smart goal 1 subject area: reading

SMART Goal 1 Subject Area: Reading

Target Population

All 9th and 10th graders

Our Reality

2010 Spring Reading HSPE scores show that 82% of 10th graders met standard.

Our SMART Goal

The number of 10th graders meeting standard on the Reading HSPE will be increased to 90% by 2014.

82%

90%

82% 82.80%

87.50%

78%

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

92%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Projected

Actual

SMART Goal 2 Subject Area: Math

Target Population 9th – 11th Graders

Our Reality

Because this is the first year of statewide EOC implementation, no credible baseline data exists for the exam in terms of passing or raw score analysis. Once we have an EOC baseline, this goal and our data analysis will be adjusted to incorporate meaningful and statistically accurate data.

Our SMART Goal The number of students who are failing Algebra and Geometry End-of-Course exams will be decreased by a total of 5% by 2014.

61.3 66

61.3

70.62 73.4

78 73.4

88.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2011 2012 2013 2014

Algebra Projected

Algebra Actual

Geometry Projected

Geometry Actual

SMART Goal 3 Subject Area: Supportive Learning Environment and On Time Graduation

Target Population 9th grade at risk Freshman and credit deficient upperclassmen

Our Reality 11.16% of ARHS 9th graders are At Risk after their first semester

Our SMART Goal Starting with the class of the 2015 ,there will be a 10% decrease of at risk 9th graders, over the previous year at risk 9th graders , as measured by the district using credit attainment.

11.16%

10.04%

9.04%

8.14%

7.33%

11.16%

7.99%

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

Class of 2014 Class of 2015 Class of 2016 Class of 2017 Class of 2018

Goal

Actual

Reading

82.70%

82.20%

82.80%

85.00%

82.00% 82.20%

87.50%

75.00%

77.00%

79.00%

81.00%

83.00%

85.00%

87.00%

89.00%

2005-06 WASL 2006-07 WASL 2007-08 WASL 2008-09 WASL 2009-10 HSPE 2010-2011 HSPE 2011-2012 HSPE

Pe

rce

nt

Me

eti

ng

Sta

nd

ard

School

District

State

Writing

80.80%

89.30%

86.40%

90.70%

84.50%

90.50%

88.40%

75.00%

77.50%

80.00%

82.50%

85.00%

87.50%

90.00%

92.50%

2005-06 WASL 2006-07 WASL 2007-08 WASL 2008-09 WASL 2009-10 HSPE 2010-2011 HSPE 2011-2012 HSPE

Pe

rce

nt

Me

eti

ng

Sta

nd

ard

School

District

State

Mathematics

63.10%

74.70% 74.10%

89.89%

51.10% 53.60%

51.10%

47.30%

43.40% 42.10%

45.80% 45.10%

39.00% 37.80%

51.00% 50.40% 49.60%

45.40%

41.70%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

2005-06 WASL 2006-07 WASL 2007-08 WASL 2008-09 WASL 2009-10 HSPE 2010-11 EOC 2011-2012 EOC

ARHS EOC Year 1

ARHS EOC Year 2

School

District

State

Mathematics End-of-Course

63.1

74.1 74.7

89.89

66.3 64.9 68.6

81.3

64.3

73.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2010-2011 2011-2012 2010-2011 2011-2012

Year 1 EOC Year 2 EOC

ARHS

District

State

34.20%

26.70%

33.60%

21.40%

38.10%

51.20%

56.10%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

50.00%

55.00%

60.00%

2005-06 WASL 2006-07 WASL 2007-08 WASL 2008-09 WASL 2009-10 HSPE 2010-2011 HSPE 2011-2012 Biology EOC

Pe

rce

nt

Me

eti

ng

Sta

nd

ard

2012 Data reflect 10th graders only

School

District

State

Science

ARHS Graduation Rates

94.00%

92.50% 92.50% 92.70%

88.60%

93.20%

98.40%

99.50%

94.50%

93.80% 93.20%

97.50%

87.30%

92.90%

84.00%

86.00%

88.00%

90.00%

92.00%

94.00%

96.00%

98.00%

100.00%

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

On-Time Graduation Rate Extended Graduation Rate

NEW On-Time Graduation Rate NEW Extended Graduation Rate

Grade 9 Credits Earned DIP Goal

72.5 71.53 77.19

64.67 70.17 69.29

65.67

75.07 69.5

57.32

65.85 63.52

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

ARHS

District

AMHS

AHS

60.00%

65.00%

70.00%

75.00%

80.00%

85.00%

90.00%

95.00%

100.00%

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

ARHS Graduation Rates

Graduation Rate Target ARHS Actual Graduation Rate State Graduation Rate

2011 AVG Read 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

ALL 82.30 83.78 85.25 86.73 88.20 89.68 91.15

AI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Asian 85.70 86.89 88.08 89.28 90.47 91.66 92.85

Black 76.90 78.83 80.75 82.68 84.60 86.53 88.45

Hispanic 66.70 69.48 72.25 75.03 77.80 80.58 83.35

White 85.20 86.43 87.67 88.90 90.13 91.37 92.60

ELL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SpEd 37.50 42.71 47.92 53.13 58.33 63.54 68.75

LowInc 69.20 71.77 74.33 76.90 79.47 82.03 84.60

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

Auburn Riverside HSPE Reading ESEA AMO 2012-2017

2011 AVG Math 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

ALL 71.30 73.69 76.08 78.48 80.87 83.26 85.65

AI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Asian 71.40 73.78 76.17 78.55 80.93 83.32 85.70

Black 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Hispanic 58.50 61.96 65.42 68.88 72.33 75.79 79.25

White 74.70 76.81 78.92 81.03 83.13 85.24 87.35

ELL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SpEd 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LowInc 57.60 61.13 64.67 68.20 71.73 75.27 78.80

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

Auburn Riverside EOC Mathematics ESEA AMO 2012-2017

Curriculum Map 2012-2013 Auburn Riverside High School

Subject/Grade:

Grade Level: Essential Question(s):

Standards

Skills

(Learning Targets) Content

(Vocabulary/Concepts) Assessment Activities

(Resources) Days Weeks/Month

AUBURN RIVERSIDE“Where personalized learning reaches every R.A.V.E.N.”

