The Self Study Process and Participants - EdlThe Self Study Process and Participants 2009 WASC/CDE Self Study Process and Procedure The Le Grand High School, LGHS, self-study followed

LGHS Self Study 2009 Preface 1

The Self Study Process and Participants

2009 WASC/CDE Self Study Process and Procedure The Le Grand High School, LGHS, self-study followed the process outlined in the Focus on Learning Joint WASC/CDE Process Guide, 1009 Edition. Our self-study engaged all LGHS shareholders in a comprehensive evaluation of the entire school programs. The purpose of our efforts is to help identify and implement school improvement needs and accountability to earn a additional six year accreditation with Western Association of Schools and Colleges, WASC, and California Department of Education, CDE. Ultimately we identified three critical academic needs and developed a school-wide action plan to focus on continuous performance improvement. In 2004 Le Grand High School received a “six year term accreditation with on-site review” from WASC/CDE, which followed a similar accreditation in 1998. To begin the process a WASC Coordinating Leadership Team was created and the members of the team completed three sessions of training. The Leadership Team was amended in 2009 to accommodate the change in school administration. This group identified and solicited potential Focus Group Leaders and Schoolwide Focus Group Leaders. The selection criteria included diversity in perspective and experience, broad based representation from all departments and shareholders, and leadership capacity. These group facilitators were added to the team to form a Full WASC Leadership Team. The current self-study process began in the Fall semester of 2008 by reviewing the 2004 Action Plan and administer some preliminary surveys. Following the process guidelines Home Focus Groups were organized around school subject area departments, along with a student and parent/community group to examine what students know and are able to do. These groups meet in April and May of 2009 to gather and analyze data to summarize: 1) Who are our students? 2) How are they performing? 3) Who is achieving and who is not? 4) Identify critical academic needs and concerns. Beginning August of the Fall 2009 semester five Schoolwide focus groups met to evaluate effectiveness of programs and operations in relation to student learning around the five WASC/CDE categories and criteria. Each group included a balanced array of teachers, administration, classified staff, parents/community and students. In three separate meetings each group reviewed the questions prompts and criteria in the Focus on Learning guide, then summarized its findings by listing areas of strengths and areas of concerns. This on-gong process was periodically shared with shareholder groups, open for their input. Subsequent meetings were necessary to come to consensus of three areas of focus in developing a school-wide Action Plan to focus our efforts in meeting the goals and objectives of LGHS.


Le Grand Union High School District LGUHSD School Board of Directors

John Chavez, Board President Jeanne Giampaoli, Clerk Julie S. Giampaoli David Serrano James Tesone

District Administration Donna Alley Superintendent Jaime Towe Chief Finance/Business Officer Linda Barbour Administrative Assistant

Le Grand Union High School LGHS Administration

Javier Martinez Assistant Principal Norma Maciel Counselor Victor Lupian Counselor Danny Silva Project Specialists Calvin Callister Project Specialists Registrar Carol Ramirez Ada Ochoa Front Office Rocio Angel Front Office

Focus on Learning Coordinator Calvin Callister WASC/CDE Coordinating Leadership Team Javier Martinez, Assistant Principal Calvin Callister, WASC Coordinator, Project Specialists, Teacher Danny Silva, Project Specialists, Technology Coordinator, Teacher


Rich Rogers, AVID and CSF Coordinator, Teacher WASC Full Leadership Team

Home Focus Group Leaders Tracey Smith Math/Science Alison Lopez Language Arts Sandra Richards Social Science Tony Williams Vocational Ed. Luanna Broch Special Education Juan Avilar/Olivia Mercado Student/Parent Schoolwide Focus Group Leaders

Rich Rogers Group A: Organization Luanna Brock Group B: Curriculum Andrew Schwab Group C: Instruction Alison Lopez Group D: Assessment/Accountability Norma Maciel Group E: Culture/Support

WASC Visiting Committee Linda Johnson Committee Chairperson Vernon R. Barlogio Committee Member Peg Hauselt Committee Member



Chapter 1: Student and Community Profile and Supporting Data

Section 1: Demographic Data and Information

1. Community, School, and Student The Le Grand Union High School District serves the unincorporated communities of Le Grand, Planada, and Plainsburg. Le Grand High School is located in the city of Le Grand in rural Merced County, providing education for students from three feeder schools; Le Grand Elementary, Cesar Chavez Middle School, and Plainsburg Elementary School.

This year Le Grand High School is celebrating its 100th year anniversary. Students, staff, parents, community members, Alumni enjoyed several special activities commemorating this century milestone, most occurred during the 2009 Homecoming week.

Le Grand High School has a long tradition of serving the educational needs of the young men and young women of our communities. Most of the students come from families that have long ties to the community and feel a bond with the high school. Many of the students’ parents, aunts, uncles, and even grandparents are Le Grand High School graduates. Several members of the faculty and staff are also graduates of Le Grand High

School. Our philosophy is to provide a democratic campus in which pupils, parents, teachers, administrators, the school board, and the communities work together in a cooperative effort to make it a wholesome, exploring, and achieving educational center of learning that will prepare our youth to meet their future.

The population of the city of Le Grand is approximately 3,255. The student population has decreased within the last couple of years. Le Grand High School has acquired 20-acres of additional land to expand our campus to 36-acres. A joint use library, with the county of Merced, opened in 2000 and a new agricultural classroom with shop facilities was also opened at the 2000-01 school year. Voters passed a $1,950,000 General Obligation Bond in 2002. These funds were used to construct a new cafeteria, which began full operation at the beginning of the 2006-07 school year. Other necessary facilities that have been constructed with funds from the General Obligation Bond


have included a baseball and soccer field and a track, which is still in the process of completion. Bleachers were replaced in the gymnasium and new roofing was put in during the summer of 2009. The district has an aggressive long-term Le Grand High School Master Plan to provide the needed facilities to accommodate future growth. 2. WASC Accreditation History Le Grand High School received a “six year term accreditation with on-site review” from WASC/CDE in 1998 and again in 2004. The 2004 mid-term site progress report and review was completed in March of 2007. Most of the critical areas of concern were completed or are on-going as the school followed the approved Action Plan. The goals and objectives were reviewed periodically and each year focus areas were considered in staff meetings, collaboration meetings, or as an agenda item in staff inservice. The Focus on Learning, Joint WASC/CDE 2009 Process Guide process was followed in completing this self-study process. We look forward to another six year accreditation 3. School Purpose Le Grand High School’s purpose is embodied in its mission statement, philosophy, expectation, and Expected Schoolwide Learning Results, ESLRs. New administration is currently in the process of revising the mission and vision for the district and site.

MISSION STATEMENT The mission of Le Grand High School is to provide the highest quality of education possible for all students so that they are prepared for their next step in life. Students demonstrate this through:

Independent Thinking Moral and Social Responsibility A Positive Impact on School and Community Economic Self-Reliance

LE GRAND HIGH SCHOOL PHILOSOPHY


We wish our school to be truly a democratic place in which the pupils, teachers, administrative officer, school board, and the community work together in a cooperative effort to make it a wholesome, exploring, and achieving community center of learning that will prepare our youth to meet the future. We believe that the school is a place that should encourage the development of high ethical and moral values, cultural integrity, and a love of learning. The educational program should instill in the learner the principle that access to an education is a privilege in a free society. The curriculum of Le Grand High School shall adhere to the requirements of the State Department of Education. In addition, we believe that the entire curriculum should prepare our students to choose a vocation compatible with their own interests and aptitudes. Further, the curriculum needs to provide the higher level thinking skills and he communication skills that will be required for achieving success in the twenty-first century.

EXPECTATION We expect the cooperation and commitment of every student, staff member, and parent to achieve the goals of the district. At Le Grand Union High School we believe the education of students is a shared responsibility between students, parents, staff and administration.


Le Grand High School Expected School-Wide Learning Results Re-adopted 2009-10 School Year

1. STUDENTS WILL COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY

1. By reading at an appropriate grade level. 2. By communicating effectively in writing. 3. By exhibiting speaking and listening skills. 4. By using technology to receive, process and send information.

2. STUDENTS WILL THINK CRITICALLY

1. By performing basic math computations. 2. By demonstrating analytical and problem solving skills. 3. By knowing how to learn and reason. 4. By mastering the “Essential Standards” in the core curriculum in order to understand and apply knowledge in new ways.

3. STUDENTS WILL DEMONSTRATE A SENSE OF COMMUNITY

1. By participating in Community Service. 2. By understanding an appreciating the arts. 3. By acquiring the knowledge and ability to participate as a citizen in a larger community.

4. STUDENTS WILL DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY TO LEARN AND EARN

1. By using organizational skills. 2. By exhibiting good work habits. 3. By demonstrating punctuality and good attendance. 4. By acquiring strategies for developing short and long-range goals.

5. STUDENTS WILL DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN A HEALTHY LIFESTYLE

1. By maintaining physical health through proper diet and exercise. 2. By exhibiting positive interactions with others (individuals and groups). 3. By being free of drugs and substance abuse. 4. By understanding sexual health, disease prevention and family planning

It was determined to place more emphasis on the five main topics of the ESLRs, moving the sub-objectives as a means of evaluating the progress of the focus expectations.


4. Student Performance a. Title 1 Due to the high number of low socioeconomic students six years ago Le Grand High School qualified for schoolwide free and reduced lunch under Title 1. b. Adequate Yearly Progress, API Le Grand High School met the Adequate Yearly Progress, API, as part of the Accountability Progress Report, APR, in 2006 and 2007. In 2008 the school met 17 of the 18 criteria, but did not meet the ELA and EL proficiency levels expected, and therefore did not meet API. In 2009 the school met 15 of the 18 criteria, and therefore did not meet 2009 AYP due to insufficient ELA proficiency percentage, Hispanic/Latino proficiency percentage, and ELA Socioeconomic disadvantaged percentage.


AYP summary for Le Grand High School from 2004 to 2009:

Accountability Progress Report (APR) Federal Accountability: Adequate Yearly Progress (API)

Le Grand High School Year Criteria Met

AYP Met API

Graduation Rate

Reasons

2009 15 of 18 No Yes Yes ELA % Proficient-No ELA Schoolwide % Proficient-No ELA Hispanic or Latino % Prof.-No ELA Socioeconomic Disadv. % Prof.-No

2008 17 or 18 No Yes Yes ELA % Proficient-No EL % Proficient-No

2007 14 of 14 Yes Yes Yes 2006 18 of 18 Yes Yes Yes 2005 No Yes Yes ELA % Proficient-No 2004 14 of 14 Yes

Program Improvement This school year, 2009-10, Le Grand High School was placed in the first year of program improvement implementation. We are very concerned because the 2009 APR results will also place us in program improvement.

PI Status: In PI

2009-10 PI Placement: Year 1

Prior PI Placement:

First Year of PI Implementation: 2009-2010


Made 2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP):

Academic Performance Index Le Grand High School was making monumental improvement in Academic Performance growth from 2005 to 2008, substantially exceeding the growth target each year. This trend did not hold up in 2009 with a five point decrease, as shown below:

Year API Base

Growth Target

Growth-API

Growth # of students

tested

Met Growth Target?

Met All Subgroup Targets?

2005 578 11 648 70 402 Yes Yes 2006 648 8 663 15 402 Yes Yes 2007 648 8 681 33 419 Yes Yes 2008 681 6 695 14 378 Yes No 2009 695 5 690 -5 392 No No

LGHS 2009 API Growth Report

2009

# of Students Included in 2009

API

# Significant

in both years?

2009 Growth

2008 Base

2008-09 Growth Target

2008-09 Growth

Met Growth Target?

