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

2011-2012

Principal Name: | Mr. Jeffrey Flickner
School Name: | WARREN AREA HS
District Name: | WARREN COUNTY SD
School Number: | 4149
AYP Status: | Warning

School Improvement Team Members

Name | Role/Position
Shelly Mineweaser | Regular Education Teacher
Dani Hedman | Regular Education Teacher
Patty Horner | Assistant Principal
Laura Zinz | Special Education Teacher
Jim Evers | Assistant Principal
Amy Stewart | Central Office
Kim Smith | Special Education Teacher
Lynette Swab | Special Education Teacher
Catherine Hagadorn | Regular Education Teacher
Barb Vanetta | Regular Education Teacher
Carin Gianninni | Regular Education Teacher
Debbie Weigel | Regular Education Teacher
Julie Dailey | Regular Education Teacher
Jeff Flickner | Principal
Cheri Tutmaher | Administrative Assistant
Jen Dilks | Instructional Coach
Stacy Ludwig | Parent
Tina Toole | Regular Education Teacher
Bridget Peters | Special Education Teacher
Scott Grinnen | Special Education Teacher

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

IEP: 14.6%
Econ Dis: 37.7%

Students Overall: 61.2% (CI)
White: 62% (CI)

Math

Students Overall: 53.6% (CI)
White: 53.8% (CI)
IEP: 16.3% (SHC)
Econ Dis: 32.1% (SHC)

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 may include 2 year/3 year averaging and/or exited students
| 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 1.8%.

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 CI 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)

•The “All Student Group” was significantly below 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 73.6% to 68.5%. From SY08-09 to SY09-10 the percentage went from 68.5% to 61.2%.

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 11: 54.2%.

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)

•Grade 11 was significantly below 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

•Grade 11 did NOT meet the 63% target and Grade 11 was significantly below 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 11, these predicted proficiency groups made a year’s growth: Advanced. However, these predicted proficiency groups did NOT make one year’s growth: Below Basic, 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

•This statement cannot be pre-populated because there is no established pattern for sender/receiver schools.

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 11, from SY07-08 to SY08-09 the percentage went from 73.6% to 68.5%. From SY08-09 to SY09-10 the percentage went from 68.5% to 54.2%.

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.
•14.6% of the IEP subgroup was proficient or advanced.
•37.7% of the ED subgroup was proficient or advanced.
•62% 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)

The following relevant subgroups made AYP in Reading with the help of a special provision
•White subgroup with CI 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 White subgroup went from 73.5% to 69.1%. From SY08-09 to SY09-10 the percentage went from 69.1% to 62%.

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 | •The “All Student Group” met the 95% participation target.
2 | •In Grade 11, these predicted proficiency groups made a year’s growth: Advanced.

# | AREAS OF CONCERN
1 | •Grade 11 did NOT meet the 63% target and Grade 11 was significantly below the progress of the average school in the state.
2 | No relevent subgroup met the 63% target. •14.6% of the IEP subgroup was proficient or advanced. •37.7% of the ED subgroup was proficient or advanced
3 | Not all grades show a positive three year trend. •In Grade 11, from SY07-08 to SY08-09 the percentage went from 73.6% to 68.5%. From SY08-09 to SY09-10 the percentage went from 68.5% to 54.2%.
4 | •In Grade 11, these predicted proficiency groups made a year’s growth: Advanced. However, these predicted proficiency groups did NOT make one year’s growth: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient.

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 may include 2 year/3 year averaging and/or exited students
| 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 2.4%.

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 CI 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)

•The “All Student Group” was significantly below 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 64.6% to 58.5%. From SY08-09 to SY09-10 the percentage went from 58.5% to 53.6%.

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

No grades in the school met the target.
•Grade 11: 48.8%.

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)

•Grade 11 was significantly below 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

•Grade 11 did NOT meet the 56% target and Grade 11 was significantly below 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 11, these predicted proficiency groups made a year’s growth: Advanced. However, these predicted proficiency groups did NOT make one year’s growth: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient.

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

•This statement cannot be pre-populated because there is no established pattern for sender/receiver schools.

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 11, from SY07-08 to SY08-09 the percentage went from 64.6% to 58.5%. From SY08-09 to SY09-10 the percentage went from 58.5% to 48.8%.

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.
•16.3% of the IEP subgroup was proficient or advanced.
•32.1% of the ED subgroup was proficient or advanced.
•53.8% 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)

All relevant subgroups that did not meet the AYP target outright, made AYP with the help of a special provision.
•IEP subgroup with SH provision.
•ED subgroup with SH provision.
•White subgroup with CI 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 White subgroup went from 65% to 58.3%. From SY08-09 to SY09-10 the percentage went from 58.3% to 53.8%.

