Brevard County Public Schools

School Improvement Plan

2013-2014

Name of School: Area:

Page 4

Principal: Area Superintendent:

SAC Chairperson:

Superintendent: Dr. Brian Binggeli

Mission Statement:

James Madison Middle School’s mission is to meet, with P.R.I.D.E., the educational needs of each student.

Vision Statement:

James Madison Middle School’s vision is a safe, relevant learning community that promotes academic excellence through high expectations, mutual respect, and positive role models.
Page 4

Brevard County Public Schools

School Improvement Plan

2013-2014

RATIONALE – Continuous Improvement Cycle Process

Data Analysis from multiple data sources: (Needs assessment that supports the need for improvement-Examples may be, but are NOT limited to survey data, walk-through data, minutes from PLC’s or Dept. Mtgs. Move away from talking about every single data source and determine your rationale. Much like the PGP, what is your focus and why?)

Considerations/Examples: What are the areas of success?
Successes for James Madison Middle School are as follows:
MATH: There was a 4% increase (from 91 to 95%) in students scoring at or above Level 3 (Proficient) on the Algebra I End of Course Exam. There was a 5% improvement (45 to 50%) in the number of students making learning gains in math and thus Madison moved from the lowest performing middle school in Brevard on FCAT Math to performing better than two other middle schools in Brevard. There was a 15% increase (60 to 75%) with Hispanic students scoring at or above Level 3, though Madison has few Hispanic students. Finally, there was a 3% increase (50 to 53%) with students identified as Free/Reduced Lunch scoring at or above Level 3, which represents a significant population.
SCIENCE: Students scoring at or above Level 3 (Proficient) on FCAT Science rose by 2% (49 to 51%), though Madison continues to score at the lowest in science along with one other middle school so there is great room for improvement.
WRITING: Writing at James Madison is also an area of success, however with the change in requirements from the state to a Proficient standard of 3.5 rather than 3.0 on FCAT Writes, writing scores across the state showed significant decline in regards to the school grade. This change caused Madison to lose 25 points in the grading system when in reality Madison increased from 53% to 55% of students scoring 3.5 or higher. The mean essay score remained the same and is consistent with the district and state mean essay score of a 3.3.
FAA: James Madison Middle School continues to be successful with Florida Alternative Assessment Students. While the number of students is less than ten, 100% made learning gains in Reading with 70% scoring at levels 4 or higher (Proficient). Eighty percent (80%) made learning gains in Math with the same percentage scoring at Levels 4 or higher (Proficient), and 83% scored level 7 or higher in both Writing and Science.
Where are concerns?
Concerns for James Madison Middle School are as follows:
READING: James Madison Middle School declined in reading in all subgroups. Students scoring at or above Level 3 (Proficient) on FCAT Reading declined from 60% to 53%. Those students making learning gains declined from 61% to 53% and those students identified as the lowest 25% making learning gains declined from 64% to 50%.
Math: Students scoring at or above Level 3 (Proficient) on FCAT Math declined from 59% to 56%. In addition, those students identified as the lowest 25% making learning gains declined from 48% to 44%. Special attention will need to focus on those students who score at or above Level 4 on the Algebra I End of Course Exam, as that declined from 39% to 38%
Science: As noted previously, Madison continues to focus efforts on students scoring at or above Level 3 on FCAT Science.
What trends do you see?
The student population at Madison continues to mirror the economic diversity within the community. The percentage of students receiving free and reduced lunch has increased to 57%, placing Madison as one of the middle schools in Brevard County with the highest percentage of free and reduced lunch. It is thought that this percentage is actually much higher though we have communities of needy families who do not apply for assistance. While this population does create some new concerns for our students, these are many times the same students whose families were affected by the closing of Space Center jobs. Attendance and high out of school suspension rates contribute to our concerns. Of note is that the Cambridge Program at a neighboring school tends to draw some of the highest performing students which reside in Madison’s boundaries. Our reading and math scores continue to show significant declines. A positive trend is evidenced by increasing Science scores and steady Writing scores.
What kind of data are you looking at within your school? What data do you use for teacher practice?
Discipline data, out of school suspension data, and attendance data are tracked monthly by administration and shared with teachers. In addition, volunteer hours are tracked.
Teachers utilize the following data: FAIR, district assessments, DA assessments, FCAT, classroom assessments and some common department assessments to track and monitor student success and to plan/adjust lessons.
A more concentrated effort on tracking data and progress monitoring will be possible if teachers would be able to share students as in a teaming model.
How are teachers planning?
James Madison Middle School continues to operate on a modified A/B block schedule of four classes per day at approximately 90 minutes in length. Students maintain eight courses while attending each class every other day. Madison is the only middle school in Brevard on a block schedule. Thus, while other schools moved to teaching six of seven classes for the 2013-2014 school year, James Madison continues with teaching six of eight classes. This affords Madison’s teachers to have a daily planning period of approximately 90 minutes. New for this school year, Madison teachers will have common students within MESH classrooms (teaming) and have common department planning during the school day which will allow for more collaboration and data monitoring.
Are plans Standards Driven? Are Essential Questions meaningful?
Like all other schools in the state of Florida, with the implementation of Common Core, James Madison Middle School had a team of teachers and administrators that attended the summer institute to provide Common Core implementation strategies to all departments. In addition, resource teachers will be scheduled to work with departments and the faculty as a whole on Common Core Implementation. It is expected that all teachers will post their Essential Question daily relevant to each unit that guides instruction. Faculty walk thrus will track this data.
What do CWT tell you about instruction? How will you monitor the depth of implementation?
Classroom walk thrus validate the recommendations from the Instructional Review that was completed at the conclusion of the 2012-2013 school year. These recommendations are noted in ANALYSIS OF CURRENT PRACTICE. Madison plans to monitor depth of implementation of new strategies noted in this School Improvement Plan via the model shared by Dr. Max Thompson, implementing walk thrus completed by all faculty members after clarification and agreement of identified “look fors” and “ask abouts” for school wide focus through the use of a faculty developed rubric of understanding.

