1	Continuous Improvement Plan Data Analysis (Originally Network for Systemic Improvement - Progress) Fort Recovery Local Schools As of August 17, 2006 STATE REPORT CARD – Implications for State Report Card
2	Continuous Improvement Plan CIP Goals All students regardless of ability or handicapping condition, will: Goal I - Learn to the best of their abilities Goal II - Learn in a safe, supportive, caring environment Goal III - Graduate with the skills / knowledge to compete successfully in work & school
3	Goal I – Performance Indicators “Students will Learn to the Best of their Abilities” A. All students will pass each area of state or off-year tests B. Each year an increase in students reaching advance level of proficiency in each level C. There will be an increase each year in seniors graduating with honor diplomas (College Prep and Vocational)
4	Goal I – Performance Indicators “Students will Learn to the Best of their Abilities” D. Show group progress on locally administered tests – i.e. KDI, Plan, Iowa E. Show group progress on AP tests, PSAT, ACT
5	Progress - Goal I, Indicator A “All students will pass each area of state or off-year tests” Average passing % of all Proficiency and Off-Year Tests for Grades 1-9 New cut scores for off-year test start 1999 2004 – 4^th, 6^th, 9^th Proficiency Tests only STATE REPORT CARD
6	Progress - Goal I, Indicator A “All students will pass each area of state or off-year tests” Average passing % of all Achievement Tests for Grades 3-8 2004 – Reading 3 2005 – Reading 3,4,5,8; Math 3,7,8; Writing 4 2006 – Reading 3-8; Math 3-8; Writing 4 2007 – Reading 3-8; Math 3-8; Writing 4,7; Social Studies 5,8; Science 5,8 STATE REPORT CARD
7	Progress - Goal I, Indicator A “All students will pass each area of state or off-year tests” Average passing % of all OGT areas for Grade 10 2003 and 2004 – Reading, Math only 2005 forward – Reading, Math, Writing, Science, Social Studies STATE REPORT CARD
8	Progress - Goal I, Indicator A “All students will pass each area of state or off-year tests” Average passing % of students with disabilities Proficiency and Off-Year Tests for Grades 1-9 New cut scores for off-year test start 1999 2004 – 4^th, 6^th, 9^th Proficiency Tests only 2005 – 4^th SS, Sc, M; 6^th Proficiency STATE REPORT CARD
9	Progress - Goal I, Indicator A “All students will pass each area of state or off-year tests” Average passing % of students with disabilities Achievement Tests for Grades 3-8 2004 – Reading 3 2005 – Reading 3,4,5,8; Math 3,7,8; Writing 4 2006 – Reading 3-8; Math 3-8; Writing 4 2007 – Reading 3-8; Math 3-8; Writing 4,7; Social Studies 5,8; Science 5,8 STATE REPORT CARD
10	Progress - Goal I, Indicator A “All students will pass each area of state or off-year tests” Average passing % of students with disabilities OGT areas for Grade 10 2003 and 2004 – Reading, Math only 2005 forward – Reading, Math, Writing, Science, Social Studies STATE REPORT CARD
11	Progress - Goal I, Indicator A “All students will pass each area of state or off-year tests” District Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Based upon Building AYP STATE REPORT CARD
12	Progress - Goal I, Indicator A “All students will pass each area of state or off-year tests” Performance Index Score (as reported on State Report Card) Advanced – 1.2 Accelerated – 1.1 Proficient – 1.0 Basic - .6 Below Basic - .3 Untested – 0 STATE REPORT CARD
13	Progress - Goal I, Indicator B “Each year an increase in students reaching advance level of proficiency in each level” Percentage of Advanced Level for Proficiency and Off-Year Tests for Grades 1-9 New cut scores for off-year test start 1999 2004 – 4^th, 6^th, 9^th Proficiency Tests only 2005 – 4^th SS, Sc, M; 6^th Proficiency STATE REPORT CARD
14	Progress - Goal I, Indicator B “Each year an increase in students reaching advance level of proficiency (Achievement) in each level” Percentage of Advanced Level for Achievement Tests for Grades 3-8 2004 – Reading 3 2005 – Reading 3,4,5,8; Math 3,7,8; Writing 4 2006 – Reading 3-8; Math 3-8; Writing 4 2007 – Reading 3-8; Math 3-8; Writing 4,7; Social Studies 5,8; Science 5,8 STATE REPORT CARD
15	Progress - Goal I, Indicator B “Each year an increase in students reaching advance level of proficiency (Achievement) in each level” Percentage for Advanced Level for OGT for Grade 10 2003 Advanced Level – not reported 2003 and 2004 – Reading, Math only 2005 On – All 5 Areas STATE REPORT CARD
16	Progress -Goal I, Indicator C “There will be an increase each year in seniors graduating with honor diplomas (College Prep and Vocational)” Percentage of seniors with Honor Diplomas (as determined by State criteria)
