Part III 3
![](3D"plan_files/image002.gif")
Plan and Implementation
At Kossuth we realize that to be
successful we must continually collect, analyze, and classify student
performance data. Once disaggregated, this data gives us a clear understand=
ing of
student performance, insight into specific areas, and causes of gaps in stu=
dent
performance. It allows for systematic interventions that are data driven and
specific.
The school improvement team ana=
lyzed
three areas of concern. First=
, we
facilitated a base of three surveys: student, certified staff and
community. Our target area wa=
s to
analyze why student performance was not at proficiency levels. We asked our stakeholders to indic=
ate
school effectiveness, student characteristics, student performance, and
community context. Using this data will assist the school improvement team =
in
establishing safety nets such as special programs to help individualize stu=
dent
needs.
Secondly, we analyzed alignment=
of
the curriculum through the target grades of third, seventh, and subject area
test grades. These grades were
chosen because they are benchmark grades in which the MCT and MSAT tests mu=
st
be passed. By comparing low a=
nd
high content areas, as well as, a three-year average of these areas, we
identified gaps in the curriculum that need to be made a priority in prior =
and
approaching grades so that future tests can be passed with 80% of the stude=
nt
population scoring proficient or advanced on benchmark tests.
Thirdly, we examined students&#=
8217;
performance on writing exams in 4th, 7th, and 10=
th
grades. By looking at the test
results and analyzing strengths and weaknesses within different populations=
, we
identified specific target groups and set our goals to reach these
participants.
In the following
sections, we examined learning are=
as,
target participants, strengths and weakness in performance=
,
and performance gaps evident i=
n each
of these areas. We developed cause analysis maps=
to
analyze the causes of student performance gaps from multiple perspectives. =
The
following pages include the data and research information the school
improvement team used to develop improvement goals which lead to the
development of action plans.
Section One - Students and Th=
eir
Performance in Target Areas for Improvement
·
Learning Area
– State Testing
·
High Priority Expectations for student learning-=
Students will meet intermediate proficiency inde=
xes
for Mississippi Curriculum Test and Mississippi Subject Area Test by 2011
·
Tested Areas-At
the elementary and middle school levels, the state benchmark exams are give=
n at
the end of the third and seventh grade years to determine the level of succ=
ess
at the next grade level.
Surv=
ey
Data -
|
Comparison Groups |
2003/2004 Number of Students |
2003/2004 Percent Proficie=
ncy |
2004/2005 Number of Studen=
ts |
2004/2005 Percent Proficiency |
2005/2006 Number of Students |
2005/2006 Percent Proficiency |
2011 Proficiency Goal |
|
CT Grade 3 |
94 |
45% |
95 |
56% |
115 |
55% |
90% |
|
MCT Grade 7 |
98 |
51% |
123 |
58% |
123 |
47.6% |
84% |
|
MSAT English II =
Grade 10 |
99 |
48% |
80 |
31% |
81 |
43% |
79% |
|
MCT Grade 3 Lang=
uage |
94 |
12% |
96 |
50% |
115 |
43% |
88% |
|
MCT Grade 7 Lang=
uage |
98 |
51% |
123 |
37% |
54 |
35% |
83% |
|
MSAT English II =
Grade 10 |
99 |
48% |
80 |
31% |
81 |
43% |
79% |
|
MCT Grade 3 Math=
|
94 |
50% |
96 |
59% |
115 |
56% |
93% |
|
MCT Grade 7 Math=
|
98 |
32% |
123 |
48% |
81 |
43% |
80% |
|
MSAT Algebra I <= o:p> |
90 |
30% |
67 |
36% |
54 |
35% |
78% |
|
MSAT Biology I |
99 |
39% |
76 |
51% |
86 |
52% |
No Data Available |
|
|
99 |
47% |
95 |
39% |
70 |
49% |
No Data Available |
The analysis of graph data - Students, overall, show a minimal increase or a =
5% or
greater decrease in percent meeting or exceeding standards on both the Miss=
issippi
Curriculum Test and the Mississippi Subject Area Test. Also shown are
consistent decreases between third and seventh grade students in all areas =
on
the Mississippi Test Curriculum.
Stakeholder Involvement - <=
/b>Two hundred seventy-two stakeholders were survey=
ed for
underlying causes of poor performances in the targeted areas needed for
improvement.
![](3D"plan_files/image004.gif")
The =
analysis
of graph data- The survey ident=
ified
gaps in student performance based upon a differentiated set of family, scho=
ol,
and community contexts. After compiling data information and critiquing test
results, the committee sought to further explain underlying contributing
factors to gaps in student performance and in proficiency, by administering
addition student surveys. The results of the surveys exposed plausible fact=
ors
contributing to the gaps in proficiency.
Three
major survey questions showed drastic underlying contributions.
1. =
35% o=
f the
surveyed participants stated that excessive employment hours negatively aff=
ected
subject area scores, proficiency rates, and grade readiness.
2. =
43% o=
f the
surveyed participants stated that one or more of the following: attendance,
lack of self-confidence, drugs, alcohol, or violence at home, affected
proficiency at school.
3. =
44% o=
f the
surveyed participants stated that the school’s ability to provide
consistent teaching, minimal disruptions, and effective discipline affected=
the
proficiency at school.