M O N D A Y M E M O

“ I g r e w u p t h i n k i n g o f s n o w a s a

"It is our attitude at the beginning of a difficult undertaking which, more than anything else, will determine its successful outcome." - William James

JANUARY 30, 2012

s it possible, half way? 5 months until graduation? Where did the time go? As you complete your

grades and begin planning for this next semester please consider experimenting with some of the “Best Talks & Walks” from this years Professional Development. I’m always interested in hearing successes and failures. We can learn from both.

Sign Waving. Thanks to everyone who signed up. There is always room for more to join. Please see Tom Adams if interested. 1/30, 1/31, 2/13

Leaflet Distribution. Thank you Kelly and Key Club for volunteering to distribute this information to houses in Lakeland. Please be sure to give them

your personal thanks allowing us to focus our resources elsewhere.

Breaking Down the Walls. We have had an overwhelmingly positive response to the program this week. Your flexibility as a staff to see how this can have a positive effect on the building environment is appreciated. 35 Staff Members & 600 Students involved!

Professional Development. You will be receiving emails from administrators next week organizing the book studies you signed up for to organized dates and times. Also, please don’t forget to complete and turn in your Peer Observation forms to Mary. Once you have them completed, clock hours will be distributed.

This Week:1/30 Teacher Grade Day - Due 2:351/31 Fire Drill1/31 First Day of Second Semester2/1 North Tapps Middle School Night2/1,2,3 “Breaking Down the Walls”

2/2 Karla Seman 2/3 Sheri Speer 2/5 Elaine Hetterly

February2/6 PLC2/13 PLC 2/13 Advisory Day2/14 Valentine’s Day2/15 Leadership Team Meeting2/17 Snow Day - No School2/20 President’s Day - No School2/27 PLC2/29 Grades Due 2:352/29 Future Freshman Night

March 20122012-13 Scheduling3/5,19, 26 PLC3/12 Waiver Day3/13, 14, 15 HSPE3/14 Parent Teacher Conferences3/24 Booster Auction3/28 Grades Due 2:35

Website links:Calendars Counseling

Career Center

A time to assess and reset

I

Remember the

“Big Elephants” -

Be Nice! Upcoming Events:

Fr o

m t

he d

e s k

of

D.

Ha

l fo

r d

ASB’s

Charge -

“It’s “R” Time!”

“ t e a c h e r s t h i n k t h a t b y c u t t i n g c l a s s , I

m i g h t i m p r o v e m y g r a d e s . ” - B r i t t a n y G l e e

Have a great week! - Dave

http://www.wix.com/arhs11/auburn-riverside-high-school


http://swift.auburn.wednet.edu/arhs/dpolley/index.php


http://swift.auburn.wednet.edu/arhs/smead/index.php


f you’re reading this on Monday, then you’re reading on the half way day. We are

half way through the school year. Hard to believe that ninety school days, give or take a few snow days, have passed. Hard to believe that my almost 18 year old, who was one year old when ARHS opened, will be graduating in another 90 school days…but I digress.

We are at the half way point, the start of a new semester for kids and courses. So I wanted to share a DI idea that you may find helpful at the beginning of a new semester. This DI idea addresses the myth that One Size Fits All. I mean really, is it truly possible for the same swim suit cover up to look good on Kaisa Swendall-White and look good on me? Seriously? No, we all know that one size never fits all.

Think about the last teacher’s conference you went to that promised to improve your teaching. Unless it was a subject specific conference, you went in with great hopes but in the end left with routine comments on your evaluations. Those comments usually consist of, “wish this could have been applied to my subject area to make it more relevant” or “In theory I get it, but I need more application to my subject area.” These are statements of relevance. We want conferences to be relevant to our interests, our subject area, and our needs at the time. One size does not fit all in conferences.

Kids want relevance too. Engaging students in curriculum and tasks they find irrelevant is always a challenge. Relevance is a key factor in human motivation! Differentiated instruction, offers clear avenues for students to find meaning in what and how they are taught, through student inventories and interest surveys. By developing and using Student Profiles in your classroom, you can keep your curriculum more closely tied to student interests and preferences, allowing relevance to help keep students motivated...making your job easier.

For clarification, student interests refers to such topics as outside interests, hobbies, routines, family life, goals, and dreams. Student inventories can also be referred to as learning inventories. Inventories can include learning styles (visual vs kinesthetic), grouping preferences (alone or partnered), environmental preferences (quiet work area or active surroundings). Student Profiles can be gathered over the next few days and then used as you plan and orchestrate learning throughout the semester. Remember, DI is not an everyday thing and to begin with, try just one thing a month.

Attached are a few different types of inventories or surveys. There are other surveys available in books as well…Corin Malone is a great resource, she has a fabulous DI library started. Once you’ve gathered information, consider these ideas to start:

Group kids based on preferences. Kids who love to read aloud work in one group, while kids who love to read first alone then discuss work in another.