School-wide 392 Yes 690 695 5 -5 No African American (not of Hispanic origin) 2 No American Indian or Alaska Native 0 No Asian 4 No Filipino 0 No Hispanic or Latino 347 Yes 674 680 6 -6 No Pacific Islander 0 No White (not of 38 No


Hispanic origin) Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 388 Yes 690 693 5 -3 No English Learners 256 Yes 651 646 8 5 No Students with Disabilities 29 No

Statewide and Similar School API Ranking

Year Statewide Ranking

Similar School Ranking

2008 4 9 2007 4 6 2006 3 5 2005 3 8

This table displays the school’s statewide and similar schools API ranks. These ranks are published when the Base API is released each March. The statewide API rank ranges from 200 to1000. c. Outside Provider or External Evaluator Five years ago Education Consultants were contracted as an outside provider due Program Improvement Status. They have continued working with our school and our staff to help us reach local, state and federal targets and goals:

• Alignment of curriculum, instruction and materials to content and performance standards and availability of standards-based instructional materials appropriate to all student groups

• Alignment of staff development to standards, assessed student performance and professional needs • Services provided by the regular program to enable under-performing students to meet standards • Use of state and local assessments to modify instruction and improve student achievement • Parent outreach is seen as a primary vehicle for enlisting families as a resource to support student achievement


5. Student Enrollment Beginning the Spring Semester 2010 Le Grand High School has 494 students enrolled, which is down from 2008-09 enrollment of 505 students. Ethnicities by approximate percentage are Hispanic/Latino-87.9%, White-9.3%, and small numbers of Asian-1.0%, African American-.03%, American Indian/Alaskan Native-.02%, Pacific Islander-.02%. The school is concerned with the declining enrollment Current enrollment: 2009-10

LGHS 2009-10 Enrollment Year Grade

9 Grade

10 Grade

11 Grade

12 TOTAL

2009-2010 119 146 106 123 494

LGHS Enrollment History

Grade Level 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Grade 9 179 143 173 150 152 Grade 10 131 173 128 165 136 Grade 11 133 115 153 113 123 Grade 12 114 117 97 128 94 Total Enroll. 557 548 551 556 505


LGHS 2008-09 Student Population by Ethnicity, Gender and Grade

Grade Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 TOTAL Percent Female/Male F M F M F M F M

American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.2% Asian 2 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 6 1.2% Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Filipino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Hispanic or Latino 65 79 61 58 53 45 45 37 443 87.7% African American 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0.4% White (not Hispanic) 3 3 9 3 12 9 4 5 48 9.5% Multiple or No Response 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 5 1.0% Total Female or Male 70 82 72 64 65 58 52 42 505 Total Enrollment 152 136 123 94 505 100.0%

Predominate Primary Languages other than English Le Grand High School is 99% homogeneous in Spanish as the “predominate primary language other than English”. Special Education Program Le Grand High School offers two programs for students who have qualified for special education. The two Resource Special Program teachers are assisted by one full time and one part time aides and the Special Day Class teacher is assisted by one full time and two part time aides.

The Resource Specialist Program, RSP, provides academic support through a collaborative model within the regular education classroom. All resource students are fully mainstreamed for all classes including English, Math, Social Studies, Science, and various


electives. All mainstreamed students are given support through tutorial, after school homework support and teacher consultation services. The Special Day Class, SDC, provides English, Math, Social Studies, Science, and Life Skills classes for qualified students. These small classes provide small group instruction and assistance for students. Students are appropriately mainstreamed in accordance with his/her Individual Education Plan.


Below is a summary of the number of special education students by instructional settings and by grade as of December 2009:

Grade Resource Specialist Program

Special Day Class Total

9th 8 4 12 10th 9 3 12 11th 8 5 13 12th 8 6 14

Total 33 18 51 Alternative Programs Offered

Granada High School, GHS, is Le Grand Union High School District’s continuation school, located in Planada, CA, approximately eight miles northeast of LGHS. The mission of Granada High School is to create a learning atmosphere where students can achieve success. Its purpose is to provide an alternative education program for junior and senior students who are deficient in required credits to graduate in a timely manner. GHS is a place where students can learn to be self-directed, self-motivated, disciplined and mature. The result of this growth can be accumulation of “lost” credits, return to Le Grand High School, or graduation from Granada High School. It provides a positive, disciplined, individualized education program where students can grow, thrive, and bridge the gap between high school and careers. The school allows students to work on subjects at their own instructional level. Independent Study: In rare occasions, as needs dictates LGHS and Granada High School provide an independent education program for students in special and unique circumstances. Merced County Alternative Education Programs. Students with major discipline problems or who have been expelled from the district may be referred to County Education Programs including Valley High School and Yosemite High School.

Advancement Via Individual Determination, AVID

The AVID Program, Advancement Via Individual Determination, is in its eighth full year at Le Grand High School and has been embraced by faculty and students. One of the purposes of AVID is to prepare more students to enroll in and pass advanced placement classes.


AVID Enrollment

9th 10th 11th 12th Total 2009-10 21 15 9 15 60 2008-09 18 13 15 11 57 2007-08 22 16 13 19 70 2006-07 24 17 23 24 88 2005-06 20 27 25 16 88

Advanced Placement, AP, and Honors Classes

LGHS Advance Placement Classes and Enrollment

Year # of AP Classes

AP Classes Offered Enrollment Scores

2009-10 7 7 AP classes: AP World History, AP Studio Art, AP US History, AP Spanish Language, AP Spanish Literature, AP Calculus, AP English Language

61

2008-09 5 AP Studio Art, AP US History, AP Spanish Language, AP Spanish Literature, AP English Language

98 (some dual) 78 test takers

1 (18) 2 (12) 3 (17) 4 (24) 5(7)

2007-08 4 AP Studio Art, AP US History, AP Spanish Language, AP Spanish Literature

32 28 test takers

1 (3) 2 (5) 3 (4) 4 (6) 5 (11)

2006-07 4 Classes AP Studio Art, AP US History, AP Spanish Language, AP Spanish Literature

58 50 test takers

1 (11) 2 (11) 3 (14) 4 (10) 5 (9)

2005-06 3 AP Studio Art, AP US History, AP Spanish Literature 38 32 test takers

1 (16) 2 (4) 3 (7) 4 (4) 5 (1)

6. Language Proficiency Numbers English Learners Below is a three year summary of Le Grand High School students designated as English Learners.


LGHS English Learners Year Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Total

2008-09 66 52 50 25 193

2007-08 56 43 40 58 197

2006-07 40 45 72 29 186

Le Grand High School Reclassified Fluent English Proficient (R-FEP)

Total Numbers 124 California Standards Test Scores - 2009

9 10 11

Reported Enrollment 151 130 121 CST English-Language Arts Students Tested 44 35 45 % of Enrollment 29.10% 26.90% 37.20% Students with Scores 44 35 45 Mean Scale Score 344.8 351 336.8 % Proficient and Above 43% 49% 33%


3 year Lang. classifications

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

LEP

FEP

LEP 159 157 183

FEP 86 56 50

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

7. Attendance Regular attendance at Le Grand High School is a necessary part of the learning process and is critical to academic success. School districts receive financial support from the state for the education of the students they serve based on how many students attend each day. More importantly, attendance is critical to academic achievement. Attendance, tardy and truancy policies are clearly stated, consistently enforced, and consequences are fairly administered. Parents are advised of their responsibilities, including proper notification of when and why students are absent. Students with perfect attendance are rewarded with certificates at the end of year during a school assembly.


Automated phone calls are made daily to the home to notify parents when a student is absent. In an effort to reduce the dropout rate, Le Grand High School utilizes the Merced County Attendance Project (MerCAP). MerCAP monitors the attendance of students receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). After three absences MerCAP sends notices to parents, and after five absences MerCAP requires a parent meeting. The chart below indicates the dropout and graduation rates for the most current three year period. Data from the 2008-09 school year was unavailable at the time of publication.

Graduation and Drop Out Rates

05-06 06-07 07-08 Drop Out Rate 1.10% 1.30% 0.50% Graduation Rate 96.20% 100.00% 98.40%

8. Suspensions and Expulsions Students at Le Grand High School are guided by specific rules and classroom expectations that promote respect, cooperation, courtesy, and acceptance of others. The school’s discipline philosophy promotes a safe school, a warm, friendly classroom environment, and demonstrates that good discipline is a solid foundation on which to build an effective school. The goal at Le Grand High School is to provide students with opportunities to learn self-discipline through a system of consistent rewards and consequences for their behavior. Parents and students are informed of discipline policies at the beginning of each school year through the Student Planner, which contains the school rules and guidelines. If new policies are implemented, students and parents are notified through a monthly newsletter. A discipline matrix has also been implemented. The purpose of this document is to promote an educational environment conducive to learning and to protect the safety of all members of our school community. Each student will be dealt with on an individual basis and each staff member will use his or her own discretion in determining the severity of each offense and appropriate consequences. Each student’s rights of due process will be adhered to and respected, and students will be fully informed of the reason for disciplinary actions. Any of the consequences listed on the matrix may be applied for any offense, depending upon the severity; however, staff will make every attempt to follow the guidelines as consistently as possible and appropriate.


The Suspensions and Expulsions table displays the total number and percentage of incidents at the school and in the District. Suspension numbers may be inflated because some students may have been suspended multiple times. Expulsions occur only when required by law or when all other alternatives have been exhausted.

School District 06-07 07-08 08-09 06-07 07-08 08-09 Suspensions 44 41 76 86 61 105 Suspension Rate 8.0% 7.3% 15.0% 14.3% 10.0% 18.5% Expulsion 30 0 0 6 0 0 Expulsion Rate 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0%


Suspensions during the past three years disaggregated by discipline/violation

LGHS Suspension and Expulsion History

2006-

07 2006-

07 2007-

08 2007-

08 2008-

09 2008-

09

Ed Codes

Ed Code Text

Num

ber o

f Ex

puls

ions

Num

ber o

f Su

spen

sion

s

Num

ber o

f Ex

puls

ions

Num

ber o

f Su

spen

sion

s

Num

ber o

f Ex

puls

ions

Num

ber o

f Su

spen

sion

s

48900(a)(1) Related to physical injury to another person 12 2 31 3 9

48900(b) Related to firearms, knives, explosive devices, etc. 2

48900(c)

Related to possession or sale of controlled substances, alcohol, or intoxicants. 1 6

48900(f)

Caused or attempted to cause damage to school property or private property 1

48900(g) Stole or attempted to steal school property or private property 3

48900(h) Related to possession or use of tobacco products 3

48900(i)

Committed an obscene act or engaged in habitual profanity or vulgarity 6

48900(k) Related to disruption of school activities or willful defiance 1 28 1 5

48900(r) Related to bullying and bullying through electronic means 1

Total 0 17 3 70 4 21

9. Socioeconomic Status


Due to the high number of low socioeconomic students six years ago Le Grand High School qualified for schoolwide free and reduced lunch under Title 1. Schoolwide Lunch Program--Currently 100% of our student population may receive free breakfast and lunch.


Le Grand High School School Demographic Characteristics

2008-09 Growth Academic Performance Index (API) Chart

These data are from the October 2008 California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS) data collection and the 2009 Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program student answer document. Ethnic/Racial (STAR) Percent Parent Education Level (STAR) African American (not of Hispanic origin) 0 Percentage with a response* 93 American Indian or Alaska Native 0 Of those with a response: Asian 1 Not a high school graduate 55 Filipino 0 High school graduate 15 Hispanic or Latino 88 Some college 20

Pacific Islander 0 College graduate 9 White (not of Hispanic origin) 10 Graduate school 2

*This number is the percentage of student answer documents with stated parent education level information.

These percentages may not sum to 100 due to responses of: other, multiple, declined to state, or non-response. Average

Participants in Free or 97

Average Parent Education Level (STAR) 1.88

Reduced-Price Lunch (STAR)

The average of all responses where "1" represents "Not a high school graduate" and "5" represents "Graduate school."

Participants in Gifted and Talented

0

Average Class Size (CBEDS) Education Program (STAR) Grades Average Participants in Migrant Education Program (STAR) 10 Core academic courses 20 English Learners (STAR) 35 in departmentalized programs Reclassified Fluent-English-Proficient

31

Number

(RFEP) Students (STAR) Enrollment in Grades 2-11 on First Day of Testing (STAR)

405


Students with Disabilities (STAR) 8 Students Exempted from STAR Testing

1 Mobility Per Parent Written Request (STAR)

School, CBEDS Date (STAR) 98 Number of Students Tested (STAR) 401

LEA, CBEDS Date (STAR) 98 Yes/No

These are the percentages of students who were counted as part of the school's or LEA's enrollment on the October 2008 CBEDS data collection and who have been continously enrolled since that date.

