulary with brief, focused explicit instruction to ensure that students share a common understanding of unfamiliar words and terms and have an opportunity to practice new vocabulary.
Although the research noted so far dem-onstrates the positive effects of explicit vocabulary instruction on vocabulary acquisition, there are mixed results with
12. Xin and Reith (2001).
13. Barron and Melnik (1973).
14. Xin and Reith (2001).
respect to the effects of such instruction on general measures of comprehension. Only a small number of the studies on explicit vocabulary instruction included comprehension outcome measures and found meaningful increases in students’ reading comprehension. It may be that whereas limited vocabulary interferes with comprehension, additional literacy skills are needed for successful reading comprehension.
How to carry out the recommendation
1. Dedicate a portion of the regular class-room lesson to explicit vocabulary instruc-tion. The amount of time will be dictated by the vocabulary load of the text to be read and the students’ prior knowledge of the vocabulary. Making certain that students are familiar with the vocabulary they will encounter in reading selections can help make the reading task easier. Computer in-struction can be an effective way to provide practice on vocabulary and leverage class-room time.
2. use repeated exposure to new words in multiple oral and written contexts and allow sufficient practice sessions.15 Words are usu-ally learned only after they appear several times. In fact, researchers16 estimate that it could take as many as 17 exposures for a student to learn a new word. Repeated ex-posure could be in the same lesson or pas-sage, but the exposures will be most effec-tive if they appear over an extended period of time.17 Words that appear only once or twice in a text are typically not words that should be targeted for explicit instruction because there may never be enough prac-tice to learn the word completely. Students should be provided with the definitions of these infrequent words.
15. Jenkins et al. (1989).
16. Ausubel and Youssef (1965).
17. Ausubel and Youssef (1965).
1. PROvIDE ExPLICIT vOCABuLARy InSTRuCTIOn
( 14 )
3. give sufficient opportunities to use new vocabulary in a variety of contexts through activities such as discussion, writing, and extended reading. This will ensure that stu-dents begin to acquire a range of productive meanings for the words they are learning and the correct way to use those words in addition to simply being able to recognize them in print.
4. Provide students with strategies to make them independent vocabulary learners. One way is to give them strategies to use com-ponents (prefixes, roots, suffixes) of words to derive the meaning of unfamiliar words; another is to make use of reference ma-terial such as glossaries included in their textbooks.18
Potential roadblocks and solutions
1. Students may vary in their response to different vocabulary instruction strategies. for example, some students respond better to sensory information than to verbal infor-mation about word meaning. Teachers need to combine multiple approaches in provid-ing explicit vocabulary instruction.19 for in-stance, as described above, it is helpful to expose students to vocabulary numerous times either in one lesson or over a series of lessons. It is also helpful to combine this re-peated exposure with a number of different explicit instruction strategies, such as using direct instruction techniques (getting stu-dents to look up definitions in dictionaries), helping promote students to independently acquire vocabulary skills (using context clues to derive meaning), offering students the opportunity to work on the computer using various software, and allowing students to discuss what they have read.
2. Teachers may not know how to select words to teach, especially in content areas.
18. Baumann et al. (2002); Baumann et al. (2003).
19. Lieberman (1967).
Content-area textbooks are loaded with too much specialized vocabulary and jargon. Teachers need to select carefully the most important words to teach explicitly each day. Several popular methods of selecting words for vocabulary instruction are avail-able. Two methods seem important for ado-lescent readers:
One method uses as a criterion the •frequency of the words in instruc-tional materials.20 This, again, is more important for elementary materials where the vocabulary is selected from a relatively constrained set of instruc-tional materials. For most adolescents, this constraint on vocabulary in in-structional materials diminishes over time, making the frequency method of selecting words less useful for teach-ing adolescent students reading con-tent. However, for adolescent students who have limited vocabularies, select-ing high-frequency, unknown words remains an important instructional strategy.
Another method uses three categories •of words: Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III. This concept has been applied most effectively for literary texts with stu-dents at elementary levels. Tier I words are those typically in readers’ vocab-ularies and should not be the focus of instruction. These high-frequency words are usually acquired very early. Tier III words are rare words that are recommended for instruction only when they are encountered in a text. That leaves Tier II words as the focus of explicit vocabulary instruction prior to reading a text. The criteria for what constitutes membership in each tier are not sharply defined, but are loosely based on frequency and the utility for future reading.21
20. Biemiller (2005); Hiebert (2005).
21. Beck et al. (1982).
1. PROvIDE ExPLICIT vOCABuLARy InSTRuCTIOn
( 15 )
For adolescent readers of content mate-•rials, vocabulary should be selected on the basis of how important the words are for learning in the particular disci-pline, rather than the tier in which the word is located. For example, in a 9th-grade biology text, the word “cytoskel-eton” might be a target for prereading instruction in a chapter on cell biology, even though it would generally be con-sidered a Tier III word because it al-most never appears in general reading or conversation. Most of the words for adolescent readers should be selected on the basis of how important they are to understanding the content that stu-dents are expected to read. For much content material, the words that carry the burden of the meaning of the text are rare words, except in texts and ma-terials related to a specific discipline. Despite the rarity of the words, they are often critical to learning the discipline content and thus should be the subject of explicit instruction, which is almost the only way they can be learned.
3. Teachers may perceive that they do not have time to teach vocabulary. Teachers are often focused on the factual aspect of stu-dents’ content-area learning and find little time to focus on other issues in reading. Whenever reading is part of a lesson, a few minutes spent on explicit vocabulary in-struction will pay substantial dividends for student learning. Some effort in teaching students to become independent vocabu-lary learners will lessen the amount of time required by teachers as part of the lesson.22 Making students even slightly more inde-pendent vocabulary learners will eventually increase the amount of content-area instruc-tional time.
Using computers can give teachers the op-portunity to provide independent practice on learning vocabulary. Teachers will be able to leverage instructional time by hav-ing students work independently, either before or after reading texts.
22. Baumann et al. (2002); Baumann et al. (2003).
SIP Template
1 | P a g e
Planning Year 2010-2011 Implementation September 2011-June 2014
Rainier Middle School
Strategic Improvement Plan
Strategic Plan Adopted by the Auburn School Board of Directors on insert school board approval date here.
SIP Template
2 | P a g e
September 2011-June 2014 Auburn School District Strategic Improvement Plan
District Improvement Goal 1: Student Achievement With district support, leadership, and guidance each student will achieve proficiency in the Washington Comprehensive Assessment Program (WCAP) and all schools will meet adequate yearly progress by meeting or exceeding the Washington State uniform bar in reading and mathematics in grades 3 through 8 and 10. District Improvement Goal 2: Dropout Rate and On-time Graduation Schools will reduce dropout rates and meet additional Adequate Yearly Progress indicators as determined by K-8 attendance and high school on-time graduation rates. District Improvement Goal 3: Parents/Guardians and Community Partnerships The district and schools will continue to develop partnerships to support student academic achievement and success. District Improvement Goal 4: Policies and Resource Management The district will focus on improving student academic achievement and narrowing the achievement gaps in its policy decisions and resource allocation. 2010-2011 Stated District Objectives-Student Achievement and Accountability Superintendent implements district strategic improvement plan to establish professional learning communities, become a standards-based district, produce power standards, develop common formative assessments, monitor student achievement, and provide intervention for continuous improvement for 10% more students at or above standards in reading and math. Superintendent increases high school graduation rates to 95% and increasing high school aggregate credits earned and decreasing failing grades in 9th grade. Superintendent increases learning enrichment and achievement beyond standards for all students including less represented population.
School:
Rainier Middle School
Date of SIP Team District Improvement Goal Review:
SIP Team Members:
Sheila McCord Cyndi Ulrich Jack Madigan
Kirk Jonasson Sonya Rempfer Ben Talbert
Debbie Allison Scott Davidson
Robin Light Harriet Dalos
SIP Template
3 | P a g e
Requirements for School Improvement Plan WAC 180-16-220
Each school in the district shall be approved annually by the school board of directors under an approval process determined by the district board of directors. “At a minimum the annual approval shall require each school to have a school improvement plan that is data driven, promotes a positive impact on student learning, and includes a continuous improvement process that shall mean the ongoing process used by a school to monitor, adjust, and update its school improvement plan”. The checklist below contains the required elements for School Improvement Plans under WAC 180-16-220. School Improvement Plans are subject to review by the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI).
1. Evidence and date of annual school board approval.
2. Evidence staff certification requirements were met. (Highly Qualified)
3. Evidence the plan is based on self-review and participation of required
participants (staff, students, families, parents, and community members).
4. Brief summary of use of data to establish improvement.
5. How continuous improvement in student achievement of state learning goals and essential academic learning requirements (EALRs) is promoted.
6. Recognition of non-academic student learning, what and how.
7. Plan addresses characteristics of successful schools.
8. Plan addresses educational equity (gender, race, ethnicity, culture,
language, and physical/mental ability).
9. Plan addresses use of technology to facilitate instruction.
10. Plan addresses parent, family, and community involvement. Failure to make AYP for two consecutive years will result in identification for school improvement beginning with Step 1. The consequences associated with each step are detailed at: http://www.k12.wa.us/ESEA/AdequateYearlyProgress.aspx
Auburn School District Mission In a safe environment, all students will achieve high standards of learning in order to become ethically responsible decision makers and lifelong learners.
