Georgia Department of Education
Title I
Schoolwide/School Improvement Plan
School Mailing Address:
Perry High School
1307 North Ave.
Perry, Georgia 31069
LEA Name:
Houston County Board of Education
LEA Title One Director/Coordinator Name:
Jennifer Birdsong
LEA Title One Director/Coordinator Signature: / Date:
LEA Title One Director/Coordinator Mailing Address:
Jennifer Birdsong
1100 Main Street
Perry, Georgia 31069
Email Address:
Telephone:
478-988-6200
Fax:
478-988-6220
Planning Committee Members:
NAME / POSITION/ROLEDr. Darryl Albritton / Principal
Ms. Carmen Horton / Assistant Principal for Instruction
Mr. Christopher McPhail / Assistant Principal/CTAE director/Parent
Ms. Angela Heath / English Department Chair/Parent
Ms. Mary Gentry / Math Department Chair/Parent
Ms. Karen Guyotte / Science Department Chair
Ms. Debra Anderson / Social Studies Department Chair
Ms. Misty Salter / Special Education Department Chair
Ms. Lorri Russo / Fine Arts Department Chair
Ms. Imogene Provitt / CTAE department Chair
Ms. Rhonda Walters / Media Specialist
Ms. Hazel Jackson / Counselor
Ms. Kayren Cannon / Counselor
Dr. Greg Gentry / Achievement Specialist
Ms. Traci Williams / Parent Involvement Coordinator
Ms. Mendi Winston / Intervention teacher
SWP Components
Response:
A. We have developed our schoolwide plan with the participation of individuals who will carry out the comprehensive schoolwide/school improvement plan. The work planning for implementation of a Schoolwide Title I school involved the participation of a number of groups who represent various stakeholders within our school and community. Members from the Better-Seeking Leadership Team, Professional Learning Advisory Committee, School Council, and the Parent Action Team made up our Title I Leadership Team. This team met to review data, discuss needs, brainstorm strategies, provide feedback, and develop our 2014-2015 Schoolwide Title I plan. The development of a Comprehensive School Improvement plan focused on providing high quality instruction aligned to the Georgia Performance Standards through the effective implementation of standards based classroom instruction.
B. We have used the following instruments, procedures, and/or processes to obtain this information. Some of the tasks associated with this process were: collecting and analyzing data, soliciting feedback from parents and community stakeholders, brainstorming various measures for addressing each issue identified through data/feedback, researching best practices for addressing identified issues, providing professional development, support for faculty and evaluating outcomes. This process could not be carried out in isolation, but was developed through discussions and input from the faculty through faculty and better seeking team meetings. The plan for the 2014-2015 school year is to focus on essentials in order to improve implementation of standards based classroom and common core literacy strategies in order to increase student achievement. Our goal is to increase student engagement, increase proactive interventions based on formative assessments, increase timely and appropriate feedback based on mastery, and promote positive and productive relationships/learning environments. This School Improvement Plan serves as a complete comprehensive needs assessment in meeting the requirements of Title I Schoolwide Implementation.
C. Although we currently do not have a migrant population, procedures are in place to provide services for these students. Teachers use county-wide curriculum pacing guides which provide seamless instruction should our high school students move during the school year or semester. We also maintain close contact with our county Welcome Center and our school Social Worker in an effort to ensure a smooth transition for these students.
D. We have reflected on current achievement data that will help the school understand the subjects and skills in which teaching and learning need to be improved. The School Improvement planning process is centered on the completion of the needs assessment, which is extensive and ongoing upon the receipt of each piece of local or state data. School needs were assessed in a variety of ways. Scores from the CCRPI and GHSGT/EOCT/GHSWT were disaggregated for use by the faculty and staff in an effort to evaluate our educational program. Disaggregation of data was completed at both the county level and school level. Within school gaps were identified and discussed at Better Seeking Team meetings, department meetings, pre-planning meetings, and during the summer leadership summit. During pre-planning the Principal and API met with each course team individually to examine data and set measurable goals for the coming year. While scores in all 8 EOCTs and the GHSWT equaled or exceeded state scores, we have identified some achievement gaps and a graduation rate gap that is most pronounced for our Students with Disabilities as compared to other subgroups.
