district 180-louisville region school improvement grant ... · by may 2013, all nclb subgroups will...

1

DISTRICT 180-Louisville Region

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANT (1003g)

SCHOOL QUARTERLY 2012-2013

Tier I and II Schools (REV 9-17-2012_dp/ERD)

2012-13 Reporting Dates

October 1, 2012 January 7, 2013 April 8, 2013 June 30, 2013

School Name: Stuart Middle School

Intervention Model: Transformation Model School’s Status:

Tier Status:

Priority School Cohort: 3

2

Non-Cognitive Data Reporting

Attendance

(report in

percentages)

Baseline 2012-13

June 2012 Oct

(6/9 week

mark)

Dec

(18 week

mark)

Mar

(27 week

mark)

June

(36 week

mark)

6th grade

93.8

Goal:

Actual: 96.75

(8/31)

Goal:

Actual: 94.6

Goal:

Actual: 92.5

Goal:

Actual: 92.2

7th grade 92.3

Goal:

Actual: 97.16

(8/31)

Goal:

Actual: 95.4

Goal:

Actual: 92.0

Goal:

Actual: 92.0

8th grade 93.0

Goal:

Actual: 95.93

(8/31)

Goal:

Actual: 92.8

Goal:

Actual: 89.9

Goal:

Actual: 89.1

Total

School

Goal: 100

Actual: 96.2

Goal: 100

Actual: 94.3

Goal: 100

Actual: 91.4

Goal: 100

Actual: 91.1

Teacher

Attendance

Goal: 100

Actual: 95.40

Goal: 100

Actual: 94.3

Goal: 100

Actual: 94.4

Goal: 100

Actual: 95.3

MS Retention

Rate

(report in

percentages)

Baseline

June 2012 June 2013

6th

Grade

0.5

Actual: 0.5

7th

Grade

0.0

Actual: 0.0

8th

Grade

1.3

Actual: 1.3

3

Non-Cognitive Area SMART Goals to Address Targeted Goals

Non-Cognitive Area Targeted Group (s) SMART Goal

Attendance

African American Males, African

American Females

By May, 2013, there will be a 10% decline in overall suspensions and for

the groups of African American Males and African American Females.

Targeted students will decrease absences to 10 days or less during the

2012-2013 school year

MS Retention Rate

HS Graduation Rate

HS Dropout Rate

*Other Non-Cognitive Area

(Describe)

4

Behavior Interventions (Beyond Universal)

Grade Level Baseline

June 2012

2012-2013

Actual # of Students referred for

behavior intervention

% of total population referred for

behavior intervention

% of students progressing

to a less intensive tiered

intervention

Additional Comments about the increase or

decrease of special education students’

referrals:

Special education students receive behavior

interventions from their assigned ECE caseload

teacher.

Dec./Jan

(18 week

mark)

March

(27 week

mark)

June

(36 week

mark)

Dec./Jan

(18 week

mark)

June

(36 week

mark)

# % # % # %

Grade 6 n = 15 100 30

89

27 68 21

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Grade 7 n = 16/15 112 34

110

34 46 13

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Grade 8 n = 7/15 97 31

95

30 100 29

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:


decrease of subgroup students’ referrals:

Our Opportunity Room is an opportunity for

student’s to regroup (first level intervention after

classroom intervention has not worked), not the

intensive intervention that some students may need.

Our Home/School Liaison has 30 students to provide

more of an intensive intervention.

5

Behavior Intervention SMART Goals

Grade Level

Group

Targeted Sub-Group (s) if

appropriate

SMART Goal

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 8

School Wide

Collaborate to develop a boys’ and girls’ program to provide social skills interventions

by 06/15/2013 as measured by an on overall reduction in overall suspensions and

attendance

Collaborate to provide a training for all teachers working with ECE students on how to

handle difficult students by 06/15/2013 as measured by a decrease in special education

student referrals

6

Academic/Cognitive Data-to be completed after release of data in October 2012

KPREP Core Content Test [Results in Percentages Meeting Benchmarks]

Middle School Baseline

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015

Reading Grade 6 Goal:

Actual: 21.2

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:


Actual: 20.6

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:


Actual: 19.6

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Mathematics Grade 6 Goal:

Actual: 7.7

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:


Actual: 13.7

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:


Actual: 14.1

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Science Grade 7 Goal: 25.5

Actual: 27.3

Goal: 33.0

Actual:

Goal: 40.4

Actual:

Social Studies Grade 8 Goal: 24.9

Actual: 26.7

Goal: 32.4

Actual:

Goal: 39.9

Actual:

On-Demand Writing Grade 8 Goal:

Actual: 13.5 Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

EXPLORE

Goal:

Actual: English (37.0),

Mathematics (10.0),

Reading (19.0), Science

(4.5), Comp. Mean 13.2

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

7

Academic SMART Goals related to KPREP Data-add to chart as appropriate

Grade Level

Group

Targeted Sub-

Group (s) if

appropriate

Content

Area Assessment SMART Goal

Math

K-Prep

By May 2013, All NCLB subgroups will reach their NCLB math

proficiency target of 79.12 as measured on the K-Prep. By May,

2013, the percentage of students scoring Novice in Math will

decrease by 7.07

Reading and

Math

K-Prep

By May 2013, Stuart will have an increase in Proficient scores to

meet NCLB goal of 86.4 in Reading and 79.12 in Math. During the

2012-13 school year there will be a 10% increase in the number of

students who qualify for Honor Roll

Reading

K-Prep In May 2013, All NCLB subgroups will reach their NCLB Reading

Proficiency Target of 86.4 as measured on the K-Prep. By May

2013, the percentage of students scoring Novice in Reading will

decrease by 4.0

Writing

K-Prep By May, 2013, the percentage of students scoring Proficient or

Distinguished will increase by 27.96 for a total percentage of all

students scoring Proficient or Distinguished in Writing of 44.09 as

measured by K-Prep

Science

K-Prep

By May, 2013, the percentage of students scoring Proficient or


students scoring Proficient or Distinguished in Science of 56.09 as

measured by K-Prep

Science

K-Prep

By May, 2013, the percentage of students scoring Proficient or


students scoring Proficient or Distinguished in Science of 56.09 as

measured by K-Prep

All Students ELA K-Prep 61% of all students will demonstrate Proficiency in

English/Language Arts by 2017

African

American, White,

Free/Reduced,

Reading K-Prep 29% of African American, White, Free/Reduced, Hispanic and IEP

students will demonstrate Proficiency in Common Core Standards as

measured by K-Prep by June 5, 2013

8

Hispanic, & IEP

All students

Math

K-Prep 56% of all students will demonstrate Proficiency by 2017

African

American, Asian,

White,

Free/Reduced,

Hispanic and IEP

Math

K-Prep

20% of African American, White, Free/Reduced, Hispanic and IEP

students will demonstrate Proficiency as measured by K-Prep by

June 5, 2013

All students Science K-Prep 64% of students will demonstrate Proficiency in Science by 2017