Auburn School District Vision The vision of Auburn School District is to develop in students the skills and attitudes that will maximize their potential for lifelong learning and ethically responsible decision making.
School Mission The Rainier Staff is committed to providing our students with the essential academic skills, an appreciation for the arts, and an understanding of the importance of health and fitness that will enable them to function in our global society according to their individual strengths. We are committed to assisting students to develop personal responsibility, self-respect and acceptance of others while fostering a desire for life-long learning and responsible citizenship.
School Vision In a setting where diversity of thinking and cultures is valued, Rainier Middle School students establish a foundation that will prepare them for success in high school on a path for college or other post-secondary training.
Background Information WAC 180-16-220 Requirements for School Improvement Plan
Each school shall be approved annually by the school board of directors under an approval process determined by the district board of directors and “At a minimum the annual approval shall require each school to have a school improvement plan that is data driven, promotes a positive impact on student learning, and includes a continuous improvement process that shall mean the ongoing process used by a school to monitor, adjust, and update its school improvement plan.” School Improvement plans must include a brief summary of use of data to establish improvement; acknowledging the use of data which may include DIBELS, MAP, WLPTII, Credit Attainment, Enrollment in Honors/AP Courses, CEE Perceptual Data, SAT/ACT, Discipline, and MSP or HSPE.
The Rainier Middle School SIP team was comprised primarily of the content team leaders; ELL teacher; building administration and student, parent and community
SIP Template
7 | P a g e
members. During the 2009-10 school year each team identified content specific improvement goals and action plans. This was expanded during the 2010-11 school year as the team participated with the Auburn School District’s model for the revised School Improvement Process. The team met at least twice a month and attended monthly training meetings at the Auburn School District central office. The team also held additional planning sessions after school and used occasional release days as needed. In the 2011-12 school year the leadership team and a reading sub-committee has continued to meet regularly to review the plan as it is being implemented and make adjustments based on our experiences. We are presently in the process of revising the reading plan making changes in how the words for explicit vocabulary instruction are selected and reinforced. This document reflects improvement plans in two parts; whole school activities, and individual content area strategies. The whole school components are those elements in which every teacher in the school can participate regardless of the content area or assignment they have. For example, it is understood that the physical education teacher will not dedicate large portions of their class time to the teaching of phonics, but it is reasonable to ask them to assist with the attainment of certain reading skills. Similarly, it is understood that broad-based strategies by themselves are insufficient to help students with more intensive needs breach the gaps in which they find themselves. For students with greater needs, specific plans have been made to help them overcome the larger scale of deficits they are struggling with.
Highly Qualified Staff At the present time 100% of Rainier Middle School staff meet the highly qualified requirements. Significant attention has been given to ensuring that each staff member has been assigned to teach in areas for which they are endorsed and qualified. Revisions to the middle school model in Auburn two years ago have allowed us to give priority to teachers working almost exclusively in single-subject assignments.
Demographic data Rainier Middle School is one of four middle schools in the Auburn School District. Rainier Middle School is located on the east hill of Auburn. In the last decade, the east hill area known as the community of Lea Hill, has transformed from a rural,
SIP Template
8 | P a g e
agricultural community to a bedroom community of commuters to the cities of Seattle and Tacoma. The attendance area covers a large geographical area including parts of unincorporated King County and the City of Auburn. Additionally, many families from nearby Kent waiver into Auburn schools on the east hill. Over 830 students attend Rainier Middle School. Rainier Middle School’s student body is comprised of: 2% American Indian/Alaskan Native; 10% Asian; 10% Black; 13% Hispanic; 65% White. Approximately 45% of the students are eligible for free and reduced price meals, and the mobility rate is 14%. The student gender percentages are approximately 51% male and 49% female.
Discipline and Attendance Analysis Rainier Middle School separates disciplinary incidents into two categories; low level incidents such as chewing gum, coming to class prepared with materials, etc.; and more serious incidents such as insubordination, harassment, physical altercations, etc. Low level behaviors are handled on a system of infractions, points, and achieving honor level status. Significant behaviors are referred to the office for administrative review and more serious consequences. Staff members at Rainier Middle School effectively prioritize responses to misconduct and solve most problems at the lowest levels possible. In the 2011-12 school year 247 referrals for misconduct requiring administrative intervention have occurred. Eighteen staff members have written five or fewer discipline referrals, eight staff members have written 9 or fewer referrals, and eight staff members have written ten or more referrals. The large majority of students at Rainier Middle School, 94%, are never referred to the office for administrative follow-up. Attendance at Rainier Middle School is overall very good but a cursory review of the numbers warrant explanation. As of February of the 2011-12 school year, there were a total of 362 unexcused absences generated by 142 students. A closer examination shows that of those absences, 122 were generated by six students. The remaining 136 students had one or two unexcused absences that were typically the result of a legitimate absence and the parent failed to make contact with the school in a timely manner. These absences remained unresolved even after the school’s attempts to contact the home.
SIP Template
9 | P a g e
Of the six students with chronic absenteeism, the school implemented multiple interventions including parent conferences, counselor and academic support, school discipline that did not exclude the student from school, and truancy petitions. In all six cases the school was successful in getting the student to attend regularly and improve academic performance.
Assessment Decisions Rainier Middle School primarily used summative assessments in considering revisions to our School Improvement Plan including the MSP and MAP results. There was an extensive dialogue about the value of using the MSP data to advise our improvement plans. On the one hand, the MSP is what is used to calculate Adequate Yearly Progress and other aspects of state and federal compatibility. However, using those results to drive actual changes in instruction and practices is problematic at best. The results arrive long after the teacher has the opportunity to continue interacting with students and other and the results that are given lack the detail necessary to truly advise what aspects of instruction need to change. The results are not completely without merit. They do in fact help us see trends in how various subgroups of our population are performing when they are disaggregated by gender, ethnicity, socioeconomics, etc. The greatest value of the MSP results is that they prompt us to ask further questions about what students, which students in particular need additional support, where e need to explore further. The MAP results are also summative in nature but our efforts are to use them in a formative way. The results are immediately available and we have tools available to help us review sub-strands of information within the content areas tested. For example, the MAP results can readily be organized in reading or math by each particular class and viewed by RIT ranges of sub-strands of content. There are other assessments being used to make decisions such as the District Writing Assessment, CBAs in Health and Fitness, Social Studies, Music, etc. The math team uses the Orleans-Hannah as a screener for class placement, and intervention classes are now using the Mathematical Foundations Test and AIMS Web assessments for progress monitoring. Math, Science, Social Studies, Health and Fitness common assessments have been and continue to be developed by each content area.
SIP Template
10 | P a g e
Assessment decisions are becoming a stronger area of competence at Rainier Middle School. The culture of the school has evolved from one where the collective use of data by a team or the entire school was not valued, to one where not only is the data valued but the skills of using it effectively is being cultivated. It is now typical to see teams at PLC meetings reviewing assessment data to make decisions about the upcoming instruction and student placement. For example, in the spring of the upcoming school year teachers collate data from the Orleans-Hannah screener and MAPs to develop class rosters. These placements are cross-referenced at the end of summer when MSP and EOC data becomes available. This year an additional section of geometry was created in response to the high level of students meeting and exceeding standard on the EOC. Additional intervention and support sections were also created based on those results. Throughout the year the math team reviews the results of The Mathematical Foundations Pre-test (and now AIMS Web) to make move students into classes that have instruction best suited to their current level of instructional need. The Mathematical Foundations Pre-test assesses skills in whole numbers, fractions, decimals, proportions, percents, and integers. Similarly, students receiving reading intervention support are assessed using tools from Phonics Blitz, Accelerated Reader, MAPs, and now, AIMSWeb. Progress monitoring takes place at intervals of about every ten lessons. As a result of the data review, class placements and section offerings are revised each semester according to student needs. Language Arts teachers use the district writing assessment to measure student skills in writing and The Health and Fitness teachers administer the Fitness Gram and Fit for Pat assessments. The team meets to score assessments together, organize the data, and determine program success according to the results. Instructional units are revised according to the results and re-teaching occurs as necessary.
Data Analysis- MAPS Strengths: A review of data for the 2011-12 school year reflects that 60% of the assessed student population made gains of at least one RIT point or more in reading from fall of 2011 to winter of 2012.
SIP Template
11 | P a g e
Approximately 31% of students made gains equivalent to a grade level or more of increase in reading. A review of data for the 2011-12 school year reflects that 62% of the assessed student population made gains of at least one RIT point or more in mathematics from fall of 2011 to winter of 2012. Approximately 34% of students made gains equivalent to a grade level or more of increase in mathematics. Challenges: A review of MAPs data demonstrates that approximately two thirds of our student body is “on target.” In mathematics 13% of students are at-risk and 22% of students are at moderate risk for failure.
Data Analysis- WLPTII Strengths: In the category of AMAO-Making Progress, 91.9% of ELL students at Rainier Middle School were identified as making progress, exceeding the state target of 66.7% by 25.2%. In the category of AMAO-Attainment of English Proficiency, 14.6% of ELL students at Rainier Middle School were identified as transitioning or exiting, exceeding the state target of 13.3% by 1.3%. Challenges: ELL students did not make AYP in reading or math in the 2010-11 school year. Although 14.6% of ELL students were identified as transitioning, this is just over the minimum target and a higher level of proficiency is attainable.
Data Analysis- Credit Attainment, Honors/AP Enrollment Strengths: Rainier Middle School has doubled the number of honors level courses in language arts.
