John Sinnott Elementary California Department of Education

School Accountability Report Card Reported Using Data from the 2013–14 School Year Published During 2014–15

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

For more information about SARC requirements, see the California Department of Education (CDE) SARC Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/sa/.

➢

View this SARC online at the school and/or LEA Web sites.

➢

For more information about the LCFF or LCAP, see the CDE LCFF Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/.

➢

For additional information about the school, parents and community members should contact the school principal or the district office.

About This School District Contact Information – Most Recent Year District Name Phone Number Superintendent E-mail Address Web Site

Milpitas Unified School District 408-635-2600 Cary Matsuoka [email protected] www.musd.org

School Contact Information – Most Recent Year School Name Street City, State, Zip Phone Number Principal E-mail Address Web Site County-District-School (CDS) Code

John Sinnott Elementary 2025 Yellowstone Ave. Milpitas, CA, 95035-6951 (408) 635-2674 Mrs. Laurie Armino [email protected] http://sinnott.musd.org/ 43733876047625

School Description and Mission Statement – Most Recent Year John Sinnott Elementary School shares the Milpitas Unified School District (MUSD) vision that every student is valued, challenged, and successful. As outlined in our Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA), our goal is to Close the Achievement Gap while Increasing Academic Achievement for All Students. As a means to achieve this goal, we view our parents and families as our partners in providing our students with the best, well rounded educational program possible. We maintain high expectations and model positive performance, guiding students to become life long learners who will be successful citizens in the 21st century. Sinnott Elementary School opened in the fall of 1968. It is one of nine elementary schools serving students in the city of Milpitas. Sinnott has an enrollment of over 750 students, earning Sinnott the title as the largest elementary school in MUSD. Sinnott is a kindergarten through sixth grade elementary school with an ethnically diverse student population. Sinnott’s outstanding, certificated and classified staff members are collectively committed to working together as a team. Each member supports the District’s vision of “Every Student Valued, Every Student Challenged, Every Student Successful.”, and brings his/her own unique talents and strengths to our school. Sinnott teachers and support staff believe that a strong academic focus, supported by a positive and caring learning environment are essential to our students’ success. Our staff of talented teachers provides high-quality instruction in the classroom, and emphasizes high expectations for all students. We also provide intervention and enrichment opportunities, before and after school tutoring classes, and homework club. We place a strong emphasis on a safe and dynamic environment to meet the effective and cognitive needs of all students. Our school also meets the needs of all students through many special programs including EL primary language support, a Speech and Language Pathologist(SLP), a Science Specialist in grades 4-6, a Physical Education(PE) Instructional Assistant, and Special Education. The staff at Sinnott School believes that all children can learn and be successful. We have a Wildcat Care Card program recognizing positive behavior, Safety Patrol, Peer Tutors, Student Council, and the Order of Distinguished Service (ODS) to encourage students to participate in school-wide community service and develop good citizenship. Students also serve the school as flag monitors, cafeteria helpers, and recycle monitors. Each year the student council leads the school in the Jack Emery Drive; which provides food to Milpitas families in need. In addition, Sinnott students participate in the Trick-or-Treat for UNICEF campaign. The experience empowers students to make a difference in the lives of other children around the world. We are committed to celebrating our diverse student body by developing an inclusive, caring educational community in which all students have the opportunity to achieve their maximum potential. Here at Sinnott, we strive to create a stimulating and challenging learning environment which provides varied approaches to learning. We believe in the utilization of Best Practices. This is done through the incorporation of Brain Compatible Strategies, the Multiple Intelligences, and increasing student engagement by including Qualities of Engaging Student Work (Schleckty). We equip our students to become powerful thinkers, effective communicators, self-directed learners, and responsible citizens. We support developing the whole child by placing significant emphasis on character development and service learning opportunities. A signature practice, Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP), is utilized to make content material comprehensible to EL students as well as students with English as their primary language. The protocol is composed of thirty features grouped into eight main components: Lesson Preparation, Building Background, Comprehensible Input, Strategies, Interaction, Practice/Application, Lesson Delivery, and Review/Assessment. These components emphasize the instructional practices that are critical for second language learners as well as high-quality practices that benefit all students. While walking through classrooms, children can be seen sharing with an "elbow partner", walking the "conga line", or dancing in a "boogie and share" exercise. Technology is one way Sinnott staff integrates instructional practices into the SIOP model and includes Brain Compatible Strategies in the classroom. The implementation of technology is used to develop concepts and help make students’ learning experiences meaningful. Each classroom has access to the Internet. Our computer lab has twentyone networked computers, two networked printers, and an LCD projector. In addition, two Promethean Boards and two Smart Boards were purchased to provide another opportunity for students to access technology and be prepared for the evolving world that we live in. Each classroom has access to chromebook carts as well as 4-5 class chromebooks. We are committed to increasing the technological skills and opportunities for students by continuing our effort to put more technology in the hands of our teachers and students. Our staff goes to great lengths to communicate and share the school goals with our families and community, another signature practice. Sinnott is fortunate to have a partnership with the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) that supports our school in numerous ways to enhance educational experiences. Our PTA provides special programs, assemblies, activities, and fundraising throughout the year. John Sinnott was named a California Distinguished School in the spring of 2014! We welcome the opportunity to showcase the students, staff, and families that work together to make Sinnott a Distinguished School. We anticipate the opportunity to take you on a tour of the Home of the Wildcats!

