Department of Education
333 Market Street
Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333
Getting Results Continuous Improvement Plan

2011-2012

Principal Name: | Mrs. Amy Beers
School Name: | SHEFFIELD MS/HS
District Name: | WARREN COUNTY SD
School Number: | 4146
AYP Status: | Warning

School Improvement Team Members

Name | Role/Position
Beth Brady | Regular Education Teacher - ML English
Annie Cook | Regular Education Teacher - ML Math
Philip Knapp | Assistant Principal
Traci Vile | Parent
Sarah Connolly | Regular Education Teacher - English
Amy Beers | Principal/CAO
Anna Peterson | Special Education Teacher - ML
Lisa Franklin | Academic Coach
Amanda Hetrick | Central Office Staff
Jena Albaugh | Special Education Teacher
Joe English | Regular Education Teacher - Math

Review Data

This table contains the 2010 AYP data for the school. This data helps schools identify what must be addressed in the Action Sequences. This school must address any areas where they failed to meet the AYP targets or met the AYP targets by one of Pennsylvania's Special Provisions in the areas of Academic Performance, Participation, and Attendance/Graduation.

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE | Did Not Make AYP | Made AYP By Special Provision | Made AYP

Reading

Students Overall: 49.7% (GM)
White: 49.5% (GM)
Econ Dis: 42.4% (GM)

Math

Econ Dis: 34.7%

Students Overall: 48.2% (GM)
White: 48% (GM)

Special Provisions Legend
CI | Group met target using Confidence Interval | SH | Group met target using Safe Harbor
SHC | Group met target using Safe Harbor with Confidence Interval | GM | Group met target using Growth Model
A | Group met target using an Appeal | |

OTHER TARGET AREAS | YES/NO
Test Participation | Target Met
Attendance/Graduation | Target Met

Analyze Effectiveness of 2009-10 Action Sequences

The following information documents the school’s evaluation of the effectiveness of 2009-2010 Action Sequences.

2009-10 Reading Action Sequence
Step 1: Research-based strategies/best practices for READING:

Step 2: Level of Implementation:

Reading strategies were fully implemented
Reading strategies were partially implemented
Reading strategies were not implemented

Step 3: Describe the evidence gathered to show the READING strategies were implemented:

Step 4: Use student level data to describe whether there has been a positive impact on the READING achievement of your students:

2009-10 Math Action Sequence
Step 1: Research-based strategies/best practices for MATH:

Step 2: Level of Implementation:

Math strategies were fully implemented
Math strategies were partially implemented
Math strategies were not implemented

Step 3: Describe the evidence gathered to show the MATH strategies were implemented:

Step 4:Use student level data to describe whether there has been a positive impact on the MATH achievement of your students:
2009-10 Other Action Sequence
Step 1: Research-based strategies/best practices for Other:

Step 2: Level of Implementation:

Other strategies were fully implemented
Other strategies were partially implemented
Other strategies were not implemented

Step 3: Describe the evidence gathered to show the Other strategies were implemented:

Step 4:Use student level data to describe whether there has been a positive impact on the MATH achievement of your students:

Reading Data

The following table inclues pre-populated AYP data, PSSA, achievement data and PVAAS growth data at the whole school, grade, and subgroup levels.

| DATA INQUIRY | DATA STATEMENT

Whole School

R1

At least 63% of the "All Student Group" is advanced or proficient in READING.
Data source: (paayp.emetric.net)

•The “All Student Group” was below the target by 13.3%.

R2

The "All Student Group" made AYP in READING with the help of a special provision.
Data source: (paayp.emetric.net)

•The “All Student Group” met performance targets with the help of the GM special provision.

R3

The school made one year’s growth in READING.
Data Source: (pvaas.sas.com) Grades 4-8 – School Value Added Report (2010 Mean NCE Gain over Grades relative to Growth Standard) Grade11 – School Value Added Report (2010 School Effect)

Grades 4-8:
•The “All Student Group” did not make one year’s growth. Grade 11:
•The “All Student Group” was not detectably different from the progress of the average school in the state.

R4

The school-wide trend for the "All Student Group" during the past 3 years reflects an increase each year in the percent of proficient or advanced students in READING.
Data source: (pssa.emetric.net) Getting Results Data Packet- Portrait of 3-Year Reading Results

•From SY07-08 to SY08-09 the percentage went from 58.7% to 55.5%. From SY08-09 to SY09-10 the percentage went from 55.5% to 49.7%.

R5

The "All Student Group" met the AYP target for Participation in READING.
Data Source: (paayp.emetric.net)

•The “All Student Group” met the 95% participation target.

Grade Level

R6

Every grade in the school met or exceeded the NCLB READING target of 63% proficient or advanced.
Data Source: (pssa.emetric.net)
Getting Results Data Packet- Portrait of 3-Year Reading Results

No grades in the school met the target.
•Grade 6: 38.5%.
•Grade 7: 56.5%.
•Grade 8: 52.3%.
•Grade 11: 52.6%.

R7

Every grade in the school made one year’s growth in READING.
Data Source: (pvaas.sas.com)
Grades 4-8 – School Value Added Report (2010 Mean NCE Gain for each grade level)
Grade11 – School Value Added Report (2010 School Effect)

Grades 4-8:
•Grade(s) 8 made one year’s growth.
•Grade(s) 6, 7 did not make one year’s growth. Grade 11:
•Grade 11 was not detectably different from the progress of the average school in the state.

