principal’s annual report

PRINCIPAL’S ANNUAL REPORT

STUDENT LEARNING

&

SCHOOL PERFORMANCE

JUNE 27, 2011

LE MARS COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL

2

Table of ContentsTable of Contents

Points of Pride --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

Student Achievement Goals and Results------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

Reading Achievement ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

Reading Goals, Action Steps, and Results ---------------------------------------------------- 5

Language/Written Expression Achievement -------------------------------------------------- 5

Language Goals, Action Steps, and Results -------------------------------------------------- 6

Mathematics Achievement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

Mathematics Goals, Action Steps, and Results ----------------------------------------------- 8

Science Achievement ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8-9

Science Goals, Action Steps, and Results ----------------------------------------------------- 9

Equity in Achievement ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10-12

Gap Analysis for Reading ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 10-12

Gap Analysis for Mathematics ----------------------------------------------------------------- 10-12

Gap Analysis for Science ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10-12

Local Assessment Results ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 13

ACT Results ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 ACT Results Compared to State and National Results -------------------------------------- 14

Attendance ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 15

School Behavior ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 16-17

Graduation Information ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 Post Secondary Plans ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17

Completion/Dropout Rate ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 18

Technology Literacy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 18

3

DATE:DATE: June 27, 2011June 27, 2011

TO:TO: Le Mars Community School District Board of EducationLe Mars Community School District Board of Education

FROM:FROM: , High School Principal, High School Principal

(Larry Johnson)(Larry Johnson)

Points of PridePoints of Pride

Highlights included: 42 National Honor Society Students Inducted

NASA Trip-14 Students-1 Intl. Representative

4 students on Winning Team

13 Groups-Large Group Speech All State Performances

9 Students-Individual Speech All State Recognition

District Football Playoff Participant

Boys Cross Country Individual State Qualifier

1 State Wrestling Participant

15 Boys Qualified State Track Meet

14 Girls Qualified for State Track Meet

1 Boy 6th Individual State Tennis

6 Boys State Team Tennis 4th

Orchestra-Large Group Division 1

Concert Band-Large Group Division 1

Iowa Jazz Band Championship

Jazz Band-Division 1 State Contest

Jazz Band-Coyote Festival-1st Place

Jazz Band-Couger-1st Place

27 Northwest Iowa Honor Band

6 All-State Band

Music In The Parks Disneyland

Concert Band-1st Place, Overall 1st Place

Jazz Ensemble-1st Place, Overall 1st Place

Women’s Choir-Large Group Division 1

Men’s Choir-Large Group Division 1

Chamber Choir-Large Group Division 1

Concert Choir-Large Group Division 1

14 Students All-State Chorus

Madrigal

Outstanding Performance Small Group-Chamber Choir

Show Choir-1 rating at State

(42 Singers, 10 band members, 8 crew members)

The Le Mars Alternative School provided educational program-

ming to 45 students in 2010-11. Thirteen students received Le

Mars Alternative High School diploma and three received a LCHS

diploma. Thirty three students participated in the Odyssey Ware

program. Two students transferred to other programs and three

students entered the GED program. Seven students dropped.

Sixteen students will be returning to the ILC.

The students travelled to Houston to participate in the Space

Settlement Design Competition where they work in “Engineering

Companies” to envision, design, and plan a timeline

for a space settlement in the future. They receive training

from NASA engineers and then start the process. The actual

competition runs for 20 continuous hours, not counting

travel and training. This simulates approximately 2-3 years

in actual time. At the end of the competition, the groups

present their project to a board of engineers, astronauts,

and other NASA officials for review and questioning.

The winning team then selects representatives to compete

at the international level of the competition. For many of

our students, this is an awesome chance to test themselves

and really see how they function and handle stress.

The Iowa bankers have teamed with Ever Fi Software

Company to bring a strong financial literacy platform to

schools in Iowa. It is a six hour performance based course that engages

students and lets them work at their own pace. The

statewide web portal www.IHaveAPlanIowa.gov allows

students to access it. It aligns itself with the Iowa Core with

the 21st Century Skills. Topics include banking, credit

scores, insurance, credit cards, student loans, mortgages,

taxes, stocks, savings and 401 K’s. The course is suited best

for Juniors and Seniors so it has been inserted in the government

course and will allow every student an opportunity

to learn key financial skills before they graduate.

Le Mars Community students ventured to Houston, Texas to take

part in an engineering competition at NASA again this year.

