3.3 EDUCATOR DATA (district-wide unless otherwise indicated)
3-Year District Trend Educator Data
|
|
2001-2002 |
2002-2003 |
2003-2004 |
2004-2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Full Time
Employees (FTE) |
49 |
41 |
41 |
40 |
|
Average Teaching Experience |
20.5 |
20.1 |
18.5 |
17.6 |
|
Teachers with Bachelor’s Degree (%) |
65.6 |
67.9 |
73.2 |
77.5 |
|
Teachers with Master’s Degree |
34.4 |
32.1 |
26.8 |
22.5 |
|
Student/Teacher Ratio HS |
13.6:1 |
15.5:1 |
15.7:1 |
13.0:1 |
|
Student/Teacher Ratio Ele |
17 |
20 |
18 |
18.4:1 |
|
Student/Administration Ratio |
225.1:1 |
314.5:1 |
119:1 |
193.:1 |
|
% White Teachers |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
|
% Black Teachers |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
% Hispanic Teachers |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
% Asian/P Islander Teachers |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
% Native American Teachers |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
% Male Teachers |
23.7 |
22.2 |
22.0 |
17.5 |
|
% Female Teachers |
76.3 |
77.8 |
78.0 |
82.5 |
The District improvement Plan will utilize the Elementary
and High School SIP’s to determine areas of improvement and develop an action
plan to address these areas.
3.4 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT DATA –Refer to School Improvement Plans and Pope County Technology Plan
GOAL # 1
Increased numbers of students will meet or exceed state standards and local expectations in Math.
|
Activity |
Timeline |
Responsible Persons |
Evaluations |
Resources
for Activity |
|
Professional
Development Activity # 1 |
August 2004-June 2007 |
All elementary teachers,
Title I Math, Junior High Math and High School Math teachers |
Title
I funding System
of Support ROE #20 |
|
|
Professional
Development Activity #2 Teachers
will participate in staff and grade-level meetings to discuss curriculum
alignment. |
|
|||
|
Professional
Development Activity #3 Teachers
will attend workshops on integrating hands-on math manipulatives into their
curriculum. |
August 2004-June 2007 |
All elementary, Title I,
and Junior High Math and High School Math teachers |
District
records, meeting agendas, and professional development evaluations will
document that teachers have received training on integrating the use of math
manipulatives |
Title
I funding System
of Support ROE
#20 |
|
Professional
Development Activity #4 |
August 2004-June 2007 |
All elementary, Title I,
and Junior High Math, High School Math teachers. |
Program
will be purchased and put into place.
Star Math scores. State
and Local test scores |
|
|
Professional
Development Activity #5 |
August 2004-June 2007. |
All elementary, Title I,
and Junior High Math teachers. |
Programs
will be purchased and put into place.
State
and Local test scores |
Title
I Funding |
|
Professional
Development Activity #6 |
August 2004-June 2007 |
All teachers and aides |
District
records, meeting agendas, and professional development evaluations will
document that teachers have received training on integrating the use of math
manipulates |
Tile
I funding |
|
Professional Development
Activity #7 Special education teachers will align the IEP goals with state math standards and benchmarks. |
Aug. 2004- June 2006 |
Special education teachers |
Completed curriculum alignment documents will show that IEP goals are aligned with state standards. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Development
Activity #8 High School Math Teachers will align books for math curriculum using the same series to ease transition between courses. |
Aug. 2004- June 2006 |
All math teachers/principals |
Books will be bought and put in place. Invoices will be available. |
Illinois Textbook Loan Program |
|
Professional Development
Activity #9 Remedial review courses will be given to Juniors not currently enrolled in Math courses. |
Jan. 2004- June 2006 |
Math Teachers |
Sign-in sheets will document students’ attendance in review courses. State test scores. |
Title I |
GOAL
# 2
Increased numbers of students
will meet or exceed state standards and local expectations in Reading.
|
Activity |
Timeline |
Responsible Persons |
Evaluations |
Resources
for Activity |
|
Professional
Development Activity # 1 |
August 2004-June 2007 |
All teachers |
|
|
|
Activity
#2 Teachers
will participate in staff development for the implementation in their
Reading classes 2nd-12th the Accelerated Reading program, which
includes taking both diagnostic and comprehensive tests on the computer. |
August 2004-June 2007 |
All Reading teachers |
Observations/checklists AR
comprehension test Improved
daily work Higher
reading scores on the Stanford and ISAT |
Computers More
AR books and quizzes Full-time
Reading Improvement Aide Reading
Incentives through AR program |
|
August 2004-June 2007 |
Title I teachers |
Title
I Parent compact |
Title
I funding |
|
|
Activity
#4 K-3
grade Teachers will participate in the development a phonic curriculum and
implementation into the regular reading curriculum |
August 2004-June 2007 |
All teachers/Title
Teachers |
Lesson
Plans Curriculum
Outlines |
Phonics
Reading Rods Computers |
|
Activity
#5 |
August 2004-June 2007 |
All teachers |
Lesson
Plans Curriculum
Outlines ISAT
scores |
|
GOAL # 3
Faculty will implement instructional
activities to increase student use of technology.