17	Progress -Goal I, Indicator D “Show group progress on locally administered tests – i.e. KDI, PLAN, Iowa” KDI – Kindergarten Diagnostic Instrument 2003 – 60 students – average 124.9 2004 – 62 students – average 134.6 2005 – 76 students – average 137.9 2006 – 76 students – average 129.07 Includes students that have had no school experience
18	Progress -Goal I, Indicator D “Show group progress on locally administered tests – i.e. KDI, PLAN, Iowa” PLAN – 10^th Grade pre-ACT test National Average 16.5 2002 – 68 students - average 18.1 2003 – 57 students - average 19.4 2004 – 71 students – average 18.0 2005 – 76 students – average 18.5 2006 – 75 students – average 18.8
19	Progress -Goal I, Indicator E “Show group progress on AP tests, PSAT, ACT” Advanced Placement Chemistry, English, Calculus 2000 – 38 tests – 1.42 2001 – 30 tests – 1.60 2002 – 24 tests – 1.50 2003 – 24 tests – 2.13 2004 – 33 tests – 2.33 2005 – 26 tests – 1.96 2006 – 31 tests – 1.61
20	Progress -Goal I, Indicator E “Show group progress on AP tests, PSAT, ACT” PSAT – Pre-SAT 2003 – 10^th – 12 students Selection Index – 51% 2003 – 11^th – 6 students Selection Index – 69% 2004 – 10^th – 6 students Selection Index – 43% 2004 – 11^th – 4 students Selection Index – 88% 2005 – Not enough students took test for reporting purposes 2006 – Not enough students took test for reporting purposes
21	Progress -Goal I, Indicator E “Show group progress on AP tests, PSAT, ACT” ACT 1999 – 47 students – 21.2 2000 – 51 students – 22.1 2001 – 39 students – 21.8 2002 – 47 students – 20.9 2003 – 64 students – 21.7 2004 – 58 students – 21.3 2005 – 60 students – 21.6 2006 – 47 students – 21.3 National Average 1999-2001 – 21.0 2002-2003 – 20.8 2004 – 20.9 2005 – 20.9 2006 – 21.1
22	Goal II – Performance Indicators “Students will Learn in a Safe, Supportive, Caring Environment” Yearly student surveys will increase positive ratings on “students treat each other with respect” Increase rating on “our teachers care about the students” Staff survey will show increase in rating of “our staff is collegial and works well together” Student surveys will show increase in rating of climate section
23	Progress – Goal II, Indicator A “Yearly student surveys will increase positive ratings on ‘students treat each other with respect’” Average rating (1-5) of annual student survey question – “students treat each other with respect”
24	Progress -Goal II, Indicator B “Increase rating on ‘our teachers care about the students’” Average rating (1-5) of annual student survey question – “our teachers care about the students”
25	Progress -Goal II, Indicator C “Staff survey will show increase in rating of ‘our staff is collegial and works well together’” Average rating (1-10) of annual teacher survey question – “our staff is collegial and works well together”
26	Progress -Goal II, Indicator D “Student surveys will show increase in rating of climate section’” Average rating (1-5) of Positive Learning Climate of annual student surveys
27	Goal III – Performance Indicators “All students will graduate with the skills / knowledge to compete successfully in work & school” On BAC surveys, employers rating average of new FR graduate employees will increase All students will reach age/grade appropriate Technology Benchmarks set by District Technology Committee Senior surveys will show an increase on “exposure to career choices” Post-Graduate surveys will show an increase in positive results (including SCAN Skills)
28	Progress -Goal III, Indicator A Priorities as indicated by area employer surveys Need to focus more upon: (4 point scale) 2005 – 28 BAC surveys returned
29	Progress -Goal III, Indicator A Average Rating of new FR Graduate Employees from Employer Surveys Employee Rating: (4 point scale) 2005 – 28 BAC surveys returned
30	Progress - Goal III, Indicator B “All students will reach age/grade appropriate Technology Benchmarks set by District Technology Committee” Percentage of students reaching grade level Tech Benchmarks In 2002-03, raised the difficulty level and differentiation of Tech Benchmarks In 2004-05, once again raised difficulty level and differentiation of Tech Benchmarks
31	Progress - Goal III, Indicator C “Senior surveys will show an increase on ‘exposure to career choices’” Percentage of students who answered the question “Adequacy of programs in career education and planning” as Satisfied, No Change Necessary (ACT HS Profile Report – question 188)
32	Progress -Goal III, Indicator D “Post-Graduate surveys will show an increase in positive results (including SCAN Skills)” Exit Survey – Average rating (1-5) of how graduating seniors feel they are “well prepared”
33	Progress – State Report Card Rating Goal I, Indicators A-E Goal II, Indicators A-D Goal III, Indicators A-D
34	Fort Recovery Local Schools Vision: "Fort Recovery Local Schools: An exemplary school district adding value for all students."