These are some of our best and brightest students at Le Mars

Community. Every year the students are awesome and

demonstrate the level of preparation they receive at Le Mars

Community Schools. The students are selected from the

Physics and Electronics classes and go through an application

process to be considered to represent our school.

4

Student Achievement ResultsStudent Achievement Results

Reading Achievement ResultsAchievement Results

Proficiency LevelsProficiency Levels

Percent Proficient In Reading

2006-07 76%

2007-08 79%

2008-09 76%

2009-10 82%

2010-11 80%

Progress in Reading Achievement by Cohort Group

Class of 2012 increased from 74% to 80% proficiency.

Class of 2013 maintained the same 76% proficiency.

Class of 2014 started with 70% proficiency.

Results Summary

Low Medium High High Medium Low Low Medium High

29%31%

18%

62% 63% 66%

9% 6%16%

31%26%

59%56%

10%18%

24%

60%

16%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low

Me

diu

m

Hig

h

07-08 08-09 09-10 07-08 08-09 09-10 07-08 08-09 09-10

Growth in Reading on the ITED's

Class of 2011

Class of 2012

Class of 2013

18%

62%

20%

82%

24%

62%

14%

76%

21%

64%

15%

79%

24%

64%

12%

76%

18%

66%

16%

82%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Less than Proficient Proficient Advanced Proficient

Total % Proficient

2005-2010 Levels of Proficiency for Grade 11

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

29% 31%

18%

62%63%

66%

9% 6%

16%

31%

26%

59%56%

10%18%

24%

60%

16%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low

Me

diu

m

Hig

h

07-08 08-09 09-10 07-08 08-09 09-10 07-08 08-09 09-10


Class of 2011

Class of 2012

Class of 2013

24%

62%

14%

76%

21%

64%

15%

79%

24%

64%

12%

76%

18%

66%

16%

82%

20%

59%

21%

80%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Less than Proficient Proficient Advanced Proficient

Total % Proficient


2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

31%26%

20%

59%56%

59%

10%18% 21%

24%

24%

60%

62%

16%

14%30%

57%

13%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low

Me

diu

m

Hig

h

08-09 09-10 10-11 08-09 09-10 10-11 08-09 09-10 10-11


Class of 2012

Class of 2013

Class of 2014

5

Reading, Goals, Action Steps, and Results

2010-2011 Annual Reading Goals

Language Arts instructors implemented ITED like passages to 9, 10, 11th graders.

Differentiated instruction and Quadrant D activities were implemented (sometimes com-

bined.)

Iowa Core Curriclum including 21st Century Skills was reviewed across the curriculum.

Kurzweil instruction in Enhanced Reading classes was emphasized.

Met the

Goal

Work in

Progress

2011-2012 Initiatives to Increase Reading Achievement

All teachers will have reading strategies as their Tier 2 goal.

Enhanced Reading will be offered to all Sophomore students who score less than 41% proficient.

Language Arts instructors will use ITED like passage in their instruction of 9, 10, 11 grade students.

Language and Written Expression Achievement Results

Proficiency Levels

Percent Proficient In Language

2006-07 71%

2007-08 77%

2008-09 78%

2009-10 79%

2010-11 77%

34%

58%

8%

66%

22%

65%

13%

78%

29%

65%

6%

71%

23%

60%

17%

77%

22%

69%

9%

78%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Less than Proficient Proficient Advanced Proficient Total % Proficient


2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-0922%

65%

13%

78%

29%

65%

6%

71%

23%

60%

17%

77%

22%

69%

9%

78%

21%

65%

14%

79%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-1022%

65%

13%

78%

29%

65%

6%

71%

23%

60%

17%

77%

22%

69%

9%

78%

21%

65%

14%

79%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

29%

65%

6%

71%

23%

60%

17%

77%

22%

69%

9%

78%

21%

65%

14%

79%

23%

59%

18%

77%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

6

Progress in Language Arts Achievement by Cohort Groups

Summary Results

Class of 2012 improved from 71% proficiency to 77% proficiency.

Class of 2013 decreased in proficiency from 82% to 72%.

Class of 2014 started with 70% proficiency.

Language Goals, Action Steps, and Results

2010-2011 Annual Language/Written Expression Goals

Differentiated instruction/Quadrant D activities were implemented especially

in connection with Writing activities.

Writing strategies were emphasized.

Iowa Core Curriculum was implemented including 21st Century Skills.

Met the

Goal

Work in

Progress

2011-2012 Initiatives to Increase Language/Written Expression Achievement

Iowa Core and 21st Century Skills will be implemented across curriculum.