R8

Every grade that did NOT meet the proficiency target made one year’s growth in READING.
Data Source: (pssa.emetric.net) and (pvaas.sas.com)
Getting Results Data Packet- Portrait of 3-Year Reading Results & PVAAS School Value Added Reports

Grades 4-8:
•Grade(s) 8 did NOT meet the 63% target, but made one year’s growth.
•Grade(s) 6, 7 did NOT meet the 63% target AND did NOT make one year’s growth. Grade 11:
•Grade 11 did NOT meet the 63% target. However, Grade 11 was not detectably different from the progress of the average school in the state.

R9

Every predicted performance level group (below basic, basic, proficient, advanced) in each grade made one year’s growth in READING.
Data Source: (pvaas.sas.com)
PVAAS School Performance Diagnostic Summary Report (2010 Gain)

•In Grade 6, these predicted proficiency groups made one year’s growth: Proficient. However, these predicted proficiency groups did NOT make one year’s growth: Below Basic, Basic, Advanced.
•In Grade 7, these predicted proficiency groups made one year’s growth: Basic. However, these predicted proficiency groups did NOT make one year’s growth: Proficient, Advanced.
•In Grade 8, all predicted proficiency groups made one year’s growth.
•In Grade 11, these predicted proficiency groups made a year’s growth: Below Basic, Advanced. However, these predicted proficiency groups did NOT make one year’s growth: Basic, Proficient.

R10

Each tested grade has at least 72% (AYP target for SY 10-11) of the students in the 70% -100% probability range of reaching proficiency in READING at the next tested grade.
Data Source: (pvaas.sas.com)
PVAAS School (Single Grade) Projection Summary Report

•None of the tested grades in the school have at least 72% of the students in the 70%-100% probability range of reaching proficiency.

R11

Every grade level trend for the past 3 years reflects an increase each year in the percent of proficient or advanced students in READING.
Data source: (pssa.emetric.net)
Getting Results Data Packet- Portrait of 3-Year Reading Results

Not all grades show a positive three year trend.
•In Grade 6, from SY07-08 to SY08-09 the percentage went from 45.5% to 58.2%. From SY08-09 to SY09-10 the percentage went from 58.2% to 38.5%.
•In Grade 7, from SY07-08 to SY08-09 the percentage went from 43.1% to 40.9%. From SY08-09 to SY09-10 the percentage went from 40.9% to 56.5%.
•In Grade 8, from SY07-08 to SY08-09 the percentage went from 71.5% to 64%. From SY08-09 to SY09-10 the percentage went from 64% to 52.3%.
•In Grade 11, from SY07-08 to SY08-09 the percentage went from 74.5% to 57.3%. From SY08-09 to SY09-10 the percentage went from 57.3% to 52.6%.

Subgroup Level

R12

Every relevant subgroup (N ≥ 40) met or exceeded the NCLB READING target of 63% proficient or advanced.
Data Source: (paayp.emetric.net)

No relevent subgroup met the 63% target.
•42.4% of the ED subgroup was proficient or advanced.
•49.5% of the White subgroup was proficient or advanced.

R13

Every relevant subgroup (N ≥ 40) met AYP in READING with the help of a special provision.
Data source: (paayp.emetric.net)

All relevant subgroups that did not meet the AYP target outright, made AYP with the help of a special provision.
•ED subgroup with GM provision.
•White subgroup with GM provision.}

R14

Each relevant subgroup (N ≥ 40) closed the gap in proficiency between itself and the overall student group in READING.
Data source: (pssa.emetric.net)
Getting Results Data Packet- Portrait of 3-Year Reading Results

•The proficiency gap has increased between every relevant subgroup and the “All Student Group”.

R15

The trend for the past 3 years for every relevant subgroup (N≥ 40) reflects an increase each year in the percent of proficient or advanced students in READING.
Data source: (pssa.emetric.net)
Getting Results Data Packet- Portrait of 3-Year Reading Results

Not all relevant subgroups show a positive three year trend.
•In SY07-08 to SY08-09 the percentage for the ED subgroup went from 39.7% to 43.1%. From SY08-09 to SY09-10 the percentage went from 43.1% to 42.4%.
•In SY07-08 to SY08-09 the percentage for the White subgroup went from 58.8% to 55.7%. From SY08-09 to SY09-10 the percentage went from 55.7% to 49.5%.

R16

Every relevant subgroup (N ≥ 40) met the AYP target for Participation in READING.
Data Source: (paayp.emetric.net)

•Every relevant subgroup met the 95% participation target.

Locally Relevant Reading Data

The school has included the following data which provides additional information about student achievement in the area of reading:

Local reading data has not been submitted.

Synthesize Reading Data

These are the strengths and concerns that have been identified from the analysis of reading achievement and growth data.

# | AREAS OF STRENGTH
1 | 11th grade cohort is not significantly different than that of other cohorts in PA
2 | Grade 8 made 1 year's growth.
3 | The "All Student Group" met the 95% Participation target.
4 | Every relevant subgroup met the 95% Participation target.

# | AREAS OF CONCERN
1 | The "All School Group" in grades 6-8 did not make 1 year's growth
2 | No grades in the school met the AYP target.
3 | The All Student Groups was below the target by 13.3%.

Math Data

The following table includes pre-populated AYP data, PSSA achievement data and PVAAS growth data at the whole school, grade, and subgroup levels.

| DATA INQUIRY | DATA STATEMENT

Whole School

M1

At least 56% of the "All Student Group" is advanced or proficient in MATH.
Data source: (paayp.emetric.net)

•The “All Student Group” was below the target by 7.8%.

M2

The "All Student Group" made AYP in MATH with the help of a special provision.
Data source: (paayp.emetric.net)

•The “All Student Group” met performance targets with the help of the GM special provision.

M3

The school made one year’s growth in MATH.
Data Source: (pvaas.sas.com)
Grades 4-8 – School Value Added Report (2010 Mean NCE Gain over Grades relative to Growth Standard)
Grade11 – School Value Added Report (2010 School Effect)

Grades 4-8:
•The “All Student Group” did not make one year’s growth. Grade 11:
•The “All Student Group” was not detectably different from the progress of the average school in the state.