Kids who love to draw or design work in one group while kids who love to play with words work in another.

Character analysis: If Martin Luther King had been a __(insert student’s favorite hobby…ie: skateboarder)___ how would famous events have looked differently?

Career orientation: In what way did this invention/scientific discovery/historical turning point impact your future career?

Metaphor: How is your ___(favorite hobby)___ like this “concept” or what similarities are there between them or contrast “this” to “that”.

Further reading of another type of inventory:

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/jun11/vol68/num09/Let-Me-Learn-My-Own-Way.aspx

&

By request, “Best Walks & Talks”:“DI: One Size Fits All?”

by Nola Wilson

I

N o l a









AUBURN RIVERSIDE“Where personalized learning reaches every R.A.V.E.N.”

M O N D A Y M E M O

“ I g r e w u p t h i n k i n g o f s n o w a s a

"My mind is my biggest asset. I expect to win every tournament I play." -- Tiger Woods

FEBRUARY 13 , 2012

n Friday, I heard the greatest story of how Breaking Down the Walls made an impact. It’s

not mine to share but please take time to ask Art or Julie. It’s pretty amazing.

Advisory Day. Today, Monday 2/13, is ARHS’ last advisory day for this year. All information was distributed last week. 9th grade is in the gym with Raven Crew, 10th grade is working on their Student Led Conference packets (mailed & performed at home), 11th grade is in the ART for the state mandated HIV/AIDS presentation, and this is the 12th graders last opportunity to work with advisors in completing their state mandated portfolios. Please note adjusted schedule for the day. If you are unsure

of your role please contact an administrator.

No School Friday 2/17. Only 12 month employees must report on this Friday, 2/17.

Election Day is Valentine’s Day. 2/14 is the BIG day for the School Levy and Bond. Our last four groups of sign waivers happen today! Thanks to everyone who played a role and donated time towards this worthy cause. It was very much appreciated.

Professional Development. Teachers have already began turning in sign-off sheets for the 3 hours of Peer Observations. Please don’t forget to complete these and turn them into Mary Shabel.

This Week:2/13 PLC 2/13 Advisory Day ****2/14 Valentine’s Day/Election Day2/15 Leadership Team Meeting2/17 Snow Day - No School

2/14 Jackie De Haven 2/19 Karyn Williamson

February2/20 President’s Day - No School2/27 PLC2/29 Grades Due 2:352/29 Future Freshman Night

March 20122012-13 Scheduling3/5,19, 26 PLC3/12 Waiver Day3/13, 14, 15 HSPE3/14 Parent Teacher Conferences3/24 Booster Auction3/28 Grades Due 2:35

April 20124/2-4/6 Spring Break4/9, 4/16, 4/23, 4/18 PLC4/18 Leadership Team Meeting

Website links:Calendars Counseling

Career Center

A 4 day week followed by a 4 day weekend!

Remember the

“Big Elephants” -

Be Nice! Upcoming Events:

Fr o

m t

he d

e s k

of

D.

Ha

l fo

r d

ASB’s

Charge -

“It’s “R” Time!”

I t ’ s W i n t e r S p o r t s P l a y o f f s

Have a great week! - Dave

O







s a staff, we’ve been working with our PLCs for a while. With our teams we’ve

created assessments, through collaboration, with the hope of identifying what students have learned or not learned yet. It’s been a learning process for everyone, through trial and error. Hopefully, we have increased our knowledge of what works (and doesn’t work) each time through the cycle. Now that we’ve all completed at least a couple assessment cycles, it’s time to examine specific ways we can strengthen, add clarity, and more effectively use the data generated in these cycles.

“Education if not the fi!ing of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.” –Wi!iam Butler Yeats

Assessment, whether formative (to support continued learning) or summative (assessment of learning), involves collecting data to help make decisions. According to Rick Stiggins, “you can enhance or destroy students’ desire to succeed in school more quickly and permanently through your use of assessment than with any other tools you have at your disposal.” As teachers, we should be able to effectively monitor student responses to our instruction and assessment tasks, ask the right questions, analyze the responses we gather to find the learner where they are, and then work to take them where they need to be. These strategies should involve students in the process, and include checking and rechecking along the

way so we can continue the learning and know when each learner has “arrived” at mastery.

Team-developed common assessments can inform and improve the practice of teaching, and help build team capacity to achieve at higher levels, with greater impact. The more we collaborate with effective assessments, the better we all become at understanding and addressing roadblocks in student learning. We become more effective in the classroom.

Common assessments have the power to greatly impact student learning. They provide the information needed to answer the four questions we’ve been asking ourselves since we started PLCs: What it is we expect students to learn?

How wi! we know when they have learned it?

How wi! we respond when they don’t learn?

How wi! we respond when they do learn?

For the next couple months, the ATLA team will be breaking down and sharing a 2-day workshop on building common assessments.

Keys to Quality Classroom Assessment

The purpose of the assessment is clear.

The targets of the assessment are clear.

Appropriate methods and methodology are employed.

Effective communication is utilized.

Students are involved in the process.

Over the next several readings, we’ll address these keys in more detail. Researchers studying assessments have determined that better formative assessments can produce higher test scores. In fact, a meta-analysis by Sti*ins in 2005 revealed that a good formative assessment rivals one-on-one tutorial instruction, with the largest gains for low achievers. However, formative assessments must be accurate, provide descriptive feedback, and include student involvement to be most effective.

