Executive Summary School Accountability Report Card, 2010–11


For Nesbit Elementary

Address: 500 Biddulph Way, Belmont, CA, 94002-2711 Phone: (650) 637-4860
Principal: Robin Pang-Maganaris, Principal Grade Span: K-5

This executive summary of the School Accountability Report Card (SARC) is intended to provide parents and community members with a quick snapshot of information related to individual public schools. Most data presented in this report are reported for the 2010–11 school year. School finances and school completion data are reported for the 2009–10 school year. Contact information, facilities, curriculum and instructional materials, and select teacher data are reported for the 2011–12 school year. For additional information about the school, parents and community members should review the entire SARC or contact the school principal or the district office.

About This School

Nesbit Elementary was recognized as a California Distinguished School in 2008. It is a neighborhood K-5 school located near Hwy 101 and El Camino Real. The school campus is nestled in a park like setting with large athletic fields for community use.

The diverse student population of 313 is made up of families from Belmont and Redwood Shores. Academic excellence, good character and development of social skills, are all necessary for students to become good citizens in their community. School provides support for reading and English Language Development, and offers after school programs to encourage extensions to learning. Nesbit has a wireless learning lab and library to enhance the development of literacy and provide community learning resources.

Our PTA provides fiscal resources for classroom materials, field trips and assemblies. Our Family Engagement Specialist provides outreach to our parents to become leaders and supporters of the educational process and our teachers promote conflict management skills for effective communication.

The API score for this year (2010-2011) was 843 with 62.7% of our students scoring proficient or advanced in English Language Arts and 70% proficient or advanced in math. 72% of our fifth graders scored proficient or advanced in science.

Student Enrollment

Group Enrollment
Number of students 313
Black or African American 4.2%
American Indian or Alaska Native 0.3%
Asian 17.3%
Filipino 4.8%
Hispanic or Latino 20.8%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 4.5%
White 45.4%
Two or More Races 2.9%
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 5.1%
English Learners 30.4%
Students with Disabilities 0.0%

Teachers

Indicator Teachers
Teachers with full credential
20
Teachers without full credential
0
Teachers Teaching Outside Subject Area of Competence
0
Misassignments of Teachers of English Learners
0
Total Teacher Misassignments
0

Student Performance

Subject Students Proficient and Above on STAR* Program Results
English-Language Arts 62%
Mathematics 70%
Science 72%
History-Social Science N/A
*Standardized Testing and Reporting Program assessments used for accountability purposes include the California Standards Tests, the California Modified Assessment, and the California Alternate Performance Assessment.

Academic Progress*

Indicator Result
2011 Growth API Score (from 2011 Growth API Report)
843
Statewide Rank (from 2010 Base API Report)
7
Met All 2011 AYP Requirements
no
Number of AYP Criteria Met Out of the Total Number of Criteria Possible
Met 8 of 9
2011–12 Program Improvement Status (PI Year)
N/A
*The Academic Performance Index is required under state law. Adequate Yearly Progress is required by federal law.


School Facilities

Summary of Most Recent Site Inspection

Nesbit is in overall good repair.  Minor repairs and corrective actions were taken to improve the overall esthetics of the school or improve safety.  These repairs and actions were taken in consultation with the facilities manager, principal or associate superintendent of facilities.

Repairs Needed

No major repairs were conducted on the campus during the 2010-2011 school year.  However, minor repairs such as painting, changing of light fixtures or bathroom repairs were undertaken as deemed necessary.

Corrective Actions Taken or Planned

No corrective actions were required during the 2010-2011 school year.  The school is intended for remodel during the summer of 2012 during which time new buildings and a covered lunch area will be added to the campus.  Classrooms and multipurpose room will also be refurbished.

Curriculum and Instructional Materials

Core Curriculum Area Pupils Who Lack Textbooks and Instructional Materials
Reading/Language Arts 0%
Mathematics 0%
Science 0%
History-Social Science 0%
Foreign Language N/A
Health 0%
Visual and Performing Arts N/A
Science Laboratory Equipment (grades 9-12) N/A

School Finances

Level Expenditures Per Pupil (Unrestricted Sources Only)
School Site
$7,360
District
$6,801
State
$5,455


School Accountability Report Card


Reported Using Data from the 2010–11 School Year


Published During 2011–12

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.

