South Washington County Schools School Improvement Planning LAKE MIDDLE SCHOOL. Woodbury, Minnesota

Transcription

1 South Washington County Schools School Improvement Planning LAKE MIDDLE SCHOOL Woodbury, Minnesota Principal: Ms. Molly Roeske Date Plan Completed: October 1, 2013 SIP Leadership Team Members: Ms. Molly Roeske, Principal Mr. Rich Paisner, Assistant Principal Mr. Roderic VanScoy, Assistant Principal Ms. Kelly McKissock, District Support Network Representative Ms. Ashley Ruka, SITE Lead Mr. Logan Carstensen, Data Assessment Leader Ms. Jan Buikema, Data Assessment Leader Ms. Julie Methven, Student Achievement Specialist

2 Goal #1 related to Student Achievement: The percent of students in grades 6,7 and 8 who meet or exceed proficiency on the 2014 MCA READING assessment, given in April 2014, will increase by 5 from 74.5 to Rationale: The goal reflects an incremental growth increase over three years as it relates to District 833 s strategic plan 1.1 which states Student proficiency for all tested subjects will be at a level 4 or above on the district VisionCards, thus assuring grade transition readiness. In order to progress to level 4 on District 833 s VisionCard in each tested area the percentages were divided in to 3 incremental parts to reach the percentage representing level 4 by the year Level 4 in the area of Reading demonstrates of students assessed achieve proficiency. Lake Middle School s Spring 2013MCA Reading proficiency was Moving from 74.5 to 90 indicates a total increase of 15.5 over 3 years or otherwise described as 5.1 annually. Supporting DATA Goal #1 Reading/Literacy Identify standardized assessment to be used: MCA School Trend Data (Lake Middle School) Identify Assessed Grades: 6-8 District Trend Data (District 833 Middle Schools) District Trend Data for All Grades (All Schools) Measure of student achievement (e.g., percent proficient, index rate, etc.): Number of students tested: 1,145 1,134 1,136 1,131 3,873 3,852 3,898 3,953 8,939 8,998 9,170 9, Goal #2 related to Student Achievement: The percent of students in grades 6, 7, and 8 who meet or exceed proficiency on the 2014 MCA MATH assessment, given in April 2014, will increase by 5 from 77.5 to Rationale: The goal reflects an incremental growth increase over three years as it relates to District 833 s strategic plan 1.1 which states Student proficiency for all tested subjects will be at a level 4 or above on the district VisionCards, thus assuring grade transition readiness. In order to progress to level 4 on District 833 s VisionCard in each tested area the percentages were divided in to 3 incremental parts to reach the percentage representing level 4 by the year Level 4 in the area of Math demonstrates of students assessed achieve proficiency. Lake Middle School s Spring 2013 MCA Math proficiency was Moving from 77.5 to 90 indicates a total increase of 12.5 over 3 years or otherwise described as 4.16 annually. Supporting DATA Goal #2 Mathematics Identify standardized assessment to be used: MCA School Trend Data (Lake Middle School) Identify Assessed Grades: 6-8 District Trend Data (District 833 Middle Schools) District Trend Data for All Grades (All Schools) Measure of student achievement (e.g., percent proficient, index rate, etc.): Number of students tested: 1,144 1,134 1,135 1,147 3,872 3,853 3,900 3,953 8,893 8,944 9,126 9,252