In order to know who gets it and how doesn’t, PLCs need to create Common Assessments with specific learning targets, clear rubrics for measurement, an effective way to survey the data, and application of the results, in a descriptive and timely manner, to improve student learning. We will break down each step over the next two months, providing additional handouts and resources your PLC can use to continue your improvement with Common Assessments. If you want to preview some of these resources, see the “Building Common Assessments” folder on the share drive. The texts we are using include The Teacher as Assessment Leader, edited by Thomas R. Guskey, and Building Common Assessments (an extensive, bound hand-out from the 2 day presentation Nov. 30, Dec. 1).

Auburn Teacher Leadership Academy - “ATLA” -presents:Part 1 – Why use Common Assessments?

by Susan James - “ATLA #2 Member”

A

Your ATLA 2 Team Thanks you!

SIP Template

1 | P a g e

Planning Year 2010-2011 Implementation September 2011-June 2014 Auburn Riverside High School

Strategic Improvement Plan Prioritized challenges

Strategic Plan Adopted by the Auburn School Board of Directors on

SIP Template

2 | P a g e

September 2011-June 2014 Auburn School District Strategic Improvement Plan

District Improvement Goal 1: Student Achievement

With district support, leadership, and guidance each student will achieve proficiency in the Washington Comprehensive Assessment Program (WCAP) and all schools will meet adequate yearly progress by meeting or exceeding the Washington State uniform bar in reading and mathematics in grades 3 through 8 and 10. District Improvement Goal 2: Dropout Rate and On-time Graduation

Schools will reduce dropout rates and meet additional Adequate Yearly Progress indicators as determined by K-8 attendance and high school on-time graduation rates. District Improvement Goal 3: Parents/Guardians and Community Partnerships

The district and schools will continue to develop partnerships to support student academic achievement and success. District Improvement Goal 4: Policies and Resource Management

The district will focus on improving student academic achievement and narrowing the achievement gaps in its policy decisions and resource allocation. 2010-2011 Stated District Objectives-Student Achievement and Accountability

Superintendent implements district strategic improvement plan to establish professional learning communities, become a standards-based district, produce power standards, develop common formative assessments, monitor student achievement, and provide intervention for continuous improvement for 10% more students at or above standards in reading and math. Superintendent increases high school graduation rates to 95% and increasing high school aggregate credits earned and decreasing failing grades in 9th grade. Superintendent increases learning enrichment and achievement beyond standards for all students including less represented population.

School:

Auburn Riverside High School

Date of SIP Team District Improvement Goal Review:

SIP Team Members:

Dave Halford Nola Wilson John Erickson Andrew Monsen

Steve Mead Gina Sandland Carol Barnett Lisa Gallinatti

Jackie DeHaven Toni Dudley Scott Husar Robyn Saarenas

Stephanie Swift Susan James

SIP Template

3 | P a g e

Requirements for School Improvement Plan

WAC 180-16-220

Each school in the district shall be approved annually by the school board of directors under an approval process determined by the district board of directors. “At a minimum the annual approval shall require each school to have a school improvement plan that is data driven, promotes a positive impact on student learning, and includes a continuous improvement process that shall mean the ongoing process used by a school to monitor, adjust, and update its school improvement plan”. The checklist below contains the required elements for School Improvement Plans under WAC 180-16-220. School Improvement Plans are subject to review by the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI).

1. Evidence and date of annual school board approval.

2. Evidence staff certification requirements were met. (Highly Qualified)

3. Evidence the plan is based on self-review and participation of required

participants (staff, students, families, parents, and community members).

4. Brief summary of use of data to establish improvement.

5. How continuous improvement in student achievement of state learning goals and essential academic learning requirements (EALRs) is promoted.

6. Recognition of non-academic student learning, what and how.

(School Climate, bullying, counselors, community resources, partnerships, student leadership; interpersonal relationship skills)

7. Plan addresses characteristics of successful schools.

8. Plan addresses educational equity (gender, race, ethnicity, culture,

language, and physical/mental ability).

9. Plan addresses use of technology to facilitate instruction.

10. Plan addresses parent, family, and community involvement. Failure to make AYP for two consecutive years will result in identification for school improvement beginning with Step 1. The consequences associated with each step are detailed at: http://www.k12.wa.us/ESEA/AdequateYearlyProgress.aspx

http://www.k12.wa.us/ESEA/AdequateYearlyProgress.aspx

SIP Template

6 | P a g e

Executive Summary

Auburn School District Mission

In a safe environment, all students will achieve high standards of learning in order to become ethically responsible decision makers and lifelong learners.

Auburn School District Vision

The vision of Auburn School District is to develop in students the skills and attitudes that will maximize their potential for lifelong learning and ethically responsible decision making.

Sample School Vision

ARHS: where personalized learning reaches every R espectful, contributing citizen A ccountable to self and others V alued critical thinkers E ffective at communicating N avigators of life’s challenges and opportunities

Sample School Mission

Reaching every R.A.V.E.N.!

Background Information

WAC 180-16-220 Requirements for School Improvement Plan

Each school shall be approved annually by the school board of directors under an approval process determined by the district board of directors and “At a minimum the annual approval shall require each school to have a school improvement plan that is data driven, promotes a positive impact on student learning, and includes a continuous improvement process that shall mean the ongoing process used by a school to monitor, adjust, and update its school improvement plan.” School Improvement plans must include a brief summary of use of data to establish improvement; acknowledging the use of data which may include DIBELS, MAP, WLPTII, Credit Attainment, Enrollment in Honors/AP Courses, CEE Perceptual Data, SAT/ACT, Discipline, and MSP or HSPE.