M4

The school-wide trend for the "All Student Group" during the past 3 years reflects an increase each year in the percent of proficient or advanced students in MATH.
Data source: (pssa.emetric.net)
Getting Results Data Packet- Portrait of 3-Year Math Results

•From SY07-08 to SY08-09 the percentage went from 55% to 55.1%. From SY08-09 to SY09-10 the percentage went from 55.1% to 48.2%.

M5

The "All Student Group" met the AYP target for Participation in MATH.
Data Source: (paayp.emetric.net)

•The “All Student Group” met the 95% participation target.

Grade Level

M6

Every grade in the school met or exceeded the NCLB MATH target of 56% proficient or advanced.
Data Source: (pssa.emetric.net)
Getting Results Data Packet- Portrait of 3-Year Math Results

Not all grades met or exceeded the target.
•Grade 6: 42.3%.
•Grade 7: 63%.
•Grade 8: 52.4%.
•Grade 11: 38.6%.

M7

Every grade in the school made one year’s growth in MATH.
Data Source: (pvaas.sas.com)
Grades 4-8 – School Value Added Report (2010 Mean NCE Gain for each grade level)
Grade11 – School Value Added Report (2010 School Effect)

Grades 4-8:
•Grade(s) 7 made one year’s growth.
•Grade(s) 6, 8 did not make one year’s growth. Grade 11:
•Grade 11 was not detectably different than the mean predicted score.

M8

Every grade that did NOT meet the proficiency target made one year’s growth in MATH.
Data Source: (pssa.emetric.net) and (pvaas.sas.com)
Getting Results Data Packet- Portrait of 3-Year Math Results & PVAAS School Value Added Reports

Grades 4-8:
•Grade(s) 6, 8 did NOT meet the 56% target AND did NOT make one year’s growth. Grade 11:
•Grade 11 did NOT meet the 56% target. However, Grade 11 was not detectably different than the mean predicted score.

M9

Every predicted performance level group (below basic, basic, proficient, advanced) in each grade made one year’s growth in MATH.
Data Source: (pvaas.sas.com)
PVAAS School Performance Diagnostic Summary Report (2010 Gain)

•In Grade 6, these predicted proficiency groups made one year’s growth: Basic. However, these predicted proficiency groups did NOT make one year’s growth: Proficient, Advanced.
•In Grade 7, all predicted proficiency groups made one year’s growth.
•In Grade 8, these predicted proficiency groups made one year’s growth: Below Basic, Proficient, Advanced. However, these predicted proficiency groups did NOT make one year’s growth: Basic.
•In Grade 11, these predicted proficiency groups made a year’s growth: Proficient, Advanced. However, these predicted proficiency groups did NOT make one year’s growth: Below Basic, Basic.

M10

Each tested grade has at least 67% (AYP target for SY 10-11) of the students in the 70% -100% probability range of reaching proficiency in MATH at the next tested grade.
Data Source: (pvaas.sas.com)
PVAAS School (Single Grade) Projection Summary Report

•None of the tested grades in the school have at least 67% of the students in the 70%-100% probability range of reaching proficiency.

M11

Every grade level trend for the past 3 years reflects an increase each year in the percent of proficient or advanced students in MATH.
Data source: (pssa.emetric.net)
Results Data Packet- Portrait of 3-Year Math Results

Not all grades show a positive three year trend.
•In Grade 6, from SY07-08 to SY08-09 the percentage went from 56.9% to 58.2%. From SY08-09 to SY09-10 the percentage went from 58.2% to 42.3%.
•In Grade 7, from SY07-08 to SY08-09 the percentage went from 58.9% to 56.9%. From SY08-09 to SY09-10 the percentage went from 56.9% to 63%.
•In Grade 8, from SY07-08 to SY08-09 the percentage went from 57.2% to 60%. From SY08-09 to SY09-10 the percentage went from 60% to 52.4%.
•In Grade 11, from SY07-08 to SY08-09 the percentage went from 46.8% to 47.5%. From SY08-09 to SY09-10 the percentage went from 47.5% to 38.6%.

Subgroup Level

M12

Every relevant subgroup (N ≥ 40) met or exceeded the NCLB MATH target of 56% proficient or advanced.
Data Source: (paayp.emetric.net)

No relevent subgroup met the 56% target.
•34.7% of the ED subgroup was proficient or advanced.
•48% of the White subgroup was proficient or advanced.

M13

Every relevant subgroup (N ≥ 40) met AYP in MATH with the help of a special provision.
Data source: (paayp.emetric.net)

The following relevant subgroups made AYP in Math with the help of a special provision
•White subgroup with GM provision.

M14

Each relevant subgroup (N ≥ 40) closed the gap in proficiency between itself and the overall student group in MATH.
Data source: (pssa.emetric.net)
Getting Results Data Packet- Portrait of 3-Year Math Results

•The proficiency gap has increased between every relevant subgroup and the “All Student Group”.

M15

The trend for the past 3 years for every relevant subgroup (N≥ 40) reflects an increase each year in the percent of proficient or advanced students in MATH.
Data source: (pssa.emetric.net)
Getting Results Data Packet- Portrait of 3-Year Math Results

Not all relevant subgroups show a positive three year trend.
•In SY07-08 to SY08-09 the percentage for the ED subgroup went from 43.6% to 43%. From SY08-09 to SY09-10 the percentage went from 43% to 34.7%.
•In SY07-08 to SY08-09 the percentage for the White subgroup went from 54.5% to 54.7%. From SY08-09 to SY09-10 the percentage went from 54.7% to 48%.

