11/17/2010 SCHOOL COMMITTEE Minutes

Home Browse Search

2009-2010 Quashnet School Improvement Plan (0 9 Goal #1—Academic Achievement: English/Language Arts (District Strategic Plan Goal Area#1—Academic Achievement) We will improve student achievement in the area of English/Language Arts. A. Our aggregate CPI(Composite Performance Index) in ELA(English/Language Arts) for the 2009 school year was 86.8 which is 3.4 points below the 2009 state target. Our goal for 2010 is an ageregate CPI of 90.2 or higher. A CPI of 90.2 is 0)e state target for 2010. tiOT ACHIEVED: Our 2010 Aggregate CPI=87.7—(Below state target by 2.5). Our 2010 CPI is a.9 increase uver our 2009 CPI. B. While improvement has been shown in the performance of our subgroups,the CPI for the subgroups continues to lag behind the aggregate CPI. The 2009 CPI for the special education subgroup was 67.6. This subgroup is still well below the state target of 90.2 and remains our lowest performing subgroup. Our goal for 2010 is a CPI of 87.6 for our special education subgroup which is still below the state target for the same year,but would indicate substantial improvement. To meet our goal,we will need to show a 20-point improvement in the CPI for the special education subgroup. VO' ACIIIEVED: Our 2010 CPI for our Special Education Subgroup=67.4—(Below state target by 22.8). Our 2010 CPI for our s tcc)'ial education suhgruu t is down .2 from our 2009 CPI for this po uktoon. C. By 2010,all of our students will show growth in reading and writing,with at least 10%of the students moving from the Warning to Needs Improvement/Proficient/Advanced categories for the MCAS in grades 3-6. (The baseline for measuring this goal is our student performance on the 2009 MCAS testing.) 9 WAS Data: Percentage of students scoring in the"Warning"performance NO'f ACHIEVgD 2010 MCAS Data: Percentage of studenpts scoring in the 'Warning"'performance el: Grade 3-4%;Grade 4-5.5%;Grade 5-4.8%;Grade 6-4% level. Grade 3--70,'0;Grade 4--0%;Gradc 5-6';6:Gi ade 6--4% Aggregate 2009 Warning: 4.6% 1 A-grogate 2010 Miming: Erb Goal #2—Academic Achievement: Mathematics (District Strategic Plan Goal Area#1—Academic Achievement) We will improve student achievement in the area of mathematics. A. Our aggregate CPI (Composite Performance Index)in Mathematics for the 2009 school year was 83.1,which is 1.2 points below the 2009 state target. Our goal for 2010 is an aeereeate CPI of 86.1. This goal exceeds the state target for 2010 by 1.8 points and requires us to make a gain of 3 points. A CPI of 84.3 is the state target for 2010. NO"f ACIiIE V ED: Our Min Aggregate CPI=81.4—(Bcloa state target by 2.9). Our 2010 CPI,is a decrease of 1.7 from our 2009 CPI. B. While improvement has been shown in the performance of our subgroups,the CPI for the subgroups continues to lag behind the aggregate CPI. The CPI for the special education subgroup improved to 64.2 in 2009. This score is still well below the state target of 84.3 and remains our lowest performing subgroup. For our special education subgroup our eoal for 2010 is a CPI of 84.3 which equals the state target for 2010. To meet our goal,we will need to show a 20.1-point improvement in the CPI for the special education subgroup. \O'f ACII 'D: Our 2010 CPI for out Special Education Subgroup=61.2—(Below state target by 23.1). Our 2010 CPI for our Special Education Sub'rou t is duanIEA'I3 points from our 2009 CPI for this imijudation. C. By 2010, all of our students will show growth in mathematics knowledge,with at least 15%of the students moving from the Warning to Needs lmprovemendProhcienl/Advanced categories for the MCAS in grades 3-6. (The baseline for measuring this goal is our student performance on the 2009 MCAS testing) 2009 WAS Data: Percentage of students scoring in the"Warning"performance NO!"AC'111EVE.1) 2010 MCAS Data: Pcrcuntage of students>coring in tho"Wurning"puiitnuwtec ,level: Grate 3-3%; Grade 4-5%;Grade 5—IS%; Grade 6-1 I% Icvel: Gradc 3-81ST;Gradc 4--4'Y;Gradc 5 14'S6;Gradc 6- 13% AAggrcgwe 2010 Wanung: 9'4;, ggregate 2009 Warning: 8%