35	Instructional Conclusions/Implications Our special education students have made good progress and we will need to continue to target our efforts for these students. Our students academically are doing very well when compared to state standards (AYP) Strategies may need to be developed and implemented to improve the percentage of students who score at the Advanced levels
36	Instructional Conclusions/Implications We need to learn all we can from our participation in the Battelle For Kids Value Added Pilot. Our CIP work this summer is likely to assist us in helping our students increase their academic growth. Our students’ performance on AP exams might be something we should study. Our ACT results need to be analyzed so that we can assist students in performing better on this assessment.
37	Instructional Conclusions/Implications We need to provide on-going Professional Development opportunities for staff to assist them in providing instruction that leads to sustained and incremental growth in the indicators. We need to study our students’ performance on the ACT. We need to find ways to encourage more collaboration among our teachers.
38	Around the District Board to meet with a professional public engagement facilitator on Monday, August 21. Reduced the number of regular bus routes from 10 to 9. Project Lead the Way to be implemented for the first time.
39	District Finances We ended the year in the black. We are projecting that in the near future our expenses will increase at a greater rate than will our revenue. We will continue to explore options to this scenario. We must continue to work together to minimize our expenses.
40	Staff Changes - Certified Becky Miller and Shelly Vaughn to be trained as district value added specialists Evelyn Muhlenkamp – p/t MS English teacher (Until Sept. 1) Amy Kaiser – HS guidance counselor Brent Niekamp – HS intervention specialist Ryan Griffin – Band Director Marcia Weigel – p/t Gifted teacher
41	Staff Changes - Certified Nicole Homan – Replaces Nicole Kaiser Bob Heitkamp – Grade 4 teacher Kim Niekamp – Grade 4 teacher Ed Snyder – Retired as HS principal Sue Ann Shuttleworth – Retired as elementary teacher Mary Barman – Retired as elementary teacher
42	Staff Changes - Certified Evelyn Muhlenkamp – Retiring effective Sept. 1 Ed Snyder – p/t MS English teacher Dave Warvel – HS Principal Kim Pohlman – p/t Grade 5 Cathy Wendel – f/t Kindergarten Amy Klingshirn –El/MS Special Education
43	Staff Changes - Certified Marge Dilworth – f/t HS Intervention Specialist Mark Fenik – Resigned to accept an administrative position in another district Toni LeFevre – Newspaper/Yearbook advisor
44	Staff Changes - Classified Greg Reinhard – Resigned Chris Hart – p/t EL/MS custodian Shelly Showalter - p/t EL/MS custodian Barb Alig – Preschool aide Nancy Reinhard – EMIS coordinator and data/ clerical assistant Dino Knapke – Responsibilities as mechanic and custodian adjusted Larry Hart – Responsibilities as bus driver and maintenance adjusted Sandy Kaiser – Responsibilities as bus driver and custodian adjusted Maggie Hartings – MS secretary Judy Thien – Responsibilities as a cook and aide adjusted
45	Staff Changes - ESC Andy Smith – ESC Superintendent Kathy Portz – Elem County MD teacher Linda Braun – Elem County MD aide