PROFILE

Part II

=

PROFILE

The Kossuth School community consists of an eight-mile radius surrounding the physical school. This community consis= ts of industry,

small business, agriculture and timb= er. Kossuth is composed of middle to low income families, averaging $40,000 per year per household.

The demographics include several religious affiliations, which make this community a conservative, Christian-based population.

For this reason, our community understands the necessity for community involvement, the value of an educat= ion, and the growing need to

continually improve and expand the curricu= lum for success. This school is a valuable resource for the community, and the community stakeholders

are actively involved in decision-= making processes and program implementation. The following pages will document the consummate effort of

the community, faculty, staff, and students to make Kossuth a school for the new millennium.=

School and Community Contexts

Kossuth is a village located ei= ght miles east of Corinth, MS, on Highway 2 between Ripley, MS, and Corinth. The school, known as

Alcorn Ag= ricultural High School<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;line-height:200%'>, was created in 1908 as a coun= ty agricultural boarding school which allowed students to go beyond the eighth=

grade. In 1960 it became a district school. The original campus consisted of six major buildings including the girls’ dormitory, the boys’ dormitory,

the agricultural building, the home economics building, the gymnasium, and a main classroom building. Serving as the county high school,=

students came from rural elementary fee= der schools, such as Bell, Hinkle Creek, Union, Gift, Wenasoga, = Mathis, Boneyard, and Kossuth.

Presently the school serves 157= 2 students in grades K-12, pro= viding a comprehensive array of academic classes, quality athletic programs, =

and various extracurricular activi= ties for students.

The communities, which make up = the Alcorn County School District, are Kossuth, Gl= en, Gift, Wenasoga, Hinkle, = Union Center,

Theo, Farmington, Biggersville, and Rienzi. These communities cover a 401 square-mile area with approximately 21= ,252 residents. These towns <= /o:p>

are directly adjacent to Corinth, an urban = center with a population of approximately 14,054.

The entire Alcorn School Distr= ict has an enrollment of 3,818. The rapid growth in industry and professional l= evel jobs in neighboring

Corinth has shifted Kossuth School from a rural to a suburban environment. These changes have had a profound impact on the characteristics

of students attending district sc= hools.

In the following pages, the sch= ool improvement team has provided charts to illustrate the socioeconomic data of the community which

Kossuth School serves and demographic data wi= thin the school.=

The following chart is the socioeconomic data of the Kossuth community based as the 2000 United States Census:

Socioeconomic Data

	US Census Demo- raphic (Percent)	US Census Housing (Percent)	US Census Social Indicators (Percent)	US Census Economic Indicators
Community - Ethnicity/Race
Two or More Races	0.5
One Race - White	87.5
One Race - Black	11.4
One Race - Hispanic	1.7
One Race - American Indian	0.1
Community - Housing
Owner Occupied Housing=		73.5
Family Houses - Couple=		74
Family Houses - Child < 18		26
Family Households		78
Community - Social
Residence Length < 5 years			63.7
Native Born			99
English Spoken at Home=			97.4
Educational Level < High Schoo= l			11.6
Educational Level - Professional<= o:p>			11.7
Community - Economic
Population on Public Assistance				3.8
Population < Poverty Level				2.9
Population > 16 Employed<= /o:p>				70.1

The following chart is a breakdown of stakeholde= r data within the Kossuth school. Stakeholders are defined as students, faculty, and