Disaggregated Data -
Strengths
·
Grade 10 En=
glish
II student scores significantly increased in proficiency on the Mississippi
Subject Area Test
·
Biology I s=
tudent
scores are showing a steady increase in proficiency for the last three test=
ing
years on the Mississippi Subject Area Test=
·
U. S. Histo=
ry
student scores significantly increased in proficiency on the Mississippi
Subject Area Test
Weaknesses
·
Grade 3
·
Grade 7
· Grade 3 Lan= guage student scores decreased in proficiency on the Mississippi Curriculum Test<= o:p>
· Grade 7 Lan= guage student scores decreased in proficiency on the Mississippi Curriculum Test<= o:p>
· Grade 3 Math student scores decreased in proficiency on the Mississippi Curriculum Test<= o:p>
· Grade 7 Math student scores decreased in proficiency on the Mississippi Curriculum Test<= o:p>
·
Algebra I s=
tudent
scores decreased in proficiency on the Mississippi Subject Area Test
Learning Area – Student
Proficiency on State Benchmark and Subject Area Tests
Proficiency
goals for 2011, as set by the state of
Grade
3
Grade
3 Language -----------88%
Grade
3 Math----------------- 93%
Grade
7
Grade
7 Language -----------83%
Grade
7 Math ---------------- 80%
English
II --------------------- 79%
Algebra
I --------------------- 78%
Biology
I --------------------- =
No
Data Available
Targeted Participants -=
·
All Grade 3
students
·
All Grade 7
students
·
All students
enrolled in Algebra I
·
All students
enrolled in Biology I
·
All students
enrolled in English II
·
All students
enrolled in U. S. History
Performance Gaps -
Grade 3 students are underperforming= &nb= sp; = <= o:p>
·
Across meas=
ures &=
nbsp;
·
In comparis=
on
with state proficiency goals
Grade
7 students are underperforming
·
Across meas=
ures
·
In comparis=
on
with third grade scores, seventh grade scores declined even more.
·
In comparis=
on
with state proficiency goals
Algebra
I students are underperforming
·
Across meas=
ures
·
In comparis=
on
with state proficiency goals
Biology
I students are underperforming
·
Across meas=
ures
·
In comparis=
on
with state proficiency goals as set for other subject areas
English
II students are underperforming
·
Across meas=
ures
·
In comparis=
on
with state proficiency goals
U.
S. History students are underperforming
·
Across meas=
ures
·
In comparis=
on
with state proficiency goals as set for other subject areas
Section Two - S=
tudents
and Their Performance in Target Areas for Improvement
·
Learning Areas
–
·
High Priority Expectations for Student Learning-=
Improve student performance through vertical alignment
·
Tested Areas-
state benchmark exams at third and seventh grade Biology I, English II, Alg=
ebra
I, and U.S. History
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mississippi
Curriculum Test is reported in scale scores and proficiency levels. The sco=
re
reports include information regarding the reporting categories for each con=
tent
area. These reporting categor=
ies
represent a group of benchmarks items that define the specific skills and
content assessed within reading, language, and mathematics. By comparing the
average points earned on each item to the points possible, the school
improvement team drew general conclusions about relative strengths and
weaknesses of the students and the three year average of points scored per
skill area. The tables below show these comparisons for grades 3 and 7. Third and seventh grades were chos=
en
because students are required to pass the MCT at this grade or retake it the
following year. The percentages highlighted show the skill area that studen=
ts
had the lowest point average in within three years.
3rd =
Grade
MCT Benchmarks and Skills Assessed
|
|
04 |
05 |
06 |
Total |
|
Context Clues |
86% |
70% |
76% |
77% |
|
Word Structure |
80% |
74% |
88% |
80% |
|
Word Patterns |
62% |
86% |
98% |
83% |
|
Vocabulary |
80% |
78% |
70% |
76% |
|
Main Idea and Details |
80.5% |
75% |
68% |
74% |
|
Expanded
Comprehension |
75% |
68% |
77% |
73% |
|
Language |
04 |
05 |
06 |
Total |
|
Editing |
85% |
75% |
88% |
82% |
|
Spelling |
98% |
95% |
93% |
95% |
|
Sentence Structure |
81% |
83% |
79% |
81% |
|
Meaning |
86% |
81% |
79% |
82% |
|
Math |
04 |
05 |
06 |
Total |
|
Patterns, Algebraic Thinking |
81% |
81% |
76% |
79% |
|
Data Analysis, Prediction |
88% |
74% |
91% |
84% |
|
Measurement |
79% |
76% |
83% |
79% |
|
Geometric Concepts |
82% |
85% |
85% |
84% |
|
Number Sense |
88% |
88% |
81% |
85% |
Disaggregated Data -
Strengths: MCT 3rd Grad=
e
·
·
Language:
·
Math: Students’ scores remained
consistent over the three-year period with the highest averages being in Nu=
mber
Sense at 85% and Data Analysis, Prediction and Geometric Concepts at 84%.
Weaknesses: MCT 3rd Grade
·
·
Language:
·
Math: Student’s lowest overall sco=
res
were in the areas of Patterns, Algebraic Thinking, and Measurement both at =
79%.