3 Goal #3 specific to closing the achievement gap: The percent of students in grade 8 who meet or exceed proficiency on the 2014 MCA SCIENCE assessment, given in May 2014, will increase by 7 from 65 to 72. Rationale: The goal reflects an incremental growth increase over three years as it relates to District 833 s strategic plan 1.1 which states Student proficiency for all tested subjects will be at a level 4 or above on the district VisionCards, thus assuring grade transition readiness. In order to progress to level 4 on District 833 s VisionCard in each tested area the percentages were divided in to 3 incremental parts to reach the percentage representing level 4 by the year Level 4 in the area of Science demonstrates of students assessed achieve proficiency. Lake Middle School s Spring 2013 MCA Science proficiency was 65. Moving from 65.0 to 86 indicates a total increase of 21.0 over 3 years or otherwise described as 7.0 annually. Supporting DATA Goal #3 Science Identify measures to be used: MCA School Trend Data (Lake Middle School) Identify Assessed Grades: 8th District Trend Data (Middle Schools) District Trend Data for All Grades (All Schools) Measure of student achievement (e.g., percent proficient, index rate, etc.): Number of students: ,290 1,257 1,312 1,312 3,850 4,056 4,202 3, Goal #4 specific to school climate: School Climate During the school year, 100 of full time instructional staff members at Lake Middle School (LMS) will participate in reading and discussing the book This We Believe in Action: Implementing Successful Middle Level Schools by AMLE (Association for Middle Level Education). During team and staff meetings each month, instructional staff members will discuss two characteristics of successful middle schools. These professional learning conversations will review, reinforce, and assist staff to implement the16 characteristics throughout LMS' middle level programming and overall school environment. Rationale: The rationale for Lake Middle School s climate goal is that by reviewing and discussing the 16 vital characteristics of successful middle schools, staff will deepen their commitment to the middle school model and implement effective middle school programming. Lake Middle School (LMS) will celebrate and reinforce current strengths in the existing middle school as well as identify challenges and needs in future planning. Using the 16 vital characteristics as our guide, we will revise current programming and initiatives to fit the middle school ideals. This LMS book study is justified because AMLE considers the book as a critical resource for everyone involved in the education and wellbeing of today s young adolescents. Further, This We Believe shares the enduring lessons learned in more than 35 years of active middle school advocacy. When its concepts are embraced and fully implemented, it is anticipated that students are then prepared for success in high school, college, and career. The guidelines that school staff members follow in selecting educational goals, curriculum content, and instructional and assessment processes will grow out of awareness, respect, and advocacy for the nature of LMS' distinctive young adolescents. LMS educators who understand these young people and the cultural context in which they grow to maturity will make informed decisions about the kinds of school, learning experiences, and overall LMS culture that young adolescents need to experience success.

4 Strategies to accomplish defined goals (to include plans for Staff Development): Activities Staff Development Opportunities? Strategies in place to reach goals? Action plan for the school year? (a.) Teacher workshop days and weekly Professional Development Day in team meetings (b.) Cornell Note-taking (c.) Maximize effectiveness by using all parts of the note- taking process Who is Responsible? Who is involved? Who is providing leadership? (a.) All departments (b.) AVID Site Team Details for Strategies Timeline When will the strategy or action begin AND end? Begins 9/3/13 and ends 6/5/14; strategy monitored bimonthly in team meetings Expected Impact What are the results that will be evident if there is progress / success? How will teachers be impacted? How will students be impacted? (a.) Team collects exemplars (b.) Partnership builds team relationships (c.) Students routines are established and continuously improved Monitoring Effectiveness What evidence will be gathered to demonstrate progress / success? Teachers will use a survey strategy on their summative assessments to monitor degrees of student use of Cornell Notes for test study. Implementation Cycle* Findings What were the results? New Continuing (a.) Team-designated professional development days (b.) W.I.C.O.R. (cf. AVID) (c.) Every lesson plan (a.) PLC time used (b.) Inter-Disciplinary cards (c.) Monthly card presence posted in LMS hallway (a.) All departments (b.) AVID Site Team (c.) Team leads (a.) ALL teachers (b.) Team leads Begins 9/3/13 and ends 6/5/14; strategy monitored monthly in team meetings Begins 9/3/13 and ends 6/5/14; reflections monitored monthly in PLC and team meetings (a.) Administrative walkthroughs note evidence (b.) Teacher lesson plans are more interactive (c.) Increase in student engagement (a.) Cards will be filled out (b.) Interdisciplinary lessons/partnerships (c.) Students purposefully connect learning Teachers will compare and contrast the effectiveness of units taught with the WICOR instructional strategy to those lesson that are taught without this strategy. Evidence of WICOR will also be monitored on administrative walkthroughs and peer coaching documents. In professional development discussions during TEAM meetings, teachers will share anecdotal evidence of deeper levels of questioning, levels of student engagement, and improved summative and formative assessment results as interdisciplinary lessons are implemented using the ID cards as a guide.

5 Summary of Site s Plan Do Study Act* (Incorporating future planning and working through change through continuous improvement). PLAN what is it we want all students to learn? LMS students must apply effective college and career ready skills in organization, inquiry, writing, reading, and collaboration in order to be critically thinking, contributing members of a global society. In sum, students need the tools to learn beyond content and use their learning in context, demonstrating mastery and application of the content standards in each discipline. DO how will we respond when a student experiences difficulty in the learning? How will we deepen the learning for students who have already mastered essential knowledge and skills? When a student experiences difficulty in learning, advisory teachers (adult advocates) and teacher team members will collaborate to make sure that the student s binder is optimally organized; that the student knows how to ask the questions that will unlock learning; that the student will get the assistance he or she needs to write and read clearly, and that the student will acquire the necessary skills to successfully contribute to a group. If a student has mastered essential knowledge and skills, teachers will further personalize instruction to challenge the student to grow with new organizational schemata, more complex questioning, higher levels of written expression and technical writing, more advanced levels of reading (especially in informational text), and extended networks of interaction. ACT how will we respond when a student experiences difficulty in the learning? How will we deepen the learning for students who have already mastered essential knowledge and skills? When a student experiences difficulty in the learning, we will act as an advocate on the student s behalf. We will seek the necessary resources and interventions that will result in positive outcomes. We will work tirelessly to problem solve until success is achieved. STUDY how will we know when each student has mastered the essential learning? When a student has mastered the essential learning, he or she will be able to proficiently demonstrate learning in common summative assessments that challenge the learner to show the specific content standards he or she has mastered. Also, students will be able to apply what they know in real life contexts to further demonstrate proficiency. When a student has already mastered the essential knowledge and skills, we will act as an advocate on the student s behalf. We will move beyond the essential knowledge and skills and match the student to his or her level of challenge, tirelessly seeking instructional solutions that personalize learning and engage the learner.

