s h e s school profile

School Profile

School Code: 3722

School: St. Helen Elementary School

Principal: Kathy Rees

Person/Group Completing CNA: Mary Ward title I Teacher, School Improvement Co-chairs and Classroom Teachers.

School and Student Demographic Data/Information

Enrollment:

1. What grade levels are taught in this school? Pre-42. What is the current Enrollment? 1563. What has been the enrollment trend for the past (5) Years?

______Increasing _______ Stable__________ Decreasing___ X_____

Staff:Using the charts provided, answer the following questions:

1. What is the average number of years teachers in this school have been teaching?2. What is the average number of years in this current teachers have been assigned to this

school?

Questions # Teachers 0-3 years 4-8 years 9-15 years >15 years

1. Indicate how long teachers have been teaching.

12 3 2 2 8

2. Indicate the number of years, each of the teachers has been assigned to this school.

3 1 5 3

3. For the teachers in this school, during the past school year how many teachers have been absent? (Absences that result in a sub-teacher being assigned to the classroom.)

SHES Teacher Absences

Category0-3 days

4-5 Days

5-10 Days 10 or more Days

Personal/Family Illness 5 2 2 4Professional Development 5 2 3 0Other FMLA

4. How long has the administrator been assigned to this school? Principal: Kathy Ann Rees - 13 Years

Assistant Principal: NA

Parent/Community

Describe/list the types of family/community participation/engagement that are in place to support student achievement

MEAP Assessment Test Item Analysis

Using the information gathered about how students in the building are doing on skills that are tested on the MEAP, discuss the following:

1. What skill area(s) is the building doing well on?2. When comparing the building with the district and state, which skills would the staff identify as a

challenge in the building?3. When reviewing the district curriculum, where are these skills taught?4. When reviewing the school instructional program, are these skills being taught at the

appropriate grade level?5. How can this information be used for curriculum, instructional and remediation purposes?

What additional date sources (other than MEAP) were used to inform decision making about student achievement? Examples include: teacher made tests, other forms of norm/criterion referenced tests etc.

Name and Type of Measurement Instrument

Grade Leveled Assessed

Subject Area Assessed

NWEA 1st - 4th Reading/MathDIBELS K - 4th Reading/LanguageMy-Access Writing 3rd - 4th Writing

Grade Level Achievement –School Level Data Year: 2007/2008 % of Population Demonstrating Proficiency of GLCE/HSCE*

Grade DIBELSBenchmark

DIBELSStrategic

DIBELSIntensive

NWEA ELA NWEA Math My-Access

# % # % # % # % # % # %

5 .

6 . .

7

8 . .

Continuity of Instructional Program

Highest grade level in building 4th grade

# of Students

% of students proficient

ELA


Math


Social Studies


Science

Students who have been in the building since 1st grade

Student who moved into the building after 1st grade

Aggregate Data

Using the following MEAP Graphs, identify under each area how has student achievement changed over the last four years ?

MEAP Results Scale: % at or above proficient

Grade 3

Reading 80% (2009)

79% (2008)

77% (2007)

71% (2006)

The state average for Reading was 86% in 2009. Our 3rd Grade MEAP analysis has revealed a slow but steady increase in reading with a gain of 11% over the course of 4 years.

Writing 42% (2009)

55% (2008)

38% (2007)

59% (2006)

The state average for Writing was 61% in 2009.

In 3rd grade we continue to struggle in the area of Writing. Last year we implemented an electronic writing assessment program to assess students called My-Access which is based on the MEAP 6 point rubric. It also contains individualized skill modules based on the results of the assessment.

Math 84% (2009)

82% (2008)

77% (2007)

81% (2006)

The state average for Math was 91% in 2009.

Source: MI Dept. of Education, 2008-2009

In 3rd grade we are making progress but we still are 7% below the state average. We use the Everday Math Program. Through probing questions we have discovered that not everyone is progressing at the same rate as others at the same grade levels which is critical because of the spiral effect of the instruction of this program. We plan to monitor this more closely next year.

Grade 4

Reading 81% (2009)

65% (2008)

64% (2007)

52% (2006)

The state average for Reading was 83% in 2009.

Our 4th Grade MEAP analysis has revealed a very large increase in reading with a gain of 11% over the course of 4 years.

Writing 32% (2009)

24% (2008)

29% (2007)

26% (2006)

The state average for Writing was 44% in 2009.

Math 81% (2009)

60% (2008)

67% (2007)

71% (2006)

The state average for Math was 88% in 2009.