I. Data and Access

Ed-Data Partnership Web Site

Ed-Data is a partnership of the CDE, EdSource, and the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) that provides extensive financial, demographic, and performance information about California’s public kindergarten through grade twelve school districts and schools.

DataQuest

DataQuest is an online data tool located on the CDE DataQuest Web page at http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/ that contains additional information about this school and comparisons of the school to the district, the county, and the state. Specifically, DataQuest is a dynamic system that provides reports for accountability (e.g., state Academic Performance Index [API], federal Adequate Yearly Progress [AYP]), test data, enrollment, high school graduates, dropouts, course enrollments, staffing, and data regarding English learners.

Internet Access

Internet access is available at public libraries and other locations that are publicly accessible (e.g., the California State Library). Access to the Internet at libraries and public locations is generally provided on a first-come, first-served basis. Other use restrictions may include the hours of operation, the length of time that a workstation may be used (depending on availability), the types of software programs available on a workstation, and the ability to print documents.

II. About This School

Contact Information (School Year 2011–12)

School District
School Name Nesbit Elementary District Name Belmont-Redwood Shores Elementary
Street 500 Biddulph Way Phone Number (650) 637-4800
City, State, Zip Belmont, CA, 94002-2711 Web Site www.brssd.org
Phone Number (650) 637-4860 Superintendent Emerita Orta-Camilleri
Principal Robin Pang-Maganaris, Principal E-mail Address eorta-camilleri@brssd.org
E-mail Address rpang@brssd.org CDS Code 41688666043475

School Description and Mission Statement (School Year 2010–11)

Nesbit School, located in the City of Belmont on the peninsula south of San Francisco, is one of six elementary schools in the Belmont-Redwood Shores School District. Students are promoted to the 6th grade at Ralston Middle School, the only middle school in the District. The Nesbit School community consists of families for whom education is a priority. Nesbit is a hub of the Belmont community.  As such, it is used extensively during non-school hours.  Multiple community organizations such as Little League, AYSO soccer, Girl Scouts, and Boy Scouts use Nesbit as their gathering spot. Families enthusiastically support the Parent Teacher Association, School Site Council and countless volunteer activities and projects. Pride in Nesbit’s distinguished school recognition was reflected from all members of the school community.

Opportunities for Parental Involvement (School Year 2010–11)

  • Book Fair
  • Candy Cane Lane
  • Character Education
  • Classroom field trips (chaperones)
  • Classroom Helpers
  • Classroom supplies
  • Computer education
  • Discovery Day
  • Emergency Preparedness
  • Escrip
  • Family Math
  • 5th grade promotion party
  • Halloween Festival
  • Hot Lunch Program
  • Library Volunteers
  • Parent education
  • Parent Teacher Association
  • Read Across America
  • Red Ribbon Week
  • School Force
  • School Site Council
  • Write a Check Campaign

Student Enrollment by Grade Level (School Year 2010–11)

Grade Level Number of Students Grade Level Number of Students
Kindergarten 63 Grade 8 0
Grade 1 65 Ungraded Elementary 0
Grade 2 60 Grade 9 0
Grade 3 33 Grade 10 0
Grade 4 42 Grade 11 0
Grade 5 50 Grade 12 0
Grade 6 0 Ungraded Secondary 0
Grade 7 0 Total Enrollment 313


Student Enrollment by Subgroup (School Year 2010–11)

Group Percent of Total Enrollment
Black or African American 4.2%
American Indian or Alaska Native 0.3%
Asian 17.3%
Filipino 4.8%
Hispanic or Latino 20.8%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 4.5%
White 45.4%
Two or More Races 2.9%
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 5.1%
English Learners 30.4%
Students with Disabilities 0.0%

Average Class Size and Class Size Distribution (Elementary)

Grade Level Avg. Class Size 2008–09 Number of Classes* Avg. Class Size 2009–10 Number of Classes* Avg. Class Size 2010–11 Number of Classes*
1-20 21-32 33+ 1-20 21-32 33+ 1-20 21-32 33+
K 19.5 8 20.0 9     25.0 0 2 0
1 16.0 3 20.0 2     25.0 2 0 1
2 20.0 2 20.0 2     23.0 1 1 0
3 20.0 2 20.0 2    
4 26.0 1 29.0   1.5   24.0 1 1 0
5 27.0 1 29.0   1.5   28.0 0 2 0
4-5 26.0 1        
* Number of classes indicates how many classes fall into each size category (a range of total students per classroom).

