school! · school! profile!! a! ethnicity/race! %/student!counts! 0809! 0910! 1011! 1112! 1213!...
TRANSCRIPT
SCHOOL PROFILE
A
ETHNICITY/RACE %/STUDENT COUNTS 08-‐09 09-‐10 10-‐11 11-‐12 12-‐13
Asian/Pacific Islander 5.4 34
7.1 42
5.4 45
7.9 44
8.0% 52
Black/ African American 5.0 42
6.6 40
6.8 49
8.9 50
11% 72
Hispanic/Latino 65.8 417
63.3 375
62.4 371
59.3 332
58% 380
American Indian/Alaskan Native
1.3 8
0.3 2
0.5 3
0.5 3
0.6 4
White 19.2 122
21.1 125
19.0 113
20.5 115
20% 130
Multi-‐Racial/Multi-‐Ethnic 1.7 11
1.4 8
2.4 14
2.9 16
4% 25
GENERAL INFORMATION 2012-‐13
Number of Home Languages Spoken 32
Mobility Rate* (# Admissions, # Withdrawals) *does not include Kindergarten
121 in (18%) 41 out (6%)
2
SCHOOL PROFILE
B
ATTENDANCE % 2008-‐09 2009-‐10 2010-‐11 2011-‐12 2012-‐13
93.2 91.9 93.0 93.1 93.7
DISCIPLINE 08-‐09 09-‐10 10-‐11 11-‐12 12-‐13
Fighting & Aggression
190 115 160 106
Drugs 0 0 0 0 Weapons 3 0 3 0 Harassment/Bullying
3 7 11 11
All Incidents 445 351 413 260
3
SCHOOL PROFILE
C PROGRAMS
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES %
2008-‐09 2009-‐10 2010-‐11 2011-‐12 2012-‐13
8.5 10 10 9 10
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT %
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED %
2008-‐09 2009-‐10 2010-‐11 2011-‐12 2012-‐13
86.8 92.6 94.3 94.6 94.08
2008-‐09 2009-‐10 2010-‐11 2011-‐12 2012-‐13
66.8 66.1 63.4 62.3 57
4
Oregon School Ratings
Rating
Designation
Approx. % of Title I Schools
Level 5 Model 5%
Level 4 N/A 45%
Level 3 N/A 35%
Level 2 Focus 10%
Level 1 Priority 5%
Categories & Weights Levels & Ratings
Growth 50%
Subgroup Growth 25%
Achieve-‐ment 25%
5
Oregon School Ratings Alder Rating = Focus School
Source: http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3742 6
Reading Performance Achievement– OAKS by Subgroup
Intact Cohort -‐ 2010-‐11 3rd & 4th : 2011-‐12 4th & 5th
Source: Archives 2011-‐12/eSIS Reports/General School Report/Advanced Export Evaluation
7
Reading Performance Achievement– OAKS by Grade
Intact Cohort -‐ 2010-‐11 3rd & 4th : 2011-‐12 4th & 5th
Source: Archives 2011-‐12/eSIS Reports/General School Report/Advanced Export Evaluation 8
Reading Performance Achievement – DIBELS K-‐2 Low Risk Analysis
Source: https://dibels.uoregon.edu/data/reports/district_reports/oregon/ distribution_report Measurements: K=Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, 1st= Nonsense Word Fluency, 2nd= Oral Reading Fluency
9
Findings: Observations about the data
• Every subgroup had a smaller percentage of students meeting or exceeding on OAKS READING in 2011-‐2012 than 2010-‐2011. • Last year’s subgroups (4th & 5th grades) performance was lower than the previous year’s results. The drop ranged from 6% to 25%. • SWD had the largest decline. • Overall, our decline in student achievement in Reading in 2011-‐2012 was 6% below that of 2010-‐2011.
10
• Kinder and 1st Grade achievement on DIBELS indicates that students are moving with the benchmarks and students are jumping from at risk and some-‐risk to benchmark. • 2nd Grade achievement on DIBELS indicates that students are not moving with the benchmark, and not jumping risk categories from at-‐risk to some-‐risk from some-‐risk to low-‐risk.