M16

Every relevant subgroup (N ≥ 40) met the AYP target for Participation in MATH.
Data Source: (paayp.emetric.net)

•Every relevant subgroup met the 95% participation target.

Locally Relevant Math Data

The school has included the following data which provides additional information about student achievement in the area of math.

Local math data has not been submitted.

Synthesize Math Data

# | AREAS OF STRENGTH
1 | Grade 7 made 1 year's growth.
2 | Every relevant subgroup met the 95% Participation target.

# | AREAS OF CONCERN
1 | Grades 6,8, and 11 did not make a year's worth of growth in Math
2 | The proficiency gap has increased between every relevant subgroup and the “All Student Group”.
3 | The All Student Group was below the target by 7.8%.
4 | Grades 6, 7, 8, and 11 did not meet or exceed the target of 56%.

Analyze Systems

The school analyzed their standards aligned systems by using the self-assessment criteria of the Foundational Guiding Questions.

FOUNDATIONAL GUIDING QUESTIONS

No/
Yes

Supporting Evidence

1 | Is there strong, observable evidence that the standards-aligned curriculum and effective instructional practices are consistently implemented across all classrooms? | No | There is a curriculum that specifies the competencies to be taught which are aligned to the standards as evidenced by the Warren County School District Planned Instruction. The curriculum is consistently implemented across all classrooms as evidenced by weekly lessons plans submitted to administration, 300 walk-through observations, and 106 formal observations. However, effective instructional practices are not consistently implemented across all classrooms as evidenced by "The "All Student Group" was below the target by 13.3%." in reading and "The "All Student Group" was below the target by 7.8%." in math.
2 | Is there strong, observable evidence that school staff regularly uses standards-aligned assessments to monitor student achievement and adjust instructional practices? | No | There is not strong, observable evidence that the school staff regularly uses standards aligned assessments to monitor student achievement and adjust instructional practices as evidenced by a lack of dedicated time for school staff for analyze data and determine the effectiveness of instructional practices in a timely manner (more than just one inservice day).
3 | Is there strong, observable evidence that struggling students are identified early and are supported by an intervention system with procedures for monitoring effectiveness? | No | There is not strong, observable evidence that struggling students are identified early and are supported by an intervention system with procedures for monitoring effectiveness as evidenced by 11th grade decrease in reading scores from 57.3% to 52.6% and decrease in math scores from 47.5% to 38.6%.
4 | Is there strong, observable evidence that all students have access to standards aligned curriculum and challenging assignments? | No | There is not strong, observable evidence that all students have access to standards aligned curriculum and challenging assignments as evidenced by our current intervention system. NovaNet does not have as rigorous a curriculum as the regular classroom. NovaNet is used when a student is not successful, therefore not all students have the opportunity to demonstrate proficiency in a grade level core curriculum for reading or math.
5 | Is there strong, observable evidence that student needs drive decisions about teacher assignments? | Yes | All teachers are highly qualified in their content areas as evidenced by their teaching certificate. Expert teachers and specialists are matched with the students most in need. Dually-certified special education teachers are placed inclusively into classes with students identified as basic/below basic on the most recent PSSA scores. A Title I reading teacher was placed in 2010-2011 Grade 7 and 8 language arts classes to address identified economically disadvantaged students. Students most in need were identified through the diagnostic tests, Corrective Reading Placement Test and the SRI Scholastic Reading Inventories, and were placed in reading remediation courses with a certified reading specialist. Based on PSSA scores in math, students who scored below basic were placed into intensive math courses with highly qualified teachers.
6 | Is there strong, observable evidence that professional development is focused, strategic and implemented with fidelity? | No | Professional development is not based on a needs assessment that is aligned with the school's instructional priorities as evidenced by only 2 professional development days alotted in the school building per year.
7 | Is there strong, observable evidence that teachers and administrators meet regularly to reflect on the progress of students learning using multiple data sources and professional practice? | Yes | There is regularly scheduled time for teachers and administrators to reflect on professional practice as it relates to the progress of student learning. The faculty holds a weekly meeting. The school improvement team, department head meetings, shared decision making team, and research groups all use data meeting protocol as evidenced by meeting minutes and agendas. The school staff reviews student work to identify practices to improve student performance as evidenced by the aforementioned subgroups and their meeting minutes and agendas.
8 | Is there strong, observable evidence that teachers and administrators receive timely, effective support and intervention as needed? | Yes | All new teachers and administrators are required to participate actively in induction and mentoring programs. There is a new teacher packet that is utilized for mentors/mentees. New teachers are supported by mentors and departmental cohort members to support curricular, professional and extra-curricular strengths and weaknesses. Administrators spend more time with newer teachers in terms of walk throughs, observations efforts, open door policies and in speaking with the new teacher mentors. Academic Coaches (who work district-wide) are also utilized as a valuable resource for interventions/support as needed (2010-2011).
9 | Is there strong, observable evidence that each school’s resources effectively address each school’s instructional priorities? | Yes | Data informs who teaches particular classes. In the summer, decisions were made to strategically move students with teachers who were most qualified to work with needy students. These same decisions will be made as data is received about this year's testing. Data-driven decisions are also made to inform purchases of needed materials. PSSA coach books were purchased this year for all tested grade levels of mathematics. Appropriate readers were purchased for specialty areas to support reading comprehension initiatives as PSSA coaching materials had already been purchased in the previous school year (2009).
10 | Is there strong, observable evidence that each school’s administrative team leads the implementation of a standards-aligned system? | Yes | The division of faculty meetings from the traditional monthly meeting to a more teacher-centered focus intiative to engage faculty members in meaningful conversations about school issues has had a major impact in changing practices. Building principals have lead 2 full-inservices this year - one building specific and one attendance area specific. Both were data driven. Principals have attended data training on Performance Plus, 4Sight and Classroom Diagnostic testing. Principals have attended IU5 trainings regarding PSSA data. The administrative team signs each report card personally and writes down/speaks to students about their goals, achievments or lack thereof. 4Sight data was analyzed and individual discussions were held with any student who decreased between baseline and the January test. Principals have been trained and provided training and information on SAS portal.
11 | Is there strong, observable evidence that each member of the school community promotes, enhances and sustains a shared vision of positive school climate? | Yes | The student handbook is used as the guideline of postive student climate. Rules are enforced consistently in accordance to the student handbook. At the middle level, daily behavior cards are utilized as an effective communication device with parents and with one another. In terms of additional behavior support, we utilize our guidance counselors, mentoring program, common planning time and Student Assistance Program (or School Social Work). Students are recognized for their accomplishments through a homeroom advisory. School leadership has a parent teacher organization, a school improvement team parent member, student member, and community member. Parents are encouraged to participate actively in their child's school life as evidenced by quarterly events sponsored by the school improvement team. Recognition comes in the form of honor roll breakfast, academic incentive celebrations of individual achievements, and the teacher "FISH" award (Fantastic Instructor at Sheffield High).
12 | Is there strong, observable evidence that school staff monitor attendance and student engagement and respond with classroom and school-wide interventions when students are chronically absent or disengaged? | Yes | There is a clear attendance policy in place for students. There are preliminary, medical only and truancy elimination plans made for students who struggle with attendance. The School Assistance Program led by our guidance counselor helps to address chronically disengaged students. Each day, our attendance secretary makes contact with each student on the absentee list in an attempt to speak to each parent to secure a reason and proper excuse for absences. Administration also make phone calls to bring students back into the school in chronic situations. Outside agencies such as juvenile probation, Children and Youth Services, the District Magistrate, Beacon Light Behavioral Services, the Achievement Center, the Gertrude Barber Center and Multisystemic Teams are also utilized to support students and their families. The District also has a truancy officer who is utilized in more extreme cases.

