1. 2009-2010 District Performance Union County Public Schools

2. District Performance: All Students 20092010ImprovementGoal Reading71.94%75.37%+3.43%68.69% Math59.24%61.82%+2.58%59.79% Science54.67%57.54%+2.87%----- Social Studies52.79%53.93%+1.12%----- Writing40.29%42.74%+2.45%----- DISTRICT PERFORMANCE: Made gains in every subject area African American students met AYP goals in Reading and Math 1 st Time in 5 years MES met All AYP Goals 1 st Time in NCLB history that UCMS met All AYP Goals Although NCLB in Special Education was met at each school, district goal was not met

3. District Turnaround Performance: 2 Year View 2008: Onset20092010% Growth Reading59.07%71.94%75.37%+16.30% Math45.38%59.24%61.81%+16.43% Science 46.28% 54.67% 57.54%+11.26% Social Studies46.56 % 52.79%53.93 %+7.37 % Writing 34.07% 40.29% 42.74%+8.67%

4. UCHS % Proficient & Distinguished 20092010ImprovementGoal Reading67.68%57.14%-10.54%59.63% Math32.12%34.78%+2.66%59.88% Science40.61%41.85%+1.24%----- Social Studies27.27%47.83%+20.56%----- Writing24.07%27.39%+3.32%----- Met AYP in Reading for All Students 1 st Time met non-academic goal for AYP since 2004-2005 o State required 2% increase in graduation rate; UCHS had 6% increase. o State goal 86.75 – UCHS had 89.20. Last year was at 83 Gained in every area except for Reading Did not meet AYP Goals for White and Free/Reduced Lunch students in the area of math

5. UCMS % Proficient & Distinguished 20092010Gain/LossGoal Reading68.54%75.25%+6.71%72.80% Math53.91%62.07%+8.16%58.25% Science56.10%59.15%+3.05%----- Social Studies59.20%51.53%-7.67% ----- Writing42.53%44.79%+2.26% ----- 1 st Time in NCLB History that UCMS met ALL AYP Goals in Reading & Math for ALL Students.

6. MES % Proficient & Distinguished 20092010Gain/LossState Goal Reading70.62%76.73%+6.11%73.64% Math69.59%67.82%-1.77%61.23% Science50.72%69.49%+18.77%----- Social Studies68.66%54.79%-13.87% ----- Writing37.31%47.95%+10.64% ----- Made significant gains in Science and Writing 1 st Time since 2005-2006 that MES met ALL AYP Goals in Reading & Math for ALL students.

7. SES % Proficient & Distinguished 20092010Gain/LossNCLB Goal Reading85.88%85.57%-0.31%73.64% Math78.53%76.29%-2.24%61.23% Science81.82%78.95%-2.87%----- Social Studies70.00%75.93%+5.93%----- Writing61.67%62.96%+1.29%----- Made AYP in Reading & Math Improved in Social Studies by +5.93% Exceeded NCLB Goals

8. UES % Proficient & Distinguished 20092010Gain/LossNCLB Goal Reading75.00%78.64%+3.64%73.64% Math77.00%68.93%-8.07%61.23% Science78.13%60.00%-18.13%----- Social Studies80.56%56.67%-23.89% ----- Writing72.22%63.33%-8.89% ----- Gained in the area of Reading Significant decreases in four of five subject areas; however, UES exceeded NCLB goals for Reading and Math Met AYP in Reading & Math

9. NCLB Status: Title I Schools % Goals Met 2008 % Goals Met 2009 % Goals Met 2010Improvement District75% (12/16) 81.3% (13/16) All Schools Met AYP, except UCHS-Math * As a district-free/reduced lunch (math) and disability (reading/math) did not meet MES75% (9/12) 92.9% (13/14)100% (14/14) 1 st Time in 5 yrs. Met AYP in All Areas UCMS68.8% (11/16) 87.5% (14/16)100% (16/16) 1 St Time in History of NCLB Met AYP in All Areas UES100% (10/10) 100% (10/10)100% (9/9) Met AYP in All Areas SES100% (10/10) 100% (10/10) Met AYP in All Areas UCHS58.3% (7/12) 57.1% (8/14)70% (7/10) Met AYP in All Areas, except math-free/reduced & white

10. NCLB Accomplishments: Title I Schools MES – Closed disability gap for reading! – Met AYP for first time in five years UCMS – Closed disability gap for both reading and math! – Met AYP for first time ever in all areas District did not meet AYP; has not ever made AYP

11. Carnegie Math: UCMS/UCHS Grade*2007-08**2008-092009-10Gains UCMS41% 54% 62%+21% UCHSN/A32%35%+3% Overall P & D36% 39% 55%+19% *Prior to Carnegie Math implementation **Spring semester implementation of Carnegie Math at UCMS Transition Index Grade*2007-08**2008-092009-10Gains UCMS71.67 83.5 92.45+20.78 UCHSN/A60.6366.99+6.36 Percent Proficient and Distinguished Grade*2007-08**2008-092009-10Gains UCMS22.6% 13.22% 11.16%+11.44% UCHSN/A34.55%25.55%+9% Novice Reduction

12. District Gains African American (% P &D) Two Year View READING2007-082008-092009-10Gains District38.00%54.34%59.01%+21.01% State49.72%51.09%53.77% MATH2007-082008-092009-10Gains District20.00%33.33%41.82%+21.82% State38.90%41.32%41.78% In 2007-2008, African Americans had zero percent proficient and distinguished in math and 13% proficient and distinguished at UCHS.