We began this process in November, 2010, with monthly trainings, staff data carousels in January, and SIP work meetings throughout the spring of 2011. This document includes the following: school’s mission and statements, demographics data, school climate information, student achievement data, goals, and an action plan.

SIP Template

7 | P a g e

Demographic data

Introduction

The Auburn School District is medium in size. Located southeast of Seattle, Auburn’s population growth has slowed in the last two years after making gains in size the previous four years. This rate change is attributed to economic changes in our nation. Auburn Riverside opened in 1995 making this the third high school. Percentages of Auburn Riverside High School’s free or reduced-price lunches (26.7%) are lower than the district’s (48.6%) and state (42.3%) however, information from feeder middle schools indicates that these numbers may not be accurate, and indicate that we should perhaps have up to 37% of our students receiving free and reduced lunches. This can possibly be attributed to high school students being less willing to report this information. Enrollment Auburn Riverside High School is the second of three comprehensive high schools in the Auburn School District. The enrollment of Auburn Riverside High School has grown from 1,110 students in 1995 to 1,694 students in 2010. Ethnicity Auburn Riverside High School’s ethnicity is becoming more diverse, although we are not as diverse as the district as a whole. The Native American population is approximately 1.7% of the population. The Asian/Pacific Islander population is approximately 11.6%. Our Black population is 4.8%. The Hispanic population is 12.2%. The White population is 69.5%. Gender Data indicates a decrease in the male population and an increase of the female population at Auburn Riverside High School. In 2006 males comprised 51% of the population, while in 2010 they comprised 48.7% of the population. The female population went from 49% in 2006 to 51.3% in 2010. The district gender data, on the other hand, has remained stable, with males comprising 51.6% of the population and females 48.4% of the population. Special Education The percentage of students enrolled in Special Education at Auburn Riverside High School increased from 5.1% in 2006 to 5.6% in October of 2010. The total district rate of students enrolled in Special Education is 11.8%.

Free or Reduced Lunch Free and reduced lunch rate increased from 18.4% in 2006 to 26.7% in 2010. Students experiencing poverty in the Auburn Riverside High School boundary area continues to be a concern. Processes are in place to discreetly identify students who qualify for free or reduced lunch. Our district’s current Free and reduced lunch rate is 48.6%

SIP Template

8 | P a g e

Transitional Bilingual Data suggests the English Language Learners number at Auburn Riverside High School is fluctuating and in 2006 was 2.8% and is currently 3.8%. Hispanic, Eastern European, and Marshallese students account for the majority of students enrolled in the English Language Learner program at ARHS. Graduation Rates The recent on time graduation rate at Auburn Riverside High School is 88.6%. The most recent dropout rate at Auburn Riverside High School is 2.7% or 44 students. Teacher Statistics The number of classroom teachers at Auburn Riverside increased from 67 teachers in 1995 to 87 teachers in 2010. The percentage of teachers with a master’s degree at Auburn Riverside High School is 71.3%. The average years of teaching experience at Auburn Riverside High School is 13.2.

Discipline and Attendance Analysis

In the 2009-10 school year, ARHS reported 358 suspensions, with 77 students comprising 2 or more of those suspensions as repeat offenders. Of the 358 suspensions, 60% were white students and the other 40% were of other ethnicity. For the 2009-10 school year, the average number of absent students per period was 27,339 with 1st period and 6th period have the highest at 28,895 and 28,639 respectively.

Assessment Decisions

The ARHS leadership team, part of the campus decision making model made up primarily of department chairs and PLC leaders, utilize MAPS, HSPE/EOC, WLPT, CEE, and credit attainment as primary assessment indicators of student learning.

Data Analysis- MAPS

Fall 2009 MAPS data indicates: 18.9% of 9th graders are At Risk in Reading; 19.3% are Moderate Risk; and 61.7% are On Target. In Math, 14.8% of 9th graders are At Risk; 16.2% are Moderate Risk; and 68.9% are On Target. ARHS students in 9th grade national MAPS math are achieving above the national average. In 2010, girls are more than a grade level ahead than the boys on the reading Maps test

Data Analysis- WLPTII

Spring 2010, WLPT II data indicates:

100% of Ell students enrolled at AHRS at the time of testing took the test. Out of 56 students tested, 5 students achieved transitional status and exited

program, which did not meet the requirement for AMAO 2. 16 of 45 students made gains, which did not meet the requirement for AMAO 1.

SIP Template

9 | P a g e

Most of the Ell students grade 9-12 at ARHS scored in the Level 3, advance d English, category.

The smallest number of ELL students grade 9-12 scored in the Level 1, beginning, category.

Data Analysis- Credit Attainment, Honors/AP/CTE Enrollment

2010/11 School Year Honors Class enrollment:

Honors Lang Arts 9 152 Honors Lang Arts 10 126 Honors World Studies 122

2010/11 School Year AP Class enrollment: AP Calculus 68 AP Statistics 18 AP Language/Comp 103 AP Literature/Comp 20 AP European History 108 AP US History 66 AP US Pol & Go 62 AP Psychology 8 AP Chemistry 29 AP Biology 15 AP Physics 8 AP Computer Sci 12 AP French 3 AP Spanish 13 AP Japanese 7 AP Studio Art 1

Data Analysis- CEE Perceptual Survey

Data from the CEE Survey, which includes information on curriculum, mission, beliefs, vision, assessment, leadership, and organization, provides valuable perceptual input from the community, parents, students and staff. Strengths

99% of staff want to make ARHS a better place. 90% of students feel ARHS celebrates student academic success. 82% of students feel that teachers find ways to help them learn.