Multi-track, Year-round School (CBEDS) No

Fully-Credentialed Teachers (CBEDS) 88 Teachers with Emergency Credentials (CBEDS) 4 Enrollments* (STAR) Percent Grades 9-11 100 *This is a percentage of all enrollments in grades 2-11.

10. Safety Conditions, Cleanliness, and Adequate Facilities Le Grand High School places a high priority on maintaining a clean and safe campus. Providing a positive learning environment begins with ensuring the safety and security of each student. Le Grand High School updated its Comprehensive School Safety Plan in 2008. Merced County Office of Education performed extensive inspections to insure that the school complied with the Williams Act. This required many parts of the facility plan to be implemented sooner than calendared, including painting, window and tile replacement, gymnasium upgrade, wiring, and cautionary storage. It also provided the impetus to provide textbooks for each student, along with a classroom set, in all core classes, but particularly in the core classes. The Merced County Sheriff’s Department works closely with the school to help ensure a safe learning environment by providing a resource officer who works closely with the area schools and community. The school works closely with the officer on prevention and intervention efforts. They bring a drug dog through campus on occasion to help keep illegal substances off the school grounds. He is available to talk to classes, staff, or parents on a number of topics. Campus safety is a high priority, and the school staff works hard to ensure that students feel safe and comfortable.


11. Staff The staff at Le Grand High School is made up a wide diversity of people and a good mix of talents. Many of our credentialed and certificated staff are alumnus from Le Grand High School, some still living in the three communities LGHS services. A good portion of the teachers and administrators live in other communities and commute to work. This year brought some new changes and new positions including our principal promoted to principal/superintendent, our Spanish teacher promoted to assistant principal, all new district office personnel, and our Biology teacher became the principal at Granada High School.

LGHS 2008-09 Credentialed Staff Ethnicity

Credentialed Teachers

Credentialed Teachers and

Administrators Ethnicity Female Male Female Male

American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 Asian 0 1 0 1 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 Filipino 0 0 0 0 Hispanic or Latino 3 4 4 5 African American 0 1 0 1 White (not Hispanic) 8 8 9 8 No Response 0 1 0 1

Total 11 15 13 16 Percent 42.30% 57.50% 44.80% 55.20%

Information about the staff: Total number of teachers: 26 Number of teachers with full credentials: 26 Total number of classified staff: 38 Number of qualified personnel for counseling: 2 Number of qualified personnel: administrators 3


Number of qualified Personnel: contracted Psychologist 1

Number and percent of teachers who have met the highly qualified teachers’ requirements of NCLB: 26, 100%

Number and percent of teachers instructing outside credentialed areas: 0

Number of teachers with “emergency” permits: Short-term Staff Permits, STSP: 1

Number of teachers with “emergency” permits: Provisional Permits, PIP: 0

Number of teachers with advanced degrees: Master 11 Number of teachers with advanced degrees: Doctorate: 0

Average Number of yeas in education at LGHS: Teachers 8.9

Average Number of yeas in education 9.7 Number of teachers with CLAD certification or EL authorization

Number of teachers currently participating in the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BSTA) induction program:

2

Number of teachers in an inten program 0 Gender of teachers: Female 12 Gender of teachers: Male 14 Attendance rates of teachers:

Teacher Pupil Ratio

The Class Size Distribution table illustrates the average class size by subject. The corresponding numbers show how many classes were taught with a certain number of students in each class, based on three different class sizes.

LGHS Core Class Size History


Average Class Size

1-20 Student

21-32 Students

33+ Students

School year: 07 08 09 07 08 09 07 08 09 07 08 09 English 22 22 19 10 13 20 8 11 9 - 5 - Math 23 22 20 3 11 17 7 10 5 - - - Science 29 23 22 - 6 6 7 10 8 - 1 1 Social Science 29 24 23 2 10 9 4 8 12 3 4 -

12. Staff Development Le Grand High School calendars days for on-going staff development: 2 days in August, 2 days in January, and Teacher Collaboration Days the first and third Wednesdays of each month. Additional inservice is scheduled on an “as need” basis. Examples include: school year for technology training, WASC training, EduSoft training, etc. Staff Development participation rate fluctuates between 95-97%. (Sign in sheets) Curriculum topics of Staff Development and Inservice over the past five years:

Academic Coaching/Peer Observation Data Analysis English Learners Benchmark Assessment Google Applications EduSoft Training PLC, Professional Learning Community Instructional Strategies VIP Students Direct Instruction Questioning Techniques Random Check for Understanding, RCFU Whiteboard configuration Lesson Planning Eagle1/ABI Discipline and Motivation

13. District policies/school financial support


At the time this report was published, the most recent financial and salary comparison data from the State of California was for the 2007-08 school year. The Expenditures Per Pupil table provides a comparison of a school’s per pupil funding from unrestricted sources with other schools in the district and throughout the state. Expenditures per Pupil

School Total Expenditures Per Pupil $9,406 From Restricted Sources $3,533 From Unrestricted Sources $5,873 District from Unrestricted Sources $3,194 Percentage of Variation between School & District 83.88% State from Unrestricted Sources $5,512 Percentage of Variation between School & State 6.55% Total Expenditures Per Pupil $9,406 From Restricted Sources $3,533 From Unrestricted Sources $5,873 District from Unrestricted Sources $3,194 Percentage of Variation between School & District 83.88% State from Unrestricted Sources $5,512 Percentage of Variation between School & State 6.55%


District Revenue Sources For the 2007-08 school year, the district received approximately $2,776 per student in federal and state aid for categorical, special education, and other support programs including:

• Title I • Principal Training • Title II • BTSA • Title IV • Perkins • Title III LEP • EIA/LEP • Title V • PAR • 10th Grade Counseling • HPSGP • School Safety • Prop 20 • Digital High School • IMPFRP • Special Education • IM (Williams) • Supplemental School Counseling • AB 825 Block grants


Section 2: Student Performance Data

1. Academic Performance Index, API

Year API Base

Growth Target

Growth-API

Growth # of students

tested

Met Growth Target?

Met All Subgroup Targets?

2005 578 11 648 70 402 Yes Yes 2006 648 8 663 15 402 Yes Yes 2007 648 8 681 33 419 Yes Yes 2008 681 6 695 14 378 Yes No


2009 695 5 690 -5 392 No No

LGHS 2009 API Growth Report

2009

# of Students Included in 2009

API

# Significant

in both years?

2009 Growth

2008 Base

2008-09 Growth Target

2008-09 Growth

Met Growth Target?

School-wide 392 Yes 690 695 5 -5 No African American (not of Hispanic origin) 2 No American Indian or Alaska Native 0 No Asian 4 No Filipino 0 No Hispanic or Latino 347 Yes 674 680 6 -6 No Pacific Islander 0 No White (not of Hispanic origin) 38 No Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 388 Yes 690 693 5 -3 No English Learners 256 Yes 651 646 8 5 No Students with Disabilities 29 No


This table displays the school’s statewide and similar schools API ranks. These ranks are published when the Base API is released each March.

Statewide and Similar School API Ranking

Year Statewide Ranking

Similar School Ranking

2008 4 9 2007 4 6 2006 3 5 2005 3 8





2. California Standards Tests, CST

Freshmen California Standards Test Scores Comparison 9th Grade 2009, 2008, 2007

9th 2009 2008 2007 9th 2009 2008 2007 CST English-Language Arts

CST Science - Grade 10 Life Science

Students Tested 151.0 136.0 167.0 Students Tested

% of Enrollment 100% 99% 100% CST Biology

Students with Scores 151.0 135.0 167.0 Students Tested 3.0 1.0 8.0

Mean Scale Score 325.3 324.9 329.8 % of Enrollment 2% 1% 5%

% Advanced 3% 10% 11% Students with Scores 3.0 1.0 8.0

% Proficient 26% 19% 22% Mean Scale Score * * *

% Basic 42% 39% 40% % Advanced * * *

% Below Basic 23% 26% 20% % Proficient * * *

% Far Below Basic 5% 6% 7% % Basic * * *

CST Algebra I % Below Basic * * *

Students Tested 150.0 124.0 149.0 % Far Below Basic * * *

% of Enrollment 99% 91% 89% CST Chemistry

Students with Scores 150.0 124.0 149.0 Students Tested


Mean Scale Score 305.2 299.8 301.2 CST Earth Science

% Advanced 1% 1% 0% Students Tested 140.0 132.0 145.0

% Proficient 20% 14% 19% % of Enrollment 93% 96% 87%

% Basic 25% 32% 29% Students with Scores 140.0 132.0 145.0

% Below Basic 35% 40% 36% Mean Scale Score 321.6 315.1 322.0

% Far Below Basic 18% 13% 17% % Advanced 6% 5% 5%

CST Geometry % Proficient 16% 17% 17%

Students Tested 12.0 3.0 % Basic 49% 34% 48%

% of Enrollment 9% 2% % Below Basic 14% 21% 19%

Students with Scores 12.0 3.0 % Far Below Basic 14% 23% 12%

Mean Scale Score 346.1 * CST Physics

% Advanced 8% * Students Tested

% Proficient 33% * % Basic 50% * % Below Basic 8% * % Far Below Basic 0% * CST Algebra II Students Tested CST World History Students Tested 2.0 5.0 2.0 % of Enrollment 1% 4% 1% Students with Scores 3.0 1.0 Mean Scale Score * * * % Advanced * * * % Proficient * * * % Basic * * * % Below Basic * * * % Far Below Basic * * * CST U.S. History Students Tested


Sophomore California Standards Test Scores Comparison

10th Grade 2009, 2008, 2007

10th 2009 2008 2007 10th 2009 2008 2007 CST English-Language Arts CST World History

Students Tested 130.0 159.0 125.0 Students Tested 130.0 153.0 124.0

% of Enrollment 100% 100% 98% % of Enrollment 100% 96% 98%

Students with Scores 130.0 158.0 125.0 Students with Scores 130.0 153.0 124.0

Mean Scale Score 320.7 325.7 317.7 Mean Scale Score 300.0 310.4 303.5

% Advanced 10% 9% 4% % Advanced 7% 6% 7%

% Proficient 18% 21% 19% % Proficient 12% 11% 11%

% Basic 35% 42% 42% % Basic 21% 32% 27%

% Below Basic 23% 16% 22% % Below Basic 22% 24% 23%

% Far Below Basic 15% 11% 12% % Far Below Basic 38% 27% 31%

CST Algebra I CST U.S. History


% of Enrollment 51% 63% 65%

CST Science Grade 10 Life Science)




% Proficient 9% 12% 12% Mean Scale Score 325.9 330.1 334.0

% Basic 23% 35% 29% % Advanced 15% 13% 13%

% Below Basic 44% 34% 46% % Proficient 17% 17% 25%

% Far Below Basic 24% 19% 12% % Basic 25% 35% 30%

CST Geometry % Below Basic 25% 23% 21%

Students Tested 47.0 43.0 32.0 % Far Below Basic 18% 12% 11%

% of Enrollment 36% 27% 25%

CST Biology/Life Sciences





% Basic 23% 37% 41% % Advanced 10% 6% 7%




CST Algebra II % Below Basic 32% 15% 14%




Mean Scale Score 363.5 382.6 * % of Enrollment 1% 3% 1%

% Advanced 13% 29% * Students with Scores 1.0 4.0 1.0

% Proficient 47% 43% * Mean Scale Score * * *

% Basic 33% 29% * CST Earth Science

% Below Basic 7% 0% * Students Tested 11.0 12.0

% Far Below Basic 0% 0% * % of Enrollment 7% 9%

Students with Scores 11.0 12.0

Mean Scale Score 298.5 302.1

% Advanced 0% 8%

% Proficient 0% 8%

% Basic 36% 25%

% Below Basic 45% 25%

% Far Below Basic 18% 33%

Juniors California Standards Test Scores Comparison 11th Grade 2009, 2008, 2007

11th 2009 2008 2007 11th 2009 2008 2007 CST English-Language Arts CST U.S. History