What additional data or information do we need to inform our decisions or confirm our findings?
What factors led to such low performance by our Third Grade students last year? What factors led to such low performance by our SWD subgroup last year? What supports are in place to improve achievement at Third, Fourth, and Fifth Grades? How are results from grade level assessments being used to inform instruction? What interventions are in place at high-‐achieving schools with similar demographics?
11
Reading Performance Growth – OAKS, % Meeting Oregon Growth Target Intact Cohort -‐ 2010-‐11 3rd & 4th : 2011-‐12 4th & 5th
Source: Custom report from ODE (Jon Wiens)/Reynolds Pct Met Target
12
Findings: Observations about the data
What additional data or information do we need to inform our decisions or confirm our findings?
s What ethnicity or language group were the 29% of students who did achieve their growth targets from?
s What factors led to minimal growth in the SWD subgroup?
• 71% of Asian students achieved their growth target between 4th & 5th and between 3rd and 4th grades.
• 34% or less than 34% of students in all other subgroups achieved their growth targets.
13
Improvement Goals -‐ Reading Achievement 1. By June 2013, 75% or more students in all subgroups will pass OAKS Reading or meet the
following growth targets:
• All students: +7.09 = 36.19%
• Economically Disadvantaged: +7.13 = 35.81%
• Limited English Proficient: +7.84 = 29.36%
• Students With Disabilities: +7.86 = 29.29%
• Asian: NA
• Black: +6.45-‐ =41.93%
• Hispanic: +7.55 = 32.10%
• Native American: NA
• White: +6.51 = 41.39%
14
Additionally, the following groups of students will reach the listed achievement targets by June 2013: • At least 90% of Kindergarten students will score “low risk” on nonsense word fluency and phonemic segmentation fluency on DIBELS. • 75% or higher of 1st and 2nd grade students will score as “some risk” or “low risk” on DIBELS oral reading fluency. • 75% or higher of 3rd Graders will meet or exceed on the 3rd Grade OAKS Reading.
s The district has set the following growth targets: Growth targets:
-‐-‐Does Not Meet +10 RIT points -‐-‐Meets +7 RIT points
-‐-‐Exceeds +3 RIT points
15
Reading Goals -‐ Growth
Diagnosis of Needs -‐ Reading Using Indistar (CPPT)
Customized Process Planning Tool from ODE
1. We submitted our CPPT on October 1.
2. Our Appraisal Team will visit in February 2013.
3. Although we won’t have recommendations from the Appraisal Team until the spring, we are beginning work outlined in the CAP.
16
Reading Action Plan 1. SAP Development: Grade level Professional Learning Communities will develop monthly
Standard Alignment Plans for English/Language Arts that specifies which power standards are being targeted and what formative and summative assessments are being used to demonstrate mastery.
2. Use of Data: Grade level Professional Learning Communities will develop common formative assessments for English/Language Arts monthly, collect for all students in grade level, and analyze data at PLC meetings. Instructional coaches will be available during this time to provide assistance.
3. Instruction: Grade level teams will create specific activities that are aligned to specific learning targets. The targets will be clearly posted in classrooms in student-‐friendly language. Building Administration will do both formal and informal observations on a weekly basis specifically looking for posted targets and instruction tied to those targets.
4. Professional Development: PLC teams will receive professional development targeted to their specific needs in regards to creating quality common formative assessments, analyzing student data, and creating appropriate remediation activities.
5. Instructional Leadership Team: A team representative of grade levels and specialists will meet on a bi-‐weekly basis to review grade level progress in the use of Common Formative Assessments that drive instruction and remediation practices and to assist in planning needed professional development activities based on that progress.
17
Math Performance Achievement – OAKS by Subgroup
Intact Cohort -‐ 2010-‐11 3rd & 4th : 2011-‐12 4th & 5th
Source: Archives 2011-‐12/eSIS Reports/General School Report/Advanced Export Evaluation 18
Math Performance Achievement– OAKS by Grade
Intact Cohort -‐ 2010-‐11 3rd & 4th : 2011-‐12 4th & 5th
Source: Archives 2011-‐12/eSIS Reports/General School Report/Advanced Export Evaluation
19
Findings: Observations about the data
s What additional data or information do we need to inform our decisions or confirm our findings?