SIP Template
12 | P a g e
Rainier Middle School has expanded honors level mathematics course exponentially to include two sections of geometry, and a third more sections of algebra to allow 7th graders to also take advanced course work. In addition, sixth grade students who demonstrate readiness are eligible to participate in pre-algebra classes putting them on track to take geometry in the 8th grade. Challenges: Current enrollment in honors level courses does not reflect the demographics of our enrollment in relation to ethnicity and income.
Data Analysis- CEE Perceptual Survey Strengths: In a comparison of longitudinal data gathered over four years from 2006 through 2010, perceptions of the 9 characteristics of high performing schools improved by at least 10 percent in every category. Clear and shared focus saw the most notable gains of at least 20% for a total favorable rating of at least 80%. Effective school leadership approached the 80% range of being favorably perceived by school staff. Challenges: Focused professional development and frequent monitoring of teaching and learning were perceived as having the least amount of growth and to be in the lowest rated areas of all nine categories. Collaboratively planning lessons and reviewing data from peer observations were amongst the lowest rated aspects of frequent monitoring of teaching and learning. Only 50% of the staff perceived the school as being engaged in professional development activities to learn and apply reading skills. Staff noted that 38% of teachers engage in classroom-based professional development.
SIP Template
13 | P a g e
Achievement Strengths: In the area of mathematics, students identified as Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic and White met proficiency goals in 2010-11. In the area of math students identified as Asian/Pacific Islander met proficiency goals in 2010-11. Challenges: In the area of mathematics students identified as Black, ELL, Special Education, and Low Income did not meet proficiency goals in 2010-11. In the area of mathematics students identified as Black, Hispanic, White, ELL, Special Education, and Low Income did not meet proficiency goals in 2010-11.
MSP/HSPE Reading Strengths: Results from 2011 MSP show an 11% increase in math achievement from 2010 in the 6th grade. Challenges: Even with an 11% increase in 6th grade reading scores in 2010-11, this brought the achievement levels back to the average of previous years, and reading proficiency as measured by the MSP has remained largely the same at each respective grade level for several years. Achievement levels for black and Hispanic students have been consistently below the achievement levels of their peers in other ethnic demographic groups (20% - 30% lower). Students at Rainier Middle School show a declining rate of achievement in mathematics from the 6th to the 8th grade.
SIP Template
14 | P a g e
MSP/HSPE Math Strengths: Results from 2011 MSP show a 12% increase in math achievement from 2010 in the 6th grade. 6th grade students at Rainier Middle School showed a 7% positive difference in proficiency (67.5%) compared to other 6th graders around the state (60.9%). Results from the 2011 End of Course (EOC) exam showed 94% of students demonstrating proficiency or mastery in Algebra. Challenges: Achievement levels at the 7th grade have plateaued between 50% to 60% at the 7th grade, and at around 50% at the 8th grade for several years. Achievement levels for black and Hispanic students have been consistently below the achievement levels of their peers in other ethnic demographic groups (20% - 30% lower). Students at Rainier Middle School show a declining rate of achievement in mathematics from the 6th to the 8th grade.
MSP/HSPE Science Strengths:
From its inception in 2002-2003, students at Rainier Middle School have moved from 35.6% to 57.8% proficiency on the science assessment.
Challenges:
The gains made in science over the course of nine years average on 2.5% each year.
SIP Template
15 | P a g e
Prioritized Challenges A review of the challenge in raising student achievement at Rainier Middle School exist determined the following:
• The school has essentially plateaued in relation to reading and math achievement.
• Students in the achievement gap, primarily students of poverty and color, have not made appreciable gains over time.
• Intervention efforts have been successful when the school has had access to the students in need of help. This has typically occurred outside the school day which limits the number of students who benefit. Creating infrastructures that provide whole-child approach to learning as well as the intervention support needed is a formidable challenge.
• Staff rated frequent monitoring of teaching and learning, focused professional development, and high standards and expectations with the fewest number of positive responses on the CEE survey.
SIP Template
16 | P a g e
Study Teams (Each study team should consider parent/community involvement, cultural competency and integration of technology as potential strategies in
each goal area e.g. How can parent involvement, cultural competence and technology assist the school in meeting its reading goal?)
Literacy Goal Group: Sheila McCord, Cyndi Ulrich, Harriet Dalos, Ben Talbert Reading Goal Group Research Materials: Improving Adolescent Literacy: Effective Classroom and Intervention Practices Strategies that classroom teachers and specialists can use to increase the reading ability of adolescent students. The recommendations aim to help students gain more from their reading tasks, improve their motivation for and engagement in the learning process, and assist struggling readers who may need intensive and individualized attention. Math Goal Group: Kirk Jonasson, Tracy Lasher, John Woody, KT Smargiassi, Lynn Kamola, Michele Rock, Christy Gullard, Charlie Thomas, Jack Madigan, Ben Talbert Math Goal Group Research Materials: Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for Elementary and Middle Schools Eight recommendations designed to help teachers, principals, and administrators use Response to Intervention for the early detection, prevention, and support of students struggling with mathematics. Focused Professional Development/Frequent Monitoring of Teaching and Learning: Debbie Allison, Sonya Rempfer, Scott Davidson, Dawn Rasmussen, Sheila McCord, Kirk Jonasson, Cyndi Ulrich, Jack Madigan, Ben Talbert Focused Professional Development/Frequent Monitoring of Teaching and Learning Materials: Nine principles for designing effective “learner-centered” professional development. (Hawley and Valli) Content focuses on what students are to learn, driven by analyses of the differences between the goals and standards for student learning and (current) student performance, involves teachers in the identification of what they need to learn, school based and integral to school operations (job-embedded), collaborative problem solving, must be “continuous and ongoing, involving follow-up and support for further learning, evaluation of multiple sources of information on outcomes for students, opportunities to engage in developing a theoretical understanding of the knowledge and skills to be learned, integrated with a comprehensive change process that addresses impediments to student learning, mentoring and peer support, teacher inquiry, lesson study.
SIP Template
17 | P a g e
Improvement Goals While Rainier Middle School has been amongst the higher achieving middle schools in south King County and the Auburn School District, it has reached a holding pattern in terms of its growth in student achievement. This has been especially true of students of color and poverty. White students continue to make steady, modest gains but black and Hispanic students, particularly those of poverty, demonstrate a continual up-down cycle depending on the school year. A review of Rainier Middle School’s demographic trends over the last decade give added urgency to the need of helping low-income ethnic students bridge the achievement gap. Rainier Middle School’s population continues to evolve from one of rural, semi-affluent Caucasians to one that is almost 50% free and reduced and at least 40% ethnically diverse.
SMART Goal 1: The percentage of Rainier Middle School students meeting grade level median reading standard will increase by 5% from 64% to 69%, as measured by the MAP reading scores from Spring 2011 to Spring 2012.
SMART Goal 2: The percentage of Rainier Middle School students meeting grade level median math standard will increase by 5% from 60% to 65%, as measured by the MAP math scores from Spring 2011 to Spring 2012.
SMART Goal 3: The percentage of staff rating focused professional development and frequent monitoring of teaching and learning will increase from 40% to 60% as measured by the Center for Education Effectiveness Survey will increase from 40% to 60% from October 2010 to October 2012.
SIP Template
18 | P a g e
Needs Assessment Data Documents In this section please place all supporting documents you used to write your SMART GOALS and ACTION STEPS. These documents may include but are not limited to:
o MAP Data Dashboard
o WLPTII results
o Honors/AP Dashboards
o CEE Spider chart
o Discipline Dashboards
o Demographic charts
o AYP Results
o MSP/HSPE Results and trend charts
o Other data
SIP Template
19 | P a g e
School Improvement Planning SMART Goal Worksheet
School Name: Rainier Middle School SMART GOAL Subject Area: Reading
Target Population: Students Performing Below Standard in Reading as Measured by the MAP Assessment
Our Reality: On average, 64% of students meet standard in reading as measured by MAP and MSP assessment, and this level of achievement is the average performance over the last 3-4 years.
Our SMART Goal:
The percentage of Rainier Middle School students meeting grade level median reading standard will increase by 5% from 64% to 69%, as measured by the MAP reading scores from Spring 2011 to Spring 2012.
Strategies from the District Strategic Improvement Plan
Action Steps Responsibility Timeline Resources Evidence of SMART Goal
Attainment
Provide explicit vocabulary instruction/word recognition skills.
SIP Team Dept./Content Team Leaders All teachers Administrators
Essential vocabulary lists developed by June 2011 Content vocabulary draft lists completed by June 2011 In-service calendar completed
Building Academic Vocabulary ASCD Series Building 21 Hours Bi-Weekly Staff Meetings Building funds for instructional materials.
• Essential (Assessment) vocabulary lists
• Core content vocabulary lists • Calendar for teaching
vocabulary • In-service each month on
vocabulary teaching strategies • Calendar for sharing
successes and struggles each month
• Create/implement/analyze common assessments for essential vocabulary
• Teach affixes and root words.
SIP Template
20 | P a g e
Teach knowledge of text components. (To be implemented in the 2012-2013 school year.)
SIP Team Dept./Content Team Leaders All teachers Administrators
One each year MAP/DesCartes results and mapping tool. Building 21 Hours Bi-Weekly Staff Meetings Building funds for instructional materials.