 

III. School Climate

School Safety Plan (School Year 2010–11)

Nesbit School has a Comprehensive School Safety Plan in place, which meets all of the requirements of SB 187. The plan is reviewed annually and updated as needed. The plan includes:

  • Emergency response information
  • School maps
  • Roles of personnel
  • Emergency preparedness guidelines
  • Procedures to follow during specified emergencies
  • A management plan
  • First-aid procedures

Suspensions and Expulsions

Rate* School 2008–09 School 2009–10 School 2010–11 District 2008–09 District 2009–10 District 2010–11
Suspensions 0.00% 1.17% 0.96% 7.28% 3.27% 3.81%
Expulsions 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.04% 0.09% 0.03%
* The rate of suspensions and expulsions is calculated by dividing the total number of incidents by the total enrollment.

IV. School Facilities

School Facility Conditions and Planned Improvements (School Year 2011–12)

Nesbit School remains in good condition with few repairs needed. The district has a long term maintenance rotation to bring the conditions of all facilities in good repair. Grounds were kept neat and well trimmed throughout the year and grass and flowers are watered and maintained weekly.

Age of Buildings:
Nesbit School was built in 1954. There are 21 classrooms, a library, a media center, a resource room, a speech and language room, a music room and a multipurpose room. The school was modernized in 1990 with five portable classrooms installed on campus for pre-school and after school care.

Cleaning Standards:
The District has adopted cleaning standards for each school, and a copy of these is available in the school office. The principal works daily with the custodial staff to develop and implement cleaning practices that ensure a clean and safe school campus.

Maintenance and Repair:
District maintenance staff, assisted if necessary by outside contractors, keep the school in good repair. Work orders are completed in a timely manner, and tracked on a computerized system of record keeping, which allows priority for emergency repairs.

Complaints and Reports of Conditions Requiring Remedy:
The school office offers and receives notices of complaint procedures that follow district policy. Conditions requiring remedy are reported to the office and responded to through the work order process.

School Facility Good Repair Status (School Year 2011–12)

System Inspected Repair Status Repair Needed and Action Taken or Planned
Exemplary Good Fair Poor
Systems: Gas Leaks, Mechanical/HVAC, Sewer
X
Interior: Interior Surfaces
X
Cleanliness: Overall Cleanliness, Pest/ Vermin Infestation
X
Electrical: Electrical
X
Restrooms/Fountains: Restrooms, Sinks/ Fountains
X
Safety: Fire Safety, Hazardous Materials
X
Structural: Structural Damage, Roofs
X
External: Playground/School Grounds, Windows/ Doors/Gates/Fences
X

Repaired / replaced play structure equipment

Overall Rating  
X
Note: Cells shaded in black do not require data.

V. Teachers

Teacher Credentials

Teachers School 2008–09 School 2009–10 School 2010–11 District 2010–11
With Full Credential
23
25
20
148
Without Full Credential
1
0
0
1
Teaching Outside Subject Area of Competence (with full credential)
0
0
0
0

Teacher Misassignments and Vacant Teacher Positions

Indicator 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12
Misassignments of Teachers of English Learners 
0
0
0
Total Teacher Misassignments*
0
0
0
Vacant Teacher Positions
0
0
0
Note: “Misassignments” refers to the number of positions filled by teachers who lack legal authorization to teach that grade level, subject area, student group, etc.

* Total Teacher Misassignments includes the number of Misassignments of Teachers of English Learners.

Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers (School Year 2010–11)

The Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), also known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), requires that core academic subjects be taught by Highly Qualified Teachers, defined as having at least a bachelor’s degree, an appropriate California teaching credential, and demonstrated core academic subject area competence. For more information, see the CDE Improving Teacher and Principal Quality Web page at: http://www.cde.ca.gov/nclb/sr/tq/
Location of Classes Percent of Classes In Core Academic Subjects Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers Percent of Classes In Core Academic Subjects Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers
This School  100% 0%
All Schools in District 99% 1%
High-Poverty Schools in District N/A N/A
Low-Poverty Schools in District 100% 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 25 percent or less in the free and reduced price meals program.