What factors led to such low performance by our Third Grade students last year?
What factors led to such low performance by our SWD subgroup last year?
What supports are in place to improve achievement at Third, Fourth, and Fifth Grades?
How are results from grade level assessments being used to inform instruction?
What interventions are in place at high-‐achieving schools with similar demographics?
• Every subgroup had a smaller percentage of students meeting or exceeding on OAKS MATH in 2011-‐2012 than 2010-‐2011. • Last year’s subgroups (4th & 5th grades) performance was lower than the previous year’s results. The drop ranged from 8% to 25%. • SWD had the largest decline. • Overall, our decline in student achievement in Math in 2011-‐2012 was 14% below that of 2010-‐2011.
20
Math Performance Growth – OAKS, % Meeting Oregon Growth Target Intact Cohort -‐ 2010-‐11 3rd & 4th : 2011-‐12 4th & 5th
Source: Custom report from ODE (Jon Wiens)/Reynolds Pct Met Target 21
Findings: Observations about the data
s What additional data or information do we need to inform our decisions or confirm our findings?
What were the testing conditions?
What accommodations were utilized during the testing sessions?
Were the correct standards focused on during instruction?
What is the plan for testing this year?
• Overall, approximately 1/3 all intact cohort students met the goal of achieving at least one year’s growth in RIT as calculated by the Oregon Growth Target.
• Students who are White achieved at least one year’s growth in Math in 2011-‐2012. This was the subgroup making the greatest gains.
• The SWD subgroup and the Black subgroup made significantly less growth than any other subgroup.
22
Improvement Goals -‐ Math Goals
Achievement
s The district has set the following growth targets: Growth targets: -‐-‐Does Not Meet +10 RIT points -‐-‐Meets +7 RIT points -‐-‐Exceeds +3 RIT points
Growth
• All students: +7.44 = 33.08%
• Economically Disadvantaged: +7.49 = 32.59%
• Limited English Proficient: +7.70 = 30.69%
• Students With Disabilities: +8.83 = 20.46%
• Asian: NA
• Black: +8.07-‐ =27.42%
• Hispanic: +7.55 = 32.10%
• Native American: NA
• White: +6.51 = 41.39%
23
By June 2013, 75% or more students in all subgroups will pass OAKS Math or meet the following growth targets:
Diagnosis of Needs -‐ Math Using Indistar (CPPT)
Customized Process Planning Tool from ODE
1. We submitted our CPPT on October 1.
2. Our Appraisal Team will visit in February 2013.
3. We are beginning work on the recommendations outlined in the CAP. Adjustments will be made based on recommendations from the School Appraisal Teamwhich will be received in the Spring of 2013.
24
Math Action Plan 1. SAP Development: Grade level Professional Learning Communities will develop monthly
Standard Alignment Plans for Math that specifies which power standards are being targeted and what formative and summative assessments are being used to demonstrate mastery.
2. Use of Data: Grade level Professional Learning Communities will develop common formative assessments for Math every 4 to 6 weeks, collect for all students in grade level, and analyze data at PLC meetings. Instructional coaches will be available during this time to provide assistance.
3. Instruction: Grade level teams will create specific activities that are aligned to specific learning targets. The targets will be clearly posted in classrooms in student-‐friendly language. Building Administration will do both formal and informal observations on a weekly basis specifically looking for posted targets and instruction tied to those targets.
4. Professional Development: PLC teams will receive professional development targeted to their specific needs in regards to creating quality common formative assessments, analyzing student data, and creating appropriate remediation activities.
5. Instructional Leadership Team: A team representative of grade levels and specialists will meet on a bi-‐weekly basis to review grade level progress in the use of Common Formative Assessments that drive instruction and remediation practices and to assist in planning needed professional development activities based on that progress.
25
Pouring the Foundation
26