• Understand time order of sequence
• Story elements for points of view
• Analyze text for similarities, differences and categories
• Analyze text for cause and effect
Alignment to District Improvement Plan Objectives:
SIP Template
21 | P a g e
SMART Goal 2
Subject Area: Mathematics
School Name: Rainier Middle School
Target Population- based on
demographic, discipline and attendance data analysis:
Students Performing Below Standard in Math as Measured by the MAP Assessment
Our Reality-based on assessment
data analysis:
On average, 60% of students meet standard in math as measured by MAP and MSP assessment, and this level of achievement is the average performance over the last 3-4 years.
Our SMART Goal-based on target
population and your reality:
The percentage of Rainier Middle School students meeting grade level median math standard will increase by 5% from 60% to 65%, as measured by the MAP math scores from Spring 2011 to Spring 2012.
Action Steps Responsibility Timeline Resources Evidence of SMART Goal Attainment
Sequential- what comes first? Who will monitor? Who will
implement?
Detailed milestones/markers
of progress towards evidence
Examples include: PLC, Building 21
Student evidence Staff evidence
Evidence of impact
Screen all students using MSP and MAP scores, Hannah-Orleans Assessment and teacher recommendation to identify those in need of intervention.
Math teachers, counselors, administrators.
Review: MSP results annually. MAP results at each testing window. Hannah-Orleans results at least bi-monthly.
District Assessment Coordinator PLC meetings Waiver Days
Data tables
SIP Template
22 | P a g e
Place students in math classes according to one or more of eight tiers of instruction ranging including intervention instruction, Foundations, General Math, Pre-Algebra, Algebra, and Geometry.
Math teachers, counselors, administrators.
Quarterly updates to student schedules
Assistant principal, counselors, math team leader.
Student schedules
Provide instruction specific to student’s needs including basic facts and problem-solving.
Math teachers Monthly reviews of pacing and skill acquisition
Adopted materials, supplemental materials including iSucceed, Algebraic Thinking, teacher developed resources.
Lesson plans, pacing guides, etc.
Monitor progress at regular intervals, at least quarterly, and revise instructional groupings accordingly.
Math teachers, administrators
Review: MAP results at each testing window. Hannah-Orleans results at least bi-monthly.
District Assessment Coordinator PLC meetings Waiver Days
Data tables
Alignment to District Improvement Plan Objectives:
SIP Template
23 | P a g e
SMART Goal 3
Subject Area:
School Name: Rainier Middle School
Target Population- based on
demographic, discipline and attendance data analysis:
Certificated and Classified staff members of Rainier Middle School
Our Reality-based on assessment
data analysis:
Staff rated frequent monitoring of teaching and learning, focused professional development, and high standards and expectations with the fewest number of positive responses on the CEE survey.
Our SMART Goal-based on target
population and your reality:
The percentage of staff rating focused professional development and frequent monitoring of teaching and learning will increase from 40% to 60% as measured by the Center for Education Effectiveness Survey will increase from 40% to 60% from October 2010 to October 2012.
Action Steps Responsibility Timeline Resources Evidence of SMART Goal
Attainment Sequential- what comes first? Who will monitor?
Who will implement?
Detailed milestones/markers
of progress towards evidence
Examples include: PLC, Building 21
Student evidence Staff evidence
Evidence of impact
Create staff-development calendar with heightened focus on vocabulary and assessment.
Principal, Content team Leaders
PDTIP Completed June 2011 Staff meeting calendar completed August 2011
District LID time Building 21 Hours Bi-Weekly Staff Meetings Building funds for instructional materials.
Completed calendars.
SIP Template
24 | P a g e
Develop and train core of facilitators from RMS staff.
Principal Two staff members participate in ATLA training At least five staff members attend Seven Strategies of Assessment training in October, 2011 Acquire Marzano’s Vocabulary Development materials and organize training with facilitators, June 2011 Conduct summer planning session August, 2011
Tuition Reimbursement Building funds
Completed training.
Conduct regular training with all-staff on designated areas of vocabulary and assessment.
Bi-weekly staff meetings Waiver Days Building 21 Hours
Staff meetings Waiver Days Building 21 hours District LID time
Completed training Training Evaluations
Increase administrative presence in classrooms to be 50% of administrator time.
Administrators, Secretaries.
Two day classroom visitation model (Breakthrough Coaching Model)
Two days of time each week. Breakthrough Coaching training materials
Completed tracking spreadsheet
SIP Template
25 | P a g e
Train administrators in instructional coaching model.
Building Administrators, Louanne Decker, Cindi Blansfield
Attend Seattle University Instructional Coaching training June 2011 Monthly meetings between building and district administrators to review model implementation
Professional development funds
Completed training
Conduct coaching model with at least fifteen staff members.
Administrators, Participating teachers
At least one monthly meeting with each staff participating staff member.
Time to plan Training materials
Individual professional growth plans
Develop peer-coaching model Administrators, teacher leaders
Begin planning in January 2012 Implement September 2013
Training materials
Alignment to District Improvement Plan Objectives:
SIP Template
26 | P a g e
Planning Implementation Calendar, 2010-2011: In this section develop a timeline for the SIP process for the next school year.
Timeline for Planning Process School Leadership Team Meetings: The school leadership team met approximately every two weeks. School Improvement Planning was regular agenda item. Special planning sessions took place with sub-groups in the months of January, February, March, and June: District Meetings: November 12, 2010: Data Analysis and Goal Setting December 10, 2010: Using Data – Building Literacy for All Learners January 14, 2011: Using Data – Building Math Literacy for All Learners February 11, 2011: Strategies for Crafting and Monitoring the Student Academic Improvement March 11, 2011: Strategies for Crafting and Monitoring the Student Academic Improvement Staff Professional Development: August 30, 2010: Principles of Collaboration/Strengthening Instruction with Learning Targets October 8, 2010: Assessment – Common and Formative Assessment Strategies January 25, 2011: School Improvement Plan Development – Writing Narrative Statements and Goals April 13, 2011: School Improvement Plan Development – Review and Planning of Reading Strategies June 15, 2011: School Improvement Plan Development – Essential Academic Vocabulary
SIP Template
27 | P a g e
Planning Implementation Calendar 2010-2011
SIP TIMELINE 2010-11 June Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June MATH Screen all students using MSP and MAP scores, Hannah-Orleans Assessment and teacher recommendation to identify those in need of intervention. X X X X X X X Place students in math classes according to one or more of eight tiers of instruction ranging including intervention instruction, Foundations, General Math, Pre-Algebra, Algebra, and Geometry. X X X X X Provide instruction specific to student’s needs including basic facts and problem-solving. X X X X X X X X X X Monitor progress at regular intervals, at least quarterly, and revise instructional groupings accordingly. X X X X X SIP TIMELINE 2010-11 June Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June READING Teach knowledge of text components. (To be implemented in the 2012-2013 school year.) X X X X X X X X X X X Provide explicit vocabulary instruction/word recognition skills. X X X X X X X X X X SIP TIMELINE 2010-11 June Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June School Culture Create staff-development calendar with heightened focus on vocabulary and assessment. X X X X X X Develop and train core of facilitators X X X X
SIP Template
28 | P a g e
from RMS staff. Conduct regular training with all-staff on designated areas of vocabulary and assessment. X X X X X X X X X X X Increase administrative presence in classrooms to be 50% of administrator time. X X X X X X X X X X Train administrators in instructional coaching model. X X X X X X Conduct coaching model with at least fifteen staff members. X X X X X X X X X X Develop peer-coaching model X X X X
February 11, 2013 Page 4
PERSONNEL--CERTIFICATED AND CLASSIFIED 1. Certificated and Classified Personnel Report Attached is the personnel report, for certificated and classified
personnel, for the board’s approval. Recommendation: That the board approve the attached
report. 2. Requests for Travel
a. Michael Newman, deputy superintendent, requests permission to travel to Orlando, Florida, Sunday to Saturday, February 17-23. The purpose of the trip is to attend the John Maxwell Leadership Conference. Lodging will be at the World Center Mariott, meals will be at local restaurants, and travel will be by airplane. All expenses will be paid with district funds. No substitute is needed.
b. Dennis Kip Herren, Michael Newman, Rodney Luke, and Louanne Decker,
Auburn School District administrators, request permission to travel to San Diego, California, Friday to Monday, April 12-15. The purpose of the trip is to attend the National School Boards Association (NSBA) Annual Conference. Lodging will be at the Omni hotel, meals will be at local restaurants, and travel will be by airplane. All expenses will be paid by district funds. No substitutes are needed.
c. Tamara Leitzke, occupational therapist with student special
services, requests permission to travel to San Diego, California, Wednesday to Sunday, April 24-28. The purpose of the trip is to attend the American Occupational Therapy Association National Conference. Lodging will be at a hotel to be determined, meals will be at local restaurants, and travel will be by airplane. All expenses will be paid with personal funds. No substitute is needed.
d. Karen Arnzen and Vickie Jenson, transportation dispatchers, request
permission to travel to Boston, Massachusetts, Saturday to Sunday, April 27–May 5. The purpose of the trip is to attend the 2013 Connect Conference. Lodging will be at the Marriott hotel, meals will be at local restaurants, and travel will be by airplane. Meal expenses will be paid by personal funds and all other expenses will be paid by district funds. No substitutes are needed.
Recommendation: That the above trips be approved as
requested.
