School Plan
Top of Form
BEARDENHIGH SCHOOL
635 N. Plum, Bearden, AR71720
ArkansasComprehensiveSchool Improvement Plan
2010-2011
Bearden High School, working as a cooperative unit comprised of teachers, parents, and the community, will provide each student equitable educational opportunities for learning and for applying thinking and reasoning skills preparing them for the 21st Century. Students' individual growth and development will be promoted in a safe school environment free of bullying, drugs, and violence.
Grade Span: 7-12 / Title I: Title I Schoolwide / School Improvement: SI_M
Table of Contents
Priority 1: Literacy
Goal: All students will improve literacy skills with emphasis in multiple choice and writing domains in reading literacy, reading content, practical reading, writing content and style, and reading comprehension.
Priority 2: Mathematics
Goal: All students will improve in solving equations/inequalities, graphs and tables and polynomial operations (open-response); multiple choice for geometry of relationships, geometry of shape, and geometry of size as well as all open response items. Students will also improve in mathematics skills and multiple choice/open response in the areas of number operations, geometry, measurement, data analysis and probability, and algebra.
Priority 3: Special Education
Goal: The percent of disproportionate representation of minority students in Special Education will be reduced to less than one standard deviation of the state average.
Priority 4: Wellness
Goal: Students will improve their BMI and nutritional food choices.
Priority 1: / All students will improve literacy skills with emphasis on reading comprehension and writing.
Supporting Data: /
  1. BENCHMARK EOC LITERACY RESULTS:
2007-# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 55 Students: 32.7% of Combined Students 26 Students: 19.2% of African American Students . Students: N/A% of Hispanic Students 29 Students: 44.8% of Caucasian Students 35 Students: 22.8% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students . Students: N/A% of LEP Students 7 Students: 14.2% of Students with Disabilities The lowest identified areas for the combined population were: Open Response: Practical Passages The lowest identified areas for African Americans were: Open Response: Practical Passages The lowest identified areas for Hispanic were: Open Response: Practical Passages The lowest identified areas for Caucasian were:Open Response: Practical Passages The lowest identified areas for Econ. Disadvantaged students were: Open Response: Practical Passages The lowest identified areas for LEP students were: Open Response: Practical Passages In 2008: Literacy 35.2% of combined students scored at or above proficient on the Benchmark. NA of African American students scored at or above proficient; NA of Hispanic students scored at or above proficient; NA of Caucasian students scored at or above proficient; NA of Socio Economic Deprived students scored at or above proficient; N/A% of LEP students scored at or above proficient; NA% of Students with Disabilities scored at or above proficient. The lowest identified areas for the Combined population were: Content Passage: Open Response & Multiple Choice, Writing Multiple Choice, Writing Domains Content and Style The lowest identified areas for the African Americans were: Writing Multiple Choice, Literary Passage Multiple Choice and Practical Passage Open Response and Multiple Choice The lowest identified areas for the Hispanic were: NA The lowest identified areas for the Caucasian were: Literary Passage: Multiple Choice and Open Response and Practical Passage Open Response The lowest identified areas for the Students with Disabilities were: Literary Passage Open Reponse, Content Passage Open Response, Practical Passage Open Response and Writing Domains Content and Style The lowest identified areas for the Socio Economic Deprived were: Content Passage Multiple Choice and Open Response and Writing Multiple Choice In 2009: Literacy 44% of combined students scored at or above proficient on the Benchmark. 28% of African American students scored at or above proficient; 100% of Hispanic scored at or above proficient; 52% of Caucasian students scored at or above proficient; 33% of Socio Economic Deprived students scored at or above proficient; N/A% of LEP students scored at or above proficient; 0% of Students with Disabilities scored at or above proficient. The lowest identified areas for the Combined population were: Reading Content, Writing Multiple Choice, Content The lowest identified areas for the African Americans were: Reading Content, Writing Multiple Choice, Content The lowest identified areas for the Hispanics were: Reading Content, Writing Multiple Choice and Content The lowest identified areas for the Caucasian were: Reading Content, Writing Multiple Choice and Content The lowest identified areas for the Students with Disabilities were: Reading content, Writing Multiple Choice, Content The lowest identified areas for the Socio Economic Deprived were: Reading Content, Writing Multiple Choice, Content 2010 EOC Literacy 42% of the Combined population scored at or above the proficient level. 20% of African Americans scored at or above proficient. NA Hispanic 50% of Caucasian students scored at or above proficient 36% of Socio Economic Deprived studetns scored at or above proficient NA LEP NA Students with Disabilities. The lowest scoring areas for the Combined population were Writing Multiple Choice and Reading Multiple Choice in the area of Content. The lowest scoring area for African Americans were Writing Multiple Choice and Reading Multiple Choice in the areas of Literacy, Content, and Practical. The lowest scoring area for Caucasians were Writing Multiple Choice, Content Reading Passage Multiple Choice, and Content Area Reading Multiple Choice.