Students Tested 120.0 96.0 138.0 Students Tested 120.0 96.0 138.0

% of Enrollment 99% 100% 100% % of Enrollment 99% 100% 100%

Students with Scores 120.0 96.0 138.0 Students with Scores 120.0 96.0 138.0

Mean Scale Score 333.6 324.6 322.2 Mean Scale Score 351.7 339.6 311.9

% Advanced 13% 5% 6% % Advanced 25% 16% 1%

% Proficient 25% 22% 20% % Proficient 34% 25% 15%

% Basic 35% 42% 45% % Basic 22% 27% 43%

% Below Basic 19% 20% 19% % Below Basic 8% 18% 28%

% Far Below Basic 8% 11% 11% % Far Below Basic 12% 15% 13%

CST Algebra I CST Science - Life Science



% of Enrollment 31% 43% 52% CST Biology/Life Sciences





% Basic 19% 20% 49% % Advanced 2% 6% 1%



CST Geometry % Below Basic 13% 16% 23%







% Basic 25% 5% 9% % Advanced 24% 14% 0%



CST Algebra II % Below Basic 0% 5% 16%


% of Enrollment 25% 18% 23% CST Earth Science




% Proficient 57% 47% 34% Mean Scale Score * * *

% Basic 23% 29% 31% CST Physics

% Below Basic 7% 12% 19% Students Tested 2.0 13.0

% Far Below Basic 0% 0% 16% % of Enrollment 2% 9%

CST World History Students with Scores 2.0 13.0

Students Tested 2.0 1.0 1.0 Mean Scale Score * 356.2

% of Enrollment 2% 1% 1% % Advanced * 8%

Students with Scores 2.0 0.0 % Proficient * 54%


Mean Scale Score * * * % Basic * 38%

% Below Basic * 0%

% Far Below Basic * 0%


CST English-Language Arts



CST MATHEMATICS: Algebra I




CST MATHEMATICS: Geometry


CST MATHEMATICS: Algebra II



CST History: World History

CST History: United States History



CST SCIENCE: Biology/Life Science

CST SCIENCE: Chemistry


CST SCIENCE: Earth Science



3. California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)

Year Tested or Passing Subject All

Students

Special Education Students

English Learner

(EL) Students

Redesignated Fluent-English

Proficient (RFEP)

Students

Socio- economical

ly Disadvanta

ged

Not socio- economica

lly Disadvanta

ged

2009 # Tested Math 131 18 52 35 131 0

2009 Passing Math 107 (82%) 12 (67%) 34 (65%) 34 (97%) 107 (82%) n/a 2009 # Tested ELA 131 18 52 35 131 0

2009 Passing ELA 89 (68%) 4 (22%) 22 (42%) 33 (94%) 89 (68%) n/a

2008 # Tested Math 157 19 43 39 155 2

2008 Passing Math 132 (84%) 10 (53%) 29 (67%) 36 (92%) 130 (84%) n/a 2008 # Tested ELA 159 19 44 39 157 2

2008 Passing ELA 120 (75%) 7 (37%) 26 (59%) 33 (85%) 118 (75%) n/a

2007 # Tested Math 126 0 45 29 95 31

2007 Passing Math 105 (83%) n/a 37 (82%) 28 (97%) 84 (88%) 21 (68%)

2007 # Tested ELA 129 0 47 29 99 30

2007 Passing ELA 93 (72%) n/a 29 (62%) 27 (93%) 69 (70%) 24 (80%)

CAHSEE English Language Arts


California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) English Language Arts (ELA)

School Report (March 2009) All Students Le Grand High School


Category Number Tested

Number Passed

Percent Passed

Number Not

Passed

Percent Not

Passed

Mean Scaled Score

All Students Tested 131 89 68% 42 32% 368

Grade Tenth 127 89 70% 38 30% 370

Eleventh 0 -- --% -- --% --

Twelfth 4 -- --% -- --% --

Gender Male 63 37 59% 26 41% 358

Female 68 52 76% 16 24% 378

Unknown 0 -- --% -- --% --

Race/Ethnicity Asian 1 -- --% -- --% --

Pacific Islander 0 -- --% -- --% --

Hispanic or Latino 118 77 65% 41 35% 366

African American or Black 2 -- --% -- --% --

White 10 -- --% -- --% --

Language Fluency English Only 23 17 74% 6 26% 381 Initially Fluent English Proficient (IFEP) 21 17 81% 4 19% 383

Redesignated Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) 35 33 94% 2 6% 387

English Learner 52 22 42% 30 58% 345

Economic Status Economically Disadvantaged 131 89 68% 42 32% 368

Migrant Education Program Participation


Students Receiving Services 12 6 50% 6 50% 358

Special Education Program Participation Students Receiving Services 18 4 22% 14 78% 331

Students Tested with Modification 0

10th Grade CAHSEE English Language Arts


CAHSEE Mathematics



California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) Mathematics

School Report (March 2009) All Students Le Grand High School

Category Number Tested

Number Passed

Percent Passed

Number Not

Passed

Percent Not

Passed

Mean Scaled Score

All Students Tested 131 107 82% 24 18% 383

Grade Tenth 127 105 83% 22 17% 384

Eleventh 0 -- --% -- --% --

Twelfth 4 -- --% -- --% --

Gender Male 63 53 84% 10 16% 379

Female 68 54 79% 14 21% 386

Race/Ethnicity Asian 1 -- --% -- --% --

Hispanic or Latino 118 95 81% 23 19% 381

African American or Black 2 -- --% -- --% --

White 10 -- --% -- --% --

Language Fluency English Only Students 23 21 91% 2 9% 389 Initially Fluent English Proficient (IFEP) 21 18 86% 3 14% 391

Redesignated Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) 35 34 97% 1 3% 397

English Learner Students 52 34 65% 18 35% 367

Economic Status Economically Disadvantaged Students 131 107 82% 24 18% 383


Migrant Education Program Participation Students Receiving Services 12 9 75% 3 25% 388

Special Education Program Participation Students Receiving Services 18 12 67% 6 33% 358

Students Tested with Modification 0

10th Grade CAHSEE Mathematics


4. Adequate Yearly Progress, AYP

Accountability Progress Report (APR)

Federal Accountability: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Le Grand High School

Year Criteria Met AYP

Met API

Graduation Rate

Reasons


2009 15 of 18 No Yes Yes ELA % Proficient-No ELA Schoolwide % Proficient-No ELA Hispanic or Latino % Prof.-No ELA Socioeconomic Disadv. % Prof.-No

2008 17 or 18 No Yes Yes ELA % Proficient-No EL % Proficient-No

2007 14 of 14 Yes Yes Yes 2006 18 of 18 Yes Yes Yes 2005 No Yes Yes ELA % Proficient-No 2004 14 of 14 Yes


AYP--2009 Participation Rate

English-Language Arts

Target 95% Met all participation rate criteria? Yes

Mathematics Target 95%

Met all participation rate criteria? Yes

GROUPS

Enrollment First

Day of

Testing

Number of

Students Tested Rate

Met 2009 AYP

Criteria

Alternative Method

Enrollment First

Day of

Testing

Number of

Students Tested Rate

Met 2009 AYP

Criteria

Alternative Method

Schoolwide 128 127 99 Yes 128 127 99 Yes African American or Black (not of Hispanic origin) 2 2 100 -- 2 2 100 --

Asian 1 1 100 -- 1 1 100 --

Hispanic or Latino 114 113 99 Yes 114 113 99 Yes

White (not of Hispanic origin) 11 11 100 -- 11 11 100 --

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 128 127 99 Yes 128 127 99 Yes

English Learners 83 83 100 Yes ER 83 83 100 Yes ER

Students with Disabilities 13 13 100 -- 13 13 100 --

Percent Proficient - Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)

English-Language Arts

Target 44.5 % Met all percent proficient rate criteria? No

Mathematics

Target 43.5 % Met all percent proficient rate criteria? Yes

GROUPS

Valid Scores

Number At or

Above Proficient

Percent At or

Above Proficient

Met 2009 AYP

Criteria

Alternative Method

Valid Scores

Number At or

Above Proficient

Percent At or

Above Proficient

Met 2009 AYP

Criteria

Alternative Method

Schoolwide 126 49 38.9 No 126 69 54.8 Yes African American or Black (not of Hispanic origin) 2 -- -- -- 2 -- -- --

American Indian or Alaska Native 0 -- -- -- 0 -- -- --

Asian 1 -- -- -- 1 -- -- --

Filipino 0 -- -- -- 0 -- -- --


Hispanic or Latino 112 42 37.5 No 112 60 53.6 Yes

Pacific Islander 0 -- -- -- 0 -- -- --

White (not of Hispanic origin) 11 6 54.5 -- 11 7 63.6 --

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 126 49 38.9 No 126 69 54.8 Yes

English Learners 82 27 32.9 Yes SH 82 42 51.2 Yes

Students with Disabilities 13 2 15.4 -- 13 2 15.4 --

Academic Performance Index (API) - Additional Indicator for AYP

2008 Base API 2009 Growth API 2008-09 Growth Met 2009 API

Criteria Alternative Method 695 690 -5 Yes

2009 API Criteria for meeting federal AYP: A minimum "2009 Growth API" score of 650 OR "2008-09 Growth" of at least one point.

Graduation Rate Rate for 2008,

Class of 2006-07

Rate for 2009, Class of 2007-08 Change

Average 2-Year Change

Met 2009 Graduation Rate

Criteria Alternative Method 98.9 95.4 -3.5 0.0 Yes

4. California English Language Development Test (CELDT)

California English Language Development Test (CELDT) Le Grand High School

2008-09 CELDT Annual Assessment - All Students Performance

Level 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade Total Advanced 6 1 6 5 18

10% 2% 13% 22% 10% Early Advanced 23 13 10 9 55

38% 29% 22% 39% 32% Intermediate 25 25 21 6 77


41% 56% 47% 26% 44% Early Intermediate

6 5 5 2 18 10% 11% 11% 9% 10%

Beginning 1 1 3 1 6 2% 2% 7% 4% 3%

Number Tested 61 45 45 23 174 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

2007-08

Annual Assessment - All Students Performance

Level 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade Total Advanced 12 5 4 15 36

17.00% 9.00% 9.00% 21.00% 15.00% Early Advanced 23 13 25 29 90

32.00% 25.00% 56.00% 41.00% 38.00% Intermediate 24 24 11 20 79

33.00% 45.00% 24.00% 29.00% 33.00% Early Intermediate

12 9 4 5 30 17.00% 17.00% 9.00% 7.00% 13.00%

Beginning 1 2 1 1 5 1.00% 4.00% 2.00% 1.00% 2.00%

Number Tested 72 53 45 70 240 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

2006-07 Annual Assessment - All Students

Performance Level 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade Total Advanced 6 2 2 0 10

9.00% 5.00% 8.00% 0.00% 7.00% Early Advanced 20 15 11 3 49

31.00% 41.00% 46.00% 38.00% 37.00% Intermediate 20 11 8 4 43

31.00% 30.00% 33.00% 50.00% 32.00%


Early Intermediate

15 6 3 1 25 23.00% 16.00% 13.00% 13.00% 19.00%

Beginning 4 3 0 0 7 6.00% 8.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00%

Number Tested 65 37 24 8 134 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

CELDT


5. Local Assessments


Benchmark Assessments Le Grand High School is focusing on the development of District approved Benchmark Assessments in all classes, which are scheduled in the pacing guides in all core classes to be administered every six weeks. The purpose of the assessments is to determine student proficiency in meeting the standards covered over the six week period of time. Edusoft is one resource to help disaggregate assessment results to determine individual deficiencies and to assist students in remediation in meeting standards. This can also be used to evaluate instruction, pacing, and needed areas of focus. District Writing Assessment The English Department is revitalizing a schoolwide writing assessment to verify student abilities to organize and write. Results of the assessment will be helpful in evaluating the success of the newly implemented “Writing by Design”. Placement Tests 8th grade students take a placement tests in English and Math, at the end of their 8th grade year, as an additional resource for proper placement in freshmen English and math classes. Year end examinations and Placement tests are also used to verify student’s ability to advance to the next class in English, Algebra II, AP classes, etc. 6. Reading Diagnostics Le Grand High School uses the diagnostic tests found in McDougal Little Language of Literature, the 9th grade adopted textbook series. This indicates the number of students who are reading above and below the 6th grade reading level.