Analysis of Current Practice: (How do we currently conduct business?)

James Madison Middle School underwent an Instructional Review at the close of the 2012-2013 school year. As part of that review, the following recommendations were made:
1.  Implementation of consistent and varied instructional approaches will increase student engagement
2.  Mutual respect and rapport between staff and students will improve overall school climate and increase student engagement
3.  Increased use of technology and classroom set up more conducive to learning will increase student engagement
4.  Incorporate the Gradual Release Instructional Model to increase student engagement
5.  Increase the use of differentiated instructional strategies to address the needs of diverse learners
6.  Increase the use of high level questions to promote extended and critical thinking
7.  Teacher instruction should be focused around reading complex text and writing in response to it
8.  Students should be engaged by the use of higher order questions
9.  Assessment data (diagnostic, formative, summative, rubrics, etc) needs to drive instruction
10.  Engaging students in real world applications that are relevant and authentic is paramount for student success
James Madison Middle School ‘s 2012-2013 School Improvement Plan’s focus was to engage students through differentiated instruction. It is apparent from our Instructional Review that engagement continues to be a need within Madison classrooms. The Instructional Review recommendations provided direction for Madison for the 2013-2014 school year. The next few pages summarize how Madison students performed relative to FCAT, Algebra I EOC, and FAA.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN DATA ANALYSIS
FCAT: SUBGROUPS- BASED ON % MEETING HIGH STANDARDS % 3 + NOTE: DATA ON DEMO REPORT AND INDV FILE / FCAT: SUBGROUPS- BASED ON % MEETING HIGH STANDARDS % 3 + NOTE: DATA ON DEMO REPORT AND INDV FILE
READING / 2011 / 2012 / 2013 / MATH / 2011 / 2012 / 2013
TOTAL POPULATION / 57 / 60 / 53 / TOTAL POPULATION / 59 / 59 / 56
WHITE / 60 / 63 / 58 / WHITE / 61 / 61 / 58
BLACK / 33 / 39 / 31 / BLACK / 42 / 48 / 40
HISPANIC / 60 / 64 / 59 / HISPANIC / 69 / 60 / 75
ED / 48 / 52 / 45 / ED / 51 / 50 / 53
ELL / NA / NA / NA / ELL / NA / NA / NA
SWD / 29 / 31 / 20 / SWD / 30 / 33 / 25
FCAT: SCHOOL GRADE CRITERIA ( DATA ON SCHOOL GR. REPORT) / FCAT: SCHOOL GRADE CRITERIA (DATA ON SCHOOL GR. REPORT)
READING / 2011 / 2012 / 2013 / MATH / 2011 / 2012 / 2013
LEVEL 1 / 4 / 12 / 17 / LEVEL 1 / 21 / 19 / 26
LEVELS 3 and Above / 72 / 60 / 53 / LEVELS 3 and Above / 75 / 59 / 56
LEVELS 4 & 5 / 25 / 27 / 26 / LEVELS 4 & 5 / 25 / 19 / 11
LEARNING GAINS (LG) / 56 / 61 / 53 / LEARNING GAINS / 68 / 45 / 50
LOWEST 25% (LG) / 52 / 64 / 50 / LOWEST 25% (LG) / 66 / 48 / 44
WRITING (3.5 +) / NA / 53 / 55 / WRITING (3.5 +) / NA / 53 / 55
SCIENCE (% 3 +) / 53 / 49 / 51 / SCIENCE (% 3 +) / 53 / 49 / 51
End of Course Testing (EOC)
ALGEBRA / 2011 / 2012 / 2013 / BIOLOGY / 2011 / 2012 / 2013
LEVEL 3 and Above / NA / 91 / 95 / LEVEL 3 / NA / NA / NA
LEVELS 4 & 5 / NA / 39 / 38 / LEVELS 4 & 5 / NA / NA / NA
GEOMETRY / 2011 / 2012 / 2013 / US HISTORY / 2011 / 2012 / 2013
LEVEL 3 / NA / NA / NA / LEVEL 3 / NA / NA / NA