staff that are the inhabitants of Kossuth School.<= /span>

Stakeholder Data=

Student/Community Data	2002-2003	2003-2004	2004-2005	2005-2006	2006-2007
Student Enrollment	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>
Total # of Students	1= 435	1= 515	1= 526	1= 503	1= 572
Students' Racial Background		<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>
Caucasian	9= 6.7%	9= 7.4%	9= 7.4%	9= 6.8%	9= 6.6%
African American	2= .3%	1= .9%	1= .9%	2= .3%	2= .2%
Hispanic	1= .0%	0= .7%	0= .7%	0= .7%	1= .1%
Native American	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	0= .1%	0= .1%
Gender of Students	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>
Female	4= 8.6%	4= 7.4%	4= 7.6%	4= 8.1%	4= 7.5%
Male	5= 1.4%	5= 2.6%	5= 2.4%	5= 1.9%	5= 2.5%
Student/School Characteristics		<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>
Low Income (F/R Lunch)	4= 4.7%	4= 6.6%	4= 7.2%	4= 7.6%	4= 7.9%
# of Dropouts	8=	6=	1= 3	1= 0	N= /A
Pupil/Teacher Ratio	1= 3.17	1= 3.90	1= 3.63	1= 3.54	1= 4.04
Average Class Size	1= 9.9	2= 0.1	2= 0.4	2= 0.1	2= 0.6
Teacher/Administrator Characteristics		<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>
Number Employed	1= 09	1= 09	1= 12	1= 11	1= 12
% Highly Qualified	1= 00	1= 00	1= 00	1= 00	1= 00
Ethnic Background	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>
African American	1=	1=	1=	1=	1=
Caucasian	1= 07	1= 07	1= 10	1= 09	1= 10
Native American	1=	1=	1=	1=	1=
Gender of Teachers		<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>
Female	9= 1	9= 1	9= 1	9= 2	9= 1
Male	1= 8	1= 8	2= 1	1= 9	2= 1
Average Age of Staff	4= 0	4= 1	4= 1.1	4= 1.3	4= 2.6
Average Years Experience	1= 3	1= 4	1= 3.7	1= 4.5	1= 5.4
Certification Level		<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>
A	5= 3	5= 3	5= 6	5= 6	5= 7
AA	5= 3	5= 3	5= 2	5= 2	5= 2
AAA	2=	2=	3=	3=	3=
AAAA	1=	1=	1=	0=	0=
Operating Expenditures per Pupil	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>
School Average	Un= available	$= 6,211	$= 6,883	$= 7,420	$= 8,087
State Average	Un= available	$= 6,402	$= 6,794	$= 7,208	$= 7,857
MAEP Funds	Un= available	$= 5,525	$= 6,089	$= 6,457	$= 7,038
Federal Funds	Un= available	$= 686	$= 794	$= 963	$= 1,049

Student Performance at the Onset of t= he School Improvement Process

Narrative Summaries for the Data Displays

Student Performance: Overall Performance

Mississippi Curriculum Test

The state assessment is given t= o all students in grades 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 in May of each year. The assessment measures curriculum objectives

in math, reading, and language. Scores are reported for individual student’s performance as the proficiency levels of Advanced, Proficie= nt, Basic, and

Minimal. This is determined by how many score points a student earns on a test. The scores are reported= in average scale scores. The mean scale score

is the average scale score achiev= ed by the total group in each content area.

The graphs we have included are= based on the scale scores for each grade from Spring 2= 004 until Spring 2006. In 2002, t= he Mississippi curr= iculum

tests were in the first stages of development and in 2003 the baseline for adequate yearly progress (AYP) was= set by test scores. Kossuth was i= n a transitional

phase of creating a middle school at= this point, so the school improvement team decided not to include these years in= our analysis. Students’ sca= le scores

are compared with students within = our district and with the average state scores. Each set of graphs analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of each

grade indicated on the tables.<= /o:p>

COMPARISON OF KOSSUTH, DISTRICT, A= ND STATE

MISSISSIPPI CUR= RICULUM TEST

GRADE 2

Spring 2004<= /p>

Spring 2005

Spring 2006<= /p>

Students exceeded district and state averages in language and the state average in reading and math.

COMPARISON OF KOSSUTH, DISTRICT, A= ND STATE

MISSISSIPPI CUR= RICULUM TEST

GRADE 3

Spring 2004<= /p>

Spring 2005<= /p>

Spring 2006<= /p>

&n= bsp;

Students exceeded the district and state averages in all areas in 2004 and the distr= ict averages in 2005 and 2006.
COMPARISON OF KOSSUTH, DISTRICT, AND STATE

MISSISSIPPI CUR= RICULUM TEST

GRADE 4

Spring 2004<= /p>

Spring 2005<= /p>

Spring 2006<= /p>

Students exceeded the district and state averages in 2004 and 2005=

COMPARISON OF KOSSUTH, DISTRICT, A= ND STATE

MISSISSIPPI CUR= RICULUM TEST

GRADE 5

Spring 2004<= /p>

Spring 2005<= /p>

Spring 2006<= /p>

Student exceeded state averages in math and reading in 2004 and 2006. In 2005, students exceeded both st= ate and district averages in all areas.

COMPARISON OF KOSSUTH, DISTRICT, A= ND STATE

MISSISSIPPI CUR= RICULUM TEST

GRADE 6

Spring 2004<= /p>

Spring 2005<= /p>

Spring 2006

In 2004 and 2005, students exceeded state averages in langu= age and math. In 2006, students exceeded district and state averages in all areas.

COMPARISON OF KOSSUTH, DISTRICT, A= ND STATE

MISSISSIPPI CUR= RICULUM TEST

GRADE 7

Spri= ng 2004

Spring 2005<= /p>

Spring 2006<= /p>

Students exceeded state averages in math all three years. Students exceeded state averages in reading in 2004 and 2005.

&n= bsp;

COMPARISON OF KOSSUTH, DISTRICT, A= ND STATE

MISSISSIPPI CUR= RICULUM TEST

GRADE 8

Spring 2004<= /p>

Spring 2005

Spring 2006

=

In 2004= and 2006, students exceeded state averages in math. In 2005, students exceeded state averages in all areas.

