Academic Intervention Plan for 2010-2011
advertisement
Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process (TSIPP) 2010-2011 Kingsbury High School “School of Scholars & Champions” 1270 N. Graham, Memphis, TN 38122 (901) 416-6060 Carlos J. Fuller, Principal Shenar Miller, Assistant Principal Gabriela Toro, Assistant Principal Dr. Kriner Cash, Superintendent Memphis City Schools, Memphis, Tennessee Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process (TSIPP) Assurances with Signature of Principal I certify that _____Kingsbury High School_____________ has utilized the data and other requirements requested for each component. The school will operate its programs in accordance with all of the required assurances and certifications for each program area. I CERTIFY that the assurances referenced above have been satisfied to the best of my knowledge. __________________________________________ Signature of Principal Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process ______________________ Date Signed Page 2 of 137 Table of Contents COMPONENT 1a School Profile and Collaborative Process ............................................................................................... 05 1.1 SIP leadership Team Composition ....................................................................................................... 06 1.2 Subcommittee Formation and Operation ............................................................................................. 07 1.3 Collection of Academic and Non-academic Data and Analysis/Synthesis .......................................... 12 COMPONENT 1b Academic and Non-Academic Data Analysis ......................................................................................... 25 1.4 Variety of Academic and Non-academic Assessment Measures ......................................................... 26 1.5 Data Collection & Analysis ................................................................................................................. 27 1.6 Report Card Data Disaggregation ........................................................................................................ 30 1.7 Narrative Synthesis of All Data ........................................................................................................... 48 1.8 Prioritized List of Targets .................................................................................................................... 51 COMPONENT 2 Beliefs, Mission and Vision....................................................................................................................... 53 2.1 Beliefs, Mission and Shared Vision ..................................................................................................... 54 COMPONENT 3 Curricular, Instructional, Assessment and Organizational Effectiveness ........................................... 55 3.1 Curricular Practices .............................................................................................................................. 56 (Rubric Indicators 3.1 and 3.2) 3.2 Instructional Practices .......................................................................................................................... 64 (Rubric Indicators 3.3 and 3.4) 3.3 Assessment Practices ........................................................................................................................... 75 (Rubric Indicators 3.5 and 3.6) 3.4 Organizational Practices ...................................................................................................................... 80 (Rubric Indicators 3.7and 3.8) COMPONENT 4 Action Plan Development ......................................................................................................................... 86 Kingsbury High School Goal 1 4.1 Goals .................................................................................................................................................... 87 4.2 Action Steps ......................................................................................................................................... 88 4.3 Implementation Plan ............................................................................................................................ 88 Kingsbury High School Goal 2 4.1 Goals .................................................................................................................................................... 91 4.2 Action Steps ......................................................................................................................................... 91 4.3 Implementation Plan ............................................................................................................................ 91 Kingsbury High School Goal 3 4.1 Goals .................................................................................................................................................... 94 4.2 Action Steps ......................................................................................................................................... 95 4.3 Implementation Plan ............................................................................................................................ 95 COMPONENT 5 The School Improvement Plan and Process Evaluation ........................................................................ 98 5.1 Process Evaluation ............................................................................................................................... 99 5.2 Implementation Evaluation ................................................................................................................ 103 5.3 Monitoring and Adjusting Evaluation................................................................................................ 105 Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 3 of 137 Title I Addendum……………………………………………………………………………….. 111 Middle and High School Transition Plan………………………………….………….112-115 Teacher Mentor Plan……………………………………………………………….………116 Intervention Plan…………………………………………………….…………….…..117-118 Strategies to Attract Highly Qualified Teachers…………………..…………….…………119 State and Federal Programs……….…………………………………………………..……120 Home School Compact……………………………………………………………..…121-122 Family Engagement Plan…………………………………………………………….….….123 Professional Development Plan……………………………………………………….124-130 10 Components of a Title I Schoolwide Program ……………………………………..131-132 Revised Professional Development Plan………………………………………………133-134 Technical Assistance Report………………………………………………………………..135 Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 4 of 137 COMPONENT 1a – School Profile and Collaborative Process Component 1a - School Profile and Collaborative Process Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 5 of 137 1.1: SIP Leadership Team Composition (Rubric Indicator 1.1) SIP Leadership Team Member Name Leadership Chair? (Y/N) Position Name of Subcommittee(s) (when applicable) Acosta, L. N Parent School Profile and Collaborative Process Adair, M. N Counselor Action Plan Development Batts, T. N KCTC Assistant Principal School Profile and Collaborative Process Toro, G. McKinney, J. N N Assistant Principal Parent Counselor Beliefs, Mission and Vision Fuller, Carlos J. N Principal Curricular, Instructional, Assessment, and Organizational Effectiveness Miller, S N Asst. Principal School Profile and Collaborative Process Horton, J. Jenkins, R. Y N Literacy Coach Community Member Beliefs, Mission and Vision Sellars, M. N Financial Secretary Curricular, Instructional, Assessment, and Organizational Effectiveness Lane, Dr. S. N Fine Arts Teacher School Improvement Plan and Process Evaluation Levy, H. N Science Teacher School Improvement Plan and Process Evaluation Dr. G. Williams N Redesign Grant Coordinator Action Plan Development Nelson, V. N Technology Teacher Action Plan Development Smith, S Y Graduation Coach School Profile and Collaborative Process Reyes, E. N ESL Bilingual Facilitator Curricular, Instructional, Assessment, and Organizational Effectiveness DeGroff, S. N Multi-media Specialist School Profile and Collaborative Process Falls, Dr. G N SPED Coordinator Curricular, Instructional, Assessment, and Organizational Effectiveness Hady, N. N Math Coach School Improvement Plan and Process Evaluation Tate, S. N Professional Development School Compliance Coach Curricular, Instructional, Assessment, and Organizational Effectiveness Whitmore, W. N Student Council President School Profile and Collaborative Process Williams, Maj. S. N Senior Army Instructor Beliefs, Mission and Vision Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Action Plan Development Beliefs, Mission and Vision Page 6 of 137 Component 1a - School Profile and Collaborative Process 1.2: Subcommittee Formation and Operation (Rubric Indicator 1.2) Subcommittee for COMPONENT 1 School Profile and Collaborative Process Member Name Position Chair Acosta, L. Parent N Barsotti, R. History Teacher N Batts, T. KCTC Assistant Principal N Dowda, L. Math Teacher N Hillman, J Math Teacher N Mathis, M. Multi-media Specialist N Haidar, J. Science Teacher N Miller, S. Assistant Principal Y Murria, O History Teacher N Smith, G. English Teacher N Degroff, S. Multi-media Specialist N Ban, L. Math Teacher N Halley, F Lifetime Wellness N Govan, J. SPED Teacher N Adair, M. Professional School Counselor N Whitmore, Wesley Student Council President N Utsey, M. English Teacher N Schwartz, H SPED Teacher N Component 1 Subcommittee has met to address critical components of the SIP and minutes are on file. YES NO Subcommittee 1 Chair Signature Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 7 of 137 Subcommittee for COMPONENT 2 Beliefs, Mission and Vision Member Name Position Chair Toro, G. Assistant Principal N McKinnie, J. Parent Counselor N Falls, III, Dr. G. Special Education Teacher N Fuller, C. Principal N Gorski, T. Art Teacher N Ayanru, A Math Teacher N Horton, III, J. Literacy Coach Y Davis, M. Science Teacher N Jenkins, R. Community Member N Legons, M. Science Teacher N Lester, Jr., E. Lifetime Wellness N Nesbitt, A. Foreign Language Teacher N Pittman, K. Math Teacher N Jackson, A SPED Teacher N Martinez, S SPED Teacher N Martin, J. English Teacher N Williams, Major S. Senior Army Instructor N Kuttner, S Economics Teacher N Landau, R Hitsory Teacher N Component 2 Subcommittee has met to address critical components of the SIP and minutes are on file. YES NO Subcommittee 2 Chair Signature Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 8 of 137 Subcommittee for COMPONENT 3 Curricular, Instructional, Assessment, and Organizational Effectiveness Member Name Position Chair Alvarado, Y. Latino Memphis Student Representative N Dahlin, F. READ 180 Teacher N Diong, M. Math Teacher N Williams, G, Dr Grant Coordinator N Sales, J History Teacher N Hayse, A. SPED Teacher N Sellars, M. Financial Secretary N Katsoulis, J. Math Teacher N Miles, T. Reading Teacher N Tavrazich, J. Math Teacher N Loeffler, B. Counselor N Meekins, E English Teacher N Nelson, V. Technology Teacher N Smith, S. Graduation Coach Y Reyes, E. ESL Bilingual Facilitator N Sneely Supervising Building Engineer N Williams, M. English Teacher N Stalpes, L History Teacher N Component 3 Subcommittee has met to address critical components of the SIP and minutes are on file. YES NO Subcommittee 3 Chair Signature Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 9 of 137 Subcommittee for COMPONENT 4 Action Plan Development Member Name Position Chair Tate, S. Instructional Facilitator Y Ballentine, Sgt. AJROTC Instructor N Bradshaw, T. Counselor N Carpenter, M. Technology Teacher N Chan, R. ESL Teacher N Teou-Teou, T. Foreign Language Teacher N Harman, K. SPED Teacher N Harris, P. Lifetime Wellness N Timmerding, C. Foreign Language Teacher N Ivory, T. Parent N Owens, N. SPED Teacher N Ritter, J. Science Teacher N Sims, J. Technology Teacher N Mullins, E. Reading Teacher N Mazzone, M. Community Member N Altsman, R. English Teacher N Lewis, S AP Psychology Teacher N Bullard, H Technology Teacher N Component 4 Subcommittee has met to address critical components of the SIP and minutes are on file. YES NO Subcommittee 4 Chair Signature Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 10 of 137 Subcommittee for COMPONENT 5 The School Improvement Plan and Process Evaluation Member Name Position Chair Bernstein, J. Art Teacher N Bush, M. SPED Teacher N Vasser,E. Math Teacher N Callahan, M. District PBIS Coach N Collins, S. Driver’s Ed Teacher N Felton, U. Technology Coordinator N Carlton, L Math Teacher N Price, S. AJROTC Instructor N Lane, Dr. S. Fine Arts Teacher N Levy, Herbert Teacher N Griner, J. English Teacher N Nickerson, R Band Director N Hady, N. Math Coach Y Williams, Sgt. R. AJROTC Instructor N Wilson, Dr. D. ESL Instructor N Simon, M Spanish teacher N Moore, N ESL Teacher N Component 5 Subcommittee has met to address critical components of the SIP and minutes are on file. YES NO Subcommittee 5 Chair Signature Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 11 of 137 Component 1a - School Profile and Collaborative Process 1.3 Collection of Academic and Nonacademic Data and Analysis/Synthesis 1.3.1: Data Sources (including surveys) (Rubric Indicator 1.3) Data Source Relevant Findings 2010 Staff Survey Staff Characteristics Faculty Demographics Of the fifty-two (52) faculty members surveyed, forty-five percent (45%) of them are male and fifty-five percent (55%) are female. Of the respondents surveyed, seventy-five percent (75%) are Caucasian, twenty-three percent (23%) are African-American, two percent (2%) are Asian. Faculty Education and Experience Of the fifty-two (52) faculty members surveyed, forty-five percent (45%) hold Bachelor’s degrees, forty-five percent (45%) hold Master’s degrees, two percent (2%) hold a Master’s degree plus 45 hours, and four percent (4%) hold Doctorate degrees. Of the respondents polled, forty-three percent (43%) have zero to three (0-3) years experience in the classroom, twenty percent (20%) have three to five (3-5) years experience in the classroom, eighteen percent (18 %) have six to ten (6-10) years experience in the classroom, fifteen percent (15%) have eleven to twenty (1120) years experience in the classroom, five percent (5%) have twenty-one to thirty (21-30) years experience in the classroom and three percent (3%) have thirty-one or more (31+) years experience in the classroom. Faculty Highly Qualified Status For the 2010-2011 academic year, all faculty teaching core content subjects are Highly Qualified, by at least one of the options to demonstrate competency detailed below. Federal Title I legislation of 2001 mandates all instructors of core subjects meet Highly Qualified Status requirements by the end of the 2005-2006 academic year. The instructor must hold at least a Bachelor’s degree and demonstrate competency in each core Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 12 of 137 Data Source Relevant Findings subject he/she teaches. The instructor may utilize one (1) of the following venues to demonstrate competency in each core subject he/she teaches: pass a test, academic major, graduate degree, twenty-four (24) hours of appropriate coursework or advanced certification or credentials. Each instructor who could not document Highly Qualified Status as of August 2, 2005, submitted a written proposal detailing the plan required to meet the mandated Highly Qualified Status by the end of the academic school year. The instructors designated as “No-Pending Documentation Verification,” as detailed above, submitted required documentation to the Human Resources Department of Memphis City Schools and have received final approval of his/her Highly Qualified status. With documentation, all core subject instructors met the federally mandated Highly Qualified Status by the beginning of the 2010-2011 academic school year. 2009 School Climate Survey— Teacher Responses A 2008-2009 School Climate Survey was completed by 52 teachers. In regards to Teacher Expectations, the top 5% of staff answers of Agree or Strongly Agree are detailed below: Ninety percent (90%) of the staff surveyed agreed that teachers at Kingsbury High School are confident they can motivate students. Ninety-eight percent (98%) of the staff surveyed agreed that teachers in this school have what it takes to get the children to learn. Ninety-four percent (94%) of the staff surveyed agreed that teachers in this school are well prepared to teach the subjects they are assigned to teach. Ninety-four percent (94%) of the staff surveyed agreed that if a child doesn’t learn something the first time, teachers here will try another way. Ninety percent (90%) of the staff surveyed agreed that teachers in this school are skilled in various methods of teaching. Ninety-one percent (91%) of the staff surveyed agreed that if they try really hard they can get through to even the most difficult or unmotivated students. In regards to Teacher Preparation and Expectations the lowest four percent staff answers of Disagree or Strongly Disagree are as follows: Ninety-two percent (92%) disagree with the statement Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 13 of 137 Data Source Relevant Findings 2009 School Climate Survey— Teacher Responses Teachers in my school do not have the skills needed to produce meaningful student learning. Seventy-nine percent (79%) disagree with the statement Teachers in my school do not have the skills to deal with student disciplinary problems. Ninety-four percent (94%) disagree with the statement If a child doesn’t want to learn, teachers at this school give up on him/her. Eighty-five percent (85%) disagree with the statement When it comes right down to it, a teacher really can’t do much because most of a student’s motivation and performance depends on his or her home environment. In regards to seven (7) questions about behavior and classroom management teachers rated statements on a four-point scale ranging from Nothing to Great Deal. Ninety-four percent (94%) of the teachers surveyed responded they could control disruptive behavior in the classroom a great deal or quite a bit. Ninety-four percent (94%) of the teachers surveyed responded they could get students to follow classroom rules a great deal or quite a bit. Ninety-four percent (94%) of the teachers surveyed responded they could calm a student who is disruptive or noisy a great deal or quite a bit. One hundred percent (100%) of the teachers surveyed responded they could get students to believe they can do well on schoolwork a great deal or quite a bit. Ninety-six percent (96%) of the teachers surveyed responded they could help students value learning a great deal or quite a bit. Ninety-two percent (92%) of the teachers surveyed responded they could motivate students who show little interest in schoolwork a great deal or quite a bit. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of the teachers surveyed responded they could assist families in helping their children do well in school a great deal or quite a bit. Forty-one (41) statements/questions addressed concerns regarding principal leadership, parental involvement, teacher attitudes, and student respect. These were gauged on a four-point scale ranging from Never to Always. Sixty-two percent (62%) of the teachers surveyed responded the parents of most of the students are active in the school’s parent organization sometimes. Thirty-eight percent (38%) responded never. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 14 of 137 Data Source Relevant Findings 2009 School Climate Survey— Parent Responses Ninety percent (90%) of the staff members surveyed responded the buildings and grounds are kept clean always or most of the time. Eighty-three percent (83%) of the teachers surveyed responded the school set high standards for academic performance always or most of the time. Eighty-three percent (83%) of the teachers surveyed responded teachers help and support each other always or most of the time. Sixty percent (60%) of the teachers surveyed responded the principal maintains definite standards of performance always or most of the time. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of the teachers surveyed responded academic achievement is recognized and acknowledged by the school always or most of the time Eighty-three percent (83%) of the teachers surveyed responded teachers respect the professional competence of their colleagues always or most of the time. Forty-nine (49) questions/statements were responded to by 4 parents with ratings on a four-point scale ranging from Never to Always. The survey statements dealt with relationships between parents/teachers and parents/administrators, level of expectations, parental involvement, learning environment, and parents’ attitudes and feelings about their roles at school. Seventy-five percent (75%) of parents surveyed believed that teachers work hard to meet the needs of their child always or most of the time. Fifty percent (50%) of the parents surveyed reported teachers keep them informed about their child always or most of the time. Seventy-five percent (75%) of the parents surveyed reported the school provides a safe environment always or most of the time. Seventy-five percent (75%) of the parents surveyed reported their child’s teacher was doing a fair job always or most of the time. One hundred percent (100%) of the parents surveyed reported the school’s principal sets a good example for students always or most of the time. Sixty-seven (67%) of the parents surveyed reported they have input in the decision-making process always or most of the time. One hundred percent (100%) of the parents surveyed reported if there is a problem at the school they are quickly notified always or most of the time. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 15 of 137 Data Source Relevant Findings School Improvement Grant Measure of Effectiveness Sixty-seven percent (67%) of the parents surveyed reported they were invited to visit classrooms during the school day sometimes or never. Fifty percent (50%) of the parents surveyed reported the school returned phone calls or emails always or most of the time. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of the parents surveyed reported they attend open houses, parent-teacher conferences, or Annual Title I Parent Meetings always or most of the time. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of the parents surveyed reported they attend parent workshops sometimes or never. Zero percent (0%) of the parents surveyed reported they visit their child’s classroom during the day sometimes or never. Thirty-three percent (33%) of the parents surveyed reported they make sure their child does his/her homework always. One hundred percent (100%) of the parents surveyed reported the school is interested in parents’ ideas and opinions always or most of the time. Thirty-three percent (33%) of the parents surveyed reported they ate supper together as a family always or most of the time. To determine the effectiveness of Kingsbury High School’s School Improvement Grant implementation, staff, students, and parents will be administered a survey each semester. The data obtained from these surveys will be used to assess program goals and objectives, expectations for students, coordination among programs, parent and community involvement, staff development, leadership, instruction, academic learning time, and school and classroom climate. The School Improvement Grant Steering Committee will review this data, compare it with data presented by the external evaluator, and identify strengths and areas to strengthen. The 2010-2011 administration, faculty, and educational support staff includes 85 certified and non-certified individuals, excluding custodial, cafeteria support staff. Memphis City Schools Department of Human Resources The 2010-2011 administrative staff consists of: 1 Principal 2 assistant principals The 2010-2011 support staff consists of: 3 Academic Coaches (Math/Literacy/Graduation) Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 16 of 137 Data Source Relevant Findings 1 Special Education Coordinator 1 Parent Counselor 1 Social Worker 1 In-School Suspension Monitor 3 Counselors 1 Technology Coordinator 2 Multi-media Specialists 4 Secretaries 3 Bilingual Mentors (1 Full-time; 2 Part-time) 1 Grant Supervisor The 2010-2011 instructional staff consists of: 2 Art Teachers 11 English Teachers 9 Math Teachers 7 Science Teachers 8 History Teachers 4 Foreign Language Teachers 2 Lifetime Wellness Teachers 3 English as a Second Language Teachers 5 Career and Technology Teachers 2 Music Teachers 4 Reading Teachers 1 Driver’s Education Teacher 9 Special Education Teachers 5 Special Education Assistants 4 A.J.R.O.T.C. Instructors [17 Career Technology Teachers—see below.] Kingsbury High School students also enroll in courses at the Kingsbury Career Technology Center adjacent to our campus. KCTC instructors teach Business and Information Technology, Marketing, Health and Medical Technology, Trade and Industrial Technology, and Family & Consumer Science. Kingsbury High School students will participate in one of the following academies: Bio-Science, Military, and Freshmen Academies. 1.3.2: School and Community Data (Rubric Indicator 1.3) Narrative and analysis of relevant school and community factors: Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 17 of 137 Kingsbury High School Data/Characteristics Historical Background Kingsbury was organized in the 1950-1951 school year as an elementary school with Mrs. Hallie Douglas, principal. Seventh and eighth grade classes were added in the fall of 1952 with the addition of ten classrooms and a library. Kingsbury School became a full junior high in 1954. Building modifications and additions were made, and the tenth grade was added in the fall of 1957. Students came to Kingsbury Middle School from the following feeder schools: Berclair Elementary, Grahamwood Elementary, Kingsbury Elementary, Wells Station Elementary, Macon Road Elementary, and Gragg Elementary. Kingsbury Middle High School graduated its first class in 1959. The elementary school moved to a new location at the corner of Graham and Bayliss in 1956. The vacated elementary wing was converted to a junior high, and the senior high occupied the present building. In 1962-1963 a gym expansion allowed for the construction of space for a band room and industrial arts classes. The R.O.T.C. program was instituted in 1967. From 1958 to 1975 Kingsbury Middle High School served students in grades seven through twelve. In the fall of 1977 Kingsbury Career and Technology Center was built within walking distance of the Kingsbury High School campus. The 5.5 million dollar facility added extensively to the vocational courses offered at Kingsbury High School. In the fall of 1988, Kingsbury High School became the only vocational optional school in Memphis City Schools Optional Schools Program. In the fall of 1995 Kingsbury High School merged with Kingsbury Junior High to form one school, serving students in grades seven through twelve. Students came to Kingsbury Middle High School from the following feeder schools; Berclair Elementary, Grahamwood Elementary, Hollywood Elementary, Jackson Elementary, Kingsbury Elementary, Macon Elementary, Treadwell Elementary, Wells Station Elementary, and Cypress Middle. In 2001-2002 Kingsbury became a leader school of technology for the District when two computer labs with Internet access were created having 60 middle school workstations and 90 high school workstations. By 2003-2004 all classrooms were equipped with teacher computer workstations with Internet access. In fall 2006 all classrooms and outer offices were equipped with Channel One/basic cable television. New leadership in 2008-2009, under the direction of Principal Carlos J. Fuller, restructured the staffing and curriculum with an emphasis on higher expectations and increased opportunities for participation of all stakeholders. Kingsbury High School separated from Kingsbury Middle School in the summer of 2007. Beginning with the 2007-2008 school year, Kingsbury High School became a separate school serving grades 9 through 12. Kingsbury High School Facilities Kingsbury High School is an institution that houses students in grades nine through twelve (912). There are approximately 75 teaching stations in the facility. In addition, the facility also Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 18 of 137 contains a separate auditorium with a seating capacity of over 1,500 students, two gymnasiums, a 500-seat cafeteria, an A.J.R.O.T.C. building, a football field, a soccer field, and a baseball field. Over the past three years the District has replaced every window in the buildings with opening, energy-efficient, screened windows equipped with emergency exits. In addition, the roof over the science laboratory wing was replaced in September of 2003. In September of 2004 the District paved an additional 30 faculty parking spaces. The security video system was updated during September of 2004 from 16 to 32 cameras strategically positioned on the campus. There are also two separate administrative surveillance stations located on campus. The surveillance equipment records various camera views that provide needed visual verification of campus activities. The school employs an on-site, full-time security officer who is assisted by assigned officer(s) from the Memphis Police Department. During the summer of 2005 the high school buildings were updated to meet American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. This restoration process provided three renovated science laboratories, ramp access to the High School buildings, and handicap accessible restroom facilities in the A.J.R.O.T.C. building and gymnasium. The completion of these construction projects greatly alleviates the major needs for repairs and renovations in the High School buildings. School Calendar and Schedule The length of the academic year begins in early August and finishes at the end of May. The school calendar includes student holidays and days for parent/teacher conferences. Administrative/In-Service Days are scheduled in the school calendar to provide time for registration, professional development, administrative work, and parent/teacher conferences. Kingsbury High School length of the school day follows a 90-minute hybrid block schedule, allowing for 4 academic blocks, a homeroom period option within an eight-hour day, and an academic advisory period. The students arrive at 7:15 a.m. and are dismissed at 3:15 p.m. Tutoring and Extended Contract day programs are held weekdays from 3:30 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. and on designated Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. until 12:00 noon. Kingsbury High School grading schedule contains four grading periods of approximately 45 days each. High school transcript averages are awarded by the semester with credits being awarded by the semester or the year depending on the course requirement. Programs and Curriculum Offerings Kingsbury High School has several unique programs including a gender specific 9th grade Falcon academy, a military science academy, a bio-science academy, an English as a second language program, special education courses, advanced placement courses, honors courses, and dual enrollment courses taken at off-campus colleges. 