Characteristics of effective instruction will be implemented.

Writing strategies will be emphasized.

Quadrant D activities will be implemented.

Low

18%

29%22%

68%

58%

69%

14% 13%9%

24%31%

62%59%

14% 10%

30%

56%

14%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low

Me

diu

m

Hig

h

06-07 07-08 08-09 06-07 07-08 08-09 06-07 07-08 08-09

Growth in Language Arts on the ITED's

Class of 2010

Class of 2011

Class of 2012Low Medium High

24%31%

21%

62% 59%64%

14%10% 13%

30% 29%

56% 56%

14%15%

18%

66%

16%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low

Me

diu

m

Hig

h

07-08 08-09 09-10 07-08 08-09 09-10 07-08 08-09 09-10


Class of 2011

Class of 2012

Class of 2013

31%

21%

62%59%

65%

14%10%

14%

30%

29%

56%

56%

14%

15%18%

66%

16%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low Medium High

08-09 09-10 07-08 08-09 09-10 07-08 08-09 09-10


Class of 2011

Class of 2012

Class of 2013

24%31%

21%

62% 59% 65%

14% 10% 14%

30%

29%

56% 56%

14% 15%18%

66%

16%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low

Me

diu

m

Hig

h

07-08 08-09 09-10 07-08 08-09 09-10 07-08 08-09 09-10


Class of 2011

Class of 2012

Class of 2013

24%31%

21%

62% 59% 65%

14%10%

14%

30%

29%

56% 56%

14% 15%18%

66%

16%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low

Me

diu

m

Hig

h

07-08 08-09 09-10 07-08 08-09 09-10 07-08 08-09 09-10


Class of 2011

Class of 2012

Class of 2013

30% 29%23%

56% 56% 59%

14% 15% 18%

18%

28%

66%63%

16%9%

30%

57%

13%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low

Me

diu

m

Hig

h

08-09 09-10 10-11 08-09 09-10 10-11 08-09 09-10 10-11


Class of 2012

Class of 2013

Class of 2014

7

Mathematics Achievement Results

Proficiency Levels

Percent Proficient in Mathematics

2006-07 82%

2007-08 79%

2008-09 86%

2009-10 80%

2010-11 83%

Progress in Math Achievement by Cohort Groups

Class of 2012 improved 1% to 83% proficient.

Class of 2013 decreased by 8% to 80% proficiency.

Class of 2014 started strong at 79% proficiency.

Results Summary

Low Medium High

Medium Low High

18% 17% 14%

58%

68%

57%

24%

15%

28%17% 20%

58% 59%

25%21%

18%

55%

27%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low

Me

diu

m

Hig

h

06-07 07-08 08-09 06-07 07-08 08-09 06-07 07-08 08-09

Growth in Math on the ITED

Class of 2010

Class of 2011

Class of 2012Medium Low High

22%

51%

27%

78%

12%

62%

26%

88%

18%

59%

23%

82%

21%

60%

19%

79%

14%

58%

28%

86%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Less Than Proficient

Proficient Advanced Proficient

Total % Proficient


2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-0912%

62%

26%

88%

18%

59%

23%

82%

21%

60%

19%

79%

14%

58%

28%

86%

20%

54%

25%

79%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Less Than Proficient Proficient Advanced Proficient Total % Proficient