2010/11 Career and Tech Ed Class

enrollment:

Automotive 8 Business 86 Carpentry 160 Computer Network 34 Culinary Arts 200 Drafting/Eng 114 Electronics 71 Family/Con Sci 25 Marketing 91 World Language 129 Viscom/Drawing 302

SIP Template

10 | P a g e

Weakness

Only 14% of ARHS staff believe that struggling students almost always receive early intervention help, and 40% of parents and students believe staff will adjust instruction or accommodate student needs.

Less than 50% of teachers believe students will hit standard in any given area (with the exception of reading).

34% of students think ARHS teachers don’t expect all students to succeed.

Achievement

At Auburn Riverside, no cell met AYP for Proficiency in Math for 2010-2011. All other cells met AYP. The following were not trigger cells due to low numbers of students in these cells: American Indian, Limited English, and Special education. Overall, in Reading and Math, Riverside met AYP in 19 cells and did not meet AYP in six cells. This represents a 76% success rate in Proficiency. Riverside met the Participation Goal in all cells, except for the three sections not triggered due to low numbers, as mention in the paragraph above.

MSP/HSPE Reading

Since 2004-05, Auburn Riverside has scored above the district and state average in Reading. The percentage of students meeting standard in Reading for the last four years has been: Percentage of Students Meeting Standard

2007 82.2% WASL Reading State 80% 2008 82.8% WASL Reading 80% 2009 85.0% WASL Reading 81% 2010 82.0% HSPE Reading 79% Group Adjusted % Met AYP 421 Continuously Enrolled Students were eligible for

the assessment American Indian Not required Asian/Pacific Islander 97.3 Black 94.7 Hispanic 82.1 White 93.6 Source:

http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/AYPProficiencyDetail.aspx? schoolID=1413&reportLevel=School&yrs=15&year=15&chartType=1 Limited English Not required

Special Education Not required Low Income 77.2 In 2009, students in both the district and state all scored lower than the previous year. In 2009 the state changed the Reading Assessment to the HSPE, which differed structurally from the WASL, including more multiple choice questions, addition of fill-in-the-blank questions, and elimination of extended responses.

SIP Template

11 | P a g e

MSP/HSPE Math

From 2004 to 2010, Riverside students have outscored other students in the district. From 2005-06 through 2009-2010, Riverside students have outpaced the state average for Math scores. Percentage of Students Meeting Standard

2007 53.6% WASL Math State 50.4% 2008 51.1% WASL Math 49.6% 2009 47.3% WASL Math 45.4% 2010 43.4% HSPE Math 41.7% Group Adjusted % Met AYP 420 Continuously Enrolled Students were eligible for

the assessment American Indian Not required Asian/Pacific Islander 51.8 Black 37.0 Hispanic 42.8 White 59.9 Source:

http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/AYPProficiencyDetail.aspx? schoolID=1413&reportLevel=School&yrs=15&year=15&chartType=1 Limited English Not required

Special Education Not required Low Income 32.9 Even though Riverside students have scored higher than the district and state averages, ARHS student scores have followed the same trends as the scores at other schools and the district. The year 2007 appears to be the current high point for math scores. In 2011, the state assessment is changing to an end-of-course exam, so we will have a new reference point for student achievement after we receive data on the new assessment. The newer exams are course-specific for Algebra and Geometry, and should provide better data to address teaching and student learning.

MSP/HSPE Science

From 2004 through 2010, WASL and HSPE scores for Riverside students and the district as a whole, have generally lagged behind the state. Percentage of Students Meeting Standard:

ARHS State

2007 26.7% Science WASL 2007 36.4% 2008 33.6% Science WASL 2008 33.6% 2009 21.4% Science WASL 2009 38.8% 2010 38.1% Science HSPE 2010 44.8%

SIP Template

12 | P a g e

It should be noted that from 2007-2010 Riverside has had 41.1%, 62.1%, 61.4%, and 22.6% of students with no score, due primarily to lack of attendance during testing due in turn to lack of state requirements. As 2011 is the first year students have been required to take the test, the data should provide some new insights. Next year as well, the state assessment is changing to an end-of-course Biology Exam, so like Math, we will have a new reference point for student achievement.

MSP/HSPE Writing

From 2003 through 2010, scores for Riverside students have been above the district average, except for 2010; district scores were .4% higher in 2010. Versus state scores, Riverside students have scored lower in three of the past six years, 2005, 2008, and 2010. Percentage of Students Meeting Standard 2007 89.3% Writing WASL State 83.9% 2008 86.4% Writing WASL 86.8% 2009 90.7% Writing WASL 86.7% 2010 84.5% Writing HSPE 86% The assessment changed between 2009 to 2010, from the WASL to the HSPE. It is unknown whether that change contributed to the lower scores in 2010. We will have more data for comparison after we receive the 2011 HSPE Writing scores. Writing is not one of the measured areas for AYP, for ESEA and NCLB.

SIP Template

13 | P a g e

Prioritized Challenges

Less than 50% of all students taking the Math HSPE are currently passing. Although

the test has changed for this current year and will be an EOC, strategies must still be

put in place to better prepare the majority of students for success on this graduation

requirement.

Low income student score 20-25% lower on HSPE reading than non-low income

students.

The on-time graduation rate dropped for the first time in 4 years to under 90% and

the extended graduation rate has also declined over the past 4 years to 93% while the

drop-out rate increased by 1%

In 2009-10, for every grade level, the GPA’s in the range from a 3.0 – 4.0 or higher

dropped, and the range from 0.0 – 1.0 increased.