Prioritize Concerns

In the table below, the school has identified and prioritized the systems concerns from their self-assessment using the Foundational Guiding Questions. For each prioritized concern listed, the school will develop an Action Sequence.

# | Systems Concerns
1 | There is strong, observable evidence of standards aligned curriculum and effective instructional practices, but effective instructional practices are not consistently implemented across all classrooms.
2 | There is not strong, observable evidence that school staff regularly uses standards-aligned assessments to monitor student achievement and adjust instructional practices.
3 |
4 |

Student Achievement Goals

The following table documents student achievement goals in Reading and Math established by the school for all relevant subgroups (N≥40) in all tested grades.

Reading: 2011 NCLB/AYP Target: 72%

Student Group | Grade 11 | Grade 8 | Grade 7 | Grade 6
Students Overall | 81.00 | 81.00 | 81.00 | 81.00
White | 81.00 | 81.00 | 81.00 | 81.00
Economically Disadvantaged | 81.00 | 81.00 | 81.00 | 81.00

Math: 2011 NCLB/AYP Target: 67%

Student Group | Grade 11 | Grade 8 | Grade 7 | Grade 6
Students Overall | 78.00 | 78.00 | 78.00 | 78.00
White | 78.00 | 78.00 | 78.00 | 78.00
Economically Disadvantaged | 78.00 | 78.00 | 78.00 | 78.00

Student Achievement Goals - Other

Reading Participation
2011 NCLB/AYP Target
95%

95%

Math Participation
2011 NCLB/AYP Target
95%

95%

ATTENDANCE
(K-8 Only)
2011 NCLB/AYP Target
90%
(or improvement from previous year's attendance)

90%

GRADUATION RATE
(HS Only)
2011 NCLB/AYP Target
82.5%
(or 10% reduction betweet 85% goal and the previous year's graduation rate)

82.5%

Plan Solution

The Action Sequence below lays out the specific steps needed to implement research-based strategies and best practices designed to address the school's prioritized concerns.

Action Sequence 1

STEP 1: What is the problem? | STEP 2: What will you do? | STEP 3: Why are you doing it?

Area of concern:
Enter a High Priority Concern from the Foundational Guiding Questions

Research Based Strategies/Best Practices: Enter what will be done to address the concern

Reason: How will implementing this strategy address weaknesses in student achievement?

There is strong, observable evidence of standards aligned curriculum and effective instructional practices, but effective instructional practices are not consistently implemented across all classrooms. | Three of Robert J. Marzano's nine instructional strategies that affect student achievement, specifically identifying similarities and differences, reinforcing effort and providing recognition, and setting objectives and providing feedback, will be implemented. | As noted in Marzano, R CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION THAT WORKS, research shows that identifying similarities and differences had a 45% gain on student achievement. This research also shows that reinforcing effort and providing recognition had a 29% gain on student achievement. In addition, research shows that setting objectives and providing feedback has a 23% gain on student achievement.
Check the target area(s) that will be addressed by implementation of the research based strategy/best practice in Step 2:
Performance: ReadingMath | Participation: ReadingMath | Other (please list):
STEP 4: How will you get there?

What Needs to Be Done:
List the steps needed to implement this research based strategy/best practice

Who is responsible?

When will it be done?

What resources are needed?