2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

17%20% 20%

58% 59%

54%

25%21%

25%18%18%

55%

64%

27%

18%12%

61%

27%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low Medium High

07-08 08-09 09-10 07-08 08-09 09-10 07-08 08-09 09-10


Class of 2011

Class of 2012

Class of 201317%

20% 21%

58% 59%

54%

25%21%

25%18%18%

55%

64%

27%

18%12%

61%

27%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low Medium High

07-08 08-09 09-10 07-08 08-09 09-10 07-08 08-09 09-10


Class of 2011

Class of 2012

Class of 2013

17% 20% 21%

58% 59%55%

25%21%

25%18%18%

55%64%

27%

18%12%

61%

27%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low

Me

diu

m

Hig

h

07-08 08-09 09-10 07-08 08-09 09-10 07-08 08-09 09-10


Class of 2011

Class of 2012

Class of 2013

12%

62%

26%

88%

18%

59%

23%

82%

21%

60%

19%

79%

14%

58%

28%

86%

20%

55%

25%

79%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

12%

62%

26%

88%

18%

59%

23%

82%

21%

60%

19%

79%

14%

58%

28%

86%

20%

55%

25%

79%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Less than Proficient


Total % Proficient


2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

12%

62%

26%

88%

18%

59%

23%

82%

21%

60%

19%

79%

14%

58%

28%

86%

20%

55%

25%

80%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Total % Proficient


2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

17% 20% 20%

58% 59%55%

25%21%

25%18%18%

55%64%

27%

18%12%

61%

27%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low

Me

diu

m

Hig

h

07-08 08-09 09-10 07-08 08-09 09-10 07-08 08-09 09-10


Class of 2011

Class of 2012

Class of 2013

18% 18% 17%

55%

64%

56%

27%

18%

27%12%20%

61%

57%

27%23%21%

57%

22%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low

Me

diu

m

Hig

h

08-09 09-10 10-11 08-09 09-10 10-11 08-09 09-10 10-11


Class of 2012

Class of 2013

Class of 2014

18%

59%

23%

82%

21%

60%

19%

79%

14%

58%

28%

86%

20%

55%

25%

80%

17%

56%

27%

83%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

8

Math Goals, Action Steps, and Results

2010-2011 Mathematics Goals and Initiatives

Differentiated instruction combined with Quadrant D activities were imple-

mented.

Problem solving strategies including critical thinking strategies were imple-

mented.

Special focus on reading comprehension/emphasis on rigorous story problems.

Met the

Goal

Work in

Progress

2011-2012 Initiatives to Increase Mathematics Achievement

Differentiated instruction combined with Quadrant D activities will be implemented.

Special focus on reading comprehension/emphasis on rigorous story problems.

Iowa Core Curriculum will be implemented including 21st Century skills.

Science Achievement Results

Proficiency Levels

Percent Proficient in Science

2006-07 81%

2007-08 83%

2008-09 87%

2009-10 85%

2010-11 84%

15%

59%

26%

85%

13%

60%

27%

87%

19%

56%

25%

81%

17%

60%

23%

83%

13%

65%

22%

87%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Total % Proficient


2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-0913%

60%

27%

87%

19%

56%

25%

81%

17%

60%

23%

83%

13%

65%

22%

87%

15%

64%

21%

85%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Total % Proficient


2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-1013%

60%

27%

87%

19%

56%

25%

81%

17%

60%

23%

83%

13%

65%

22%

87%

15%

64%

21%

85%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Total % Proficient


2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

19%

56%

25%

81%

17%

60%

23%

83%

13%

65%

22%

87%

15%

64%

21%

85%

16%

58%

26%

84%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Total % Proficient


2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

9

Progress in Science Achievement by Cohort Groups

Results Summary

Class of 2012 increased in proficiency by 9%.

Class of 2013 showed a strong 82% proficiency.

Class of 2014 started at 74% proficiency.

Science Goals, Action Steps, and Results

2010-2011 Science Goals and Initiatives

Differentiated instruction combined with Quadrant D activities were implemented.

Science teachers studied item analysis and used this data to make changes in delivery,

strategies and teaching information.

Science teachers worked with reading strategies in their content area-navigating the science

textbooks.

Science teachers continued to write uniform lab reports and emphasize critical thinking

skills.

Iowa Core Curriculum was reviewed for gaps in curriculum.

Met the

Goal

Work in

Progress

2011-2012 Initiatives to Increase Science Achievement

Differentiated instruction combined with Quadrant D activities will be implemented.

Science teachers will study item analysis and used this data to make changes in delivery, strategies and teach-

ing information.

Science teachers will continue to write uniform lab reports and emphasize critical thinking.

Iowa Core Curriculum will be implemented including 21st Century Skills.

17%

23%

13%

69%

63%65%

14% 14%

22%

17% 17%

66% 65%

17% 18%20%

65%

15%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low Medium High

06-07 07-08 08-09 06-07 07-08 08-09 06-07 07-08 08-09

Growth in Science on the ITED's

Class of 2010

Class of 2011

Class of 2012

Medium High Low

17% 17%15%

66% 65% 64%

17% 18%21%20%

25%

65%

59%

15% 16%17%

62%

21%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low Medium High

07-08 08-09 09-10 07-08 08-09 09-10 07-08 08-09 09-10


Class of 2011

Class of 2012

Class of 2013

17% 17% 15%

66% 65%64%

17% 18%21%

20% 25%

65%59%

15%

16%

17%

62%

21%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low

Me

diu

m

Hig

h

07-08 08-09 09-10 07-08 08-09 09-10 07-08 08-09 09-10


Class of 2011

Class of 2012

Class of 2013

20% 25%16%

65%59%

58%

15% 16%

26%17%

18%

62% 59%

21%

23%

26%

55%

19%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low

Me

diu

m

Hig

h

08-09 09-10 10-11 08-09 09-10 10-11 08-09 09-10 10-11


Class of 2012

Class of 2013

Class of 2014

10

Equity in Achievement

Reading, Math & Science results of students who are proficient on the ITED dis-

aggregated by gender, SES and IEPs.