Student Enrollment by Grade Level (School Year 2013–14) Grade Level Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Ungraded Elementary Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Ungraded Secondary Total Enrollment

Number of Students 93 102 131 117 107 118 93 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 761

Student Enrollment by Student Group (School Year 2013–14) Group Black or African American American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Filipino Hispanic or Latino Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander White Two or More Races Socioeconomically Disadvantaged English Learners Students with Disabilities

Percent of Total Enrollment Less than 1% Less than 1% 58% 11% 13% 1% 11% 5% 21% 37% 5.8%

A. Conditions of Learning State Priority: Basic The SARC provides the following information relevant to the Basic State Priority (Priority 1): 

Degree to which teachers are appropriately assigned and fully credentialed in the subject area and for the pupils they are teaching;



Pupils have access to standards-aligned instructional materials; and



School facilities are maintained in good repair.

Teacher Credentials Teachers With Full Credential Without Full Credential Teaching Outside Subject Area of Competence (with full credential)

School 2012–13 29 0 0

School 2013–14 29 0 0

School 2014–15 30 0

District 2014–15 474 7

0

0

Teacher Misassignments and Vacant Teacher Positions Indicator Misassignments of Teachers of English Learners Total Teacher Misassignments* Vacant Teacher Positions

2012–13

2013–14

0 0 0

0 0 0

2014–15 0 0 0

Note: “Misassignments” refers to the number of positions filled by teachers who lack legal authorization to teach that grade level, subject area, student group, etc. * Total Teacher Misassignments includes the number of Misassignments of Teachers of English Learners.

Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers (School Year 2013–14) Location of Classes This School All Schools in District High-Poverty Schools in District Low-Poverty Schools in District

Percent of Classes In Core Academic Subjects Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers 100% 100% 100% 100%

Percent of Classes In Core Academic Subjects Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers 0 0 0 0

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

Quality, Currency, Availability of Textbooks and Instructional Materials – Most Recent Year Year and month in which data were collected:

Subject

Reading/Language Arts

Mathematics Science

Textbooks and Instructional Materials/year of Adoption California Reading: Student Anthology Houghton Mifflin (Adopted 2003) California Mathematics Macmillan/McGraw Hill (Adopted 2008) California Science

From Most Recent Adoption?

Percent Students Lacking Own Assigned Copy

No

0

Yes

0

Yes

0

History-Social Science

Pearson Scott Foresman (Adopted 2007) Focus on Earth Science Pearson Scott Foresman (Adopted 2007) Reflections California Student Edition Harcourt (adopted 2006)

Yes

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

Health and Wellness Macmillan/McGraw Hill (Adopted 2006)

Yes

0

Visual and Performing Arts

N/A

N/A

N/A

Science Laboratory Equipment (grades 9-12)