6 Measure A1: MN Assessments i Math, (Gr. 6-8) (NEW TEST in 2011) LAKE MIDDLE SCHOOL VisionCard 1: Student Learning Accountability Wt 25 Level 1 District-driven Less than 70 of all students assessed are proficient Level 2 High Concern of all students : 72.7 Level 3 Baseline of all students Level 4 Progressing of all students Level 5 Vision of all students P R O F I C I E N C Y 30 A2: MN Assessments ii Reading, (Gr. 6-8) (NEW TEST in 2013) A3: MN Assessments iii Science (Gr. 8 only) (NEW TEST in 2012) A4: Equity iv in MN Assessments Proficiency: Math (NEW TEST in 2011) Less than 75 of all students assessed are proficient : 74.5 Less than 60 of all students assessed are proficient No Student Group has Less than 60 of math measures : : of all students of all students : : 65 than of students the state math measures of all students : to 85 of all students than of students the state math measures of all students of all students No student group has less than of math measures of all students 95 + of all students than 95 + of students the state math measures. A5: Equity v in MN Assessments Proficiency: Reading (NEW TEST in 2012) : 42 No Student Group has Less than 60 of reading measures. than of students the state reading measures. than of students the state reading measures. No student group has less than of reading measures. than 95 + of students the state reading measures : 50 A6: Equity vi in MN Assessments Proficiency: Science (NEW TEST in 2013) : 38 No Student Group has Less than 60 of science measures. than of students the state science measures. than of students the state science measures. No student group has less than of science measures. than 95 + of students the state science measures : : 33

7 G R O W T H 40 R E A D I N E S S 30 A7: NWEA MAP Growth vii Assessment Reading (All grades tested) A8: NWEA MAP Growth Assessment Math (All grades tested) A9: Equity in MAP Growth Assessment: Reading. A10: Equity in MAP Growth Assessment: Math. A11: ACT Explore: College Readiness Benchmarks in each of the 4 content areas reported English Math Reading 20 Science 20 A12: Equity in ACT Explore: College Readiness Benchmarks 20 MAP Reading growth below 50 MAP Math growth below 50 Greater than 30 gap in MAP Reading growth rates between highest and lowest student groups. Greater than 30 gap in MAP Math growth rates between highest and lowest student groups. Less than 55 of all students tested achieve college readiness benchmarks. MAP Reading growth between 50 and : : N/A MAP Math growth between 50 and : : N/A gap in MAP Reading growth rates between highest and lowest student groups gap in MAP Math growth rates between highest and lowest student groups : : N/A of all students tested achieve college readiness benchmarks. MAP Reading growth between 60 and 64 MAP Math growth between 60 and gap in MAP Reading growth rates between highest and lowest student groups : : N/A gap in MAP Math growth rates between highest and lowest student groups of all students tested achieve college readiness benchmarks. MAP Reading growth between 65 and 69 MAP Math growth between 65 and gap in MAP Reading growth rates between highest and lowest student groups gap in MAP Math growth rates between highest and lowest student groups of all students tested achieve college readiness benchmarks : : 83 Less than to : : 68 Less than to : 66 Less than : 28 No student group will have less than 40 achieve college readiness benchmarks : : No student group will have less than 40 to 45 achieve college readiness benchmarks : 40 No student group will have less than 46 to 50 achieve college readiness benchmarks : 72 MAP Reading growth at or above 70 MAP Math growth at or above 70 5 or less gap in MAP Reading growth rates between highest and lowest student groups. 5 or less gap in MAP Math growth rates between highest and lowest student groups. Greater than 85 of all students tested achieve college readiness benchmarks. Greater than 80 Greater than to 60 Greater than 60 No student group will have less than 51 to 55 achieve college readiness benchmarks No student group will have less than 56 achieve college readiness benchmarks

8

9