Monday, February 11, 2013
PERSONNEL--CERTIFICATED
Curriculum/Non-Curriculum hours
Assist with N Tapps HS info night
Aarstad, Jon 1.5 hour(s) @ hourly rate of pay effective 1/1/2013
Kucharski, Thomas 4.5 hour(s) for 91 day(s) @ hourly rate of pay effective 1/28/2013
1 .
Qualified, willing applicant hired through the interview process
Head Start Assistant Teacher
Weygint, Keri 5.4 hour(s) for 109 day(s) @ hourly rate of pay effective 1/7/2013
1 .
Qualified, willing applicant hired through the interview process
JROTC Instructor
Page 6
Monday, February 11, 2013
Gondo, Edouard 8 hour(s) for 150 day(s) @ hourly rate of pay effective 2/4/2013
1 .
Qualified, willing applicant hired through the interview process
Para Educator English Language Learner
Lempert, Deirdre 5 hour(s) for 84 day(s) @ hourly rate of pay effective 2/6/2013
1 .
Qualified, willing applicant hire through the interview process.
Para Educator Special Education Special Kids
Titus, Katie 6.5 hour(s) for 91 day(s) @ hourly rate of pay effective 1/28/2013
1 .
Qualified, willing applilcant hired through the interview process.
Para Educator Title
Chapman, Sandra 6 hour(s) for 89 day(s) @ hourly rate of pay effective 1/30/2013
1 .
Qualified, willing applicant hired through the interview process.
Resignation/Retire
Personal
Holman, Brittney effective 6/22/2012 1 .
Pogson, David effective 6/1/2012 2 .
Page 7
CERTIFICATED RESUME
a.
Mr. Pierce earned his bachelor degree at Central Washington University.
Fletcher Pierce--.5 ELL and .5 learning specialist--Lea Hill Elementary
Fletcher is a graduate of Auburn High School and has been a substitute in the Auburn School District.
February 11, 2013 Page 5
BUILDING PROGRAM 1. Resolution No. 1175—Asphalt Improvements Project Resolution No. 1175 and a memo from the Auburn School District Project
Coordinator are attached accepting the work of Superior Asphalt Maintenance for the Asphalt Improvements project. The work has been completed, inspected, and found acceptable.
Jeffrey Grose, executive director of capital projects, will recommend
acceptance of the project. Recommendation: That Resolution No. 1175 accepting the
work of Superior Asphalt Maintenance for the Asphalt Improvements project be adopted.
2, Resolution No. 1176—Hazelwood Elementary School/Rainier Middle School
Modernization Project Resolution No. 1176 and a letter from the architect are attached
accepting the work of Lincoln Construction, Inc. for the Hazelwood Elementary School/Rainier Middle School Modernization project. The work has been completed, inspected, and found acceptable.
Jeffrey Grose will recommend acceptance of the project. Recommendation: That Resolution No. 1176 accepting the
work of Lincoln Construction, Inc. for the Hazelwood Elementary School/Rainier Middle School Modernization project be adopted.
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408 RESOLUTION NO. 1175
A RESOLUTION OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK OF THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE ASPHALT IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
WHEREAS, Superior Asphalt Maintenance, Contractor for the Asphalt Improvements project has completed the Work according to the contract documents, and WHEREAS, said project was inspected by the administration, and WHEREAS, based on the foregoing inspection, the Work was found to be satisfactorily complete, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408, King County, Washington, accept the Work of Superior Asphalt Maintenance as complete. ADOPTED this 11th day of February, 2013. BOARD OF DIRECTORS _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ ATTEST: _________________________________ _____________________________ _________________________________ Secretary to the Board
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408 RESOLUTION NO. 1176
A RESOLUTION OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK OF THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE HAZELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL / RAINIER MIDDLE SCHOOL
MODERNIZATION PROJECT WHEREAS, Lincoln Construction, Inc., Contractor for the Hazelwood Elementary School / Rainier Middle School Modernization project has completed the Work according to the contract documents, and WHEREAS, said project was inspected by the administration, and WHEREAS, based on the foregoing inspection, the Work was found to be satisfactorily complete, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408, King County, Washington, accept the Work of Lincoln Construction, Inc. as complete. ADOPTED this 11th day of February, 2013. BOARD OF DIRECTORS _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ ATTEST: _________________________________ _____________________________ _________________________________ Secretary to the Board
February 11, 2013 Page 6
FINANCE 1.
Vouchers
Vouchers will be presented. Recommendation: That these vouchers be signed. 2.
2012-13 Revised Budget Hearing
The revised 2012-13 budget for the Capital Projects and the Debt Service Fund will be presented by Michael Newman, deputy superintendent for Business and Operations. The public will have the opportunity to be heard for or against any section of these budget extensions.
3.
Resolution No. 1174--A Resolution to Revise and Extend the Capital Projects and Debt Service Fund Budgets for the 2012-13 Fiscal Year
Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 1174 adopting the extension of the Capital Projects and Debt Service Fund budgets for the 2012-13 fiscal year.
Recommendation: That Resolution No. 1174 be adopted.
3apckp07.p AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408 11:51 AM 02/06/13 05.12.10.00.00-10.2-010019 Check Summary PAGE: 1 The following vouchers, as audited and certified by the Auditing Officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, are approved for payment. Those payments have been recorded on this listing which has been made available to the board. As of February 11, 2013, the board, by a __________________________ vote, approves payments, totaling $689,061.81. The payments are further identified in this document. Total by Payment Type for Cash Account, US Bank of Washington: Warrant Numbers 411005 through 411209, totaling $689,061.81 Secretary ________________________ Board Member ________________________ Board Member ________________________ Board Member ________________________ Board Member ________________________ Board Member ________________________ Check Nbr Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount 411005 *WEA- 001 (COBRA) 02/11/2013 11,540.65 411006 *WEA - 003 (COBRA) 02/11/2013 78.55 411007 3 WIRE GROUP INC 02/11/2013 98.09 411008 911 ETC INC 02/11/2013 308.60 411009 ADVANTAGE GRAPHICS INC 02/11/2013 396.94 411010 AGRISHOP INC 02/11/2013 79.65 411011 ALSAIDY, SAID 02/11/2013 24.32 411012 AMERICAN PRODUCTS LTD 02/11/2013 106.00 411013 AN APPLE A DAY LLC 02/11/2013 3,612.50 411014 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 02/11/2013 22.96 411015 AUBURN ELECTRICAL SERVICE INC 02/11/2013 254.25 411016 AUBURN MOUNTAINVIEW H S 02/11/2013 576.00 411017 BARNES & NOBLE INC 5903315 02/11/2013 529.43 411018 BARNES DISTRIBUTION 02/11/2013 757.13 411019 BINDER PRODUCTS INC 02/11/2013 164.25 411020 BRAINPOP 02/11/2013 205.00 411021 BRYSON SALES & SERVICE 02/11/2013 230.95