Three year trend analysis shown a slight increase in percentage points
earned in the area of Mechanics and Practical Passage Open Response.
Other passages showed slight variations over the three year period. Item
analysis shows a weakness in Content Passage and Content Passage Open
Response.
  1. ITBS RESULTS GRADE 9
  2. In 2008, 64% of the combined population of the 9th grade scored below the
  3. 50%tile on the (Reading portion of the SAT 10);
  4. 79%African American population scored below the 50%tile;
  5. 100% of the Hispanic population scored below the 50%tile;
  6. 55% of the Caucasian population scored below the 50%tile;
  7. 63% of the Socio Economic Deprived population scored below the
  8. 50%tile;
  9. N/A% of the LEP students scored below the 50%tile;
  10. 100% of the Students with Disabilities scored below the 50%tile
  11. I
  12. In 2007,
  13. 47% of combined students scored at or above proficient on 9th Grade ITBS:
  14. 20 % of African American students scored at or above proficient;
  15. 100% of Hispanic students scored at or above proficient;
  16. 65.4% of Caucasian students scored at or above proficient;
  17. 26% of Socio Economic Deprived students scored at or above
  18. proficient;
  19. NA of LEP students scored at or above proficient;
  20. 0% of Students with Disabilities scored at or above proficient.
  21. The lowest identified areas for the combined population were:
  22. Vocabulary; Reading Total; Science
  23. The lowest identified areas for the African Americans were:
  24. Science; Math Total with Computation; Reading Comprehension; Reading Total
  25. The lowest identified areas for Hispanics were:
  26. None
  27. The lowest identified areas for Caucasians were:
  28. Spelling; Math Computation
  29. The lowest identified areas for LEP students were:
  30. Not applicable
  31. The lowest identified areas for Students with Disabilities were:
  32. Reading Comprehension; Reading Total; Language Total; Math Total
  33. Computation; Science
  34. The lowest identified areas for Socio Economic Deprived were:
  35. Vocabulary; Reading Total; Language Total; Math Total with Comprehension;
  36. Science
  37. In 2006,
  38. 29% of combined students scored at or above proficient on 9th Grade ITBS:
  39. 17% of African American students scored at or above proficient;
  40. 50% of Hispanic students scored at or above proficient;
  41. 69% of Caucasian students scored at or above proficient;
  42. 31% of Socio Economic Deprived students scored at or above
  43. proficient;
  44. N/A of LEP students scored at or above proficient;
  45. 0% of Students with Disabilities scored at or above proficient.
  46. The lowest identified areas for the combined population were:
  47. Vocabulary; Spelling; Reading Total
  48. The lowest identified areas for the African Americans were:
  49. Vocabulary; Social Studies; Reading Total; Sources of Information
  50. The lowest identified areas for Hispanics were:
  51. None
  52. The lowest identified areas for Caucasians were:
  53. Spelling
  54. The lowest identified areas for LEP students were:
  55. Not applicable
  56. The lowest identified areas for Students with Disabilities were:
  57. The lowest identified areas for Socio Economic Deprived were:
  58. Vocabulary; Reading Total; Problems and Data Interpretation; Math Total
  59. without Computation; Maps and Diagrams
  60. GRADUATION RATE:
  61. In 2010: 90%
  62. In 2009: 73.9%
  63. IN 2008: 96.5%
  64. IN 2007: 88.5%
  65. IN 2006: 90%
  66. Benchmark:
  67. In 2007: Literacy 7th Grade
  68. 66% of combined students scored at or above proficient on the Benchmark.
  69. 48% of African American students scored at or above proficient;
  70. 100% of Hispanic students scored at or above proficient;
  71. 81% of Caucasian students scored at or above proficient;
  72. 56% of Socio Economic Deprived students scored at or above proficient;
  73. N/A% of LEP students scored at or above proficient;
  74. 0% of Students with Disabilities scored at or above proficient.
  75. The lowest identified areas for the Combined population were:
  76. Comprehension
  77. The lowest identified areas for the African Americans were: Comprehension
  78. The lowest identified areas for the Hispanic were:NA
  79. The lowest identified areas for the Caucasian were: Comprehension
  80. The lowest identified areas for the Students with Disabilities were:NA
  81. The lowest identified areas for the Socio Economic Deprived were:
  82. Comprehension
  83. In 2008: Literacy 7th Grade
  84. 27% of combined students scored at or above proficient on the Benchmark.
