Northern Pulaski middle School

 

COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOl IMPROVEMENT Plan

 

 

SCHOOL ASSURANCE REVIEW

SCHOOL YEAR 2006-2008

 

The ___Northern Middle________ school council and school planning committee reviewed the Assurances in the Kentucky Comprehensive Improvement Planning School Framework (2003) prior to approval of our plan.

                       

____Angela Murphy____            ________                              ____________________________

Chairperson, School Council                                                           Date

 

____Shelly Hargis         ______________                           ____________________________

Chairperson, School Planning Committee                             Date

 

Plan Approved by the School Council:

 

___________________________

Date

 

School Council Members:

 

Angela Murphy, Principal	Debbie Loy, Teacher
Steve Bumgardner, Teacher	JB Pitman, Parent
Mike Reynolds, Teacher	Tina Barker, Parent

 

Note:  Although the Assurance Certification is not included in the school’s improvement plan, the assurances for the categorical programs should be reviewed by the school council and the school planning committee prior to approval of the plan by the school council.  The Assurances for 2003-2004 are in the Comprehensive School Improvement Planning Framework (2003) and can be downloaded from the Web Page at: http://www.kde.state.ky.us/KDE/Administrative+Resources/School+Improvement/Comprehensive+Improvement+Planning/KDE+Planning+Tools+for+Schools+and+Districts.htm

 

School Plan Format Copyright Ó Kentucky Department of Education, 2003

 

COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

PLAN SUMMARY

Our plan is organized in three components of Academic Performance, Learning Environment, and Efficiency.  This is a list of the main things in each component.  Academic Performance focuses on maintaining horizontal and vertical alignment of curriculum, improving assessment strategies and creating common assessments to inform instructional practices, incorporating differentiated instructional practices, and improved teacher and student use of technology.   Learning Environment focuses on maintaining and improving the Straight A campaign, activities that support our involvement with the KY Center For Instructional Discipline, maintaining the Renaissance activities that celebrate and motivate student and staff success, maintaining and improving communication with NMS families, increased program prevention, awareness, and resistance for bullying and drugs, and on-going professional development for staff.  Efficiency focuses on school decision making that involves all stake-holders and maintains a focus on improved teaching and learning while exploring ways to maximize fiscal and personnel resources and best practices for over-all school improvement.

Process summary

 

The Mission Statement:

The Mission Statement of NMS states, “The educational community of Northern Pulaski Middle School will create a climate of challenge and success for each individual to achieve academic excellence and to exhibit positive character,, to develop pride in self and accomplishments while becoming a responsible citizen in a safe nurturing environment”.   This mission was reviewed by the entire staff for input in September, 2005.  Then the School Improvement Team reviewed the mission of our school and it was presented to the SBDM Council and approved with no changes on Sept. 27, 2005.  A roster of CSIP committees was also presented to Council and approved on Sept. 27, 2005.  The roster (attached) included all certified staff members, some support staff, parents, students, Central Office support, et al. 

Needs Assessment:

Several pieces of data (formal and informal) were used to determine the Needs Assessment and Key Finding for NMS.  The primary source of data included in-depth analysis of our Kentucky Performance Report from the CATS assessment.  This was conducted school-wide on November 7, 2005, by all certified staff.  Each department worked collaboratively to identify gaps and instructional implications for curriculum, instruction, and assessment, and plan instructional strategies to close the achievement gap.  This information was compiled in a final report. 

A second data source resulted in a review of the SISI document by the School Improvement Team.  This process began with the SIT members independently evaluating the SISI variance points and identifying areas that were strengths for NMS and also areas that were limits.  This information was compiled and reviewed by the SIT on Oct. 26 with an in-depth review of the items indicated as a weakness or as borderline.  As each item was reviewed, the SIT looked at the indictors for the performance levels, evidence of implementation, and compared the information to the Nov. 2002 Scholastic Audit Report.  Four key findings were identified for growth areas.  The SIT also reviewed the 2004-2006 CSIP and identified activities that were effective and we wanted to keep, and also activities that were no longer needed. 

Several student surveys were used for data sources to include the KIP (KY Initiative for Prevention) and a Safe Schools Survey.  Both surveys were administered to students in the Spring of 2005.  Trends and significant issues were identified.

Other informal data include teacher and parent concerns and informal interviews.

The above information was compiled and presented to the Needs Assessment Committee.  The committee held several meetings to determine key findings, priority needs, and causes and contributing factors.  Progress of the plan was presented to the SBDM Council on Oct. 25, 2005, and also on Nov. 15, 2005.  This process by the Needs Assessment Committee was completed by Dec. 21.  The recommendations were presented to Council on Jan. 24, 2006, and approved with no changes.