3apckp07.p AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408 11:51 AM 02/06/13 05.12.10.00.00-10.2-010019 Check Summary PAGE: 2 Check Nbr Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount 411022 BUDGET OFFICE PRODUCTS LLC 02/11/2013 458.81 411023 CAPITAN, KIM 02/11/2013 18.18 411024 CAREERSTAFF UNLIMITED INC 02/11/2013 13,906.00 411025 CARPINITO BROTHERS INC 02/11/2013 718.76 411026 CDW GOVERNMENT INC 02/11/2013 35.35 411027 CITY OF KENT 02/11/2013 380.00 411028 CLASSAPPS 02/11/2013 250.00 411029 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES 02/11/2013 8,222.25 411030 COCA COLA REFRESHMENTS USA INC 02/11/2013 914.53 411031 COLLEGE BOARD 02/11/2013 609.25 411032 CUMMINS NW LLC 02/11/2013 984.08 411033 DAIRY FRESH FARMS INC 02/11/2013 22,300.96 411034 DB SECURE SHRED 02/11/2013 67.17 411035 DEPT HEALTH HEARING AND SPEEC 02/11/2013 305.00 411036 DEPT HEALTH HEARING AND SPEEC 02/11/2013 305.00 411037 DEPT HEALTH HEARING AND SPEEC 02/11/2013 305.00 411038 DEPT HEALTH HEARING AND SPEEC 02/11/2013 305.00 411039 DEPT HEALTH HEARING AND SPEEC 02/11/2013 305.00 411040 DEPT HEALTH HEARING AND SPEEC 02/11/2013 305.00 411041 DEPT HEALTH HEARING AND SPEEC 02/11/2013 340.00 411042 DEPT HEALTH HEARING AND SPEEC 02/11/2013 305.00 411043 DEPT OF ENTERPRISE SERVICES 02/11/2013 350.00 411044 DESIGN AIR LTD 02/11/2013 9,100.91 411045 DISHNETWORK 02/11/2013 88.23 411046 DK CUSTOM INK 02/11/2013 2,578.73
3apckp07.p AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408 11:51 AM 02/06/13 05.12.10.00.00-10.2-010019 Check Summary PAGE: 3 Check Nbr Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount 411047 DON SMALL & SONS OIL DIST CO 02/11/2013 163.81 411048 DONOVAN, JOSH P 02/11/2013 75.00 411049 DYNAMIC LANGUAGE CENTER INC 02/11/2013 260.22 411050 EASTBAY 02/11/2013 3,837.98 411051 EASTEX PRODUCTS INC 02/11/2013 41.27 411052 ECOLAB INC 02/11/2013 139.37 411053 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT QTRLY 02/11/2013 2,637.70 411054 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 02/11/2013 47.52 411055 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC #3007 02/11/2013 778.40 411056 FOOD SERVICES OF AMERICA 02/11/2013 3,967.02 411057 FOOD SERVICES OF AMERICA ** 02/11/2013 31,990.61 411058 FOOD SERVICES OF AMERICA *** 02/11/2013 74,821.95 411059 FULL COMPASS SYSTEMS LTD 02/11/2013 1,840.67 411060 GOODY MAN DISTRIBUTING INC 02/11/2013 5,266.46 411061 GOS PRINTING CORP 02/11/2013 158.96 411062 GOSNEY MOTOR PARTS INC 02/11/2013 576.94 411063 GRAINGER DEPT 810392688 02/11/2013 1,231.58 411064 HAGGEN INC 02/11/2013 200.07 411065 HAMMOND ASHLEY VIOLINS 02/11/2013 1,440.34 411066 HARTNESS, ADRIANE L 02/11/2013 2,600.00 411067 HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY DIVISION 02/11/2013 7,054.57 411068 HEALTH VENTURE 02/11/2013 1,968.75 411069 HOBART SERVICE 02/11/2013 1,390.38 411070 IBBETSON THERAPEUTIC SERVICES 02/11/2013 11,910.13 411071 ISSAQUAH SCHOOL DISTRICT 02/11/2013 235.23
3apckp07.p AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408 11:51 AM 02/06/13 05.12.10.00.00-10.2-010019 Check Summary PAGE: 4 Check Nbr Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount 411072 JW PEPPER & SON INC 02/11/2013 39.38 411073 KELLEY IMAGING SYSTEMS 02/11/2013 11.26 411074 KENNETH JONES ASSOCIATES 02/11/2013 1,970.00 411075 KING COUNTY DIRECTORS ASSN 02/11/2013 3,129.37 411076 LANGUAGE LINE TRANSLATION SOLU 02/11/2013 1,864.99 411077 M ROSE ENTERPRISES DBA 02/11/2013 389.93 411078 MACGILL & CO 02/11/2013 276.36 411079 MACKIN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES 02/11/2013 1,375.76 411080 MCBOYNTON LLC 02/11/2013 1,800.00 411081 MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES INC 02/11/2013 1,341.43 411082 MCLENDON HARDWARE INC 02/11/2013 118.39 411083 MIDAMERICA BOOKS 02/11/2013 467.28 411084 MINDJET LLC 02/11/2013 138.28 411085 MOTOR OIL SUPPLY INC 02/11/2013 1,862.93 411086 MT BAKER M S 02/11/2013 1,000.00 411087 MUSIC CENTERS INC 02/11/2013 11.17 411088 NASCO MODESTO 02/11/2013 44.13 411089 NATIONAL TRAINING NETWORK 02/11/2013 80.87 411090 NCS PEARSON INC 02/11/2013 1,458.56 411091 NW TEXTBOOK DEPOSITORY 02/11/2013 3,429.63 411092 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES 02/11/2013 250.00 411093 OLYMPIC ESD 114 02/11/2013 600.00 411094 ORCA PACIFIC INC 02/11/2013 944.17 411095 OSPI CHILD NUTRITION SERV 02/11/2013 8,272.66 411096 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION 02/11/2013 6.27
3apckp07.p AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408 11:51 AM 02/06/13 05.12.10.00.00-10.2-010019 Check Summary PAGE: 5 Check Nbr Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount 411097 PACIFIC WELDING SUPPLIES 02/11/2013 67.29 411098 PACIFIC POWER PRODUCTS COMPANY 02/11/2013 106.92 411099 PASCO SCIENTIFIC 02/11/2013 435.10 411100 PETRO CARD 02/11/2013 31,782.07 411101 PIERCE COUNTY BUDGET & FINANCE 02/11/2013 4,933.44 411102 PITNEY BOWES PRESORT SERVICES 02/11/2013 439.12 411103 PLANK ROAD PUBLISHING INC 02/11/2013 132.20 411104 PLATT ELECTRIC 02/11/2013 4,673.18 411105 PUGET SOUND INSTRUMENTS 02/11/2013 89.79 411106 PUGET SOUND ENERGY ELECTRIC 02/11/2013 7,413.93 411107 PUGET SOUND ENERGY NAT GAS 02/11/2013 21,068.02 411108 PUGET SOUND ESD 02/11/2013 200.00 411109 READ NATURALLY INC 02/11/2013 841.50 411110 RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT NUTRITI 02/11/2013 2,000.00 411111 SAFEWAY INC 02/11/2013 539.15 411112 SAFEWAY INC 02/11/2013 126.30 411113 SCHETKY NW SALES INC 02/11/2013 269.17 411114 SCHOOL NURSE SUPPLY INC 02/11/2013 78.90 411115 SCHOOL SPECIALTY 02/11/2013 314.00 411116 SEATTLE POTTERY SUPPLY INC 02/11/2013 1,445.93 411117 SIX ROBBLEES INC 02/11/2013 15.11 411118 SOOS CREEK WATER & SEWER DISTR 02/11/2013 2,185.80 411119 SOUND ENERGY SYSTEMS 02/11/2013 1,095.00 411120 SOUND PUBLISHING INC 02/11/2013 96.63 411121 SPECIALTY FOREST PRODUCTS INC 02/11/2013 245.50
3apckp07.p AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408 11:51 AM 02/06/13 05.12.10.00.00-10.2-010019 Check Summary PAGE: 6 Check Nbr Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount 411122 SPECIALTY METALS CORPORATION 02/11/2013 333.42 411123 STAFF DEVELOPMENT FOR EDUCATOR 02/11/2013 199.00 411124 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 02/11/2013 8.37 411125 SUNBELT STAFFING LLC 02/11/2013 9,735.00 411126 SUPREME AUDIO INC 02/11/2013 302.00 411127 SWIFT TOOL COMPANY INC 02/11/2013 109.64 411128 TACOMA PIERCE CO HEALTH DEPART 02/11/2013 380.00 411129 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 02/11/2013 1.27 411130 THOMAS, STEPHANIE 02/11/2013 250.00 411131 TOKUNBO, ANTHONY 02/11/2013 7.00 411132 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 02/11/2013 432.47 411133 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 02/11/2013 143.07 411134 UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE SERVICE INC 02/11/2013 341.25 411135 VALLEY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER 02/11/2013 120.00 411136 WASH ASSN FOR LEARNING ALTERNA 02/11/2013 310.00 411137 WASH STATE SCHOOL DIRECTORS AS 02/11/2013 18,325.85 411138 WATER DISTRICT #111 02/11/2013 3,304.20 411139 WENTZ ELECTRONICS 02/11/2013 5,733.42 411140 WEST COAST PLATEN COMPANY 02/11/2013 35.66 411141 WORLD LANGUAGE SERVICES LLC 02/11/2013 620.36 411142 COLUMBIA STATE BANK 02/11/2013 1,854.50 411143 DELL MARKETING LP % DELL USA L 02/11/2013 1,846.67 411144 HARGIS ENGINEERS INC 02/11/2013 8,824.50 411145 INSLEE BEST DOEZIE & RYDER PS 02/11/2013 115.50 411146 LINCOLN CONSTRUCTION INC 02/11/2013 38,759.05
3apckp07.p AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408 11:51 AM 02/06/13 05.12.10.00.00-10.2-010019 Check Summary PAGE: 7 Check Nbr Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount 411147 MCGRANAHAN ARCHITECTS 02/11/2013 91,845.00 411148 MICRO COMPUTER SYSTEMS INC 02/11/2013 1,097.07 411149 SHOCKEY PLANNING GROUP INC 02/11/2013 1,891.11 411150 SUPERIOR ASPHALT MAINTENANCE I 02/11/2013 23,512.50 411151 WESTERN VENTURES CONSTRUCTION 02/11/2013 38,496.92 411152 BANK OF NEW YORK CORPORATE TRU 02/11/2013 258.08 411153 ACERS FASTPITCH ORGANIZATION 02/11/2013 500.00 411154 AREA 5 DECA C/O DECATUR HIGH S 02/11/2013 1,476.50 411155 AUBURN RIVERSIDE H S 02/11/2013 1,383.08 411156 AUBURN SCHOOL DIST 408 ** 02/11/2013 528.00 411157 AUBURN SCHOOL DIST 408 ** 02/11/2013 176.00 411158 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS STORES 02/11/2013 68.77 411159 CASCADE VALLEY BLENDS LLC 02/11/2013 109.12 411160 COSTCO 02/11/2013 1,952.63 411161 DECARTERET DESIGNS LLC 02/11/2013 188.00 411162 DOMINOS PIZZA-7113 02/11/2013 75.12 411163 DVERSIFIED GYMNASTICS & SPORTS 02/11/2013 164.25 411164 EASTBAY 02/11/2013 2,212.04 411165 EK BEVERAGE COMPANY 02/11/2013 635.25 411166 EWEBANKS CREATIONS 02/11/2013 48.18 411167 FOOD SERVICES OF AMERICA 02/11/2013 1,175.08 411168 FULL COMPASS SYSTEMS LTD 02/11/2013 68.36 411169 GAME TIME EVENTS 02/11/2013 1,700.00 411170 GOLF CLUB AT NEWCASTLE 02/11/2013 3,195.20 411171 GOSNEY MOTOR PARTS INC 02/11/2013 255.13