English Placement of Freshmen

2008 Bridges/REACH 114 English I 49 Total 165


7. Advanced Placement

LGHS Advance Placement Classes and Enrollment

Year # of AP Classes

AP Classes Offered Enrollment Scores

2009-10 7 7 AP classes: AP World History, AP Studio Art, AP US History, AP Spanish Language, AP Spanish Literature, AP Calculus, AP English Language

61

2008-09 5 AP Studio Art, AP US History, AP Spanish Language, AP Spanish Literature, AP English Language

98 (some dual) 78 test takers

1 (18) 2 (12) 3 (17) 4 (24) 5(7)

2007-08 4 AP Studio Art, AP US History, AP Spanish Language, AP Spanish Literature

32 28 test takers

1 (3) 2 (5) 3 (4) 4 (6) 5 (11)

2006-07 4 Classes AP Studio Art, AP US History, AP Spanish Language, AP Spanish Literature

58 50 test takers

1 (11) 2 (11) 3 (14) 4 (10) 5 (9)

2005-06 3 AP Studio Art, AP US History, AP Spanish Literature 38 32 test takers

1 (16) 2 (4) 3 (7) 4 (4) 5 (1)

8. UC/CSU A-G Requirements

Grads with UC/CSU Required Courses

Year 07-08 06-07 05-06 Number of Students 20 30 21

Percent 16.1% 32.6% 20.6% 9. Algebra


Math Placement of Freshmen

2008 2009 Pre-Algebra 102 0 Algebra I 65 106 Geometry 3 18 Total 170 124

10. Completion Rates

Dropouts Data by Ethnic Designation by Grade LE GRAND HIGH School for the Year 2007-08

Grade 9

Dropouts Grade 10 Dropouts

Grade 11 Dropouts

Grade 12 Dropouts

Grade 9-12

Dropout Total

Grade 9-12 Enrollment

Grade 9-12

4-year Derived Dropout

Rate

Grade 9-12

1-year Dropout

Rate American Indian/Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 2 ** 0 Asian 0 0 0 0 0 3 ** 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 1 ** 0 Filipino 0 0 0 0 0 1 ** 0 Hispanic or Latino 1 0 0 2 3 484 2.60% 0.60% African American (not Hispanic) 0 0 0 0 0 3 ** 0 White 0 0 0 0 0 58 0.00% 0 Multiple/No 0 0 0 0 0 4 ** 0


Response School Total 1 0 0 2 3 556 2.20% 0.50% District wide 1 0 0 10 11 605 6.90% 1.80% County wide 62 79 146 483 770 18,212 16.40% 4.20% Statewide 9,737 10,995 14,657 42,794 78,369 2,015,720 15.30% 3.90%


Chapter 2: Summary from Analysis of Profile Data In preparation to initiate the WASC/CDE Focus on Learning self study process the staff at Le Grand High School met the end of 2008 in an annual review to evaluate the progress on the 2004 WASC/CDE Action Plan. Although far from perfect, we found we were on a steady course trying to improve academic instruction to provide the optimal opportunities for students to succeed. State Standards, aligned curriculum, state assessments, and local diagnostics are constantly at the front of game plan. But in addition to core academics, we still feel the obligation to develop good, healthy, well-rounded and balanced graduates. The beginning of 2009, after feed-back from stakeholders, it was recommended to re-adopt the current ESLRs, but to emphasize the five main categories and use the sub-objectives as a means of evaluating the accomplishment of the main goals.


Surveys Before meeting in formal Home Focus Groups a few, non-scientific surveys, were administered in hopes of providing discussion data on the thoughts and feelings of the stakeholders in regards to our school and school programs. A 2008 survey of students inquired about safety, academic expectations, school and family support, instruction and student participation.

Overall the students ranked the school above average, 2.4 to 2.7, but ranked the school well above average “School and classroom rules are clear to me, 2.8 and “I understand how to be successful as a student”, 2.8. The two issues that ranked lower were “LGHS students are generally respectful and encouraging to one another, 2.2, and “I receive timely feedback when I have made errors in my work, 2.3.

Senior Exit Information Survey 5/06/09

A variety of inquiries were surveyed by the graduating class to evaluate their feeling about the school, academic rigor, college preparation and college/vocational plans. The seniors overall had a high opinion of the school, but the sampling brought forward concerns about the rigor of the senior year: not all seniors were taking English 4, and a high percentage was not enrolled in math or science. Historically LGHS sends a comparatively high percentage of students to college, but we hope to increase the number of high school graduates completing the A-G requirements, applying to, attending and completing CSU, UC, or other four year colleges/universities. The reality is many of our students will begin their post high school education at our local community college. Our desire is to have them prepared to enroll in non-remedial, college transferable classes in English, math, history, and science for ease of transferring to a four-year college after completing two years of community college. Another striking concern—our females are far outpacing our male graduates in all aspects: student government, A-G completion, college acceptance, scholarships, GPA, and post high school academic plans.

A sample survey was completed in groups: students, parents, teachers/staff, and school board members providing a Leichardt scale of opinions about LGHS’s ESLRs and post high school

ESLRs How well do we prepare students to communicate effectively? How well do we prepare students to think critically? How well do we prepare students to have a sense of community? How well do we prepare students be able to learn and earn? How well do we prepare students be able to develop and maintain a healthy lifestyle?

STAR Preparation


How well do we prepare students for the CAHSEE (California High School Exit Exam)? How well do we prepare students for the STAR (Standardized Testing and Reporting)?

College Preparation How well do we prepare students to enter a 4 year college? How well do we prepare students to enter a trade school or community college?

Generally all opinion scores were very positive, particularly complimenting the STAR preparation items and students gave a higher ranking for sense of community. All groups ranked the school a little lower in preparing students to think critically. Teacher results showed a slight concern for college preparation, particularly in the trade school or community college question.

The Home Focus Groups meet in April and May of 2009 to evaluate data and to consider the questions:

Who are our students? After reviewing the student demographics the groups realized that LGHS is a homogenous campus, made up primarily of Hispanic/Latino, with approximately ten percent white and a very few African American and Asian ethnicity. Almost half our student body is English Learners. All students can participate in the school lunch program, so virtually all our students are considered low socioeconomically disadvantaged. Generally speaking, the parents of our students are not highly educated, as well as; a considerable percentage do not speak English. Who is and is not achieving? State test scores are improving in most areas, and we are outpacing the county in math and chemistry scores. English Language Arts has hindered our AYP and API scores, suggesting the need to continually monitor the progress of our English Learners. It was also noted that our male student population is not keeping pace with the female students in grades, rigorous class enrollment, scholarships and college acceptance and attendance. Is there agreement on the identified critical academic needs or concerns? The Home Focus groups discussed the concern about student apathy and apparent lack of motivation. How and what do all stakeholders need to do to better motivate students to take full advantage of the academic environment. To improve STAR results it is vital to provide services for all students, i.e. remedial classes, differentiated instruction, and tutorial help for those “at risk” students.

The Schoolwide Focus Groups met three times from October to Novmeber 2009 to complete the Focus on Learning process in the five categories as outlined in the 2009 Process Guide. (See Chapter 4) We all came together as a full assembly, each group sharing their findings and suggestions. All schoolwide focus group participants were invited to a Collobration meeting December 2, 2009.


Meeting Notes: Collaboration Meeting: December 2, 2009 Reviewed LGHS WASC Summary of Strengths from 11/18/09 Schoolwide Focus Group Areas of Strengths were placed in Main Categories Teachers reviewed the main categories and picked the one topic they felt would have the highest continual impact on student success—“focus on learning” Results: Highest—Instruction (15) Next highest—Curriculum and Instruction (7) A few ones and twos thereafter Conclusion: The best area of strength to continue is combining the top two into the category “Curriculum and Instruction” Reviewed LGHS WASC Summary Areas for Growth from 11/18/09 Schoolwide Focus Group Meetings Areas for Growth were placed in Main Categories Teachers reviewed the main categories and picked the one topic they felt would have the highest continual impact on student success—“focus on learning”. Results: Highest—Remediation (13) Next highest--Student Empowerment (13) Then—Instruction (11) Next, thereafter—Communication (8)

Conclusion: The main categories to consider for WASC Chap. 4 Action Plan are: Curriculum and Instruction

(Superintendent asked that assessment be included in this category) Student Empowerment Remediation (may be included with Student Empowerment) Communication

These findings were shared with all stakeholders and discussed in teachers’ meetings, board meetings, classrooms, council meetings, WASC Full Leadership, Site Leadership Team and Department Head Meeting. It was finally concluded that the three areas of focus for the site Action Plan would be:

Ø Standards based curriculum, instruction and assessment Ø Student intervention, remediation and enrichment Ø Student and parent empowerment


After approving the three key focus areas, the Schoolwide Focus Groups meet again to come up with suggestions for goals and objectives to address these topics. Members were then rearranged into one of three groups, each group representing one of the Action Plan Topics. Their purpose was present the suggestions from the Schoolwide Focus Group and then complete a proposal of four to five clear goals/objectives to complete the Action Plan criteria and format, in leading our school to improvement. Critical Focus #1 Standards based Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment: Adapting Curriculum and Instruction to optimize the learning environment and school culture to envelop each and every student to maximize his/her learning opportunity, demonstrated by improved assessments and results. This is really a continuation from the 2004 WASC action plan with a similar focus. California education is now driven by state academic standards, testing, and evaluating. We must meet state and federal, as well as local, targets and improvement in API and AYP as a result of CST, CASHEE, and CELDT. LGHS must continue to use state provided resources to align curriculum, improve instruction around standards, and continue student improvement on state and local assessments. All groups must improve in all areas: English, Math, Science, and History to satisfy the ever increasing academic success rate in student proficiency and advanced proficiency scoring. These result in an extra concerted effort in the impacted subgroups: English Learners, Hispanic/Latino, Socioeconomic disadvantaged, and Special Education, noting that there is a high overlap in these groups. Critical Focus #2 Intervention, Remediation, and Enrichment: Implement a process to readily identify students needing intervention, with a variety of intervening programs. Systematic remediation for students failing classes, or not meeting identified minimum competencies in given standards from benchmark assessments. Provide challenging high-level thinking, depth and breadth, to advanced and accelerating students.


LGHS is keenly aware that this is the next step in changing the academic culture of teachers and students in our pursuit of Focus Item 1. In many cases this is a concept that needs refreshing, adding intervention, remediation, and differential instruction in the classroom setting, as well as on a schoolwide basis. To intervene means to come between two events, to modify, or hinder some action. The two events are where the student is academically and student not understanding. In our school setting this implies proper diagnosis and placement, quick detection of deficiency, and re-directing to understanding. Remedy means something to correct a wrong, and remedial means correcting deficiencies. Remediation at LGHS would mean providing services to students who are deficient in a given standard or expectation, particularly a core standard, in the classroom before, during and after school. Differentiate means to differ amount or degree, unlike, a variation, different. We agree that students are not all alike, coming with different background knowledge and experience, and therefore may not learn the same way, at the same speed, or in the same style. Enrich means to give greater value, better quality, richer, increasing the quantity. Students from all sides of the spectrum, from the top to the bottom need to be challenged in a variety of ways to reach their full and balanced potential. Critical Focus #3 Empowerment and Partnerships for success: Empower each student with responsibility and accountability for his/her personal growth, development and academic success. Empower parents with the responsibility and accountability of the growth, development, and academic success of their child. Work together as a circular cohesive team: Student 1 Teachers 1Parents 1 Administration. All lines of communication need to be open and inclusive.