7th Science K-Prep 35% of 7

th grade students will demonstrate Proficiency in Core

Content 4.1 in Science by June 5, 2013 as measured by K-Prep

African

American,

Free/Reduced,

Hispanic, and

IEP

Science



June 5, 2013

All Students Social

Studies

K-Prep

64% of students will demonstrate Proficiency in Social Studies by

2017

African

American, White,

Free/Reduced,

Hispanic, & IEP

Social

Studies

K-Prep

33% will demonstrate Proficiency in Social Studies by 2017

All Students

Writing

K-Prep

58% will demonstrate Proficiency in Writing by 2017

Writing

K-Prep

23% of 6th

and 8th

grade students will demonstrate Proficiency in

Common Core Standards as measured by K-Prep by June 5, 2013

9

African

American, White,

Free/Reduced,

Hispanic & IEP

Writing

K-Prep



June 5, 2013

10

Academic/Cognitive Data-to be completed after each administration (6 Weeks Marks) Formative Assessments Used for Monitoring Student Progress: MAP/CASCADE, etc. [Results reported as Percentages of Total at Proficiency or above]

Middle School Assessment 1st 6 weeks 2

nd 6 weeks 3

rd 6 weeks 4

th 6 weeks 5

th 6 weeks 6

th 6 weeks

ELA/Reading

Grade 6

Reading

Diagnostic

Assessment

(RDA)

Goal:

Actual: 46.0

RDA #1

Goal:

Actual: 32.0

RDA #2

Goal:

Actual: 49.0

RDA #3

Reading

Proficiency

Assessment

(RPA)

Goal: 40.0

Actual: 45.6

RPA #1

Goal:

Actual: 34.0

RPA #2

Goal:

Actual: 40.0

RPA #3

MAP

Goal:

Actual: 31.0

(Fall, 2012)

Goal:

Actual: 36.0

(Spring, 2013)

ELA/Reading

Grade 7

Reading

Diagnostic

Assessment

(RDA)

Goal:

Actual: 54.1

RDA #1

Goal:

Actual: 43.0

RDA #2

Goal:

Actual: 54.0

RDA #3

Reading

Proficiency

Assessment

(RPA)

Goal: 40.0

Actual: 46.3

RPA #1

Goal:

Actual: 19.0

RPA #2

Goal:

Actual: 20.0

RPA #3

MAP

Goal:

Actual: 22

(Spring, 2011)

Goal:

Actual: 32

(Fall, 2012)

Goal:

Actual: 33.0

(Spring, 2013)

11

ELA/Reading

Grade 8

Reading

Diagnostic

Assessment

(RDA)

Goal: 40.0

Actual: 44.0

RDA #1

Goal:

Actual: 29.0

RDA #2

Goal:

Actual: 29.0

RDA #3

Reading

Proficiency

Assessment

(RPA)

Goal: 40.0

Actual: 45.4

RPA #1

Goal:

Actual: 21.0

RPA #2

Goal:

Actual: 25.0

RPA #3

MAP

Goal:

Actual: 23

(Spring, 2011)

Goal:

Actual: 30

(Fall, 2012)

Goal:

Actual: 38.0

(Spring, 2013)

Mathematics

Grade 6

Math

Proficiency

Assessment

(MPA)

Goal: 20.7

Actual: 44

MPA #1

Goal:

Actual: 14.0

MPA #2

Goal:

Actual: 17.0

MPA #3

Goal:

Actual: 21.0

MPA #4

Goal:

Actual: 16.0

MPA #5

Math

Proficiency

Assessment

(MPA)

Advanced

Goal:

Actual: 86.0

MPA #1

Goal:

Actual: 26.0

MPA #2

Goal:

Actual: 27.0

MPA #3

Goal:

Actual: 63.0

MPA #4

Goal:

Actual: 3.0

MPA #5

MAP

Goal:

Actual: 19

(Fall, 2012)

Goal:

Actual: 16.0

(Spring, 2013)

Mathematics

Grade 7

Math

Proficiency

Assessment

(MPA)

Goal: 20.7

Actual: 50.0

MPA #1

Goal:

Actual: 20.0

MPA #2

Goal:

Actual: 24.0

MPA #3

Goal:

Actual: 28.0

MPA #4

Goal:

Actual: 34.0

MPA #5

12

Math

Proficiency

Assessment

(MPA)

Advanced

Goal:

Actual: 62.0

MPA #1

Goal:

Actual: 50.0

MPA #2

Goal:

Actual: 48.0

MPA #3

Goal:

Actual: 75.0

MPA #4

Goal:

Actual: 34.0

MPA #5

MAP

Goal:

Actual: 12

(Spring, 2011)

Goal: 30

Actual: 21

(Fall, 2012)

Goal:

Actual: 25.0

(Spring, 2013)

Mathematics

Grade 8

Math

Proficiency

Assessment

(MPA)

Goal: 20.7

Actual: 20.0

MPA #1

Goal:

Actual: 10.0

MPA #2

Goal:

Actual: 15.0

MPA #3

Goal:

Actual: 7.0

MPA #4

Goal:

Actual: 7.0

MPA #5

Math

Proficiency

Assessment

(MPA)

Advanced

Goal:

Actual: 39.0

MPA #1

Goal:

Actual: 24.0

MPA #2

Goal:

Actual: 4.0

MPA #3

Goal:

Actual: 17.0

MPA #4

Goal:

Actual: 2.0

MPA #5

Goal:

Actual: 25.0

MPA #6

MAP

Goal:

Actual: 21

(Spring, 2011)

Goal: 30

Actual: 22

(Fall, 2012)

Goal:

Actual: 25.0

(Spring, 2013)

Science Grade 6

Science

Proficiency

Assessment

(SPA)

Goal:

Actual: 44.2

SPA #1

Goal:

Actual: 21.0

SPA #2

Goal:

Actual: 43.0

SPA #3

Goal:

Actual: 7.0

SPA #4

Goal:

Actual: 53.0

SPA #5

Science Grade 7

Science

Proficiency

Assessment

Goal:

Actual: 44.0

SPA #1

Goal:

Actual: 19.0

SPA #2

Goal:

Actual: 35.0

SPA #3

Goal:

Actual: 72.0

SPA #4

Goal:

Actual: 43.0

SPA #5

13

(SPA)

Science Grade 8

Science

Proficiency

Assessment

(SPA)

Goal:

Actual: 52.7

SPA #1

Goal:

Actual: 50.0

SPA #2

Goal:

Actual: 22.0

SPA #3

Goal:

Actual: 28.0

SPA #4

Goal:

Actual: 45.0

SPA #5

Goal:

Actual: 26.0

SPA #6

Social Studies

Grade 6

SS

Proficiency

Assessment

(SSPA)

Goal:

Actual: 40.2

SSPA #1

Goal:

Actual: 25.0

SSPA #2

Goal:

Actual: 21.0

SSPA #3

Goal:

Actual: 47.0

SSPA #4

Goal:

Actual: 36.0

SSPA #5

Social Studies

Grade 7

SS

Proficiency

Assessment

(SSPA)

Goal:

Actual: 38.4

SSPA #1

Goal:

Actual: 11.0

SSPA #2

Goal:

Actual: 20.0

SSPA #3

Goal:

Actual: 43.0

SSPA #4

Goal:

Actual: 39.0

SSPA #5

Social Studies

Grade 8

SS

Proficiency

Assessment

(SSPA)

Goal:

Actual: 29.7

SSPA #1

Goal:

Actual: 15.0

SSPA #2

Goal:

Actual: 17.0

SSPA #3

Goal:

Actual: 12.0

SSPA #4

Goal:

Actual: 21.0

SSPA #5

Newly Added:

Bi-Weekly

Formative

Assessment

Assessment

1st

Began: 2/2013

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

Stuart

Learning

Check, 12/2012

(SLC)

ELA/Reading

Grade 6

Bi-Weekly

Assessment

Class Data:

Above or

Below 60%

Actual

Above: 62.0

Below: 38.0

Actual

Above: 73.0

Below: 27.0

Actual

Above: 59.0

Below: 41.0

Actual

Above: 64.0

Below: 36.0

Actual

Above: 67.0

Below: 33.0

% Proficient &

Distinguished

32.0

ELA/Reading

Grade 7

Bi-Weekly

Assessment

Actual

Above: 85.0

Actual

Above: 56.0

Actual

Above: 65.0

Actual

Above: 68.0

Actual

Above: 73.0

% Proficient &

Distinguished

14

Class Data:

Above or

Below 60%

Below: 15.0 Below: 44.0 Below: 35.0 Below: 32.0 Below: 27.0 23.0

ELA/Reading

Grade 8

Bi-Weekly

Assessment

Class Data:

Above or

Below 60%

Actual

Above: 78.0

Below: 22.0

Actual

Above: 62.0

Below: 38.0

Actual

Above: 74.0

Below: 26.0

Actual

Above: 75.0

Below: 25.0

Actual

Above: 54.0

Below: 46.0

% Proficient &

Distinguished

36.0

Mathematics

Grade 6

Bi-Weekly

Assessment

Class Data:

Above or

Below 60%

Actual

Above: 54.0

Below: 46.0

Actual

Above: 67.0

Below: 33.0

Actual

Above: 41.0

Below: 59.0

Actual

Above: 50.0

Below: 50.0

Actual

Above: 69.0

Below: 31.0

% Proficient &

Distinguished

9.0

Mathematics

Grade 7

Bi-Weekly

Assessment

Class Data:

Above or

Below 60%

Actual

Above: 73.0

Below: 27.0

Actual

Above: 58.0

Below: 42.0

Actual

Above: 71.0

Below: 29.0

Actual

Above: 55.0

Below: 45.0

Actual

Above: 69.0

Below: 31.0

% Proficient &

Distinguished

8.0

Mathematics

Grade 8

Bi-Weekly

Assessment

Class Data:

Above or

Below 60%

Actual

Above: 64.0

Below: 36.0

Actual

Above: 49.0

Below: 51.0

Actual

Above: 53.0

Below: 47.0

Actual

Above: 68.0

Below: 22.0

Actual

Above: 47.0

Below: 53.0

% Proficient &

Distinguished

7.0

Science Grade 6

Bi-Weekly

Assessment

Class Data:

Above or

Below 60%

Actual

Above: 63.0

Below: 37.0

Actual

Above: 66.0

Below: 34.0

Actual

Above: 65.0

Below: 35.0

Actual

Above: 66.0

Below: 34.0

Actual

Above: 38.0

Below: 62.0

% Proficient &

Distinguished

46.0

Science Grade 7 Bi-Weekly

Assessment

Actual

Above: 72.0

Actual

Above: 59.0

Actual

Above: 52.0

Actual

Above: 81.0

Actual

Above: 78.0

% Proficient &

Distinguished

15

Class Data:

Above or

Below 60%

Below: 28.0 Below: 41.0 Below: 48.0 Below: 19.0 Below: 22.0 32.0

Science Grade 8

Bi-Weekly

Assessment

Class Data:

Above or

Below 60%

Actual

Above: 71.0

Below: 29.0

Actual

Above: 66.0

Below: 34.0

Actual

Above: 73.0

Below: 27.0

Actual

Above: 61.0

Below: 39.0

Actual

Above: 73.0

Below: 27.0

% Proficient &

Distinguished

13.0

Social Studies

Grade 6

Bi-Weekly

Assessment

Class Data:

Above or

Below 60%

Actual

Above: 54.0

Below: 46.0

Actual

Above: 66.0

Below: 34.0

Actual

Above: 70.0

Below: 30.0

Actual

Above: 66.0

Below: 34.0

Actual

Above: 68.0

Below: 32.0

% Proficient &

Distinguished

12.0

Social Studies

Grade 7

Bi-Weekly

Assessment

Class Data:

Above or

Below 60%

Actual

Above: 67.0

Below: 43.0

Actual

Above: 53.0

Below: 49.0

Actual

Above: 51.0

Below: 39.0

Actual

Above: 67.0

Below: 43.0

Actual

Above: 53.0

Below: 37.0

% Proficient &

Distinguished

16.0

Social Studies

Grade 8

Bi-Weekly

Assessment

Class Data:

Above or

Below 60%

Actual

Above: 47.0

Below: 53.0

Actual

Above: 68.0

Below: 32.0

Actual

Above: 83.0

Below: 17.0

Actual

Above: 68.0

Below: 32.0

Actual

Above: 68.0

Below: 32.0

% Proficient &

Distinguished

13.0

16

October, 2012

Stuart Middle School is in the process of testing all students in Reading, Math and Language Usage using MAP. MAP testing was delayed at the

beginning of the school year, due to the update that was to be required to be done for every computer. This was outsourced to an outside entity to

complete.

December, 2012

The second proficiency assessment for Social Studies window does not close until 11/30, therefore the 3rd

six weeks data will be on the March report

for the 3rd

six weeks. Assessments that were given indicate that over half of the student body is scoring below grade level in all content areas. This

data is based on information recorded in CASCADE. The instructional leadership team and Principal have analyzed this data carefully and will be

assisting teachers in making the adjustments in instruction. We are also aware that the current CASCADE system is not aligned with the new

assessment model; therefore provisions for upcoming assessments have been made so that the results more closely mirror K-PREP.

March, 2013

Assessment data recorded by the District CASCADE system continue to indicate that there are wide-spread groups of the student body scoring below

grade level in all content areas. However, due to the District mirroring CASCADE alignment to percentiles of the K-PREP assessment, the

Diagnostic and Proficiency assessment scores are providing a clearer representation of student progress. Unfortunately, the scores have dropped but

they still provide a more accurate measurement of students’ current performance. The Instructional Leadership Team, along with Principal and ER

Staff, in preparation for these score adjustments, has implemented “Flashback Fridays.” “Flashback Fridays” are teacher-created formative

assessments that are given on a bi-weekly basis, carefully aligned to Common Core Standards to help increase student academic performance.