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 | •The “All Student Group” met the 95% participation target.
2 | •In Grade 11, these predicted proficiency groups made a year’s growth: Advanced.

# | AREAS OF CONCERN
1 | •Grade 11 did NOT meet the 56% target and Grade 11 was significantly below the mean predicted score.
2 | •In Grade 11, these predicted proficiency groups made a year’s growth: Advanced. However, these predicted proficiency groups did NOT make one year’s growth: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient.
3 | Not all grades show a positive three year trend. •In Grade 11, from SY07-08 to SY08-09 the percentage went from 64.6% to 58.5%. From SY08-09 to SY09-10 the percentage went from 58.5% to 48.8%.
4 | No relevent subgroup met the 56% target. •16.3% of the IEP subgroup was proficient or advanced. •32.1% of the ED subgroup was proficient or advanced. •53.8% of the White subgroup was proficient or advanced.

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? | Yes | The WCSD Planned Instruction is aligned to the PA standards. The curriculum in consistently implemented. Professional development focusing on effective instructional practices are offered to teachers on a regular basis.
2 | Is there strong, observable evidence that school staff regularly uses standards-aligned assessments to monitor student achievement and adjust instructional practices? | Yes | Teachers use standards-aligned benchmark assessments to montior the progress of student achievement in order to adjust instructional practices. The District has an assessment calendar and professional development time is provided, and formative assessments are used to assess student understanding.
3 | Is there strong, observable evidence that struggling students are identified early and are supported by an intervention system with procedures for monitoring effectiveness? | Yes | Credit recovery, IEP documents, tutoring, Interim Alternative Education Program, Warren County Career Center, drop out prevention and inclusion.
4 | Is there strong, observable evidence that all students have access to standards aligned curriculum and challenging assignments? | Yes | WCSD planned instruction, final exams are consistent throughout curriculum, AP Exams and differentiated instruction provides rigorous learning experiences for all students.
5 | Is there strong, observable evidence that student needs drive decisions about teacher assignments? | Yes | WAHS teachers are highly qualified in their content area/s. WAHS special education students are provided instruction aligned to individual student needs. IEPs and specially designed instruction are used to determine and support student learning.
6 | Is there strong, observable evidence that professional development is focused, strategic and implemented with fidelity? | Yes | Professional development is created on a short- and long-term plan. Teachers have access to attend optional sessions in addition to required building and district activities. Teachers use professional portfolio to reflect personal goals, and portfolios are reviewed throughout the year. Professional development is tailored to teacher and student needs.
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? | No | Teachers use 4Sight data to assess and disseminate individual progress to students. Act 80 days are used to review student data. Some teachers meet on a regular basis to review data programs and assess individual student progress. Educators are not provided the time needed to properly use the tools provided. More time needs to be provided to make decisions about the data. There is no regularly scheduled time to analyze data, reflect on instructional adjustments needed, nor work collaboratively on practices to improve student performance.
8 | Is there strong, observable evidence that teachers and administrators receive timely, effective support and intervention as needed? | Yes | WCSD has a district wide mentoring program and a support system for new teachers. The teacher coaches provide support for all teachers.
9 | Is there strong, observable evidence that each school’s resources effectively address each school’s instructional priorities? | Yes | Educators are provided with sufficient materials to support their instructional practice. The District allows for creative scheduling across the county so that resources can be shared between buildings.
10 | Is there strong, observable evidence that each school’s administrative team leads the implementation of a standards-aligned system? | Yes | The curriculum is aligned with the state standards. The administrative team holds staff members accountable for implementing standards aligned curriculum. The administrative team is involved in the analysis of student achievement data at the building level.
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 | Teachers are trained to recognize and handle student problems. Students with difficulties, and their families, can get help. The school houses a wide range of support including nurses, counselors, and resource teachers to help students and families who need special assistance. Both teachers and students are recognized on a weekly basis for their accomplishments.
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 | Differentiated instruction is widely used in classrooms. Credit recovery and drop out prevention programs have been instilled. The attendance policies and procedures are clearly stated and monitored. Attendance improvement plans are put in place for students who have chronic absences.

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 no regularly scheduled time to analyze data, reflect on instructional adjustments needed, nor work collaboratively on practices to improve student performance.
2 |
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
Students Overall | 81.00
IEP - Special Education | 35.00
Economically Disadvantaged | 57.00

Math: 2011 NCLB/AYP Target: 67%

Student Group | Grade 11
Students Overall | 78.00
IEP - Special Education | 36.00
Economically Disadvantaged | 42.00

Student Achievement Goals - Other

Reading Participation
2011 NCLB/AYP Target
95%

We will have 95% or better participation.