Early after inauguration, in his address to the students of the United States, President Barak Obama clarified “At the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world. But none of it will matter unless all of you [students] fulfill your responsibilities." All stakeholders need to maintain and facilitate the high achievable expectations of each and every student. We know the teachers are working hard to do their part to meet the goals and ambitions of the school. In addition to the daily instructional activities teachers are attending workshops and inservices and implementing new strategies and technology. Students and parents need to proportionally step up the efforts and take personal responsibility for their learning. “We are at our best when we each teach ourselves what we need to learn.” (Harry Wong)

When the student is ready, the teacher will appear. –Zen


“When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.” (Zen) Students need to develop the learning habits of academic success and apply them consistently in daily activities. They must believe “Whatever the mind of man can conceive and believe it can achieve.” (Napoleon Hill) At the end of the day, who should be mentally exhausted?


A: Organization: Vision and Purpose, Governance, Leadership and Staff, and Resources Committee Members:

Rich Rogers, WASC Leader Focus Group Leader, WASC Leadership Team, Social Science Teacher

Stacie Buchner Focus Group Recorder, Special Ed. Teacher Gia Priddell Voc. Ed. Teacher, ASB Advisor Dave Hansen Math Teacher, Parent Brian Kubo Language Arts Teacher Javier Martinez Administrator Ada Ochoa Classified Jamie Towe Classified Henry Galan Classified Miranda Flores Senior Student Alfredo Barragan Senior Student Daisy Zaragoza Junior Student Jeanne Giampaoli Parent/board member Victor Flores Parent, Classified Joey Silva Student teacher/Science

Vision and Purpose Criterion with Indicators A.1 To what extent a) does the school have a clearly stated vision or purpose based on its student needs, current education research and the belief that all student can achieve high levels; and b) is the school’s purpose supported by the governing board and the central administration and further defined by expected schoolwide learning results and the academic standards?

Findings Evidence We know about our vision statement through multiple avenues, We have our mission statement in the student planner, website,


but they do not drive our student’s needs outreach newsletter, etc. LGHS ESLR’s were re-adopted this year. Although they are an element of instruction, they have taken a backseat to rigorous, standards based instruction

ESLRs are included in the adopted Course Curriculum Guides. ESLRs are posted in each classroom. Current focus is on standard based instruction to drive classroom instruction

Students have opportunity for higher level achievement through Advanced Placement classes offered, but not all students are supported to achieve at high levels

Use of state testing, placement testing, and grades to appropriately place students; Advancement Via Individual Determination-AVID 2 diplomas offered: Honors Diploma and Regular diploma-

Current educational research is communicated through Education Consultants

Inservices, collaboration, classroom observations, peer teacher observations and evaluations

Governing board is supportive of schoolwide learning results and academic standards

New ELD classes offered and authorized through governing board to support ELD subgroup

Administration supportive and aware of schoolwide learning results and academic standards

Monitoring and classroom observations conducted by administration & Education Consultants

Lack of vertical communication through shareholders Need improvement in direct communication. We do not consistently review ESLR’s

Areas of Strength

• Standard based instruction drives classroom instruction since 2004 • Implemented programs based on student needs. Examples include ELD, EDGE, Bridges, Algebra 1B, AVID, and AP classes • School Philosophy, Mission Statement, District Goals, and Student, Parent, Teacher, and Administrative expectations/responsibilities

are in the front pages of the Student/Parent Handbook Areas for Growth

• Increase awareness of the Expected Schoolwide Learning Results, ESLRs • On-going need of communication and clarity of direction with all stakeholders.

A.2 To what extent does the governing board a) have policies and bylaws that are aligned with the school’s purpose and support the achievement of the expected schoolwide learning results and academic standards based on data-driven instructional decisions for the school; b) delegate implementation of theses policies to the professional staff; and


c) regularly monitor results and approve the single schoolwide action plan and its relationship to the Local Educational Association (LEA) plan?

Findings Evidence Governing board’s policies and bylaws are aligned with academic achievement; board monitors and adjusts when necessary

Board Policies and Bylaws. Reports, data, etc.--Driven by academic standards

Governing board policies and bylaws are driven by state and local academic standards and expectations. Schedules and instructions are adjusted to provide data-driven instruction

Standardized Scores and summaries are shared with the governing board and site teams. Returned to a traditional schedule from the intensive block schedule to better align with state testing and to strengthen English and Math instruction. Effort made to align our academic calendar with our feeder schools.

Some of the shareholders are not fully aware of the Single Site or LEA plan.

Lacking communication among all shareholders; plans are being developed & the information is available, but the information is not being filtered out. Information seems to stop at administration level.

Areas of Strength

• Board bases decisions on data driven instruction • Decisions are made to align with state and local standards and expectations • Focus on English Literacy and Math

Areas for Growth • Better communication of the various plans, include Single Site Plan, LEA Plan, etc. to all stakeholders • “Buy in” to develop a Professional Learning Community, PLC

A.3 To what extent based on student achievement data, a) does the school leadership and staff make decisions and initiate activities that focus on all students achieving the expected schoolwide learning results and academic standards; and b) To what extent do the school leadership and staff annually monitor and refine the single schoolwide action plan based on analysis of data to ensure alignment with student needs?

Findings Evidence


Focus on all students achieving the ESLRs and academic standards Adopted new texts in multiple curriculum areas, based on State Standards and standard based instruction. ESLRs were included in the district adopted Curriculum Guides.

Students with academic difficulties are being supported in the classroom and after school

Resource/Special Education Program supporting teachers with feedback & accommodations, after school tutorial program focuses on students with academic needs. IMPACT—afterschool enhanced program implemented the beginning of 2009-10 school year.

We have the resources in place to assess students, but we are not sure if it is working effectively

Edusoft, benchmarks, etc.

Continual focus on student learning in Literacy and English Development

Annual WASC Action Plan reviewed in Collaboration Meetings

Areas of Strength

• Current text books, material & technology are aligned with state standards, available in multiple curriculum areas • Implementation of standards based curriculum in line with state expectations • Results of state standardized testing are disaggregated and reviewed with staff in Collaboration Meetings, with public and board in

school board meetings, and with parents in site team meetings and SARC. Areas for Growth

• Targeting “academically at risk” students that are in danger of not graduating • Consistent monitoring and refining the single schoolwide action plan based on analysis of data to ensure alignment with student

needs. A.4 To what extent does a qualified staff facilitate achievement of the academic standards and the expected schoolwide learning results through a system of preparation, induction, and ongoing professional development?

Findings Evidence Increased staff collaboration and professional development Calendared two Collaboration Days most months and five

inservice days. Education Consultants


Curriculum designed to meet CA state academic standards New standards based text book adoptions by departments. Standards based Benchmarks Assessments. CAHSEE remediation classes

Vertical integration for professional development and curriculum Same Calendar with Feeder Schools. Department Meetings with feeder schools for better scaffolding and alignment. Sharing with feeder schools: Writing by Design, professional development, data, 8th grade visits and meetings, Placement Testing

Effort to keep and provide ongoing training for new teachers BTSA program; Teachers to be qualified under No Child Left Behind

Areas of Strength

• Increased professional development, collaboration & training for teachers • Increased effort to collaborate with feeder schools

Areas for Growth

• Increase professional development geared towards targeting & reaching “academically at risk” students. • Increase professional development to meet the high demands of state standards, assessments, and expectations.

A.5 To what extent are leadership and staff involved in ongoing research or data-based correlated professional development that focuses on identified student learning needs?

Findings Evidence Staff involved in ongoing research that focuses on identified student learning needs

Using Edusoft with benchmarks to disaggregate data to better analyze and utilize data

Staff sharing of grades, data, curriculum and pacing guides Informal staff collaboration on current educational practices Budget has resources allocated for professional development

Educational training for adopted curriculum support; ELD development

Data is becoming more accessible to teachers, students and parents

Eagle--ABI


Areas of Strength

• Collaboration Meetings and District/Site Inservice focusing on current educational practices • ELD development, curriculum adjustments, and scheduling academic classes--AP courses.

Areas for Growth

• Making sure we are accurately & consistently analyzing data that focuses on identifying student learning needs. • Sharing of information

A.6 To what extent are the human, material, physical, and financial resource sufficient and utilized effectively and appropriately in accordance with the legal intent of the program(s) to support students in accomplishing the academic standards and the expected schoolwide learning results?

Findings Evidence Classrooms, as much as possible, have the necessary materials, clean environment, curriculum, etc.

Successfully passed Williams Settlement Act inspection

Leadership and staff are involved in resource allocation decisions Multiple share holders are involved in the school site council

Efforts are made to provide help and remediation to students Impact program provides support to students by supporting core classes and exposure to vocational interests/opportunities

Long range planning is a work in progress Ed consultants audit and survey LEA Plan also considered our Single Site Plan

Master schedule has been modified to enhance rigorous curriculum Increased AP course offerings—Master Schedule Areas of Strength

• Multiple shareholders are involved in resource allocation decisions • Open discussions about the tight economic condition of school funding

Areas for Growth

• Make sure the IMPACT program tutors are knowledgeable in subject areas and tutorials are more structured


• Making sure we continue to modify master schedule to enhance rigorous curriculum Summary of Findings: Le Grand High School has in previous WASC accreditation experiences examined and refined Expected School wide Learning Results in a collaborative manner to meet the needs of our student population. However, continued and on-going explicit review and focus of these ESLR’s by stakeholders has not occurred. Furthermore, as standards based instruction has taken a top priority, we have lost some of our focus on overt analysis and evaluation of the school wide ESLR’s. As far as the governing board is concerned, it has adopted policies and bylaws that are in alignment with our school’s academic focus. For example, several years ago, Le Grand High School transitioned away from the intensive block schedule to a more traditional schedule in an effort to provide instruction that better meets the needs of our students. Although, the school wide action plan is being developed, it appears that administration is the only stakeholder aware of some information at this point. We have made some initial steps to capture data that will ultimately improve student performance, such as the implementation of benchmark assessments and after school subject area tutorials. Furthermore, all of the departments have adopted texts and supplementary material that is aligned with the California State Standards. We are not at the point where captured data from benchmarks and other assessments is being used school wide to remediate instruction or to assure ESLR compliance, but believe that this is the next step. Twice a month, staff meets in the morning to provide in-service training and professional development. There is also an effort to connect with our associate schools through curriculum alignment. Specifically, the program “Writing By Design” has vertically been integrated to provide consistent instruction to improve student writing through K-12. Le Grand High School continues to look for ways to support students in accomplishing the academic standards and the expected schoolwide learning results. Teachers and administration have utilized the “Critical Teaching Attributes Scoring Rubric” as a way to evaluate teachers in action in their classrooms to acquire and assess effective teaching methodologies. There are now more rigorous course offerings including 4 new Advanced Placement Course offerings. Most recently, the IMPACT program has been implemented as a way to support students’ academic remediation and enrichment in core classes and exposure to vocational opportunities. Facilities, materials and overall school environment have been improved in part due to compliance with the Williams Settlement Act.


B: Standards-based Student Learning: Curriculum Committee Members:

Luanna Brock Focus Group Leader, S. E. Teacher: Lou Ann Sakaki Focus Group Recorder, S. S. Teacher Rob Davey Biology Teacher Kyle Chew Math Teacher Richard Jacobsen Vocational Education Teacher Andrew Schwab Vocational Education Teacher Sydney Dalmaso Language Arts Teacher Maria Gonzalez Language Arts Teacher Donna Alley Administrator Angie, Mujica Student, Sophomore Antonio Gonzalez Student, Senior Griselda Garcia Student, Senior Higinio Yanez Parent Amanda Zaragoza Parent

Curriculum Criterion with Indicators B.1 To what extent do all students participate in a rigorous, relevant, and coherent standards-based curriculum that supports the achievement of the academic standards and the expected schoolwide learning results? Through standards-based learning (i.e., what is taught and how is it taught), the expected schoolwide learning results are accomplished.

Findings Evidence Standards are embedded into curriculum and are integrated into daily lessons

Standard-aligned textbooks Benchmarks in place in most courses Students aware of lesson objective(s)/standard(s)---White board configuration STAR test results Course Curriculum Guides and Descriptions and Pacing


Guides LGHS goes beyond the core curriculum to meet the needs of all students

Regular education teachers are a part of the Individual Education Program (IEP) process Staff training to accommodate special needs students CAHSEE remediation classes CELDT scores used to accommodate EL students IMPACT after school program ESLRs

Several vocational and interdisciplinary courses offered Yearbook Business Applications I / II Agriculture Communications Agriculture Welding Agriculture Construction Web Design Computer Systems R.O.P.- Marketing/Graphic Art/Auto Technology Art and Drama

Curriculum is presented to students utilizing a variety of technological resources.