Teachers analyze and reflect on their students’ scores and make the necessary instructional changes for the following week. Each assessment

consists of five questions – three related to the current standards being assessed (from the curriculum map) and two from the previously learned and

assessed standards. The Resource and ER staff will assist in monitoring, creating, and analyzing the results of these assessments, to assist in ensuring

assessment intentionality and overall student progress. (Data is added above, at the end of the chart in BLUE – all five planned assessments will be

included in the final report.)

17

The ER staff developed a mid-year formative assessment in December 2012, modeled after K-PREP assessment, titled, “The Stuart Learning Check

(SLC).” This assessment utilized content from K-Prep resource materials, former District assessments, Study Island, and other standards-based

materials. This data is listed in the formative assessment data section above (in YELLOW). An assessment was created in each core content area

and reflected the standards that had been taught from August to December – it was a great way to determine mid-year student progress. Teachers

used these assessments as their mid-term grades and as an instructional guide to identify how students were progressing towards proficiency, as well

as, helping to identify areas needing re-teaching. These assessments were able to assist with guiding our next steps for the second half of the school

year. Thus, this data helped devise the plan, and substantiate the need, for the bi-weekly formative assessments that we are currently using to monitor

student progress and make instructional changes as needed for the remainder of the school year.

School-wide MAP testing will begin mid/late-March. The results will be included on the June Report.

June, 2013

There have been gains in the number of students performing at the Proficient and Distinguished levels on the District Proficiency Assessments,

particularly in both 6th

grade Reading and Science. However, data continues to show there are wide-spread groups of the student body continuing to

score below grade level across all content areas. The creations of the “Flashback Friday” formative assessments have helped provide students with

additional practice and overall mastery of content standards to increase student academic performance. Teachers have been working with ER and

Resource staff members in PLCs to analyze and reflect on students’ instructional needs. Plans are being made to continue with “Flashback Friday”

assessments for the entire upcoming school year. Coupled with the District Proficiency Assessments, teachers working with resource staff in

carefully monitoring, analyzing, and making instructional changes based on data will help positively impact student performance.

* Please note: The noticeable decline in scores, particularly Math Proficiency #5 and Math Advanced Proficiency #5, were due to teachers giving the

test AFTER the K-Prep assessment. Students were not given ample review, due to the focus on K-Prep preparation. Therefore, there was a

significant decline in the scores.

18

Targeted Intervention Data-Reading

Grade

Level

Baseline

June 2012

Reading Interventions 2012-2013

Actual # of students served and

% of total population served

% of students currently being served

progressing to a less intensive tiered

intervention



referrals for intervention:

8th

Grade – 10 students

7th


6th


Special Ed

Self-contained students are not assigned to

a pull out math and reading intervention

Teachers are being set up with

SuccessMaker in their classroom to ensure

that all students who have been identified

as Tier 3 benefit from this intervention.

This will also ensure the students receive a

related arts class.

Oct

(6 or 9 week

mark)

Dec

(18 week

mark)

Mar

(27 week

mark)

June

(36 week

mark)

Oct

(6/ 9

week

mark)

Dec

(18

week

mark)

Mar

(27 week

mark)

June

(36 week

mark)

# % # % # % # % # %

Grade 6 n =

67 225 65 225 68 202 63 187 58

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Grade 7 N =

27 8 2 76 21 96 27 63 18

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Grade 8 N =

33 5 1 45 13 68 20 33 10

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:


decrease of other subgroup(s) students’


Increase of subgroups

The hiring of an Instructor III allowed for

resource teachers to create a schedule and

identify additional students for

intervention using the SuccessMaker

program.

(March & June, 2013) Two full computer

labs are operating, providing students with

scheduled opportunities to utilize the

SuccessMaker programs each day. More

students are able to benefit from the

program on the daily basis.

19

Targeted Intervention Plan-Reading

Specify types of interventions at work for various student groups. Attach an intervention plan, if appropriate. Discuss how students were identified (which data sets were considered when making the identification), how progress is being monitored, and how interventions are adjusted with new or additional data.

October, 2012

6th

grade students are placed in an enrichment class based on SRI data. 7th

and 8th

grade students have both a Reading and Language Arts

class. MAP data will further finalize student placement based on needs

December, 2012

Subgroups:

With the additional hire of an Instructor III, a Successmaker Intervention (computer) lab was created to provide 7

th and 8

th grade students

with 20 minutes of computer-based reading intervention daily. These students were identified by the highest need (identified as Tier 3 – two

or more years below grade level). Resource teachers utilized MAP and KPREP assessments to help determine placement of the students

with the greatest need. Extended School Services (ESS) are held twice a week to assist in meeting the needs of identified tiered students.

However, the number of students being served is only a fraction of the population of the students identified in need at Stuart Middle School.

Currently, an average of 50% of the student population can be categorized as Tier 3. Unfortunately, the school does not have the resources

to provide this instructional service to all students in need due to limited amount of funding received to assist in the improvement efforts.

Resource teachers will continue to monitor students’ progress and work to adjust students’ appropriate placements as needed.

March, 2013

In the 6th grade, 23 students tested out of reading intervention, due to (+) SRI scores, teacher re-evaluation, and overall improvement in reading scores.

Successmaker Intervention is continuing to provide identified students in 7th and 8

th grades with 20 minutes of computer-based reading intervention daily.

Because the referred students receiving services have been identified as Tier 3, they will continue to stay in this program throughout the remainder of the

school year. However, individual student progress is being made but they continue to be performing well-below their similar-age peers in reading. The

resource staff and Instructor III continue to monitor students’ progress on a weekly basis, provide progress incentives to keep students, and work to adjust

students’ to their appropriate placements as needed.

20

Targeted Intervention Plan-Reading continued…

June 2013

In the 6th grade, 15 students tested out of reading intervention, due to (+) SRI scores, teacher re-evaluation, and overall improvement in reading scores.

Successmaker Intervention is continuing to provide identified students in 7th and 8

th grades with 20 minutes of computer-based reading intervention daily. Because

the referred students receiving services have been identified as Tier 3, they will continue to stay in this program throughout the remainder of the school year.

However, individual student progress is being made but they continue to be performing well-below their similar-age peers in reading. The resource staff and

Instructor III continue to monitor students’ progress on a weekly basis, provide progress incentives to keep students, and work to adjust students’ to their

appropriate placements as needed.

Among all 7th and 8

th grade participants in Reading Successmaker, there was an average gain of 0.36 years gained. Considering the intervention did not fully get

underway until late Fall/Winter (November/December), this gain is equal to a 4 month increase which is remarkable given the full amount of time spent in the lab

on a consistent basis!