7
|
|
04 |
05 |
06 |
Total |
|
Context Clues |
72% |
78% |
80% |
77% |
|
Word Structure |
66% |
76% |
64% |
68.5% |
|
Vocabulary |
70% |
58% |
76% |
68% |
|
Main Idea and Details |
70% |
76% |
73% |
73% |
|
Expanded Comprehension |
74% |
72% |
75% |
73% |
|
Workplace Data |
77% |
74% |
80% |
77% |
|
Language |
04 |
05 |
06 |
Total |
|
Editing: Caps. And Punct= . |
71% |
70% |
74% |
71% |
|
Spelling |
85% |
81% |
56% |
74% |
|
Sentence Structure |
75% |
73% |
72% |
73% |
|
Meaning |
87% |
74% |
74% |
78% |
|
Math |
04 |
05 |
06 |
Total |
|
Patterns, Algebraic Thinking |
71% |
55% |
64% |
63% |
|
Data Analysis, Prediction |
61% |
81% |
72% |
72% |
|
Measurement |
60% |
67% |
66% |
64% |
|
Geometric Concepts |
58% |
77% |
76% |
70% |
|
Number Sense |
71% |
68% |
70% |
69% |
Strengths: MCT 7th Grad=
e
·
·
Language:
·
Math: Students’ scored highest in =
the
area of Data Analysis, Prediction at 72% and Geometric Concepts at 70 %.
Weaknesses: MCT 7th Grade
·
·
Language:
·
Math: Students’ lowest overall sco=
re was
in the area of Patterns, Algebraic Thinking at 63%.
Subject Area Testing
The Mississippi Subject Area Testing Program (MS=
ATP)
consists of tests in Algebra I, Biology I, English II, and U.S. History from
1877. All students enrolled in these courses are required to take the subje=
ct
area tests. Student graduation requirements are based on the year he or she
enters the 9th grade. In analyzing the test scores of
Subject Area Test – Algebra =
I
|
Algebra I |
04 |
05 |
06 |
Total |
|
Patterns, Relations, and Functions |
56% |
71% |
78% |
68% |
|
Equations and Inequalities |
60% |
78% |
70% |
69% |
|
Polynomials |
55% |
58% |
60% |
57% |
|
Formulas in Problem Solving |
64% |
75% |
70% |
69% |
|
Slope |
57% |
76% |
75% |
69% |
|
Probability |
71% |
64% |
83% |
72% |
Strengths: Subject Area Algebra I<= o:p>
·
Students sc=
ored
highest in the area of Probability at 72%, with equations and inequalities,=
Formulas
in Problem Solving, and Slope have an overall average of 69%.
Weaknesses: Subject Area Algebra I
·
Students=
217;
lowest overall score was in the area of Polynomials at 57%.
Subj=
ect Area
Test – Biology I
|
Biology I |
04 |
05 |
06 |
Total |
|
Chemical Basis of Life |
50% |
63% |
58% |
57% |
|
The Cell |
52% |
66% |
64% |
60% |
|
Genetics and Molecular Basis of Heredity |
52% |
78% |
60% |
63% |
|
Natural Selection and Diversity |
51% |
69% |
51% |
56% |
|
Ecology |
53% |
61% |
56% |
56% |
|
Nature of Science |
58% |
76% |
76% |
70% |
Strengths: Subject Area Biology I<= o:p>
·
Students sc=
ored
highest in the area of Nature of Science at 70%.
Weaknesses: Subject Area Biology I
·
Students=
217; lowest
overall scores were in the areas of Natural Selection and Diversity and Eco=
logy
both at 56%.
Subj=
ect Area
Test – English II
|
English II<= o:p> |
04 |
05 |
06 |
Total |
|
Language Conventions |
79% |
74% |
77% |
76% |
|
Mechanics |
75% |
69% |
74% |
72% |
|
Sentence Structure |
90% |
81% |
76% |
82% |
|
Usage |
78% |
75% |
82% |
78% |
|
Reading Comprehension |
75% |
66% |
75% |
72% |
|
Main Idea and Details |
78% |
71% |
76% |
75% |
|
Expanded Comprehension |
83% |
67% |
78% |
76% |
|
Language and Diction |
63% |
55% |
69% |
62% |
Strengths: Subject Area English II
=
·=
; =
Students
scored highest in Sentence Structure at 82% and Usage at 78%.
Weaknesses: Subject Area in English II
·
Students=
217;
lowest overall score was in Language and Diction at 62%.
Subj=
ect Area
Test –
|
|
04 |
05 |
06 |
Total |
|
International Relations |
65% |
61% |
68% |
64% |
|
1877-1921 |
60% |
58% |
69% |
62% |
|
1922-Present |
67% |
62% |
68% |
65% |
|
Domestic Affairs |
70% |
70% |
75% |
73% |
|
1877 – 1899 |
70% |
70% |
76% |
72% |
|
1900-1939 |
70% |
72% |
76% |
73% |
|
1940 – Present |
68% |
68% |
74% |
70% |
|
Geography |
69% |
82% |
73% |
74% |
|
Economics |
71% |
61% |
68% |
66% |
|
Civics |
61% |
68% |
65% |
64% |
Strengths: Subject Area
·
Students sc=
ored
highest in Geography at 74%, with Domestic Affairs and 1900– 1939 bot=
h at
73%.