Power Point presentations Moodle Web quests

LGHS teachers use a myriad of instructional methodologies and strategies to reach all students.

Profession Development training on Direct Instruction and Instructional Strategies Randomly Checking For Understanding (RCFU) SDAIE strategies Power Point presentations Web Quests Moodle

Areas of Strength

• Curriculum aligned with state standards • Two periods of English for target students • Open communication between the special education teachers and the regular education teachers


Areas for Growth

• Add the ESLRs to the student planner • Cross disciplinary alignment • Low test scores for EL subgroup

B.2 To what extent do all students have equal access to the school’s entire program and assistance in preparing them for the pursuit of their academic, personal and school-to-career goals?

Findings Evidence LGHS offers classes to meet the needs of all students from remedial to advanced placement.

Master Schedule

Counselor meets with students and parents to review graduation requirements, college entrance requirements, and class choices.

8th grade orientation Sophomore student and parent conferences with counselor Cal SOAP, AVID, Collegiate Academy

Counselor concurs with the student’s class selections after verifying student progress in his/her currently enrolled classes, transcripts, and required parent signature.

Class Selection Form

The school provides students with several avenues of career opportunities.

Career Awareness Programs R.O. P classes AVID program Catalogs for community colleges, CSU, UC, private colleges available College entrance exam applications in counseling office Scholarships available Vocational and trade schools information available

Special-needs students have post-secondary transitional plans in place.

IEP

Areas of Strength


• Counseling services • Career planning services

Areas for Growth

• Reinstate and improve Teacher Advisory Program (TAP) B.3 To what extent are all students able to meet all the requirements of graduation upon completion of the high school program?

Findings Evidence Students enroll in the needed classes to meet graduation requirements.

Student transcripts

Pre-CAHSEE is given to sophomores to target students in need of assistance

Tutorials provided

Special-needs students are provided needed accommodations and modifications

IEP After-school homework intervention

All students given opportunity to improve in their coursework. IMPACT after-school tutorials Students that have failed a required course are given the opportunity to make it up.

Summer School, Re-take classes, and/or Cyber High online courses

Areas of Strength

• Students are provided the needed tools and support to succeed in high school • Special-needs students are provided the needed accommodations and modifications to reach their annual goals

Areas for Growth

• Keep seniors from slipping into a state of apathy. • Maintain high expectations and college-prep/Vocational Ed. rigor

Summary of Findings: Students at Le Grand High School (LGHS) are given the opportunity to have a positive learning experience. They are provided with curriculum that is aligned with the state standards, and presented to them by a staff that utilizes various instructional methods and tools to


maximize the potential of instructing all students. These methods include but are not limited to: direct instruction, randomly checking for understanding, SDAIE strategies, Power Point presentations, web quests, and Moodle. They are supported and counseled in the planning of their four years of high school coursework, and provided with the necessary resources to secure their post-secondary goals. During their time at LGHS the students are encouraged to expand their learning opportunities by offering Advanced Placement coursework and diversified interdisciplinary classes. Students that find they are struggling with their coursework can receive the needed assistance to keep them on track, or to get them back on track for graduation, through tutorials that are offered in the after-school program, IMPACT. LGHS also prepares its students to succeed in passing the CAHSEE through the use of pre-testing and by offering CAHSEE prep classes. An area of growth was found in the need for reinstating TAP days, and possibly having it more frequently then in times past. This will enable teachers to become more acquainted with students and their individual academic needs and assist the counseling staff by being their eyes and ears out in the field. By keeping the students informed of their progress in meeting all graduation requirements, TAP will lessen the potential of students becoming overwhelmed or slipping into a state of apathy. This also provides an opportunity for the “field advisor” to inform them of services that are available to assist them if they are in need. Le Grand High School’s overall standardized test scores had over the past four years improved but this past year slightly dropped, due mainly to the achievement gaps of one subgroup, our EL students.


C: Standards-based Student Learning: Instruction Committee Members:

Andrew Schwab Focus Group Leader, Voc. Ed. Teacher Maria Gonzalez Focus Group Recorder, L. A. Teacher Rob Davey Biology Teacher Kyle Chew Math Teacher Richard Jacobsen Vocational Education Teacher Sydney Dalmaso Language Arts Teacher Lou Ann Sakaki Language Arts Teacher Luanna Brock Special Education Teacher Donna Alley Administrator Angie Mujica Student, Sophomore Antonio Garcia Student, Senior Griselda Garcia Student, Senior Higinio Yanez Parent Amanda Zaragoza Parent

Instruction Criterion with Indicators C.1 To what extent are all students involved in challenging learning experiences to achieve the academic standards and the expected schoolwide learning results?

Findings Evidence Our curriculum is based on State Frameworks and the Expected Learning Results

Course Outlines and Pacing Guides

A variety of modalities used to evaluate student work Classroom observations, rubrics, benchmark tests and teacher- made tests

Standard and Expectation is communicated to students daily Whiteboard configuration Special Education students are included/mainstreamed into General Special Ed Programs


Education classes IEP Administration is assessing the student’s awareness of Standards and Expectations

Student Interviews: Administrative/Ed Consultant classroom visits

Expanded AP, Honors and Vocational Ed class offerings have led to more academic opportunities for students

Master Schedule

CAHSEE Prep classes offered to improve student performance on CAHSEE

CAHSEE results Higher rate of students graduating

Areas of Strength

• Course alignment to State Frameworks • Offering more challenging AP, Honors and 3rd and 4th level English, Math, Science and History Courses • Expanded Vocational Education Classes offered that address higher level thinking

Areas for Growth

• Differentiated Instruction professional development for all teachers to assess and student needs and develop instructions • ESLRs continue to provide important learning and developmental opportunities for students in important non-state-standard areas.

C.2 To what extent do all teachers use a variety of strategies and resources, including technology and experiences beyond the textbook and the classroom, that actively engage students, emphasize higher order thinking skills, and help them succeed at high levels?

Findings Evidence Use a diverse set of technology to actively engage students Moodle, Netbooks, Website, Bulletin, Google Apps,

School G-Mail, ABI Vocational Ed classes in Technology and Ag Mechanics is current and up-to date.

Ag Mechanics Curriculum Guide, visual inspection of Shop Added Computer Technology classes School Network and integrated computer system

Online Gradebook allows teachers to view student grades in all classes. Students and parents have daily access to student progress

ABI gradebook


Improved communication within departments Bi-monthly Collaboration Days Department Head Meetings Department Meetings G-Mail

Use of Internet to supplement textbook information and bring current events into the classroom and discover lesson plans and activities

Student work Teacher Lesson Plans

Increased student access to technology in the classroom and available on campus

Student Computer Ratio apprx. 1:3 Computer lab Classroom computer labs Computers in classrooms, library, and counseling office

Strong showings in state fairs, art competitions, Academic Decathlon, CSF, AVID, etc…

Ag State Project Awards School Newsletter Bulletin CSF enrollment

Students are exposed to the community through offsite ROP classes, guest speakers and community service

ROP classes Graduation incentive—white graduation cord for community-service participation.

Student community involvement Yearbook, Newsletter, Bulletin, Club fundraising, Concession stands, ASB, FFA

Areas of Strength

• A variety of instructional methodologies to deliver curriculum to students • Real-world offerings for career choices through ROP and Vocational Ed. • Current technology and the access thereof supports student learning

Areas for Growth

• Staff development for technology integration into daily lessons • We are currently using project based instruction, but to improve student group performance and take things to the next level, we

need to see a school wide integration of group based projects in all classes


Summary of Findings: It is an ongoing process at Le Grand High School to be sure all students are involved in a challenging and meaningful learning experience in academic standards and life-preparation learning. Recent and ongoing inservice has focused on teachers using a variety of instructional methodologies to make the instruction and academic learning relevant and accessible to all students. Currently curriculum and instruction are aligned with state and local standards, using whiteboard configuration to be sure students are aware of the objectives and expected outcomes using a variety of instruction strategies, such as: Random Checking for Understanding (RCFU) and an array of assessment methods, aligned with the state standards. Though not easy for a small school, Le Grand High School has continued a concerted effort to keep pace with educational technology and access to educational information. Teachers have at their fingertips access to local, county, state, and world educational materials, research, and resources. The school network provides controlled access to student, class, and school information, accessible by teachers, administration, students, and parents. We, like other educators, are concerned that the required focus on standards can also impede the time available to engage in deep understanding and the emphasis of higher-level thinking skills of students. LGHS will continue to find ways to make learning relevant, challenging, and intriguing as students engage in analysis, creating, questioning, hypothesizing, etc…, as they learn to learn and retain. Example: we are currently using project-based instruction, but to improve student group performance and take things to the next level, we need to use school wide integration of group-base projects in all classes.


D: Standards-based Student Learning: Assessment and Accountability Committee Members:

Alison Lopez Focus Group Leader, L. A. Teacher Sandra Richards Focus Group Recorder, S. S. Teacher Frank Ayala Voc. Ed. Teacher Angel Alvarez Science Teacher Tracey Smith Math Teacher Danny Silva Administrator, Science Teacher Carol Ramirez Classified Olivia Mercado Student, Senior Salvador Garcia Student, Senior Marlene Azevedo Student Teacher

Assessment and Accountability Criterion with Indicators D.1 To what extent does the school use a professionally acceptable assessment process to collect, disaggregate, analyze and report student performance data to the parents and other stakeholders of the community?

Findings Evidence Participation in all state mandated assessments and reporting, along with other assessments

CST, CAHSEE, CELDT, PSAT Student/Parent copy mailed to parents, School Newsletter, Letters, LGHS Website, ABI

For the past two years school/district standards aligned benchmarks are being created, first for Academic classes starting with English, Math, and now Science and History. Elective classes are also using a variety of benchmark assessments

EduSoft Curriculum embedded benchmarks aligned with state standards (textbooks)

Disaggregated data is summarized and communicated to stakeholders Collaboration Meetings, Department meeting, Board Meetings, School Site


Council meetings, ELAC meetings, ELAC meetings

Areas of Strength

• School data system--Aeries is used for attendance, grades, transcripts, reports and controlled information is made electronically available to teachers, students, and parents.

• LGHS District and Site Website provides information and links to local, county, and state information • Collaboration and Inservice to assist teachers in finding, analyzing, and using data to enhance instruction and evaluating programs

Areas for Growth

• All subjects and courses to have working standards aligned benchmarks for assessing student proficiency and instructional adjustments

• Benchmark assessments become a part of the school culture • Information is shared with all stakeholders to help with evaluation, planning, and directing

D.2 To what extent do teachers employ a variety of assessment strategies to evaluate student learning? To what extent do students and teachers use these finding to modify the teaching/learning process for the enhancement of the education progress of every student?

Findings Evidence Implementation of more Project Based Assessment Course Lesson plans and pacing guides

Power Point Presentations Assessing with an immediate and easy process for disaggregating results by standards.

Benchmark Assessments EduSoft for data disaggregation

Potential for more Online Assessment Moodle, Online Quiz, Site G-mail Implementation of Performance Based Assessment P.E., Drama, Music, Shop

Oral Presentations, Speeches, Power Point Presentations, Group/Team projects, Labs

RCFU--Radom Check for Understanding In class teacher observations Classroom Labs Lab Reports

Curriculum Guides and Pacing Guides--Chemistry,


Biology, Science Labs

Textbook based Quiz & Test, aligned to state standard in textbooks and resource materials

Textbook Resources, Software provided by publisher

Daily Openers-Do It Now, Writing Prompts, Homework review, RCFU, Quizzes, In-class practice, Student white boards, peer assessment, rubrics, etc.