Male to Female Equity by Content Area (67 males & 81 females)

Male stayed the same and

females dropped by 6%.

Gap decreased by 6%.

Males and females both

increased in proficiency

(males-2% and females-

5%). Gap increased to

4%.

Females decreased in profi-

ciency by 5% while males

increased by 1%. Problem

solving and critical think-

ing were emphasized.

78%

86%83%

79%

77%

90%

81% 80%

0%

50%

100%

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Gap Analysis for Mathematics Achievement

For Males Compared to Females

Male

Female

64%

79% 76% 75%69%

82% 83%76%

83% 82%

0%

50%

100%

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

Gap Analysis for Reading Achievement For Males Compared to Females

Male

Female

78%

86%83%

79%

91%

77%

90%

81% 80% 81%

0%

50%

100%

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09



Male

Female

79%76% 75%

69% 74%

83%76%

83% 82%89%

0%

50%

100%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10


Male

Female

86%83%

79%

91%

79%

90%

81% 80% 81% 80%

0%

50%

100%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10



Male

Female

79%76% 75%

69%75%

83%76%

83% 82%90%

0%

50%

100%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10


Male

Female

86%83%

79%

91%

79%

90%

81% 80% 81% 80%

0%

50%

100%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10



Male

Female

76% 75%69%

75% 78%

76%83% 82%

90%86%

0%

50%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11


Male

Female

83%79%

91%

79%83%

81% 80% 81% 80%84%

0%

50%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11



Male

Female

76% 75%69%

75% 75%

76%83% 82%

90%84%

0%

50%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11


Male

Female

83%79%

91%

79% 81%

81% 80% 81% 80%85%

0%

50%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11



Male

Female

80%79%

85%80%

81%81%

88%88% 91%

86%

0%

50%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Gap Analysis for Science Achievement For Males

Compared to Females

Male

Female

83%79%

91%

79%

81%

81% 80% 81% 80%

85%

0%

50%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11



Male

Female

11

Equity of Low SES Compared to Class by Content Area (26 of Eligible & 122 of Non-Eligible)

Eligible SES students in-

creased in proficiency by

14%. Non-eligible stu-

dents decreased 6%. Gap

was substantially reduced.

Eligible SES students in-

creased 59% to 88% profi-

ciency. Non-eligible stu-

dents decreased 2% to

82%. Gap was substan-

tially reduced.

Eligible students increased

13% proficiency and non-

eligible students decreased

1%. A gap of 16% was

reduced to 1%.