|
Activity |
Timeline |
Responsible Persons |
Evaluations |
Resources
for Activity |
|
Professional
Development Activity # 1 |
August 2004-June 2007 |
All teachers |
|
|
|
Professional Development Activity #2 Teachers will participate in an ongoing staff development that correlates with teacher recertification requirements. |
Aug. 2004- June 2006 |
All teachers |
District records, sign-in sheets, and meeting agendas will document that teachers participated in training sessions. |
|
3.5 PARENT/FAMILY INVOLVEMENT DATA
Parent and Family Involvement Data show the following:
2003 2004 2005
District Data for Parental Involvement 63.3 % 100% 100%
Elementary 65% 100 % 100%
High
School 60% 100% 100%
Refer to elementary or high school improvement plans for
specific data about parental involvement activities and surveys completed by
parents, students, and staff..
3.6
ADDITIONAL TYPES OF DATA
A review of the Stanford Achievement test scores, the ISAT
test scores, PSAE test scores, and ACT scores from 2003 and 2004 indicates a
continuing tend of poor performance in mathematics. This deficit in mathematics
is apparent in the lower elementary grades through high school. This problem is
also supported by surveys completed by parents, students and faculty.
3.7 Data Quality
Student test data (ISAT, PSAE, Stanford, Plan, and Explore)
are highly valid and reliable. The surveys completed by teachers and parents
are fairly representative of the population being questioned for quality input.
4.0 Data Analysis
4.1 Summaries of Data for performance
targets (3.1/3.2)
The 2004 ISAT results data analysis of mathematics scores for the economically
disadvantaged students in 3, 5, and 8th grades fell well below the
40% benchmark in order to make Adequate Yearly Progress. Only 22.9 % of this subgroup “met or
exceeded” the standards in the area of mathematics for our economically disadvantaged
students. Another area of concern with the 2003-2004 school year was the time
devoted to teaching core subjects (minutes per day). A major finding for High
School data indicates low PSAE score in mathematics with ACT scores supporting
this deficiency. Consequently, the mathematics deficit has a wide scope and
depth. However, the 2004-05 elementary school test scores indicated that the
school made AYP. Furthermore, High school 11th grade PSAE scores
demonstrated significant improvement in overall PSAE scores as well as in
subtests of math, reading and science. However, math scores still fell slightly
below the state average on the PSAE and significantly below on the ACT.
4.2. Diagnosis
of Performance Targets (4.1) (Refined performance targe represents the unmet AYP
targest on the School Report Cards)
To
achieve adequate yearly performance in
Math scores for economically disadvantaged students at grades3, 5, and 8th
grades.
4.3 Hypotheses to Explain performance targets (4.2)(possible logical
hypotheses that explain why each refined performance target was not met.)
|
Target #_1__: To
achieve adequate yearly performance in Math scores for economically
disadvantaged students at grades3, 5, 8th and 11
grades. |
|
|||
|
4.3 Hypotheses (Possible reasons for students not
meeting expectations) 3. Lack of Teacher training/expertise 4. Administrative turnover 5. Low Socioeconomic Status of Parents and
Low Parental involvement |
|
|||
|
4.4 Data Summary to
support or refute hypotheses 1. School report card and
classroom schedules of elementary grades reflect instructional time in core
subjects were below state standards |
||||
|
|
4.5 Causal
Factors
|
|||
|
|
4.6
selection of strategy 1. Increase scheduled instructional time in
core subjects 2. Alignment of mathematics instruction with
ILS 3. Increase availability of math
manipulatives 4.Increase
teacher professional training in math instruction of economically
disadvantaged students.
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||
5.0 Action Plan for District
Name: School
Years:
STRATEGY
(5.1) TARGET
(4.2)
|
Alignment of mathematics instruction
with ILK |
will
adequately improve performance in |
Math for
Economically disadvantaged students in grades 3, 5, and 8 |
|||
|
Activity 5.2 |
Timeline 5.3 |
Responsible Persons 5.7 |
Evaluations 5.8 |
Resource 5.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Professional
Development Activity #1 Teachers
will participate in staff and grade-level meetings to discuss curriculum
alignment. |
|
||||
|
|
|||||