9th Grade Falcon Academy Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 19 of 137 All first-time students enrolled in 9th grade are members of the Falcon Academy which consists of two teams of students and teachers. The students are placed in the teams according to their gender. The student schedules in 9th Grade Falcon Academy utilize the team concepts. This scheduling style allows for the students to form personal bonds that will assist the students with peer-to-peer tutoring and enable them to participate in small learning communities. The teamscheduling concept allows for collaboration among a designated core group of academic teachers serving the same group of students. This scheduling concept allows for a smoother transition for the students moving from the middle to the high school setting and allows the students to be members of smaller learning communities. A.J.R.O.T.C. class is offered to all the members of the Falcon Academy with a curriculum that promotes responsibility, leadership, and community service. Other electives including fine arts, foreign languages and technology are taken by Academy members during their elective periods. Optional Programs The ninth through twelfth grade student schedules include a section designated for Optional Program students. The students identified for the Optional Program must apply and be approved for acceptance into one of the following academic honors programs: Information Technology, Military Science, and/or Bio-Medical Engineering. The Optional Program students study an accelerated academic program. There are approximately 50 students being served in the Kingsbury High School Optional Program for the 2010-2011 academic year. Honors Curriculum, Advanced Placement, and Dual Enrollment The student schedules in grades 10 through 12 are based on the individual student needs of the Technical, University, or Dual Graduation paths as detailed in the students’ Four-Year Plans completed in eighth grade. The unique course offerings at Kingsbury High School include advanced placement (AP) honors courses of Biology, Physics, Studio Art, Statistics, U. S. History, English Literature and Composition, and English Language and Composition. The students also may enroll in honors courses in Algebra I, Algebra II, Anatomy and Physiology, Advanced Algebra and Trigonometry, Biology, Chemistry, English, Spanish, Geometry, U.S. History, Economics, Physics, A.J.R.O.T.C. and Facing History. For students who have satisfactorily completed the ACT, dual enrollment classes are offered in collaboration with institutions of higher learning. Students taking dual enrollment classes are able to complete high school graduation requirements and earn college credit simultaneously. A.J.R.O.T.C. Academy Optional Program The 2010-2011 A.J.R.O.T.C. Academy serves approximately 331 cadets including approximately ninety-seven (97) honors cadets in grades 10 through 12. This leadership program is the largest program in the state of Tennessee and one of the top 10 largest programs in the nation. In the 2005-2006 academic year, a Military Science Honors Program was incorporated in the High School schedule. Students in grades 10 through 12 may apply for this honors program. The students accepted in the Military Science Honors Program must enroll in A.J.R.O.T.C. year two (II), year three (III), and year (IV) honors cadet training. The Kingsbury Career and Technology Center offers the students the opportunity to enroll in an array of Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 20 of 137 vocational programs that will allow the students to pursue technical or dual paths for graduation. English as a Second Language Kingsbury High School also serves as an English As a Second Language (ESL) Center for Memphis City Schools. In 2010-2011 the ESL program serves approximately 143 students with direct or transitional instruction. As part of the enrollment process, the ESL students are tested to determine scheduling placement. Bilingual-mentor facilitators offer students and teachers academic support for curriculum modification based on student English language proficiency. ESL course offerings in the high school curriculum include five levels of English, one level of civics, and one ESL support class. The ESL students are mainstreamed into the regular curriculum for the additional courses required to complete their schedules for graduation credits. ESL students have two years of transition after exiting ESL classes, during which they receive support from the ESL department. Exceptional Children Program Kingsbury High School has a large Exceptional Children’s department staffed nine (9) full-time teachers, and five (5) teacher assistants. The students served by the Exceptional Children Program may attend classes in the resource setting (tutorials), comprehensive development classroom (CDC), inclusion classroom, or the regular classroom based on the students’ Individual Education Plans (IEPs). In 2010, Kingsbury High School met the Memphis School District’s mandate for increasing the number of inclusion classes offered for IEP students. Presently, there are 21 sections of special education inclusion classes in math, science and English covering grades 9 through 12. Currently, all SPED students who qualify to take the Gateway/End of Course exams are enrolled in inclusion classes if needed. In the inclusion class, a regular content area teacher is paired with a special education teacher with a background in the same content area. Both teachers are responsible for lesson planning, instruction and assessment. Finances As of October 28, 2010, the 2010-2011 site-based budget is under review and revisions by the District are expected pending final approval of the District budget for 2010-2011. The Kingsbury High School 2009-2010 site-based budget is $219,551.21 with Total Major Objects (Supplies and Materials) budgeted $141,918.54. Textbooks are allocated $140,697.70 and Library and Media Services are allocated $5,509.10. These amounts are subject to change with the final budget approval. This following data is from the 2008-2009 school year. Kingsbury High School’s allocated 20082009 site-based budget was approximately $176,853.83 with $101,346.00 allocated for textbooks and $4,733.90 for the media center. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 21 of 137 Detailed below is a two-year comparison of district, state, and national per pupil expenditures. In 2004-2005 the national per pupil expenditure average was $8,724. This amount increased in 2005-2006 4.3% to $9,120. The State per pupil expenditure average for 2004-2005 was $6,997. This amount increased 5% to $7,336 in 2005-2006. The district per pupil average expenditure for 2004-2005 was $8,326. This amount increased in 2005-2006 3.2% to $8,602. Current figures indicate an average per pupil expenditure difference of $8,708 a difference of 2% from the 20052006 of $8,602. This was a difference of 15% from the state average of $7,469. Environmental and School Safety The safety of the students and staff at Kingsbury High School is of vital importance to the educational process. All Kingsbury High School personnel are fully trained in Emergency Procedures according to the Memphis City Schools Employee Multi-Hazard Emergency Management Procedures and Protocols handbook. Emergency practice drills are conducted at predetermined dates throughout the academic year. Practice drills are announced and unannounced. Kingsbury High School partners with the Memphis and Shelby County Emergency Management Agency in the Outdoor Warning Siren Test program. An Indoor Air Quality Survey is conducted and submitted annually. Providing a safe environment to promote a positive school culture where all students can achieve is a top priority at Kingsbury High School. A team of teachers, parents, the school police officer, and administrators monitor the arrival and departure of nine (9) buses that transport approximately 27% of the students to and from school each day. Student movement in the hallways and between buildings during class changes is monitored by the same team with administrators and the police officer continuing the process once classes are underway. Administrators, faculty, and staff share the responsibility of ensuring student safety and campus security by being at their duty posts prior to the opening and the dismissal of school each day. The upgraded security and video surveillance system, call buttons, telephones in every classroom, and locked perimeter gating allow for an efficient and effective monitoring process. Kingsbury High School Student Data/Characteristics Student Enrollment Student enrollment for 2010-2011 increased by four point six percent (4.6%) to 1,061 in grades 9-12 from 1014 for 2009-2010. Ninth grade enrollment figures indicate a 26 student enrollment difference from 308 students in 2009-2010 to 334 students in 2010-2011. Tenth grade enrollment figures indicate a 33 student enrollment difference from 254 students in 2009-2010 to 287 students in 2010-2011. Eleventh grade enrollment figures indicate a 3 student enrollment difference from 247 students in 2009-2010 to 244 students in 2010-2011. Twelfth grade enrollment figures indicate an 11 student enrollment difference from 205 students in 2009-2010 to 216 students in 2010-2011. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 22 of 137 Student Enrollment by Subgroup The 2010-2011 enrollment figures indicate 489 students (46%) of the student population is African American. This is a subgroup decrease of 3% from 2009-2010. The 2010-2011 enrollment figures indicate 2 students (0.2%) of the student population are American Indian. This is the same as indicated by the 2009-2010 data. Forty-two students (4%) of the students enrolled in 2010-2011 were Asian. One hundred and ninety-three students (18.2%) of the students enrolled in 2010-2011 are Caucasian. Three hundred and thirty-four (31.5%) of the students enrolled in 2010-2011 are Hispanic, a subgroup increase of 5.5% from the 2009-2010 data. One student (0.1%) of the students enrolled in 2010-2011 are Native American. This is the same from the 2009-2010 data indicating 1 student (0.1%). School and Community Data Community Characteristics: Kingsbury High School is located in the 38122 zip code of Memphis, Tennessee. The approximate size of the community is twenty (20) miles. The population of the area is approximately 49,000 residents. The majority of the students at Kingsbury come from two zip code areas in the city, 38122 and 38018. In zip code 38122 there are an estimated 4,600 African Americans (20%), 17,400 Caucasians (74%), 1,100 Hispanics (5%), 50 Native Americans (less than 1%), 300 Asians (1%), and 70 classified as other. In zip code 38018 there are 18,400 African Americans (74%), 6,300 Caucasians (25%), 200 Hispanics (1%), 30 Native Americans (less than 1%), 60 Asians (less than 1%), and 30 classified as other. There are several private schools that are associated with churches in the area. They include: Gateway Christian School, Harding Academy, Thrifthaven Academy, Macon Road Academy, and Saint Michael’s Catholic School. Primary employers in the community are Plough, Inc., Velsicol Chemical, Buckman Labs, Sears, and other service related businesses. There are approximately 1,550 households with school age children. Residents and organizations are actively involved and supportive of our educational endeavors. They include Kroger, Yo Memphis, Gaisman Community Center, Latino Memphis, Memphis Interfaith Association, Girls Incorporated, Boy Scouts of America, Special Olympics of Tennessee, Facing History and Ourselves, Memphis Works, Memphis Chapter for Independent Living, Fogelman Scholars, Campus Crusade for Christ, Fellowship Memphis, Young Life, and the Kingsbury School Leadership Council. Parent/Guardian Data/Characteristics The majority of the Kingsbury community is comprised of blue-collar working families. At least seventy percent (70%) of the families who send children to Kingsbury High School to be educated are single-parent homes. In many of these single-parent homes the adult responsible for the child’s welfare is actually a grandparent, aunt, sibling, or some other relative. Approximately half of the parents/guardians have earned a high school diploma. Less than five percent (5%) of the parents/guardians have earned a college degree, but most parents have a goal of his/her student attending college. There are eighteen (18) countries and thirteen (13) different languages represented in the Kingsbury High School parent/guardian population. The dynamics of accommodating the needs of these stakeholders is challenging. Conferences and written communications are translated into Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 23 of 137 the native language of the students/parents/guardians. Bilingual students assist in presenting morning announcements. Translators are available during school hours and for parent/teacher conferences on in-service days. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 24 of 137 COMPONENT 1b – Academic and Non-Academic Data Analysis Component 1b – Academic and Non-Academic Data Analysis/Synthesis Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 25 of 137 1.4: Variety of Academic and Non-Academic Assessment Measures (Rubric Indicator 1.4) List Data Sources 20-Day Attendance/Truancy Reports--Non-Academic ACT--Academic Comprehensive Needs Assessment (School Climate Survey)--Non-Academic PBIS Discipline Data--Non-Academic English 9 End of Course-- Academic Enrollment Data-- Non-Academic Gateway Algebra I--Academic Gateway Biology--Academic Gateway English 10--Academic Graduation Rates/Drop-Out Report--Academic Title I (TITLE I) AYP Report--Academic Over-Age for Grade Report-- Non-Academic ThinkLink Formative Assessment Test for Gateway Courses--Academic Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 26 of 137 Supplemental Education Services Report--Academic STAR Reports--Academic State Status Report--Academic Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program Eleventh (11th) Grade Writing--Academic 1.5: Data Collection and Analysis (Rubric Indicator 1.5) Describe the data collection and analysis process used in determining your strengths and needs. Kingsbury High School has a Data Results Team that meets every 20-Day period to report out on academic and non-academic data. Findings from this team meeting are published in meeting minutes which are posted and in the Data Dashboard used to create the district COMPSTAT report. The COMPSTAT data is presented at faculty meetings, Title 1 Meetings, Parent Meetings, and at district meetings by region. Non-academic data analysis results included the Spring 2010 Climate/Needs Survey Report. The Climate/Needs Survey is distributed by the Memphis City Schools district to students and teachers at the school site and to parents by mailing with self-addressed, stamped, return envelopes. 20-Day period attendance, truancy, and discipline data is compiled by Chancery SMS software which generates summary reports. Grade distribution reports and STAR reports are completed by teachers at the end of each grading period. The district Office of Research, Evaluation and Assessment furnishes AYP test results, graduation/drop-out and over-age for grade data. Independent providers report on student enrollment and academic progress in Supplemental Educational Programs. Academic and non-academic data analysis is utilized to determine the goals of the School Improvement Plan. Content area teachers worked by department teams to review academic and nonacademic data for decision making regarding instruction and assessment. Each High School instructor is given an analysis of the student class enrollment identifying the following TITLE I ethnic subgroups: All ethnic subgroups African-American White Hispanic Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 27 of 137 Asian/Pacific Islander Native American The individual student analysis also identifies student members of the following TITLE I other than ethnic subgroups: Economically Disadvantaged Students with Disabilities Limited English Proficient Additional student data class analysis identified for the instructors also include: Student Grade Student Gender Student Membership Status and Code Gateway Algebra I Status and Score if Available Gateway English 10 Status and Score if Available Gateway Biology I Status and Score if Available Algebra I Class Enrollment Status and Instructor’s Name if Applicable Algebra I Class Status as a New Student or as a Repeater Student Biology I Class Enrollment Status and Instructor’s Name is Available Biology I Class Status as a New Student or as a Repeater Student English 10 Class Enrollment Status and Instructor’s Name if Available English 10 Class Status as a New Student or as a Repeater Student Since student achievement is the responsibility of all instructors at Kingsbury High School, individual student data reports are provided for each teacher. The following data sources are utilized to identify at-risk students as defined in the TITLE I subgroups: STAR Reports Grade Distribution Reports Over-Age for Grade Report Suspension Lists Gateway Mathematics Algebra I Gateway Language Arts English 10 Gateway Biology I English I End of Course ACT 2010 Results The Comprehensive Needs Assessment (School Climate Survey) detailed teacher, student, and parent beliefs regarding the educational process at Kingsbury High School. Please see Component 1.3.1 for the details of this data. Strengths Kingsbury High School faculty and staff are all engaged in the collection and analysis process used in determining our strengths and needs. They attend ThinkLink and Efficacy professional development workshops presented by the District focusing on the examination of data to drive instruction. Teachers meet weekly in departments and teams to analyze data to identify students’ Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 28 of 137 strengths and needs for proficiency on the state benchmarks. Common formative assessments are used by all content area teachers to establish a baseline at the beginning of school and at pre-determined check points throughout the school year. Data from these assessments are analyzed and tracked by teachers for every student, shared within teams, and presented to the faculty and community. All Kingsbury High School stakeholders are provided opportunities for feedback through district surveys distributed through homerooms, during special assemblies, and mailed directly to homes. The Kingsbury High Data Results Team meets every twenty (20) days to analyze academic and non-academic data. Results are shared with the faculty at faculty meetings and in departmental meeting. Results are provided to the academic supervisor for the quarterly reports. Results are shared with parents, community and business members at Open House, Title 1 meetings, and through the school website. Academic Coaches need to provide detailed reports to the Results Team identifying targeted needs and proposed interventions developed within department teams’ data meetings based on data analysis of results at department, whole class, and student levels. Needs Kingsbury High School faculty needs additional professional development focusing on data analysis and the use of results to plan timely and appropriate interventions to move below-proficient students to proficiency and to plan challenging curriculum for proficient/advanced students. Parents and community members need to be presented with current data on a regular basis in formats that are readily understood. They need to be included in the analysis of data in order to be knowledgeable of students’ strengths and needs. Kingsbury needs to increase the number of parent/community responses in surveys like the Comprehensive Needs Assessment (School Climate Survey) to assure the accuracy of findings. State standardized test results need to be disaggregated by gender and by number of correct responses per question/state standard or benchmark to assist teachers with curriculum alignment and instruction. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 29 of 137 1.6: Report Card Data Disaggregation (Rubric Indicator 1.6) Report Card Data Disaggregation Graduation Rate Kingsbury High School has targeted a graduation rate for 2010-2011 of 74.9% based on our expectation to meet the TITLE I Safe Harbor target for 2009-2010 which is 74.9%. Kingsbury High School did not make graduation rate in 2010 which was based on the graduation rate for the School Year 2008-2009. The AYP target for 2008-2009 was 71.2%; the actual graduation rate for 2008-2009 was 53.1%. This was an 8.1 percentage point decrease from 2007-2008 at 57.8%. The overall graduation rate incorporates the percent of students who fail to pass standardized tests of accountability, and also the percent of students who drop out of school before matriculating at Kingsbury High School. The last school attended by the student is held responsible statistically for his or her graduation. The graduation rate is an element of the nonacademic high school data that must show yearly gains to qualify the school for Safe Harbor status with the two academic cells and the subgroups on the AYP Report. AYP Mathematics (AYP REPORT) AYP Mathematics Enrollment Data and Participation Rate In 2009, 235 students were enrolled in Algebra I. This was a decrease (6%) from the 221 students enrolled in 2008. Of the AYP Mathematics test population, 50 students (21%) were White, 75 students (32%) were Hispanic, 104 students (44%) were Black, 5 students (.02%) were Asian/Pacific Islander. Additionally, of the 235 students in the mathematics test population, 201 students (86%) were Economically Disadvantaged, 35 students (15%) belong to the Students with Disabilities subgroup, and 51 students (22%) belong to the Limited English Proficient subgroup. In 2009, the overall participation rate for the Algebra I Gateway Exam was 99%. The overall participation rate for the 2008 Algebra I Gateway Exam was 99% of the 221 students enrolled, indicating a stabilization of participation for the past two years. Until now, enrollment and participation data indicated a fluctuation in student population and participation rate since 2005. In 2005 98% of 199 students enrolled participated in Algebra I testing. In 2006 97% of 243 students enrolled participated in Algebra I testing. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 30 of 137 Report Card Data Disaggregation AYP Mathematics Subgroup Participation Rate In 2009, subgroup data revealed 99% of all White students enrolled participated in the Algebra I testing. 97% of all Hispanic students enrolled in Algebra I participated in the 2009 testing. 100% of all African American students enrolled in Algebra I participated in the 2009 testing. 100% of all the Native American students enrolled in Algebra I participated in the 20009 testing. 100% of all Asian Pacific Islander students enrolled participated in the 2009 testing. Additional subgroup data indicated 99% of the Economically Disadvantaged students, 100% of the Students with Disabilities, and 98% of the Limited English Proficient students participated in the 2009 Algebra I testing. In 2009, 99% of the All Students subgroup, 235 students, participated in the AYP Math Algebra I testing, which represented no change from the 2008 participation rate. In 2008, 99% of all 221 students enrolled participated in the AYP Math Algebra I testing. This was a 5-percentage point increase from 94% of the 448 students enrolled in 2007. In 2009, the White student subgroup, 50 students, had a participation rate of 98%, which was a 2% decrease in participation over 2008. In 2008 the White student subgroup increased the participation rate with 100% of the 48 students enrolled participating. This was an increase of 3percentage point from 97% of the 73 students enrolled in 2007 participating in testing. In 2009, the Hispanic subgroup, 75 students, had a participation rate of 97%, a 3-percentage point drop from 2008. In 2008 the Hispanic student subgroup increased the participation rate with 100% of the 49 students enrolled participating. This was an increase of 6-percentage point from 94% of the 79 students enrolled in 2007 participating in testing. In 2009, the African American subgroup, 104 students, had a 100% participation rate, a 20percentage point increase over 2008. The African American subgroup increased the percent of students tested by 4 percentage points from 94% of 285 students enrolled in 2007 to 98% in 2008. In 2009, one Native American was enrolled in AYP Math and participated in the Algebra I testing. No Native American students were enrolled in AYP Math in 2008. One Native American student was enrolled in AYP Math and participated in the Algebra I testing in 2007. In 2009, the Asian Pacific Islander subgroup, 5 students, had a 100% participation rate, indicating no change from 2009 to 2008. In 2008, 100% of the Asian Pacific Islander population enrolled participated in the testing. The Asian Pacific Islander subgroup increased the percent of students tested by 20 percentage points from 80% of 10 students enrolled in 2007 to 100% of 14 in 2008. In 2009, the Economically Disadvantaged subgroup, 201 students, had a 99% participation rate, Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 31 of 137 Report Card Data Disaggregation which indicated no change from 2009 to 2008. Results for the Economically Disadvantaged subgroup indicate 99% of the 181 students enrolled participated in the 2008 testing. This was a 5 point decrease from 94% in 2007. In 2009, the Students with Disabilities subgroup, 35 students, had a 100% participation rate, which indicated no change from 2009 to 2008. In 2008, the Students With Disabilities subgroup, 38 students, had a 100% participation rate. This was a 3-percentage point increase from 97% in 2007. In 2009, the Limited English Proficient subgroup, 51 students, had a 98% participation rate, which was a 2 percentage point decrease from 2008. In 2008, the Limited English Proficient subgroup, 37 students, had a 100% participation rate. This was a 15- percentage point increase from the 85% testing in 2007. Overall AYP Mathematics Test Data 2009 AYP Math test results indicate 8% of all students tested scored Below Proficient. This was a 4-percentage point decrease in the percent Below Proficient in 2008. Test results for 2008 indicate 12% of the overall testing population scored Below Proficient. This was a significant decrease from 2007. In 2007 the population experienced a 33-point decrease in the percentage of students scoring Below Proficient from 45% compared to 12% in 2008. 2009 AYP Math test results indicate 34.5% of all students scored Proficient, a 2.7-percentage point increase from 2008. 2008 test results indicate 31.8% of all students tested scored Proficient. This was a 2.2 percent decrease from 2007’s 34% as more students moved into the Advanced category. 2009 AYP Math test results indicate 57.3% of all students scored Advanced, an increase of 1.1percentage points from 2008. Test results from 2008 indicate 56.2% of all students tested scored advanced. This was a 35.2-percentage point increase from 21% in 2007. Achievement Gap Analysis AYP Mathematics The 2009 AYP Math results indicate a 9-percentage point difference between the percentage of White students scoring at least Proficient (98%) and the percentage of Hispanic students scoring at least Proficient (89%). This represents a 9-percentage point decrease in the achievement gap between Whites and Hispanics. The 2008 results indicate an 4-percentage point difference between the percentage of White students scoring at least Proficient (96%) and the percentage of Hispanic Students Scoring at least Proficient (92%). This is a decrease from 2007 results that indicated an 8-percentage point difference between the White subgroup (65%) and the Hispanic subgroup (57%). The 2009 AYP Math results indicate an 8-percentage point difference between the percentage of White students scoring at least proficient (98%) and the percentage of African American students Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 32 of 137 Report Card Data Disaggregation scoring at least Proficient (90%). This represents a decrease in the achievement gap between Whites and African Americans of 5–percentage points. The 2008 results indicate a 13percentage point difference between the percentage of White students scoring at least Proficient (96%) and the percentage of African American students scoring at least Proficient (83%). This is a decrease from the 2007 results that indicated a 14-percentage point difference between the White subgroup (65%) and the African American Subgroup (51%). The 2009 AYP Math results indicate a 1-percentage point difference between the percentage of Hispanic students scoring at least Proficient (89%) and African American students scoring at least Proficient (90%). This represents an 8-percentage point increase of in the achievement gap between Hispanic students and African American students. The 2008 results indicate a 9-percentage point difference between the percentage of Hispanic student scoring at least Proficient (92%) and the percentage of African American students scoring at least Proficient (83%). This is an increase from 2007 results indicating in a 6-percentage point difference between the Hispanic subgroup (57%) and the African American population (51%) Growth Differences Between High, Middle, and Low Achievers High to Middle In 2009 the percent of Advanced students showed an increase of 1.1% compared to a 2.7% increase in students scoring Proficient. From 2007 to 2008 the percent of Advanced students showed an increase of 35.2% compared to a 2.2% decrease for the same time period for Proficient students. High to Low In 2009 the percent of Advanced students showed an increase of 1.1% compared to a 4% decrease in students scoring Below Proficient. From 2007 to 2008 the percent of Advanced students showed an increase of 35.2% compared to a decrease of 33% of Below Proficient for the same time period. Middle to Low In 2009, the percent of Proficient students showed an increase of 2.7% compared to a decrease of 4% for students scoring Below Proficient. From 2007 to 2008 the percent of Proficient students showed a decrease of 2.2% compared to a decrease of 33% of Below Proficient for the same time period. Gender Gap Analysis for AYP Mathematics Gender Gap Analysis data is from the Tennessee Department of Education Tennessee Gateway Assessment Demographic Summary Spring 2009. This data includes all students tested (274 students), and is not limited to AYP Math data for Membership 1 students (235 students). In 2009, of the 274 students tested, 159 students were male and 114 were female. Of the 159 male students, 82% scored in the Proficient/Advanced category and 18% scored in the Below Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 33 of 137 Report Card Data Disaggregation Proficient Category in 2009. Of the 114 female students, 88% scored in the Proficient/Advanced category and 12% scored in the Below Proficient Category in 2009. Male students scored 6percentage points lower in the Proficient/Advanced category than female students and had 6percentage points more students score in the Below Proficient category. In 2009, with 82% scoring in the Proficient/Advanced category, male students scored 2percentage points less than the State average of 84% and 14-percentage points higher than the District average of 68%. With 88% scoring in the Proficient/Advanced category, female students scored 4-percentage points more than the State average of 84% and 20-percentage points higher than the District average of 68% in 2009. Subgroups White AYP Mathematics In 2009, the White student subgroup decreased by 2-percentage points for Below Proficient from 4% in 2008 to 2%. This group showed a 6-percentage point difference from the overall testing population average of 8% Below Proficient. In 2009, the White student subgroup increased the percentage of students scoring Proficient by 7.5-percentage points from 33.3% in 2008 to 40.8%. The 2009 average for this subgroup was a 7-percentage point difference from the district average of 35% and a 3-percentage point difference from the state average of 39% Proficient. In 2009, the White student subgroup decreased the percentage of students scoring Advanced by 5.4 percentage points from 62.5% in 2008 to 57.1%. The 2009 average for this subgroup was a 34.5-percentage point difference from the district average of 28% and a 15.5 percentage point difference from the state average of 47% Advanced. Hispanic AYP Mathematics In 2009 the Hispanic student subgroup increased the percentage of students scoring Below Proficient from 8% in 2008 to 11%. This group showed a 3-percentage point difference from the overall testing population average of 8%. Additionally, the group showed a 26-percentage point difference from the district average of 34% and a 10-percentage point difference from the state average of 18 % Below Proficient. In 2009, the Hispanic student subgroup increased the percentage of students scoring Proficient by 10.7-percentage points from 27.7% in 2008 to 38.4%. The 2008 average for this subgroup was a 10.3-percentage point difference from the district average of 38% and a 8.3-percentage point difference from the state average of 36% Proficient. In 2009, the Hispanic student subgroup decreased the percentage of students scoring Advanced by 13.1 percentage points from 63.8% in 2008 to 50.7%. The 2008 average for this subgroup was a 35.8% difference from the district average of 28% and a 16.8-percentage point difference from Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 34 of 137 Report Card Data Disaggregation the state average of 47% Advanced. African American AYP Mathematics In 2009, the African-American student subgroup decreased the percent Below Proficient from 17% in 2008 to 10%. This group showed a 5- percentage point difference from the overall testing population average of 12%. Additionally the group showed an 17-percentage point difference from the district average of 34% and a 1-percentage point difference from the state average of 18% Below Proficient. In 2009, the African American student subgroup decreased the percentage of students scoring Proficient by 4.5-percentage points from 33.3% in 2008 to 28.8%. The 2008 average for this subgroup was a 4.7-percentage point difference from the district average of 38% and a 2.7percentage point difference from the state average of 36% Proficient. In 2009, the African American student subgroup increased the percentage of students scoring Advanced by 11.5-percentage points from 50% in 2008 to 61.5%. The 2008 average for this subgroup was a 22-percentage point difference from the district average of 28% and a 3percentage point difference from the state average of 47% Advanced. Native American AYP Mathematics In 2009, one Native American student was tested and scored proficient in AYP Mathematics. Native American student subgroup results indicate no students tested in 2008. No students were tested in 2005 and 2006. The 2009 results indicate a 65.5-percentage point difference from the overall average of 34.5%. Additionally the group showed a 61-percentage point difference from the district average of 39 % and an 80-percentage point difference from the state average of 20%. The Native American student subgroup results indicate 0% of the students tested in 2009 scored Below Proficient or Advanced. The 2007 average for this subgroup was a significant difference from the district average of 61% and the state average of 80%. Asian Pacific Islander AYP Mathematics The 2009 Asian Pacific Islander subgroup results indicate none of the students scored Below Proficient. This indicates a 14-percentage point decrease from 14% in 2008. This was a 8percentage point difference from the overall average of 8%. Additionally the group showed a 20percentage point difference from the district average of 34% and a 4-percentage point difference from the state average of 18%. The 2009 Asian Pacific Islander population results indicate 20% Proficient. This is a 8.6percentage point decrease from 28.6% in 2008. The 2008 average for this subgroup was a 9.4percentage point difference from the district average of 38% and 7.4-percentage points different Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 35 of 137 Report Card Data Disaggregation from the state average of 36%. The 2009 Asian Pacific Islander population results indicate 80% scored in the Advanced range. The 2008 average for this subgroup was a 29.1- percentage point difference from the district average of 28% and x10.1-percentage points different from the state average of 47%. Economically Disadvantaged AYP Mathematics The 2009 Economically Disadvantaged student results for indicate 9% scored in the Below Proficient range. This is a 2-percentage point decrease from 11% in 2008 and a 34-percentage point decrease from 45% in 2007. The 2009 data showed a 1-percentage point difference from the overall student average of 8%. Additionally the group showed a 23-percentage point difference from the district average of 34% and 7-percentage point difference from the state average of 18%. The 2009 Economically Disadvantaged student subgroup increased the percent of students Proficient by 4.7-percentage points from 30.7% in 2008 to 35.4%. The 2008 average for this subgroup was a 7.3-percentage point difference from the district average of 38% and 5.3percentage point from the state average of 36%. The 2009 Economically Disadvantaged student subgroup results indicate 55.6% scored in the Advanced range. The 2008 average for this subgroup was a 30.1- percentage point difference from the district average of 28% and x 11.1-percentage points different from the state average of 47%. Students With Disabilities AYP Mathematics The 2009 Students With Disabilities subgroup results indicate 9% of the students scored Below Proficient. This is a 12-percentage point decrease from 21% in 2008. Additionally the group showed a 13-percentage point difference of from the district average of from the district average of 34% and a 33-percentage point difference from the state average of 18%. The 2009 Students With Disabilities subgroup increased the percentage of students scoring Proficient by 5.5-percentage points from 31.6% in 2008 to 37.1%. The 2009 average for this subgroup was a 6.4-percentage point difference from the district average of 38% and a 4.4percentage point difference from the state average of 36%. The 2009 Students With Disabilities subgroup increased the percent for Advanced by 6.9percentage points from 47.4% in 2008 to 54.3%. The 2008 average for this subgroup was a 19.4percentage point difference from the district average of 28% and a .4-percentage point difference from the state average of 47%. