Comprehensive Needs Assessment

(Wagstaff 2002, p.97). Students may be socio-economically disadvantaged and the teachers must remember that poverty is in no way a deficit; merely that they may not have the same level of resources or exposure to educational experiences as more advantaged students (Groundwater-Smith,S., Le Cornu, R. & Ewing, R

According to Table 1.2, the following categories fell within close range to the mean: number sense, attends to print, basic reading, articulation, communication (receptive), matching, pre-writing, colors, and shapes. It is evident through this data analysis that most students are at the emerging stage of ability levels, implicating that they require some level of prompting to ensure they produce a correct response. It is concluded that students require continued instruction with addition, reading, and working independently are skills that require continued instruction. Division, multiplication, graphing, and telling time were areas that all students found to be the most challenging, thus these findings confirmed my original assumptions,

6. After looking at the data, the grade span and population that should be of most concern to the district is grades 3-5 IEP-special education. The reading proficiency decreased from 57.8% to 46.7% and the mathematic proficiency decreased from 70.2% to 54.1%. This data could indicate there was a change in the special education program that is affecting the instruction of the students.

In terms of income many of the students represent an average or below average socioeconomic status where as 26% represent a lower socioeconomic status. There is a 15% portion of students who are classified as having or living with a disability.

Their attendance rate was 96.4% on the school year of 2013 to 2014. On campus they have a 1.8% of African Americans, 49.6% of Hispanic, 46.3% of White, 0.4% of American Indian, 0.6% of Asian, 0.0% of Pacific Islander and a 1.2% of students that belong to two or more races. 73.9% of their students were economically disadvantaged, 34.3% were English Language Learners and 6.9% were Special Education. The mobility rate of the campus on 2013 to 2014 was 21.3%.

Students within LAUSD have restricted access to proper education and lack resources that can allow underprivileged students the access to resources throughout K-12 education that will give students access to proper education under the measurement that they will acquire the same basic education that their wealthier counterparts are acquiring.

The article Majority of Children in US Public Schools are Low-Income written by Suzy Khimm is about the percentage of low-income children in the United States public school system. The Southern Education Foundation reported that in 2013, 51% of the students enrolled in the public schools were low-income. However, not all the children who are considered low-income are living in poverty. For a child to be categorized as low-income, they would have to be qualified for free or reduced price lunch. To be eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, the children’s families would have to live between 130% and 185% of the federal poverty line.

33% of students who are currently on free school meals achieve 5A*-C at GCSE, however 61% of students who are not on free school meals also achieve 5A*-C grades. 90% of the failing school are from deprived areas, and 79% of children from a higher professional family are more likely to go to university, whilst only 15% of children from unskilled and manual backgrounds go to

According to DePaoli (2015), “The academic deficient types of learners are: (1 minorities (2 low income (3 English Language Learners and (4 Special education (DePaoli, et al., 2015) . There is drop-out data that reports percentage points the Rate (AFGR) and the Adjusted Cohort Graduated Rate (ACGR). Further to say, the minority students have made advances however; still shows the need for improvement by the averaged Freshman Graduation Rate, with totals of 75.2 percent and 70.7 percent, correspondingly, lacks behind other subgroups that exceeds the national average of 81.4 percent” (DePaoli, et al al., 2015, p.6). He furthers to say, “the low-income students reach 73.3 percent and up to 3.3 percentage points from 2010-11 but lacks behind 8 percent of the national average of 81.4 percent” (DePaoli, et al., 2015,

Although in the past the biggest cause for unequal opportunities in education has been the gap between different races, recently the gap between income percentiles has affected students substantially. Students go to schools in districts that correlate to the income percentile they are in. Because of this, many students in high-poverty neighborhoods are not given the same amount of time and money as students in upper-class neighborhoods are (Cordes and Miller). This can be seen in a study, conducted in

Statistics-estimated at about 50% free or reduced lunch; 7% homeless; 6% Special education; 18% ELL

Those who are currently teaching are required to take a course called Rethinking Equity and Teaching English Language Learners (RETELL) or Secondary English Language (SEI) course so they can be better prepared to teach the students of other primary languages. The data from the ELL students in the three districts are more dramatic than percentages of students with disabilities. Compared to Norwood and Brockton’s ELL student population, Monson only had 7 ELL students in their district in 2016. When comparing the ELA, math, and science scores for all three towns, Monson didn’t even have sufficient data to record. Norwood and Brockton however, had interesting data to compare. In ELA, Norwood scored higher than Brockton with a percentage of 41 and Brockton at 13 percent for students who performed with high proficiency. In math, Norwood had a 40 percent higher academic standing, whereas Brockton only had 15 percent. Both Monson and Brockton ELL students performed below the achievement gap goal with negative scores. Norwood, however, performed above the state level for all three subjects. There was no data found in the scoring of ELL students in Monson for MCAS scores. Out of the 5th grade ELL students in Norwood, who participated in the MCAS, 6 scored in above average, 31 percent scored in proficient, 50 percent scored needs improvement, and 13 percent scored as failing.

When analyzing the reading scores within the state of Kansas I found that overall the students are passing with at least 85% of the students tested are at or above the standards. It seems Kansas is not meeting its levels within its racial divides though. Almost 16% of African-American students are not meeting any standards in the reading level but only 3.3% of Kansas white students are failing. These statistics do not completely match up with the economically disadvantage students, over.5% of these students are at least meeting the basic requirements asked of them in the 2009 AYP. Students with disabilities who are given the same tests as all students are also falling below our line of standards.

Davis High School reading and writing report cards for the years 2011 to 2014 show a decrease in the percentage of students meeting the

In addition, students achievement needs are not met especially the sp. ed. and ESL student whose academic levels fall below average students. Some students basic language foundation were not met for whatever reason, thus they are performing two or three grade levels below their actual grade.