N/A

N/A

N/A

Foreign Language Health

School Facility Conditions and Planned Improvements – Most Recent Year Sinnott School facilities are in good repair. Long-term maintenance needs have been prioritized and repaired on a scheduled monthly basis. Safety hazards are given highest priority. Sinnott was recently renovated during the summer of 2014. Included in this renovation was the creation of a new Learning Lab. Also included in the renovation were two new portable classrooms, a shade area and fencing in the kindergarten area, new carpet in all rooms, and updated HVAC. Sinnott received improvements to its campus on Beautification Day in October of 2008. The event was made possible by a grant from Allied Waste. In addition, irrigation was provided and installed by Chevron. Projects included installing over 4,000 square feet of sod to the school's courtyard, putting mulch in the flower beds, planting over 50 plants, new trees, spreading fibar (woodchips) in both of Sinnott's playgrounds, in addition to cleaning the entire surrounding fence line of tree debris. The school garden was cleared of the overgrown weeds that prevented students from using the garden. As a result, Sinnott School shines brighter than ever! Per Education Code Section 17592.72 (c), Sinnott Elementary School has been evaluated and there are no emergency facilities needs.

School Facility Good Repair Status – Most Recent Year Using the most recent FIT data (or equivalent), provide the following:  Determination of repair status for systems listed  Description of any needed maintenance to ensure good repair  The year and month in which the data were collected  The overall rating

System Inspected Good Systems: Gas Leaks, Mechanical/HVAC, Sewer Interior: Interior Surfaces Cleanliness: Overall Cleanliness, Pest/ Vermin Infestation Electrical: Electrical Restrooms/Fountains: Restrooms, Sinks/ Fountains

X X X X X

Fair

Repair Needed and Action Taken or Planned Poor HVAC System on Portables Replaced August 2014

Safety: Fire Safety, Hazardous Materials Structural: Structural Damage, Roofs External: Playground/School Grounds, Windows/ Doors/Gates/Fences

X X X

Overall Facility Rate – Most Recent Year Exemplary

Overall Rating

Good X

Fair

Poor

B. Pupil Outcomes State Priority: Pupil Achievement The SARC provides the following information relevant to the Pupil Achievement State Priority (Priority 4): 

Statewide assessments (i.e., California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress and its successor the Standardized Testing and Reporting Program);



The Academic Performance Index; and



The percentage of pupils who have successfully completed courses that satisfy the requirements for entrance to the University of California and the California State University, or career technical education sequences or programs of study.

California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress/ Standardized Testing and Reporting Results for All Students in Science – Three-Year Comparison Subject

Science (grades 5, 8, and 10)

Percent of Students Scoring at Proficient or Advanced (meeting or exceeding the state standards) School District State 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 85%

87%

85%

76%

42%

73%

60%

59%

61%

Note: Science assessments include California Standards Tests (CSTs), California Modified Assessment (CMA), and California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA). Note: Scores are not shown when the number of students tested is ten or less, either because the number of students in this category is too small for statistical accuracy or to protect student privacy.

California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress Results by Student Group in Science (School Year 2013–14) Percent of Students Scoring at Proficient or Advanced

Group All Students in the LEA All Students at the School Male Female Black or African American

73% 85% 84% 86%

American Indian or Alaska Native

88% 80% 64%

Asian Filipino Hispanic or Latino Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

94%

White Two or More Races

67% 50%

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged English Learners Students with Disabilities Students Receiving Migrant Education Services Note: Science assessments include CSTs, CMA, and CAPA in grades 5, 8, and 10.

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

Standardized Testing and Reporting Results for All Students – Three-Year Comparison Percent of Students Scoring at Proficient or Advanced (meeting or exceeding the state standards) School District State 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13

Subject

English-Language Arts Mathematics History-Social Science

74%

79%

80%

84%

85%

87%

66%

66%

66%

54%

56%

55%

64% 62%

64% 62%

64% 62%

49% 48%

50% 49%

50% 49%

Note: STAR Program was last administered in 2012–13. Percentages are not calculated when the number of students tested is ten or less, either because the number of students in this category is too small for statistical accuracy or to protect student privacy.

Academic Performance Index Ranks – Three-Year Comparison API Rank Statewide Similar Schools

2010–11

2011–12

2012–13

9 2

9 4

10 6

Note: For 2014 and subsequent years, the statewide and similar schools ranks will no longer be produced.