72%

82%

76%

79%76%84%

69%65%

82%

56%

71%

83%78% 79%

79%

0%

50%

100%

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

Gap Analysis for Reading AchievementFor Low SES Students Compared to Class

All Students

Eligible

Non-Eligible

88%82% 79%

86%

68%71% 73% 74%

90%

83% 81%

88%

0%

50%

100%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

Gap Analysis for Mathematics Achievement For Low

SES Students Compared to Class

All Students

Eligible

Non-Eligible

81%

82%

84%87%

77%

71%

77%

70%

81% 83% 83%

90%

0%

50%

100%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

Gap Analysis For Science Achievement For Low SES Students Compared to Class

All Students

Eligible

Non-Eligible

82%76%

79%

76%81%

69%65%

82%

56%59%

83%78%

79% 79%86%

0%

50%

100%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10


All Students

Eligible

Non-Eligible

88%82% 79%

86%

79%

68%71% 73% 74%

59%

90%

83% 81%

88%84%

0%

50%

100%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10



All Students

Eligible

Non-Eligible

81%

82%

84%87% 85%

77%

71%

77%

70% 72%

81% 83% 83%

90% 88%

0%

50%

100%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10


All Students

Eligible

Non-Eligible

82%76%

79%

76%81%

69%65%

82%

56%62%

83%78%

79% 79%86%

0%

50%

100%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10


All Students

Eligible

Non-Eligible

82%76%

79%

76%82%

69%65%

82%

56%

63%

83%78%

79% 79%86%

0%

50%

100%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10


All Students

Eligible

Non-Eligible

88%82% 79%

86%

80%

68%71% 73% 74%

59%

90%

83% 81%

88%84%

0%

50%

100%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10



All Students

Eligible

Non-Eligible

81%

82%

84%87% 85%

77%

71%

77%

70% 72%

81% 83% 83%

90% 88%

0%

50%

100%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10


All Students

Eligible

Non-Eligible

76%79%

76%

82%82%

65%

82%

56%

63%

80%

78% 79% 79%86%

84%

0%

50%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11


All Students

Eligible

Non-Eligible

82% 79%

86%

80%84%

71% 73% 74%

59%

92%83%

81%

88%84% 82%

0%

50%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11



All Students

Eligible

Non-Eligible

82%

84%

87% 85% 87%

71%

77%

70% 72%

84%

83% 83%

90% 88% 87%

0%

50%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11


All Students

Eligible

Non-Eligible

82% 79%

86%

80%84%

71% 73% 74%

59%

82%

83%81%

88%84% 82%

0%

50%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11



All Students

Eligible

Non-Eligible

82% 79%

86%

80%84%

71% 73% 74%

59%

92%

83%81%

88%84%

82%

0%

50%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11



All Students

Eligible

Non-Eligible

76%79%

76%

82% 80%

65%

82%

56%

63%

77%

78% 79% 79%86%

80%

0%

50%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11


All Students

Eligible

Non-Eligible

82% 79%

86%

80%83%

71% 73% 74%

59%

88%

83%81%

88%84%

82%

0%

50%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Gap Analysis for Mathematics Achievement For Low SES Students Compared to Class

All Students

Eligible

Non-Eligible

82%

84%

87% 85% 84%

71%

77%

70% 72%

85%

83% 83%

90% 88%84%

0%

50%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11


All Students

Eligible

Non-Eligible

82%

84%

87% 85% 84%

71%77%

70% 72%

85%83% 83%

90% 88%

84%

0%

50%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11


All Students

Eligible

Non-Eligible

12

Equity of Students on IEPs Compared to Class by Content Area (12 on IEP & 136 on Non-IEP)

2010-11 showed an increase

of 34% proficiency in IEP

students. There was a drop

in 8% in non IEP proficiency

scores. We must continue to

focus on vocabulary, reading

scores and Kurzweil.

IEP students increased in

proficiency by 5%. Our non

IEP students increased 2%.

There remains a large gap

between the two groups.

IEP students gained 10%

proficiency. Non IEP stu-

dents dropped by 4%. The

gap between IEP and Non

IEP students is very substan-

tial.

72%

82%

76%79%

76%

23%

38%

30%

39%

33%

76%

84%79%

85%

79%

0%

50%

100%

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

Gap Analysis for Reading Achievement for Students on

IEPs Compared to Class

All Students

IEP

Non-IEP

78%

88%

82%79%

86%

39% 38% 40%

30%

42%

81%

90%85%

88% 89%

0%

50%

100%

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

Gap Analysis for Mathematics Achievement for

Students on IEPs Compared to Class

All Students

IEP

Non-IEP

85%

87%

81% 83%87%

38%

88%

60%

39%

58%

89% 87%82%

90% 89%

0%

50%

100%

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

Gap Analysis for Science Achievement for Students on


All Students

IEP

Non-IEP

82%

76%79%

76%81%

38%

30%

39%

33%

15%

84%79%

85%

79%

89%

0%

50%

100%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10



All Students

IEP

Non-IEP

88%

82%79%

86%

79%

38% 40%

30%

42%37%

90%85%

88% 89%85%

0%

50%

100%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10



All Students

IEP

Non-IEP

87%81%

83%87% 85%

88%

60%

39%

58%

32%

87%82%

90%89%

91%

0%

50%

100%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10



All Students

IEP

Non-IEP

82%

76%79%

76%

82%

38%

30%

39%

33%

16%

84%79%

85%

79%

90%

0%

50%

100%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10



All Students

IEP

Non-IEP

88%

82%79%

86%

80%

38% 40%

30%

42%37%

90%85%

88% 89%85%

0%

50%

100%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10



All Students

IEP

Non-IEP

88%82%

79%

86%80%

38% 40%

30%

42%37%

90%85%

88% 89%85%

0%

50%

100%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10



All Students

IEP

Non-IEP

87%81%

83%87% 85%

88%

60%

39%

58%

32%

87%82%

90% 89%91%

0%

50%

100%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10



All Students

IEP

Non-IEP

87%81%

83%87% 85%

88%

60%

39%

58%

32%

87%82%

90% 89% 91%

0%

50%

100%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Gap Analysis for Science Achievement for Students on IEPs Compared to Class