Planning:

The Planning Committee began work in January 2006.  The committee was divided into 3 sub-committees, one for each component (Academic Performance, Learning Environment, and Efficiency).   A chairperson for each subcommittee was identified and reported to Ms. Hargis weekly on the progress.  Each subcommittee developed measurable goals and objectives, and selected supporting strategies to address each objective.  This was an in-depth process that involved evaluating our current practices, evaluating the data collected by the Needs Assessment committee, and reference and comparison to the SISI document for support.  The planning committee also identified impact statements, responsible persons, costs, and funding sources.   Equity was considered in each component and identified in italics.  Working drafts were created along the way and reviewed weekly by each sub-committee.  The School Improvement Team reviewed the draft on Feb. 22, 2006, with no further suggestions, and the SBDM Council reviewed the working draft on Feb. 28, 2006, with no further suggestions. 

Review:

The Administrators will meet at Central Office on March 27, for a review from Central Office support and KDE support.  The plan will be presented to the community for public review on Tuesday, March 28, during Parent/Teacher Conferences and SBDM parent election.  The Council will also review the plan again on March 28.  The final review will be conducted by the Review Team on April 10 and any final revisions will be presented to the SBDM Council on April 25, 2006, for approval and adoption.  The plan will then be disseminated to all stake holders, posted on our web-site, and available for review in the office and the library.

How will you evaluate your Plan, and when?

Our plan will be evaluated quarterly for Implementation and Impact checks, beginning in September, 2006.  These will be shared with the staff and presented to Council for review.  The plan will also be evaluated and monitored monthly by the School Improvement Team and Administrative Staff.  Recommendations for amendments to the plan will be made to the SBDM council as they become necessary.

 

 

 

NMS 2005-2006

 

K E Y    F I N D I N G S

For School Improvement

 

Data

Sources of data are based on review of SISI document variance points and a review of our urrent CSIP by the School Improvement Team (SIT), Test Score Analysis by Staff (TSA), Teacher Interviews (TI), Parent Interviews (PI), and Student Safe School Survey, and Initiative for Prevention Survey (SS):

 

Academic Performance

Standard 1 (Curriculm) – Although there is some evidence of implementation …

• The curriculum does not elicit higher order thinking and problem-solving skills from all students on a regular basis (1.1g - TSA)
• The curriculum does not consistently accommodate the learning needs with expectations for high academic performance (proficiency) for all students (1.1g - TSA)
• The curriculum standards and expectations are not sufficiently identified and communicated to all students (1.1g – TSA)

 

Standard 2 (Assessment) – Although there is some evidence of implementation …

• Classroom assessment are not sufficiently frequent and rigorous (2.1a - SIT)
• Teachers do not regularly collaborate in the design of authentic assessment tasks (2.1b - SIT)
• Students are unable to effectively articulate what is expected for proficiency (2.1c - SIT)

 

Standard 3 (Instruction) – Although there is some evidence of implementation …

• Technology is not seamlessly integrated into instruction across content areas and student access is often limited (3.1e - SIT)
• Classroom instruction does not routinely accommodate various learning styles,  multiple intelligences, and brain research (3.1a – TSA)
• Classroom activities do not routinely require all students to use higher order thinking and problem solving skills (3.1a – TSA)
• Classroom instructions do not routinely  incorporate student-centered and culturally responsive instructional strategies that research indicates a high likelihood of effectiveness such as cooperative learning, learning centers, and hands-on activities (3.1a – TSA)
• Some learning activities require students to complete assessment tasks similar to those on the state assessment, but not routinely consistent in all classrooms (3.1b – TSA)
• The following areas were identified as PD needs by various content departments from the TSA to improve learning for all students :
  • Differentiation of instructional strategies for all students
  • Learning styles (specific to gender); How boys and girls learn differently
  • Effective collaboration for special needs students
  • Instructional strategies for special needs students
  • Brain-based learning
  • Instructional strategies for the multiple intelligences

 

 

 

Learning Environment

Standard 4 (School Culture) – Northern Middle School is commended for a positive school culture that values instruction and celebrates student and staff success. However, …

• Standards of student behavior are not consistently communicated to students and applied at all grade levels (4.1a,c – TI)
• Some teams and teachers routinely contact parents to discuss students progress on academics, attitude, attendance, and achievements of students.   However, some parents report that they have not been contacted by a teacher prior to receiving a report from school such as a grade card, disciplinary referral, referral to academy, etc. (4.1g  - PI, TI)

 

Standard 5 (Student, Family, and Community Support) – While there are strong connections between families, community, and school to reduce barriers to learning…

