S H E S School Profile

375 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
375
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

S H E S School Profile

  1. 1. School Profile<br />School Code: 3722<br />School: St. Helen Elementary School<br />Principal: Kathy Rees<br />Person/Group Completing CNA: Mary Ward title I Teacher, School Improvement Co-chairs and Classroom Teachers.<br />School and Student Demographic Data/Information<br />Enrollment:<br /><ul><li>What grade levels are taught in this school? Pre-4
  2. 2. What is the current Enrollment? 156
  3. 3. What has been the enrollment trend for the past (5) Years?
  4. 4. ______Increasing _______ Stable__________ Decreasing___ X_____
  5. 5. Staff:
  6. 6. Using the charts provided, answer the following questions:
  7. 7. What is the average number of years teachers in this school have been teaching?
  8. 8. What is the average number of years in this current teachers have been assigned to this school? </li></ul>Questions# Teachers0-3 years4-8 years9-15 years >15 years1. Indicate how long teachers have been teaching.1232282. Indicate the number of years, each of the teachers has been assigned to this school.3153<br /><ul><li>For the teachers in this school, during the past school year how many teachers have been absent? (Absences that result in a sub-teacher being assigned to the classroom.)</li></ul>SHES Teacher Absences         Category0-3 days4-5 Days5-10 Days10 or more DaysPersonal/Family Illness 5 2 2 4Professional Development 5 2 3 0Other    FMLA    <br /><ul><li>How long has the administrator been assigned to this school?
  9. 9. Principal: Kathy Ann Rees - 13 Years
  10. 10. Assistant Principal: NA</li></ul>Parent/Community<br />Describe/list the types of family/community participation/engagement that are in place to support student achievement <br />MEAP Assessment Test Item Analysis<br />Using the information gathered about how students in the building are doing on skills that are tested on the MEAP, discuss the following:<br /><ul><li>What skill area(s) is the building doing well on?
  11. 11. When comparing the building with the district and state, which skills would the staff identify as a challenge in the building?
  12. 12. When reviewing the district curriculum, where are these skills taught?
  13. 13. When reviewing the school instructional program, are these skills being taught at the appropriate grade level?
  14. 14. How can this information be used for curriculum, instructional and remediation purposes?</li></ul>What additional date sources (other than MEAP) were used to inform decision making about student achievement? Examples include: teacher made tests, other forms of norm/criterion referenced tests etc.<br />Name and Type of Measurement InstrumentGrade Leveled AssessedSubject Area AssessedNWEA1st - 4thReading/MathDIBELSK - 4thReading/LanguageMy-Access Writing3rd - 4thWriting<br />Grade Level Achievement –School Level Data Year: 2007/2008  % of Population Demonstrating Proficiency of GLCE/HSCE*GradeDIBELSBenchmark DIBELSStrategicDIBELSIntensiveNWEA ELANWEA MathMy-Access #%#%#%#%#%#%5    .  6      ..7        8    ..  <br /> Continuity of Instructional Program<br />Highest grade level in building 4th grade# of Students% of students proficientELA% of students proficientMath% of students proficientSocial Studies% of students proficientScienceStudents who have been in the building since 1st gradeStudent who moved into the building after 1st grade<br />Aggregate Data<br />Using the following MEAP Graphs, identify under each area how has student achievement changed over the last four years ?<br />  MEAP Results Scale: % at or above proficient Grade 3Reading 80% (2009) 79% (2008) 77% (2007) 71% (2006)The state average for Reading was 86% in 2009. Our 3rd Grade MEAP analysis has revealed a slow but steady increase in reading with a gain of 11% over the course of 4 years. Writing 42% (2009) 55% (2008) 38% (2007) 59% (2006)The state average for Writing was 61% in 2009. In 3rd grade we continue to struggle in the area of Writing. Last year we implemented an electronic writing assessment program to assess students called My-Access which is based on the MEAP 6 point rubric. It also contains individualized skill modules based on the results of the assessment. Math 84% (2009) 82% (2008) 77% (2007) 81% (2006)The state average for Math was 91% in 2009. Source: MI Dept. of Education, 2008-2009 In 3rd grade we are making progress but we still are 7% below the state average. We use the Everday Math Program. Through probing questions we have discovered that not everyone is progressing at the same rate as others at the same grade levels which is critical because of the spiral