Weaknesses: Subject Area in
·
Students=
217;
lowest overall score was in the time period of 1877–1921 at 62%.
Overall Analysis of Charts in Sect=
ion Two - These charts were designed to understand, explai=
n and
use test results from the Mississippi Curriculum Test and the Mississippi
Subject Area Testing Program. We
found a slight decrease from third to seventh grade in each benchmark area =
on
the Mississippi Curriculum Test as we analyzed and interpreted the data.
Learning Area- Reading
Expectations
for Student Learning
·
Students wi=
ll
read and comprehend a variety of genres in order to build vocabulary and ex=
pand
comprehension.
Learning Area – Language
Expectations
for Student Learning
·
Students wi=
ll
write and proofread their writing to build their editing skills.
Learning Area – Math
Expectation
for Student Learning
·
Students wi=
ll
solve problems involving Patterns, Algebraic Thinking and Measurement.
Learning Area – Algebra I
·
Students wi=
ll
communicate the characteristics and perform the operations of polynomials.
Learning Area – Biology I
Expectation
for Student Learning
·
Students wi=
ll
understand the role of evolution as compared to the changes made during
adaptation of species.
Learning Area – English II
Expectation
for Student Learning
·
Students wi=
ll
write with an increased level of diction using an interdisciplinary approac=
h.
Learning Area –
Expectation
for Student Learning
·
Students wi=
ll
understand
Targeted participants:=
·
All Grade 3
students
·
All Grade 7
students
·
All students
enrolled in Algebra I
·
All students
enrolled in Biology I
·
All students
enrolled in English II
·
All students
enrolled in U. S. History
Performance Gaps:
·
Word Struct=
ure
and Language and Diction for grade 3, grade 7 and English II
·
Language
mechanics for grade 3, grade7 and English II
·
Patterns, a=
nd
Algebraic Thinking (polynomials) in grade 3, grade 7 and Algebra I with number sense decreasing as the
grade increases
·
Gaps for U.=
S.
History and Biology I are consistent with the ga=
ps
associated with
Section Three
·
Learning Area
– Writing
High =
Priority
Expectations for student learning- Students
will write with increasing frequency and fluency in a variety =
of formats.
·
Tested Areas-.
The writing component of the Mississippi Curriculum test is only given to fourth and seventh grade. However, the writing portion of th=
e test
was deleted in the 2006 testing due to state cancellations. The writing
assessment is designed to provide information about a student’s abili=
ty
to produce writing that reflects increasing proficiency, a goal for all
MCT Writing Component—4=
th
grade
|
|
Local |
District |
State |
|||
|
Years of Testing |
Number of
students |
Mean Score |
Number of
students |
Mean Score |
Number of
students |
Mean Sco=
re |
|
‘=
04 |
103 |
2.5 |
285 |
2.6 |
36,419 |
2.4 |
|
‘=
05 |
97 |
2.6 |
272 |
2.7 |
36,140 |
2.6 |
|
*‘=
;06 |
=
|
|
|
|
|
|
*2006
writing component eliminated because of displaced students due to Hurricane
Katrina.
Writing
component will resume spring 2007. <=
/span>(Source: MS State Dept. of Education)
&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp;
MCT Writing Component—7=
th
grade
|
|
Local |
District |
State |
|||
|
Years of Testing |
Number of
students |
Mean Score |
Number of
students |
Mean Score |
Number of
students |
Mean Sco=
re |
|
‘=
04 |
98 |
2.5 |
287 |
2.4 |
37,943 |
2.6 |
|
‘=
05 |
126 |
2.3 |
291 |
2.4 |
38,357 |
2.5 |
|
*‘=
;06 |
&n=
bsp;
|
|
|
|
|
|
*2006
writing component eliminated because of displaced students due to Hurricane
Katrina. Writing component will resume spring 2007. (Source:
MS State Dept. of Education)
The Eng=
lish II
Writing test is given to tenth
graders and is designed to measure writing that reflects increasing
proficiency. Students write to
assigned prompts which are scored on the levels of Advanced-4 Proficient-3,
Basic-2, and Minimal-1. Passing is Level Two or above.
English II Writing Component—=
;10th
grade
|
|
Local |
District |
State |
|||
|
Years of Testing |
Number of
students |
*Mean Score |
Number of
students |
*Mean Score |
Number of
students |
*Mean Sc=
ore |
|
‘=
04 |
102 |
1.8/1.9 |
231 |
1.9/2.0 |
26,025 |
1.9/2.0 |
|
‘=
05 |
82 |
1.6/1.9 |
236 |
1.9/2.0 |
26,116 |
1.9/2.1 |
|
**‘06 |
80 |
/2.1 |
226 |
=
/2.1 |
26,926<= o:p> |
/2.0 |
*1st mean score =3D nar=
rative;
2nd mean score=3Dinformative
**Only informative tested in
’06 =
(Sour=
ce: MS
State Dept. of Education)
Analysis
of data:
Scores
are comparable to district and state scores; however, we are deficient in
meeting 2011 state requirements.