Teachers participated in a review of the 2009-10 PSSA data, identified root causes of the lack of proficiency in math and reading. | Building Administration, Department Heads and Faculty | August 27, 2010 | PSSA test scores
Based on the identified root causes identified on August 27th, 2010, the data team identified three of Robert J. Marzano's instructional strategies on which to focus in order to improve student achievement:identifying similarities and differences, reinforcing effort and providing recognition, and setting objectives and providing feedback. | Building Administration and the Data Team | August 30, 2010 | CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION THAT WORKS by Robert J Marzano.
The three identified instructional strategies were introduced to the faculty and were prioritized. The most immediate needs became the focus of the 2010-11 school year - reinforcing effort and providing recognition and setting objectives and providing feedback. | Building Administration and the faculty of SAMHS | September 7, 14, 21 and 28th, 2010 | Powerpoint of the identified instructional strategies.
The School Improvement Team, the Department Head Team, the Data Team and the Shared Decision Making Team took these two instructional strategies and planned specific actions (homeroom advisory, incentives for academic achievement based on individual goal setting, honor roll breakfast, honor roll dinner) to address the two prioritized concerns - reinforcing effort and providing recognition and setting objectives and providing feedback. This will be monitored through meeting minutes, checklists, homeroom advisory portfolios. | Faculty, Staff and Administration | October 5, 12, 19, 26 November 2,9,16, 23 December 14, 2010 January 4, 11, 18 and 25th February 1, 8, 15 and 22nd March 8, 15, 22, 29th April 19th May 10, 17, 24, 31st June 9, 2011, September 6, 13, 20, 27, October 4, 11, 18, 25, November 1, 8, 15, 29, December 6, 2011, January 10, 17, 24, 31, February 7, 14, 21, 28, March 6, 13, 20, 27, April 3, 10, 17, 24, May 1, 8, 15, 22, June 7, 2012 | Agenda, CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION THAT WORKS by Robert J. Marzano
Present Powerpoint from August 27th, 2010. Review achievements in reinforcing effort and providing recognition and setting objectives and providing feedback. Focus on identifying similarities and differences. During this meeting, the four best practices for implementation of this instructional strategy (identifying similarities and differences) as identified by Robert J. Marzano (comparing, classifying, metaphors and analogies) will be presented. | Building Administration and Faculty | June 9, 2011 | Powerpoint of identified instructional strategies, meeting minutes from 2010-11 faculty meetings, checklists, homeroom advisory portfolios
During this meeting, the faculty and administration will review the three identified instructional strategies (identifying similarities and differences, reinforcing effort and providing recognition and setting objectives and providing feedback). The faculty will use the four classroom practices in identifying similarities and differences as stated by Robert J. Marzano (comparing, classifying, metaphors, analogies) to identify five graphic organizers that will be implemented in lesson plans and daily teaching. | Building Administration and Faculty | August 26 and 29, 2011 | Powerpoint of identified instructional strategies, graphic organizers
Faculty will receive training on the proper implementation of the five graphic organizers as they relate to the four classroom practices (comparing, classifying, metaphors, analogies). | Building Administration | September 6, 13, 20, 27, October 4, 11, 18, 25, November 1, 8, 15, 29, December 6, 2011 | Graphic organizers, CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION THAT WORKS by Robert J. Marzano
Teachers will provide evidence of implementation of the five graphic organizers as they relate to the four classroom practices (comparing, classifying, metaphors, analogies) through lesson plans. Collegial conversation on these four classroom practices and how to best implement them will continue during schedule meetings and common planning time. | Faculty, Building Administration | January 10, 17, 24, 31, February 7, 14, 21, 28, March 6, 13, 20, 27, April 3, 10, 17, 24, May 1, 8, 15, 22, June 7, 2012 | Lesson Plans, Meeting Agendas, Meeting Minutes

STEP 5: How will you know you are doing what you planned? | Step 6: What will you look for to determine if it is working?

Indicators of Implementation:
What the adults will be doing

Indicators of Effectiveness:
Set measurable student achievement targets

Administrators, faculty, and teachers will monitor assigned students academic achievements. During the homeroom advisory period, the adult monitor will conference with their assigned students, assist each student in creating an academic goal, monitor each student’s progress as it relates to his/her goal, provide feedback/support, and recognize student achievement in the form of academic incentives. Administers, faculty, and teachers will provide evidence of this by maintaining a homeroom advisory portfolio to monitor each students’ progress in achieving his/her academic goal. Teachers will consistently utilize graphic organizers as they relate to the four classroom practices in their instruction (comparing, classifying, metaphors, analogies). This will be evidenced by walk-through, informal and formal observations, and lesson plans. Further artifacts that will show what the adults will be doing include professional development calendar, sign-in sheets from trainings, meeting agendas and minutes. | Students who qualify for the incentive reward program will increase by 2% each marking period, from August 2010 to June 2012, totaling a 16% increase. 4Sight scores will improve by 25% in both math and reading from the September 2010 baseline to May 2012. Increase of PSSA scores in both math and reading by 20%.

Action Sequence 2

STEP 1: What is the problem? | STEP 2: What will you do? | STEP 3: Why are you doing it?

Area of concern:
Enter a High Priority Concern from the Foundational Guiding Questions

Research Based Strategies/Best Practices: Enter what will be done to address the concern

Reason: How will implementing this strategy address weaknesses in student achievement?

There is not strong, observable evidence that school staff regularly uses standards-aligned assessments to monitor student achievement and adjust instructional practices. | Based on the research of Dr. Doug Reeves of the Leadership and Learning Center and author of THE LEARNING LEADER, teachers will implement student data analysis meetings using a specific data protocol. | Data Protocol meetings will provide faculty with an agenda and distinct purpose of each data meeting. Implementing data meeting protocol will focus on student achievement, aid teachers in making clear choices about curriculum and instruction, focus on frequent assessments of different modalities, emphasis non-fiction writing and create opportunities for collaborative scoring of student work as referenced in THE LEARNING LEADER by Dr. Doug Reeves.
Check the target area(s) that will be addressed by implementation of the research based strategy/best practice in Step 2:
Performance: ReadingMath | Participation: ReadingMath | Other (please list):
STEP 4: How will you get there?

