2/8/2012 Meeting Attachments

Documents to review:

    BSC ProcessV1:  This document outlines the process by which the BSC/SPSA would be developed on an annual basis. The SSC will review and approve this document at the January SSC meeting

    BSC-Timeline-Shortened: This document outlines the truncated version of the BSC /SPSA development process to used t his year. .  SSC will review and approve this document at the January SSC meeting.

    Self-Reflection Worksheet: This document includes the questions for the BSC/SPSA development process.

    Existing Data Worksheet: This document provides the data available to date.

Hopefully the review and approval of the BSC process documents will not take too much time and we ca n devote most of our time to :

a.    Identify existing data
b.    Identify  gaps in existing data
c.    Select questions for “Self-Reflection” component of BSC development

I would like to propose the following “homework” prior to the meeting:

1.    Review the attached Existing data worksheet.
a.     Mr. Blackshur provide any additional informational information that is available beyond what is included in this document. It would be helpful to provide the information that addresses the high school initiatives that have been implemented and the school is required to report on (e.g: A-G compliance for class of 2014, Algebra, etc) so that we can see if we have met or are close to meeting these standards.

b.    Faculty/staff members of the SSC be prepared to provide an update of other assessment data that is available.

2.    Review the suggested questions in the attached worksheet.. Bring changes/deletions/additions to the January meeting.

Worksheet for “Self-Reflection” questions:

Step 1: Through a self-reflective process, answer the following questions:
Question    Comments
What are we doing now with respect to Core curriculum and school initiatives

What are we doing beyond the core curriculum and school initiatives

What challenges are their in implementing the core curriculum and CLAs

How are we doing based on the data available?  Quantitative vs Qualitative data

What are the weaknesses/strengths of the data we have?
What specifics steps can we take to improve our data gathering?

Step 2: Based on the analysis of above, how well are we meeting our mission of providing equal access to all educational programs and ensure success for all students:

Question    Comments
Who is being left behind?
Why are they being left behind?
What are we doing that facilitates the gap?
What are we doing to reduce the gap?

Step 3: Based on the analysis of above, what will we do the same and what will we do differently to ensure we  are meeting our mission of providing equal access to all educational programs and ensure success for all students:

Question    Comments
How do we build on our strengths?
What will change where we are not succeeding?
How will we measure it?

Summary of Existing Data

Achievement (Assessment Results)
English Language Arts    Math
% Proficient in the district

9th Grade 60%

10th Grade 52%

11th Grade  52%
% Proficient in your school

9th Grade  57%

10th Grade  55%

11th Grade  49%    % Proficient in the district

Algebra  38.7%

Geometry  39.4%

Adv Alg  41.2%    % Proficient in your school

Algebra  32%

Geometry  47.3%

Adv Alg  59.7%
District change from last year +1%    School change from last year -3%    District change from last year +0.3%    School change from last year  -0.8%
Notes
Percent proficient in math doesn’t show who is taking a given course (access).
Proficiency in LA declines from 9th to 11th grade
Should Algebra numbers be higher?
LA Proficiency rates decline from 9th to 12th grade.
How is data collected?
Who is the data representative of?
What are the gaps in the data?
What alternative data exists to include in analysis?
What alternative data could be collected?

Growth (Assessment Results)
English Language Arts    Math
Last year’s proficiency rate
9th Grade
67.8%

10th Grade
52.3%

11th Grade
48.9%
This year’s proficiency rate

9th Grade
56.4%

10th Grade
54.8%

11th Grade
49.1%    Last year’s proficiency rate

Algebra
44.7%

Geometry
52.1%

Adv Alg
46.5%    This year’s proficiency rate

Algebra
32.0%

Geometry
47.3%

Adv Algebra
59.7%
Percent change
FBB: 56.3%
BB: 51.0%
Basic: 21.9%    Percent change
FBB: 55.9%
BB: 28.0%
Basic: 28.4%
Notes
Large number of students in LA and Math +/- 25 points from proficient.

Behavioral Indicators (e.g. suspension, expulsion, grades, and attendance data)
Attendance    % Attendance last year
92.2
Change over time
Suspensions    Number of suspensions
08/09 – 75
09/10 – 61
10/11 – 98    Number of students
08/09 – 2031
09/10 – 2092
10/11 – 2149

Notes
Ethnicity    # of Students    # of Suspensions    % of Suspensions    % of School
AA    35    45    46%    5%
L    19    22    23%    10%
C    15    18    18%    60.7%

Suspensions decline by grade level.

Climate Indicators (Satisfaction Surveys)
Questions to Ask: What ratings are highest? What ratings are lowest? Where do you see the greatest difference?
Students

3.19 #21. I have somebody at home who cares about me and supports my learning.
3.15 #24. I like this school and would recommend it to other students.
2.42 #7.   I help make decisions in my school
2.48 #8.  There are always enough books and supplies in the classroom for all the students.
Families

3.28 #33.  I would recommend this school to other parents.
3.27 #34.  Overall, I love my child’s school.
2.52 #23.  I have attended at least one parent-teacher conference about my child.
2.48 #29.  I attend and actively participate in regularly scheduled meetings, events, and adult educational opportunities.
Staff

3.31 #15. The school provides high quality extra curricular and/or after school programs. (extended learning opportunities)
3.29 #12. Teachers in this school use multiple assessment practices to measure student progress throughout the year.
2.44 #26. The Board of Education is leading the District in the right direction.
2.50 #25. The Superintendant is leading the District in the right direction.
Notes
# of parents responding was 240; was this a representative sample?

Focal Groups (e.g. ethnicity, gender, language proficiency level, grade-level)
English Language Arts    Math
Grade Comparison

(by reading the table horizontally)

Cohort Comparison

(by reading the table diagonally)

Ethnicity
ELL and non-ELL students

African American students

Latino students