Breakdown on the progress of the Tier 3 students on Reading Successmaker is as followed:

66% of the students showed an increase in their Reading Levels

16% of the students showed a decrease in their Reading Levels (majority of this group’s scores were on a grade-level borderline and when re-tested, fell into the

lower category)

7% of the students stayed the same

11% of the students did not have two scores in which to show comparison (due to either being Absent during the Spring testing and hadn’t completed the re-test,

or enrolled to Stuart after the first test was administered)

Breakdown of the Average Gains of Years of those students whom showed an increase in their Reading level is as followed:

47% of students showed an increase/growth of 1 Year (Grade level)

18% of students showed an increase/growth of 2 Years (Grade level)

9% of students showed an increase/growth of 3 Years (Grade level)

2% of students showed an increase/growth of 4 Years or More (Grade level)

Overall, in the Reading Successmaker intervention class, there was an average of a 9.6 point gain across all grade levels! The Reading Successmaker intervention

classroom was very successful this year. The instructor tracked students’ progress and charted data on a weekly basis. Every time a student made a 0.1 growth in

SuccessMaker their chart was changed. This monitoring was motivating to students and data from these classes is slightly better, even though they did not have as

many hours on SuccessMaker in comparison to the Math intervention classroom. The success of this intervention lab will be another system/process that will

begin at the beginning of the school year, in hopes to help increase overall student achievement in Reading.

21

Targeted Intervention Data-Mathematics

Grade

Level

Baseline

June

2012

Mathematics Interventions 2012-2013

Actual # of students served and

% of total population served

% of students currently being served

progressing to a less intensive tiered

intervention




8th


7th


6th


Special Ed

Self-contained students are not assigned to

a pull out math and reading intervention.

Teachers are being set up with

SuccessMaker in their classroom to ensure

that all students who have been identified

as Tier 3 benefit from this intervention.

This will also ensure the students receive a

related arts class.

Oct

(6 or 9

week

mark)

Dec

(18

week

mark)

Mar

(27

week

mark)

June

(36 week

mark)

Oct

(6/ 9

week

mark)

Dec

(18 week

mark)

Mar

(27 week

mark)

June

(36 week

mark)

# % # % # % # %

Grade 6 40 11.5 46 14 46 14 36 11

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Grade 7 20 5.6 84 23 84 23 92 27

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Grade 8 22 6.2 54 15 54 15 53 16

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:


decrease of other subgroup(s) students’


Increase of subgroups

The hiring of an Instructor III allowed for

resource teachers to create a schedule and

identify additional students for

intervention using the SuccessMaker

program.

22

Targeted Intervention Plan-Mathematics

Specify types of interventions at work for various student groups. Attach an intervention plan, if appropriate.

Discuss how students were identified (which data sets were considered when making the identification), how progress is being monitored, and how

interventions are adjusted with new or additional data.

October, 2012

The counselor used MAP data from Spring 2012 to identify the students to be placed into intervention classes for 7th

and 8th

grade. (55% of

current 7th

graders and 61% of current 8th

graders tested more than 2 years below in Mathematics.) Students will not test out of intervention,

but will stay in this rotation for 12 weeks until the next rotation. The dates for these changes are November 15 and March 4.

6th

grade students spend 20 minutes daily on Succeessmaker and 25 minutes daily on Do the Math Now.

7th

and 8th

grade students spend 20 minutes on SuccessMaker and then use Sum Dog for remainder of the time. The Math ERS will be

working with intervention teacher to formulate a plan to do intentional pull outs at least 2 – 3 days per week using the RTI strategy mats

based on diagnostic data.

A 6th

grade Enrichment/Intervention period has been used to address necessary skills students are lacking. Once MAP testing is completed

(Sept. 27-Oct. 4), these students will be assigned to either a Math or Reading Intervention based on their score.

December, 2012/March 2013

Mr. Beck (Math Intervention Class) Students have been identified based on K-PREP and MAP to be assigned to this class for the remainder of the school year unless they test

out. 6th grade students will do 20 minutes of SuccessMaker and 30 minutes of Do the Math daily. 7th

and 8th

graders will do 20 minutes of

SuccessMaker daily and work in small groups on skills identified from SuccessMaker and other assessment results. The intervention teacher

will plan instruction specific to student needs, including using progress monitoring to adjust instruction.

Ms. Wakaba (Instructor III) With the hire of an Instructor III, additional students have been assigned to receive math intervention using SuccessMaker. The 6

th and 8

th

grade students will spend 20 minutes daily, and 7th

grade will spend 20 minutes every other day. These students will continue this

intervention for the remainder of the year unless they test out.

This plan addresses an average of 17% of the population; however it does not meet the needs of all Tier 3 students at Stuart Middle School.

An average of 50% of the population at Stuart is two or more years below grade level (Tier 3) in mathematics.

23

Targeted Intervention Plan-Mathematics continued…

June 2013

There were 2 math intervention classes. Class #1 included the lowest level math students.

These students received math intervention every day for 55 minutes in place of related arts. Numbers are slightly different because a few students moved. One

student from Class #1 tested out of Math intervention. The ER team did some data analysis for this group to determine effectiveness of the class. Using MAP,

Class1 students who made a gain averaged a 7.5 point gain. 36% gained at least one grade level (only 8% of those students gained 2 years, 92% gained 1 year),

36% gained but did not move grade levels, 23% declined in MAP, and 5% were thrown out of analysis because we did not have data from Spring testing. Analysis

of SuccessMaker data for all students enrolled into Class #1 show these students averaged a 0.38 year gain, averaging over 18 hours on the program. Data does

not show huge gains with these students according to the two measures. It might be worth looking at how to ensure these students receive more specific

intervention next year within the small groups. This year students received small group work 3 days a week using “Do the Math”, and SuccessMaker daily. It

might be better to analyze MAP and SuccessMaker data for each student to determine what specific skills are needed and group students according to need for

small group work instead of using the “Do the Math” program. Also, monitoring should be done on a more consistent basis, as it was in Class #2, especially since

the other class showed such success.

Class #2 received SuccessMaker 20 minutes at least 3 days a week. Four students from this class tested out of intervention. Analysis of this class looks much

better. Using MAP, Class2 students who made a gain averaged a 9.6 point gain. 64% gained at least one year growth, 17% gained but stayed the same in grade

level, 24% decreased, 8% did not have data for Spring. Of those students who gained, 47% made one year gain, 18% made a two year gain, 9% made a three year

gain, and one student or 2% made a four year gain. Analysis of SuccessMaker data for all students enrolled in Class #2 show these students averaged a 0.39 year

gain, averaging over 11 hours on the program. This teacher also tracked students’ progress and charted data on a weekly basis. Every time a student made a 0.1

growth in SuccessMaker their chart was changed. This monitoring was motivating to students and data from these classes, even though they did not have as many

hours on SuccessMaker is slightly better.

24

EPAS Specific Data-EXPLORE and PLAN

Explore and/or Plan [Report in Percentages]

Baseline

Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015

Explore

[% Below Benchmark]

English

63.3

Goal:

Actual: 62.2

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Explore

[% Below Benchmark]

Math

90.1

Goal:

Actual: 89.4

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Explore

[% Below Benchmark]

Reading

81.2

Goal:

Actual: 84.2

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Explore

[% Below Benchmark]

Science

95.5

Goal:

Actual: 94.1

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

25

Have you devised interventions to specifically address EPAS data? If so, report them here.

Interventions for Explore and/or Plan [Report in Percentages]

Percent of students

receiving support as a

result of Explore

and/or Plan scores.