Source: MI Dept. of Education, 2008-2009

Disaggregate Sub Group Analysis

Grade: 4th Reading Reading ReadingGroup Year 1: 05/06 Year 2: 06/07 Year 3: 07/08 Economic Disadvantaged Yes 63% 62% 78% No 70%English Language Learner Yes No 64% 65% 81%Ethnicity American Indian Asian American African American Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Caucasian 64% 67% 78% HispanicStudents With Disabilities < 7%Limited English ProficiencyHomelessMigrantGender Male 63% 67% Female 67% 63% 82%Aggregate Scores 64% 65% 81%State 83% 85% 84%

Grade: 4th Writing Writing WritingGroup Year 1: 05/06 Year 2: 06/07 Year 3: 07/08 Economic Disadvantaged Yes 22% 19% 30% No 50%English Language Learner Yes No 29% 24% 32%Ethnicity American Indian Asian American African American Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Caucasian 29% 20% 30% HispanicStudents With Disabilities < 0%Limited English ProficiencyHomelessMigrantGender Male 25% 22% Female 33% 25% 32%Aggregate Scores 29% 24% 32%State 55% 45% 44%

Grade: 4th Total ELA Total ELA Total ELAGroup Year 1: 05/06 Year 2: 06/07 Year 3: 07/08 Economic Disadvantaged Yes 56% 54% 74% No 70%English Language Learner Yes No 60% 56% 77%Ethnicity American Indian Asian American African American Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Caucasian 60% 57% 78% HispanicStudents With Disabilities < 7%Limited English ProficiencyHomelessMigrantGender Male 54% 56% Female 67% 56% 77%Aggregate Scores 60% 56% 77%State 76% 78% 76%

Grade: 4th Math Math MathGroup Year 1: 05/06 Year 2: 06/07 Year 3: 07/08 Economic Disadvantaged Yes 66% 56% 78% No 70%English Lanaguage Learner Yes No 67% 60% 81%Ethnicity American Indian Asian American African American Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Caucasian 67% 61% 78% HispanicStudents With Disabilities < 13%

Limited English ProficiencyHomelessMigrantGender Male 67% 67% Female 67% 53% 82%Aggregate Scores 67% 60% 81%State 82% 86% 86%

Grade: 3rd Reading Reading ReadingGroup Year 1: 05/06 Year 2: 06/07 Year 3: 07/08 Economic Disadvantaged Yes 72% 68% 79% No 100%English Language Leaner Yes No 76% 79% 80%Ethnicity American Indian Asian American African American Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Caucasian 73% 67% 80% HispanicStudents With Disabilities < 27%Limited English ProficiencyHomelessMigrantGender Male 71% 80% 79% Female 82% 78% 82%Aggregate Scores 76% 79% 80%State 87% 87% 86%

Grade: 3rd Writing Writing WritingGroup Year 1: 05/06 Year 2: 06/07 Year 3: 07/08 Economic Disadvantaged Yes 28% 45% 39% No 73%English Language Learner Yes No 38% 55% 42%

Ethnicity American Indian Asian American African American Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Caucasian 37% 52% 42% HispanicStudents With Disabilities < 7%Limited English ProficiencyHomelessMigrantGender Male 18% 50% 46% Female 59% 57% 36%Aggregate Scores 38% 55% 42%State 52% 52% 57%

Grade: 3rd Total ELA Total ELA Total ELAGroup Year 1: 05/06 Year 2: 06/07 Year 3: 07/08 Economic Disadvantaged Yes 56% 68% 78% No 91%English Language Learner Yes No 65% 76% 79%Ethnicity American Indian Asian American African American Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 78% Caucasian 67% 72% 79% HispanicStudents With Disabilities < 13%Limited English ProficiencyHomelessMigrantGender Male 53% 80% 77% Female 76% 74% 82%Aggregate Scores 65% 76% 79%State 78% 79% 81%

Grade: 3rd Math Math MathGroup Year 1: 05/06 Year 2: 06/07 Year 3: 07/08 Economic Disadvantaged Yes 72% 77% 79% No 91%English Language Learner Yes No 76% 82% 84%Ethnicity American Indian Asian American African American Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Caucasian 77% 79% 84% HispanicStudents With Disabilities 47% <Limited English ProficiencyHomelessMigrantGender Male 76% 100% 93% Female 76% 74% 73%Aggregate Scores 76% 82% 84%State 87% 88% 90%

Using the information from the above charts for Sub-Group data, answer the following questions:

1. Based on MEAP reports, which of the sub-groups are not at/or above the current state AYP content area targets?

2. Are any of the sub-groups scoring more than 10 percentage points lower than the current state AYP targets?

3. Based on the staff’s review of these data and information, what has the school staff determined to be the contributing cause(s) for the gaps?

4. What trends have been identified when looking at the 3 years of MEAP data? 5. Were there any discrepancies between the sets of data?