What Needs to Be Done:
List the steps needed to implement this research based strategy/best practice

Who is responsible?

When will it be done?

What resources are needed?

Building administration models Doug Reeves data protocol meeting structure in the form of a Data Presentation Review of 2009-2010 PSSA Math and Reading Scores | Building Administration | August 27, 2010 | Powerpoint of PSSA data
Building administration will model step 2 of Doug Reeves's data protocol meetings - Identification of gaps in math and reading | Faculty and building administration | August 30, 2010 | Powerpoint of PSSA data with specific subgroups and eligible content broken down by categories
Building administration will model steps 3 and 4 of Doug Reeves data protocol meetings using Baseline 4Sight Benchmark Assessment data presentation - processes, context, setting, hypothesis | Faculty and building administration and Academic Teacher Coach | October 5, 8,12, 19 and 26, 2010 | successforall.org login information
Marking Period One Report Card for faculty based on Doug Reeves's 4 quadrants (Losing, Lucky, Learning, or Leading) from "The Learning Leader" | Building Administration | November 2, 2010 | Powerpoint of Doug Reeves Losing, Lucky, Learning or Leading Quadrants as it relates to student achievement and test scores from THE LEARNING LEADER.
Based on step 5 of Doug Reeves's data protocol meetings found in "The Learning Leader" building administration and faculty created student focus groups, based on areas of academic gaps in math and reading, and implemented groups on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of each week until the week of PSSA testing as an intervention | Building Administration and Faculty | February, 2011 through March, 2011 | Focus Group lists and mini-lessons, emails to other homeroom teachers
REview Data Protocol meeting model as provided in "THE LEAARNING LEADER" by Doug Reeves and provide the PDF to data teams. | Building Administration | August 26, 2011 | PDF from Doug Reeves Leadership and Learning website and quadrants from THE LEARNING LEADER
Conduct data team meetings using PSSA data, following the protocol learned on August 26, 2011 at both Middle School and High School levels | Data Team (consists of department and grade level leadership) | September 13, October 11, November 8, December 6, 2011 | PSSA data, Benchmark Assessments (4Sights in grades 6-8 and CDT/Keystone Field Test data at grades 9-11)Data Team protocol PDF as agenda and meeting minutes
Conduct data team meetings using Benchmark Assessment data, following the protocol learned on August 26, 2011 at both the Middle School and High School levels | Data Team (consists of department and grade level leadership) | January 17, February 14, March 13, April 10, May 8, June 7, 2012 | Benchmark Assessments (4Sights in grades 6-8 and CDT/Keystone Field Test in grades 9-11) Data Team protocol PDF as agenda and meeting minutes
Monitory data team meetings in both the Middle School and High School by using fidelity checklist provided in "The Learning Leader" by Doug Reeves | Building Administration | September 13, October 11, November 8, December 6, 2011 January 17, February 14, March 13, April 10, May 8, and June 7, 2012 | Copies of Doug Reeves fidelity checklists found in "The Learning Leader".

STEP 5: How will you know you are doing what you planned? | Step 6: What will you look for to determine if it is working?

Indicators of Implementation:
What the adults will be doing

Indicators of Effectiveness:
Set measurable student achievement targets

Adults will follow Doug Reeves research based data meeting protocol and constantly focus on student achievement during each of the data team meetings. This will be evidenced by the formative, summative, and benchmark assessment data teachers bring to each meeting, the areas of weakness teachers identify from the assessment data, the review of the teaching and learning process as it relates to the identified areas of weakness in both reading and math, the identified researched based interventions chosen based on student weaknesses, and the adjustment of instructional practices and it relates to the implementation of the chosen interventions noted in lesson plans and seen during formal, informal, and walk- through observations. Further artifacts of what the adults will be doing include professional development calendar, sign-in sheets from trainings, data team meeting agendas and minutes. | Students who are identified for an intervention will increase by 2% each marking period on their individual report cards, from August 2010 to June 2012, totaling a 16% increase. The amount of students scoring proficient/advanced on the May, 2012 4Sight/Classroom Diagnostic Tools administration will increase by 25% in both math and reading from the May, 2011 4SIght/Classroom Diagnostic Tools administration. Increase of PSSA scores in both math and reading by 20%.

Action Sequence 3
No data was submitted.

Action Sequence 4
No data was submitted.

Professional Development

Listed below is the professional development needed to implement the action sequence.

Date/Time | Topic/Audience/Purpose | Alignment to Action Sequence | Facilitator/Provider | Anticipated changes in teacher practice that will be observed

September 7, 14, 21 and 28th, 2010

Marzano's Instructional Strategies/Teachers/Prioritizing the chosen three of Marzano's instructional strategies to incorporate into classroom instruction.

Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Building Administration

Teachers will incorporate two of the three instructional strategies (reinforcing effort and providing recognition and setting objectives and providing feedback) into classroom instruction and homeroom advisory time. This will be shown 95% of the time thro

January 10, 17, 24, 31, February 7, 14, 21, 28, Ma

Marzano's effective strategies/Faculty/Collegial conversation on these four classroom practices and how to best implement them will continue.

Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Building Administration

Teachers will continue to incorporate the third instructional strategy (identifying similarities and differences) and the five graphic organizers into classroom instruction. This will be shown through 20% of lesson plans and walk-through observation data.