E. We have based our plan on information about all students in the school and identified students and groups of students who are not yet achieving to the state academic content standards and academic achievement standards including economically disadvantaged students and students with disabilities.
F. The data has helped us reach conclusions regarding achievement or other related data.
Ø The major strengths we found in our program were the existing infrastructure of collaborative planning among teachers and our flexible use of intervention and support staff to meet the needs of students during the school day with our RTI process. There was increased review and use of data to guide instruction as teachers used dedicated job embedded professional learning time to evaluate and adjust instruction. Another strength is our positive school culture where achievement is an expectation for all students.
Ø The major needs we discovered were a need to strengthen Tier 1 standards based instruction with an increased focus on standards based assessment and differentiated instruction guided by proactive responses to formative assessments. The implementation of the GRASP universal screener for 9th grade students helped identify skill gaps that needed to be addressed through standards based instruction. While improvements were documented throughout the year, continued efforts are needed to address deficits. Coordinate Algebra scores at Perry High and across the state indicate a need to increase rigor to meet the demands of the more complex common core curriculum and prepare students for the Georgia Milestones assessment.
Ø The needs we will address are supporting teachers in the use of formative assessments and assisting teachers with providing multiple opportunities for students to show mastery through differentiated instruction. Professional development will be used to aid teachers in increasing literacy and student engagement in instructional activities. A focus on student engagement and higher order thinking skills will continue along with development of more rigorous classroom assessments that mirror the rigor required for students to perform well on common core EOCs. A more proactive approach to teaching and learning is needed to reduce the need for remediation and maximize content mastery.
Ø The specific academic needs of those students that are to be addressed in the schoolwide program plan are: improved literacy and higher order thinking skills, improved student engagement and improved classroom performance based on maximized instructional time that reflects best practices. Teachers will implement standards based grading practices that will assist students in self evaluation of standard mastery.
Ø The ROOTCAUSE/s that we discovered for each of the needs was a result of inconsistent implementation of standards based classrooms. Teachers were responding to time constraints and pressure to “cover” standards which resulted in a reactive culture where teachers were responding to failure instead of acting proactively to avoid it. Teachers were overwhelmed by change and multiple initiatives and lacked tools such as universal screeners and progress monitoring tools to assist them with identifying and addressing needs. The increased rigor requirements of common core are a challenge for teachers and students as they lack examples of the complex assessments that will measure mastery.
G. The measurable goals/benchmarks we have established to address needs are increased student engagement observed through TKES observations, increased number of teachers utilizing standards based framework/formative assessments/differentiated instruction, increased number of students in each subgroup passing courses/standardized assessments/graduating on time.
*2. Schoolwide reform strategies that are scientifically researched based. /
Response: Perry High School employs scientifically researched strategies to meet the needs of all students. The professional development plan in Houston County provides multiple opportunities for staff to analyze needs and research strategies that will address those needs. Examples of these opportunities include, but are not limited to, book studies, vertical team planning, collaborative planning, action research, content/skill development conferences, examination and analysis of student work, data analysis and interpretation, workshops, best practices, and Common Core Georgia Performance Standards training.
2(a). Schoolwide reform strategies that provide opportunities for all children in the school to meet or exceed Georgia’s proficient and advanced levels of student performance. /
A. Response: The ways in which we will address the needs of all children in the school particularly the needs of students furthest away from demonstrating proficiency related to the state’s academic content and student academic achievement standard are:
· Focus on strengthening Tier 1 Standards based classroom through best practices: Mike Schmoker, author of Results Now, remarks that “The single greatest determinant of learning is not socioeconomic factors or funding levels. It is instruction.” It is the utilization of research-based best practices that drives the learning that takes place during the regular school day and in supplemental services to meet the needs of at-risk students. Four of the primary elements of best practices are the use of small-group activities, authentic experiences, reflective assessment, and use of the workshop model in teaching (Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde, 2005).
