the school will focus its efforts on improving. The root cause analysis and improvement planning efforts in the remainder of the plan should be aimed at addressing the identified priority performance challenge(s). A limited number of priority performance challenges is recommended (no more than 3-5); a performance challenge may apply to multiple performance indicators. At a minimum, priority performance challenges must be identified in any of the four performance indicator areas where minimum state and federal expectations were not met for accountability purposes. Furthermore, schools are encouraged to consider observations recorded in the year’s targets” worksheet. Finally, provide a brief description of the root cause analysis for any priority performance challenges. “last Root causes may apply to multiple priority performance challenges. You may add rows, as needed. Description of Notable Trends Priority Performance Performance Indicators Root Causes (3 of past state and local data) Challenges The percentage of our We have not identified, planned, and or put into practice the students scoring use of critical academic language in teaching and do not The percentage of our students scoring proficient or proficient and provide enough opportunities for students to struggle with advanced on the reading TCAP/CSAP has increased advanced on the math and explain and model their mathematical thinking. from 2011-2013 and is above the state’s expectation of TCAP/CSAP has 72. increased and We do not know the developmental stages of mathematical decreased from The percentage of our students scoring proficient or thinking, how to identify students’ levels, or how to pair and (68, 71, 66, 66, advanced on the writing TCAP/CSAP has increased implement the appropriate strategies to move students to the 72) and was 5 from 2010-2013 and is above the state’s expectation of next developmental level. percentage points 54. below our 2013 target The percentage of our students scoring proficient or of 77%. advanced on the math TCAP/CSAP has remained Academic Achievement stable from 2009-2013 and is the state’s (Status) expectation of 71. The percentage of our students scoring proficient or advanced on the science TCAP/CSAP has increased from 2009-2013 and is above the state’s expectation of 48. The percentage of our English Language Learners scoring proficient or advanced on the reading TCAP/CSAP has increased from 2011-2013 and is below the state’s expectation of 72.
the school will focus its efforts on improving. The root cause analysis and improvement planning efforts in the remainder of the plan should be aimed at addressing the identified priority performance challenge(s). A limited number of priority performance challenges is recommended (no more than 3-5); a performance challenge may apply to multiple performance indicators. At a minimum, priority performance challenges must be identified in any of the four performance indicator areas where minimum state and federal expectations were not met for accountability purposes. Furthermore, schools are encouraged to consider observations recorded in the “last year’s targets” worksheet. Finally, provide a brief description of the root cause analysis for any priority performance challenges. Root causes may apply to multiple priority performance challenges. You may add rows, as needed. Performance Indicators Description of Notable Trends (3 of past state and local data) Priority Performance Challenges Root Causes Academic Achievement (Status) The percentage of our students scoring proficient or advanced on the reading TCAP/CSAP has increased from 2011-2013 and is above the state’s expectation of 72. The percentage of our students scoring proficient or advanced on the writing TCAP/CSAP has increased from 2010-2013 and is above the state’s expectation of 54. The percentage of our students scoring proficient or advanced on the math TCAP/CSAP has remained stable from 2009-2013 and is the state’s expectation of 71. The percentage of our students scoring proficient or advanced on the science TCAP/CSAP has increased from 2009-2013 and is above the state’s expectation of 48. The percentage of our students scoring proficient and advanced on the math TCAP/CSAP has increased and decreased from (68, 71, 66, 66, 72) and was 5 percentage points below our 2013 target of 77%. We have not identified, planned, and or put into practice the use of critical academic language in teaching and do not provide enough opportunities for students to struggle with and explain and model their mathematical thinking. We do not know the developmental stages of mathematical thinking, how to identify students’ levels, or how to pair and implement the appropriate strategies to move students to the next developmental level. The percentage of our English Language Learners scoring proficient or advanced on the reading TCAP/CSAP has increased from 2011-2013 and is below the state’s expectation of 72.
2013-14_SchoolImprovementPlanTemplate-Teller.docx