Lesson Plans and Pacing Guides Whiteboard configuration Moodle

Test taking accommodations and modification for Special Education Students

IEP / tutorial service / Resource students tested in resource room

Working for shared department and school wide assessment instruments, example--essays

Course Rubrics, Department Rubrics

Use and utilization of Benchmark Assessments EduSoft and curriculum software

Areas of Strength

• Teacher In-service in analyzing data and using the information to improve instruction and assessment • Teachers have been in-serviced in RCFU to monitor student understanding during class • Teachers have aligned assessments with state standards • All adopted textbooks are aligned with state standards • Teachers give appropriate assessment for subjects that they teach • More teachers are using state released test questions in instruction

Areas for Growth

• Teachers and departments need to continue and improve aligning test with state standards and state assessments • All classes to administer benchmark exams every 6 weeks • More teachers need to embrace technology including EduSoft, Moodle, Online Resources, Curriculum Software • Teachers need to utilized direct instruction strategies, per in-service • Teachers need on-going inservice to apply strategies to implement differentiated instruction • School wide culture needs to include the use of state release questions

D.3 To what extent does the school with the support of the district and community have an assessment and monitoring system to determine student progress toward achievement of the academic standards and the expected schoolwide learning results?


Findings Evidence

All core subject areas administer 6 week standard based assessments Benchmark exams & reports generated through EduSoft

Presentation of results to all stake holders including the community: collaboration day (teachers), school site council, ELAC, school board etc.

API, AYP, & CAHSEE Disaggregated Data presented to stakeholders

Community parents are allowing students to attend after school tutorials to prepare students for the CAHSEE Exam

After school CAHSEE Tutorial

Student & Parent have access to the portal for grades, student progress, attendance and state test scores

ABI & Grade book Progress Grades, Transcript Grades

Teachers present standards & objectives at the beginning of every lesson Whiteboard configuration & classroom observation Improved communication between school & community

New District & School website

Include students in discussion about district assessment processes WASC focus groups & school site council Areas of Strength

• More stakeholders are involved in the assessment, monitoring, and communication process of student progress and results • Students and parents are increasingly accessing their student grades through the grade book portal. Currently approximately 50% are

assessing the grade portal, ABI • Improved communication between school & community • Community parents are allowing students to attend after school tutorials to prepare students for the CAHSEE Exam. Pretests are

used to identify students needing after school tutorial for CAHSEE Areas for Growth

• More instruction and education to parents and students regarding the value and use of information in ABI—student information portal

• All core subject areas administer 6 week standard based assessments


D.4 To what extent does the assessment of student achievement in relation to academic standards and the expected schoolwide learning results drive the school’s program, its regular evaluation and improvement and usage of resources?

Findings Evidence Pretests are administered to identify students needing additional assistance to meet state and local requirements and expectations. CAHSEE Prep, AYP, Benchmarks

CAHSEE Practice Test Target Students—Counseling Office Benchmark Assessment Results

The next step is to use timely data to improve instruction—intervention, remediation, enrichment

This is the next step in our progress plan

Teachers are aware that a balanced student needs more than state standards assessment: ESLRs, college success prep., vocational decisions, etc.

Curriculum Guides, Department Meetings, Projects, Extra-Curricular involvement

Using standards-based textbooks and resources Usage of resources textbooks aligned to state standards Williams Act

Standards-based school wide writing program District writing assessment/Rubric Areas of Strength

• On-going school wide focus of data analysis to evaluate students, instructions, guides, programs, and resource usage • Student placement in classes determined by student test scores • Curriculum driven by state standards & test blueprints

Areas for Growth

• Continued improvement on student placement • Improved shareholder support • Using relevant data to focus on individual student learning

Summary of Findings: Le Grand High School is well on the way to conducting objective based assessments and using the resulting information to improve instruction, re-teaching, and adding needed rigor to our coursework. Great progress has been made over the past several years in the culture of accepting state required standards and assessment to adjust curriculum guides, pacing guides, and assessment. All curriculum guides and adopted textbooks are aligned with state standards and our local expectations, including ESLRs. We share information and data results from


state administered testing and continue to look for key data to help us review and evaluate our instruction and use of time and resources. We search for answers, “How to improve student academic success?” and “What needs to be done to improve students’ focus on learning?” We disaggregate and analyze state provided data. We have initiated benchmark assessments and other assessment practices. We have adjusted our grading policy around state standards and benchmark assessments. We share the information with all stakeholders and solicit their input. We use technology and software to assist this process, making it available to empower teachers, students and parents. Despite this progress, we are aware of our need for improvement. Benchmarks for English & math are becoming a part of the school culture and will continue to be adjusted and revised. Science and social studies test creation and implementation is well under way, but all classes need to administer benchmark exams periodically. Many teachers utilize the released CST test questions in preparing students for standardized tests, but we need to integrate them into the curriculum as well as continuing to align classroom tests with standardized tests. We can improve classroom instruction in the following ways: teachers need to use direct instruction strategies, implement differentiated instruction, and embrace technology including EduSoft, Moodle, online resources, and curriculum software. The next step to is use this newly acquired valuable data to improve student advancement and achievement, to meet state and federal No Child Left Behind expectations to meet our AYP, API, and local goals. We have established sound professional assessment practices to collect, disaggregate, analyze and report performance data to parents and stakeholders. The system is in place to determine individual student progress toward academic standards and some school wide expectations, and several means are in place to share this information with parents and students. Our next task is to review and analyze, but most importantly to make decision as to how to identify, intervene, remediate, and challenge each and every student. Over the next five years our challenge is to organize, implement, and follow a plan to benefit each student and the school in pursuit of academic achievement. The state will judge us by “proficiencies” on state assessments. The district will judge us by local proficiency/mastery prior to, and in preparation for, state assessments.


E: School Culture and Support for Student Personal and Academic Growth Committee Members:

Norma Maciel, Counselor Focus Group Leader, Counselor Tony Williams Focus Group Recorder, V. E. Teacher Jabari Jackson Language Arts Teacher Yanet Alvarez English Learner Teacher Monica Bianci Science Teacher Jeff Slaughter Social Science Teacher Rick Martinez. Special Education Teacher Rocio Angel Classified-Front Office Gwen Barnett, district office Classified—District Officer Ken Thurman Resource Officer Juan Avelar Student, Senior Samantha Valadeo Student, Senior Yesenia Nava Student, Junior Victor Flores Parent, Classified Luis Vargas Parent, Classified Gus Villa After School Coordinator

School Culture and Student Support Criterion with Indicators E.1 To what extent does the school leadership employ a wide range of strategies to encourage parental and community involvement, especially with the teaching/learning process?

Findings Evidence Annual semester Parent Open House/Report Card Night Parental account--ABI District wide email addresses for teachers/students District wide attendance/voicemail system

School Calendars School Database and records District and School Website Mailers


Disciplinary/informational phone calls Mail student Progress Grade and Transcript Grades Local businesses/clubs and community organizations sponsor own scholarships or donate money to LGHS activities

Organization/club documents Scholarship—see counseling office Awards Banquets

Communicate with parents by: freshmen orientation, newsletter, report card night, parent conferences, parent meetings for sports, IEP conferences, financial aid workshops, afterschool program, college fair notification, sports/award banquets, school site counsel, ELAC/DELAC, family literacy

Le Grand newsletter, Merced Sun Star, school website, SARC, Special Ed. Dept., counseling, student planner, coaches/advisors minutes, IMPACT grant

Parents and community members are involved in many aspects of student 's support at LGHS such as: Homecoming Week, Every 15 Minutes, Kaiser Secrets, booster fundraiser, chaperones on trips, guest speakers, Planned Parenthood, senior week, ROP Career Awareness, ROP Portfolio Day, sports and clubs, etc.

LGHS newsletter and website, video documentation, coaches/advisors minutes,

Areas of Strength

• Parent Open House/Report Card Night held annually each semester • 10th grade parent conferences • 8th grade orientations and placement testing • Grades posted/updated every 2 weeks on ABI, accessible by parents and students

Areas for Growth

• Better communication with parents to feel more welcome and involved • Teacher introduction via the phone • Increase involvement with low achieving parents

E.2 To what extent is the school a safe, clean, and orderly place that nurtures learning? To what extent is the culture of the school characterized by trust, professionalism, high expectation for all students, and a focus on continuous school improvement?


Findings Evidence Compliant with Williams Act/school improvement such as: school bleacher, schoolwide campus painting, soccer field/track, baseball fields, scoreboards, carpet/flooring, new dining facilities, removed asbestos building, handicap accessible

District records

School Resource Officer and other officers monitor campus during regular school day/events, cell phones used for communication between officer and school admin., school maintains security system, locked gates, video camera system. Explorer Group helps with some extra-curricular activities

Video footage, school records School Safety Plan

Parent/Visitor check in Office sign sheets and procedures Dress code, closed campus, 20/20 rule, restricted campus use during lunch Student planner Areas of Strength

• ASB programs/clubs student directed by students • New construction and renovations on campus • Clean, orderly, safe campus, including facilities, transportation, food services, etc.

Areas for Growth

• Update safety plan and train staff on key elements • Recycling program • Empower students and parents—rigor and high expectations.

E.3 To what extent do all students receive appropriate support along with an individualize learning plan to help ensure academic success?

Findings Evidence Students in appropriate classes through annual assessments such as: 1. Freshmen English/Math Placement Tests 2. Annual English Assessment (EDGE) 3. AP Readiness Test 4. Algebra 2 Placement Test

School calendar, Master Schedule Placement tests and summary scores, Special Ed. Coordinator


5. IEP Offer ROP classes (Computer Applications 2, Horticulture, Foundations in Education, Marketing, Health Occupations, Auto Service, Computer Systems, Agriculture Communications

Course descriptions and master schedule

After school program (IMPACT) After school records Migrant Program Migrant coordinator records Support for EL Students LEA Plan/Title III Plan Alternative Education Programs for students who are deficient in credits or off track due to circumstances

Summer School Independent Study Granada High School

AP classes for enrichment and rigor and the AVID Program to assist college preparation, acceptance and success

Master schedule

Areas of Strength

• Placement of students based on experience and academic abilities • Counseling, parent meetings, and four-year planning • Enrichment opportunities for advanced students and potentially advanced students

Areas for Growth

• More focus/rigor for higher achieving students • High expectations and support for all students • Continue growth of IMPACT, after school program

E.4 To what extent do students have access to a system of personal support services, activities and opportunities at the school and within the community?

Findings Evidence After School Program (IMPACT), various athletic teams for boys/girls, Cyber High, various school organizations and clubs Strong FFA Program

After school and club records Associated Student Body FFA State and Local News Publications


Las Monarcas, Le Grand/Planada Community Day, youth groups, Tri-City for athletics, student counselors

Community calendar and fliers

Counseling department and/or school psychologist and supporting resources

school records

Substance abuse prevention and counseling services, drug and alcohol counseling, presentation of "Secrets" for sex education and disease prevention for teens.

School calendar, Every Fifteen Minutes, Assemblies, Alcohol Awareness

Areas of Strength

• Trained personnel are available to meet individual student needs • Diverse clubs/organizations to meet individual student interests

Areas for Growth

• More clubs and/or more encouragement to be actively involved in extra curricular activities • Lack of county services available to students in rural areas due to budget cuts • More participation and involvement in ROP Classes

Summary of Findings Despite recent local and state budget constraints, Le Grand High School continues to strive to be closely linked and committed to improvement with parents, local organizations, and businesses. A variety of procedures, programs, and organizations are in place that makes the school a secure environment for student learning. In addition, we recently were awarded a five year after school grant to extend learning and have exposure to extra-curricular activities to develop well-rounded individuals. The result is a school wide culture of inclusion, mentoring, and achievement for all students. Le Grand will continue to improve and reassess its approach to students learning by making the needed adjustments and changes to meet the goals for student achievement. Some areas of concern are our English Learner student population and a focus on the male academic achievement across all sub-groups. All facets of communication are still an area of focus and concern that Le Grand High School continues to work and strive to perfect. A concerted effort is ongoing to provide a safe, clean and orderly environment for learning, along with mutual respect for high expectations and continual improvement.


The Self Study Process and Participants - EdlThe Self Study Process and Participants 2009 WASC/CDE Self Study Process and Procedure The Le Grand High School, LGHS, self-study followed

Documents