Math Participation
2011 NCLB/AYP Target
95%

We will have 95% or better participation.

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

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

We will have 82.5% graduation rate.

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 no regularly scheduled time to analyze data, reflect on instructional adjustments needed, nor work collaboratively on practices to improve student performance. | Staff and administration will create a systematic process for using data to inform instructional decisions to meet students' academic needs. | Schools must establish a strong culture of data use to ensure that data based decisions are made frequently, consistently, and appropriately according to Datnow, Park, and Wohlstetter (2007).
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?

Analyze data; 4Sight, PSSA, CDTS, Keystones | Administration | August | Emetric, DRC, PVAAS, Performance Plus
The Administration will establish a schoolwide data team, consisting of the administrative team, teacher representatives from curricular areas, and academic coaches. | Administration | August 25, 2011 | Emetric, DRC, PVAAS, Performance Plus
The data team will collaborate to analyze strengths and weaknesses based on data. Team members will clarify the school’s data vision and model the use of data to make instructional decisions, and provide professional development to other school staff to do the same. | Data Team | September 27, 2011 | Emetric, DRC, PVAAS, Performance Plus, Academic Coaches, What Works Clearinghouse Resources
The data team will prepare a written plan specifying actions for using data to make instructional decisions; staff and team members responsible for carrying out those actions; timelines for executing the actions; and how each action helps the school reach its long-term goals. | Data Team | September 27, 2011 | Academic Coaches, Standards Aligned System from PDE, What Works Clearinghouse Resources, Lesson Plans, Data Action Plans
Teachers and administrators will participate in grade- and subject-level meetings to ensure that structured collaboration time is used effectively. Teachers will create a best practices portfollio to share among faculty members. | Teachers | Third Tuesday of Each Month | Lesson Plans, Best Practices Portfolio
Teachers will implement best practices identified through data anaylsis in daily instruction and monitor effectiveness. | Teachers | August 2011-June 2012 | Lesson Plans, Best Practices Portfolio, SAS

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

Completion of data action plans; Record of attendance at data team meetings; Record of attendance at grade level and subject level meetings; Agendas of professional development; Calendar of professional development;Weekly lesson plans submitted with successful instructional practices and data interventions included; Best Practices Portfolio; Teacher Binders reflecting grade level and subject level data and interventions; Administrators will monitor implementation through the use of class observations, walk-throughs, and evaluations. | 90% of students will increase their performance on subsequent reading and math classroom diagnostic tools assessments compared to the benchmark reading and math classroom diagnostic tools assessments.

Action Sequence 2
No data was submitted.

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

August 25, 2011

Proper Utilization of Performance Plus Data System/Teachers/Accessiblity to Data

Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Administration/Coaches/WCSD

80% of teachers will be able to obtain their own data and create data reports

August 29, 2011

Got Data, Now What?/Data Team/Effective use of data for instructional decision making

Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Administration/Coaches/Teacher Leaders

Data team will develop a data vision and goals for effective instructional decision making and present them to 100% of the teaching staff.

September 20, 2011

Got Data, Now What?/Teachers/Effective use of data for instructional decision making

Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Data Team

80% of teachers will begin implementing instructional decision making based on data.

October 10, 2011

Grade Level Team Meeting/9th, 10th, 11th, 12th Grade Teachers/Teachers will collaborate to begin to develop a best practices portfolio.

Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Data Team

100% of the teachers will collaborate and share effective instructional strategies that work.

October 21, 2011

Subject Specific Team Meeting/Teachers/Teachers will collaborate to begin to develop a best practices portfolio within their curricular area.

Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Data Team

100% of the teachers will collaborate and share effective instructional strategies that work.

3rd Tues. of Each Month (Faculty Meetings) Oct-May

Sharing of Best Practices Portfolio/Teachers/Improving collaboration among teachers which will increase student performance

Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Data Team

80% of the teachers will consistently use effective instructional practices within the classrooms.

January 16, 2011

Data analysis based on Diagnostic Assessments/Teachers/Determine class and individual students' strengths and weaknesses

Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Teacher Leaders and Data Team

80% of the teachers will improve their instruction as measured by increased student achievement in the baseline areas of weakness.

January 26, 2011

Teacher collaboration on new areas of weakness based on diagnostic assessment/Teachers/Determine instructional adjustments that need to be made within the classrooms

Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Teachers

80% of teachers will indicate instructional adjustments in their lesson plans.

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.
| |