13. Significant Gains at Tier Schools African American (% P &D) Two Year View READING2007-082008-092009-10Gains MES35.00%50.00%63.04%+28.04% UCMS46.00%56.96%60.26%+14.26% MATH2007-082008-092009-10Gains MES25.60%47.83%52.17%+26.57% UCMS20.60%30.38%43.59%+22.99%

14. District Gains Special Education – (% P &D) Two Year View READING2007-082008- 092009-10Gains District39.00%50.76%54.49%+15.49% State41.04%43.33%48.67% MATH2007-082008- 092009-10Gains District26.57%34.34%39.33%+12.76% State35.33%39.63%43.37%

15. Significant Gains at Tier Schools Special Education – (% P &D) Two Year View READING2007-082008- 092009-10Gains MES18.00%45.65%65.85%+47.85% UCMS34.60%37.66%44.29%+9.69% MATH2007-082008- 092009-10Gains MES7.30%43.48%43.90%+36.60% UCMS17.00%20.78%35.71%+18.70

16. District Gains Gifted & Talented – (% P &D) Two Year View READING2007-082008- 092009-10Gains Elementary95.00%98.11%100.00%+5.00% UCMS78.33%91.62%90.62%+12.29% MATH2007-082008- 092009-10Gains Elementary84.33%97.17%94.45%+10.12% UCMS71.33%81.43%85.81%+14.48%

17. District Rankings 20082008 Percentile 20092009 Percentile 2010 Percentile District161/1758%87/17450%71/17459% High School165/1756%115/17434%93/16945% Middle School 145/17517%99/17443%59/17466% UES247/71365%181/71975%397/71745% SES373/71348%198/71972%241/71766% MES671/7136%482/71933%397/71745% Elem. TOTAL147/17516%65/17463%74/17457%

18. Success: A Roadmap for the future District climbed from 161 to 87, and now from 87 to 71 Continued progress although not to the standards of Union County Must make up considerable ground to obtain Top 10 status All Tier schools made significant progress Gaps between subgroups were significantly reduced

19. District Overall Index Scores 200820092010Gain/loss (1yr) KASC 2014 Projected Index District75.48688 2 On Track to 100 UCHS67.77375 2 Improving UCMS75.18792 5 On Track to 100 Elementary (Total) 85.29895.66 -2.34 On Track to 100 MES74.79194 3 On Track to 100 UES92.410294 -8 On Track to 100 SES88.510199 -2 On Track to 100

20. District Subject Performance Index Points - 2 Year View Subject200820092010Gain Since 2008 Math68.281.785.617.4 Reading84.795.194.9510.25 Science75.78687.1211.42 Social Studies75.382.584.158.85 Writing72.380.482.4310.13

21. District Distinguished Improvement- 2 Year View 2008 % Distinguished 2009 % Distinguished 2010 % Distinguished Increase Since 2008 Math33%72%64%31% Reading27%42%50%23% Science30%52%56%26% Social Studies24%44%50%26% Writing9%14%18%9%

22. District Novice Reduction 2 Year View 2008 % Novice 2009 % Novice 2010 % Novice % Novice Reduction Math82%56%45%37% Reading20%8%12%8% Science60%32%30% Social Studies 52%43%37%15% Writing37%18% 19%

23. Reasons for Success Teachers Instructional support staff Students Community Support Belief that Union County and excellence should go hand in hand

24. Reasons for Success Formative Assessment Carnegie Math Kentucky Association of School Councils (KASC) Right people in the right places Special thanks to KDE’s Special Education Department

25. Concerns: District Although we made tremendous progress, we are still in NCLB consequences-must meet AYP 1 more year The high school has not made satisfactory progress – Double digit number of NOVICE in the areas of Science, Math, and Social Studies – ACT scores Elementary schools did not make satisfactory progress Again, we must understand that this data is not an end, but rather a roadmap for future improvement

26. Needs for Continued Improvement High performance mindset-Top 10 High EXPECTATIONS for all stakeholders RIGOR Culture of high expectations Response to Intervention (RtI) at every level Improved instructional strategies Use of existing formative assessment and curriculum specialist Continued use of innovative Special Education strategies Elimination of bureaucratic barriers