  85. 13% of African American students scored at or above proficient;
  86. NA% of Hispanic students scored at or above proficient;
  87. 39% of Caucasian students scored at or above proficient;
  88. 27% of Socio Economic Deprived students scored at or above proficient;
  89. N/A% of LEP students scored at or above proficient;
  90. 0% of Students with Disabilities scored at or above proficient.
  91. The lowest identified areas for the Combined population were: Reading
  92. Practical, Writing Multiple Choice, Content, and Style
  93. The lowest identified areas for the African Americans were: Reading
  94. Practical, Writing Multiple Choice, Content, and Style
  95. The lowest identified areas for the Hispanic were: N/A
  96. The lowest identified areas for the Caucasian were: Reading Practical,
  97. Writing Multiple Choice, Content, and Style
  98. The lowest identified areas for the Students with Disabilities were:
  99. Reading Practical, Writing Multiple Choice, Content, and Style
  100. The lowest identified areas for the Socio Economic Deprived were: Reading
  101. Content, Writing Multiple Choice, Content and Style
  102. In 2009: 7th Grade Literacy
  103. 62% of combined students scored at or above proficient on the Benchmark.
  104. 50% of African American students scored at or above proficient;
  105. NA% of Hispanic scored at or above proficient;
  106. 69% of Caucasian students scored at or above proficient;
  107. 60% of Socio Economic Deprived students scored at or above proficient;
  108. N/A% of LEP students scored at or above proficient;
  109. 0% of Students with Disabilities scored at or above proficient.
  110. The lowest identified areas for the Combined population were: Reading
  111. Content, Writing Multiple Choice, Content, and Style
  112. The lowest identified areas for the African Americans were: Reading
  113. Content, Writing Multiple Choice, Content, and Style
  114. The lowest identified areas for the Hispanics were: Reading Content ,
  115. Writing Multiple Choice, Content and Style
  116. The lowest identified areas for the Caucasian were: Reading Content,
  117. Writing Multiple Choice, Content, and Style
  118. The lowest identified areas for the Students with Disabilities were:
  119. Reading Content, Writing Multiple Choice, Content, and Style
  120. The lowest identified areas for the Socio Economic Deprived were:
  121. Reading Content, Writing Multiple Choice, Content, and Style
  122. 2010 7th Grade Literacy
  123. 46% of combined students scored at or above the proficient level on the
  124. Benchmark.
  125. 36% of African American students scored at or above proficient.
  126. NA Hispanic
  127. 53% of Caucasian students scored at or above proficient.
  128. 46% of Socio Economic Deprived students scored at or above proficient.
  129. NA LEP students
  130. NA Students with Disabilities
  131. The lowest scoring areas for African Americans were: Literary Reading
  132. Passage Open Response; Writing Multiple Choice; and Content Reading
  133. passage Open Response.The lowest scoring areas for Caucasians were:
  134. Literary Reading passage Open Response; Writing Multiple Choice; and
  135. Practical Reading Passage Open Response.
  136. Three year trend analysis shows an increase in the area of Mechanics and
  137. Literary Passage Multiple Choice. Other passages showed slight variations
  138. over the three year period. Item analysis shows a weakness in Practical
  139. Passage and Practical Passage Open Response.
  140. In 2007: Literacy 8th Grade
  141. 61% of combined students scored at or above proficient on the Benchmark.
  142. 36% of African American students scored at or above proficient;
  143. 100% of Hispanic students scored at or above proficient;
  144. 67% of Caucasian students scored at or above proficient;
  145. 55% of Socio Economic Deprived students scored at or above proficient;
  146. N/A% of LEP students scored at or above proficient;
  147. 20% of Students with Disabilities scored at or above proficient.
  148. The lowest identified areas for the Combined population were: MC -
  149. Literary, OR Content; MC Writing
  150. The lowest identified areas for the African Americans were: MC - Literary,
  151. OR Content, Writing MC
  152. The lowest identified areas for the Hispanic were: NA
  153. The lowest identified areas for the Caucasian were: OR - Content
  154. The lowest identified areas for the Students with Disabilities were: MC -
  155. Literary; OR - Literary, Content; and Writing MC
  156. The lowest identified areas for the Socio Economic Deprived were: MC -
  157. Literary; OR - Content; Writing MC
  158. In 2008: Literacy 8th Grade
  159. 73% of combined students scored at or above proficient on the Benchmark.
