Achieving
Success in a Changing World
Part 6: Implementing the Plan and Documenting Results
Progress Report on the Implementation of the School Improvement
plan
I.
Introduction:
Progress Report
Since New Horizons’ inception
we have implemented a program of instruction that addressed the needs of the
majority of the students in reading and math skills. In addition to meeting the academic requirements
of our target population, severely emotionally disturbed (SED) and REACH
students, we have developed a Behavior
Modification plan that assists the students to learn appropriate
behavior. In addition, due to the nature
of student assignment, either as a SED (Severely Emotionally Disturbed) student
or as a REACH student, our students generally have more behavior problems then
in traditional schools in the
Initially student growth in
math and reading were assessed using the KTEA (Kaufman Test Educational
Achievement). The KETA required the
hiring of a person to administer the assessment at the beginning of the year
and the end of the year. As the school’s
computer network has expanded, the means of measuring student growth in math
and reading has shifted to the STAR (Student Testing for the Achievement of
Reading), which includes a math and reading component, and the use of the Successmaker (CCC) program.
The Star test provides a means to assess at points in time, and the Successmaker (CCC) provides a dynamic assessment as the
student is engaged in the instructional process of the program subject.
Currently math and reading
gains data is being collected weekly by the teachers, and is reviewed every
grading period by the administration. Mid year data collection is consolidated
by the guidance staff and reviewed for student growth. To allow better data collection and analysis,
a numbering system has been developed for Successmaker
(CCC) student numbers. The categories
are
Due to the potentially
violent nature of our students, safety of all on campus is of utmost concern.
II.
Documenting the
Value-Added
A.
Documentation
of the Target Goals for Student Learning – Overview
School Year 1997-1998:
New
School Year 1998-1999
In 1998-1999 school
improvement goals addressed the diverse cultures represented here and the
diverse needs and abilities of New Horizons’ students. Full correlation of the Sunshine State Standards
was the primary focus of our educational program. The key focus areas were:
1)
A therapeutic/behavioral program focused on anger control,
communication, and life management skills.
2)
A continual focus on technology.
3)
A developmentally appropriate vocational component that
will be a prelude to off-campus job experiences.
School Year 1999-2000
In school year 1999-2000 the school
improvement goals and objectives included:
1)
Reading scores of the New Horizons students will increase
as measured by incremental gains on individual achievement tests. Fifty per
cent of the students at New Horizons Learning Center (NHLC) will increase their
academic performance by six months on individual achievement test (KTEA or
WIAT).
2)
The math scores of
the New Horizons students will increase as measured by incremental gains on
individual achievement tests.
Fifty per cent of the students at New
Horizons Learning Center (NHLC) will increase their math academic performance
by six months on individual achievement test (KTEA or WIAT).
School Year 2000-2001
In school year
2000-2001 the school improvement goals and objectives included:
1)
Reading scores of
the New Horizons students will increase as measured by incremental gains on
individual achievement tests. The
objective was to raise the lowest quartile of reading students at
2)
The math scores of the New Horizons students will increase
by incremental gains on individual achievement tests. The objective was to raise the lowest quartile of MATH students at
3)
New Horizons will provide a safe school environment for its
students. The objective was to have 50% of
the students at New Horizons Learning Center (NHLC) report feeling safe on a
student survey. Adequate progress was
identified as, 30% of the students at NHLC will report feeling safe on a
student survey.
School Year 2001-2002
In
school 2001-2002 the school improvement goals remained the same. The objectives and definition of adequate
progress varied.
1)
The
2)
Sixty percent of the students at New Horizons Learning
Center (NHLC) will increase their academic performance in
3)
New Horizons will provide a safe school environment for its
students. A NSSE survey score of 3.15
will indicate a safe school/environment.
3.10 average composite score will define adequate progress on school
climate/environment survey.
School Year 2002-2003
In school 2002-2003 the School Improvement
goals and objectives were:
1) Sixty percent of the
students at New Horizons Learning Center (NHLC) will increase their academic
performance in
2) Sixty-five percent of the
students at New Horizons Learning Center (NHLC) will increase their academic
performance in MATH by six months.
Adequate progress will be indicated by at least 55% of the students
increasing their academic performance by at least 6 months.
3) A NSSE survey score of
3.15 will indicate a safe school/environment.
3.10 average composite score will define adequate progress on school
climate/environment survey.
B. Documentation of Improvements in Instructional and Organizational Effectiveness
School Year 1997-1998
During the 1997-1998 school
year the staff developed and revised a new behavioral management system. The plan not only included behavior
management techniques and strategies but, allowed for a writing component at the
end of the level system. Students must
write a paper in order to move to the next component at the end of each
level. Each level had a different
writing assignment.