Academic Performance Index Growth by Student Group – Three-Year Comparison Group All Students at the School

Actual API Change 2010–11

Actual API Change 2011–12

Actual API Change 2012–13

10

16

13

0

4

8

29 21

12 11

38 9

Black or African American American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Filipino Hispanic or Latino Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander White Two or More Races Socioeconomically Disadvantaged English Learners Students with Disabilities Note: "N/D” means that no data were available to the CDE or LEA to report. “B” means the school did not have a valid API Base and there is no Growth or target information. “C” means the school had significant demographic changes and there is no Growth or target information.

Career Technical Education Programs (School Year 2013–14) 

N/A

Career Technical Education Participation (School Year 2013–14) Measure Number of pupils participating in CTE Percent of pupils completing a CTE program and earning a high school diploma Percent of CTE courses sequenced or articulated between the school and institutions of postsecondary education

CTE Program Participation N/A N/A N/A

Courses for University of California and/or California State University Admission UC/CSU Course Measure 2013–14 Students Enrolled in Courses Required for UC/CSU Admission 2012–13 Graduates Who Completed All Courses Required for UC/CSU Admission

Percent N/A N/A

State Priority: Other Pupil Outcomes The SARC provides the following information relevant to the Other Pupil Outcomes State Priority (Priority 8):



Pupil outcomes in the subject areas of English, mathematics, and physical education.

 

California High School Exit Examination Results for All Grade Ten Students – Three-Year Comparison (if applicable) Subject

English-Language Arts Mathematics

Percent of Students Scoring at Proficient or Advanced School District State 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 N/A N/A 71% 71% 67% 57% 58% 56% N/A N/A N/A N/A 67% 76% 75% 56% 60% 62%

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

California High School Exit Examination Grade Ten Results by Student Group (School Year 2013–14) (if applicable) Group All Students in the LEA All Students at the School Male Female Black or African American American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Filipino Hispanic or Latino Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander White Two or More Races Socioeconomically Disadvantaged English Learners Students with Disabilities Students Receiving Migrant Education Services

English-Language Arts Percent Percent Percent Not Proficient Advanced Proficient

Mathematics Percent Not Proficient

Percent Proficient

Percent Advanced

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

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

California Physical Fitness Test Results (School Year 2013–14) Percent of Students Meeting Four of Six Fitness Standards 23.1% N/A N/A

Grade Level 5 7 9

Percent of Students Meeting Five of Six Fitness Standards 24.8% N/A N/A

Percent of Students Meeting Six of Six Fitness Standards 33.1% N/A N/A

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

C. Engagement State Priority: Parental Involvement The SARC provides the following information relevant to the Parental Involvement State Priority (Priority 3):



Efforts the school district makes to seek parent input in making decisions for the school district and each schoolsite.

Opportunities for Parental Involvement – Most Recent Year The staff at Sinnott Elementary goes to great lengths to communicate and share our school goals with our families and the community. Our goal is to create a partnership with parents and families to successfully support students both at school and at home. Our classrooms utilize parent volunteers in a variety of ways, including student tutoring, art projects, music, and reading. Parents are active participants on School Site Council, the English Language Advisory Committee (ELAC), District ELAC, the District Community Board Advisory Committee (CBAC), and in setting policies for our various programs. Sinnott is fortunate to have a partnership with the PTA that provides our school with activities, materials, and volunteers to enhance educational experiences. Our PTA is very involved with our staff and students; they provide special programs, assemblies, activities, and fundraising throughout the year. We are thrilled to share that we are seeing a growing number of parents/guardians participating in the monthly Principal’s Chat, an informal opportunity for our families to discuss school events/practices with the Principal. Sinnott parents regularly volunteer for special school projects. Our online virtual PTA website establishes outreach to busy parents who might not otherwise be able to participate. Included on the virtual website are class pages with class schedules, homework assignments, and upcoming classroom events and projects. With Sinnott’s strong community support, our parents/guardians have become our partners in education. We look forward to this continued relationship for years to come.

State Priority: Pupil Engagement The SARC provides the following information relevant to the Pupil Engagement State Priority (Priority 5): 

High school dropout rates; and



High school graduation rates.