VI. Support Staff

Academic Counselors and Other Support Staff (School Year 2010–11)

Title Number of FTE* Assigned to School Average Number of Students per Academic Counselor
Academic Counselor
0
 N/A
Counselor (Social/Behavioral or Career Development)
0
Library Media Teacher (librarian)
.5
Library Media Services Staff (paraprofessional)
0
Psychologist
.5
Family Engagement Specialist
.5
Nurse
1.0 District
Speech/Language/Hearing Specialist
1.0
Resource Specialist (non-teaching) 
0
Resource Specialist
1.0
English Language Development Specialist
1.0
Note: Cells shaded in black 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.

VII. Curriculum and Instructional Materials

Quality, Currency, Availability of Textbooks and Instructional Materials (School Year 2011–12)

This section describes whether the textbooks and instructional materials used at the school are from the most recent adoption; whether there are sufficient textbooks and instruction materials for each student; and information about the school’s use of any supplemental curriculum or non-adopted textbooks or instructional materials.
Year and month in which data were collected: __November 2011___
Core Curriculum Area Textbooks and instructional materials/year of adoption From most recent adoption? Percent students lacking own assigned copy
Reading/Language Arts Houghton Mifflin:  Reading / 2002-2003 No 0%
Mathematics McGraw Hill: Everyday Mathematics / 2008-2009 Yes 0%
Science Delta Education:
Full Option Science System
for Kindergarten through 5th grade
/ 2007-2008		 Yes 0%
History-Social Science Grades K-5: Pearson Scott Foresman: Scott Foresman History/Social Science for California
/ 2007-2008		 Yes 0%
Foreign Language N/A N/A N/A
Health

Grades K-5:
Children’s Health Market: Great Body Shop
/ 2011-2012

Plus materials from the American Heart Association and the National Dairy Council

 Yes 0%
Visual and Performing Arts N/A N/A N/A
Science Laboratory Equipment (grades 9-12) N/A N/A N/A


VIII. School Finances

Expenditures Per Pupil and School Site Teacher Salaries (Fiscal Year 2009–10)

Level Total Expenditures Per Pupil Expenditures Per Pupil (Supplemental / Restricted) Expenditures Per Pupil (Basic / Unrestricted) Average Teacher Salary
School Site
$8,684
$1,324
$7,360
$83,032
District
$6,801
$83,710
Percent Difference – School Site and District

8% (more)

108% of District

-.81% (less)

99.19% of District

State
$5,455
$65,524
Percent Difference – School Site and State

35% (more)

135% of State

27% (more)

127% of State

Note: Cells shaded in black do not require data.

Supplemental/Restricted expenditures come from money whose use is controlled by law or by a donor. Money that is designated for specific purposes by the district or governing board is not considered restricted. Basic/unrestricted expenditures are from money whose use, except for general guidelines, is not controlled by law or by a donor.

For detailed information on school expenditures for all districts in California, see the CDE Current Expense of Education & Per-pupil Spending Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/ec/. For information on teacher salaries for all districts in California, see the CDE Certificated Salaries & Benefits Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/cs/. To look up expenditures and salaries for a specific school district, see the Ed-Data Web site at: http://www.ed-data.org.

Types of Services Funded (Fiscal Year 2010–11)

  • Regular Education
  • After School Sports
  • Class Size Reduction
  • Guidance Counselor
  • Homework Centers
  • Local Grants
  • Music
  • Outdoor Education
  • Science & Reading Specialists
  • Summer School
    (Special Ed only)
  • School Force
Special Programs
  • Art Programs
  • Home to School Transportation
    (Special Ed. only)
  • County Sp Ed
  • Psychologists
  • Speech
  • SP Ed IDEA
  • RSP, SDC, NPS & Learning Centers
  • Teachers
  • Classified Staff
  • Benefits
  • Books & Supplies
  • Drug Free/Title IV
  • Equipment
  • Routine Repairs and Maintenance
  • Teacher Quality
  • Title I
  • Title II
  • Title III
  • Title III not LEA
  • Title V
  • Supplemental Counseling
  • Peer Assistance & Review (PAR)
  • Math & Reading
  • Math & Reading EL
  • School Safety Violence Prevention
  • Admin Training Program
  • National Board Certified Teachers
  • BTSA
  • Staff Professional Development
  • Arts Block Grant and Music Block Grant
  • Library Services
  • Economic Impact Aid (EIA)
  • English Language Acquisition Program (ELAP)
  • Ed. Technology
  • Gifted And Talented Education (GATE)
  • Instructional Materials for Realignment Program (IMFRP)
  • Lottery Prop 20
  • Oracle Grant
  • School Improvement Library Program (SLIP)
  • Tobacco Use Preventions Education (TUPE)
  • Tolerance Ed
  • Targeted Instructional Improvement Grant (TIIG)