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 36 of 137 Report Card Data Disaggregation Limited English Proficient AYP Mathematics In 2009, sixteen percent (16%) of the students in the Limited English Proficient subgroup scored Below Proficient. This is a 1-percentage point decrease from 17% in 2008. Additionally the group showed a 17-percentage point difference from the district average of 34% and a 1percentage point difference from the state average of 18%. The 2009 Limited English Proficient subgroup increased the percent Proficient by 6-percentage points from 40% Proficient in 2008 to 46% Proficient in 2009. The 2008 average for this subgroup was a 2-percentage point difference from the district average of 38% and a 4percentage point difference from the state average of 36%. The 2009 Limited English Proficient subgroup decreased the percent of students Advanced by 4.9-percentage points from 42.9% in 2008 to 38% in 2009. The 2008 average for this subgroup was a 8.9-percentage point difference from the district average of 34% and a 24.9-percentage point difference from the state average of 18%. AYP Reading English 10 Gateway and Grade 11 Writing Assessment Enrollment Data AYP Reading In 2009, 200 students were enrolled in English 10. This was a decrease from the 218 students enrolled in 2008. Of the 200 students enrolled, 99% of the students took the AYP English Test. Of the AYP reading test population 43 students (22%) were white, 45 students (23%) were Hispanic, 102 students (51%) were African American, 9 students (.05%) were Asian/Pacific Islander and 1 student (.01%) was Native American. Additionally of the 200 students in the English test population, 163 students (82%) were Economically Disadvantaged, 32 students (16%) belong to the Students With Disabilities subgroup, and 20 students (10%) belong to the Limited English Proficient subgroup. Participation Rate AYP Reading In 2009, 99% of the 200 students enrolled participated in the AYP Reading English 10 testing. This was a 1-percentage point decrease from 100% of 218 students enrolled in 2008. The 2008 results indicated a 3-percentage point increase from 97% of 227 students enrolled in 2007. In 2009, the White subgroup stayed steady with a participation rate of 100% of the 43 students enrolled testing. This was an increase of 0 percentage points from 100% of the 42 students enrolled participating in the 2008 testing. The 2008 results was an increase of 0-percentage points from 100% of the 43 students enrolled testing in 2007. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 37 of 137 Report Card Data Disaggregation In 2009, the Hispanic subgroup results indicate a participation rate of 96% of the 45 students enrolled testing in 2009. This was a decrease of 4-percentage points from 100% of the 39 students enrolled testing in 2008. The subgroup increased 4-percentage points in 2008 from 96% of the 25 students enrolled in 2007. In 2009, the African American subgroup participation rate was 100%, a 1-percentage point increase over 2008. The African-American subgroup increased the percentage of students tested by 2-percentage points from 97% of 156 students enrolled in 2007 to 99% of 130 students enrolled in 2008. In 2009, the Native American subgroup participation rate was 100%, with only 1 student testing. The Native American subgroup results stayed steady at 100% participation in the 2008 testing with only 2 students participating. The state did not report results for this subgroup in 2007. In 2009, the Asian/Pacific Islander participation rate was 100%, with 9 students testing. This participation rate represented no change for this subgroup over the past three years. In 2008, 100% of the 7 students of the Asian Pacific Islander population enrolled participated in the testing. This rate remained steady at 100% in 2007 and 100% in 2006. In 2009, the Economically Disadvantaged subgroup participation rate stayed steady at 99% of the 163 students enrolled. In 2008, 99% of the 176 students of the Economically Disadvantaged population enrolled participated in the testing. This was a 2-percentage point increase from 97% of the 182 students enrolled in 2007. In 2009, the Students With Disabilities subgroup participation rate was 100% of 32 students enrolled. This was a 0-percentage point increase from 100% of the 34 student enrolled tested in 2008. The 2007 results showed 97% of the 32 students with disabilities were tested. In 2009, the Limited English Proficient subgroup participation rate was 100% of 20 students enrolled. This was a 0-percentage point increase from 100% of the 32 students enrolled testing in 2008. 94% of the 16 students enrolled in 2007 were tested. Overall AYP Reading The 2009 test results indicate 11% of the overall testing population scored Below Proficient. This was an increase from 2008. In 2008, 10% of the population scored below proficient, and this was an 8 percent decrease from the 2007 scores where 18% of the students scored below proficient. The percent of students across the district and state who scored below proficient was 9% and 5%, respectively. We are 1% below the number of students who scored below proficient in the district, and we are closing the gap with state. The 2009 test results indicate 35.5% of All students tested scored Proficient. This was a 6.1percentage point decrease from 41.6% in 2008. The 2007 results indicated a 40% percent Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 38 of 137 Report Card Data Disaggregation Proficient rate. The 2008 average for this subgroup was a 5.2-percentage point difference from the district average of 34% and an 21.6-percentage point difference from the state average of 20%. The 2009 test results indicate 53.2% of all students tested scored Advanced. This was an increase of 5-percentage points from 48.2% in 2008 and a 8.2-percentage point increase from 42% in 2007. The 2008 average for this subgroup was a 9.8-percentage point difference from the district average of 58% and 26.8-percentage points different from the state average of 75%. Achievement Gap Analysis AYP Reading The 2009 AYP Reading results indicate a 7-percentage point difference between White subgroup students who scored at least Proficient (94%) and the Hispanic subgroup students who scored at least Proficient (87%). This represents a decrease of 8-percentage points in the achievement gap between the White and Hispanic subgroups scoring at least Proficient. The 2008 results indicate an 15-percentage point difference between the percentage of White students scoring at least Proficient (99%) and the percentage of Hispanic Students Scoring at least Proficient (84%). This is a decrease from 2007 results that indicated an 18-percentage point difference between the White subgroup (91%) and the Hispanic subgroup (73%). The 2009 AYP Reading results indicate a 6-percentage point difference between White subgroup students scoring at least Proficient (94%) and African American subgroups students scoring at least Proficient (88%). This represents a decrease in the achievement gap of 3-percentage points between the White and African American subgroup students who scored at least Proficient. The 2008 results indicate a 9-percentage point difference between the percentage of White students scoring at least Proficient (99%) and the percentage of African American students scoring at least Proficient (90%). This is a decrease from the 2007 results that indicated a 9-percentage point difference between the White subgroup (91%) and the African American Subgroup (82%). The 2009 AYP Reading results indicate a 1-percentage point difference between Hispanic subgroup students who scored at least Proficient (87%) and African American subgroup students who scored at least Proficient (88%). This represents a 5-percentage point decrease in the achievement gap between the Hispanic and African American subgroups scoring at least Proficient. The 2008 results indicate a 6-percentage point difference between the percentage of Hispanic student scoring at least Proficient (84%) and the percentage of African American students scoring at least Proficient (90%). This is a decrease from 2007 results indicating in a 9percentage point difference between the Hispanic subgroup (73%) and the African American subgroup (82%) Growth Differences between High, Middle and Low Achievers for AYP Reading High to Middle Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 39 of 137 Report Card Data Disaggregation From 2008 to 2009 the percent of Advanced students showed an increase of 5% compared to a decrease of 6.1% Proficient for the same time period. High to Low From 2008 to 2009 the percent of Advanced students showed an increase of 5% compared to an increase of 1% Below Proficient for the same time period. Middle to Low From 2008 to 2009 the percent of Proficient showed a decrease of 6.1% compared to an increase of 1% Below Proficient of the same time period. Gender Gap Analysis for AYP Language Arts The Gender Gap data is provided by the Tennessee Department of Education on the Gateway Assessment Demographic Survey Spring 2009. This data includes all students tested and is not limited to AYP Report membership 1 data. Of the 233 students tested in 2009, 125 students were male and 108 were female. Of the 125 male students, 88% scored in the Proficient/Advanced category and 12% scored in the Below Proficient Category in 2009. Of the 125 female students, 92% scored in the Proficient/Advanced category and 8% scored in the Below Proficient Category in 2009. Female students scored 4percentage points higher in the Proficient/Advanced category than male students and had 4percentage points fewer students score in the Below Proficient category. With 92% scoring in the Proficient/Advanced category, female students scored one percentage point lower than the District and 4-percentage points lower than the State average of 96% in 2009. With 88% scoring in the Proficient/Advanced category, male students scored 8-percentage points less than the State average of 96% and 5-percentage points lower than the District average of 93% in 2009. Subgroups White AYP Reading In 2009 the White student subgroup increased in the percent Below Proficient by 5-percentage points from 1% in 2008 to 6% in 2009. The White student subgroup decreased in the percent Below Proficient by 8-percentage points from 9% in 2007 to 1% in 2008. Eleven percent (11%) were Below Proficient in 2007. This subgroup showed a 9-percentage point difference from the overall testing population’s 2007 average of 18%. Additionally, the group showed a 1-percentage point difference from the district average of 10% and a 3- percentage point difference from the state average of 6%. In 2009 the White student subgroup decreased 10.6-percentage points in the percent Proficient from 36.7% Proficient in 2008 to 26.1% Proficient in 2009. The White student subgroup decreased the percent Proficient by 13.7-percentage points from 23% in 2007 to 36.7% Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 40 of 137 Report Card Data Disaggregation in 2008. The 2007 average for this subgroup was an 11-percentage point difference from the district average of 34% and a 1-percentage point the state average of 22%. In 2009, the White student subgroup increased 5.6-percentage points in the percent Advanced from 62.5% Advanced in 2008 to 68.1% Advanced in 2009. The White student subgroup decreased the percentage of students scoring Advanced by 5.5- percentage points from 68% in 2007 to 62.5% in 2008. The 2007 average for this subgroup is a 46-percentage point difference from the district average of 22% and a 4-percentage point difference from the state average of 72%. Hispanic AYP Reading In 2009 the Hispanic student subgroup decreased in the percent Below Proficient by 3percentage points from 16% Below Proficient in 2008 to 13% Below Proficient in 2009. The Hispanic student subgroup decreased in the percent Below Proficient by 11-percentage points from 27% in 2007 to 16% in 2008. Forty-five percent (45%) were below proficient in 2006. This subgroup showed a 2-percentage point difference from the overall testing population’s 2009 average of 11%. Additionally the group showed a 17-percentage point difference from the district average of 10% and a 21- percentage point difference from the state average of 6%. In 2009 the Hispanic student subgroup decreased in the percent Proficient by 9.6-percentage points from 37.6% Proficient in 2008 to 28% Proficient in 2009.The Hispanic student subgroup decreased the percent Proficient by 1.4-percentage point at 39% in 2007 to 37.6% in 2008. The 2007 average for this subgroup was a 5-percentage point difference from the district average of 34% and a 17-percentage point the state average of 22%. In 2009, the Hispanic student subgroup increased in the percent Advanced by 12.8percentage points from 46.5% in 2008 to 59.3% in 2009. The Hispanic student subgroup increased the percentage of students scoring Advanced by 12.5- percentage points from 34% in 2007 to 46.5% in 2008. The 2007 average for this subgroup an 8-percentage point difference from the district average of 22% and a 34-percentage the state average of 72%. African American AYP Reading In 2009 the African American student subgroup increased the percent Below Proficient by 2percentage points from 10% Below Proficient in 2008 to 12% Below Proficient in 2009. The African American student subgroup decreased the percent Below Proficient by 8 percentage points from 18% in 2007 and 10% in 2008. The 2007 population remained steady at 18% from 2006. Additionally the group showed an 8-percentage point difference from the district average of 10% and a 12- percentage point difference from the state average of 6%. In 2009 the African American student subgroup decreased the percent Proficient by .8percentage points from 44.8% in 2008 to 44.0% in 2009. The African American student subgroup decreased by 1.2-percentage points for Proficient from 46% in 2007 to 44.8% in 2008. The 2007 average for this subgroup was a 14-percentage point difference from the district Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 41 of 137 Report Card Data Disaggregation average of 34% and a 26- percentage point difference from the state average of 22%. In 2009 the African American student group decreased the percent Advanced by 1.1percentage points from 34.8% Advanced in 2008 to 43.7% Advanced in 2009. The African American student subgroup increased by 8.8-percentage points for Advanced from 36% percent in 2007 to 44.8% in 2008. The 2007 average for this subgroup was a 12- percentage point difference from the district average of 22% and a 38- percentage point difference from the state average of 72%. Native American AYP Reading In 2009, one (1) student in the Native American subgroup was enrolled in AYP Reading. This student scored Below Proficient. In 2008, two (2) students were enrolled in AYP Reading. One (1) student scored Proficient and one (1) student scored Advanced. No data was reported for 2007. Asian Pacific Islander AYP Reading In 2009, the Asian/Pacific Islander subgroup decreased the percent Below Proficient by 26percentage points from 35% Below Proficient in 2008 to 9% Below Proficient in 2009. The Asian Pacific Islander subgroup results indicate 35% of the students scored Below Proficient (only 7 students tested in 2008). This was a 7-percentage point decrease from 42% in 2007. 2007 experienced a 5-percentage point increase from 47% in 2006. The 2009 results indicate a 2percentage point difference from the overall average of 11%. Additionally, the group showed a 32-percentage point difference from the district average of 10% and a 36-percentage point difference from the state average of 6% In 2009 the Asian/Pacific Islander subgroup decreased the percent Proficient by 25.9percentage points from 35% Proficient in 2008 to 9.1% Proficient in 2009. The Asian/Pacific Islander population 2008 results indicate 35% of the subgroup scored Proficient. This was a 27percentage point increase from 8% in 2007. The 2007 average for this subgroup was a 26percentage point difference from the district average of 34 % and a 14- percentage point difference from the state average of 22%. In 2009 the Asian/Pacific Islander subgroup increased the percent Advanced by 51.8percentage points from 30% Advanced in 2008 to 81.8% Advanced in 2009. The Asian Pacific Islander population 2008 results indicate 30% of the subgroup scored Advanced. This is a decrease of 20-percentage points from 50% in 2007. The 2007 average for this subgroup was a 28-percentage point difference from the district average of 22% and a 22-percentage point difference from the state average of 72%. Economically Disadvantaged In 2009 the Economically Disadvantaged student subgroup increased the percent Below Proficient by 2-percentage points from 10% Below Proficient in 2008 to 12% Below Proficient in 2009. The Economically Disadvantaged student results indicate 12% were Below Proficient. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 42 of 137 Report Card Data Disaggregation This is a 6-percentage point decrease from 18% in 2007 and an 11-percentage point decrease from 23% in 2006. The 2009 data showed a 1-percentage point difference from the overall student average of 11%. Additionally, the subgroup showed a 9-percentage point difference from the district average of 10 % and a 13-percentage point difference from the state average of 6 %. In 2009 the Economically Disadvantaged student subgroup decreased the percent Proficient by 7.1-percentage points from 42.4% Proficient in 2008 to 35.3% Proficient in 2008. The Economically Disadvantaged student subgroup increased the percent of students for Proficient by 2.4-percentage points from 40% in 2007 to 42.4% in 2008. The 2007 average for this subgroup was a percentage point difference from the district average of 34% and a 19-percentage point difference from the state average of 22%. In 2009 the Economically Disadvantaged student subgroup increased the percent Advanced by 5.2-percentage points from 47.9% Advanced in 2008 to 53.1% Advanced in 2009. The Economically Disadvantaged student subgroup increased the percent of students for Advanced by 5.9-percentage points to 47.9% in 2008 from 42% in 2007. The 2007 average for this subgroup was an 18-percentage point difference from the district average of 22% and a 32 percentage point difference from the state average of 72% Students With Disabilities In 2009, the Students With Disabilities subgroup increased the percent Below Proficient by 14-percentage points from 13% Below Proficient in 2008 to 27% Below Proficient in 2009. In the Students With Disabilities subgroup, 13% scored Below Proficient in 2008. This is a 38percentage point decrease from 51% in 2007 and a 35-percentage point decrease from 48% in 2006. Additionally the group showed a 41-percentage point difference of from the district average of from the district average of 10% and a 45-percentage point difference from the state average of 6%. In 2009, the Students With Disabilities subgroup increased the percent Proficient by 9.3percentage points from 37.3% Proficient in 2008 to 46.6% Proficient in 2009. The Students With Disabilities subgroup decreased the percent of Proficient by 13.3-percentage points from 24% in 2007 to 37.3% in 2008. The 2007 average for this subgroup was a 5-percentage point difference from the district average of 34% and the state a 7- percentage point difference from average of 22%. In 2009 the Students With Disabilities subgroup decreased the percent Advanced by 23.1percentage points from 49.3% Advanced in 2008 to 26.1% Advanced in 2009. The Students With Disabilities subgroup increased the percent of Advanced by 24.3-percentage points from 25% in 2007 to 49.3% in 2008. The 2007 average for this subgroup was an 11-percentage point difference from the district average of 22 % and a 61-percentage point difference from the state average of 72%. Limited English Proficient Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 43 of 137 Report Card Data Disaggregation In 2009, the Limited English Proficient subgroup increased the percent Below Proficient by 12-percentage points from 32% Below Proficient in 2008 to 44% Below Proficient in 2009. In 2008, 32% of the Limited English Proficient subgroup scored Below Proficient. This was a 14percentage point decrease from 46% in 2007. The 2007 results marked a decrease of 36percentage points from 82% in 2006. Additionally, the group showed a 36-percentage point difference compared to the district average of 10 % and a 40-percentage point difference from the state average of 6%. In 2009, the Limited English Proficient subgroup decreased the percent Proficient by 6.1percentage points from 41.2% Proficient in 2008 to 35.1% Proficient in 2009. The Limited English Proficient subgroup increased by 10.2 percentage points from 31% Proficient in 2007 to 41.2% Proficient in 2008. The 2007 average for this subgroup was a 3-percentage point difference from the district average of 34% and a 9-percentage point difference from the state average of 22%. In 2009 the Limited English Proficient subgroup decreased the percent Advanced by 6percentage points from 27.1% Advanced in 2008 to 21.1% Advanced in 2009. The Limited English Proficient subgroup increased the percent for students Advanced by 4.1 percentage points from 23% in 2007 to 27.1% in 2008. The 2007 average for this subgroup was a 1percentage point difference from the district average of 22% and a 49-percentage point difference from the state average of 72%. Gateway Science: Biology I The 2009 Gateway Science results indicate 6% of the 248 students tested scored Below Proficient compared to the District average of 8% Below Proficient and the State average of 4% Below Proficient. The 2008 Gateway Science results indicate 23 students (10%) out of the 231 students tested scored Below Proficient. This was a 1 percentage point difference from the district average of 9% and a 2 percentage point difference from the state average of 4% The 2009 Gateway Science results indicate 31% of the 248 students tested scored Proficient compared District average of 93% at least Proficient and the State average of 96% at least Proficient. The 2008 Gateway Science results indicate 48% of the 231 students tested scored Proficient. This was a 2 percentage point difference from the district average of 50% and a 17 percentage point difference from the state average of 34%. The 2009 Gateway Science results indicate 63% of the 248 students tested scored Advanced. This is a 22-percentage point increase from the percentage of 2008 Advanced scores. The 2008 Gateway Science results indicate 41% of the 231 students tested scored Advanced. This was a 3 percentage point difference from the district average of 36%. Gender Gap Analysis for AYP Science – Gateway Biology The Gender Gap data is provided by the Tennessee Department of Education on the Gateway Assessment Demographic Survey Spring 2009. This data includes all students tested and is not Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 44 of 137 Report Card Data Disaggregation limited to AYP Report membership 1 data. Of the 248 students tested in 2009, 137 students were male, 110 were female, and one student recorded “no valid information.” Of the 137 male students, 93% scored in the Proficient/Advanced category and 7% scored in the Below Proficient Category in 2009. Of the 110 female students, 95% scored in the Proficient/Advanced category and 5% scored in the Below Proficient Category in 2009. Female students scored 2-percentage points higher in the Proficient/Advanced category than male students and had 2-percentage points fewer students score in the Below Proficient category. With 95% scoring in the Proficient/Advanced category, female students scored 3-percentage points higher than the District average of 92% and 1-percentage point lower than the State average of 96% in 2009. With 93% scoring in the Proficient/Advanced category, male students scored 3-percentage points less than the State average of 96% and 1-percentage point higher than the District average of 92% in 2009. End of Course English 9 The 2009 End of Course English 9 results indicate 25 students (11%) of the 238 students tested scored Below Proficient. This was a 2- percentage point difference from the 9% district results and a 7-percentage point difference from the state results of 4%. The 2009 End of Course English 9 results indicate 143 students (60%) of the 238 students tested scored Proficient. This was a 2-percentage point difference from the 62% district results and a 16-percentage point difference from the state results of 44%. The 2009 End of Course English 9 results indicate 70 students (29%) of the 238 students tested scored Advanced. This was a 0-percentage point difference from the 29% district results and a 23-percentage point difference from the state results of 52%. ACT The Kingsbury High School composite for the ACT in 2010 was 15.6 a 4.8% decrease from the 2009 composite result of 16.4. The 2010 English score was 14.5%, a decrease from 2009 English score of 15.6. The math score for 2010 was 15.8%, a slight decrease from 2009 results of 16.0. The Science Reasoning score for 2010 was 16.5%, a slight decrease from the 2009 results of 16.8. The 2010 Kingsbury High School percentage of students meeting all four (4) ACT Benchmark Scores totaled one (1) percent compared to the state total of 16%. The 2010 Kingsbury High School percentage of students meeting the ACT English/Composition Benchmark score was 28% compared to the state at 59%. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 45 of 137 Report Card Data Disaggregation The 2010 Kingsbury High School percentage of students meeting the ACT Math/College Algebra Benchmark was 3% compared to the state at 27%. The 2010 Kingsbury High School percentage of students meeting the ACT Reading/College Science Benchmark was 4% compared to the state at 20%. A trend analysis of ACT data shows an increase in the number of students taking the ACT for Kingsbury High School in 2010 compared to the last year. The score analysis for the three-year trend shows stability in percentages meeting benchmarks for state scores and slightly fluctuating percentages for Kingsbury High School. Kingsbury showed the greatest decrease in percentages meeting benchmarks between 2009 and 2010 in the areas of Reading and English. During that same period Kingsbury percentages meeting benchmarks stayed stable for Science and Math. Discipline Data 2-Year Suspension Gender Data In 2009-2010, 68.8% (362 students) of all suspensions were male. In 2009-2010, 31.2% (164) of all suspensions were female. In 2008-2009, 76% (193 students) of all suspensions were male. Two (2) Year Expulsion Data Comparison: Gender Categories In 2009-2010, 77 students were expelled. Of the 77 students, 64 were male (83%) and 13 were female (17%). In 2008-2009, 57 students were expelled. Of the 57 students, 42 were male (74%) and 15 were female (26%). State Status Report 2009-2010 All off the 21 recommendations stated in the State Status Report 2009-2010 have been fully or partially implemented by the school this year. The degree of implementation for each of the recommendations is indicated as Fully Implemented [I] or Partially Implemented [P]. Several of the recommendations are on-going processes* that have been initiated and are being monitored. Fully Implemented Recommendations: I Kingsbury retained staffing positions for three assistant principals, a professional development school compliance coach, and a special education coordinator. I Additional district funding retained for an in-school suspension monitor and one bilingual family specialist. I Each teacher is an active participant in the revision and implementation of the TSIPP. I Professional development is provided by the district for faculty to share data and train Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 46 of 137 Report Card Data Disaggregation in the analysis of data for design and implementation of teaching strategies based on the results. I Early identification of at-risk students is made to provide timely interventions. I Organizations and opportunities have been established to allow participation for all students, parents, and staff. I The dates for leadership team meeting must be scheduled on the school’s monthly instructional calendar. I Provide an organizational chart for staff members. I The principal must review and maintain a file of all team meeting agendas, minutes, and work products. I Time during faculty meetings has been allocated for academic team activities. I New teachers are provided extensive support through the Teacher Mentoring program at the district and school level. I Outstanding teachers and students are recognized during special programs. I The leadership team must discuss and share instructional initiatives for comment and consideration before implementation. I The leadership team must begin a comprehensive goal structure. A focus needs to be placed on instruction and professional development I Pre and Post-test data must be used to make instructional decisions. Partially Implemented Recommendations (on-going processes): P Implement the use of differentiated instruction P Compose and monitor the effectiveness of a School community council. P Analyze data from parent, student and staff surveys. P Ensure a collaborative school improvement process. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 47 of 137 1.7: Narrative Synthesis of All Data (Rubric Indicator 1.7) Narrative Synthesis of Data Graduation Rate Kingsbury High School Graduation data indicate: Strengths: The number of students who took the ACT during the 2009-2010 school year increased due to a district initiative mandating all juniors take the ACT in the Spring of 2010. Kingsbury High School had 191 students take the ACT in 2010 as compared to 154 students in 2009; 104 students in 2008; 105 students in 2007. The number of graduating seniors with regular or honors diplomas for the same three-year period has been stable at approximately 180 students. The 2010 increase in enrollment of seniors in honors academies, advanced placement, eschool, and dual enrollment classes is expected to boost the graduation rate only slightly, as the advanced students are not members of the drop-out cohort that decreases the graduation rate. Areas of Need: The school as a whole did not meet the Graduation Rate AYP target (71.2%). The 2008-2009 Graduation Rate was 53.1%, 18.1-percentage points below the target. This graduation rate represents the third drop in graduation rate in the last four years. To make AYP Graduation Rate for 2011, the target is 74.9% for the School Year 2009-2010. The drop-out list appeal process for this cohort has been submitted to the State. Kingsbury High School has identified several steps to improve the graduation rate, including early identification of at-risk students, enrollment in credit recovery and eLearning courses for over-age for grade students, and improved tracking of withdrawn students. The Graduation Coach has worked tirelessly to identify, remove, and clear any students not attending Kingsbury High School from our cohort list. AYP Mathematics Algebra I Strengths: 2009 AYP Math test results indicate a 4-percentage point decrease in the percent Below Proficient scores in 2008. 