• Interaction between home and school is not consistently regular and meaningful schoolwide, and it is generally reactive (5.1a – PI, TI)
• ESS after-school services are not maximized to support student achievement (5.1b, d – TI)
• A significant number of students (254) report that they do not report incidents of bullying (SS)
• A significant number of students (145) report they they or a parent are abused at home (SS)
• A significant number of students (154) report they do not feel safe during transitions in the hallways (SS)
• Trend data indicates a significant increase in student use of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs from 6^th to 8^th grade (SS)
• The above Student Survey data indicates a finding that additional preventive and intervention procedures and programs should be considered to reduce barriers to learning (5.1a, c – SS, TI, PI)

 

 

Standard 6 (Professional Growth, Development, and Evaluation) – Ample professional development opportunities to support teacher growth plans and identified needs of the school are offered to support continuous growth and improved student learning (TI, TSA, SIT))

 

Efficiency

Standard 7 (Leadership) – School leadership consistently provides resources to ensure a safe, orderly, and equitable learning environment (SIT, TI)

 

Standard 8 (Organizational Structure and Resources) – All allocation and monitoring of resources are continually assessed and allocated equitably based on the learning needs and the vision/mission of our school (SIT, TI)

 

Standard 9 (Comprehensive and Effective Planning) – School Improvement is an on-going process, data driven, and regularly monitored to ensure continual progress.  CSIP activities are currently monitored, reported, research-based, and effective to improve student learning (TSA, TI, SIT)

 

 

 

Northern Middle School 2005 CSIP Committee Rosters
NEEDS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE	PLANNING COMMITTEE	REVIEW TEAM
Collecting, Organizing, and Analyzing Data; Key Findings; Priority Needs; and Causes and Contributing Factors	Action Plan;  Goals;  Objectives; Strategies and Activities; Expected Impact; Component Managers, Dates, and Responsible Persons; Equity; Costs and Funding Sources	In-house review of the plan before submitting to District and SBDM Council for review; Checks and Balances; Executive Summary
Hargis - Admin.	Hargis - Admin.	Hargis - Admin.
Murphy - Admin. / Parent	Murphy - Admin. / Parent	Murphy - Admin. / Parent
Sampson - Pupil Support/ FRYSC	Sampson - Pupil Support / FRYSC	Sampson - Pupil Support / FRYSC
Bumgardner - Council / S. Studies / Parent	Dick - Media Specialists / Parent	Loy - Council / Lang. Arts
Scott, P. - Pupil Support / Parent	Wiles - Pupil Support	Clayton - Sp. Ed.
Nicholas - Curriculum	Hess, G. - District Admin.	Harris - Sp. Ed.
P. Butcher - Gifted	P. Butcher- Gifted	Heher - Math
Ingram - Sp. Ed.	White - Sp. Ed.	Floyd - Science
Jones - Sp. Ed.	Lovins - Sp. Ed.	Epperson - Social Studies
Seward. - Sp. Ed.	Harney - Sp. Ed.	Stecher - Pupil Support
Todd - Sp. Ed.	Brock - Math	Frye - L. Arts
J. Smith - Math	Hutchinson - Math	Begley - PL/VS
Phelps - Math	Hunt - Math	Correll - Arts & Humanities
Taylor- Science	Mayfield, K. - Science	P. Butcher - Gifted
Roberts - Science / Parent	Belwood - Science / Parent	Morris, Rita - Parent/ Staff
Melton - S. Studies	Williams - Science	Morris, Ashley - Student
Bullock - L. Arts	Nicholas - Curriculum / Parent
Crockett - L. Arts	Reynolds - S. Studies
MJ Brown - L. Arts	Morris - S. Studies	CSIP CORE TEAM
Mayfield, L. - PL/VS / Arts& Hum	Litteral - S. Studies	Hargis, Shelly
Correll - Arts & Hum	Loy - L. Arts / Council	Murphy, Angela
Langford - Arts & Hum	D. Collins - L. Arts / Parent	Nicholas, Teresa
Rose, JO - Pupil Support	Bullock - L. Arts	Brock, Jennifer
Pittman, JB - Parent/Council/Community	Richardson - L. Arts	Bumgardner, Steve
Nic Meece - Principal Advisory Student	J. Butcher- L. Arts	Butcher, Jennifer
Miranda Dean - Principal Advisory Student	Weiler - Arts & Humanities	Lovins, Beth
	Mayfield, L. - PL/VS / Arts& Hum	Richardson, Jaclyn
	Young - Arts & Hum	Williams, Phil
	Russell - PL/VS and Arts & Hum	Melton, Byron
	Petrey, Shelly - Staff / Pupil Support
	Molly Johnson - Staff
	Tina Barker - Parent/Council
	Cooper, Kelly - Pupil Support
	Shelbie Phelps -Principal Advisory Student
	Jessica Collins - Principal Advisory Student
	Amber Hargis - Principal Advisory Student
	Haley Stockham - Principal Advisory Student
*Sub-committees will be developed within each committee to target specific areas