Teacher and Administrative Salaries (Fiscal Year 2009–10)

Category District Amount State Average For Districts In Same Category
Beginning Teacher Salary $46,668 $41,183
Mid-Range Teacher Salary $68,795 $63,647
Highest Teacher Salary $88,854 $80,955
Average Principal Salary (Elementary) $121,644 $102,400
Average Principal Salary (Middle) $127,566 $106,158
Average Principal Salary (High) N/A $124,133
Superintendent Salary $169,596 $151,742
Percent of Budget for Teacher Salaries 43.00% 41.00%
Percent of Budget for Administrative Salaries 8.00% 6.00%
Note: For detailed information on salaries, see the CDE Certificated Salaries & Benefits Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/cs/.

IX. Student Performance

Standardized Testing and Reporting Program

The Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program consists of several key components, including:

The assessments under the STAR Program show how well students are doing in relation to the state content standards. On each of these assessments, student scores are reported as performance levels.

For detailed information regarding the STAR Program results for each grade and performance level, including the percent of students not tested, see the CDE STAR Results Web site at http://star.cde.ca.gov.

Standardized Testing and Reporting Results for All Students – Three-Year Comparison

Subject Percent of Students Scoring at Proficient or Advanced (meeting or exceeding the state standards)
School District State
2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11
English-Language Arts 59% 59% 62% 79% 80% 81% 50% 52% 54%
Mathematics 67% 70% 70% 77% 80% 79% 46% 48% 50%
Science 71% 72% 72% 82% 86% 88% 50% 53% 56%
History-Social Science N/A N/A N/A 64% 70% 77% 41% 44% 48%
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 by Student Group – Most Recent Year
*Subgroup data is being recalculated and results will be available March 2012.

Group Percent of Students Scoring at Proficient or Advanced
English- Language Arts Mathematics Science History- Social Science
All Students in the LEA 81% 79% 88% 77%
All Students at the School 62% 70% 72% 0%
Male 57% 70% 91% 0%
Female 68% 71% 50% 0%
Black or African American 0% 0% 0% 0%
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian 87% 87% 0% 0%
Filipino 64% 10% 0% 0%
Hispanic or Latino 51% 47% 0% 0%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0% 0% 0% 0%
White 62% 78% 79% 0%
Two or More Races 0% 0% 0% 0%
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 41% 52% 0% 0%
English Learners* -- -- -- --
Students with Disabilities 58% 58% 0% 0%
Students Receiving Migrant Education Services
Note: Scores are not shown when the number of students tested is ten or less, either because the number of students in this category is too small for statistical accuracy or to protect student privacy.

California Physical Fitness Test Results (School Year 2010–11)

The California Physical Fitness Test (PFT) is administered to students in grades five, seven, and nine only. This table displays by grade level the percent of students meeting the fitness standards for the most recent testing period. For detailed information regarding this test, and comparisons of a school’s test results to the district and state, see the CDE PFT Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/pf/.
Grade Level Percent of Students Meeting Fitness Standards
Four of Six Standards Five of Six Standards Six of Six Standards
5
12.0%
38.0%
36.0%
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.

X. Accountability

Academic Performance Index

The Academic Performance Index (API) is an annual measure of state academic performance and progress of schools in California. API scores range from 200 to 1,000, with a statewide target of 800. For detailed information about the API, see the CDE API Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/.

Academic Performance Index Ranks – Three-Year Comparison

This table displays the school’s statewide and similar schools’ API ranks. The statewide API rank ranges from 1 to 10. A statewide rank of 1 means that the school has an API score in the lowest ten percent of all schools in the state, while a statewide rank of 10 means that the school has an API score in the highest ten percent of all schools in the state.