A needs assessment survey was
given to the staff at
Over fifty percent of the
staff indicated they were satisfied with the technology available to them for
classroom use. However, thirty five
percent reported they did not think that technology and the curriculum are
integrated together in the classroom.
Academic needs of each student are being addressed in the classrooms,
but, eighty-eight percent of the staff expressed that this may not mean the
students are ready to compete at the highest levels nationally. This difference in findings could be due to
the population New Horizons serves. The
students are on different learning levels and their education is based on their
Individualized Education Plan. The final
area examined was safety. The staff
reported the seventy-one percent feel the school has provided an environment
that is drug free and protects student’s health, safety, and civil rights. Because of the uniqueness of the students
served at New Horizons and based on the findings of the Needs Assessment, the
staff agreed to the goal of integrating the curriculum throughout the school
day.
School Year 1998-1999
The 1998-1999 school year was
a productive one. The school was able to
install a video monitor system for the school to provide safety and security to
the staff and students, A CPI (Crisis Prevention Intervention) response team
was established as well as updated training for the entire staff, telephones
were installed throughout the school, the campus was enclosed and skirting was
put on some of the portables, Stress Management Program was offered and Skills
Streaming Curriculum was introduced and implemented. The implementation of these strategies is reflected
in the SEQ.
The mobility rate of the
students at New Horizons is approximately 60%, which is extremely
significant. There is an average of 60
students starting the year and ending the year with 90, with approximately 50
students on campus for the pre and post testing; approximately 30% new students
came after school started. Several
youngsters were incarcerated for a period of time, some moved back to their
home school, came back again and several went into and returned from DJJ
commitment programs. On the KTEA and
WIAT pre and post tests that were administered there were minimal gains made by
looking at the entire population average, however, by looking at individual
youngsters there were significant gains anywhere from one month to two
years. Looking at the scores, the lowest
on the WIAT being 2.3 and the highest 12.9 at the beginning, and at the close
of the year the lowest being 2.8 and the highest 12.9. The KTEA showed the lowest –1 and the highest
12.9 in the beginning of the year, and at the end –1 was the lowest and the highest
was 12.9. Keep in mind the scores are
not reflective of the same test groups.
Because of the diverse needs of the students assigned to New Horizons
the evaluation scores are generally not very reflective of high academic
achievement. This does not mean the
school does not strive for academic achievement. The needs assessment of the faculty, staff,
and students reflects that everyone has high expectations for the student,
there is instructional leadership, a clear and focused mission, and an emphasis
on students success. Because our
students demonstrate difficulties in school, behaviorally and /or academically-
that leaves us with a true challenge of going outside the traditional paradigm
to assist these youngsters in attaining success.
School Year 1999-2000
In the school year 1999-2000, NHLC students who
remained in the program and were administered the pre and posttest of the KTEA,
36% of those students made gains of 6 months or more. NHLC met this measure of adequate
progress. 53 % of the students tested
increased their math performance by at least six months. This exceeds the objective outlined for this
goal.
Within the first quarter of school NHLC reduced the
number of referrals by more than fifteen incidents as compared to last years
data. As the year went on the number of
students increased and since the number were not comparable to last year the
results of a comparison from Quarter to Quarter and Year to Year would be
invalid. 40 % of students reported
self-implementation of the social skills portion of the SASSY program at least
once a week. The students all reported
participating in the ITV guided Imagery and the majority reported feeling
relaxed during that time but very few reported using the guided imagery outside
of the appointed classroom time. 53 % of
the students tested increased their math performance by at least six
months. This exceeds the objective
outlined for this goal. See Figures 6-1
to 6-4 on the next page.
Figures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
School Year 2000-2001
In the school year 2000-2001, NHLC students who
remained in the program and were administered the pre and posttest the WIAT in
Figures 6-5 to
6-9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
School Year 2001-2002
In the school year 2001-2002,
an overall plan for the use of STAR
STAR Testing: The STAR
assessment programs are computer-based programs written by Renaissance
Corporation. They are used to assess a
student’s reading and math grade level.
The STAR assessments are given at the beginning of the school year, and
at the end of each grading period. In
addition to showing student progress, they are also used to set the beginning
grade level of instruction in the CCC program.
CCC (Computer Curriculum
Corporation): The CCC program is a self-paced, computer based instructional
program that provides customized student instruction and remediation. In addition to identifying specific skill
strengths and weaknesses, it also provides a composite grade level performance
of the student in the specified academic area.)
KTEA (Kaufmann Test of
Educational Achievement): An individualized achievement test administered to
each student at the beginning of each school year and again at the end of the
school year. The KTEA/WIAT is
administered in alternate years. Scores
are reflected by a grade equivalent, making growth easy to identify.