Identifying further data in target=
areas
to determine gaps and causes of gaps:
Breakdown of Student Scores
(by usi=
ng the
number of students tested)
Kossuth Elementary School
|
Score |
‘03 |
‘04 |
‘05 |
**‘06 |
|
4 |
3 |
7 |
11 |
|
|
3 |
22 |
40 |
40 |
|
|
2 |
79 |
55 |
41 |
|
|
1 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
|
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
Total tested |
106 |
103 |
97 |
|
(**Not tested in 2006 because of Katrina)=
Breakdown of Student Scores
(by usi=
ng the
number of students tested)
|
=
Score |
=
‘03 |
=
‘04 |
=
‘05 |
=
**‘06 |
|
=
4 |
=
1 |
=
2 |
=
5 |
=
|
|
3=
|
2=
3 |
4=
9 |
3=
9 |
|
|
=
2 |
=
69 |
=
45 |
=
70 |
=
|
|
=
1 |
=
6 |
=
1 |
=
12 |
=
|
|
=
0 |
=
0 |
=
1 |
=
0 |
=
|
|
=
Total
tested |
=
99 |
=
98 |
=
126 |
=
|
(**Writing component dropped in
’06)
Breakdown of Student Scores
(by usi=
ng the
number of students tested)
Narrative
|
=
Score |
=
‘04 |
=
‘05 |
=
**‘06 |
|
|
=
4 |
=
0 |
=
0 |
=
|
|
|
3=
|
1=
5 |
0=
|
|
|
|
=
2 |
=
68 |
=
61 |
=
|
|
|
=
1 |
=
4 |
=
13 |
=
|
|
|
=
0 |
=
15 |
=
8 |
=
|
|
|
=
Total
tested |
=
102 |
=
82 |
=
|
|
|
%
Passing |
=
81 |
=
81 |
=
|
|
(**Narrative
writing component dropped from requirements in 2006.)
Informative
|
=
Score |
=
‘04 |
=
‘05 |
=
‘06 |
|
=
4 |
=
0 |
=
0 |
=
0 |
|
3=
|
1=
0 |
4=
|
1=
4 |
|
=
2 |
=
76 |
=
67 |
=
60 |
|
=
1 |
=
15 |
=
9 |
=
5 |
|
=
0 |
=
1 |
=
2 |
=
1 |
|
=
Total
tested |
=
102 |
=
82 |
=
80 |
|
%
Passing |
=
84.3 |
=
86.9 |
=
92.5 |
=
Analysis
of data:
·
The majority of our students scored 2 on the wri=
ting
component of the test for the past five years.
The high school was deficient in sc=
ores
of 3 and 4 for the past three years.
Student Score Subgroups – Ability
(Percentage of students)
|
=
Year |
=
Score |
=
All |
=
Non-disabled |
=
Disabled |
|
‘=
04 |
2-above=
|
=
96 |
=
96 |
|
|
‘=
04 |
3-above=
|
=
46 |
=
47 |
|
|
‘=
05 |
2-above=
|
=
95 |
=
95 |
|
|
‘=
05 |
3-above=
|
=
53 |
=
56 |
|
=
&nb=
sp;
(2006
no writing component because of Katrina)
Student Score Subgroups – Ability
(Percentage of students)
|
=
Year |
=
Score |
=
All |
=
Non-disabled |
=
Disabled |
|
‘=
04 |
2-above=
|
=
96 |
=
96 |
|
|
‘=
04 |
3-above=
|
=
52 |
=
52 |
|
|
‘=
05 |
2-above=
|
=
91 |
=
92 |
|
|
‘=
05 |
3-above=
|
=
36 |
=
36 |
|
(2006
no writing component because of Katrina)
Student Score Subgroups – Ability
(Percentage passing)
Narrative
|
=
Year |
=
All |
=
Non-disabled |
=
Disabled |
|
‘=
04 |
81.4 |
=
82.7 |
|
|
‘=
05 |
75 |
=
75.9 |
|
=
&nb=
sp;
(**Narrative
writing component dropped from requirements in 2006.)
Informative
Year |
All |
Non-disabled |
Disabled |
|
‘04 |
84.3 |
86.7 |
|
|
‘05 |
86.9 |
87.3 |
|
|
‘06 |
92.5 |
92.5 |
|
Analysis
of data:
·
There were =
no
disabled children tested in the high school. Additionally, Special Educatio=
n in
the
elementary and middle schools was tested on instructional level.
