Naco Elementary District

We will be running Summer school each year with 8-10 teachers in the future, 8 this summer, 4-6 Paraprofessionals, 5 this past summer and Tech support, cafeteria workers and a custodian to clean up as well as office support and Administrator and SRO officer to help keep everyone safe. The total estimated cost for 3 years of summer school is $49,806.00 and the total mandatory benefits paid for is $ 9,961.20 for a grand total of $59,767.20. This past summer we had 10 days of summer school spread over 4 hours each day and in a 3-week time period because of holidays. we emphasized our ELL and Special education students. Our students are from an extremely rural area, high poverty with about 95% free and reduced rate and we have over 65% of our students in ELL and almost everyone else has tested out of ELL and is bi-lingual. We plan to use a few programs and curriculums to help our students reduce the educational learning gap that exists today.

Evidence Based Programs and Curriculum for our students will be as follows, please note the Evidence based information that has been bolded for easier to find access.
The two programs we will use are Moby Max for use with ELA and Math skill improvement and the Lexia program to help with vocabulary building and English language skills. The State of Arizona has them are on the ADE approved list of evidence based programs as per the link below: https://www.azed.gov/improvement/evidence-based-practices/
We will also be using a new Phonics program this year, it is new to us, but not new to the Phonics world. It is Saxon Phonics, we like it because not only is it research based but it is very scripted so in adding a new program for both new and very experienced teachers they are all able to begin using it and we have already been able to observe growth and improvement in our younger students' ability phonetically to sound out words, spell and we are even noticing deepened vocabulary in just over 3 short weeks. Our staff is very excited and here is the research based information on Saxon Phonics.
Saxon Phonics Studies:
https://rdw.rowan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google...

http://prod-hmhco-vmg-craftcms-public.s3.amazonaws.com/research/Saxon_Ph...

https://www.hmhco.com/research/saxon-phonics-and-spelling-research-found...

all 3 of the above support our use of the program for our students, especially with the students and their backgrounds and struggles that we see coming into our programs.

We also are using the SRA curriculum for our ELL students to allow them to progress at a rate that is beneficial to each individual student and to allow those who want to achieve at a quicker pace to do so. It allows us to have some Individual Educational planning for each of our ELL students while still presenting a solid program for all but weaving in that individual element to help or allow those moving and attaining language at faster pace to do so. Here is multiple studies and different aspects of the SRA program and the evidence based data available for your review. The information is as follows:
SRA:
The National Reading Panel research fully supports the fundamental concepts and instructional design of SRA Reading Laboratory. The report was published in December 2000 by The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development NIH Pub. No.00-4754.

Collins, C. (1991). Reading instruction that increases thinking abilities. Journal of Reading, 34(7), 510-516.
Pressley, M., El-dinary, P.B., Gaskins, I., Schuder, T., Bergman, J., Almasi, J., & Brown, R. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. Elementary School Journal, 92(5), 513-555.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1997). Cognitive strategy instruction in reading. In S. Stahl & D. Hayes (Eds.), Instructional models in reading. (pp.85-107). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
This report includes research documentation that supports the phonics skills and strategies found in the SRA Reading Laboratories. Examples of cited research include:

Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chall, J. (1996a). Learning to read: The great debate (revised, with a new foreword). New York: McGraw Hill.
Ehri, L.C. (1998). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in English. In J.L. Metsala & L.C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy. (pp. 3-40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
This report includes research documentation that supports the vocabulary skills and instructional practices found in the SRA Reading Laboratories. Examples of cited research include, but are not limited to, the following:

Beck, I.L., Perfetti, C.A., & McKeown, M.G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 506-521.
Gipe, J.P., & Arnold, R.D. (1979). Teaching vocabulary through familiar associations and contexts. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11(3), 281-285.
Kameenui, E., Carnine, D., & Freschi, R. (1982) Effects of text construction and instructional procedures for teaching word meanings on comprehension and recall. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(3), 367-388.
McKeown, M.G., Beck, I.L., Omanson, R.C., & Pople, M.T. (1985). Some effects of the nature and frequency of vocabulary instruction on the knowledge and use of words. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(5), 522-535.
This report includes research documentation that supports the fluency instruction and practices found in the SRA Reading Laboratories. Examples of cited research include, but are not limited to, the following:

Biemiller, A. (1977-78). Relationships between oral reading rates for letters, words, and simple text in the development of reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 13, 223-253.
Pinnell, G.S., Pikulski, J.J., Wixson, K.K., Campbell, J.R., Gough, P.B., & Beatty, A.S. (1995). Listening to children read aloud. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
Strecker, S., Roser, N., & Martinez, M. (1998). Toward understanding oral reading fluency. In T. Shanahan & F. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.) Forty-seventh Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. (pp. 295-310). Chicago, IL: The National Reading Conference.
Wagner, R., Torgesen, J. & Rashotte, C. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological processes. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

We are also implementing Reading A-Z for our struggling students and those who need reading materials at varying levels. A-z allows our staff to cover the same story and material with many different reading levels so the children reading at a slightly different level do not need different books. It also allows our staff a great variety of material to try to find something that interests every student.
The below links are from Reading A-Z

https://www.learninga-z.com/site/what-we-do#What-We-Support

https://www.learninga-z.com/site/what-we-do/research-based-instruction.

We will also be supplying an after school program for our students, this year that program will not start until after Parent Teacher Conferences in September. This program will allow for some activity every day, a snack and some tutoring time. we will end each day with a new class ranging from Art, to Music to Dance to Scientific activities. We will offer Chess Club, Guitar, Drawing, Painting, folk Dance, modern dance line just to name a few. The classes will last 3-5 weeks depending on the time needed to give the kids a real taste of the activity to keep them interested but not too long that they get bored. Our activities will alternate on difficulty and number allowed with the hope of getting kids to try many different things. We hope to use local artists and sculptures as well as musicians and artists we have on staff. Having the mix of academics, remediation or acceleration depending on the student and new challenges we cannot offer in school is exciting for our staff and students. At this point we have only been able to use current staff so our added expenses are limited to the hourly pay and extra monies we send in for their FICA, etc. We will also be providing transportation home after our activities to those students who need a ride, one of our many reasons for needed a mini-bus was to help with this transportation home so that we remove any roadblocks we can for them to be able to participate and benefit from our afterschool programming and summer school program. The White Mini-bus is very important because having a licensed bus driver available all the time is not possible and making multiple trips with our older school vehicles that are not very dependable and present safety concerns at times makes this possibility almost impossible and then the numbers are greatly reduced by less parents allowing their kids to be part of our programs. This also goes to why we need the white Mini-bus as any licensed driver can drive that bus and provide transportation to our students.

The Student to Teacher Ration will be 13 to 1, if we have more than 13 students in the room (14-22) we will supply a fulltime Paraprofessional to that classroom.

The frequency of summer school Academic session will be 10 days at 4 hours per day for 3 weeks (One week will be 4 Days)

The subgroups targeted will be our ELL student, our Special Education students and our Title students who need extra time. All students who are performing under grade level will be targeted and those with lower reading levels as well if they are not already included.

Comprehensive After School Program- Academics
We are going to use Lexia & Moby Max and have tutoring time for the Academic portion of our After School Program. The State of Arizona has them are on the ADE approved list of evidence based programs as per the link below: https://www.azed.gov/improvement/evidence-based-practices/
The groups targeted will be the aforementioned, Title students, Special Needs students and our ELL population. We individually invite those populations, but our program is open to all of our students, so we can provide a snack and somewhere safe for them to be for a couple hours following school.

Other Evidence Based - Academics- Our targeted subgroup academic usage goes as follows: Lexia is used by our ELL students, our Special Needs students and our Title students to gain better knowledge of vocabulary and English language and grammar. Saxon Phonics is used buy our ELL, students to speak (enunciate)words more correctly, this also helps our Special needs students and the Title students who have recently passed the AZELLA. SRA is used by our ELL students to gain better knowledge and vocabulary for those struggling to learn the English language. Please see the listed evidence based materials pertaining to these programs in the questions prior to this response.

Evidence Based Social Emotional- We have trained our entire staff on Responsive classroom, not only our teaching staff but all the paraprofessionals as well. They have all gone through the extensive 4-day training to use the program correctly to most benefit our students and staff
How does the Counselor support the program- Our counselor has also been trained and visits students and classrooms.