All Students

IEP

Non-IEP

82% 79%

86%

80%84%

71% 73% 74%

59%

82%

83%81%

88%84% 82%

0%

50%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Gap Analysis for Mathematics Achievement For Low SES Students Compared to Class

All Students

Eligible

Non-Eligible

82%

76%79%

76%

82%

38%

30%

39%

33%

16%

84%79%

85%

79%

90%

0%

50%

100%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10



All Students

IEP

Non-IEP

76%79%

76%

82% 82%

30%

39%

33%

16%

50%

79%

85%

79%

90%85%

0%

50%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11



All Students

IEP

Non-IEP

82%79%

86%

80%84%

40%

30%

42%37%

42%

85%88% 89%

85%88%

0%

50%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11



All Students

IEP

Non-IEP

81%

83%87% 85% 87%

60%

39%

58%

32%

42%

82%

90%89% 91% 91%

0%

50%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11



All Students

IEP

Non-IEP

76%79%

76%

82% 80%

30%

39%

33%

16%

50%

79%

85%

79%

90%

82%

0%

50%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Gap Analysis for Reading Achievement for Students on IEPs Compared to Class

All Students

IEP

Non-IEP

82%79%

86%

80%83%

40%

30%

42%37%

42%

85%88% 89%

85% 87%

0%

50%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Gap Analysis for Mathematics Achievement for Students on IEPs Compared to Class

All Students

IEP

Non-IEP

81%

83%87% 85% 84%

60%

39%

58%

32%

42%

82%

90%89% 91%

87%

0%

50%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11



All Students

IEP

Non-IEP

13

Local Assessment Results

Each Year Local Assessments are given to high schools students in grade 11.

One hundred percent of the students take the local assessments in reading, mathematics,

writing and science. A random sample of 20% of the students take the local assessments

in social studies, health, and technology.

Results Summary

Our local assessments have been aligned with LCHS standards and benchmarks.

Reading and Writing had a strong showing above 90% proficiency.

Mathematics and Science showed a slight decrease in proficiency.

Social Studies and Health showed a decline substantially in proficiency.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

74%

93%

70%

62%

47%

82%87%

93%

69%73%

90% 91%

0%

92%

75%76%

90% 97%

Three Year Trend for Local High School Assessments

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

74%

93%

70%

62%

47%

82%

87%

93%

69%

73%

90% 91%

92% 92%

75%

76%

90% 97%


2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

87%

93%

69%

73%

90% 91%92%

92%

75%

76%

90% 97%92% 92%

71%

73%

73%

73%


2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

14

Local ACT Results Compared to State and National Averages English

Local State National

Average Score Average Score Average Score

2006 21.2 21.6 20.6

2007 21.5 21.6 20.7

2008 22.6 21.9 20.6

2009 22.6 21.9 20.6

2010 23.0 21.8 20.5

5 yr Ave 22.2 21.8 20.6

Mathematics



2006 22.2 21.8 20.8

2007 22.5 21.9 21.0

2008 22.2 22.0 21.0

2009 22.6 21.9 21.0

2010 22.8 21.8 21.0

5 yr Ave 22.5 21.9 21.0

Reading



2006 22.0 22.5 21.4

2007 22.1 22.6 21.5

2008 22.6 22.9 21.4

2009 22.9 22.9 21.4

2010 22.1 22.6 21.3

5 yr Ave 22.3 22.7 21.4

Science



2006 22.2 22.1 20.9

2007 22.6 22.3 21.0

2008 22.3 22.3 20.8

2009 22.4 22.4 20.9

2010 21.8 22.3 20.9

5 yr Ave 22.3 22.3 20.9

Composite



2006 22.1 22.1 21.1

2007 22.3 22.3 21.2

2008 22.5 22.4 21.1

2009 22.7 22.4 21.1

2010 22.6 22.2 21.0

5 yr Ave 22.4 22.3 21.1

Le Mars results exceeded national results in all areas.

15

ACT Results

Results Summary

73% of students achieved a score of 20 or better in 2009-2010. A score of 20 indicates college

readiness for students.

English and Mathematics—5 year high.

Above state average in English, Math and Composite average.