FCAT (The State of Florida
Comprehensive Assessment Test): Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT)
measures student performance on selected benchmarks in reading and mathematics
as defined by the Sunshine State Standards. This test is given to a student if
the student’s IEP dictates. The review
and analysis of the data generated by the students indicated that 56% of the
students increased their academic performance by at least 6 months in
reading. This is adequate progress
according to our definition.
KTEA testing was also
conducted and results from that show only 46% of the students increased their
academic performance by at least 6 months.
By our definition of adequate progress this was not adequate. (Note: major problems getting H.S. ESE
students to take post test and do so with desire to do well). The review and analysis of the data generated
by the students indicated that 65% of the students increased academic
performance by at least 6 months in math.
This is adequate progress according to our definition. KTEA testing was also conducted and results
from that show only 31% of the students increased their academic performance by
at least 6 months. By our definition of
adequate progress this was not adequate progress. (Note: major problems getting
H.S. ESE students to take post test and do so with desire to do well). 0% made
6 months advance in achievement.). A review of the data generated by student
surveys indicated that a 3.13 rating was achieved. This compares to a rating by students of 2.96
for the 2000-2001 school year and indicates that we achieved adequate progress
for the 2001-2002 school year. This
increase indicated that students are feeling safe and satisfied at school. Work is continuing with the accreditation
process with a review of the school set for April 2003, by the SACS review
committee. Since STAR Reading, STAR
Math, and CCC SuccessMaker are all worked on each week throughout the year and
the KTEA is a “snapshot” test done only twice a year it is felt the STAR and
CCC tests are more appropriate for data collection of actual student ability
levels.
Epilogue
A. Reflections
on Lessons Learned.
New
NHLC
has a total of 120 networked computers operating under the Windows Operating
System and two Novell servers, one of which is dedicated to the Success Maker
program by Computer Curriculum Corporation.
The school is connected to the District network via microwave. Connectivity to the classrooms includes an
integrated PBX phone system, a public address system and an Instructional
Television Network with five channels of broadcast capability.
Throughout
the campus and in 90% of the classrooms, student behavior is monitored by
remote cameras, and behavior is recorded by equipment located in the School
Resource Deputy’s Office.
The
long term focus is to improve basic student skills in math and reading. The STAR programs provide an initial
assessment and monitoring screening system for all students. The CCC software
provides a dynamic instructional process that adapts to each student’s specific
needs, and provides valuable data about the students’ weaknesses and
strengths. Combined with the results
from the Accelerated Reader program, it is our goal to use the data generated
by the STAR and CCC programs to tailor student math and reading instruction to
the individual needs of each student.
B. Next Steps
Strengths:
Technology, procedures for baseline testing, concrete behavior modification
program, and a dedicated professional staff.
Weakness:
limited parent involvement, student mobility/success stories, the need to
follow up to track students’ successes, and a physical site can not accommodate
increasing numbers.
Due
to the transit nature of the student population and the consistent
identification of below level performance in the basic skills of reading and
math, we see the primary focus of New Horizons as building basic skills levels,
as well as changing the students’ behavior patterns. By building student skill levels in reading
and math, as well as reinforcing positive behavior patterns through our
behavior management plan, we will provide a road map to student success.
Two
issues demand our attention in the future: Students with high basic skill
levels and exit tracking and a longitudinal study of student success
There
is a minority of students who are above average in academic performance, and
require challenges far beyond basic skill building. In that context our electives and extra
period at the end of the day provide an opportunity to challenge our advanced
students with a variety of academic programs.
When we review our data for low performance remediation we also need to
identify and target students with high reading and math skills and find
challenges that will stimulate their educational interests.
In
each major grouping of students, we need to document how a student leaves New
Horizons. Exceptional education students
who are mainstreamed are measures of our success, and need to be noted. If a student who is mainstreamed can not
function in a less restrictive environment, we need to identify the specific
factors where that student needs help and provide that assistance as part of
that student’s educational plan. If a
student is successful after being mainstreamed, we need to use that as an
example for other students.
Students
who are in our REACH program who are able to make multiyear progress in a
single school year are also a measure of our success and need to be reflected
in our performance indicators.
Last
is a need to focus on student success on a longitudinal basis. Students that complete their high school
diploma at New Horizons are obvious examples of the success of our program, but
we also have students who are mainstreamed or moved through alternative
programs to a successful completion of high school, either through a
traditional diploma or a GED.
As
an example for our current students, as a measure of our school’s effectiveness
at influencing our former students’ lives and a means to reflective review our
program’s strengths and weaknesses, we should attempt to follow up on our
students specific intervals, like one, three and five years. Students who have been successful could be
offered the chance to come back and talk about their success with our current
students. If possible, students who have
not been successful could be contacted to see if they have any insight that
might help our current students have a greater chance of success.
Part 3
Desired Results for Student Learning
Part 4.
Analysis of Instructional and Organizational Effectiveness
Part 6. Implementing the Plan and Documenting the Results