2009 AYP Math test results indicate 51% of all students scored Advanced, a decrease of 5.2-percentage points from 2008. 2009 AYP Math test results indicate a 7-percentage point increase in the achievement of Hispanics scoring Advanced. 2009 AYP Math test results indicate a significant 7% decrease in African American students scoring Below Proficient from 17% in 2008 to 10% in 2009 Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 48 of 137 Narrative Synthesis of Data Areas of Need: Student With Disabilities subgroup has the lowest percentage of scores in the at least Proficient category (68%), compared to the All Student which has 92% (Membership 1) at least Proficient and the White subgroup with 95% at least Proficient. African American subgroup and Limited English Proficient subgroup have the second lowest percentage of scores in the at least Proficient category (87%). Hispanic subgroup scoring Below Proficient increased from 8 in 2008 to 11 in 2009 African American subgroup scoring proficient decreased from 33.3% in 2008 to 28.8% in 2009 Redesign efforts to impact Graduation Rate included here AYP Reading English 10 Gateway and Grade 11 Writing Assessment Strengths: There was a 3% decrease in the Reading scores for the Hispanic subgroup scoring at the Below Proficient Level from 16% (2008) and 13% (2009). There was a 5% increase in the All student subgroup scoring Advanced from 48.2% (2008) to 53.2% (2009) There was an increase in the percentage of students in the White Subgroup (5.6%), Hispanic subgroup (12.8%) at the Advanced level. Areas of Need: The was an increase in students scoring Below Proficient in the White subgroup from 1% to 6% All students performing at the Below Proficient level in Reading need to have interventions in place early in the year to promote accelerated achievement. Redesign efforts to impact Graduation Rate included here Biology I Gateway Strengths: Ninety-four percent (94%) of all students tested scored at the Proficient level. Sixty-three percent (63%) of all students tested scored at the Advanced level. Areas of Need: Six percent (6%) of all students tested scored at the Below Proficient level. These students need tutoring intervention and counseling for credit recovery class to stay on-track for graduation. Move more students scoring Proficient (31%) to the Advanced level (63%). English I End of Course Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 49 of 137 Narrative Synthesis of Data Strengths: The 2009 End of Course English 9 results indicate 143 students (60%) of the 261 students tested scored Proficient. The 2009 End of Course English 9 results indicate 70 students (29%) of the 261 students tested scored Advanced. Areas of Need: Eleven percent (11%) of the 261 students tested scored Below Proficient. These students need to be moved to at least Proficient. Move more students from Proficient to the Advanced level. Redesign efforts to impact Graduation Rate included here ACT Areas of Strength: Stability in number of students who took the ACT for the last two years. Areas of Need: Only 1% of Kingsbury High School who take the ACT meet all 4 benchmarks scores indicating a 50% chance of obtaining a B or higher or about a 75% chance of obtaining a C or higher in the corresponding credit-bearing college courses. Kingsbury High School students lag far behind the State level in all 4 areas of the ACT. Recommendations for improving scores and increasing college readiness include: Providing access for all students to take the ACT. Making core curriculum a priority. Evaluating rigor of courses. Ensuring students are taking the right kinds of courses. Planning guidance activities based on students’ career and college aspirations. Redesign efforts to impact Graduation Rate included here Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 50 of 137 1.8: Prioritized List of Goal Targets (Rubric Indicator 1.8) Prioritized List of Goal Targets Kingsbury High School stakeholders established 2010-2011 goal targets that matched data priorities and referenced the Title I benchmarks. 2010-2011 Goals (Referenced to Data Results and Title I Benchmarks) Goal 1 is to increase the number of students scoring at least proficient on the Gateway Algebra I Exam from ninety-two percent (92%) in 2008-2009 to ninety-five percent (95%) by May 2010 as detailed in the Title I academic benchmarks listed below: The number of African-American students scoring at least proficient on the Gateway Algebra I Exam will increase from seventy-nine percent (79%) in 2008-2009 to eightynine percent (89%) by May 2010. The number of White students scoring at least Proficient on the Gateway Algebra I Exam will increase from ninety-eight percent (98%) in 2008-2009 to one-hundred (100%) by May 2010. The number of Hispanic students scoring at least Proficient on the Gateway Algebra I Exam will increase from eighty-five percent (85%) in 2008-2009 to ninety percent (90%) in 2009. The number of economically disadvantaged students scoring at least Proficient on the Gateway Algebra I Exam will increase from eighty-four percent (84%) in 2008-2009 to eighty-nine (89%) by May 2010. The number of Students with Disabilities scoring at least Proficient on the Gateway Algebra I Exam will increase from seventy-seven percent (77%) in 2008-2009 to eightyfive percent (85%) by May 2010. The number of student with Limited English Proficiency scoring at least Proficient on the Gateway Algebra I Exam will increase from seventy-eight percent (78%) in 2008-2009 to eighty-five percent (85%) in 2010. Goal 2 is to increase the number of students scoring at least proficient on the Gateway English 10 Exam and the TCAP Writing Assessment from eighty-nine (89%) in 2008-2009 to ninety-two percent (92%) by May 2010 as detailed in the Title I academic benchmarks listed below: The number of African-American students scoring at least Proficient on the Gateway English 10 Exam will increase from eighty-seven percent (87%) in 2008-2009 to ninety Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 51 of 137 Prioritized List of Goal Targets percent (90%) by May 2010. The number of White students scoring at least Proficient on the Gateway English 10 Exam will increase from ninety-three percent (93%) in 2008-2009 to ninety-six percent (96%) by May 2010. The number of Hispanic students scoring at least Proficient on the Gateway English 10 Exam will increase from ninety-four percent (94%) in 2008-2009 to ninety-seven percent (97%) by May 2010. The number of Economically Disadvantaged students scoring at least Proficient on the Gateway English 10 Exam will increase from ninety percent (90%) in 2008-2009 to ninety-three percent (93%) by May 2010. The number of Students with Disabilities scoring at least Proficient on the Gateway English 10 Exam will increase from seventy-four percent (74%) in 2008-2009 to seventyseven percent (77%) by May 2010. The number of Limited English Proficient students scoring at least Proficient on the Gateway English 10 Exam will increase from seventy-six percent (76%) in 2008-2009 to seventy-nine percent (79%) by May 2010. Goal 3 is to increase the student graduation rate from fifty-three point one percent (53.1%) in 2008-2009 to seventy-four point nine percent (74.9%) by May 2011. The 2009-2010 target goal meets the Title I AYP Graduation Rate benchmark of 74.9% for 2009-2010. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 52 of 137 nent 2 – Beliefs, Common Mission and Shared Vision 2.1: Beliefs, Common Mission and Shared Vision (Rubric Indicators 2.1 and 2.2) Beliefs COMPONENT 2 Common Mission Kingsbury High School MISSION STATEMENT Beliefs, Mission and Vision The faculty at Kingsbury High School is dedicated to student development. We work to release the intellectual capacity of all students while affirming their right to learn, focusing on a benchmark of a minimum of 90% proficient on all state and federal summative assessments, with a minimum of 60% of students placing advanced. We are committed to preparing our students to make a 30 or above on the ACT. 90—60—30! Shared Vision Kingsbury High School VISION STATEMENT Our vision for school success in the future is a school dedicated to producing citizens who are prepared to constructively participate in a global society. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 53 of 137 Common Mission Kingsbury High School MISSION STATEMENT The faculty at Kingsbury High School is dedicated to student development. We work to release the intellectual capacity of all students while affirming their right to learn, focusing on a benchmark of a minimum of 90% proficient on all state and federal summative assessments, with a minimum of 60% of students placing advanced. We are committed to preparing our students to make a 30 or above on the ACT. 90—60—30! Shared Vision Kingsbury High School VISION STATEMENT Our vision for school success in the future is a school dedicated to producing citizens who are prepared to constructively participate in a global society. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 54 of 137 COMPONENT 3 – Curricular, Instructional, Assessment and Organizational Effectiveness Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 55 of 137 3.1.a: Curricular Practices (Rubric Indicators 3.1 and 3.2) Current Curricular Practices Monitoring Support system is in place for enhancing the quality of curriculum and instruction Standardsbased Model for Literacy School Communication to Stakeholders Standards-Based Model for Mathematics Schoolwide student achievement benchmarks State standards are posted in all core content classrooms. Common lesson plans and common assessments are aligned with State standards. Drop-In observation s by administrat ion, peer review of instruction, and mandatory progress reports through Chancery SMS. This is demonstrated by the number of special education students in the regular classroom, and inclusion teacher coteaching with regular education teacher. IEPs are in place. Read 180, Reading+, Language! and a 9th Grade Academy. Classes across the curriculum improve literacy through interdisciplinar y assignments, class libraries, word walls, and schoolwide mock writing tests. Information will be communicated to stakeholders via Title I monthly meetings, parent meetings, district meetings by region, Kingsbury High School’s web page, teacher email, Parent Link phone system, student newsletters, progress reports, and School Improvement Plan. Kingsbury High implemented Stanford Math as an intervention for students atrisk of failing Resource math classes and for students enrolled in Algebra 1+ classes in preparation for Algebra 1. Our mission statements states that KHS is committed to focusing on a benchmark of a minimum of 90% proficient on all state and federal summative assessments, with a minimum of 60% of students placing advanced. We are committed to preparing our students to make a 30 or above on the ACT. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes State-approved Standards Evidence of Practice (State in definitive/tangible terms) Is the current practice researchbased? Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 56 of 137 Is it a principle & practice of highperforming schools? Has the current practice been effective or ineffective? What data source(s) do you have that support your answer? (identify all applicable sources) Evidence of effectiveness or ineffectiveness (State in terms of quantifiable improvement) Yes Yes, according to quality student work, hallway and classroom exhibits, and assessment of student progress. Effective Effective Gateway and End of Course scores (EOC) 89% proficient/ advanced in 2008-09 from 90% in 2007-08 in reading and English. 92% proficient/ advanced in 2008-09 from End of Course and Gateway scores, and improveme nts in TITLE I standards 89% proficient/ advanced in 2008-09 from 90% in 2007-08 in reading and English. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Yes. TITLE I and IDEA Yes According to Stanford University Research Yes Yes Effective Partially Effective Effective Results on Gateway English and Algebra Results from End of Course and Gateway Assessments Results from the Gateway Algebra Assessment Results from End of Course and Gateway Assessments and ACT 89% proficient/ advanced in 2008-09 from 90% in 200708 in reading and English. 92% proficient/ 89% proficient/ advanced in 2008-09 from 90% in 200708 in reading and English. All stakeholders have access to our school website and they frequently receive Parent Link calls regarding activities that take place throughout the year. Stakeholders have 100% access to the website. 92% proficient/ advanced in 2008-09 from 88% in 2007-08 in Math 89% proficient/ advanced in 2008-09 from 90% in 2007-08 in reading and English. 92% proficient/ advanced in 2008-09 from Effective Page 57 of 137 Partially Effective 88% in 2007-08 in Math Evidence of equitable school support for this practice Program available to all. Next Step (changes or continuations) KHS will continue the current practices which have provided positive results and will continue to implement strategies to improve the school’s standing. 92% proficient/ advanced in 2008-09 from 88% in 2007-08 in Math advanced in 2008-09 from 88% in 200708 in Math 88% in 2007-08 in Math Programs Available to all available to all Program SPED students students available to according to enrolled in all. IEPs. English. Parent Teacher conferences, Parent meetings KHS will continue its current practices and schoolwide review of data. KHS will continue to add information to the website and send out more newsletters. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process KHS will continue to build on its current practices for inclusion expanding to include science and social studies classes. KHS will continue its current practices and implement strategies to improve the school’s standing. Page 58 of 137 Programs available to all resource and Algebra Gateway students. KHS will continue its current practices and implement strategies to improve the school’s standing. Program available to all. KHS will continue its current practices and implement strategies to improve the school’s standing. Exemplary Data Analysis Correlation to State Standards and Benchmarks: Standards for student learning are based on a clearly defined curriculum, which identifies a comprehensive body of knowledge and critical skills. Kingsbury High School adheres to a curriculum prescribed by Memphis City Schools that correlates with the Tennessee State Department of Education standards and benchmarks. Memphis City Schools has created curriculum guides to be utilized by every teacher in each academic department. An exemplary data analysis for each student will be executed each grading period. The decisions regarding the educational needs of these students will be data driven decisions. These sources of information include 2010-2011 administration of the following standardized tests: TCAP Writing, Gateway Algebra 1, Gateway English 10, Gateway Biology, Biology End of Course, Algebra I End of Course, English 10 End of Course, Algebra II End of Course, U.S. History End of Course, English 9 End of Course, PSAT, PLAN, and ACT. Feeder Schools: In preparation for each new academic year, data is obtained regarding student achievement from each of the feeder schools. An exemplary data analysis is completed for the individual student data to ensure appropriate student course placement. Trends are also analyzed based on the TITLE I ethnic and other subgroups to assist the teachers in meeting the educational needs of the newly arrived students at this site. Academic and non-academic transitional programs during summer and early fall help incoming freshman adjust to the high school learning environment. Articulation and Communication: Communication with stakeholders is provided by a wide variety of means: ParentLink phone calls, emails, outside marquis noting important calendar events; Title 1 meetings, open house; community forums; parent meetings for special groups; flyers; bulletins; handouts; direct mail; and the school website. Trans-Act library. The ESL Central Office, and on-staff bilingual facilitators provide translations of school communications for non-English speaking stakeholders. Administrators, facilitators, counselors, and teachers report school wide and individual assessment results to stakeholders in a language they can understand. On-going Monitoring and Adjustment: The Discovery Formative Assessment tests are aligned with state objectives and performance indicators. The Discovery Formative Assessment test is administered to all high school students enrolled in End of Course or Gateway courses. These tests will be administered four (4) times a year. Results are provided in student, class and teacher specific data. Teachers are able to structure their lessons and tutorial sessions based on student specific data provided by the Discovery Formative Assessment tests. Academic Coaches are responsible for assisting teachers with administering the tests and analyzing the data results with the teachers. Various data will be collected and analyzed at the mid-point and close of each grading period. Grade distributions, progress reports, deficiency notices, Edplan Reports, Discovery, and report cards allow the staff the opportunity to monitor student progress at regular intervals. The Data Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 59 of 137 Results Team initially screens all data. Faculty and department conferences are subsequently held with teachers to discuss the findings. The Data Results Team report outs and professional development on disaggregating data sessions ensure each teacher is able to utilize the data results to improve instruction and assessment. All stakeholders will be included in the process of analyzing the effectiveness of programs offered. Faculty meetings are held on most Monday afternoons. Specific faculty meetings are set aside for teachers to meet in teams to plan curriculum alignment with the state benchmarks. Common planning times allow teachers to meet in professional learning communities during school hours. Meetings include academies, honors and advanced placement, AJROTC, Exceptional Children, ESL, content area, grade level, horizontal and vertical teams. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 60 of 137 Curriculum Gap Analysis - Narrative Response Required “What is” The Current Use of: TIME, MONEY, PERSONNEL And OTHER RESOURCES (How are we currently allocating our time, money, personnel and other resources and building capacity around understanding and implementing high quality curricular practices?) Staff members have common planning meetings to address curriculum and instructional issues. Students have been identified for intervention. Time is spent on professional development for all staff members. The professional development method is determined by the needs of faculty and staff, administration, county and state. Staff who teach courses with high stakes tests attend subject related conventions. Time is spent on sharing and developing instructional strategies, data analysis, and common assessment development. Money is spent on materials for intervention for low-performing students as a method to assist them in reaching success. Money is spent on supplemental materials for Gateway and EOC. Money is spent on professional development, researched-based instructional materials, and technology to enhance learning KHS personnel includes Special Education Assistants, Inclusion classroom teachers, CDC teachers, ESL teachers, and bilingual mentor facilitators. Relationships with local colleges and universities are established to provide professional development, career training for students, and work based learning experiences. “What Ought to Be” – How Should we be Using Our: TIME, MONEY, PERSONNEL And OTHER RESOURCES (How should we be allocating our time, money, personnel and other resources and building capacity around understanding and implementing high quality curricular practices?) Time for additional professional development and on-going training for the implementation of appropriate classroom technology will be increased with acquisition of the School Improvement Grant More books for students to have at home and school Money for paraprofessionals to assist teachers in the classrooms for enhanced instruction of all subject areas will be increased with acquisition of the School Improvement Grant Money for listening stations in each classroom for Reading/Language arts curriculum Additional computers in classrooms, math and science labs will be increased with acquisition of the School Improvement Grant Personnel should include additional ESL staff to work with regular classroom teachers Other resources could include more interactive boards in each classroom (EBEAM), new teacher work stations, computer software in all subject areas, and digital cameras; all will be increased with acquisition of the School Improvement Grant Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 61 of 137 Teachers have a plethora of opportunities for collaboration through participation in data and departmental meetings. These meetings are used to disaggregate student data for subject areas as well as afford teachers the opportunity to collaborate about school plans for improving student achievement across the curriculum. 3.1.b: Curricular Practices (Rubric Indicator 3.2) 3.1.c: Curricular Summary Questions (Rubric Indicator 3.2) Curriculum Summary Questions- Narrative Response Required What are our major strengths and how do we know? Kingsbury High School has several major strengths. There are a variety of professional development opportunities provided to improve instructional strategies and classroom management. School Improvement Grant funds will enhance use of technology is available inside of each classroom as well as accelerate the acquisition of a state of the art computer lab. Professional Learning Communities established in each academy will provide a venue for teachers to study best practices and discuss student challenges in a more focused manner. The use of research-based instruction is currently eflected in the success of our school; the School Improvement Grant implementation will accelerate our capacity to improve literacy, numeracy, and high school completion for all subgroups. Not only are teachers at Kingsbury focused on following the curriculum standards, but they are standard driven. Each teacher has a copy of the state’s standards and also has them posted in his/her classroom. The standards can be accessed on-line. Lesson plans are developed with the standards as a guide. Common assessments are given as a means of monitoring student progress. The results data from the assessments allows teachers to better plan lessons that address students’ needs. We identified these strengths from analyzed test results, survey feedback, minutes of meeting discussions, and classroom observations. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 62 of 137 Curriculum Summary Questions- Narrative Response Required What are our major challenges and how do we know. (These should be stated as curricular practice challenges identified in the templates above that could be a cause of the prioritized needs identified in component 1.) One major challenge is new teacher professional development for learning the school’s academic and non-academic culture. We must ensure that teachers are fully knowledgeable of the standards, properly implementing them and receiving on-going professional development. Students should be meeting school-wide benchmarks and monitoring of curricular implementation in the classrooms should be increased. We identified these strengths from survey feedback, analyzed test results, minutes of meeting discussions, and classroom observations. Curriculum Summary Questions- Narrative Response Required How will we address our challenges? These challenges can and will be addressed by several different methods. Each new teacher will have a mentor who is highly qualified in the appropriate content area. New teachers will be required to observe other teacher’s strategies and techniques for teaching a subject matter and be required to obtain a certain amount of professional development. Members of the School Leadership Team, including but not limited to the academic coaches, administrators, and Exemplary Educators, will increase the number of classroom visits, announced and unannounced, to monitor curricular practices and provide feedback for instructional improvement. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 63 of 137 3.2.a: Instructional Practices 3.2.a: Instructional Practices (Rubric Indicators 3.3 and 3.4) Current Instructional Practices Classroom instruction is aligned with the state standards. Students are provided opportunities for interventions to improve student learning beyond the classroom. Differentiated Instruction Lesson plans, classroom observations, data from formative assessments Data-driven instruction: Self-Directed Instruction System (SDIS) Teachers teach concepts until students achieve mastery (each time revising the strategy) School-wide Instructional Practices Use of Thinking Maps, T-Notes, Active Word Walls, and Writing Across the Curriculum The use of academic standards which are aligned with the state standards. Lessons are designed with standards in mind. Individual teacher and Title I tutoring, Credit Recovery and through mentoring. Is the current practice researchbased? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Is it a principle & practice of high-performing schools? Yes Yes Yes, Efficacy Institute Yes Yes Has the current practice been effective or ineffective? Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Evidence of Practice (State in definitive/tangible terms) What data source(s) do you have that support your answer? Gateway & End of Course Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process PBL experiences specific to each academy Tutoring from Copies of teachers, Eschool: completed Each Academy Academy will share data practices as for target areas ratified by staff each nine weeks period. Common Assessments Page 64 of 137 Lesson Plans, School Calendar, Student (identify all applicable sources) Evidence of effectiveness or ineffectiveness (State in terms of quantifiable improvement) Evidence of equitable school support for this practice Next Step (changes or continuations) Credit Recovery and E-Learning, ZAP Saturdays 89% proficient/ advanced in 2008-09 from 90% in 2007-08 in reading and English. 92% proficient/ advanced in 2008-09 from 88% in 2007-08 in Math Increased communication with teachers and administration concerning student progress 75+ students enrolled in Eschool, 50 students participate in tutoring, and 100 students participate in ZAP Tutorial attendance rosters; ZAP rosters; approved applications for Eschool Inclusion Academy and teachers in the Data team classroom meetings and common planning time Continue current practices Continue current practices Continue current practices Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process lesson plans and observation forms, formative assessment reports Rigor of student work captured in quality work displays, improved scores on formative assessments for subgroups Work, Classroom Observations scores Scores from common assessments Percent student engagement per academy; Progression Rates in each academy School-wide training Page 65 of 137 Exemplary student work exhibited with rubrics; Increased test scores in Gateway and EOC courses; Grade distribution reports Common planning times; Assessment calendar; Academic coaches; INSTRUCTION AL FACILITATOR Teacher Professional Development; Continue practices Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 66 of 137 3.2.b: Instructional Gap Analysis Instructional Gap Analysis - Narrative Response Required 3.2 Instructional Practices Resource allocation of state, local, and federal funds is utilized for school improvement. Kingsbury High School incorporates several types of technology into the classroom experience of every student. The high school computer lab has ninety (90) computer workstations where students can access software such as ThinkLink, Express Writing Folio, Plato, ACT practice, Stanford Math, Fast Math and others that focus on the test objectives for Gateway in Algebra I, Biology and English 10. Printers are available in the tutoring lab. A multimedia projector plus audio equipment is available for use in the lab upon request. Classes can be scheduled during the academic day. The lab is available for student utilization from 7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. daily. The media center also has video and audio technology available to teachers and students. This inventory consists of one video camera and several compact discs and cassette players. The technology in the media center is available throughout the school day. The media center is available from 7:00 a.m. to 2:45 p.m. Twenty-five teachers will receive eBeams to integrate smartboard technology in the classroom. Both science labs, the future Distance Learning Lab, and the Presentation Lab will be equipped with eBeams to extend instructional capacity in these areas. Additionally, 25 teachers will receive Classroom Performance Systems to support redesign efforts to establish more studentcentered learning environments. Across every discipline each teacher has the opportunity to enhance his or her teaching strategies and content through the wide availability of computers with Internet access. Each teacher has a computer with Internet access in the classroom. Additionally, all core content classes have a teacher station equipped with a 32-inch television monitor for whole class instruction or an LCD projector/laptop computer. Other technology uses include the dissemination of classroom sets of graphing calculators (TI83+ or TI 84 +) in all high school mathematics classrooms. One hundred TI 84+ calculators will be acquired with redesign funds to support High Stakes testing and ACT testing. High school science classes have 60 available microscopes for student use. Equipment and access to Unitedstreaming.com, courtesy of Memphis City Schools, allow teachers to download and transfer images to a VHS or DVD format for whole class or individual instruction. The students at Kingsbury High School are able to pursue a higher level of concept and skill attainment across many disciplines by utilizing very specialized technology. The Individual Education Plan Team (IEP-Team) helps students who have been identified as having a disability. The IEP-Team consists of special education teachers, the LEA representative, regular classroom teachers, parents, and the student. The department consists of eleven (13) special education personnel (8 full time teachers and 5 teacher’s assistants) serving approximately one hundred and forty students. Kingsbury has both resource, Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 67 of 137 self-contained, and inclusion classroom settings. Many special education students receive related services such as speech, language, occupational or physical therapy and counseling, which are provided outside the classroom. Reading, writing, and mathematics are the three primary areas that are addressed by the special education teachers. Various adaptations and modifications are included in the IEP and are used in special education classroom, regular classroom and in community experiences. These adaptations and modifications include pacing instruction, breaking material into smaller segments, pairing students, oral testing, allotting additional time for testing, highlighting material, outlining and modifying text, using computers for writing, repeating directions, and allowing students to demonstrate directions that were given. The English as a Second Language program (ESL) instructs students new to the country who cannot speak English at all or only a limited amount. The department has three (3) full-time teachers, and more than two hundred and fifty (250) students are served. These students speak thirteen (13) different languages and represent seventeen (17) different countries. There are, three full-time bilingual cultural mentors, one part-time bilingual cultural facilitator, and one full-time bilingual family specialist who provide basic skill support to selected students. Twice a year the ESL department sponsors a parent academy to help the families assimilate into their new culture. The bilingual counselors conduct home visits to aid the families with any problems that they may be experiencing. The ESL department works with various community agencies to help in resolving these problems. We have community members that come each week from the Latino Memphis to tutor the Hispanic students in the ESL program at Kingsbury High School. These volunteers also serve as mentors. The Technology Coordinator monitors the high school lab that contains 90 computer workstations with Plato and other instructional software readily available for students. The labs are used for remedial work, classroom support, ACT preparation, and enhancing the technological skills of the students. The labs are also used for in-house as well as system-wide staff development. The Technology Coordinator monitors and assists teachers with their classroom instruction. Administration and staff communicate through email. Memphis City Schools has adopted Chancery Student Management Solutions for attendance and grades. Kingsbury High School has the largest A. J. R. O. T. C. program in the state of Tennessee and the fifth (5th) largest program in the United States with 368 cadets. This program provides five (5) instructors with the cost being shared between Memphis City Schools and the U. S. Army Cadet Command. These instructors provide instructions in leadership, citizenship, and character education. This program will provide $3,360 for cadet summer camp, $1,800 for cadet leadership camp, and funds for student visitation to colleges. Kingsbury High School provides an organized analysis of instructional policy, practices, and data as part of its exemplary support program for faculty and staff. Professional development for classroom instruction, classroom management, improving school climate, and support for teachers have been provided to make sure the necessary instructional assistance is being given. Resources and interventions are being used to assist teachers in making adaptations which meet the educational needs of all students. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 68 of 137 Appropriate staff development is one of the key focuses at Kingsbury High School. Several site-based staff development workshops have been offered to the faculty. Staff development thus far has focused on training all teachers on Thinking Maps, a set of research-based strategies that can be used in all curriculum areas to develop and enhance the thinking process of students, improving school climate, new teacher orientation, and classroom management. Other staff development opportunities have included instruction on laptops, vertical teaming for teachers in the same subject area, a focus group of teachers to conduct exemplary analysis of standardized test data, a special education focus group which provided information on new information and changes within the program, and technology and teacher resources training. Additional staff professional development has been provided on the use of State benchmarks within the core content areas. All core content teachers have and use benchmark and CLE/SPI charts posted in classrooms. Daily lesson plans and posted daily agendas stipulate targeted benchmarks for the day. All faculty will receive District professional development in Lesson Plan design. Timeline of On-going Professional Development for New and Veteran Teachers (August – September) Teachers will attend District orientation meetings. Teachers will attend orientation faculty meetings during in-service week. Teachers will review and receive copies of KHS Teachers’ Manual. Teachers will meet with Professional Development Coach to understand lesson plan design. Teachers will meet with Math and Literacy Coaches to review benchmarks and instruction strategies. (September – October) Teachers will meet with KHS designated personnel to understand and learn to use: o Memphis City Schools’ website o Research-based strategies o MCS has its own grading system (http://sms.mcsk12.net/ChancerySMS) o MCS Learning Village for Lesson Plans o MCS Curriculum Guides o Discovery Assessment and Express Writing Folio results data analysis o Exemplary analysis of standardized test data Teachers will meet in small learning communities as structured by grade levels and departments to review assessment results and plan instruction Teachers will attend faculty meetings and appropriate professional development seminars to better understand school procedures, mission and vision statements. Novice teachers will be assigned a mentor to work with throughout the year; mentors may be MCS district-certified, veteran KHS teachers, or University of Memphis mentors. Principal Carlos Fuller and INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITATOR Shonyelle Tate will assign mentors. (November – May) Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 69 of 137 Teachers will attend Teacher Network meetings throughout the school year at the Teaching and Learning Academy. Teachers will participate in in-service training for teaching the English Language Learner in the regular classroom. Teachers will work with ESL teachers to differentiate instruction for ELL. Teachers will participate in in-service training for teaching the Special Education student in regular and inclusion classrooms. Teachers will work with Special Education teachers to differentiate instruction for special education students. Teachers will do Peer Observations as needed during the year to obtain strategies and skills for classroom management and curriculum delivery. Teachers will meet with grade-level KHS School Counselors to participate in S-teams and request support materials for individual teacher needs. Teachers will meet with the Professional Development Coach to clarify issues and plan appropriate professional development implementation. Teachers will select and attend appropriate professional development training at the Teaching and Learning Academy. Teachers will attend mentor academies developed by MCS New Teacher Center. Teachers will participate in District training focused on performance standards for good teaching and the Tennessee Framework for Evaluation and Professional Growth. Teachers will be provided substitute teachers to allow them to observe exemplary teachers in the classroom. New teachers will access the New Teacher Program website for resources, program information, the new teacher newsletter, and online discussion forum. Teachers will attend summer workshops/training seminars as outlined in their respective professional growth plans. Teacher Mentor Program committee will meet to review 2009-2010 action steps and revise Action Plan for 2010-2011. To allow for effective time utilization, teachers are also given the opportunity to attend district-based professional development workshops both during the workday and after school. Teachers are to report on the workshop they attend and share vital information that will be beneficial to other faculty members. Staff development is also recommended on an individual basis for teachers who have specific needs identified by the academic and administrative support teams. All faculty will revisit staff development in effective time utilization and a system for monitoring and adjusting portions. The steps to this best practice concept are detailed below: Exemplary data analysis of non-academic and academic assessment [see Component 3] results are used to plan instruction designed to improve student achievement Students’ questions and investigations are included in the learning process. The Curriculum is relevant, based on the requirements for the state of Tennessee, and Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 70 of 137 includes real-world applications. Research-based strategies are implemented to teach students in ways that enable them to learn through higher-order-thinking and to develop a view on the best way for the students to understand the material. Independent reading is required for each student every week. Teachers model reading to their students from many varied sources. Students gain experience in explaining, justifying, and refining their own thinking about mathematics and other subjects. The curriculum is focused on developing problem-solving skills to develop an in-depth understanding of mathematics and all other subjects. The Professional Development Coach, the Academic Coaches, and the District will support the Efficacy data streaming model. Academic Coaches and the administration will conduct teacher observations to ensure professional practices are being implemented in the classroom and collaborative practices among teachers are being utilized. Administrators and Academic Coaches will provide professional development during staff meetings and help teachers plan appropriate personal professional development based on individual needs assessment surveys. Professional development includes on and off-site seminars, workshops, conventions, peer observations, coursework, and literature specific to the content areas. Technology is a critical part of the Kingsbury Model. The High School Technology Coordinator, Ms. Felton, will supervise the utilization of the computer lab. These professionals will also offer student support academically and as a means of obtaining research: the counseling department, Fellowship Memphis, Girls Incorporated, and Young Life will provide support for improvement in the school culture and climate. Additional support will come from the MCS Professional Development Office, The State Department of Education Exemplary Educator Program, The University of Memphis and PLATO Technical Support. 2010-20110 school year plans by the District call for the use of new educational software, Florida Virtual Schools, to replace Plato software. Kingsbury has also been involved in the Memphis City Schools adoption of the Thinking Maps: Tools for Learning program. Test results beginning in the 1990’s and continuing through the present have shown that Thinking Maps can significantly improve reading abilities and test scores. As part of the Striving Schools interventions, KHS will use Stanford Math for Algebra 1A and after school tutoring classes. Failure Free Reading will be used for intervention in the Exceptional Children’s program and after school tutoring. Due to the wide variety of cultures, languages, and ability levels represented in the student population, Kingsbury has made adaptations to meet all the students’ needs. Thereby, many students will have a quality education and the school will succeed in its mission. Kingsbury has established many programs to reach a diversified student population. Kingsbury has one of the most diverse student populations in the Memphis City Schools system. The student body is made of students from more than eighteen (18) different countries and speaks many different languages as their native tongues. The English as a Second Language (ESL) program offers several programs to help reach these students. Which programs the students participate in depend on their scores on a series of instruments designed Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 71 of 137 to test their proficiency in English. Some students are offered separate ESL classes or instruction on an individual, small group, or class basis. Kingsbury also has several bilingual cultural mentors/counselors that are available to help tutor students with academic work, as well as provide guidance and counseling in their native language. The ESL Department also provides training for the parents of the students, as well as, the other teachers and school personnel with whom the students may come into contact. In an effort to reach those students who may have a difficult time succeeding in a traditional classroom, and in keeping with its role as the Technology Optional School in the MCS system, Kingsbury has established computer laboratory with 90 workstations and a multimedia center with 24 workstations available to students. These labs offer several different types of software to assist the students. Special emphasis is placed on reading and math. Students are tested to determine their current ability level, and a program is designed to help the students get to the proper support. READ 180 is used to promote superior gains in reading scores for students testing below grade level. There is also a Course Recovery Program that allows students who have failed a course receive credit for that course without attending summer school. For those students who have an Individual Education Plan (IEP), their needs are met through Kingsbury’s extensive special education department. As mandated by federal, state, and local regulations, students are tested to determine the amount of assistance that is needed, and their IEP is developed by a team consisting of a special education teacher, a regular education teacher, an administrator, the student’s parents, and any other person that the team feels is relevant to the student’s educational needs. The services provided to these students can range from a self-contained classroom where the student remains all day to just consultations, depending on the student’s needs. To benefit those students who have excelled in the classroom and need to be challenged to reach their full potential, Kingsbury offers several honors, Advanced Placement, and dual enrollment courses. A complete list of these courses has been provided to teachers, students and parents for planning 4-year graduation paths. Equity and Adequacy: Are we providing equity and adequacy to all of our teachers? Kingsbury High School provides equity and adequacy to all of our teachers. All of our teachers are provided time, resources, and support for professional development, common lesson planning, and meeting in grade level/department/content/vertical and horizontal teams. Behavior specialists are on site to assist teachers with students whose behavior impedes on the instructional progression of themselves and others. Support personnel are available to teachers for mentoring, such as counselors, SPED coordinator, bilingual mentor facilitators, academic coaches, and family specialists. Are we targeting funds and resources effectively to meet the needs of all of our teachers in being effective with all their students? Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 72 of 137 Funds and resources are targeted effectively to meet the needs of all of our teachers in being effective with all their students. All classrooms are provided with technology for small or whole group instruction. Needs assessments are surveyed of all teachers and reviewed by departments and the Leadership Team for targeting funds and resources. There is a process in place to request materials through Title I and school funds; all requests are processed in the order in which they are received. Based on the data, are we accurately meeting the needs of all students in our school? Master Schedule course enrollment data show an increase in students enrolled in Honors, Advanced Placement and Inclusion classes. Inclusion teachers work with students in regular education classrooms. Through the SIG Initiative, each academy will have a program of study. Additional language, rigorous science and math, and increased Career and Technical exposure have been included in the curriculum. ESL Bilingual Staff and ESL teachers meet regularly with grade-level and department teams to provide support for ELLs. EdPlans, IEPs, and ELL Composites identify students receiving intervention. School-level Data Dashboard and COMPSTAT reports track students’ progress and list strategies with implementation and monitoring. 3.2.c: Instructional Summary Questions (Rubric Indicator 3.4) Instructional Summary Questions- Narrative Response Required What are our major strengths and how do we know? Kingsbury High School has several strengths as they are stated below: Literacy and Math coaches are available to assist teachers through classroom observations and modeling class lessons Teachers have common planning time Teachers and students have access to the state of the art computer lab Teachers use various technology instructional strategies including small and whole group, differentiated, and individualized instruction New teachers to Kingsbury are assigned a mentor Kinsgbury Instructional Team and electronic professional development resource Academy PLC for each themed academy Each department holds weekly meetings Teachers use instructional technology tools: Read 180 and Stanford Math Instructional Summary Questions- Narrative Response Required Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 73 of 137 What are our major challenges and how do we know. (These should be stated as instructional practice challenges identified in the templates above that could be a cause of the prioritized needs identified in component 1.) Challenges that we are facing are: Teachers need additional and on-going training in research based strategies. Teachers need additional training on collecting and disaggregating data Consistent teaming experiences with Kingsbury Middle School More training for non-Gateway teachers Additional training in differentiated instructional strategies. Increased relationships with organizations that provide career readiness opportunities for each academy We need more opportunities for faculty and staff members to receive professional development in all areas of instruction. Students not meeting standards need remediation during the day as well as after school. Some teachers have not mastered differentiated instruction for those students not meeting mastery as well as those inclusion students. New and novice teachers should have more opportunities to observe a variety of teaching strategies used in classrooms. Instructional Summary Questions- Narrative Response Required How will we address our challenges? We will address our challenges through: continuous training and professional development on and off campus new teacher mentors arranging for class coverage/substitutes while new teachers observe teacher assistants training in disaggregating data and the use of formative assessment results providing tutoring in every subject by high-qualified teachers ensuring parents and students take advantage of after-school tutoring programs engage organizations that will support our redesign efforts establish a monthly PLC with middle school staff and 9th grade academy Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 74 of 137 3.3.a: Assessment Practices (Rubric Indicators 3.5 and 3.6) Current Assessment Practices Evidence of Practice (State in definitive/tangib le terms) Is the current practice research-based? Is it a principle & practice of high-performing schools? Has the current practice been effective or ineffective? What data source(s) do you have that support your answer? (identify all applicable sources) Evidence of effectiveness or ineffectiveness (State in terms of quantifiable improvement) Periodic district-wide assessments aligned to state standards Common Assessment s, 9wks quarter exams Weekly intervention to assess progress towards the mastery of state math standards Daily intervention to assess the State progress mandated toward mastery assessmen of state ts aligned language arts to state standards standards Classroom instruction supports the learning of students with diverse cultural & language backgrounds & with different learning needs & learning styles. KHS has three ESL teachers for those students that qualify with the ELDA test. Discovery Assessment scores Exam scores, student grades Standford Math Reports Scheduled classes for READ 180 Scores from Mock TCAP, Gateway, EOC Exams Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Scores on assessments Scores on assessments and exams Stanford Math Read 180 Progress reports Reports Test Scores Improved scores from one assessment to the next assessment Improved passing percentage on assessments and exams Student progress indicated with Progress Reports Improved test scores between Mock tests and Exams Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Student progress indicated with Reading Levels report Report Cards, scores on assessments and exams Improved scores from state assessments Page 75 of 137 Evidence of equitable school support for this practice Teacher compliance with administerin g the test, student participation in test administrati on Next Step (changes or continuations) Evaluate the success of the assessment and Continue predictability the current for practice proficiency on state mandated assessment s Common Planning Periods, Teacher collaboratio n to make common assessment Student attendance, school policy requiring weekly usage of intervention Student attendance, school policy requiring enrollment in the course based upon demonstrated need from test scores. School, District and State Testing Calendars that are followed with fidelity All ESL teachers have a common planning time. Continue the current practice Continue the current practice Continue Continue the current the current practice practice 3.3.b: Assessment Gap Analysis Assessment Gap Analysis – Narrative Response Required “What is” The Current Use of: TIME, MONEY, PERSONNEL And OTHER RESOURCES (How are we currently allocating our time, money, personnel and other resources and building capacity around understanding and implementing high quality assessment practices?) Exemplary Data Analysis Correlation to State Standards and Benchmarks: Standards for student learning are based on a clearly defined curriculum, which identifies a comprehensive body of knowledge and critical skills. Kingsbury High School adheres to a curriculum prescribed by Memphis City Schools that correlates with the Tennessee State Department of Education standards and benchmarks. Memphis City Schools has created curriculum guides to be utilized by every teacher in each academic department. An exemplary data analysis for each student will be executed every grading period. The decisions regarding the educational needs of these students will be data driven decisions. These sources of information include 2008-2009 administration of the following standardized tests: TCAP Writing, Express Writing Folio, Gateway, End-of-Course, Discovery Assessment, and ACT. These results will be used to make decisions for the 2009-2010 test preparation and administration. Feeder Schools: In preparation for each new academic year, data is obtained regarding student achievement from Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 76 of 137 each of the feeder schools. An exemplary data analysis is completed for the individual student data to ensure appropriate student course placement. Trends are also analyzed based on the TITLE I subgroups to assist the teachers in meeting the educational needs of the newly arrived students. Articulation and Communication: Communication with stakeholders is provided by: ParentLink phone calls, emails, outside marquis noting important calendar events; Title 1 meetings, open house; community forums; parent meetings for special groups; flyers; bulletins; handouts; direct mail; and the school website. Trans-Act library. The ESL Central Office, and on-staff bilingual facilitators provide translations of school communications for non-English speaking stakeholders. Administrators, facilitators, academic coaches, counselors, and teachers report school wide and individual assessment results to stakeholders in a language they can understand. On-going Monitoring and Adjustment: Kingsbury High School conducts informal and formal Formative Assessments and Summative Assessments. The district has secured funds to purchase mid-year assessments from Discovery Assessment. Through collecting and disaggregating this data, information will be provided regarding student achievement. The INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITATOR, Academic Coaches, and core content teachers have been trained in Discovery assessment procedures. Teachers have ACT and Gateway workbooks to use as resources in assessing students in those areas. Academic Coaches are responsible for assisting teachers with administering the tests and analyzing the data results with the teachers. Various data will be collected and analyzed at the mid-point and close of each grading period. Grade distributions, progress reports, Discovery Assessment, and report cards allow the staff the opportunity to monitor student progress at regular intervals. The Data Results Team initially screens all data. Faculty and department conferences are subsequently held with teachers to discuss the findings. Results Team and professional development sessions ensure each teacher is able to utilize the data results to improve instruction and assessment. We will implement EBEAM technology for immediate assessment in the classroom. “What Ought to Be” – How Should we be Using Our: TIME, MONEY, PERSONNEL And OTHER RESOURCES (How should we be allocating our time, money, personnel and other resources and building capacity around understanding and implementing high quality assessment practices?) In order to accurately assess the standards being taught, teachers need professional development in creating standards-based assessments and aligning them to their instruction. Teachers need proper training in assessing data, as well as the various assessment instruments used in our school to ensure they are being used and being used properly. Data needs to be used to provide proper instruction, whether is data from assessments purchased by the district and or school or teacher-made assessments. Teacher-made assessments should be designed according to state assessments. Formative assessments should be developed for the Tennessee State End-of-Course Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 77 of 137 assessments. Because these assessments are summative, they do not provide enough information about yearly instruction. Data should be collected and distributed on periodic assessments for students participating in the EOC assessment. Equity and Adequacy: Are we providing equity and adequacy to all of our teachers? Kingsbury High School provides equity and adequacy to all of our teachers. All of our teachers are provided time, resources, and support for professional development, common lesson planning, and meeting in grade level/department/content/vertical and horizontal teams. Behavior specialists are on site to assist teachers with students whose behavior impedes on the instructional progression of themselves and others. Support personnel are available to teachers for mentoring, such as counselors, SPED coordinator, bilingual mentor facilitators, academic coaches, and family specialists. Are we targeting funds and resources effectively to meet the needs of all of our teachers in being effective with all their students? Funds and resources are targeted effectively to meet the needs of all of our teachers in being effective with all their students. All classrooms are provided with technology for small or whole group instruction. Needs assessments are surveyed of all teachers and reviewed by departments and the Leadership Team for targeting funds and resources. There is a process in place to request materials through Title I and school funds; all requests are processed in the order in which they are received. Based on the data, are we accurately meeting the needs of all students in our school? Master Schedule course enrollment data show an increase in students enrolled in Honors, Advanced Placement and Inclusion classes. Inclusion teachers work with students in regular education classrooms. ESL Bilingual Staff and ESL teachers meet regularly with grade-level and department teams to provide support for ELLs. EdPlan Reports, IEPs, and ELL Composites identify students receiving intervention. School-level Data Dashboard and COMPSTAT reports track students’ progress and list strategies with implementation and monitoring. 3.3.c: Assessment Summary Questions (Rubric Indicator 3.6) Assessment Summary Questions- Narrative Response Required Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 78 of 137 What are our major strengths and how do we know? Teachers use a variety of assessment strategies to address the needs of our students Teachers are trained in using a variety of assessment strategies allowing them to make necessary modifications in classroom instruction based on the needs of the students The AYP report demonstrates the improvements and gains we continue to make Assessment Summary Questions- Narrative Response Required What are our major challenges and how do we know. (These should be stated as assessment practice challenges identified in the templates above that could be a cause of the prioritized needs identified in component 1.) Training is needed in designing assessments to correspond to standards Formative assessments for EOC tests that reflect instruction Gateway score increase at the proficient level in all subject areas Increase in providing students with prerequisite skills in reading and math Assessment Summary Questions- Narrative Response Required How will we address our challenges? We will continue to monitor teachers and students to assess the needs. We will implement assessments that address prerequisite needs. We will allow teachers time to collaborate to review student data in order to develop modifications for instruction. We will provide teachers (staff) training in developing standards aligned instruction and assessments. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 79 of 137 3.4.a: Organizational Practices (Rubric Indicators 3.7and 3.8) Current Organizational Practices Evidence of Practice Is the current practice researchbased? Is it a principle & practice of highperforming schools? Has the current practice been effective or ineffective? School is organized to be proactive in addressing issues that might impede teaching and learning. Organizational practices and processes promote the effective timeon-task for all students. Organizational processes increase the opportunity for success in teaching and learning at all schools. Administrative Leadership Team Academy Leadership Teams Common Planning, Lesson Plans and Assessments Data Research Team, Horizontal and Vertical Teams School provides continuous professional development for school leaders. Academic Coaches Kingsbury Instructional Team School is organized to engage the parents and community in providing extended learning opportunities for children. School Based Decision Making Council School is organized to support a diverse learning community through its programs and practices. Small Learning Communities Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Surveys, meeting agendas and minutes Data Dashboard and COMPSTAT Reports, Formative Assessment Results Agendas and Minutes from the Meetings; Sign-in Sheets, Surveys, Faculty Meeting Agenda Feedback and Survey results Formative Assessment Sign-in sheets for council meetings What data source(s) do you have that support your answer? Agendas, minutes, and surveys; teacher feedback Evidence of effectiveness or Survey Data, INSTRUCTIONA Minutes and Lesson plans submitted to INSTRUCTIONA L FACILITATOR, Learning Village, Subject area scores Assessment Results, Meeting Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 80 of 137 Master Schedule, Organization Chart, Agenda/Minutes, Sign-in Sheets, Surveys, Team Agenda and Minutes; Honor Rolls Formative Assessment Results; Attendance ineffectiveness Evidence of equitable school support for this practice Next Step (changes or continuations) L FACILITATOR Data, Parent Counselor Data Minutes Data Dashboard Results Organization Master Schedule, Chart; Minutes and Professional agendas Development Minutes per department, Signin Sheets, meeting minutes Minutes from meeting Agendas, minutes, and surveys Site-based Budget; Title 1 Funds Continue Current Practice Continue Current Practice Continue Current Practice Continue Current Practice Continue Current Practice Continue Current Practice Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Data; Honor Rolls Page 81 of 137 3.4.b: Organizational Gap Analysis Organizational Gap Analysis – Narrative Response Required “What is” The Current Use of: TIME, MONEY, PERSONNEL And OTHER RESOURCES (How are we currently allocating our time, money, personnel and other resources and building capacity around understanding and implementing high quality organizational practices?) The decision making process at Kingsbury High School is distributed between the administration, faculty and student body. Ultimately the principal makes the final decision. The administration encourages the faculty to give their opinions on the problems they see at the school. All faculty and students have the opportunity to voice their opinions. A School Administrative Leadership Team was formed in September of 2007, and it is still in existence currently in 2010. The Administrative Leadership Team is designed to coordinate instructional and non-instructional tasks for Kingsbury High School. The goals of this team are to improve communication among administrators and staff, and to organize and analyze student performance data. Academy Leadership Teams are established to set goals and objectives for each academy. Teams will ratify action plans that are developed for each academy and share data during quarterly data reports. Academic coaches, the Professional Development Coach, and departmental chairpersons are a valid part of the decision making process. There are continuous and open discussions of the decisions that affect the daily operations at Kingsbury High School. The Kingsbury Instructional Team will serve as a catalyst for continuous professional growth. Book studies, case studies, and reports on current educational practices will provide the entire staff strategies that impact student growth. The decision making process is further enhanced by the School Administrative Leadership Team. This team provides a process for the times reporting of collected/analyzed data results to be effectively used in the decision-making process. A Kingsbury High School Organizational Chart has been developed and will be distributed to all faculty and staff. By having done this, each faculty member will be made aware of areas of Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 82 of 137 responsibility. “What Ought to Be” – How Should we be Using Our: TIME, MONEY, PERSONNEL And OTHER RESOURCES (How should we be allocating our time, money, personnel and other resources and building capacity around understanding and implementing high quality organizational practices?) Assure all classrooms are observed for learning environment and instructional strategies with feedback provided in a timely manner. Allocate time on a regular basis for teachers to meet in all team sets. Fund school library materials and classroom libraries to provide extended learning opportunities for students. Provide support personnel for ESL students in the regular classroom. Upgrade athletic fields and purchase bleachers. Purchase replacement batteries for calculators. Equity and Adequacy: Are we providing equity and adequacy to all of our teachers? Kingsbury High School provides equity and adequacy to all of our teachers. All of our teachers are provided time, resources, and support for professional development, common lesson planning, and meeting in grade level/department/content/vertical and horizontal teams. Behavior specialists are on site to assist teachers with students whose behavior impedes on the instructional progression of themselves and others. Support personnel are available to teachers for mentoring, such as counselors, SPED coordinator, bilingual mentor facilitators, academic coaches, and family specialists. Are we targeting funds and resources effectively to meet the needs of all of our teachers in being effective with all their students? Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 83 of 137 Funds and resources are targeted effectively to meet the needs of all of our teachers in being effective with all their students. All classrooms are provided with technology for small or whole group instruction. Needs assessments are surveyed of all teachers and reviewed by departments and the Leadership Team for targeting funds and resources. There is a process in place to request materials through Title I and school funds; all requests are processed in the order in which they are received. Based on the data, are we accurately meeting the needs of all students in our school? Master Schedule course enrollment data show an increase in students enrolled in Honors, Advanced Placement and Inclusion classes. Inclusion teachers work with students in regular education classrooms. ESL Bilingual Staff and ESL teachers meet regularly with grade-level and department teams to provide support for ELLs. EdPlan Reports, IEPs, and ELL Composites identify students receiving intervention. School-level Data Dashboard and COMPSTAT reports track students’ progress and list strategies with implementation and monitoring. 3.4.c: Organization Summary Questions (Rubric Indicator 3.8) Organization Summary Questions- Narrative Response Required What are our major strengths and how do we know? Curriculum and instruction is better aligned due to common lesson plans created during common planning time. Instruction is tailored to student needs based on data analysis. Title I funds are allotted to ensure students have adequate resources and curriculum. Organization Summary Questions- Narrative Response Required Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 84 of 137 What are our major challenges and how do we know. (These should be stated as organizational practice challenges identified in the templates above, that could be a cause of the prioritized needs identified in component 1.) Vertical teaming due to staff turn-over Inadequate communication of goals between data research team and staff Organization Summary Questions- Narrative Response Required How will we address our challenges? Through weekly staff development meetings Common planning time for teachers Leadership team Departmental meetings Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 85 of 137 COMPONENT 4 Action Plan Development Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 86 of 137 eGOAL 1 – Action Plan Development 4.1 – (Rubric Indicator 4.1) Revised DATE: September 30, 2010__________ Section A –Describe your goal and identify which need(s) it addresses. (Remember that your previous components identified the strengths and challenges/needs.) Goal 1 is to increase the number of students scoring at least proficient on the Algebra I End of Course Exam from eight-eight percent (84%) in 2008-2009 to ninety-three percent (93%) by May 2010 as detailed in the Title I academic benchmarks listed below: The number of African-American students scoring at least proficient on the Algebra I End of Course Exam will increase from seventy-nine percent (79%) in 2008-2009 to ninety percent (93%) by May 2010. The number of White students scoring at least Proficient on the Algebra I End of Course Exam will increase from eighty-five percent (85%) in 2008-2009 to ninety-eight (98%) by May 20109. The number of Hispanic students scoring at least Proficient on the Algebra I End of Course Exam will increase from eighty-five percent (85%) in 2008-2009 to ninety-five percent (95%) in 2010. Goal The number of Asian/Pacific Islander students scoring at least Proficient on the Algebra I End of Course Exam will increase from eight-six percent (86%) to ninety-three (93%) by May 2010. The number of economically disadvantaged students scoring at least Proficient on the Algebra I End of Course Exam will increase from eighty-four percent (84%) in 2008-2009 to ninety-three percent (93%) by May 2010. The number of Students With Disabilities scoring at least Proficient on the Algebra I End of Course Exam will increase from sixty-eight percent (68%) in 2008-2009 to eighty-five percent (85%) by May 2010. The number of student with Limited English Proficiency scoring at least Proficient on the Algebra I End of Course Exam will increase from seventy-eight percent (78%) in 2008-2009 to ninety percent (90%) by May 2010. This goal addresses the requirement of meeting the Adequate Yearly Progress in high school Algebra I for the Title I Which need(s) does this Goal address? requirements. How is this Goal linked to the system’s Five-Year Plan? ACTION STEPS – 4.2 – (Rubric Indicator 4.2) Section B – Descriptively list the action you plan to take to ensure you will be able to progress toward your goal. Action steps are strategies and interventions which should be scientifically based where possible and include professional development, technology, communication, and parent and community involvement initiatives within the action steps of each goal. The school will provide mathematics tutoring three (3) afternoons a week from 3:30 – 4:15 P.M. Action Step Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Goal 1 will move Kingsbury High School closer to Memphis City Schools’ student achievement goal by accelerating the academic performance of all students. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN – 4.3 – (Rubric Indicator 4.3) Section C – For each of the Action Steps you list, give timeline, person(s) responsible, projected cost(s)/required resources, funding sources, evaluation strategy and performance results/outcomes. (For Evaluation Strategy, define how you will evaluate the action step.) Timeline October 2010 through May 2013 Person(s) Responsible Required Resources Unika Felton, Academic Intervention High School Coordinator, Selected Kingsbury staff Computer, Computer-based tutoring program, Plato Lab Projected Cost(s) & Funding Sources The cost is $24.00 per hour for each instructor and will be paid through Title I budget. Total:$2160.00 Total Salary: $31,158 Page 87 of 137 Evaluation Strategy An attendance record and student academic progress will be compared for students who attend this after school intervention program. Performance Results / Outcomes 62% of the students will score proficient or above on the Algebra I End of Course Exam. The math department will utilize Stanford Math and Fast Math programs as an intervention for at-risk of failing students in Resource math classes. September 2010 to May 2013 Action Step Action Step Action Step Computer Software and access to computer lab for students; calculators. District funding will cover cost which varies depending on number of sitelicenses installed. Regular cycle evaluations by Administrators, Math Coach, and additional observations by Exceptional Children department supervisors. PAS 7 test; Student Performance Indicator (SPI) Charts The cost of the PAS 7 formative assessment testing is being paid for by the Memphis City School district budget. The calculator cost is $95 per unit. A classroom set of TI83/84 calculators costs $2,850. The cost will be paid through the Title I allocated school funds. The cost of Power Teacher is being paid by the Memphis City School district budget. The provided data from the PAS 7 formative assessment test will be analyzed to gauge individual student, class and instructor progress toward a score of at least proficient on the Gateway Algebra I exam. Assistant Principals, Gabriela Toro and Shenar Millier will monitor the successful utilization of the TI-83/84 graphing calculators and analyze this data. All students enrolled in Algebra I will take the PAS 7 formative assessment by Discovery Education four times a year to monitor mastery of Algebra I End of course level expectations (CLEs). PAS 7 formative assessment tests will be administered during the set state dates. All Algebra I students will become proficient utilizing the TI-83/TI-84 calculator to solve algebraic problems. August 2010 through May 2013 Instructors: Hillman, Vasser, Carlton, McDonald, Pittman, Diong TI-83/84 calculators All Algebra I teachers will complete ED Plans for students who receive grades of “D” or below in Algebra I. September 2010 through May 2013 Power Teacher Electronic Grade Keeper, Chancery SMS, and Grade Distribution Forms. All 9th grade students will be enrolled in Algebra I classes that will meet on a daily basis (doubledosed). The students will be provided supplemental instruction for the CLEs needed to score at least proficient on the Algebra I End of Course Exam. August 2010 through May 2013 Instructors: Hillman, Vasser, Carlton, McDonald, Pittman, Diong Instructors: Hillman, Vasser, Carlton, McDonald, Pittman, Diong Action Step Action Step Special Education Coordinator, Dr. George Falls and Math Coach, Troy Stanton, will supervise. Algebra I instructors Instructors: Hillman, Vasser, Carlton, McDonald, Pittman, Diong, Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Additional mathematics instructors The additional mathematics instructors were funded by the Memphis City Schools’ systemic staffing allocation. Supplemental Materials: $15,000 Page 88 of 137 Professional Development Coach, Math Coach, and Results Team will monitor the grade distribution reports and STAR reports. Assistant Principal, Shenar Miller will monitor the student mastery of the specific SPI’s required to score at least proficient on the Gateway Algebra I Exam and analyze this data. All Algebra I students will master CLEs using the Stanford Math and Fast Math programs. All Algebra I students will master CLEs tested using the PAS 7 assessment. All Algebra I students will be comfortable using the calculators to solve algebraic problems. 62% of the students will score proficient or abo ve on the Algebra I End of Course Exam. 62% of the students will score proficient or abo ve on the Algebra I End of Course Exam. Action Step Action Step Action Step All Algebra I students will be able to complete numerous Algebra I practice exams. Teachers will use this data to track student performance and mastery in addition to driving instruction. September 2010 through May 2013 Instructors: Hillman, Vasser, Carlton, McDonald, Pittman, Diong Gateway Algebra I Database practice exams, computers Algebra I Gateway Database Practice Exam questions will be utilized. The cost of the software is $50 per teacher funded TITLE I. Total Price: $350 All Exceptional Children Algebra I students will follow IDEA 2009 IEP. August 2010 through May 2013 IEP accommodations, documents, computers No cost to prepare the IEP documents for each student. Integrate technology to enhance student achievement in Algebra I through the use of a mobile computer lab. August 2010 through May 2013 Dr. George Falls, Exceptional Children Coordinator Carlos Fuller Mobile Computer Lab Title I Price: $27,000 Syllabi, Stanford Math reports All Algebra I students will be present for the required End of Course Algebra I Exam. May 2011 May 2012 May 2013 Parent Counselor Attendance rosters Mailing cost of parent letters at .41 per student funded by TITLE I. Title I Salary $52,804 Total Price: $435.00 All incoming 9th grade students who scored below proficient on the 2008-2009 TCAP exam will be enrolled in Stanford Math Intervention with ESL and SPED intervention offered by the Memphis City School District. September 2010 through May 2013 Instructors, Hillman, Vasser, Carlton, McDonald, Pittman, Diong Assistant Principals, Gabriela Toro, Shenar Miller Dr. George Falls, SPED Coordinator, ESL Instructor, Chan Additional mathematics instructors The letters mailed to the parents must be returned signed by the parents and communication logs must be kept by the Kingsbury Staff and analyzed by the parent counselor. Assistant Principal, Gabriela Tora and Math Coach, Noha Hady will monitor the student mastery of the specific SPI’s required to score at least proficient on the Gateway Algebra I Exam and analyze this data. Action Step Action Step Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process The additional mathematics instructors were funded by the Memphis City Schools’ systemic staffing allocation. Page 89 of 137 Assistant Principals, Gabriela Toro and Shenar Miller will monitor the successful utilization of the Algebra I Gateway Database Practice Exam questions and analyze this data to identify students needing remediation. IEP’s will be checked and communication logs will be turned in weekly to Michael Sizemore. 62% of the students will score proficient or abo ve on the Algebra I End of Course Exam. 48% of the students with disabilities will score proficient or above on the Algebra I End of Course Exam. 62% of the students will score proficient or abo ve on the Algebra I End of Course Exam. 100% of the students will be present to take the Algebra I End of Course Exam. 62% of the students will score proficient or above on the Algebra I End of Course Exam. September 2010 through May 2013 SPED Instructors: Schwartz, Bush, Martinez Alg. Instructors: Vasser, McDonald, Carlton, Pittman Additional SPED teachers A Math Coach who will focus on preparing, supporting, and communicating with the teachers to aid the students in reaching proficiency on the Gateway Algebra I exam. August 2010 through May 2013 Noha Hady, Math Coach Math Coach Professional development will be provided to instruct the teachers in the utilization of SMS that will assist them in making appropriate telephone parent contacts. A complete listing of professional development activities is provided in the addendum. 30 minutes per semester SMS coordinator, Gabriela Toro Professional Development materials Professional development for teachers to create a repertoire of similar teaching strategies being utilized through Thinking Maps. Twice a semester Shonyelle Tate, INSTRUCTION AL FACILITATOR Parent meetings will be held to inform the parents of the available support services for students taking the Algebra I End of Course exam. Twice a semester Math teachers will meet as a team by the subject they teach for collaboration on instruction driven by student performance data. Grant funds will be utilized to increase use of technology for instruction and assessment in math classes to increase student achievement as stated by the redesign grant. SPED teachers and regular education teachers will co-teach in Algebra I classes (inclusion). Action Step Action Step Action Step Action Step Action Step Action Step Action Step Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process The additional SPED teachers were funded by the Memphis City Schools’ systemic staffing Assistant Principal, Shenar Miller will monitor the student mastery of the specific SPI’s required to score at least proficient on the Algebra I End of Course Exam and analyze this data. The additional position was funded using district funds. Amount allocated is $54,169.00. $100 per semester for paper cost funded through Site-Based budget. The Math Coach will monitor the students’ progress toward meeting math goals and examine the data found. Gabriela Toro will monitor the teachers’ parent contact logs and compare them to parent awareness. Professional Development materials $400 per semester funded by TTLE I. Title I Salary: $66,737 Total Price: $800 Stephanie Smith, Graduation Coach Refreshments, materials to present to the parents $400 per semester funded by TITLE I Total Price: $800. September 2010 through May 2013 INSTRUCTION AL FACILITATOR, Math Coach, and Math teachers Handouts, SPI charts, Curriculum Guides, professional development materials $300.00 per semester funded by Site-based budget. Total: $600 INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITATOR will monitor the teachers’ utilization of Thinking Maps and analyze the changes in their instruction. Ms. Smith will keep a log of the parents who are in attendance and the materials provided to the parents and compare this to parent awareness. Teachers and Academic Coaches will keep minutes from team meetings. Student performance data will be used to chart student progress. September 2010 through May 2013 Shenar Miller, Assistant Principal, Unika Felton, Technology 8 eBeam Complete USB Interactive Whiteboards,8 cases of eBeam Respond RF Keypads (32 per $30,000.00 per year funded by the Redesign Grant. Page 90 of 137 Academic Coaches will monitor the teachers’ utilization of technology and analyze the changes in their instruction. 48% of the students with disabilities will score proficient or above on the Algebra I End of Course Exam. 62% of the students will score proficient or above on the Algebra I End of Course Exam. 100% of the teachers will utilize strategies provided by the professional development sessions within their classrooms. 100% of the teachers will utilize Thinking Maps strategies within their classrooms. 100 % of the parents will be knowledgeable of the available support services 62% of the students will score proficient or above on the Algebra I End of Course Exam. 62% of the students will score proficient or above on the Algebra I End of Course Exam. Coordinator, Noha Hady, Math Coach 100% of the staff will be highly qualified. Action Step September 2010 through May 2013 Carlos Fuller, Principal case),4 Graphire 6x8 Bluetooth Tablets, 60 Texas Instrument 84 Calculators, 60-12 packs of batteries, 2 Laptop Computers, 3 Sanyo PDG-DSU Projectors Funded by MCS Teacher evaluations, lesson plans 62% of the students will score proficient or above on the Algebra I End of Course Exam. GOAL 2 – Action Plan Development 4.1 – (Rubric Indicator 4.1) 2010___________ Revised DATE: _September 30, Section A –Describe your goal and identify which need(s) it addresses. (Remember that your previous components identified the strengths and challenges/needs.) Goal 2 is to increase the number of students scoring at least proficient on the Gateway English 10 Exam and the TCAP Writing Assessment from ninety percent (89%) in 2008-2009 to ninety-three percent (93%) by May 2010 as detailed in the Title I academic benchmarks listed below: Goal Which need(s) does this Goal address? How is this Goal linked to the system’s Five-Year Plan? ACTION STEPS – 4.2 – (Rubric Indicator 4.2) Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process The number of African-American students scoring at least Proficient on the Gateway English 10 Exam will increase from eighty-eight percent (88%) in 2008-2009 to ninety-three percent (93%) by May 2010. The number of White students scoring at least Proficient on the Gateway English 10 Exam will increase from ninetyfour percent (94%) in 2008-2009 to ninety-three percent (93%) by May 2010. The number of Hispanic students scoring at least Proficient on the Gateway English 10 Exam will increase from eighty-seven percent (87%) in 2008-2009 to ninety-three percent (93%) by May 2010. The number of Economically Disadvantaged students scoring at least Proficient on the Gateway English 10 Exam will increase from eighty-eight percent (88%) in 2008-2009 to ninety-three percent (93%) by May 2010. The number of Students With Disabilities scoring at least Proficient on the Gateway English 10 Exam will increase from seventy-three percent (73%) in 2008-2009 to ninety percent (90%) by May 2010. The number of Limited English Proficient students scoring at least Proficient on the Gateway English 10 Exam will increase from fifty-six percent (56%) in 2008-2009 to seventy-five percent (75%) by May 2010. This goal addresses the requirement of meeting the Adequate Yearly Progress in high school English 10 and Writing Assessment for the Title I requirements. Goal 2 will move Kingsbury High School closer to Memphis City Schools’ student achievement goal by accelerating the academic performance of all students. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN – 4.3 – (Rubric Indicator 4.3) Page 91 of 137 Section B – Descriptively list the action you plan to take to ensure you will be able to progress toward your goal. Action steps are strategies and interventions which should be scientifically based where possible and include professional development, technology, communication, and parent and community involvement initiatives within the action steps of each goal. The English department will use Failure Free Reading for students reading below grade level and in Resource English classes. Action step Action Step Section C – For each of the Action Steps you list, give timeline, person(s) responsible, projected cost(s)/required resources, funding sources, evaluation strategy and performance results/outcomes. (For Evaluation Strategy, define how you will evaluate the action step.) Timeline October 2010 through May 2013 Required Resources Literacy Coach, James Horton, SPED coordinator Dr. George Falls, and reading and Resource English teachers. Instructors, Jacklyn Martin, Rachel Altsman, Margaret Williams, James Horton, Marion Mathis Failure Free Reading software and associated materials; computer lab. The cost of the Failure Free Reading intervention will be paid with district funds. Cost varies. The Literacy Coach, the Special Education Coordinator, and reading and resource English teachers will analyze data collected and report to the Results Team. Discovery tests The cost of the Discovery formative assessment testing is being paid for by the Memphis City School district budget. Read 180 software, computers,materials, and license Language Plus materials Classroom materials The provided data from the Discovery formative assessment test will be analyzed to gauge individual student, class and instructor progress toward a score of at least proficient on the Gateway Algebra I exam. The reading instructor will examine students’ progress through the Read 180 software. All students enrolled in English 10 will take the Discovery formative assessment test four times a year to monitor mastery of Gateway English 10 Course Level Expectations (CLEs). Discovery formative assessment tests will be administered during the set state dates. All students in grade 9 who score below grade level on a reading test will take a reading class, Read 180 and Language Plus. September 2010 through May 2013 Instructor, Dahlin, Miles Teachers will implement “writing across the curriculum” in which they will integrate writing in all English classes. August 2010 through May 2013 All English teachers The students will utilize an on-line writing assessment site that provides immediate feedback for a writing assignment. This site may be utilized an unlimited number of times by the students. All is needed to access this site is a computer and an September 2010 through May 2013 Instructors, Atlsman, Martin, Williams, Horton, Mathis Action Step Action Step Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Projected Cost(s) & Funding Sources Person(s) Responsible On-line writing assessment site, computers, internet provider The $25,000 cost of was funded through the SIG Grant. The cost of the materials funded through Site-based budget.$10,000 Supplemental Materials: $15,000 Since the district paid for this on-line assessment with the purchase of newly adopted textbooks, Page 92 of 137 Evaluation Strategy The English instructors and James Horton, Literacy Coach, will monitor the student mastery of the specific CLEs required to score at least proficient on the Gateway English II exam and analyze the data. The English instructors and Assistant Principal, Shenar Miller will analyze the feedback given to the students. Performance Results / Outcomes 85% of the students will score proficient or above on the English 10 End of Course Exam. All English 10 students will master CLEs tested on the PAS 7 formative assessment. 85% of the students will score proficient or above on the English 10 End of Course Exam. 85% of the students will score proficient or above on the English 10 End of Course Exam. 85% of the students will score proficient or above on the English 10 End of Course Exam. internet provider. SPED teachers and regular education teachers will co-teach in English 10 classes. September 2010 through May 2013 Students in all English classes will be required to complete a District Project. September 2010 through May 2013 A Literacy Coach who will be responsible for facilitating instruction and aiding English teachers. SPED Instructors: Bush, Owens, Falls English Instructors: Altsman, Martin All English instructors, James Horton, Literacy Coach Additional SPED instructor August 2010 through May 2013 James Horton, Literacy Coach Literacy Coach Parent meetings will be held to inform the parents of the available support services for those students taking the Gateway English 10 exam. Twice a semester Stephanie Smith, Graduation Coach Refreshments, materials to present to the parents $400 per semester funds provided by TITLE I. Total Price $800 Language arts teachers will meet as a team to collaborate on curriculum, instructional strategies, and using student performance data. October 2010 through May 2013 Professional development materials. Title I funds: $500 Exemplary Educators and Academic Coaches will provide training on tracking of student mastery of CLEs October 2010-May 2013 INSTRUCTION AL FACILITATOR, Tate; Literacy Coach, Horton; and English teachers Professional Development Coach, Tate; Literacy Coach, Horton; Math Noha Hady; Exemplary Substitute teachers for teachers attending professional development. Title I funds: $2856 Action Step Action Step Literacy Coach Materials provided by MCS and $300 Sitebased-budget. The cost of the Literacy Coach is funded by district funds.$54,169.00 is allocated. Action Step Action Step Action Step Action Step there is no additional cost for the utilization of this site. The additional SPED instructors were funded by the district funds. $54,169.00 is allocated. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 93 of 137 Regular monitoring and evaluations will be done by Administrators, the Literacy Coach, and the SPED Coordinator. Student projects will be displayed and graded at the end of the semester by their instructors according to the standardized state rubric for writing. The Literacy Coach, James Horton, will monitor the students’ mastery of the specific CLEs required to score at least proficient on the Gateway English 10 exam and analyze the data. Ms. Smith will keep a log of the parents who are in attendance and the materials provided to the parents and compare this to parent awareness. Language arts teachers will keep minutes of team meetings. Student performance data will be used to determine effectiveness of teaching. SPIs will be included on daily lesson plans, and SPI charts will be posted in all content area classrooms. 85% of the students will score proficient or above on the English 10 End of Course Exam. 100% of the English 10 students will complete a required a project. 85% of the students will score proficient or above on the English 10 End of Course Exam. 100% of the parents will be knowledgeable of the available support services. 85% of the students will score proficient or above on the English 10 End of Course Exam. 85% of the students will score proficient or above on the English 10 End of Course Exam. Educators, TBA Grant funds will be utilized to increase use of technology for instruction and assessment to increase student achievement in English as stated by the redesign grant. September 2010 through May 2013 Action Step Action Step Action Step Action Step Action Step Action Step Kingsbury will enhance our World Languages program to include mentoring and training around career opportunities in the field of world languages as stated by the redesign grant. The laboratories for both the languages and the sciences will increase inquiry based, hands on experiences for students, allowing to them apply their learning to real world situations as stated by the redesign grant. An additional ESL teacher has been added to the staff to increase academic performance for the ELL students. An activity bus will be provided for those students who do not have transportation home after tutoring. Students will be tested to strategically design additional tiered classrooms that will address the reading and language arts deficiencies for students in grades 9 and 10. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process September 2010 through May 2013 August 2010 through May 2013 October 2010 through May 2013 October 2010-May 2013 October 2010-May 2013 Gabriela Toro, Assistant Principal, Unika Felton, Technology Coordinator, James Horton, Literacy Coach Gabriela Toro, Assistant Principal, World Language teachers, James HortonLiteracy Coach. Gabriela Toro, Assistant Principal, World Language teachers, Science teachers, James HortonLiteracy Coach. Carlos Fuller, Principal 8 eBeam Complete USB Interactive Whiteboards,8 cases of eBeam Respond RF Keypads (32 per case),4 Graphire 6x8 Bluetooth Tablets, 60 Texas Instrument 84 Calculators, 60-12 packs of batteries, 2 Laptop Computers, 3 Sanyo PDG-DSU Projectors World Language Lab $30,000.00 per year funded by Redesign Grant. $30,000.00 funded by the Redesign Grant. Academic Coaches will monitor the teachers’ utilization of technology and analyze the changes in their instruction. Lab technician will monitor the usage and scheduling of the lab by using sign-in sheets. 85% of the students will score proficient or above on the English 10 End of Course Exam. 100% of students enrolled in World Language will be proficient in the technology use of the language lab. Students will use the lab at least once at week World Language lab and Science Lab. $40,000.00 funded by the Redesign Grant. Lab technician will monitor the usage and scheduling of the lab by using sign-in sheets. 100% of students enrolled in World Language and science will be proficient in the technology use of the language lab. Students will use the lab at least once at week Classroom, ESL instructional resources Salary will be funded through Memphis City Schools Formal Observations, lesson planning, instruction Carlos Fuller, Principal Durham Bus Services Funds will be provided through the SIG grant. Sign In Sheets Reading/Langu age Arts Teachers New district initiative Funds will be provided by the district to pay for additional teachers Formal Observations, lesson planning, team meetings Page 94 of 137 85 % of the students will score proficient or above on the English 10 End of Course 85 % of the students will score proficient or above on the English 10 End of Course 85 % of the students will score proficient or above on the English 10 End of Course GOAL 3 – Action Plan Development 4.1 – (Rubric Indicator 4.1) 2010_________ Revised DATE: __September 30, Section A –Describe your goal and identify which need(s) it addresses. (Remember that your previous components identified the strengths and challenges/needs.) Goal 3 is to increase the student graduation rate from fifty-seven point eight percent (57.8%) 2007-2008 to seventy-one point two percent (71.2%) by May 2010. The 2008-2009 goal target equals the Title I AYP Graduation Rate benchmark of 71.2% for Goal 2008-2009 which is AYP Graduation Rate used for the school year 2009-2010. Which need(s) does this Goal address? How is this Goal linked to the system’s Five-Year Plan? ACTION STEPS – 4.2 – (Rubric Indicator 4.2) Section B – Descriptively list the action you plan to take to ensure you will be able to progress toward your goal. Action steps are strategies and interventions which should be scientifically based where possible and include professional development, technology, communication, and parent and community involvement initiatives within the action steps of each goal. Course Recovery designed to allow students who have failed core classes to make them up in the PLATO lab after school. Action Step Action Step Action Step Seniors will visit college fairs and recruiters and military representatives will come to visit the school. The Graduation Coach is responsible for collecting data to aid in identifying and focusing on at risk students, especially potential 2010 graduates. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process This goal addresses the requirement of meeting graduation rate for Adequate Yearly Progress for the Title I requirements. Goal 3 will move Kingsbury High School closer to Memphis City Schools’ student achievement goal by accelerating the academic performance of all students. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN – 4.3 – (Rubric Indicator 4.3) Section C – For each of the Action Steps you list, give timeline, person(s) responsible, projected cost(s)/required resources, funding sources, evaluation strategy and performance results/outcomes. (For Evaluation Strategy, define how you will evaluate the action step.) Person(s) Responsible Required Resources Begins in September and is self paced by the student requiring at least 4 hours per week. Visits will begin in the fall and continue through the spring Shonyelle Tate, INSTRUCTION AL FACILITATOR Course Recovery Staff, Plato lab, Plato software The senior counselor, Ms. Tamara Bradshaw Transportation August 2010 through May 2013 Stephanie Smith, Graduation Coach Graduation Coach Timeline Projected Cost(s) & Funding Sources Evaluation Strategy Staffing cost is $20 per hour that is being paid by Student Engagement office of Memphis City School. Mrs. Tate will collect and analyze consistent progress reports printed in PLATO as well as a final summary award earned credit. The only cost is transportation, which is covered by the district, school and parents. A record of the colleges and applications that students submit and the responses and scholarship offers they receive from the schools will be compared. The Graduation Coach will monitor and analyze the students’ progress toward graduation. The additional position was funded using district funds. The amount allocated is $57,957.00. Page 95 of 137 Performance Results / Outcomes 74.9% of students will graduate. 74.9 of students will graduate 74.9% of students will graduate Action Step Action Step Action Step Action Step Action Step Action Step The 9th grade Academy will have a summer transition program for staff and incoming students and monthly programs aiming to prevent drop-outs as stated by the redesign grant. August 2010 through May 2013 The materials needed to present the programs. $16,500.00 funded by Redesign Grant. January 2011 through March 2013 Shenar Miller, Assistant Principal, Grant Coordinator Michelle Adair, 9th grade School Counselor Tamara Bradshaw, 12th grade School Counselor Certified letters will be mailed to the parents of seniors who have not scored proficient on the required Gateway Exams to explain to the parents the available programs to assist students in completing graduation requirements. Gateway data spreadsheets from Research, Evaluation and Assessment; senior transcripts; report cards, Intervention progress reports, stationery and stamps. Certified letters will be mailed to the parents of seniors who have not successfully completed the requirements for Course Recovery classes to explain to the parents the available programs to assist the student in completing graduation requirements. January 2011 through March 2013 Stephanie Smith, Graduation Coach Course Recovery status reports; senior transcripts and report cards, stationery and stamps. An external PBIS coach who will be responsible for monitoring student behavior and aiding teachers. August 2010 through May 2011 August 2010 through May 2013 Melinda Callahan PBIS Coach Parent Counselor Parent Counselor September 2010 through May 2013 Shonyelle Tate, INSTRUCTION AL FACILITATOR, Grant Coordinator, Grant specified Title I funds will cover the cost of mailing letter which varies based on number of identified students. Average cost for postage/return receipt is $3.00 per letter. Total price $3183 Title I funds will cover the cost of mailing letter which varies based on number of identified students. Average cost for postage/return receipt is $3.00 per letter. Total Price $3183 The cost of the PBIS coach is funded by MCS Schools. The cost of the Parent Counselor is funded by Title I funds. $500,000.00 for 3 years funded by Redesign Grant. A Parent Counselor who will be responsible for working with students and their families to increase school involvement, attendance and performance. Grant funds will be used to specifically update and improve lab facilities, including new software and technology, fund a technician position, provide equipment and professional development for faculty, and create new student programs and services to support the overall redesign as well as Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 96 of 137 Shenar Miller, Assistant Principal, Grant Coordinator, and Michelle Adair, 9th grade School Counselor, will monitor and compare the students’ progress towards passing their courses and meeting graduation goals. Tamara Bradshaw, 12th grade School Counselor, will monitor and analyze the students’ progress towards meeting graduation requirements. 74.9% of students will graduate Stephanie Smith will monitor and analyze the students’ progress towards meeting graduation requirements 74.9% of students will graduate The PBIS coach will monitor the students’ behavior. The Parent Counselor will work with students and their families. 74.9% of students will graduate Ms. Tate will provide professional development sessions. All students and teachers will be proficient in the use of the labs, software, and technology. Lab technician will monitor All teachers will attend 74.9% of students will graduate 74.9% of students will graduate Carlos Fuller, Principal improve student engagement, leading to higher attendance rates and fewer dropouts. Action Step Action Step Action Step The graduation team will host a community partners meeting twice a semester to coordinate resources for mentoring students, to provide a positive culture and climate in the school, to decide on student interventions, and to target students who are at-risk of not graduating. Graduation team will meet every 20 days to discuss attendance, progress reports, students withdrawing, interventions, Gateway status, ect. Teachers will participate in various professional development activities:such as gender equity, striving schools conference, Counselors solving problems, ect. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process the usage and scheduling of the lab by using sign-in sheets. professional development sessions offered to enhance student learning through practical application. 74.9% of students will graduate September 2010 through May 2013 Graduation Team Graduation coach and team members, paper, ink, refreshments Title I funds will be allocated to support these meetings. Total Price: $1000 District personnel will monitor the schedule of the graduation coach. September 2010 through May 2013 August 2010-May 2020 Stephanie Smith, Graduation Coach Leadership Team, Instructional Staff Paper, pens, ink, Title I funds will be allocated to support these meetings. Total Price: $500 Title I Funds: $26,472.82 Progress will be updated for Compstat report outs. 74.9% of students will graduate Instructional planning, team meatings 74.9% of students will graduate Conferences, Registration, Travel, Food, Lodging, Professional Books Page 97 of 137 COMPONENT 5 The School Improvement Plan and Process Evaluation Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 98 of 137 ********Component 5 – The School Improvement Plan and Process Evaluation TEMPLATE 5.1: Process Evaluation The following summary questions are related to Process. They are designed as a culminating activity for you to analyze the process used to develop the school improvement plan. TEMPLATE 5.1: Process Evaluation (Rubric Indicator 5.1) Evidence of Collaborative Process – Narrative response required What evidence do we have that shows that a collaborative process was used throughout the entire planning process? Kingsbury uses a variety of ways to ensure that all stakeholders are involved in the planning and implementation of the school improvement plan. Weekly faculty meetings allow for the entire faculty to have input in the issues and decisions that determine how data will be obtained and how it will be used. Additionally, each member of the faculty served on a committee that wrote one of the components of the plan. Several components required input from the entire faculty and other stakeholder in the form of votes or surveys. The Principal’s advisory committee was also instrumental in helping drive the decisions that helped shape the school improvement plan. Evidence of Alignment of Data and Goals – Narrative response required What evidence do we have that proves alignment between our data and our goals? The evidence we have that proves alignment between our data and our goals is that our goals are measured and reinforced through the following on-going assessments and activities: -Tutoring (Volunteers and paid tutors on Saturday along with Math teachers provide individual tutoring in classrooms before and after school). -Ed Tech Lab – “Howe-Two”, Stanford Math, Think Link Learning, Reading 180, Failure Free Reading -Course Recovery -Saturday Academy -ESL Academic Intervention class -common assessments -mock assessments -ACT Prep -Tutorial Classes -End of Course Assessments -Discovery Education Assessments -Writing Assessments Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 99 of 137 Evidence of Communication with All Stakeholders – Narrative response required What evidence do we have of our communication of the TSIPP to all stakeholders? An effective communication plan for all stakeholders is very important for the successful implementation of the School Improvement Plan. Through the MCS Website, timely updates will be posted detailing the success of goals detailed in Kingsbury High School Improvement Plan. Documents mailed to the students ‘homes will allow all stakeholders to provide feedback regarding the successes/weaknesses of the goals described in the School Improvement Plan. Stakeholders can also provide feedback via PowerTeacher and/or the students’ email accounts. The stakeholders will continue to measure gains and needs at the monthly Leadership Council debriefing activities throughout the 2010-2011 academic year. Teachers will be monitoring and adjusting the testing instruments to ensure that students master the required performance indicators for learning after each scheduled testing and at the end of each grading period. The team will update or modify the plan as needed to generate an advantageous School Improvement Plan. The documentation of debriefing activities results will be distributed to all stakeholders via parent, community and faculty meeting. Communication of the plan and its amendments will be communicated to stakeholder through the following venues: Computers and email accounts for all teachers Email parent database to facilitate electronic parent contacts Classroom phones to facilitate electronic parent contacts ParentLink phone system Teacher collegiality Student newspaper/newsletter to parents Signs throughout the school reflecting the vision, mission, and progress towards the goals communicated in several languages Parent logs Report cards Progress reports and Deficiency notices Star reports Title I Parent Meetings Falcon Flight Academy Parent Meetings Faculty in service/staff development Info- Handler from the Division of Exceptional Children providing benchmarks to review and update every nine week period Annual reviews of progress made by special needs students towards satisfying their individualized Educational Plans, with additional meeting and testing, when appropriate, to determine alternative options for qualifying special education students English Language Leaners – translators School Improvement Plan updates furnished to community and local political leaders Clear, prompt, and effective communication of concerns and results should increase stakeholder participation, ownership, and responsibility. We must realize that as a team – teacher, administrators, staff, parents, students, community members, and community leaders – we are responsible for the success of this plan and ultimately the students’ success. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 100 of 137 Evidence of Alignment of Beliefs, Shared Vision, and Mission with Goals – Narrative response required What evidence do we have that shows our beliefs, shared vision and mission in Component 2 align with our goals in Component 4? The process of aligning the beliefs, shared vision and mission with goals for Kingsbury High School will begin with the initial implementation of the TSIPP and continues throughout the school year. Teachers will be monitoring and adjusting the testing instruments and mastered student performance indicators (SPI’s) through created graphs and charts with data compared to goals after each required testing and at the end of each grading period. Evidence of an ongoing collaborative process includes the following: Agendas minutes Faculty meetings discussing TSIPP Online surveys Leadership Team Meetings Title I meetings Parent conferences AYP school report cards Subcommittees 2 and 4 include the following: Debriefing reflections End of the year instruments Vision, mission & goals are posted throughout school Documents mailed to the students’ homes will allow all stakeholders to provide feedback regarding the strengths/needs of the action steps and goals detailed in the School Improvement Plan. Stakeholders can also provide feedback via Teacher Ease and/or the students’ email accounts. The stakeholders will continue to measure gains and needs at quarterly School Improvement Leadership Team monitoring activities throughout the 2010-2011 academic year. The Kingsbury High School plan for adjusting/improving our SIP process includes the debriefing reflections by School Improvement Leadership Team and TSIPP committee members, as well as the Endof-Year instrument mailed to stakeholders. The reflections and end-of-year evaluation instruments will include sections with Likert scale opinion statements regarding the evaluation process. A separate section will be provided for comments and suggestions to improve the process. Evidence of Alignment of Action Steps with Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Organization – Narrative response required What evidence do we have that shows our action steps in Component 4 align with our analyses of the areas of curriculum, instruction, assessment and organization in Component 3? Due to the wide variety of cultures, languages, and ability levels represented in the student population, Kingsbury has made adaptations to meet all the students’ needs. Kingsbury has established many programs to reach a diversified student population. Therefore, Kingsbury uses a variety of strategies and interventions that are scientifically based that are align in the areas of curriculum, instruction, assessment and organization in order to improve the thinking process of students. The following evidence show Kingsbury is providing exemplary support for faculty and staff. Provide mathematics tutoring four (4) afternoons a week from 3:30-4:30 P.M. Stanford Math program Think Link formative assessment Professional development on teaching strategies being utilized through Thinking Maps. Posted student work Lesson plans Student schedules Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 101 of 137 Evidence of Alignment of Action Steps with Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Organization – Narrative response required Calculator sign outs Suggestions for the Process – Narrative response required What suggestions do we have for improving our planning process? The School Improvement Leadership and the data Results Team will development of an instrument for evaluation of the TSIPP experience for all stakeholders. This instrument will be mailed and/or distributed to all stakeholders via parent and faculty meetings or randomly sampled stakeholders with return addressed envelopes. Data collected from this debriefing instrument will be presented at the organization of the next year’s School Improvement Leadership Team for use in planning the construction, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the current year plan. Debriefing activities will include written individual reflections by all TSIPP committee members. These reflections will be completed and shared at the End-of-Year Review. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 102 of 137 TEMPLATE 5.2: Implementation Evaluation The following summary questions are related to TSIPP Implementation. They are designed as a culminating activity for you to plan the monitoring process that will ensure that the action steps from Component 4 are implemented. TEMPLATE 5.2: Implementation Evaluation (Rubric Indicator 5.2) Evidence of Implementation – Narrative response required What is our plan to begin implementation of the action steps? The Kingsbury High School plan for implementing the evaluation of the TSIPP includes formative assessments to determine the effectiveness of the plan. Evaluation of the process begins with the initial implementation of the SIP and continues throughout the school year. Formative assessments include feedback from stakeholders meetings, parent conferences, surveys, and Title I meetings. Stakeholders will be encouraged to offer input on the evaluation of the SIP process. Assessment Instrument Pre-Determined Intervals for Assessment First Event: Aug 23-26, 2010 Second Event: Sept 20-23, 2010 Writing Formative Assessment: October 5, 2010 Third Event: October 1829,2010 Thinklink tests will be given in core content classes. Fourth Event November 1519, 2010 Data Analysis Procedures Used Teachers will meet in content area teams to share test results weekly. They will analyze results on the class and department level, and make comparisons within the department and school district. Reports of findings will be presented to the KHS Results Team. Results will be shared with Striving Schools Supervisor for analysis at the District level. Long-Term Comparison Plan The Results Team will meet after each testing session to compare data with prior years’ results at the school and district level. Teachers will compare their classes’ data with prior years’ results, and as content area teams will perform comparisons of current and prior years’ data. Data will be kept by the Campus Assessment Coordinator for three-year studies. Teachers will be responsible for analyzing their own progress report data. They will disaggregate the data at the class level and analyze grade distribution to determine strengths and weaknesses in their lesson Teachers will meet in content area team data meetings to analyze progress reports results and plan instruction. At the Team level, results will be compared with each nineweeks of the year to adjust Writing Formative Assessment: November 17, 2010 Fifth Event: January 24-28, 2011 Sixth Event: February 14-17, 2011 Progress Reports Seventh Event: March 28April 1, 2011 Progress Reports will be printed from Chancery SMS twice during each nine weeks: September 15, 2010 November 17, 2010 February 9, 2011 Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 103 of 137 Report Cards Six-Weeks and Semester Exam April 27, 2011 plans and instruction. Report Cards will be issued at the end of each nine weeks: Teachers will be responsible for analyzing their own report card data. They will disaggregate the data at the class level and analyze grade distribution to determine strengths and weaknesses in their lesson plans and instruction. They will meet in content teams to share/analyze data with the support of the Academic Coaches. The results of these meetings will be brought to the Results Team each nine weeks. Teachers will grade and analyze results nine weeks and adjust instruction accordingly October 20, 2010 January 12, 2011 March 30, 2011 Final Report Card mailed during last week of May 2010. Nine weeks exams will be given the last week of each nine weeks. October 16, 2010 Counselors will review and analyze the PSAT results and share this information with the Results Team. Weekly standardized assessments on computer software program. READ 180 teacher will analyze weekly progress reports generated by software program to differentiate instruction. PSAT READ 180 Life Centered Career Education for Exceptional Children September 2010– April 2011 SPED Coordinator, George Falls and SPED teachers analyze test results to determine best placement for students and appropriate curriculums. the instructional timeline as needed. The Results Team will be responsible for analyzing overall report card data and making comparisons with past nine-weeks and prior years. The results of this analysis will be used to identify strengths and needs in curriculum and instruction to promote year-end proficiency for all students. The Professional Development Coach will collect graded exams and compile data for long term comparisons by the Results Team. The Results Team will make long-term comparisons covering at least a two-year period and report findings to stakeholders. READ 180 teachers meet at the District level to share school-based results and make long-term comparisons at the school and district level. SPED Coordinator, George Falls is responsible for monitoring IEP folders completed by teachers. These folders contain accumulated test results that will be used for comparison of student progress throughout high school years. English Language Diagnostic Assessment April 2010 Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 104 of 137 Evidence of the Use of Data – Narrative response required What is the plan for the use of data? Data analysis procedures will consist of the School Leadership Council reviewing the School Improvement Plan during bimonthly meetings for the next school year, and by working with Partners In Education and community leaders to enlist speakers, volunteers, tutors, etc., to support the School Improvement Plan goals. The Academic Coaches and Department Chairs will continue to assist each academic department when analyzing data from assessment instruments. Each component will meet once after the completion of each grading period and after receiving the results from mandated tests to review the data and determine any necessary modifications to the action plans. Each department chairperson will then report all recommendations with relevant data to the School Improvement Plan coordinator. The School Improvement Plan coordinator will distribute the recommendations and appropriate data to the department chair and deans who will then meet with stakeholders to discuss ways to implement appropriate modifications to the action plans. Core subject departmental meetings will also be conducted monthly to discuss strategies that can be used to address the needs of the students as they pertain to each subject, the goals, objectives and action steps in the School Improvement Plan. TEMPLATE 5.3: Monitoring and Adjusting Evaluation The following summary questions are related to TSIPP Monitoring and Adjusting. They are designed as a culminating activity for the school to plan the monitoring process that will ensure that the school improvement plan leads to effectively supporting and building capacity for improved student achievement for all students. TEMPLATE 5.3: Monitoring and Adjusting Evaluation (Rubric Indicator 5.3) Evidence of Monitoring Dates – Narrative response required What are the calendar dates (Nov/Dec and May/June) when the School Leadership Team will meet to sustain the Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process? Identify the person(s) responsible for monitoring and the role they will play in the monitoring process. The School Leadership Team will meet weekly to insure the goals stated in the TSIPP are being met and that the process is being followed. The Team will meet on the following dates in November/December and May/June November 3, 2010 November 10, 2010 November 17, 2010 November 24, 2010 December 1, 2010 December 8, 2010 December 15, 2010 May 4, 2011 May 11, 2011 May 18, 2011 May 25, 2011 June 1, 2011 June 8, 2011 The Team will be led by Carlos Fuller, Principal of Kingsbury High School. Mr. Fuller’s role will be to set the agenda for the meetings, hear reports from each of the departments and stakeholders represented, and help guide the Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 105 of 137 discussions to find ways to improve the planning process wherever possible. Evidence of a Process for Monitoring Plan – Narrative response required What will be the process that the School Leadership Team will use to review the analysis of the data from the assessments and determine if adjustments need to be made in our plan? Several different summative assessments will given to obtain the data needed to determine what changes need to made in the school improvement plan. Summative assessments include the debriefing reflections by School Improvement Leadership Team and TSIPP committee members, as well as the End-of-Year instrument mailed to stakeholders. The reflections and end-of-year evaluation instruments will include sections with Likert scale opinion statements regarding the evaluation process. A separate section will be provided for comments and suggestions to improve the process. Communication of Data Analysis Long-Term Assessment Instrument Goal Attainment Procedures Used Comparison Plan to Stakeholders TCAP Writing Assessment Summative assessment Summative assessment All stakeholders participate February 1, 2011 results are communicated to results are analyzed by in the long-term comparison all stakeholders, starting at designated individuals and of summative assessment the student level and ending teams within two weeks of data. As test results become with the presentation to the data becoming available. available, the School stakeholders at annual Improvement Leadership meetings. Procedure: Team conducts long-term comparisons of data to Procedure: Individual teachers analyze identify trends and plan for their own students’ test improvement. Counselors will meet with results. students and parents to To increase potential share results. Teachers meet in content effectiveness, long-term area team data meetings to comparisons will be made Teachers are provided test analyze results for the over a three-year time span results and pertinent data for department. to track completion of goals making comparisons in team and to assist in determining meetings and at faculty Department chairpersons which goals remain and professional development provide Academic which goals will be revised. sessions. Counselors with summaries of data analysis findings. The Academic Coaches will meet with content area Academic Coaches review Procedure: teachers in team data teacher team analyses, and meetings to analyze results. provide guidance and The Results Team presents support. summative assessment data Academic Coaches will findings to the School provide summaries to the Academic Coaches report Improvement Leadership Results Team who will report findings to the Results Team. to the Striving Schools Team. The Results Team reviews the teacher findings The School Improvement Academic Superintendent. and analyzes the findings at Leadership Team makes Summary results will be the school level. data presentations to Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 106 of 137 presented to stakeholders at annual meetings. The Results Team reports their findings to the Striving Schools Academic Superintendent. stakeholders at annual meetings. The current data is compared at the school, district, state, and national level, taking into consideration prior years’ results when available. Data is presented in a visual format with easily understood graphs and charts, as well as in narrative format. Gateway Algebra 1 Exam October 6, 2010 December 6-17, 2010 Feb. 28-March 11, 2011 May 2-20, 2011 July 11-22,2011 End of Course Algebra 1 Exam May 3, 2011 Gateway English II Exam October 7, 2010 December 6-17, 2010 Feb. 28-March 11, 2011 May 2-20, 2011 July 11-22,2011 End of Course English II Exam May 5, 2011 Gateway Biology Exam October 7, 2010 December 6-17, 2010 Feb. 28-March 11, 2011 May 2-20, 2011 July 11-22,2011 End of Course Biology Exam May 5, 2011 End of Course English I May 11, 2011 End of Course Algebra II May 12, 2011 End of Course U.S. History May 10, 2011 Advanced Placement Biology Exam, May 9, 2011 Advanced Placement U. S. History Exam, May 6, 2011 Advanced Placement English Language Exam May 11, 2011 Advanced Placement English Literature Exam May 5, 2011 Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 107 of 137 Advanced Placement Art Exam May 3, 2011 Advanced Placement Statistics Exam May11, 2011 Advanced Placement Calculus May 4, 2011 Advanced Placement Psychology Exam May 2, 2010 Portfolios for Exceptional Children April 2010 Semester exams are: Semester Exams Semester 1: December 1616, 2010 Semester 2: May 18-20, 2011. Semester exams will be used to monitor mastery of all objectives for the given semester. Teacher content teams will share exam results with Academic Coaches and the Results Team. The Professional Development Coach will collect graded exams and compile data for long term comparisons by the Results Team. ACT: September 11, 2010 October 23, 2010 December 11, 2010 February 12, 2011 March 8, 2011 April 9, 2011 June 11, 2011 The continual plan of monitoring and adjusting data collection and analysis will lay the foundation for the 20102011 documentation of gains and goals for Kingsbury High School. The creation of the School Improvement Plan is a continual yearly process of self-examination by all stakeholders to assess and improve the educational effectiveness at Kingsbury High School. The evaluation of the School Improvement Plan is a continuous extension of the action plan. The current year School Improvement Leadership Team will meet specifically to evaluate the TSIPP. Proposals for adjustments to the TSIPP will be recorded and presented at the annual stakeholder’s meeting and the TITLE I Title I meetings. The following five (5) year timeline has been developed to allow for monitoring, analyzing and evaluating the progress of the future educational growth of the students attending Kingsbury High School: September 9, 2010—Beginning of the Year Review January 13, 2011—Interim Review May 12, 2011—End-of-Year Review September 9, 2011—Beginning of the Year Review January 13, 2012—Interim Review May 12, 2012—End-of-Year Review September 8, 2012—Beginning of the Year Review Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 108 of 137 January 13, 2013—Interim Review May 11, 2013—End-of-Year Review September 7, 2013—Beginning of the Year Review January 12, 2014—Interim Review May 11, 2014—End-of-Year Review Debriefing activities The documentation of debriefing activities results will be distributed to all stakeholders via parent and faculty meetings. Debriefing activities will include written individual reflections by all TSIPP committee members. These reflections will be completed and shared at the End-of-Year Review. The data Results Team will assist the School Improvement Leadership Team in the development of an instrument for evaluation of the TSIPP experience for all stakeholders. This instrument will be mailed with return addressed envelopes to a random sample of stakeholders. Data collected from this debriefing instrument will be presented at the organization of the next year’s School Improvement Leadership Team for use in planning the construction, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the current year plan. Evidence of a Process for Adjusting Plan – Narrative response required What will be the process that the School Leadership Team will use for adjusting our plan (person(s) responsible, timeline, actions steps, resources, evaluation strategies) when needed? Individual teacher input regarding the effectiveness of the formative assessment instrument is vital for the successful attainment of the school improvement goals. Monthly grade-level and departmental meetings will be utilized to monitor, evaluate, and adjust the assessment instruments used to draw conclusions regarding the overall impact of the School Improvement Plan goals. Nine-week formative assessment reports will be utilized to evaluate the program’s effectiveness. Mock Gateway Exams and TCAP writing assessments will be used to monitor progress and target students for interventions. An end-of-the-year meeting in April 2011 will be utilized to evaluate assessment instruments used to draw conclusions about the overall impact of the School Improvement Plan goals and establish long-term comparisons of available data and programs. Meetings will conclude when decisions have been made to retain, alter, implement, or eliminate each event or program, and the recommendation of each evaluation assessment instrument is completed for presentation to the next level of evaluation in May 2011. The School Improvement Plan Leadership Team will meet that month to analyze staff evaluation of assessment instruments and available data to determine if the goals stated in the School Improvement Plan were attained. Communications will be made in the appropriate home language of the students. The preliminary meeting will also be the basis of the planning for the 2011-2012 academic year and School Improvement Plan. Since all statistics needed to complete the data analysis will not be available at this time, the School Improvement Plan Leadership team will also meet during July 2011 to continue the assessment process for presentation to the staff during the August in-service week. The assessment instruments used through the 2010-2011 school year will be utilized to analyze the plan in order to outline the programs and events for the 2011-2012 school year. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 109 of 137 Evidence of a Plan for Communicating to All Stakeholders – Narrative response required How will the School Leadership Team communicate success/adjustments of the plan to stakeholders and solicit ongoing input from stakeholders? At the end of the second nine weeks of the 2010-2011 academic year, a survey will be distributed and collected from a sampling of stakeholders to identify perceived strengths and weaknesses in the organizational structure of Kingsbury High School. Administrators, department chairpersons, Instructional Facilitator, Title I Facilitator, Exemplary Educator, and School Leadership Council will create, distribute, and analyze the survey. Meetings will conclude when decisions have been made to retain, alter, implement, or eliminate each event, program, or recommendation. To maximize potential effectiveness, long-term comparisons will be made over a three-year time span to track completion of goals and to assist in determining which goals remain and/ or will be adapted. Communication of the plan and its amendments will be communicated to stakeholder through the following venues: Kingsbury High School web page Computers and e-mail accounts for all teachers Power Teacher online grading program Parent Link phone system E-mail parent database to facilitate electronic parent contacts Classroom phones to facilitate parent contacts Teacher collegiality Student newspaper/newsletter to parents Signs throughout the school reflecting the vision, mission, and progress towards goals communicated in several languages Title I Parent Meetings Falcon Flight Academy Parent Meetings Faculty in-service/staff development Progress notices/academic reports are distributed to all students for all classes after the fourth (4th) and seventh (7th) week of each grading period Info-Handler from the Division of Exceptional Children providing benchmarks to review and update every six weeks Annual reviews of progress made by special needs students towards satisfying their Individualized Educational Plans, with additional meetings and testing, when appropriate, to determine alternative options for qualifying special education students English Language Learners – translators School Improvement Plan updates furnished to community and local political leaders Clear, prompt, and effective communication of concerns and results should increase stakeholder participation, ownership, and responsibility. We must realize that as a team – teachers, administrators, staff, parents, students, community members, and community leaders – we are responsible for the success of this plan and ultimately the students’ success Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 110 of 137 TITLE I ADDENDUM Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 111 of 137 9th Grade Transition Plan Counselor visits feeder schools to discuss graduation requirements and high school expectations (March) Students from feeder schools are allowed to tour Kingsbury High School--assisted by 8th grade counselor from their middle school (March) Counselor completes schedule requests for incoming 9th graders (April) Counselor holds 9th grade orientation for students and parents (August) Students are platooned in the 9th grade academy to aid in transitioning to the high school environment Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 112 of 137 Inform students about and encourage them to participate in summer programs focused on college and career preparation. Assist students in the application processes. (Trio, Memphis Prep, Governors School, Summer Youth Employment) Evaluate transcripts to ensure on-time graduation. Register students for e-school or course recovery when appropriate. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process X Assist Students with the Financial Aid and Schola. App. Process X Assist students with the College & Tech. School App. Process Assist students with College and Career Awareness Action Step Prepare Students Academically For College Readiness KINGSBURY HIGH SCHOOL 2010 - 2011 School to College or Work Transition Plan X Page 113 of 137 Review the Ed Plans for the ninth grade students. Administer the KUDER assessment to students and give orientation on the website. The Graduation Coach is available to offer resources and support for our at-risk students. Schedule times for students to meeting with college recruiters. Have sign-up sheets available in the counseling office. Hold senior assemblies to disseminate information and answer questions. Organize a college & scholarship night for students and parents. (Speakers included Trio and EdSouth Representatives) The Girls Inc. advisor is available in the counseling office three days a week to assist students in the exploration of careers, colleges, and financial aid options. The Girls Inc. Advisor recruits students for summer TRO programs as well as the all-stars college prep program. The Girls Inc. Advisor does classroom presentations in 11th and 12th grade classes on college and scholarship searches and application processes. The Girl’s Inc. Advisor is available to assist students and parents in the FAFSA application process. Take the Seniors to the MCS Fall College Fair. Take the Juniors to the MCS Spring College Fair. Organize a College Application Party for the Seniors. Provide guidance in completing applications and requesting transcripts. Be available to consult with parents during conference night. Administer the ACT Plan and PSAT to 10th Grade. Review the ACT Plan and PSAT with the 10th Grade. Participate in College Application Week. Register the 11th grade and respective faculty in ACTive Prep. Administer the ACT to the 11th Grade. Have ACT registration and prep. materials available in the counseling office and library. Give ACT and college application fee waivers to qualifying students. Implement the Senior Career Portfolio as part of the English grade. *See Attached As a part of the Senior Portfolio- Require seniors to create a resume and show research on at least three careers using the Kuder Career System. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process x X x X X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x x X X x x x x x x x Page 114 of 137 As a part of the Senior Portfolio- Require seniors to maintain a record of their academics including ACT scores. As a part of the Senior Portfolio- Require seniors to show research on at least three schools, write a personal statement, provide to letters from schools verifying that their file is complete and copies of school acceptance letters. As a part of the Senior Portfolio- Require seniors to provide a completed scholarship application, verification of FAFSA application completion, copies of scholarship and financial award letters. Organize a Career Week. Promote College Goal Sunday. Provide college information and applications in the counseling office. Provide financial aid and scholarship information in the counseling office. Encourage qualifying students to participate in Dual Enrollment and assist in the application process. Encourage students to take advanced math and science classes as well as Advanced Placement Classes. Offer ACT tutoring. On the School Website- Provide links to college websites and draft registration website. On the School Website- Provide links to college and scholarship search websites. On the School Website- Provide links to the FAFSA and CollegeTN.org websites. On the School Website- Provide links to ACT and ACTive Prep. Administer a Mock ACT to 11th Grade Administer the My College Options Questionnaire to the 11th Grade Encourage participation in the Explorer Programs through the Boy Scouts of America. Assist students in applying to participate in the UTK and UTC bus trips. Organize a Financial Aid Night for parents and students. Make announcements regarding deadlines and opportunities regarding college and career prep., test prep., scholarships, and financial aid. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Page 115 of 137 Action Steps Training will be provided for all mentors. Kingsbury High School Teacher Mentoring Program 2010-2011 Timeline Required Resources September 2010-May 2011 Mentors and mentees will maintain a professional and collaborative working school environment. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Mentor Training provided by MCS district Person Responsible Mentors Principal Counselor Attend professional development sessions In Service INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITATOR Department Chairpersons Page 116 of 137 Mentors will provide hands –on training(technology, observations, professional development sessions) Curriculum Guides and Nine Week Assessments Academic Coaches Mentors will model standards in order for the new teachers to understand the research based expectations for teaching Academic Intervention Plan for 2010-2011 Kingsbury High School Tutoring Software/Technology Saturday School Algebra I Offered three days a week Fellowship Memphis will do pull-outs during the school day to work with those students who have scored below proficient on the PAS 7 formative assessment English II Offered one day a week Students are scheduled to use Stanford math at least 90 minutes a week; students will also use the Howe Two computer program to target those students who have not mastered the CLEs previously taught. Teachers will use Discovery Education online tool to develop common assessments. This program will give immediate results for future planning and reteaching. Teachers will use eFolio to help with recognizing Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process EdPlan Reports Students will be referred for Zap Saturdays. This time will be allotted for students to make up missed assignments and take advantage of on-site tutoring Teachers will notify parents of their students’ deficiencies of CLEs and recommend before, during, and after school interventions. Students will be referred for Teachers will notify parents Page 117 of 137 Biology Fellowship Memphis will do pull-outs during the school day to work with those students who have scored below proficient on the PAS 7 formative assessment Offered two days a week. Fellowship Memphis will do pull-outs during the school day to work with those students who have scored below proficient on the PAS 7 formative assessment strengths and weaknesses in writing essays. This online tool is also designed to give teachers and students immediate feedback. Teachers will use Discovery Education online tool to develop common assessments. This program will give immediate results for future planning and reteaching. Teachers will use Discovery Education online tool to develop common assessments. This program will give immediate results for future planning and reteaching. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Zap Saturdays. This time will be allotted for students to make up missed assignments and take advantage of on-site tutoring of their students’ deficiencies of CLEs and recommend before, during, and after school interventions. Students will be referred for Zap Saturdays. This time will be allotted for students to make up missed assignments and take advantage of on-site tutoring Teachers will notify parents of their students’ deficiencies of CLEs and recommend before, during, and after school interventions. Page 118 of 137 Strategies to Attract High Quality, Highly Qualified Teachers Support uncertified personnel gain certification Establish collaborative with colleges and universities Provide ongoing professional development Encourage local, state, and national professional development Implement mentoring program Establish networks to build capacity Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 119 of 137 Title I Schoolwide Plan Kingsbury High School 2010-2011 Local State and Federal Programs Title I/TITLE I Raising the Bar Mentoring Program Safe and Drug Free Schools Fight Free School Free and Reduced Lunch Program Fee Waiver Title X--Homeless Title III Special Education Services School Improvement Grant Site Based Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 120 of 137 KINGSBURY HIGH SCHOOL 1270 North Graham Street, Memphis, Tennessee 38122 (901) 416-6060 Carlos Fuller, Principal 2010-2011 STUDENT/TEACHER/PARENT COMPACT Parent/Guardian Agreement: I will support my child’s achievement by doing the following: _____ See that my child is punctual and attends Kingsbury regularly _____ Support Kingsbury in its efforts to maintain proper discipline _____ Establish a time for homework and review it regularly _____ Provide a quiet, well-lighted place for study _____ Encourage my child’s efforts and be available for questions _____ Stay aware of what my child is learning _____ Provide a library card for my child ______________________ _____ Read with my child and let my child see me read Signature Student Agreement: I shall work to the best of my ability to do the following: _____ Attend school regularly _____ Come to school each day with proper learning supplies and materials _____ Complete and return homework assignments _____ Observe regular study hours ______________________ _____ Conform to rules of student conduct and dress code Signature School Responsibilities Teacher Agreement: To enable students to achieve, I shall strive to do the following: _____ Provide engaging classroom instruction and homework _____ Provide authentic assessments and opportunities for extended learning _____ Encourage students and parents by reporting student progress _____ Use proven strategies to address the diverse needs of all students Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 121 of 137 _____ Pursue professional development and collaborate with colleagues ______________________ Signature ______________________ Signature ______________________ Signature ______________________ Signature ______________________ Signature ______________________ Signature Principal: _____ To support this form of parental involvement, I shall strive to do the following: Provide an environment that allows for positive communication between the teacher, parent/guardian, and student _____ Encourage teachers to regularly provide homework that will reinforce classroom instruction. _____ Promote opportunities for parental involvement throughout the year _____ Ensure all instruction and activities are aligned with Kingsbury’s vision and mission statements ______________________ Signature “Every Child. Every Day. College Bound.” Memphis City Schools does not discriminate in its programs or employment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, HIGH handicap/disability, sex or age. For moreKINGSBURY information, please contactSCHOOL the Office of Equity Compliance at (901) 416-6670. 1270 North Graham Street, Memphis, Tennessee 38122 (901) 416-6060 Carlos Fuller, Principal 2010-2011 Contrato entre estudiantes, profesores y padres de KHS ACUERDO ENTRE PADRES Y GUARDIANES Quiero que mi niño se realize. Por lo tanto, yo me comprometo a: _____Vigilaré que mi niño llegue a tiempo y asista a la escuela regularmente. _____Ayudaré a la escuela en sus esfuerzos por mantener la disciplina. _____Estableceré un horario de tareas y lo resenaré regularmente. _____Proveeré un lugar silencioso con suficiente luz para estudiar. _____Animaré los esfuerzos de mi niño y estaré a su disposicion cuando tengan preguntas. _____Me dar niño cuenta de lo que esta aprendiendo mi niño. _____ Preveeré una tarjeta de biblioteca. ________________________ Firma ACUERDO DE LOS ESTUDIANTES Es muy importante que yo trabaje lo major que pueda. Admas, me esforzaré en: _____Asistir a la escuela regularmente. _____Venir a la escuela con boligrafos, lapices, papel y otras herramientas utiles para mi aprendizage. _____Completar y devlover las tareas. _____Mantener un horario para estudiar regularmente. _____Ajustarmé a las reglas de compartamiento. ________________________ Firma ACUERDO DEL PROFESOR Es muy importante que los estudiantes se realicen. Admas, me esforzaré en hacer lo siguente: Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 122 of 137 _____Asignaré tarea a los estudiantes. _____Proveeré ayuda a los padres para que puedan ayudar a sus niños. _____Animaré a los estudiantes y padres informandoles sobre los progresos de los estudiantes. _____Implementaré actividades especiales en la clase para hacer el aprendizage mas divertido. ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ Firma Firma Firma ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ Firma Firma Firma ACUERDO DEL DIRECTOR Yo estoy de acuerdo con la participacion de los padres. Por esta razon, yo intentaré hacer lo siguente: _____Proveeré un ambiente que permita una buena comunication entre el profesor, el padre y los niños. _____Animar niño a los profesores para que provean tareas que ayuden la ensenanza ________________________ Firma “Every Child. Every Day. College Bound.” Memphis City Schools does not discriminate in its programs or employment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, handicap/disability, sex or age. For more information, please contact the Office of Equity Compliance at (901) 416-6670. Kingsbury High School 2010-2011 Family Engagement Plan Kingsbury High School has a special responsibility to our parents and the community to provide opportunities for involvement and shared responsibility which will promote success for all of our students. Kingsbury High School Family Engagement Plan has established the expectations for parent involvement. To ensure that our students participate in the development and implementation of the school’s Targeted Assistance program, Kingsbury High School will do the following: 1. Develop jointly with parents a written school level family engagement plan and parent-school compact showing how parents, school, and students share responsibilities. 2. Disseminate the family engagement plan and parent-school compact to all students, parents, and staff members and acquire all signatures. 3. Convene an annual meeting at flexible times and invite all parents to attend in order to explain the components and requirements of Title 1 program. 4. Provide regular and flexible parent meetings, P.T.S.A. meetings, and “Family Nights” in the areas of Literacy, Math, Science, and Social Studies. 5. Provide parents with timely information about upcoming events and program through the use of weekly newsletters from teachers and monthly school wide school letter. 6. Host an annual “curriculum, assessments, and, expectations and requirements for promotion to the next grade. Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 123 of 137 7. Provide parent involvement opportunities in an organized, ongoing and timely way as they participate in decision-making relating to the education of their children. Parents do so by participating on the school leadership council, in volunteer tutoring program, attending P.T.S.A. meetings and Family Nights, completing evaluation forms and responding surveys. 8. Invite parents to observe the school’s program and visit classrooms. 9. Provide parents information in English and Spanish as required. Parents play an important role in the success of their children. Our parents can fulfill this by: Attending meetings, programs, workshops, and other school activities Participating in school sponsored parent teacher conferences Responding to memos, surveys, and questionnaires expressing ideas and concerns. Serving as a volunteer at the school Ensuring that the child studies at home and completes homework assignments Voicing concerns and providing feedback at parent meetings. 2010 – 2011 Professional Development Plan School: Kingsbury High School Principal: Carlos Fuller PD Budget: $28,000 Date: September 30, 2010 Academic Supt: Kevin McCarthey INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITATOR: Shonyelle Tate Professional Development Plan Overview Based on an extensive review of student data, teacher data and school data, our school identified and prioritized measurable objectives by subgroups as follows: 1. Increase the number of students scoring at least proficient on the End of Course Algebra I exam from 23% in 2009-2010 to 44% in 2010-2011. 2. Increase the number of students scoring at least proficient on the End of Course English Exams and the TCAP Writing Assessment from 30% in 2009-2010 to 61% in 2010-2011. 3. Increase the student graduation from 53.1% in 2008-2009 to 74.9% for 2009-2010 which is AYP Graduation Rate used for the school year 2010-2011. The Professional Development Plan has goals that will provide teachers with the knowledge, skills, attitudes, behaviors and resources to meet our identified objectives: Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 124 of 137 Goal 1: Teachers will disaggregate data from the Discovery Education Formative Assessment to continuously monitor and evaluate student learning and determine re-teach areas. Goal 2: Teachers will assemble in department and interdisciplinary teams to provide consistency in common assessments and lesson plans. Goal 3: All instructors will participate in monthly PLCs to analyze, and discuss readings in specific areas of effective instructional strategies, leadership skills, and personal development. Action Plans The following plans describe our professional learning activities/events, the content, process and context we plan for each, our implementation timeline, expected outcomes, data sources used to evaluate effectiveness and the budget commitment required. Goal 1: Content: What will be learned? Best practices are researched through professional learning communities and collaborative planning sessions that integrate content areas, address specific performance indicators, and guide the implementation of mandated curriculum through the use of best practices. Process: What effective processes will be used? Teachers will be empowered with knowledge by attending conferences and workshops (training model) Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Context: What aspects of our learning environment will support this goal? Results-focused practices that improve the academic focus of the students Page 125 of 137 Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 126 of 137 Professional Learning Activities/Events AYP— Research, Evaluation, and Assessment Presenters/Leaders Implementation Timeline What data sources will you use to evaluate effectiveness? (i.e., teacher data, student data) Expected Outcomes _______ Total PD Budget Balance Mr. Carlos Fuller, Principal Gabriella Toro, Assistant Principal August 3, 2010 Identified areas of improvement in order to make AYP and established a routing for lesson planning by utilizing the MCS Curriculum Guide and state standards. Team Meeting Agendas and Minutes $0 Noha Hady, Math Coach James Horton, Literacy Coach, Assistant Principals and Instructional Facilitator On Going/Weekly Team Building, Analyzing Think link Learning Assessment data, lesson planning Team Meeting Agendas and Minutes; Followup meetings $0 Implementation of the SDIS Child Abuse On Line Training Online Professional Development August 31, 2010 Follow up meetings and observations Stanford Math Noha Hady, Math Coach On Going/Weekly Math Intervention Weekly monitor of the lab; lesson plans Strategic Plan for SIG Julia Callaway, SIG coordinator August 2-6, 2010 Identified key members of the SIP team, establish team purpose, and designate meetings to monitor implementation. Faculty Report Out $0 Shouting Won’t Grow Dendrites The Learning Dr. Marcia Tate September 11, 2010 September 2010 Lesson Plans, Classroom Observations Common planning $6000.00 Shonyelle Tate, Teachers received research-based training on how to use brain compatible strategies in the classroom in lieu of worksheets Monthly mentor and protégé support Instructional Talk—Lesson plans and Standards Analyzing Data and Common Lesson Planning Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 127 of 137 $0 $0 $10,0000.00 Leader: How to Focus School Improvement School Improvement Grant Professional Development Experience #1 School Improvement Grant Professional Development Experience #2 Instructional Facilitator through June 2011 activities, monthly mentor logs, surveys implemented to measure the effectiveness yearly. Julia Callaway August 2010 TBA TBA TBA Dr. Gloria Williams, Grant Coordinator October 2010 TBA TBA TBA Classroom Instruction that Works: Research Strategies SIG Professional Development Experience #3 Inclusion Strategies that Works SIG Professional Development #4 Helping Students Graduate: Tools and Strategies to Prevent School Marzano Institute October 2010 Session will include strategies on how teachers can be more effective with classroom management Common planning and common assessments$600 $6000.00 Dr. Gloria Williams, Grant Coordinator January 2011 TBA TBA TBA Council for Exceptional Children April 2011 Common planning, monthly meetings $3000.00 Dr. Gloria Williams, Grant Coordinator May 2011 Monitor the implementation of SPED action plan to increase graduation and student achievement on a monthly basis TBA TBA TBA Mrs. S. Smith, Graduation Coach S. Tate, Instructional Facilitator October 2010 Teachers will gain insight on strategies to use you for their students in relation to interventions for graduating Common planning $0 Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 128 of 137 Dropouts Goal 2 Content: What will be learned? Unitize assessments and data to identify students’ areas of strengths and weaknesses. Professional Learning Activities/Events Instructional Time— Lesson Design, Thinking Maps, Listening Stations, Multimedia Presentations Discovery Education Formative Assessment Gender Equity Process: What effective processes will be used? Teachers will receive extensive training on how to effectively use the Discovery Education Formative Assessment tool that will allow them to develop common assessments and gather specific data in regards to their students’ performance. Context: What aspects of our learning environment will support this goal? Data driven lessons and assessments. Mr. Carlos Fuller, Principal Shonyelle Tate, INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITATOR, Shenar Miller, Asst. Principal James Horton, Literacy Coach Algebra I, Biology, and English Teachers Ongoing/weekly Review of Instructional strategies that have proven to be effective in student achievement. Lesson Plans, Rubrics __________ Total PD Budget Balance $0 Ongoing Data Reports $0 Shenar Miller, Asst. Principal On Going/Monthly Teachers will be able to develop common assessments and reports to disaggregate student data that will depict strengths and weaknesses for reteaching Effective ways to teach based on gender Lesson Plans $0 Presenters/Leaders Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Implementation Timeline Expected Outcomes What data sources will you use to evaluate effectiveness? (i.e., teacher data, student data) Page 129 of 137 Differentiated Assessment and Grading NTCM Regional Conference The Essential Question: What is Best for the Students? A Collaborative Forum for High Priority Schools Sharing Effective/Promising Practices and Research Stephanie Smith Graduation Coach Shonyelle Tate, INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITATOR Carlos Fuller On Going/Monthly Recognize how preassessment drives instruction; grading practices designed with differentiated instruction; design effective tests that are efficient to grade Common lesson plans and assessments $0 October 2010 Striving Schools Conference October 17-20, 2010 $ Strategies for increasing student achievement and graduation rate Lesson planning, department meetings, parent meetings $1500.00 Goal 3: Content: What will be learned? Ways to effectively use everyone’s strengths in order for everyone on the team to grow professionally. Professional Learning Activities/Events Presenters/Leaders Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Process: What effective processes will be used? Provide mentoring for all new teachers to the building and to the field of education Implementation Timeline Expected Outcomes Context: What aspects of our learning environment will support this goal? Collaborative professional learning communities that identify effective was to work as a team, manage classrooms, and become a believer in all students. What data sources will you use to evaluate effectiveness? (i.e., teacher data, student data) Page 130 of 137 __________ Total PD Budget Balance Framework for Evaluation Gabriella Toro, Ass. Prin. Shonyelle Tate, INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITATOR October 2010/ On Going/Monthly Review of Tennessee Framework Evaluation Process Evaluation Forms, Follow up conversations and meetings $0 National Alliance of Black School Educators Conference Presenters of the conference November 17-20, 2010 Education is a Civil Right: A Blue Print for College and Career Follow-up conversations and meetings $5000 NSTA Area Conference NSTA December 2-4, 2010 Staff presentations, lesson planning, teacher evaluation $5000 Professional Development for Career Academy Leadership Team AP Institute Dr. Gloria Williams, Grant Coordinator June-July 2011 Strengthen and explore strategies that promote student engagement in science TBA TBA TBA Presenters of the conference June-July 2011 New AP teachers will be able develop lessons with rigor Student test results, teacher observations $5000.00 Counselors Solving Problems: Fitting the Pieces Together Tennessee Counselor Association November 20-23, 2010 Observations during advisory meetings with students $1754.32 Harvard Institute “High School Redesign” Presenters of the conference July 18-23, 2011 Sessions will involve strategies for improving counseling techniques with mentoring students Conference is designed to strengthen and build leadership skills Monthly department meetings, yearly academy instruction plans, weekly classroom observations $5000.00 Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 131 of 137 Ten Components of a Title I Schoolwide Program (Highlighted Pages as Requested) Schoolwide Program Component SIP Pages 1. Comprehensive Needs Assessment of the entire school using data analysis of subgroups 27-29 2. Schoolwide Reform Strategies with emphasis on improved achievement of the lowest achieving student 56-57 3. Instruction by Highly Qualified Staff 12-13 4. High Quality and Ongoing Professional Development 123-129 5. Strategies to Attract Highly Qualified Teachers to High Needs Schools 118 6. Increased Parental Involvement 58, 120-122 7. Assistance to Preschool Children from Early Childhood Programs to 111- 114 Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 132 of 137 Elementary Programs 8. Measures to Include teachers in assessment decisions to improve student performance and instructional programs 62, 89, 92, 102-103, 105 9. Provide Timely, Additional Assistance to Students Experiencing Difficulty mastering standards 86-93 10. Coordination and Integration of Federal, State and Local 119 Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 133 of 137 Revised School Improvement Plan (Highlighted Pages as Requested) Revised Components SIP Pages (i) Scientifically based research strategies that will strengthen core academic subjects (ii) Policies and practices concerning the school’s core academic subjects that will help ensure all groups of 64-65, 66-68 students will meet state academic standards (iii) Assurance the school will spend not less than 10% for high quality professional development (iv) How funds will be used in to remove school from improvement status 61-66 Establish specific annual, measurable objectives for continuous and substantial growth 51-52 (v) (vi) How school will provide written notification to parents (vii) Specify responsibilities of the school, including technical assistance Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process 68-72 1. Directly addresses academic achievement 69-70 problem 2. Meets requirements for professional 123 development 3. Affords increased opportunities for 120-121 parent & teacher participation 59-75, 99, 122 132 Page 134 of 137 (viii) Strategies to promote effective parental involvement (ix) Intervention strategies (x) Teacher mentoring program Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process 58, 120-122 116-117 115 Page 135 of 137 Name Check One Title/Position State Sarah Hodges Teresa Broomfield Tommie McCarter Laura Kleiman Beth Kontrim Dylan Smith P. Jackson Jeremy Washington LTC Heyward Joe Patterson Joyce Mitchell Clue Department Innovative Schools BOE MCS OT SPED ESchool MCS Vision MCS IT Army JROTC Dept. of Exceptional Children Dept. of Exceptional Children PBIS ESL Mentoring ESL NE Region NE Region MCS Speech/Path MCS Sped MCS Sped MCS Sped MCS PT Student Support Student Support Compliance Coordinator Executive Director of Accountability ASD Director Jada Askew Striving Schools Danielle Seeman Melinda Callahan Hanna Horch Micah Towns Terri Arnett Lischa Brooks H. Garvy Marion Jones Linda Haynes Ella McNeamen E. Gonzales Cheryl Ross Willliams Barbara Logan Dr. Carolyn Graham Jean Sharpe Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process District x x X X X X X X X X Check One Topic SchoolBased Site Visit Guidance Follow-up Phone Call Email X X x x x Complete IT requests Principal visit SPED department visit X x x x x X X x x SPED department visit x X X X X X X X x x X X X x Counselor/principal visit Mentor meeting with a new teacher x x X X X x X x x x x x OT SPED Department Visit 9th grade academy Meeting with Asst. Principal Therapy for students Monitoring of files Monitoring of files Monitoring of files Principal/Envoy Principal/Envoy TSIPP TSIPP x TSIPP X X X x TSIPP X X X Page 136 of 137 Michellle Adair Academic Coordinator Counselor X TSIPP x Terry Ross Student Support x Principal/Envoy x Kingsbury High School Technical Assistance Report Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process Page 137 of 137 X X