Attendance Information

Le Mars Community High School strives for excellence in attendance from all students and staff. The high school will

have an average daily attendance of at least 96%.

Results Summary

The high school increased averaged daily attendance to 96%. Tenth graders had 97% ADA while

ninth and twelfth graders came in at 96% and juniors followed with 95% ADA. Students with higher

absence rates tend to have lower and more failing grades.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

96% 95% 95% 95% 95% 96%

Six Year Trend for High School Attendance

Series 1

16

Le Mars Community High School shall be free from violence and fear as evidenced by policy and practice of

zero tolerance for possession of alcohol, drugs, weapons or harassment/intimidation of students.

School Behavior

0 02

0 0

4

97 8

2

6

2 2 1 2

7977

74

62 61

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Student Behavior

Weapons

Fighting

Harrassment

Code of Conduct Violation

17

Student Behavior By Gender

Results Summary

LCHS had no weapon violations in 2010-2011. There were 2 fights involving 2 males and one female (one male

in both incidents.) The high school had two harassment cases to report and 61 code of conduct violations. Code

of Conduct violations continue to decrease.

Graduate and Dropout Information

Post-Secondary Plans

88% of the 2011 graduating class plan post secondary education.

Results Summary

There was an increase of 4% in post secondary plans from 84% to 88% for 2011 seniors. Students going into em-

ployment field were relatively stable and students joining the military stayed the same 8 to 8.

71

55

810

02 3

75

53

4

15

0

63

71

53

6

11

0

8

2

69

63

12

11

03

0

51

57

117

0

5 4

61

55

6

14

04

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Six-Year Trend in Post-Secondary Plans

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

75

53

4

15

0

63

71

53

611

0

8

2

69

63

12 11

03

0

51

57

117

05 4

61

55

6

14

04

0

6763

5

138

3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

75

53

4

15

0

63

71

53

611

0

8

2

69

63

12 11

03

0

51

57

117

05 4

61

55

6

14

04

0

6763

5

13

0

83

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

Years Weapons Fighting Harassment Code of Conduct Violation

Males Females Males Females Males Females Males Females

2006-07 0 0 4 0 1 5 47 32

2007-08 0 0 8 1 1 1 53 24

2008-09 2 0 7 0 2 0 50 24

2009-10 0 0 11 1 1 0 45 17

2010-11 0 0 3 1 2 0 47 14

71

53

611

0

8

2

69

63

12 11

03

0

51

57

117

05 4

61

55

6

14

04

0

6763

5

13

0

83

79

60

1

12

0

8

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

18

Dropout and Retention Rates

Results Summary

Annual dropout rate remained stable in 2011.

There were fourteen dropouts in 2010-11: Gender: 9 Males, 5 Females; Ethnicity: 13 Caucasian, 1 Hispanic; Special

Education: 0 IEP, 14 Non-IEP; Free/Reduced: 2 Free/Reduced, 12 Non-Eligible Free and Reduced.

Technology

Results Summary

Technology showed high results (95% or better) in all areas except spreadsheets.

99.6% 99.2% 99.1% 99.0% 98.2% 97.7%

0.4% 0.8% 0.9% 1.0% 1.8% 2.30%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

2003-042004-052005-062006-072007-082008-09

Annual Dropout and Retention Rates for Six Years

% Retained

%Dropped Out

99.2% 99.1% 99.0% 98.2% 97.7% 98.4%

0.8% 0.9% 1.0% 1.8% 2.30% 1.58%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10


% Retained

%Dropped Out

99.2% 99.1% 99.0% 98.2% 97.7% 98.4%

0.8% 0.9% 1.0% 1.8% 2.30% 1.58%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10


% Retained

%Dropped Out

99.1% 99.0% 98.2% 97.7% 98.4%

0.9% 1.0% 1.8% 2.30% 1.58%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11


% Retained

%Dropped Out

89%

68%71%

96%

86%87%

97%

20%

80%

100% 100%

85%

29%

80%

38%

100%96% 96%

86%

96%

93%96%

95% 96%

48%

96%96%

96%

0

0.5

1

Technology Competencies for 11th Grade Students

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

99.1% 99.0% 98.2% 97.7% 98.4% 98.1%

0.9% 1.0% 1.8% 2.30% 1.58% 1.95%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11


% Retained

%Dropped Out

99.1% 99.0% 98.2% 97.7% 98.4% 98.1%

0.9% 1.0% 1.8% 2.30% 1.58% 1.9%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11


% Retained

%Dropped Out

principal’s annual report

Documents