Dropout Rate and Graduation Rate (Four-Year Cohort Rate) Indicator Dropout Rate Graduation Rate

School District State 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 N/A N/A N/A 8.8% 7.1% 5.3% 14.7% 13.1% 11.4% N/A

N/A

N/A

89.4%

91.7%

92.8%

76.2%

76.7%

80.4%

Completion of High School Graduation Requirements – Graduating Class of 2013 Group

School N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

All Students Black or African American American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Filipino Hispanic or Latino Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander White Two or More Races Socioeconomically Disadvantaged English Learners

N/A

Students with Disabilities

N/A

District 772 31 1 309 177 145 12 76 21

State 422,177 27,072 2,999 41,897 13,186 199,033 2,584 125,499 7,976

State Priority: School Climate The SARC provides the following information relevant to the School Climate State Priority (Priority 6): 

Pupil suspension rates;



Pupil expulsion rates; and



Other local measures on the sense of safety.

Suspensions and Expulsions Rate Suspensions Expulsions

School District State 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 .4 5.7 5.1 3.6 .7 5.2 3.9 2.7 4.4

0

0

0

.2

.02

0

.1

.1

.1

School Safety Plan – Most Recent Year The district believes in a comprehensive safety program designed to ensure the health and security of all students and staff. It consists of a wide variety of site drills designed to meet a number of emergency situations that might arise. All school sites regularly practice fire, drop and cover (earthquake), intruder and triage drills. There are established committees at all sites and levels to review safety procedures, correct any problems that may exist and expand the Districts capacity to deliver services when and where needed. The District conducts safety inspections at all schools and other district owned properties on a regular basis. In addition, the district safety officer conducts quarterly safety meetings with site safety officers. The safety officer and other qualified personnel conduct or coordinate trainings in CPR, First-Aid, and triage, and monitor all site safety drills. All school sites have designated staff members that are trained in Advanced First Aid and equipped with safety kits to care for students and staff in the case of an emergency. The District and the Milpitas Police, Fire, and Office of Emergency Services work cooperatively on a continuous basis in the coordination of city and district personnel and services in the area of school safety. Through the coordinated efforts of the District and City Agencies, a joint City/School disaster drill is held at one of the districts nine elementary and two middle schools on an annual basis. In addition, the District is an active member in the City's Emergency Preparedness Commission. The District has revised its Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) procedures. A trained district crisis assistance response team has been established to provide site support and district coordination in the event of an emergency

D. Other SARC Information The information in this section is required to be in the SARC but is not included in the state priorities for LCFF.

Adequate Yearly Progress Overall and by Criteria (School Year 2013–14) AYP Criteria Made AYP Overall Met Participation Rate - English-Language Arts

School N/A N/A

Met Participation Rate - Mathematics

N/A

Met Percent Proficient - English-Language Arts

N/A

Met Percent Proficient - Mathematics

N/A

Met Graduation Rate

N/A

District No

Yes Yes No No Yes

Federal Intervention Program (School Year 2014–15) Indicator Program Improvement Status

School No N/A

First Year of Program Improvement Year in Program Improvement* Number of Schools Currently in Program Improvement Percent of Schools Currently in Program Improvement

District

N/A

Yes Year 3 Year 3

N/A N/A

4 31%

Note: Cells with NA values do not require data. * DW (determination waiver) indicates that the PI status of the school was carried over from the prior year in accordance with the flexibility granted through the federal waiver process.

Average Class Size and Class Size Distribution (Elementary) Avg. Grade Class Level Size K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Other

32.0 23.5 21.8 29.8 33.0 33.0 32.7

2011–12 Number of Classes* 1-20 21-32 33+ 0 2 1 1 3 0 1 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 1 2

Avg. Class Size 27.0 17.0 18.0 26.0 30.0 24.0 24.0

2012–13 Number of Classes* 1-20 21-32 33+ 3 3 4 2 4 1 3 3 1 2 2 1 3

Avg. Class Size 31.0 20.0 19.0 20.0 14.0 24.0 31.0

2013–14 Number of Classes* 1-20 21-32 33+ 3 1 4 2 5 2 4 5 1 2 1 4 3

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

Average Class Size and Class Size Distribution (Secondary) Subject English

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 Avg. Avg. Avg. Class Number of Classes* Class Number of Classes* Class Number of Classes* Size 1-22 23-32 33+ Size 1-22 23-32 33+ Size 1-22 23-32 33+ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Mathematics Science Social Science

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

* Number of classes indicates how many classrooms fall into each size category (a range of total students per classroom). At the secondary school level, this information is reported by subject area rather than grade level.