October 11, 2010/ 3:15 pm

Building administration will lead and model a data protocol meeting based on steps 1 and 2 of Doug Reeves research of data protocol meetings found in “The Learning Leader” using 4Sight Baseline Data indicators/Faculty/Early identification of gaps in all subgroups in both reading and math

Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Building administration and math/English faculty members

Early Intervention at all grade levels as it relates to math and English instruction and assessment as reflected in lesson plans, walk through observations, formal and informal observation data

September 6, 13, 20, 27, October 4, 11, 18, 25, No

Five chosen graphic organizers/Faculty/how to implement the five graphic organizers into the four classroom practices (comparing, classifying, metaphors, analogies).

Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Building Administration and Department Leadership

Teachers will incorporate the third instructional strategy (identifying similarities and differences) and the five graphic organizers into classroom instruction. This will be shown through 20% of lesson plans and walk-through observation data.

August 30, 2010 (morning)

Robert J. Marzano's effective instructional strategies for student achievement/Faculty/Choosing three of Marzano's instructional strategies to incorporate into classroom instruction.

Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Building Administration

Teachers will incorporate the three instructional strategies into classroom instruction and homeroom advisory time. This will be shown through 95% of lesson plans and walk-through observation data, as well as 100% of homeroom advisory portfolio.

January 17, 2011/3:15 pm

Building administration will model a data protocol meeting based on steps 3, 4, and 5 of Doug Reeves research of data protocol meetings found in “The Learning Leader” using 4Sight data analysis/Faculty/Creation of focus groups as an intervention in anticipation of the PSSA in March, 2011

Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Math and English Departmental leadership

Teachers will implement focus groups each Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday prior to the PSSA test (beginning on March 14, 2011) which are specifically geared toward exhibited weaknesses expressed in PSSA data and 4Sight January test data. This will be dem

May 30, 2011/3:15 pm

Based on the 5 steps of Doug Reeves “The Learning Leader” building administration will model data protocol meeting in reviewing final 4Sight Data Indicators/Faculty/to indentify the amount of growth that occurred as it relates to math and reading in the 2010-11 school year and the 4Sight test in grades 6-11

Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Building Administrator and Departmental leadership

Teachers will pick out strengths and weaknesses within their own instructional practices and identify opportunities for change in the 2011-12 school year.

November 2, 2010

Marking Period One review/Faculty/A review of Doug Reeves' quadrants as it relates to student achievement (losing, lucky, learning or leading) with focus questions.

Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Building Administration and Faculty

Teachers will engage in collegial conversation as it pertains to a focus on constant student achievement, clear choices in curriculum and instruction, frequent assessments, emphasis on non-fiction and collaborative scoring. A self-assessment will be take

September 13, October 11th. 2011 and each (second)

Data Protocol Meetings/Data Team/breakdown, identification of weaknesses, review of processes, making of hypotheses, creation of interventions and implementation plans

Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Data team membership

The data team will share findings in departmental meetings. Interventions will be reflected in lesson plans 25% of the time, walk throughs, formal and informal observations and department agenda and meeting minutes 100% of the time.

August 30, 2010 (afternoon)

Data Protocol Meeting PDF introduction/Faculty/Introduction to monthly data protocol meetings and how information will be shared

Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Data Team members

Data team members will introduce protocol as one of the weekly choices for faculty meetings (replacement of Shared Decision-Making)

October 5, 12, 19, 26 November 2,9,16, 23 December

Planned specific actions (homeroom advisory, incentives for academic achievement based on individual goal setting, honor roll breakfast, honor roll dinner) related to the two prioritized concerns - reinforcing effort and providing recognition and setting

Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Building Administration

Teachers will update grades online weekly as reflected in weekly student eligibilty reports and gradebook observations 100% of the time.

June 9, 2011 (morning)

School Year in Review and Plan for next year/Faculty/Plan for implementing the third identified Marzano's effective instructional strategy.

Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Building Administrator

Teachers will incorporate the third instructional strategy (identifying similarities and differences) into classroom instruction. This will be shown through 95% of lesson plans and walk-through observation data.

August 26 and 29, 2011

The three identified instructional strategies (identifying similarities and differences, reinforcing effort and providing recognition and setting objectives and providing feedback)/Faculty/Introduction of the four classroom practices in identifying simila

Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Building Administration

Teachers will incorporate the third instructional strategy (identifying similarities and differences) and the five graphic organizers into classroom instruction. This will be shown through 20% of lesson plans and walk-through observation data.

June 9, 2011 (afternoon)

School Year in Review and plan for next year/faculty/Demonstration of Growth or lack of growth as it relates to all gathered data (4Sight, PSSA, CDT and Keystone Field testing)

Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Building Administrator

Teachers will reflect on the year and commit to one specific change as it relates to their content area and the presented data (reflection will be collected and passed out in August, 2011 opening meeting).

Parental Involvement

Schools in improvement must address parental involvement in their plan in the following three areas:
(optional for Warning schools)

FAMILY/PRACTICE NOTIFICATION: Describe the processes used for notifying parents of the school's AYP status. | COMMUNICATION: Describe how school improvement efforts will be communicated to parents and the community. | FAMILY SUPPORT & PARTNERSHIPS: Describe strategies to engage parents in supporting teachers to educate their children.
Families receive the parent notification letter which is created and sent to the school by PDE. Families will receive a parent newsletter which discusses the school's AYP status. Families will receive a breakdown of testing by the school. Families will be invited to a Pasta and the PSSA dinner months prior to testing to discuss intervention steps made by the school community. | Families will receive a parent newsletter quarterly which discusses school improvement efforts along with traditional school news. Families will be invited to the school for a Pasta and the PSSA dinner in which we share successes and interventions that are necessitated by the AYP status of our school. At this dinner, they will have an individual breakdown of student progress and how we have or are planning to help. | Family night at sporting events Book Fair family night with games sponsored by clubs/organizations Strengthening the PTO Pasta and the PSSA night Changing the format of Open House with teacher input