The similar schools API rank reflects how a school compares to 100 statistically matched “similar schools.” A similar schools rank of 1 means that the school’s academic performance is comparable to the lowest performing ten schools of the 100 similar schools, while a similar schools rank of 10 means that the school’s academic performance is better than at least 90 of the 100 similar schools.
API Rank 2008 2009 2010
Statewide 7 7 7
Similar Schools 5 4 5

Academic Performance Index Growth by Student Group – Three-Year Comparison
*Subgroup data is being recalculated and results will be available March 2012.

Group Actual API Change 2008–09 Actual API Change 2009–10 Actual API Change 2010–11
All Students at the School 24 6 5
Black or African American
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Filipino
Hispanic or Latino
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
White 13 1 -6
Two or More Races N/D
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.

Academic Performance Index Growth by Student Group – 2011 Growth API Comparison

This table displays, by student group, the number of students included in the API and the 2011 Growth API at the school, LEA, and state level.
*Subgroup data is being recalculated and results will be available March 2012.
Group 2011 Growth API
Number of Students School Number of Students LEA Number of Students State
All Students at the School 177 843 2,311 907 4,683,676 778
Black or African American 9 55 801 317,856 696
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 3 33,774 733
Asian 22 939 542 962 398,869 898
Filipino 11 898 86 882 123,245 859
Hispanic or Latino 41 770 231 805 2,406,749 729
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 9 27 829 26,953 764
White 82 859 1,303 909 1,258,831 845
Two or More Races 3 58 941 76,766 836
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 42 770 134 764 2,731,843 726
English Learners* -- -- 658 1,521,844 707
Students with Disabilities 35 738 325 772 521,815 595

Adequate Yearly Progress

The federal ESEA requires that all schools and districts meet the following Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) criteria: For detailed information about AYP, including participation rates and percent proficient results by student group, see the CDE AYP Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/.

Adequate Yearly Progress Overall and by Criteria (School Year 2010–11)

AYP Criteria School District
Made AYP Overall No No
Met Participation Rate - English-Language Arts Yes Yes
Met Participation Rate - Mathematics Yes Yes
Met Percent Proficient - English-Language Arts No No
Met Percent Proficient - Mathematics Yes No
Met API Criteria Yes Yes
Met Graduation Rate N/A N/A

Federal Intervention Program (School Year 2011–12)

Schools and districts receiving federal Title I funding enter Program Improvement (PI) if they do not make AYP for two consecutive years in the same content area (ELA or mathematics) or on the same indicator (API or graduation rate). After entering PI, schools and districts advance to the next level of intervention with each additional year that they do not make AYP. For detailed information about PI identification, see the CDE PI Status Determinations Web page: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/tidetermine.asp.
Indicator School District
Program Improvement Status N/A Not In PI
First Year of Program Improvement N/A N/A
Year in Program Improvement N/A N/A
Number of Schools Currently in Program Improvement 0
Percent of Schools Currently in Program Improvement 0.0%
Note: Cells shaded in black do not require data.

XI. School Completion and Postsecondary Preparation

N/A Nesbit is an elementary school.

XII. Instructional Planning and Scheduling

Professional Development

This section provides information on the annual number of school days dedicated to staff development for the most recent three-year period.

2008-2009: 2 days dedicated to staff development
2009-2010: 1 day dedicated to staff development
2010-2011: 2 days dedicated to staff development

Staff development activities are determined through a process which begins with the staff identifying needs that are related to the goals identified in the Single Plan for Student Achievement. District-wide
needs identified through the Strategic Plan process are also incorporated into the plans for staff development. The calendar and topics for staff development conducted on non-student days are identified in the Single Plan for Student Achievement each year. Nesbit School’s teachers participate in two days of staff development before the students return to school. One additional staff development day was conducted during the school year. Students are dismissed early on Wednesdays to provide teachers with opportunities for collaborative planning, grade level articulation, and other training.

During staff development times, teachers received training in:

  • English Language Arts
  • Mathematics
  • Grade Level Teaming
  • Curriculum Planning for the Year
  • Special Education
  • Curriculum and Instructional Practices
  • Standards and Assessment
Individual staff members also participated in off-site workshops and training of their choice in order to keep abreast of educational research and increase knowledge and skill in curricular areas.

 
Nesbit Elementary   School Accountability Report Card, 2010-2011
Belmont-Redwood Shores Elementary   Provided by the Ed-Data Partnership
Prepared by PowerTurn, Inc.   For more information visit www.ed-data.org