Academic Counselors and Other Support Staff (School Year 2013–14) Number of FTE* Assigned to School

Title

Average Number of Students per Academic Counselor

0

Academic Counselor Counselor (Social/Behavioral or Career Development) Library Media Teacher (librarian) Library Media Services Staff (paraprofessional) Psychologist Social Worker Nurse Speech/Language/Hearing Specialist Resource Specialist (non-teaching) Other

.4

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

.6 0 .3 health clerk 1 1 0

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

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

Expenditures Per Pupil and School Site Teacher Salaries (Fiscal Year 2012–13) Level School Site District Percent Difference – School Site and District State Percent Difference – School Site and State

3,121 N/A

Expenditures Per Pupil (Supplemental/ Restricted) 35 N/A

Expenditures Per Pupil (Basic/ Unrestricted) 3,086 3,628

N/A

N/A

.8%

.9%

N/A

N/A

4,690

67,762

N/A

N/A

.7%

1%

Total Expenditures Per Pupil

Average Teacher Salary 72,276 77,522

Note: Cells with N/A values do not require data.

Types of Services Funded (Fiscal Year 2013–14) Sinnott school receives funding from the District general fund for operational expenses, which include everything from custodial supplies to intervention programs. The purpose of these funds is to improve the quality of education and school life for every student at Sinnott Elementary School. We use the funds to support our academic programs, enhance our library, support our gifted students, support English language development for our English Learners, provide instructional programs, supplemental support, intervention programs, and to provide supplies for students. The funding for our English Language Learners goes towards supplemental materials, curriculum, technology, and an

afterschool intervention/enrichment program called XCEL. The Sinnott PTA sponsors fund raisers each school year to assist our teachers with classroom resources, field trips, school wide assemblies, enrichment activities and supplies, family events and welcome events for new families.

Teacher and Administrative Salaries (Fiscal Year 2012–13) District Amount

Category Beginning Teacher Salary Mid-Range Teacher Salary Highest Teacher Salary Average Principal Salary (Elementary) Average Principal Salary (Middle) Average Principal Salary (High) Superintendent Salary Percent of Budget for Teacher Salaries Percent of Budget for Administrative Salaries

50,014 76,321 93,691 114,984 128,293 137,346 210,528 44.0% 7.0%

State Average For Districts In Same Category 41,243 64,891 83,507 103,404 109,964 120,078 183,557 40% 6.0%

For detailed information on salaries, see the CDE Certificated Salaries & Benefits Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/cs/.

Advanced Placement Courses (School Year 2013–14) Subject Computer Science English Fine and Performing Arts Foreign Language Mathematics Science Social Science All courses

Number of AP Courses Offered* N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Percent of Students In AP Courses N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Note: Cells with N/A values do not require data. * Where there are student course enrollments.

Professional Development – Most Recent Three Years The Sinnott staff utilizes monthly staff meetings, monthly grade level meetings, and three staff development days per year to collaborate in teams to develop skills and reflect on teaching strategies and methodologies. Sinnott’s Professional Development Plan is tailored to students’ needs and guided by our Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA). Decisions concerning teacher training are determined by our SPSA goals. Staff development is ongoing; teachers consistently improve their skills in order to provide the best possible educational program. This school year, our school will focus on English Language Arts (ELA), specifically looking at text complexity. Leadership at Sinnott is a shared responsibility. Sinnott staff is constantly evaluating new and innovative strategies to assist students in attaining district and state standards. Staff collaboration and shared responsibility motivates our team to encourage students to develop a life-long love for learning. The principal provides direction, organizational expertise, motivation, support and management of resources, and serves as the unifying force of the school community. One of our most valuable trainings has been to analyze our iReady scores by grade level and subgroups, and plan strategies for teaching. Teachers also analyze student’s individual scores to plan for differentiated instruction based on each student’s individual needs. In addition, the staff analyzes benchmark data to further guide instruction. Benchmark information is utilized both as summative and formative data.