SIP Template

14 | P a g e

Study Teams (Each study team should consider parent/community involvement, cultural competency and integration of technology as potential strategies in each goal

area e.g. How can parent involvement, cultural competence and technology assist the school in meeting its reading goal?)

Literacy Goal Group: Nola Wilson, Susan James, John Erickson, Andrew Monsen, Jacque DeHaven, Carol Barnett, Gina Sandland, Toni Dudley, Scott Husar, Robin Saarenaas, Stephanie Swift

Improvement Goal Group research and rationale: Using the Smart Goal format and a PLC foundation for instructional change, Literacy strategies in the areas of reading and math have been crafted to meet SIP goals from the following resources and best practices:

K-12 Reading model and best practices – systemic summarization skills and targeted academic vocabulary National math standards and best practices – Targeted standards teaching, standards based assessment alignment, effective questioning strategies Differentiated Instruction – Common vocabulary, classroom based interventions, pre-assessment instructional alignment, targeted learning standards. PLC – Common assessments, Maps analysis, data driven instructional decisions

SIP Template

15 | P a g e

Improvement Goals

SMART Goal 1:

The number of 10th graders meeting standard on the Reading HSPE will be increased to 90% by 2014.

SMART Goal 2:

The number of students who are failing Algebra and Geometry End-of-Course exams will be decreased by a total of 5% by 2014.

SMART Goal 3:

Starting with the class of 2015, there will be a 10% decrease of at risk 9th graders, over the previous year’s at risk 9th graders , as measured by the district credit attainment report.

SIP Template

16 | P a g e

Needs Assessment Data Documents

o MAP Data

o WLPTII results

o Credit Attainment Dashboards

o Honors/AP Dashboards

o CEE data

o Discipline Dashboards

o Demographic charts

o AYP Results

o MSP/HSPE Results and trend charts

o Standards for Accreditation Survey Results

(Data documents available upon request)

SIP Template

17 | P a g e

SMART Goal 1

Subject Area: Reading

School Name: Auburn Riverside High School

Target Population- based on

demographic, discipline and attendance

data analysis:

All 9th and 10th graders

Our Reality-based on assessment

data analysis: 2010 Spring Reading HSPE scores show that 82% of 10th graders met standard.

Our SMART Goal-based on target

population and your reality: The number of 10th graders meeting standard on the Reading HSPE will be increased to 90% by 2014.

Action Steps Responsibility Timeline Resources Evidence of SMART Goal

Attainment Sequential- what comes first? Who will monitor?

Who will implement?

Detailed

milestones/markers

of progress

towards evidence

Examples include:

PLC, Building 21, CEE data,

Power Standards

Student evidence

Staff evidence

Evidence of impact

Build Staff and PLC capacity and

implementation of research based best

practices in the areas of:

Building-wide Common Academic

Vocabulary

Reading strategies (summarization,

vocabulary)

Differentiated Instruction practices

and paradigms

Formative assessment

Administrators ATLA Leadership team PLCs

August inservice Waiver day, building optional hour workshops PLC work Classroom

Wormeli and DI Conference attendance Language Arts Dept experts PLC Building 21 ATLA inservice August 2011 Dist. Days

PLC Meeting Notes/Forms on learning targets and applied strategies Formative Assessment Data Observable use of strategies in classroom Maps scores HSPE scores

SIP Template

18 | P a g e

Train staff on MAPS data analysis for

PLC and classroom use Principal MAPS

coordinator lab para-educator Leadership team Trained Teachers ATLA PLC

Fall Inservice Lab workshops PLC

Computer Labs ATLA Training Trained Para/instructors for inservice providing Waiver days/building optional

Attendance at training sessions PLC discussion notes Use of MAPS data in classroom Differentiated Instruction work Maps improvement HSPE improvement

Feasibility study of ELL Flight Program

for Reading Intervention

Principal ELL instructor counselor

Spring 2011 master schedule

Staffing Master Schedule

Sections created Increased Maps scores Reduction in gen. ed failing grades Increased HSPE/EOC scores

Alignment to District Improvement Plan Objectives:

1.b.1 Develop and submit school improvement plans modified in accordance with student achievement data aligned to the district strategic improvement plan and the Nine Characteristics of High Performing Schools

1.c.3 Monitor student learning and adjust instruction to assure achievement of district-identified power standards

Schools implement prevention, intervention, and retention strategies to reduce student dropouts.

SIP Template

19 | P a g e

SMART Goal 2

Subject Area: Math


Target Population-

based on demographic,

discipline and

attendance data

analysis:

9th-11th Graders

Our Reality-based on

assessment data

analysis:

Because this is the first year of statewide EOC implementation, no credible baseline data

exists the exam in terms of passing or raw score analysis. Once we have an EOC baseline,

this goal and our data analysis will be adjusted to incorporate meaningful and

statistically accurate data.

Our SMART Goal-

based on target

population and your

reality:

The number of students who are failing Algebra and Geometry End-of-Course exams will be decreased by a total of 5% by 2014.

SIP Template

20 | P a g e

Action Steps Responsibility Timeline Resources Evidence of SMART Goal

Attainment

Sequential- what comes first? Who will monitor? Who will implement?