3apckp07.p AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408 11:51 AM 02/06/13 05.12.10.00.00-10.2-010019 Check Summary PAGE: 8 Check Nbr Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount 411172 IMAGE MASTERS INC 02/11/2013 107.86 411173 IMPACT PLUS FUNDRAISING 02/11/2013 5,735.00 411174 KAKU, CASEY DIGA 02/11/2013 6.00 411175 KENTRIDGE HIGH SCHOOL 02/11/2013 225.00 411176 KENTWOOD HIGH SCHOOL 02/11/2013 140.00 411177 KEY CLUB INTERNATIONAL 02/11/2013 36.00 411178 KING COUNTY DIRECTORS ASSN 02/11/2013 78.19 411179 KROGER DBA FRED MEYER 02/11/2013 114.55 411180 LIDS TEAM SPORTS 02/11/2013 2,006.54 411181 LIVING VOICES INC 02/11/2013 581.00 411182 MENDEZ, NATALIE MARIE 02/11/2013 3.00 411183 MT HOOD COMMUNITY COLLEGE 02/11/2013 525.00 411184 MT RAINIER EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN 02/11/2013 699.00 411185 NATIONAL FORENSIC LEAGUE 02/11/2013 135.00 411186 PACIFIC NW THEATRE ASSN INC 02/11/2013 210.00 411187 PACIFIC PUBLISHING COMPANY 02/11/2013 447.04 411188 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC 02/11/2013 25.26 411189 PUYALLUP HIGH SCHOOL 02/11/2013 20.00 411190 SCHROEDER, CHUCK 02/11/2013 347.93 411191 SIPES, CHANDLER RAE 02/11/2013 43.70 411192 SKILLS USA INC 02/11/2013 48.00 411193 SPECIALTY FROZEN DISTIBUTING 02/11/2013 373.60 411194 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 02/11/2013 173.84 411195 SUTRICK, COLLIN JAMES 02/11/2013 3.00 411196 TAYLOR PUBLISHING COMPANY 02/11/2013 2,500.00
3apckp07.p AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408 11:51 AM 02/06/13 05.12.10.00.00-10.2-010019 Check Summary PAGE: 9 Check Nbr Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount 411197 UNIV OF PUGET SOUND 02/11/2013 260.00 411198 UP FOR GRABS INC 02/11/2013 450.00 411199 USBORNE BOOKS & MORE 02/11/2013 300.00 411200 USBORNE BOOKS & MORE 02/11/2013 300.00 411201 WALMART SAMS CLUB 02/11/2013 1,687.72 411202 WASH INTERSCHOLASTIC ACTIVITIE 02/11/2013 110.00 411203 WASH MUSIC EDUCATION ASSN 02/11/2013 433.00 411204 WEST COAST AWARDS & ATHLETICS 02/11/2013 38.33 411205 WILSON HIGH SCHOOL 02/11/2013 90.00 411206 AUBURN RIVERSIDE H S 02/11/2013 307.50 411207 AUBURN SENIOR H S 02/11/2013 20.00 411208 RAINIER M S 02/11/2013 12.00 411209 SCHETKY NW SALES INC 02/11/2013 56,809.88 205 Computer Check(s) For a Total of 689,061.81
3apckp07.p AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408 11:51 AM 02/06/13 05.12.10.00.00-10.2-010019 Check Summary PAGE: 10 0 Manual Checks For a Total of 0.00 0 Wire Transfer Checks For a Total of 0.00 0 ACH Checks For a Total of 0.00 205 Computer Checks For a Total of 689,061.81 Total For 205 Manual, Wire Tran, ACH & Computer Checks 689,061.81 Less 0 Voided Checks For a Total of 0.00 Net Amount 689,061.81 F U N D S U M M A R Y Fund Description Balance Sheet Revenue Expense Total 10 General Fund 31,334.72 106.32 357,806.22 389,247.26 20 Capital Projects 0.00 0.00 208,242.82 208,242.82 30 Debt Service Fun 0.00 0.00 258.08 258.08 40 ASB Fund -6.49 0.00 34,170.76 34,164.27 70 Private Purpose 0.00 0.00 339.50 339.50 90 Transportation V 0.00 0.00 56,809.88 56,809.88
3apckp07.p AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408 12:14 PM 02/06/13 05.12.10.00.00-10.2-010019 Check Summary PAGE: 1 The following vouchers, as audited and certified by the Auditing Officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, are approved for payment. Those payments have been recorded on this listing which has been made available to the board. As of February 11, 2013, the board, by a __________________________ vote, approves payments, totaling $103,712.86. The payments are further identified in this document. Total by Payment Type for Cash Account, US Bank Wire Transfers: Wire Transfer Payments 201200412 through 201200448, totaling $103,712.86 Secretary ________________________ Board Member ________________________ Board Member ________________________ Board Member ________________________ Board Member ________________________ Board Member ________________________ Check Nbr Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount 201200412 COSTCO 02/11/2013 728.66 201200413 FIRST US FOUNDATION FOR INSPIR 02/11/2013 4,000.00 201200414 MUSIC IN THE PARKS 02/11/2013 300.00 201200415 NW CASCADE INC 02/11/2013 112.25 201200416 WESTERN HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS 02/11/2013 413.38 201200417 AT & T 02/11/2013 59.15 201200418 CENTURY LINK 02/11/2013 3,653.41 201200418 CENTURY LINK BUSINESS SERVICES 02/11/2013 355.22 201200419 CITY OF AUBURN UTILITIES 02/11/2013 8,443.06 201200420 COMCAST 02/11/2013 67.62 201200421 SPRINT 02/11/2013 223.91 201200422 3 WIRE GROUP INC 02/11/2013 260.45 201200423 ALPHATRONICS 02/11/2013 38.17 201200424 APPERSON 02/11/2013 167.14 201200425 BLICK ART MATERIALS 02/11/2013 97.99 201200426 CRYSTAL PRODUCTIONS CO 02/11/2013 39.90 201200427 CAMBIUM LEARNING INC 02/11/2013 5,704.95
3apckp07.p AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408 12:14 PM 02/06/13 05.12.10.00.00-10.2-010019 Check Summary PAGE: 2 Check Nbr Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount 201200428 CUMMINS NW LLC 02/11/2013 289.18 201200429 CASCADIA INTERNATIONAL LLC 02/11/2013 638.28 201200430 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC #3007 02/11/2013 569.35 201200431 GOSNEY MOTOR PARTS INC 02/11/2013 1,320.32 201200432 INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF CERTI 02/05/2013 70.00 201200433 JW PEPPER & SON INC 02/05/2013 1,120.06 201200434 KING COUNTY DIRECTORS ASSN 02/05/2013 12,630.85 201200434 KING COUNTY DIRECTORS ASSN 02/05/2013 79.54 201200435 LUCKS MUSIC LIBRARY 02/05/2013 440.10 201200436 MUSIC CENTERS INC 02/05/2013 448.18 201200437 MACDONALD MEAT COMPANY LLC 02/05/2013 2,984.88 201200438 MICONTROLS INC 02/05/2013 2,924.60 201200439 MCCONKEY COMPANY 02/05/2013 1,640.63 201200439 MCCONKEY COMPANY 02/05/2013 489.74 201200440 NW BATTERIES 02/05/2013 328.50 201200441 OFFICE DEPOT INC 02/05/2013 44,014.42 201200442 PLATT ELECTRIC 02/05/2013 130.66 201200443 SPECIALTY FOREST PRODUCTS INC 02/05/2013 36.11 201200444 TOTAL FILTRATION SERVICES, INC 02/05/2013 3,751.67 201200445 ELECTRONIX EXPRESS 02/05/2013 345.85 201200446 HOUGHTON MIFFLIN CO 02/05/2013 875.15 201200447 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 02/11/2013 3,616.84 201200448 HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS 02/11/2013 302.69 40 Wire Transfer Check(s) For a Total of 103,712.86
3apckp07.p AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408 12:14 PM 02/06/13 05.12.10.00.00-10.2-010019 Check Summary PAGE: 3 0 Manual Checks For a Total of 0.00 40 Wire Transfer Checks For a Total of 103,712.86 0 ACH Checks For a Total of 0.00 0 Computer Checks For a Total of 0.00 Total For 40 Manual, Wire Tran, ACH & Computer Checks 103,712.86 Less 0 Voided Checks For a Total of 0.00 Net Amount 103,712.86 F U N D S U M M A R Y Fund Description Balance Sheet Revenue Expense Total 10 General Fund 52,306.08 0.00 45,283.21 97,589.29 40 ASB Fund 0.00 0.00 6,123.57 6,123.57