Describe interventions

and/or supports—pull

from 30/60/90 Day Plan as

appropriate

Data to show results for the

interventions and/or

supports—specify type of

data and results

Comments

EXPLORE

English

No specific interventions or

supports in place, however,

teachers have knowledge of

EXPLORE data and use it to

plan instruction and

assessments that will help

students in reaching the

benchmarks

EXPLORE

Math

EXPLORE

Reading

EXPLORE

Science

June 2013 In March, we were able to conduct a Practice Assessment. The results of this assessment were analyzed and discussion was held with the staff on the results. Teachers incorporated their particular content-area results into creating test-taking strategies, with the help of the ER and Resource Staff, for preparation for the upcoming K-Prep assessment. During the Instructional Leadership Team, we looked at the data from the Practice Assessment more closely to develop a plan for students to get more practice on the items commonly missed and/or lacking skills and misconceptions. It was decided that each teacher would develop a plan to

26

incorporate these commonly missed items/skills into their weekly lesson plans. For example, particular findings showed that there was a need to increase students’ stamina on reading passages because the results showed that students left many items blank towards the end of the exam or ran out of time. Therefore, many language arts and reading teachers focused on providing strategies on lengthy passages. Teachers were provided with mini lessons to use during class, daily warm-ups and exits, as well as homework At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year, 8th grade teachers will embed the most frequently missed items from this assessment, into their weekly lesson plans for additional re-teaching of missed concepts.

27

College and Career Readiness

2012-2013

School Name: Stuart Middle School

2012-2013 CCR Delivery Target %

College Ready (EXPLORE) Notes

Total 8th

Graders

Total Needed to Meet

Delivery Target

Actual Percent N/A

Total 8th

Graders

Total Currently College Ready

2/15/13

Actual Percent College Ready

2/15/13

Only using Reading, English, Math

Benchmarks

Total 8th

Graders

Total Currently Meeting

2 of 3 Benchmarks

Actual Percent Meeting

2 of 3 Benchmarks

The number of students meeting

all benchmarks was impacted by

using only English, Math and

Reading Scores

38 11%

28

Total 8th

Graders

Total Currently Meeting

1 of 3 Benchmarks

Actual Percent Meeting

1 of 3 Benchmarks

67 20%

Total 8th

Graders

Total Meeting College Ready if ALL

Meet 3 of 3 Benchmarks

Total Potential Percent College

Ready

20 5.8%

As of February 15, 2013

What does the data tell us? The data tells us that less than 10% of the 8th grade population is college ready based on EXPLORE results. It also tells us

that very few students are meeting at least two benchmarks.

What does the data not tell us? The data does not tell us how EXPLORE testing could have been impacted by other things (testing situation, where

students tested, teacher work.

What are causes for celebration? Data analysis will be used to impact student achievement and growth and will be placed in 30-60-90 plan.

What are opportunities for improvement? The data indicates a need to place more intentionality on preparing our students using the College

Readiness Standards so that they may be ready for entry level college coursework.

What are our next steps? Place more intentionality on using EXPLORE data to impact student achievement and classroom instruction. State ER Team

will assist teachers and staff in the analysis of data and making changes in instruction based on these results. Devise a plan for 7th grade students to

be exposed to EXPLORE like material throughout the school year.

29

Content Focus – English Language Arts/Literacy

SIG ANNUAL SMART GOAL

FOR ALL STUDENTS

(Report of Progress on SMART Goals listed in

SIG Application)

Goal: Refer to original SIG proposal for the SMART Goal in this area

The percentage of students scoring Proficient or Distinguished in Reading will be 79.6% in 2011,

86.4% in 2012, and 93.2% in 2013 as measured by the KCCT Reading

Person Responsible: Dr. Delena Alexander

Name of Assessment:

Baseline Spring 2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015

Was goal met?

(Yes or No)

Goal: 28.5%

Actual: 20.5%

Goal: 36.4%

Actual:

Goal: 44.4%

Actual:

If goal was not met, what additionally will the district be doing to assist the school in reaching goals?

Teachers will follow established protocols to design differentiate instruction and corresponding formative assessments to guide students to master the key

standards to be learned throughout the year. The teachers, resource teachers, and other advocates will work together in the quest to help each student reach

an adequate level of mastery in each key standard before taking the proficiency assessments. For each assessment, the district will provide item analysis,

instructional recommendations for re-teaching and interventions, and progress students are making toward mastery of each standard. The district will also

30

provide feedback to schools on possible resources for interventions, grouping of students and school structures to consider for intervention.

SIG BENCHMARK DATA FOR ALL STUDENTS (Report of Progress on Benchmark Goals listed in SIG Application)

Name of

Assessment:

Baseline

June 2012

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015

Oct

(6 or 9

week

mark)

Dec

(18

week

mark)

Mar

(27

week

mark)

June

(36

week

mark)

Oct. Dec. Mar. June Oct. Dec. Mar. June

% at

Benchmark

or above

44.8%

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

20.5

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

% Novice 55.2%

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

55.2

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

SIG BENCHMARK DATA FOR SUB GROUPS (Report of Progress on Benchmark Goals listed in SIG Application)

Baseline

June 2012

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015

Oct

(6 or 9

week)

Dec

(18

week)

Mar

(27

week)

June

(36

week)


African-

American 37.95%

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

13.8

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

31

Free/Reduced

Lunch 39.7%

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

18.8

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Students with

Disabilities 16.77%

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

6

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

(other

subgroup)

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

n/a

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

32

Content Focus – Mathematics

SIG ANNUAL SMART GOAL

FOR ALL STUDENTS

(Report of Progress on SMART Goals listed in

SIG Application)

Goal: Refer to original SIG proposal for the SMART Goal in this area

The percentage of students scoring Proficient or Distinguished in Mathematics will be 68.68% in 2011,

79.12% in 2012, and 89.56% in 2013 as measured by the KCCT Mathematics.

Person Responsible: Dr. Delena Alexander

Name of Assessment:

Baseline 2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015

Was goal met?

(Yes or No)

Goal: 20.7%

Actual: 34.77%

Goal: 29.5%

Actual:

Goal: 38.3%

Actual:

If goal was not met, what additionally will the district be doing to assist the school in reaching goals?

Teachers will follow established protocols to design differentiate instruction and corresponding formative assessments to guide students to master the key

standards to be learned throughout the year. The teachers, resource teachers, and other advocates will work together in the quest to help each student reach

an adequate level of mastery in each key standard before taking the proficiency assessments. For each assessment, the district will provide item analysis,

instructional recommendations for re-teaching and interventions, and progress students are making toward mastery of each standard. The district will also

provide feedback to schools on possible resources for interventions, grouping of students and school structures to consider for intervention.