  160. 62% of African American students scored at or above proficient;
  161. 100% of Hispanic students scored at or above proficient;
  162. 80% of Caucasian students scored at or above proficient;
  163. 67% of Socio Economic Deprived students scored at or above proficient;
  164. N/A% of LEP students scored at or above proficient;
  165. 0% of Students with Disabilities scored at or above proficient.
  166. The lowest identified areas for the Combined population were: Reading
  167. Content, Writing Multiple Choice, Content, and Style
  168. The lowest identified areas for the African Americans were: Reading
  169. Literary, Writing Multiple Choice, Content, and Style
  170. The lowest identified areas for the Hispanic were: Reading Content,
  171. Writing Multiple Choice, Content, and Style
  172. The lowest identified areas for the Caucasian were: Reading Content,
  173. Writing Multiple Choice, Content, and Style
  174. The lowest identified areas for the Students with Disabilities were:
  175. Reading Literary, Writing Multiple Choice, Content, and Style
  176. The lowest identified areas for the Socio Economic Deprived were: Reading
  177. Content, Writing Multiple Choice, Content and Style
  178. In 2009: 8th Grade Literacy
  179. 73% of combined students scored at or above proficient on the Benchmark.
  180. 56% of African American students scored at or above proficient;
  181. NA% of Hispanic scored at or above proficient;
  182. 88% of Caucasian students scored at or above proficient;
  183. 68% of Socio Economic Deprived students scored at or above proficient;
  184. N/A% of LEP students scored at or above proficient;
  185. 50% of Students with Disabilities scored at or above proficient.
  186. The lowest identified areas for the Combined population were: Reading
  187. Literacy, Writing Multiple Choice, Content, and Style
  188. The lowest identified areas for the African Americans were: Reading
  189. Literacy, Writing Multiple Choice, Content, and Style
  190. The lowest identified areas for the Hispanics were:
  191. The lowest identified areas for the Caucasian were: Reading Literacy,
  192. Writing Content, and Style
  193. The lowest identified areas for the Students with Disabilities were:
  194. Reading Literacy, Writing Multiple Choice, Content, and Style
  195. The lowest identified areas for the Socio Economic Deprived were:
  196. Reading Literacy, Writing Multiple Choice, Content, and Style
  197. 2010 8th Grade Literacy
  198. 80% of Combined students scored at or above proficient on the Benchmark.
  199. 73% of African American students scored at or above proficient.
  200. NA Hispanic
  201. 86% of Caucasian students scored at or above proficient.
  202. 80% of Socio Economic Deprived students scored at or above proficient.