3apckp07.p AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408 12:22 PM 02/06/13 05.12.10.00.00-10.2-010019 Check Summary PAGE: 1 The following vouchers, as audited and certified by the Auditing Officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, are approved for payment. Those payments have been recorded on this listing which has been made available to the board. As of February 11, 2013, the board, by a __________________________ vote, approves payments, totaling $68,499.70. The payments are further identified in this document. Total by Payment Type for Cash Account, AP Direct Dep Settlement Accou: ACH Numbers 121300983 through 121301053, totaling $68,499.70 Secretary ________________________ Board Member ________________________ Board Member ________________________ Board Member ________________________ Board Member ________________________ Board Member ________________________ Check Nbr Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount 121300983 AUBURN SCHOOL DIST REVOLVING F 02/11/2013 2,171.88 121300984 BARKER, CAROL JEAN 02/11/2013 223.11 121300985 BAYER, JAMES L 02/11/2013 21.70 121300986 BLACKBURN, MICHAEL T 02/11/2013 105.00 121300987 BLOOM, JANET M 02/11/2013 60.16 121300988 BLOSSER, REBEKAH LYNN 02/11/2013 58.29 121300989 BOWERS, SUSAN MAY 02/11/2013 50.62 121300990 BROWN, SARAH MARIE 02/11/2013 26.88 121300991 BRYANT, VALERIE ELTON 02/11/2013 130.39 121300992 BULSON, LAURIE JEAN 02/11/2013 535.36 121300993 BURKHART, VICTORIA E. 02/11/2013 99.35 121300994 BURT, TIFFANY ANN 02/11/2013 28.48 121300995 CAMPBELL, JULIE D 02/11/2013 199.00 121300996 COLBURN, KRISTINA LAURENE 02/11/2013 215.00 121300997 COLBURN, SALLY ANNE 02/11/2013 6.07 121300998 DANIEL, ERIC STUART 02/11/2013 34.97 121300999 DECKER, LOUANNE H 02/11/2013 39.78
3apckp07.p AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408 12:22 PM 02/06/13 05.12.10.00.00-10.2-010019 Check Summary PAGE: 2 Check Nbr Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount 121301000 DETWILER, KIMBERLY FLINT 02/11/2013 74.40 121301001 DOWDEN HUGHES, SHERITH L 02/11/2013 55.55 121301002 ES SPEECH & LANGUAGE SERVICES 02/11/2013 3,937.50 121301003 FAGER, ELSA TOPACIO 02/11/2013 76.93 121301004 FAWVER, RICHARD ALLEN 02/11/2013 23.22 121301005 FORTE, RHONDA MICHELLE 02/11/2013 257.00 121301006 FOSTER, RYAN BRENT 02/11/2013 198.87 121301007 FRAZIER, LESLIE RICHELLE 02/11/2013 349.00 121301008 GABRIELE, SHERYL L 02/11/2013 24.13 121301009 HALES, KYM MICHELE 02/11/2013 83.35 121301010 HALL, BRANDON LEE 02/11/2013 206.22 121301011 HIDALGO, OFELIA ESTELA 02/11/2013 20.68 121301012 JACKOWSKI, ERIN ANDREWS 02/11/2013 5.00 121301013 KEBBA, NOREEN A 02/11/2013 20.78 121301014 KING, DENISE DAWN 02/11/2013 175.00 121301015 LACY, CHRISTINA L 02/11/2013 100.00 121301016 LAM, TAN VAN 02/11/2013 38.42 121301017 LEWIS, PAUL M 02/11/2013 51.31 121301018 MANNAS, JOSEPH ANTHONY 02/11/2013 85.00 121301019 MARRERO BURGOS, ZAYRA ENID 02/11/2013 110.00 121301020 MOBERG, JULIE ANN 02/11/2013 148.91 121301021 MULICK, PATRICK JAMES 02/11/2013 452.35 121301022 OLSON, JILL MARIE 02/11/2013 167.65 121301023 RAMIREZ JR, FRANK J 02/11/2013 125.99 121301024 ROGERS, LAURA CHRISTINE 02/11/2013 20.17
3apckp07.p AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408 12:22 PM 02/06/13 05.12.10.00.00-10.2-010019 Check Summary PAGE: 3 Check Nbr Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount 121301025 SAXON, JAN K 02/11/2013 21.87 121301026 SPEARS, LINDSAY LARENE 02/11/2013 52.17 121301027 TOY, DIXIE L 02/11/2013 42.51 121301028 TURNER, MEGAN DENISE 02/11/2013 41.53 121301029 TYSYACHUK, ALLA V 02/11/2013 27.75 121301030 US BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEMS P 02/11/2013 18,028.56 121301031 US BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM TR 02/11/2013 903.40 121301032 WEIBEL, MICHAEL A 02/11/2013 45.00 121301033 WHITE, KENNY L 02/11/2013 44.49 121301034 WILKINSON, LISA M 02/11/2013 15.00 121301035 WITTGOW, ERICA MARIE 02/11/2013 14.00 121301036 AUBURN SCHOOL DIST REVOLVING F 02/11/2013 650.00 121301037 US BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEMS P 02/11/2013 905.08 121301038 AUBURN SCHOOL DIST REVOLVING F 02/11/2013 318.00 121301039 AUBURN SENIOR HIGH IMPREST 02/11/2013 1,519.00 121301040 BRYANT, VALERIE ELTON 02/11/2013 12.21 121301041 CARTER, JEREMIAH DANIEL 02/11/2013 60.00 121301042 CHAVEZ, LUIS C 02/11/2013 109.01 121301043 FAGER, ELSA TOPACIO 02/11/2013 38.33 121301044 HAMILTON, DONNA JEAN 02/11/2013 296.22 121301045 HOGG, ELAINE M 02/11/2013 14.49 121301046 MAY, JONNA G 02/11/2013 124.80 121301047 PIZZA TIME 02/11/2013 995.36 121301048 RAY, KEITH DONALD 02/11/2013 51.95 121301049 SCOTT, TIMOTHY MELVIN 02/11/2013 418.44
3apckp07.p AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408 12:22 PM 02/06/13 05.12.10.00.00-10.2-010019 Check Summary PAGE: 4 Check Nbr Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount 121301050 SWANSON, PENNI J 02/11/2013 49.93 121301051 US BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEMS P 02/11/2013 29,736.49 121301052 US BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM TR 02/11/2013 3,109.39 121301053 WILKINSON, LISA M 02/11/2013 41.25 71 ACH Check(s) For a Total of 68,499.70
3apckp07.p AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408 12:22 PM 02/06/13 05.12.10.00.00-10.2-010019 Check Summary PAGE: 5 0 Manual Checks For a Total of 0.00 0 Wire Transfer Checks For a Total of 0.00 71 ACH Checks For a Total of 68,499.70 0 Computer Checks For a Total of 0.00 Total For 71 Manual, Wire Tran, ACH & Computer Checks 68,499.70 Less 0 Voided Checks For a Total of 0.00 Net Amount 68,499.70 F U N D S U M M A R Y Fund Description Balance Sheet Revenue Expense Total 10 General Fund 1,898.86 0.00 28,150.89 30,049.75 20 Capital Projects 579.12 0.00 975.96 1,555.08 40 ASB Fund -424.89 0.00 37,319.76 36,894.87
3apckp07.p AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408 12:44 PM 02/06/13 05.12.10.00.00-10.2-010019 Check Summary PAGE: 1 The following vouchers, as audited and certified by the Auditing Officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, are approved for payment. Those payments have been recorded on this listing which has been made available to the board. As of February 11, 2013, the board, by a __________________________ vote, approves payments, totaling $3,370.93. The payments are further identified in this document. Total by Payment Type for Cash Account, AP Direct Dep Settlement Accou: ACH Numbers 121301054 through 121301055, totaling $3,370.93 Secretary ________________________ Board Member ________________________ Board Member ________________________ Board Member ________________________ Board Member ________________________ Board Member ________________________ Check Nbr Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount 121301054 DEPT OF REVENUE STATE OF WASH 02/11/2013 1,698.96 121301055 DEPT OF REVENUE STATE OF WASH 02/11/2013 1,671.97 2 ACH Check(s) For a Total of 3,370.93
3apckp07.p AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408 12:44 PM 02/06/13 05.12.10.00.00-10.2-010019 Check Summary PAGE: 2 0 Manual Checks For a Total of 0.00 0 Wire Transfer Checks For a Total of 0.00 2 ACH Checks For a Total of 3,370.93 0 Computer Checks For a Total of 0.00 Total For 2 Manual, Wire Tran, ACH & Computer Checks 3,370.93 Less 0 Voided Checks For a Total of 0.00 Net Amount 3,370.93 F U N D S U M M A R Y Fund Description Balance Sheet Revenue Expense Total 10 General Fund 1,649.97 48.99 0.00 1,698.96 40 ASB Fund 1,671.97 0.00 0.00 1,671.97
February 11, 2013 Page 7
DIRECTORS 1.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the regular meeting of Monday, January 28, have been forwarded to the board.
Recommendation: That the minutes be approved. 2.
Waiver Closures
To address the issues of growth and utilization of space at three schools, the administration is recommending that Mt. Baker Middle School and Lakeland Hills Elementary School continue to be closed to waivers for the 2013-14 school year. The administration also recommends that Hazelwood Elementary School also be closed to waivers as the school has exceeded its student capacity. The two other elementary schools, Lea Hill and Arthur Jacobsen, have additional capacity. Both Mt. Baker and Lakeland Hills Elementary are the largest schools at their respective grade levels and additional new home starts continue within their boundaries.
Recommendation: That the board approve the waiver
restrictions for Mt. Baker Middle School, Lakeland Hills Elementary School, and Hazelwood Elementary School for the 2013-14 school year.
3.
Discussion
4.
Executive Session
February 11, 2013 Page 8
INFORMATION 1. The Wednesday, February 4, enrollment is included in the board
background material.
1sonyr01.p 37-2 CASCADE MIDDLE SCHOOL 01/03/13 Page:1