|
East
Hardin Middle school |
ComprehENsive School IMprovement Plan
ASSURANCE
CERTIFICATION
School
Year 2009--2010
The
East Hardin Middle School council
and school planning committee reviewed the Assurances in the Kentucky
Comprehensive Improvement Planning School Framework prior to approval of
our plan.
Paul Connelly, Jr.
___
12-9-09
____
Chairperson, School Council Date
_Gail Crain
_
_____12-9-09
_
Chairperson, School Planning Committee
Date
Plan
Approved by the School Council:
December
09, 2009
School
Council Members:
Melissa
Hardin
|
Parent |
Dwayne
Mollison
|
Parent |
Mary Carruthers |
Teacher |
Diana Glenn
|
Teacher |
Todd Haydon
|
Teacher |
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MISSION
STATEMENT
The mission of East Hardin Middle School is to ensure a complete educational and social endeavor during the transition from elementary to high school, to prepare out students for an ever-changing society by teaching and modeling not only effective problem-solving, but also creative and responsible decision-making, and to effect a cooperative effort between parents and school staff with the success of the student foremost at task.
East Hardin Middle School focuses on student success and the ability to be a lifelong learner as the goal of all school activities, through a student-centered environment with a cooperative effort t of staff, parents, and the community.
So that we may successfully implement the vision and mission of East Hardin Middle School, our faculty, staff and school community adhere to the following beliefs:
I. We believe that all students have the ability, right and responsibility to learn and experience success.
II. We believe in the importance of working with parents and students to ensure that our learning environment has clear, consistent expectations and meets specific academic standards.
III. We believe that all curriculum must be engaging, challenging and differentiated to meet the needs of all students.
IV. We believe in providing our students with a safe environment that encourages the development of healthy relationships and a positive self-concept.
V. We believe that each staff members accepts, encourages, and challenges our students, thereby making a difference in their lives.
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
East Hardin’s Consolidated Plan committee studied CATS results, standardized test results, building needs, technology needs, MAP testing data, and survey information from parents, teachers, students and community members. The CSIP committee made recommendations to the faculty, who approved the goals and strategies for presentation to the site based council. The needs assessment process involved analyzing student performance data and district practices, utilizing data driven decisions and identifying gaps in student achievement tied to student academic performance.
The 2009 Commonwealth Accountability Testing System (CATS) testing did not have an accountability index this year. However, utilizing the accountability index constructed by KSBA, results indicate that, as a school, East Hardin Middle School is declining in its accountability index showing 85 in the 2008 biennium and remaining at 85 in the 2009 KASC Transition Index utilizing weighted average analysis of all Elementary, Middle and High Schools’ index.
For No Child Left Behind (NCLB) accountability, East Hardin did not meet overall Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and is in Tier III. The fact that students with disabilities and students with free and reduced lunch failed to meet their Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) in reading and students with disabilities failed to meet their AMO in math has remained our focus and attention on the needs of that population.
In an effort to include resources that extended beyond the traditional data reporting tools, we utilized Hardin County Schools Effective Schools Administrative Climate Survey results.
Goal and Strategy Development
Each member of the Instructional Committee and the CSIP committee reviewed specific data from their content area and recommended priority needs to be addressed in the 2009-10 CSIP. The members developed measurable goals and drafted strategies to accomplish the goals. The members met on a weekly basis to share the draft plan and provide critical insight and feedback. Throughout this process, the plan was reviewed with the Principal, Assistant Principal, and counselors to gain individual comments and expectations, insuring alignment in each respective area of assignment.
In our review of last year’s plan for 2008-2009, the 2009 NCLB and Kentucky’s Interim Performance Report (IPR) results, there was a clear need to review the plan using high quality research-based Professional Development (PD) that is both systemic and comprehensive in nature with built in monitoring strategies to safeguard success. Specific measurable targets for student subgroups not meeting AYP based on AMO’s in reading and math; the school’s role in addressing the teaching and learning needs of students will be addressed. A clear systemic approach to extended learning for targeted groups of students and an explanation for why the previous plan failed to bring about student achievement will be addressed by the revised plan and administrators.
During this process we determined that the progress of our subpopulations has not reached the levels defined by NCLB, and the 2009 IPR indicates that growth is needed in other areas as well. Initiatives and instructional strategies will be put in place. These will be monitored and assessed to see the effectiveness of these strategies. We need to continue to get instructional assistance delivered to the individual student if academic achievement is to be achieved for all. For students, this means identifying individual abilities and skills and tailoring their educational experience accordingly. For teachers, this means determining instructional strengths and growth areas through a data-based review of the performance of their students and creating professional development plan that will lead to individual student and classroom improvements.
EVALUATION OF PLAN
The effectiveness of the 2009-10 plan will be evaluated by using implementation and impact checks at various times throughout the year.
Our school desires to respond to the students’ needs by basing our plan on “. . .intervention rather than remediation. . .” in making our response “. . . systematic . . .,” “. . .timely. . .,” and “. . .direct . . .” (pp. 7-8) as based upon the research detailed and methodology suggested by Richard DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, Robert Eaker and Gayle Karhanek in the book Whatever It Takes (2004) Rather than corrective action, we have chosen to further develop a school improvement model that emphasizes personalization and focused instruction as central themes. We recognize the intense need to determine what students know and can do starting from the beginning of school. Teachers must stress learning every day and must create strong strategies for targeted interventions based on continuous, formative assessment. Strategies must be research based and must be measured quickly to make the necessary course adjustments.
Progress on the plan’s strategies will be shared with the various stakeholder groups throughout the year. Any necessary adjustments to the strategies will be made based on the review of impact checks in order to increase the opportunities for all students to experience success within our system of education. It is our belief that the plan is an ongoing, living document that demands responsiveness to the needs of our students and community, therefore making its success dependent on the constant monitoring of all of its goals and strategies to ensure applicability to current events and information.
We recognize that we must use our collective wisdom to meet our challenges. Individual schools, Sight Based Decision Making (SBDM) councils and the district must work collaboratively to review progress, solve problems, seek resources, and provide the professional and personal supports necessary to accomplish our goals.
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
We believe that any plan’s success is directly linked to the involvement and subsequent contribution of every member that the plan affects.
Prior to the posting of any revision to the plan, every stakeholder group was given a copy of the plan to review and offer suggestions. We have representation from principals, parents, community members, board members, district staff and students since every voice is critical in ensuring the plan adequately addresses the needs of our diverse student population while maintaining the integrity of our abilities to effectively carry out the plan.
Leading up to final board approval of the plan, the plan will be available to the public at least two weeks before adoption to allow for any student, parent, or community member access to its content, ensuring equity and understanding of each goal and strategy.
2009-2010
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMITTEE
|
NAME |
POSITION/REPRESENTING |
|
Debbie Peak |
Teacher / Special Education |
|
Angela Van Meter |
Teacher / Reading |
|
Carla Wallace |
Teacher / Math |
|
Brent Wagoner |
Teacher / Social Studies |
|
Gale Hardy |
Teacher / ESS Coordinator |
|
Sheryl Crumpton |
Counselor |
|
Melanie Reynolds |
Counselor |
|
Wendy Brown |
HSE / Highly Skilled Educator |
|
Gail Crain |
Assistant Principal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|