Student Score Subgroups – Sex/Ethnicity
(Percentage of students)
|
Year |
Sco=
re |
Mal=
e |
Female |
*Bl=
ack |
Whi=
te |
*Hispanic |
|
‘04 |
2-above |
96 |
96 |
|
96 |
|
|
‘04 |
3-above |
32 |
57 |
|
46 |
|
|
‘05 |
2-above |
93 |
96 |
|
94 |
|
|
‘05 |
3-above |
39 |
66 |
|
52 |
|
(Non-white
population less than 1%)
Student Score Subgroups – Sex/Ethnicity
(Percentage of students)
|
Yea=
r |
Sco=
re |
Mal=
e |
Female |
*Bl=
ack |
Whi=
te |
*Hi=
spanic |
|
‘04 |
2-above |
95 |
96 |
|
96 |
|
|
‘04 |
3-above |
42 |
60 |
|
51 |
|
|
‘05 |
2-above |
85 |
96 |
|
90 |
|
|
‘05 |
3-above |
26 |
48 |
|
37 |
|
(*Non-white
population less than 1%)
Score Subgroups – Sex/Ethnicity
(Percentage passing)
Narrative
|
Year |
Male |
Female |
*Black |
White |
*Hispanic |
|
‘04 |
82.6 |
80.4 |
|
81.8 |
|
|
‘05 |
72.7 |
77.5 |
|
75.6 |
|
(*Non-white
population is less than 1%)
Informative
|
=
Yea=
r |
=
Mal=
e |
Fem=
ale |
=
*Bl=
ack |
=
Whi=
te |
=
*Hi=
spanic |
|
=
‘04 |
=
84.8 |
=
83.9 |
=
|
=
83.8 |
=
|
|
=
‘05 |
=
84.1 |
=
90 |
=
|
=
86.6 |
=
|
|
=
‘06 |
=
86 |
=
96 |
=
|
=
92.3 |
=
|
(*Non-white
population less than 1%)
Analysis
of data:
·
Fe=
males
consistently scored higher on the writing component than did males (excepti=
on:
high school informative for 2004).
Since the number of non-white students is so low, those numbers are =
not
a significant factor.
Student Score Subgroups – Economics
(Percentage of students)
|
Year |
Score |
Economically
disadvantaged |
Non-economically
disadvantaged |
|
‘04 |
2-above |
96 |
96 |
|
‘04 |
3-above |
47 |
45 |
|
‘05 |
2-above |
95 |
95 |
|
‘05 |
3-above |
64 |
46 |
(Writing
component removed in 2006 because of Katrina.)
Student Score Subgroups – Economics
(Percentage of students)
|
Year |
Score |
Economically
disadvantaged |
Non-economically
disadvantaged |
|
‘04 |
2-above |
96 |
96 |
|
‘04 |
3-above |
50 |
53 |
|
‘05 |
2-above |
88 |
92 |
|
‘05 |
3-above |
28 |
39 |
(Writing component removed in 2006 becaus=
e of
Katrina.)
Student Score Subgroups – Economics
(Percentage passing)
Narrative Essays
|
Year |
Economically
disadvantaged |
Non-economically
disadvantaged |
|
‘04 |
72.7 |
82.4 |
|
‘05 |
76.2 |
74.2 |
Informative Essays
|
Year |
Economically
disadvantaged |
Non-economically
disadvantaged |
|
‘04 |
81.8 |
84.6 |
|
‘05 |
81 |
88.7 |
|
‘06 |
97 |
94.7 |
(Narrative
writing removed in the 2006 testing.)
Analysis
of data: In grade 4, econom=
ically
disadvantaged students consistently scored the same or higher than
non-disadvantaged students, especially in scores of 3 or above. In grade 7, economically disadvant=
aged
students scored lower than non-disadvantaged students, especially in scores=
of
3 or above. In grade 10, the
differences in the scores of economically disadvantaged and non-disadvantag=
ed
students are minimal.
Disaggregated Data
Strengths and Weaknesses in Writin=
g
Ability
Grade
4
Strengths
·
Number of s=
cores
of 3 and above on informative essay increased
·
Comparable =
to
district and state scores
Weaknesses
·
Deficiency =
in
meeting 2011 state proficiency standards
Grade
7
Strengths
·
Comparable =
to
district and state scores
Weaknesses
·
Deficiency =
in
meeting 2001 state proficiency standards
·
Deficiency n
scores of 3 and above
·
High number=
of
scores of 0 and 1
Grade
10
Strengths
·
Improvement=
s in
number of students scoring 3 or above on informative essay
·
Comparable =
to
district and state scores
Weaknesses
·
Deficiency =
in
meeting 2011 state proficiency standards
·
Deficiency =
in
scores of 3 and above
Sex/Ethnicity
Weaknesses
·
In grades 4=
, 7,
10 females consistently scored higher than males.
Economics
Grades 4, 7, and 10
Strengths
·
Minimal
differences in scores between disadvantaged and advantaged students
Weaknesses
·
Grade 7 ref=
lects
largest margin of difference between disadvantaged and advantaged.
Improvement Goals
Prior to determining specific
improvement goals, the school improvement team:
·
reflected o=
n the
results of past improvement efforts in order to understand the present effo=
rts
and make plans for the future improvement
·
targeted ar=
eas
for improvement based on identified performance gaps
· targeted students - goals were set for all students, but= in order to attain improvement results, specific subgroups or students in need= of improvement have been identified. These students are identified as targeted participants based on the gap analysis of the prior three sections.<= o:p>
&=
nbsp;
|
Improvement Goals |
Expectations for St=
udent
Learning |
Targeted
Participants |
|
Goal One - Students will meet intermediate
proficiency indexes for |
|
|
|
Goal Two:&nbs=
p;
Expectation of student performance will be achieved through vertic=
al
alignment. |
|
All
students in U.S. History
|
|
Goal Three:&n=
bsp;
Students will write with increasing frequency and fluency in a var=
iety
of formats. |
Students will write=
and
proofread their writing to build their editing skills. Students will write=
in a
variety of genres. Students will write=
with
increasing frequency and speed. Students will utili=
ze a
variety of graphic organizers to aid in writing fluency and speed. Students will be
systematically exposed to various examples of writing in many genres,
including examples of level 3 and level 4 grade level writings. |
Grade 4 students Grade 7 students English II students=
All Kossuth non-tes=
ted
students are also targeted in or that growth may be seen in the benchmark
areas. |
Cause Analysis Maps
&=
nbsp;
&n=
bsp; In
this step of planning the school improvement considered the data collected =
and
analyzed student performance problems by examining school effectiveness. The
follow analysis maps will serve as guides to problem solving by breaking do=
wn
these problems into their specific causes.=
The more clearly causes are understood, the more likely the proposed
solutions will actually solve the problems. In the following analysis maps =
the
school improvement team looked at each goal and determined causes of perfor=
mance
gaps in specific content areas.