33

SIG BENCHMARK DATA FOR SUB GROUPS (Report of Progress on Benchmark Goals listed in SIG Application)

Baseline

June 2012

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015

Oct

(6 or 9

week

mark)

Dec

(18

week

mark)

Mar

(27

week

mark)

June

(36

week

mark)


African-

American 22.4%

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

4.8

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Free/Reduced

Lunch 32.41%

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

11.2

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

SIG BENCHMARK DATA FOR ALL STUDENTS (Report of Progress on Benchmark Goals listed in SIG Application)

Name of

Assessment:

Baseline

June 2012

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015

Oct

(6 or 9

week

mark)

Dec

(18 week

mark)

Mar

(27

week

mark)

June

(36

week

mark)


Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

% Proficient

or above 34.77%

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

11.9

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

% Novice 65.3% Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:51.5

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

34

Students with

Disabilities 14.19%

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

6

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

(other

subgroup)

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

n/a

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Goal:

Actual:

Additional SMART Goals –consider the following: CCR; Attendance; Science EOC; Social Studies EOC, etc. These should be

reflected in the 30/60/90 Day Plans (May duplicate as necessary)

SIG SMART GOAL

(Specific, Measurable,

Attainable, Realistic and

Timely)

OBJECTIVE: The percentage of students scoring Proficient or Distinguished in Reading will be 93.2% as

measured by KCCT reading. The percentage of students scoring Proficient or Distinguished in Mathematics

will be 89.56% as measured by the KCCT Mathematics.

PROGRESS TOWARD GOAL (NARRATIVE)

Person(s) Responsible: Dr. Alexander

Strategies: For math, the district will create interim and proficiency assessments for CMP2 units that will be

used to identify students not on tract to master the skills/concepts needed for the key standards tested on the

proficiency assessments, teachers will embed formative assessments from CMP2 and resource teachers will

support intervention systems in classrooms; For Reading, students will take interim and proficiency

assessments that will be used to identify which students have not mastered the skills/concepts needed for the

standards; teachers will set up an intervention system to help those students who have not demonstrated

competency on the standards

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE (name of assessment or data)

All Students F/R Lunch

PERFORMANCE DATA

FROM BENCHMARK (%

Proficient)

Baseline:

Year One Goal: 55.84 /47.68 Actual:

Year Two Goal: 61.36/54. Actual:

Baseline:

Year One Goal: 51.84/43.76 Actual:

Year Two Goal: 57.86/50.79 Actual:

35

Year Three Goal: 66.88/60.76 Actual: Year Three Goal: 63.88/57.82 Actual:

PERFORMANCE DATA

FROM BENCHMARK

(% Novice Reduction)

Baseline:

Year One Goal: Actual:

Year Two Goal: Actual:

Year Three Goal: Actual:

Baseline:




Students with Disabilities (other subgroup)

PERFORMANCE DATA

FROM BENCHMARK (%

Proficient)

Baseline:

Year One Goal: 40.4/36.16 Actual:

Year Two Goal: 47.85/44.14 Actual:

Year Three Goal: 55.3/52.12 Actual:

Baseline:




PERFORMANCE DATA

FROM BENCHMARK

(% Novice Reduction)

Baseline:




Baseline:




36

Data Summary Questions

Data Summary for October 2012

1. What does the data tell us? There is a need to provide more interventions for students to address the huge gaps in Reading/Math.

2. What does the data not tell us? The specific skills students are deficient in.

3. What are causes for celebration? SRI testing was used to place 6th

grade students in specific reading interventions, 7th

and 8th

grade schedule

does allow time for interventions to occur and we will be able to be more intentional with meeting the needs of students based off of MAP

scores.

4. What are the opportunities for improvement? Ensure that MAP testing occurs as early in the school year as possible; create opportunities for

teachers to be more intentional with skill work

5. What are our next steps? Analyze data further for growth and areas of strength. Review master schedule for areas where additional instructional

time can occur, work with teachers on analysis of all formative and summative assessments.

37


Data Summary for December, 2012

1. What does the data tell us? The data indicates that there are specific areas of need/concern. For example, in Reading and Math, the number

and/or percentage of students being serviced has increased. Even though there is an increase in the number of students receiving assistance,

we are only reaching about 20% of the students we have identified as needing assistance. On the other hand, the addition of an Instructor III

has enabled us to pull students from non- content areas for intervention /support on a daily basis. We have also been able to focus specifically

on students needing assistance through analysis of MAP and K-Prep Data, which were unavailable to us for use in October. Through further

analysis of CASCADE and K-Prep data, we have determined that there are instructional gaps that need to be addressed in order to increase

the number of students that are Proficient in all areas. Our behavior intervention data indicates that a small percentage (30%) of our students

are being referred to the Opportunity Room (in school adjustment program), however, during this time, students are engaged in additional

learning opportunities and behavior replacement strategies as well as to avoid lost instructional time.

2. What does the data not tell us? Due to the inconsistent alignment between the new assessment system (K-Prep) and CASCADE, we are

unable to clearly report to students and staff their current level of performance without making many adjustments to the calculation of the

data. The work that has been done thus far in this endeavor is very tedious and time consuming.

3. What are causes for celebration? We have initiated and implemented a plan to reach those students identified as needing the most need.

Students are provided with access to Success Maker beyond classroom time. School based celebrations have been set up to honor those

students scoring Proficient/Distinguished on content based grade level district assessments. There is also an increase in the number of

students receiving interventions on a daily basis. There is more of an intentional focus school-wide on a careful analysis of data and using the

analysis to make changes to instructional practices

4. What are the opportunities for improvement? Stuart Middle should increase the number of students involved in interventions. Closely

monitor the data of students in intervention and make adjustments as needed. Decrease the number of students referred to the Opportunity

room.

5. What are our next steps? Teachers will further analyze data (academic/behavioral) during PLC and department meeting time to make

instructional modifications to increase the number of students scoring Proficient and Distinguished on all assessments (custom made, district,

and state). We will also continue to work on improving the rigor of instruction through walkthroughs, collaborative planning, and EPD to ensure that

instruction matches the rigor of the standards. We will also be creating a Stuart Learning Check to be administered at the semester end to report progress

of student achievement as it relates to those common core standards and core content covered during this first semester.

38


Data Summary for March, 2013

1. What does the data tell us?

The data continues to indicate specific areas of need/concern across all content areas, mostly due to the recent alignment of CASCADE to

KPREP reporting. However, intentional strategies have been put in place to address the areas in which continue to show student deficiencies.

The creation of the bi-weekly formative assessments and teacher reflections in each content area help provide a more routine “snapshot” of

student school-wide student performance. In addition, these standards-based assessments are intentionally designed and their results are

analyzed to make instructional adjustments as needed.

The number of students being served in Reading and Math intervention has increased through use of the SuccessMaker program. The

resource staff’s monitoring of intervention progress, space, and time, allows the Instructor III to increase the number of students served in

intervention on a daily basis. In addition to the monitoring of student progress on SuccessMaker, SRI (Scholastic Reading Inventory) testing

has helped with identifying students needing additional support. These programs, along with data from K-Prep and MAP (next assessment

mid/late March), have helped with ensuring students receive multiple opportunities to reach Proficiency.

2. What does the data not tell us?

The data does not show if any intervention program progress has been made to increase student performance because of the recent

CASCADE data reporting changes. The alignment calculation lowered the overall score configurations, thus, creating a dramatic dip in

students’ scores that were previously identified as Proficient or Distinguished. (Therefore, the data does not indicate if the current

intervention programs are increasing student performance significantly due to the recent changes to the way CASCADE data is reported.)