LEVELS 4 & 5 / NA / NA / NA / LEVELS 4 & 5 / NA / NA / NA
Florida Alternate Assessment (FAA) NOTE: DATA ON THE FAA REPORT
READING / 2011 / 2012 / 2013 / MATH / 2011 / 2012 / 2013
LEVELS 1, 2,3 / 21 / 22 / 30 / LEVELS 1, 2,3 / 21 / 78 / 20
LEVELS 4 and Above / 79 / 78 / 70 / LEVELS 4 and Above / 79 / 22 / 80
LEVELS 7 and Above / 50 / 67 / 70 / LEVELS 7 and Above / 43 / 67 / 60
Proficient LVS 4-9 / 79 / 78 / 70 / Proficient LVS 4-9 / 79 / 22 / 80
WRITING / 2011 / 2012 / 2013 / SCIENCE / 2011 / 2012 / 2013
LEVELS 1, 2,3 / 25 / 20 / 17 / LEVELS 1, 2,3 / 22 / 20 / 17
LEVELS 4 and Above / 75 / 80 / 83 / LEVELS 4 and Above / 78 / 80 / 83
LEVELS 7 and Above / 63 / 80 / 83 / LEVELS 7 and Above / 67 / 80 / 83
Proficient LVS 4-9 / 75 / 80 / 83 / Proficient LVS 4-9 / 78 / 80 / 83
COMPREHENSIVE ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING ASSESSMENT (CELLA)
LISTENING/SPEAKING / 2011 / 2012 / 2013 / READING / 2011 / 2012 / 2013
KG / KG
1 / 1
2 / 2
3 / 3
4 / 4
5 / 5
6 / 6
7 / NA / NA / 100 / 7 / NA / NA / 33
8 / NA / NA / NA / 8 / NA / NA / NA
9 / 9
10 / 10
WRITING / 2011 / 2012 / 2013
KG
1
2
3 / CELLA NOTE: REPORT % PROFICIENT BY GRADE LEVEL (DATA ON THE CELLA REPORT)
4
5
6
7 / NA / NA / 67
8 / NA / NA / NA
9
10
Reading
Subgroup / Percent Tested Reading / R- % Scoring Satisfactory 2012 / R-% Scoring Satisfactory 2013 / HP Qualifying in Reading / Target AMO Reading / Met Target R / Safe Harbor, Reading / Improving, Reading / Maintaining or Declining, Reading / Declining, Reading / Percent Tested Math
ALL STDS / 100 / 60 / 53 / 64 / N / N / N / Y / Y / 99
AME INDIAN
ASIAN
B/AA / 100 / 39 / 31 / 44 / N / N / N / Y / Y / 100
HISPANIC / 100 / 64 / 59 / 67 / N / N / N / Y / Y / 97
WHITE / 99 / 63 / 58 / 67 / N / N / N / Y / Y / 99
ELL
SWD / 97 / 31 / 20 / 41 / N / N / N / Y / Y / 98
FRL / 100 / 52 / 45 / 57 / N / N / N / Y / Y / 100
Math
Subgroup / M-% Scoring Satisfactory 2012 / M % Scoring Satisfactory 2013 / HP Qualifying in Math / Target AMO Math / Met Target Math / Safe Harbor, Math / Improving, Math / Maintaining or Declining, Math / Declining, Math / LG Pts for Low 25% Reading / LG Pts for Low 25% Math
ALL STDS / 59 / 56 / 66 / N / N / N / Y / Y / 50 / 44
AME INDIAN
ASIAN
B/AA / 48 / 40 / 52 / N / N / N / Y / Y
HISPANIC / 60 / 75 / 74 / Y / NA / NA / NA / NA
WHITE / 61 / 58 / 68 / N / N / N / Y / Y
ELL
SWD / 33 / 25 / 42 / N / N / N / Y / Y
FRL / 50 / 53 / 59 / N / N / Y / N / N
Other
Subgroup / Graduation Rate, 2010 / Graduation Rate, 2011 / Writing % Satisfactory / Target AMO Reading, 2014 / Target AMO Math, 2014 / Target AMO Reading 2015 / Target AMO Math, 2015 / Target AMO Reading, 2016 / Target AMO Math, 2016 / Target AMO Reading, 2017 / Target AMO Math, 2017
ALL STDS / 55 / 68 / 69 / 71 / 73 / 75 / 76 / 79 / 80
AME INDIAN
ASIAN
B/AA / 48 / 50 / 57 / 55 / 61 / 61 / 66 / 67 / 71
HISPANIC / 46 / 70 / 77 / 73 / 79 / 77 / 82 / 80 / 85
WHITE / 58 / 70 / 71 / 73 / 74 / 77 / 77 / 80 / 81
ELL
SWD / 30 / 47 / 48 / 53 / 53 / 59 / 59 / 65 / 65
FRL / 46 / 61 / 63 / 65 / 67 / 70 / 71 / 74 / 76
School Grade
Year / School Grade Number of Pts. Earned / School Gr. Change to Current Yr. / School Letter Grade
2011 / 530 / A
2012 / 536 (560) / B
2013 / 489 (490) / C

Best Practice: (What does research tell us we should be doing as it relates to data analysis above?)