Goal 1: Cause Analysis Map <=
o:p> Improvement
Goal: Students will meet
intermediate proficiency indexes for Mississippi Curriculum Test and
Mississippi Subject area as set by the state Student
Performance Problem (Gap):
Students are not meeting current proficiency indexes
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image006.gif")
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image007.gif")
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p;
&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; <= /span>
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image011.gif")
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image012.gif")
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image013.gif")
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image014.gif")
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image015.gif")
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image016.gif")
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image017.gif")
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image018.gif")
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image019.gif")
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image020.gif")
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image021.gif")
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image022.gif")
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image023.gif")
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image024.gif")
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image025.gif")
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp;
&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ;
Goal 1: Cause Analysis Map, cont. =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
![](3D"plan_files/image027.gif")
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image028.gif")
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image029.gif")
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image030.gif")
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image031.gif")
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image032.gif")
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image033.gif")
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image034.gif")
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image035.gif")
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image036.gif")
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image037.gif")
![](3D"plan_files/image038.gif")
![3D"Organization](3D"plan_files/image039.gif")
![](3D"plan_files/image040.gif")
![3D"Rounded](3D"plan_files/image041.gif")
=
Goal 2: Cause Analysis Map, cont.
![3D"Organization](3D"plan_files/image042.gif")
![](3D"plan_files/image043.gif")
=
![3D"Organizati=](3D"plan_files/image044.gif")
Action Plan
Implementation
Process
At
&n=
bsp; By
implementing interventions, we will transform our ideas to actions. The work of the improvement team w=
ill be
to facilitate and monitor the implementation of interventions so that they =
are
consistent with the action plan.
Monitoring will require a systematic process of reviewing the succes=
s of
the Action Plan. If the
interventions are not on target, adjustments will be considered.
&n=
bsp; As
we engage in the implementation phase of school improvement, we will monitor
student performance, school effectiveness, and school and community
context. This can be accompli=
shed
by monitoring students in target areas, research-based practices, student
performance data, school characteristics, staff characteristics, and family=
and
community characteristics. As=
we
monitor these areas, we will make adjustments as needed in order to meet our
goals. We will collaborate with stakeholders, school and district leaders,
teachers and support staff, and community members to foster improvement
efforts.
&=
nbsp;
|
Action Plan – Goal # 1 |
|
||||||||||||
|
Target Area for Improvement:
Proficiency indexes for the Mississippi Curriculum Test and Mississippi
Subject Area Test |
|
||||||||||||
|
Improvement Go=
al: St=
udents
will meet current proficiency indexes |
Expectations for student lea=
rning: St=
udents
will meet proficiency indexes by 2011. |
Targeted
participants: Th=
ird
grade students in |
|
||||||||||
|
Interventions: ·
Curriculum:
Modify the ·
Assessments: Incorporate curriculum standards=
into ·
Involvement
Beyond the Classroom: Implement an after- school tutoring program to
reinforce academic and curriculum standards in the subject areas. |
Evaluation: M=
ississippi
Curriculum Test and Mississippi Subject Area Test to track student growth=
and
progress toward the indexes |
|
|||||||||||
|
Timeframe for implementation:
Current through 4 years |
|
||||||||||||
|
Actions |
Schedule |
Responsibilitie=
s |
Monitoring |
Resources |
|
||||||||
|
1.
Implement the tutorial program. |
Year one |
Hire paraprofessional to tutor students in subject area
curriculum. |
Have registration list of attendance |
Tu=
torial
program stipends and salaries |
|
||||||||
|
2.=
Share
information with students and parents about the tutoring program. |
Year one |
Team leaders distribute student and parent information
during parent/teacher conference. |
After school tutoring information packet and registrat=
ion |
Pa=
raprofessional
tutors and supplies as needed |
|
||||||||
|
3.=
Modify
the tutoring based on participation and student performance results. |
Year two As needed |
Subject area team leaders work with paraprofessional t=
utor
to refine tutoring program |
After school and as needed tutoring program by student
participation and performance results |
Sa=
lary
Paraprofessional tutor |
|
||||||||
|
4.=
Implement teacher training using
writing to teach grammar in developmental years |
Year two |
Lead master teachers will serve for subject area teach=
ers |
Team leaders and trained alignment personnel |
Pr=
ofessional
days and professional development |
|
||||||||
|
5.