Detailed milestones/markers of progress towards evidence

Examples include: PLC, Building 21, CEE data, Power Standards

Student evidence Staff evidence Evidence of impact




Building-wide Common

Academic Vocabulary

Math Literacy/vocabulary and

Questioning Strategies

Differentiated Instruction

practices and paradigms




Wormeli and DI Conference attendance Math Dept experts PLC Building 21 ATLA inservice August 2011 Dist. Days



PLC and classroom use Principal MAPS

coordinator lab para-educator Leadership team Trained Teachers ATLA PLC




SIP Template

21 | P a g e

Pilot Math Intervention course to

support and enhance Algebra

classes and recapture credit

All math teachers Administrators Counselors

Spring 2011 master schedule

Staffing Curriculum resources Identified students

Create and implement course Successful Enrollment Improved grades in Algebra and credit attainment

Matchup EOC crosswalks to

new/existing curriculum

Administrators Math PLCs

Fall 2011 building optional hours Waiver day PLC

Possible site-visits Building 21 Hours Waiver Days PLC Meetings Staff Meetings

Create crosswalk match documents for new/existing cirric. Create a few crosswalk-matched common assessments Continuously ensure teaching is aligned to crosswalk matches

Feasibility study for ELL Flight

Program for Math Skills

Principal ELL instructor counselor

Spring 2011 Master Schedule planning

Staffing

Increased MAPS scores Reduction in gen ed. failing grades Increased HSPE/EOC scores

Embed learning targets into Skyward

Grading system

Administrators Math PLCs Math Instructors

Targets established fall 2011 Grading impact by first progress report

PLC Bldg. 21 Hours Poss. Outside PD

Identify learning targets Learning targets will be included into the description field in Skyward

SIP Template

22 | P a g e


1.b.1 Develop and submit school improvement plans modified in accordance with student achievement data aligned to the district strategic improvement plan and the Nine Characteristics of High Performing Schools

1.c.3 Monitor student learning and adjust instruction to assure achievement of district-identified power standards


SMART Goal 3

Subject Area: Supportive Learning environment and On time Graduation


Target Population- based on

demographic, discipline and attendance data

analysis:

9th grade at risk Freshman and credit deficient upperclassmen

Our Reality-based on assessment data

analysis: 11.16% of ARHS 9th graders are At Risk after first their first semester

Our SMART Goal-based on target

population and your reality:

Starting with the class of the 2015 ,there will be a 10% decrease of at risk 9th graders,

over the previous year at risk 9th graders , as measured by the district using credit

attainment.

Action Steps Responsibility Timeline Resources Evidence of SMART

Goal Attainment Sequential- what comes first? Who will monitor?

Who will implement?

Detailed

milestones/markers of

progress towards

evidence

Examples include:

PLC, Building 21, CEE

data, Power Standards

Student evidence

Staff evidence

Evidence of impact

SIP Template

23 | P a g e




Building-wide Common

Academic Vocabulary


practices and paradigms




Wormeli and DI Conference attendance PLC Building 21 ATLA inservice August 2011 Dist. Days



PLC and classroom use Principal MAPS coordinator lab para-educator Leadership team Trained Teachers ATLA PLC




Adult Mentor to Failing Freshmen Administrators Staff Counselors

Spring 2011 pilot Scheduled time to mentor Mentoring Strategies Insights from current programs

Passing Grades of Freshman

Implement, improve, or increase

targeted intervention programs and

processes

Study Skills Analysis

Orientation Curriculum Review

Flight

Administrators Program Coordinators Flight Teachers Leadership Team Department Heads Ell Teacher

Program reviews Master schedule Policy modifications

Building 21 hours Department meetings Leadership Meetings PLC’s Staff Meetings Professional

Fewer at risk freshman/ credits earned. Improvement in overall grades Ontime Credit attainment

SIP Template

24 | P a g e

Quarter credits

Math Interventions Class

After School Apex

Poverty Based Strategies

Development in Intervention Strategies

Attendance

Communication Strategies

Family Access

Regular/Timely Grade Posting

At Risk emailing and phone

calling

Home Language

All Teachers Dept. Chairs Administrators Office staff

Program modifications Form development Policy modifications

Trans Act PLC CEE data

CEE Survey Skyward Access Data, Communication Logs Parent Survey Feedback Parental involvement Grades and Credit improvement

Investigate classroom, program, and

building-wide intervention models

Administrators Leadership Team PLCs

Spring 2011-Research other intervention models Summer 2011- PD on research based intervention techniques

Possible site-visits Building 21 Hours Waiver Days PLC Meetings Staff Meetings

Implementation: Build document addressing several options on scheduling Identify in-school resources to accomplish targeted interventions



2.a.4 Develop and implement a pyramid of early intervention strategies to support students identified to be at-risk of failure or dropping out of school

2.b.2 Utilize technology to track and communicate progress towards graduation

2.b.3 Implement early interventions for students not on track for on-time graduation

2.b.4 Create a range of options and opportunities, including online learning, for students to attain, retrieve, or recapture credit with focus at grade 8 and 9

SIP Template

25 | P a g e

Implementation Calendar 2011-2012 Action Spring

2011

August

September

October

November

December

January

February

March

Build Staff and

PLC capacity:

Academic Vocabulary

*SIP review at ARHS Admin retreat

LID PD PLC Implement

Summarization Strategies

* PD Waiver Day

Math Questioning * PD Waiver Day


Wormeli/ Conference

*

Formative Assessment

* ATLA work

LID PD PLC Implement

Maps Training

ATLA Training

* PD Waiver Day

PLC

ELL Flight

Master Schedule

* Scheduling

Math

Intervention

course

Pilot * Review Pilot Results

Grade report/sched changes

EOC crosswalks

* PLC

Skyward

Standards

*

Failing

Freshman

Mentor

Pilot * Review Pilot Results

Review Incoming 9th

Review Progress Reports/ Assign

Intervention

Program Review

*

Communications

* Gather Trans Act info

Open House Family Access/ target lang

Building

Interventions

*