· Focus on indentifying at-risk students and implementing Response to Intervention on the high school level: “An important premise of RtI is that educators should identify and help struggling students early—before they fail (The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement, 2008). Without universal screening, students who perform poorly in elementary and middle school may not be identified for additional supports until high school (Duffy, 2007). To implement universal screening, schools must screen their students in essential areas for academic and behavioral difficulties early in the school year.” (Mouneke & Shankland, 2009) Teachers will take results of screening and determine ways of strengthening Tier 1 standards based instruction and identifying appropriate interventions for identified Tier 2 students.
· Focus on data based decision making through analysis of data and collaborative planning opportunities: Research from Mike Schmoker, Anne Davies, Patricia Davenport, Robert Marzano, Doug Reeves, Carol Ann Tomlinson, Fountas and Pinnell, Thomas Gusky, Lucy Calkins and other noted educational leaders promote the professional learning community and the power of collaborative planning and use of real data to identify student strengths and weaknesses.
· Focus on authentic literacy and student engagement: Mike Schmoker in the book Focus, states, “literacy’ or ‘authentic literacy’ simply means- purposeful- and usually argumentative- reading, writing and talking (Lunsford& Ruszkiewicz, 2009).... Literacy is still the unrivalled, but grossly under-implemented, key to learning both content and thinking skills.” (Schmoker, 2011, p.11) Implementation of Common Core Curriculum in all subject areas including CTAE will increase literacy instruction and positively impact student achievement.
· Focus on Multiple opportunities to show mastery and the use of authentic standards based assessment: The research of Ken O’Connor and Rick Wormeli emphasizes the importance of formative assessment, providing safe learning environments, and employing grading practices that are respectful to the learner and provide multiple opportunities to show mastery. Their research describes effective assessment as “revelatory; it reveals the students story. Students need a safe place to tell that story and receive helpful feedback on its unfolding (O’Conner & Wormeli, 2011, p. 44).”
· Focus on differentiated instruction: The non- negotiables of differentiated instruction and the instruction framework are narrated by Carol Ann Tomlinson in the DVD “Differentiated Instruction in Action at the High school Level.” The research demonstrates the educational gains made through a teaching and learning pattern that consist of students accessing knowledge in a variety of ways, teachers assisting student in clarifying and justifying their knowledge and students applying that knowledge to create. A demonstration of Bloom’s taxonomy is evident throughout the process.
· Focus on flexible grouping: The practice of using small groups to maximize differentiated instruction opportunities during the lesson and particularly during the work session of the instructional framework is discussed by Robert Marzano in the book Classroom Instruction that Works. Marzano discusses the importance of flexible cooperative grouping as part of differentiated instruction. Small groups “can be used to clarify expectations for tasks, focus students’ attention, allow students time to more deeply process information, or to provide time for closure.” Marzano supports the cooperative flexible grouping practice of differentiated instruction with numerous research studies, each showing a twenty percent gain in student achievement for students placed in such groups.
· TKES and Peer observations: Research from Mike Schmoker and Robert Marzano promotes frequent classroom observations and feedback to teachers in the pursuit of high quality teaching.
2(b). Are based upon effective means of raising student achievement.
B. Response: In our appendices are examples of the SCIENTIFICALLY BASED RESEARCH supporting our effective methods and instructional practices or strategies.
2(c). Use effective instructional methods that increase the quality and amount of
learning time.
C. Response: We will increase the amount and quality of learning time by supporting teachers in the implementation of standards based classrooms with a focus on student engagement and standards based assessment. Through the use of frequent formative assessments and benchmark data, teachers will receive support in analyzing effectiveness and adjusting instruction based on student outcomes. We are also increasing the quality of learning time by utilizing our Response to Intervention system to identify students who need additional supports within the school day through math support classes, Flexible Learning Plan study skills classes, small weekly remediation groups, and targeted classes within the master schedule. After school tutoring is also available for all students either through academic tutoring.
2(d). Address the needs of all children, particularly targeted populations, and address how the school will determine if such needs have been met and