effect of the instruction of this program. We plan to monitor this more closely next year.Grade 4Reading 81% (2009) 65% (2008) 64% (2007) 52% (2006)The state average for Reading was 83% in 2009. Our 4th Grade MEAP analysis has revealed a very large increase in reading with a gain of 11% over the course of 4 years. Writing 32% (2009) 24% (2008) 29% (2007) 26% (2006)The state average for Writing was 44% in 2009. Math 81% (2009) 60% (2008) 67% (2007) 71% (2006)The state average for Math was 88% in 2009. Source: MI Dept. of Education, 2008-2009 <br />Disaggregate Sub Group Analysis<br />Grade: 4thReadingReadingReadingGroup Year 1: 05/06Year 2: 06/07Year 3: 07/08 Economic Disadvantaged Yes63%62%78% No70%English Language Learner Yes No64%65%81%Ethnicity American Indian Asian American African American Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Caucasian64%67%78% HispanicStudents With Disabilities<7%Limited English ProficiencyHomelessMigrantGender Male 63%67% Female67%63%82%Aggregate Scores64%65%81%State83%85%84%Grade: 4thWritingWritingWritingGroup Year 1: 05/06Year 2: 06/07Year 3: 07/08 Economic Disadvantaged Yes22%19%30% No50%English Language Learner Yes No29%24%32%Ethnicity American Indian Asian American African American Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Caucasian29%20%30% HispanicStudents With Disabilities<0%Limited English ProficiencyHomelessMigrantGender Male 25%22% Female33%25%32%Aggregate Scores29%24%32%State55%45%44% Grade: 4thTotal ELATotal ELATotal ELAGroup Year 1: 05/06Year 2: 06/07Year 3: 07/08 Economic Disadvantaged Yes56%54%74% No70%English Language Learner Yes No60%56%77%Ethnicity American Indian Asian American African American Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Caucasian60%57%78% HispanicStudents With Disabilities<7%Limited English ProficiencyHomelessMigrantGender Male 54%56% Female67%56%77%Aggregate Scores60%56%77%State76%78%76%Grade: 4thMathMathMathGroup Year 1: 05/06Year 2: 06/07Year 3: 07/08 Economic Disadvantaged Yes66%56%78% No70%English Lanaguage Learner Yes No67%60%81%Ethnicity American Indian Asian American African American Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Caucasian67%61%78% HispanicStudents With Disabilities<13%Limited English ProficiencyHomelessMigrantGender Male 67%67% Female67%53%82%Aggregate Scores67%60%81%State82%86%86%Grade: 3rdReadingReadingReadingGroup Year 1: 05/06Year 2: 06/07Year 3: 07/08 Economic Disadvantaged Yes72%68%79% No100%English Language Leaner Yes No76%79%80%Ethnicity American Indian Asian American African American Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Caucasian73%67%80% HispanicStudents With Disabilities<27%Limited English ProficiencyHomelessMigrantGender Male 71%80%79% Female82%78%82%Aggregate Scores76%79%80%State87%87%86%Grade: 3rdWritingWritingWritingGroup Year 1: 05/06Year 2: 06/07Year 3: 07/08 Economic Disadvantaged Yes28%45%39% No73%English Language Learner Yes No38%55%42%Ethnicity American Indian Asian American African American Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Caucasian37%52%42% HispanicStudents With Disabilities<7%Limited English ProficiencyHomelessMigrantGender Male 18%50%46% Female59%57%36%Aggregate Scores38%55%42%State52%52%57%Grade: 3rdTotal ELATotal ELATotal ELAGroup Year 1: 05/06Year 2: 06/07Year 3: 07/08 Economic Disadvantaged Yes56%68%78% No91%English Language Learner Yes No65%76%79%Ethnicity American Indian Asian American African American Hawaiian/Pacific Islander78% Caucasian67%72%79% HispanicStudents With Disabilities<13%Limited English ProficiencyHomelessMigrantGender Male 53%80%77% Female76%74%82%Aggregate Scores65%76%79%State78%79%81%Grade: 3rdMathMathMathGroup Year 1: 05/06Year 2: 06/07Year 3: 07/08 Economic Disadvantaged Yes72%77%79% No91%English Language Learner Yes No76%82%84%Ethnicity American Indian Asian American African American Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Caucasian77%79%84% HispanicStudents With Disabilities47%<Limited English ProficiencyHomelessMigrantGender Male 76%100%93% Female76%74%73%Aggregate Scores76%82%84%State87%88%90%<br />Using the information from the above charts for Sub-Group data, answer the following questions:<br /><ul><li>Based on MEAP reports, which of the sub-groups are not at/or above the current state AYP content area targets?
  15. 15. Are any of the sub-groups scoring more than 10 percentage points lower than the current state AYP targets?
  16. 16. Based on the staff’s review of these data and information, what has the school staff determined to be the contributing cause(s) for the gaps?
  17. 17. What trends have been identified when looking at the 3 years of MEAP data?
  18. 18. Were there any discrepancies between the sets of data?

×