3. What are causes for celebration? (We are being more intentional with implementing focused plans to work the students in greatest

academic need.)

In addition to SuccessMaker, we have the bi-weekly “Flashback Friday” assessments, after school ESS, and the Apprentice Program going on

to help increase student Proficiency. (In addition to student use of Successmaker, we have implemented several additional initiatives. These

initiatives are: Bi-weekly, flashback Friday Assessments, after school ESS and the Apprentice program, which works with Apprentice

39

students who are targeted to participate in additional learning activities that will promote growth toward proficiency. We have continued to

provide celebration for students scoring Proficient/Distinguished on content based grade-level District assessments. We also celebrate

students for their progress in SuccessMaker and participation (and completion of) in the Apprentice Program. There continues to be an

increased number of students receiving interventions on a daily basis. Additionally school-wide, there’s an intentional focus on analyzing

student data to make instructional changes to increase student performance.

4. What are the opportunities for improvement?

Stuart Middle must continue to seek ways in which to provide intervention for the students that are performing well-below grade level.

Currently, there is only a small percentage of those being served but more efforts are needed to increase intervention needs school-wide. Data

must continue to drive instruction and immediate instructional adjustments must be made, when needed, to increase student performance.

Closely monitor students’ performance in intervention and make adjustments as needed.

5. What are our next steps?

Teachers will continue to analyze data (academic and behavioral) during PLC and department meeting time to make instructional

modifications to increase student Proficiency. We will also continue to work to monitor instruction to increase instructional rigor in the

classroom, ensuring that all instruction is aligned to the standards, increases student engagement and ultimately leads to increased proficiency

thus tied to student Proficiency. Bi-weekly Friday Flashbacks need to change to weekly assessments so that data is immediately available to

assist teachers in making changes to the instructional program.

40


Data Summary for June, 2013

1. What does the data tell us?

Non-Cognitive

There is a slight, gradual, decrease across all grade levels in attendance (however not significant).

Although there were several long-term substitutions among teachers, overall teacher attendance held steady throughout the school year

(averaging 95%).

There were significant declines in the number of 6th

and 7th

grade students referred to the Opportunity Room, Stuart’s in-house behavior

intervention system. 6th

decreased 9%, while 7th

grade decreased 11% from the first Quarter. 8th

grade remained steady throughout the

year, but had a decrease of 2% from the beginning of the school year. The notable decline in the 7th

grade was due to the 7th

grade teacher

returning from maternity leave and the presence of a long-term substitute that received additional behavior management support for the

remainder of the school year.

Academic

The students who were assigned to Math Intervention Class #2 made better gains then those who were assigned to class #1, even though

class #1 spent more time in interventions. This could be due to the intentional progress monitoring which the teacher in class #2 did with

students. The teacher charted their success throughout and shared data with students on a consistent basis. The SuccessMaker data shows

the math students in class #2 made approximately the same gain as class #1 with an average of 7 less hours.

The number of students needing intervention is much greater than the number of students served. Most of the students who attended

intervention were not on grade level at the end of the school year. There are not enough intervention classes to serve all Tier 2 and 3

students, thus we must determine which students should attend intervention next year.

Even though there was a focus on “Flashbacks” and common formative assessments, there was not a significant gain in the number of

students scoring Proficient/ Distinguished on the District Proficiency Assessments across all content and grade levels.

There was a significant increase in the number of students scoring Novice on MPA#5. Teachers were asked to postpone giving this

assessment until after KPREP to allow for time to review past concepts the week before testing. However, prolonging the assessment

coupled with end of the year activities and finals helped contribute to low performance.

MAP was given twice this school year; Fall and Spring. Analysis of MAP shows:

o 6th

grade Reading: 5% decrease in Tier 3 students and a 5% increase in Tier 1

o 7th

grade Reading: 5% decrease in Tier 3 students and 1% increase in Tier 1

41

o 8th

grade Reading: 6% decrease in Tier 3 students and 8% increase in Tier 1

o 6th

grade Math: No change in % Tier 3 and 2% decrease in Tier 1 (not sure why)

o 7th

grade Math: 7% decrease in Tier 3 students and 9% increase in Tier 1

o 8th

grade Math: 8% decrease in Tier 3 students and 3% increase in Tier 1

o 6th

grade Language Usage: 13% decrease in Tier 3 students and 9% increase in Tier 1

There has been a focus on Language Usage during CARE groups in 6th

grade for the last 12 weeks and during Language Arts throughout

the school year. This seems to have made a huge difference, based on MAP scores (see above data).

Also, 7th

grade students were on a block schedule and received 90 minutes of math daily. One of the classes was focused on skills

students were missing. Looking at MAP scores there is reason to celebrate growth, especially in 7th

grade. Therefore block scheduling

will continue in 7th

grade next school year and will be implemented in 8th

grade.

2. What does the data not tell us?

If work with teachers in EPD and in classrooms has improved rigor and instructional practices.

If data from district proficiencies will be an indication of how students will perform on KPREP.

Smart Goals are tied to KPREP scores, so the current data does not tell us if goals will be met.

The data does not specifically identify the skills students have mastered during intervention. It also does not show which skills students

have yet to master.

3. What are causes of celebration?

Those students in intervention averaged significant gains in their MAP scores.

Overall MAP data shows a decrease in students over 2 years below grade level (Tier 3) and an increase in students who test on or above

grade level (Tier 1).

Students attended an Apprentice Program after school for 10 weeks. Even though numbers are lower than desired, we hope this will help

those who participated performed at the Proficient level on KPREP.

There has been an intentional focus on the analysis of data in order to make instructional changes throughout this school year.

4. What are the opportunities for improvement?

Stuart Middle must continue to seek ways to provide intervention for the students who are performing well-below grade level. Also

intervention for Tier 3 must be specific to each student. This will require additional analysis of data and instruction aligned to needs.

Also, progress monitoring should be intentional and shared with students, including providing incentives for significant growth and

mastery. Closely monitored student performance should be accompanied with adjustments according to needs. For example, if a student

is not showing the gains in SuccessMaker, then the provided intervention needs to be adjusted to help student show improvements.

Data must continue to drive instruction and immediate instructional adjustments must be made, when needed, to increase student

performance.

42

5. What are our next steps?

Teachers will work in PLCs over the summer to analyze district and EXPLORE data to make instructional plans for the upcoming school

year, as well as prioritizing standards. In addition, will begin to create formative assessments, including pre-assessments to administer in

the first week of school.

All classrooms will be equipped with clicker systems and teachers will receive summer training which will assist in the creation of

weekly/ bi-weekly formative assessments to use to monitor student progress.

Staff will continue to work on improving the rigor of instruction through walkthroughs, collaborative planning, and EPD to ensure that

instruction matches the rigor of the standards.

Narrative of Actions: Use the space below to document any additional information that will help inform others of the progress

made during up to October 1st. Highlight any new programming or processes begun as a product of data analysis.

Attach 30/60/90 Day Plan to email submission to ERD

district 180-louisville region school improvement grant ... · by may 2013, all nclb subgroups will...

Documents