Implement oral reading and discussion of concept areas |
Year two-4 years |
Administration and subject area team leaders |
Student performance data disaggregated as specified for
assessment areas. |
Di=
strict
funds and personnel. |
|
||||||||
|
6.=
Develop an intra disciplinary
curriculum using real world situations |
Year one |
All curriculum teachers will apply real life
situations to content areas=
|
Curriculum audit on a six – week basis |
Su=
bject
area teachers |
|
||||||||
|
7.=
Implement vertical alignment to =
bridge
gaps in current curriculum. |
Year two |
Administrators will observe and assess alignment
procedures |
Curriculum based test/ MCT and MSAT |
Ad=
ministrators
and principals |
|
||||||||
|
8.=
Equip
teachers with resources needed to teach higher level shills. |
Year two |
District administration will provide funds for necessa=
ry
resources |
Through daily usage and evidence of growth in performa=
nce |
Di=
strict
funds for curriculum development |
|
||||||||
|
9.=
Align key stakeholders to combine
efforts to purchase state of the art computer lab. |
Year two – on going |
Teachers, district and community stakeholders combine =
to
provide a state of the art computer lab |
Increase amount of funds available for mobile computer=
lab |
Lo=
cal
businesses, community volunteers, parents and teachers |
|
||||||||
Action Plan – Goal # 2 |
||||||||||||||
|
Target Area for Improvement:
Vertical Alignment of the Curriculum |
||||||||||||||
|
Improvement Go=
al: St=
udents
will meet performance levels through vertical alignment. |
Expectations for student lea=
rning: St=
udent
test scores will improve with vertical alignment of the curriculum by 80%=
of
the students scoring proficient or advanced |
Targeted
participants: Th=
ird
grade students in |
||||||||||||
|
Interventions: ·
Curriculum:
Modify the ·
Assessments: Incorporate curriculum standards=
into ·
Involvement
Beyond the Classroom: Implement an after school tutoring program to reinf=
orce
academic and curriculum standards in the subject areas. |
Evaluation: M=
ississippi
Curriculum Test and Mississippi Subject Area Test to track student growth=
and
progress |
|||||||||||||
|
Timeframe for implementation:
Current through 4 years |
||||||||||||||
|
Actions |
Schedule |
Responsibilitie=
s |
Monitoring |
Resources |
||||||||||
|
1.
Implement
real life &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp;
experiences in the cu=
rriculum
format across |
Year one |
Team leaders and curriculum teachers |
Grade level assessments and state area |
Ti=
me ( 2-3
planning periods per week) |
||||||||||
|
2.
Implement problem solving skills and activities in curriculum. |
Year one |
Team leaders and master teachers trained in alignment<= o:p> |
Unit test and 6-week test |
Pl=
anning
period |
||||||||||
|
3.=
Modify
units of study to include all necessary&=
nbsp;
writing skills |
Year two As needed |
Subject area team leaders work with paraprofessional t=
utor
to refine tutoring program |
Subject area team leaders |
Tu=
torial
session, class time, and planning periods |
||||||||||
|
4.=
Implement and expand curriculum =
to
include expanded comprehension in history. |
Year two |
Lead master teachers will serve for subject area teach=
ers |
Team leaders and trained alignment personnel |
Pr=
ofessional
days and professional development |
||||||||||
|
5.
Implement curriculum alignment |
Year two-4 years |
Administration and subject area team leaders |
Student performance data disaggregated as specified for
assessment areas. |
Di=
strict
funds and personnel. |
||||||||||
&=
nbsp;
|
Action Plan&=
nbsp;
- Goal # 3 |
||||||
|
Target Area for Improvement:=
Proficiency in Writing |
||||||
|
Improvement Go=
al: S=
tudents
will write with frequency and fluency in a variety of formats. |
Expectations for student lea=
rning: S=
tudents
will write with proficiency. |
Targeted
participants: G=
rade 4 G=
rade 7 E=
nglish
II students A=
ll
non-tested students |
||||
|
Interventions:
|
Evaluation: r=
esults
will show increases in the number of students with scores of 3 and 4. <= o:p> |
|||||
|
Timeframe for implementation=
: 1- 4 years |
||||||
|
Actions |
Schedule |
Responsibilitie=
s |
Monitoring |
Resources |
||
|
1.
Identify how the writing pr=
ocess
is taught in Language Arts, Science, and=
Social Studies. |
1 year |
Team Leaders |
Student portfolios will ident=
ify
thoroughness of the writing process |
On=
ce a six
weeks |
||
|
2.
Implement a revised practice test including a writing assessment. |
2007 semester |
Learning area team leaders |
Grading of practice test |
Tw=
o planning
periods |
||
|
3.=
Develop
grade-level assessments that align rubrics to the writing process that cl=
arify
student ex=
pectations. |
2-4 years |
Learning area team leaders |
Rubric that assess student writing. |
Th=
ree to
five planning periods |
||
|
4.
Vertical alignment of |
2 - 4 years |
Administration, Master teachers |
Summative evaluation curriculum gradebook |
1.Professional
development 2.
Budgeted funds for |
||
|
5.=
Modify
instruction and
assessment for units incorporating a variety of technical wr=
itings
across the curriculum. |
August 2007 |
Subject area team leaders |
Two units identified for incl=
uding
technical writing across the curriculum. |
Fo=
ur
planning periods |
||
Planning