&n= bsp;

American Co= llege Test (ACT)

The ACT consists of curriculum-= based tests of educational development in English, mathematics, reading, and scie= nce designed to measure

the skills needed for success in first-year college coursework. This five-year trend report shows changes in the number and percentages of participants,

sore changes in subject areas and t= he ACT composite score. This report also, further shows how Kossuth graduates comp= are with state averages.

The following graphs use the five-year trend reports to show the percentage of students meeting college readiness benchmarks, the average ACT

scores, and the average ACT scores na= tionwide for the years 2002-2006.

KOSSUTH HIGH SCHOOL

COMPARISON OF SCHOOL, STATE, AND NATIONAL SCORES

FOR ALL STUDENTS=

AMERICAN COLLEGE TEST (ACT)

2002-2006

Subject Area Tests

State assessments are given to = all students enrolled in Biology I, Algebra I, English II, and U. S. History. The assessment measures

curriculum objectives in the aforemention= ed subject areas. Scores are rep= orted for individual students and then compiled for comparison by

individual schools, districts, and to the= state average. Averages show the percentage of students passing the tests with a score of 300 or higher.

The scores reflected on the gra= phs from years 2003-2006 indicate individual school, district, and state averag= e of passing scores.

KOSSUTH HIGH SCHOOL

Subject Area Testing Program<= /o:p>

Comparison of School/District/State Scores=

Spring 2003<= /p>

Biology students and English II writing students exceeded the district and state levels. English II MC students exceeded the state levels.<= /b>

KOSSUTH HIGH SCHOOL

Subject Area Testing Program<= /o:p>

Comparison of School/District/State Scores=

Spring 2004<= /p>

English II MC students exceeded the district and state levels.<= /o:p>

U.S. History students exceeded the s= tate level.

KOSSUTH HIGH SCHOOL

Subject Area Testing Program<= /o:p>

Comparison of School/District/State Scores=

Spring 2005<= /p>

Algebra I students and Biology students exceeded the district and state levels.

English II MC students exceeded the state level.

<= o:p>

KOSSUTH HIGH SCHOOL

Subject Area Testing Program<= /o:p>

Comparison of School/District/State Scores=

Spring 2006<= /p>

Biology students exceeded the district and state levels. Algebra I, English II MC, and U.S. History students exceeded the state level.

The following middle school gra= ph includes eighth graders who have taken the Algebra I test. The middle school data shows 2004-2006

because the middle school is only three years old. Scores are obtaine= d by the same means as for all subject area tests students.

KOSSUTH MIDDLE SCHOOL

Subject Area Testing Program<= /o:p>

Comparison of School/District/State Scores=

Spring 2006<= /p>
Grade 8

Algebra I students exceeded the district and state levels all three years.

Population Enrolled in Non – Co= re Classes

Kossuth strives to meet all the special needs of its students. The following charts show the percentage of student population enrolled in

enrichment and remediation classes.<= /o:p>

=

2003-2004<= /b>

2004-2005<= /b>

2005-2006<= /b>

2006-2007<= /b>

SPED

2= 0.0%

1= 8.0%

1= 2.5%

1= 1.0%

Title Math=

8= .0%

7= .5%

8= .0%

3= .0%

Title Reading

1= 2.5%

8= .0%

9= .5%

2= 6.0%

Enrichment=

1= 4.0%

1= 6.0%

1= 4.5%

1= 2.0%

Honors Band

4= .0%

1= .0%

3= .0%

1= .0%

Gifted Art=

4= .0%

2= .0%

3= .0%

1= .0%

Music Makers

<= o:p>

5= .0%

5= .0%

5= .0%

=

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

Honors Algebra II=

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

2= 4%

Honors Geometry

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

2= 0%

Honors U.S. History

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

3= 0%

Honors English I<= /span>

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

1= 2%

Honors English II=

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

1= 4%

Honors English III

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

2= 0%

AP English IV

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

6= %

Honors Biology I<= /span>

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

2= 3%

Art Program

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

3= 6%

Survey of Stakeholders=

At onset of the school improvem= ent process, school effectiveness surveys were administered to 25 percent rando= mly selected

students in grades 1-12, to all certifi= ed staff, to 25 community stakeholders, and to 25 percent of the parent population. The following pag= es

are an analysis of the strengths a= nd weaknesses indicated by the surveys. Strengths are defined as positive experiences, while weaknesses

identify an absence of support. The sur= vey statements were answered according to agree, no comment, and disagree. To identify strengths

and weakness from the surveys, each statement answered was tallied and converted into percentages. The survey statements were ranked

with the top five percentages as strengths and the lowest percentages as weaknesses.