  203. NA LEP
  204. NA Students with Disabilities.
  205. Lowest scoring areas for African Americans were: Content Reading Passage
  206. Open Response; Writing Multiple Choice; Practical Reading Passatge
  207. Multiple Choice and Open Response; Content Reading Multiple Choice.
  208. Lowest scoring areas for Caucasians were: Writing Multiple Choice;
  209. Content Reading passage multiple Choice; and Practical Reading passage
  210. Multiple Choice.
  211. Three year trend analysis shows an increase in the area of Usage and
  212. Mechanics. Other passages showed slight variations over the three year
  213. period. Item analysis shows a weakness in Content and Style and Writing
  214. Multiple Choice.
  215. ITBS:
  216. In 2007, 7th Grade
  217. 54.7% of the combined population scored below the 50%tile on the (Reading
  218. portion of the ITBS);
  219. 84%African American population scored below the 50%tile;
  220. 50% of the Hispanic population scored below the 50%tile;
  221. 26.9% of the Caucasian population scored below the 50%tile;
  222. 71.9% of the Socio Economic Deprived population scored below the 50%tile;
  223. N/A% of the LEP students scored below the 50%tile;
  224. N/A% of the Students with Disabilities scored below the 50%tile
  225. The lowest identified area for the combined population was: Comprehension
  226. The lowest identified area for the African Americans was: Comprehension
  227. The lowest identified area for Hispanics was:NA
  228. The lowest identified area for Caucasians was: Comprehension
  229. The lowest identified area for LEP students was:NA
  230. The lowest identified area for Students with Disabilities was:
  231. Comprehension
  232. The lowest identified area for Socio Economic Deprived was: Comprehension
  233. In 2007, 8th Grade
  234. 59.5% of the combined population scored below the 50%tile on the (Reading
  235. portion of the ITBS);
  236. 81.8%African American population scored below the 50%tile;
  237. 100% of the Hispanic population scored below the 50%tile;
  238. 48.3% of the Caucasian population scored below the 50%tile;
  239. 64.5% of the Socio Economic Deprived population scored below the 50%tile;
  240. N/A% of the LEP students scored below the 50%tile;
  241. 83.4% of the Students with Disabilities scored below the 50%tile
  242. The lowest identified area for the combined population was: Comprehension
  243. The lowest identified area for the African Americans was: Vocabulary
  244. The lowest identified area for Hispanics was: NA
  245. The lowest identified area for Caucasians was: Comprehension
  246. The lowest identified area for LEP students was:NA
  247. The lowest identified area for Students with Disabilities was: Spelling
  248. The lowest identified area for Socio Economic Deprived was:
  249. 2008 SAT 10 7th Grade
  250. In 2008, 64% of the combined population of the 7th grade scored below the
  251. 50%tile on the (Reading portion of the SAT 10);
  252. 64%African American population scored below the 50%tile;
  253. N/A% of the Hispanic population scored below the 50%tile;
  254. 63% of the Caucasian population scored below the 50%tile;
  255. 58% of the Socio Economic Deprived population scored below the
  256. 50%tile;
  257. N/A% of the LEP students scored below the 50%tile;
  258. 100% of the Students with Disabilities scored below the 50%tile
  259. Grade 7
  260. In 2009, 47% of the combined population of the 7th grade scored at or
  261. below the 50%tile on the (Reading portion of the SAT 10);
  262. 46%African American population scored at or below the 50%tile;
  263. 100% of the Hispanic population scored at or below the 50%tile;
  264. 46% of the Caucasian population scored at or below the 50%tile;
  265. NA% of the Native American population scored at or below the
  266. 50%tile;
  267. 42% of the Socio Economic Deprived population scored at or below
  268. the 50%tile;
  269. N/A% of the LEP students scored at or below the 50%tile;
  270. 100% of the Students with Disabilities scored at or below the
  271. 50%tile
  272. The lowest identified area for the combined population was:
  273. 2008 SAT 10 8th Grade
  274. In 2008, 40% of the combined population of the 8th grade scored below the
  275. 50%tile on the (Reading portion of the SAT 10);
  276. 58%African American population scored below the 50%tile;
  277. 100% of the Hispanic population scored below the 50%tile;
  278. 17% of the Caucasian population scored below the 50%tile;
  279. 52% of the Socio Economic Deprived population scored below the
  280. 50%tile;
  281. N/A% of the LEP students scored below the 50%tile;
  282. 100% of the Students with Disabilities scored below the 50%tile
  283. Grade 8
  284. In 2009, 72% of the combined population of the 8th grade scored at or
  285. below the 50%tile on the (Reading portion of the SAT 10);
  286. 86%African American population scored at or below the 50%tile;
  287. NA% of the Hispanic population scored at or below the 50%tile;
  288. 61% of the Caucasian population scored at or below the 50%tile;
  289. NA% of the Native American population scored at or below the
  290. 50%tile;
  291. 76% of the Socio Economic Deprived population scored at or below
  292. the 50%tile;
  293. N/A% of the LEP students scored at or below the 50%tile;
  294. 100% of the Students with Disabilities scored at or below the
  295. 50%tile
  296. Grade 9
  297. In 2009, 54% of the combined population of the 9th grade scored at or
  298. below the 50%tile on the (Reading portion of the SAT 10);
  299. 65%African American population scored at or below the 50%tile;
  300. 100% of the Hispanic population scored at or below the 50%tile;
  301. 45% of the Caucasian population scored at or below the 50%tile;
  302. 100% of the Native American population scored at or below the
  303. 50%tile;
  304. 60% of the Socio Economic Deprived population scored at or below
  305. the 50%tile;
  306. N/A% of the LEP students scored at or below the 50%tile;
  307. NA% of the Students with Disabilities scored at or below the
  308. 50%tile
  309. The results of a comprehensive needs assessment in the area of
  310. Literacy used data from interim testing, teacher assessments,
  311. walkthroughs, and from other information but is based primarily on the
  312. results of ADE mandated testing for the three-year period 2006-2009. A
  313. review of this data showed a number of trends in student achievement in
  314. the Bearden High School. Analysis shows some growth and upward trend in
  315. the area of Mechanics and Literacy Passage Multiple Choice. Weaknesses
  316. indicated included Practical Passage, Practical Passage Open Response,
  317. Content Passage and Content Passage Open Response. Student performance,
  318. Content Passage, and Content Passage Open Response. Student performance
  319. points out that instruction in the classroom should be focused on the
  320. development of higher order thinking skills.