Survey 1 Inventory of School Effectiveness- Grades 1-3

&n= bsp;   The teachers read the surveys to the students, a= nd they responded by circling smiley faces and sad faces.

·  &n= bsp;      Strengths

I go the library every= week and check out books.

I read books and take accelerated reading tests to earn books.

My teacher helps me understand that learning can be fun and is important.=

My teacher teaches me = to be a good citizen of my school, community and country.
I spend time reading silently everyday or out loud to a friend or group of students.<= /span>

·         Weaknesses

I write paragraphs, st= ories or poems every day in school.

My teacher uses object= s to model math problems with me.

Survey 2 Inventory of School Effectiveness-Grades 4-12
In the remaining grades, students completed the surveys individually.

·         Strengths

The educational program offered to students is of high quality.

Visitors are welcome a= t our school.

My teachers care that I learn.

My teachers give me he= lp when I need it.

Sports and extracurric= ular activities are important programs in my school.

·         Weaknesses

Students see a relatio= nship between what they are studying and their lives.

I feel our Superintend= ent is open to questions from students.

&nbs= p;

Survey 3 Inventory of School Effectiveness-Certified Staff

Teachers completed the surveys anonymously.

·         Strengths

The educational program offered to students is of high quality.

Teach= ers encourage students to succeed.

Our s= chool actively promotes communication with parents.

Sport= s and extracurricular activities are important programs in our school.=

The s= tate and district curriculum is the primary basis for academic instruction.

·         Weaknesses

The school’s facilities are adequate to support instruction.

The B= oard of Education deals with people and issues consistently.<= /p>
The Superintendent is open to input from teachers.

Survey 4 Inventory of School Effectiveness-Community Stakeholders

Community stakeholders consisted of community leaders, business owners, and general community members.

·  &n= bsp;      Strengths

The educational program offered to students is of high quality.

Visitors are welcome a= t our school.

Sports and extracurric= ular activities are important programs in my school.

Students receive strong instruction in the basic skills.

·         Weaknesses

The school’s facilities are adequate to support instruction.

I feel the Board of Education deals with people and issues consistently.<= /p>
I feel that our Superintendent is open to questions and input from students.

Survey 5 Inventory of School Effectiveness-Parents

Parent population was randomly selected the parents to include in this survey. The data was analyzed and ranked b= y the

top-rated strengths and weaknesses. They are as follows:

·  &n= bsp;      Strengths

Parents are provided c= opies of school policies and regulations.

Our school encourages = parent and teacher communication.

Teachers, administrato= rs, and counselors are available to schedule a conference.

Our school offers opportunities for parent involvement.

Visitors are welcome a= t our school.

·         Weaknesses

I feel the Board of Education deals with people and issues consistently.<= /p>
I feel that our Superi= ntendent is open to questions and input from parents.

Our school meets the n= eeds of students with special needs.

Over= all Analysis of Surveys - Stakeholder surv= eys indicate that our school provides a comfortable learning environment that encourages     &nb= sp;

i= nvolvement of all stakeholders. Visitors are welcomed in our school and parents feel t= hat communication with teachers is encouraged. It is the

consensus of the entire group = of stakeholders that our school offers a high quality education and success is both promoted and encouraged.

The surveys also indi= cate that sports and extracurricular activities are important programs at our school.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;           The surveys also identified our weaknesses as a lack of support and communicati= on from county administration. T= his information has

been shared with the prop= er officials. Another weakness, identified by certified staff and community stakeholders was inadequate facilities

to support instruction. Plans for improv= ement and new facilities are currently underway, with the construction of additio= nal classrooms

scheduled to begin in the spri= ng of 2007.

=

=	2003-2004<= /b>	2004-2005<= /b>	2005-2006<= /b>	2006-2007<= /b>
SPED	2= 0.0%	1= 8.0%	1= 2.5%	1= 1.0%
Title Math=	8= .0%	7= .5%	8= .0%	3= .0%
Title Reading	1= 2.5%	8= .0%	9= .5%	2= 6.0%
Enrichment=	1= 4.0%	1= 6.0%	1= 4.5%	1= 2.0%
Honors Band	4= .0%	1= .0%	3= .0%	1= .0%
Gifted Art=	4= .0%	2= .0%	3= .0%	1= .0%
Music Makers	<= o:p>	5= .0%	5= .0%	5= .0%
=	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>
Honors Algebra II=	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	2= 4%
Honors Geometry	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	2= 0%
Honors U.S. History	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	3= 0%
Honors English I<= /span>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	1= 2%
Honors English II=	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	1= 4%
Honors English III	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	2= 0%
AP English IV	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	6= %
Honors Biology I<= /span>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	2= 3%
Art Program	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	<= o:p>	3= 6%