Keystone Education Center CS

Improvement Plan

07/01/2014 - 06/30/2017

Revision for the 2016-2017 School-Year

School Profile

Demographics

425 South Good Hope Road

Greenville, PA 16125

(724)588-2511

Phase: / Improvement Revision 2016-2017
Federal Accountability Designation: / Priority
Title I Status: / Yes
CEO Name: / Mike Gentile
CEO E-mail address: /

Planning Committee

Name / Role
Linda Nelson / Academic Recovery Liaison
Kendra Gaub / Administrator
Matthew Nelson / Administrator
Mike Gentile / Administrator / CEO
Joel McDowell / Business Representative
Joel McDowell / Community Representative
Jeff Calvin / Ed Specialist - Instructional Technology
Josh Thompson / Ed Specialist - School Counselor
Position Not Applicable / Elementary School Teacher - Regular Education
Douglas England / High School Teacher - Regular Education
Ed MacElroy / Middle School Teacher - Regular Education
John Gaub / Middle School Teacher - Special Education
Dawn Gerrish / Parent

Assurances

Title I Schools

Title I Priority or Focus Schools

All Title I Schools required to complete improvement plans must assure to the Pennsylvania Department of Education the school's compliance with the following expectations by developing and implementing an improvement plan or otherwise taking actions that meet the expectations described by the Assurances listed below.

Assurances 1 through 12

The school has verified the following Assurances:

Assurance 1: This School Improvement Plan contains Action Plans that address each reason why this school failed to make Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) and/or is identified in the lowest 10% of Title I schools.
Assurance 2: The resources needed for full implementation of the action plans herein documented have been identified and the necessary approvals obtained to allow the procurement and allocation of these resources.
Assurance 3: Documentation of the resources needed for full implementation of the action plans herein documented; including specific, related budgetary information, is available for review upon request by the LEA or SEA.
Assurance 4: If designated as a Priority or Focus School the district has determined whole-school meaningful interventions directly associated with the unmet AMO(s).
Assurance 5: The school improvement plan covers a two-year period.
Assurance 6: The school has adopted and/or continued policies and practices concerning the school's core academic subjects that have the greatest likelihood of improving student achievement.
Assurance 7: High performing LEAs with varied demographic conditions have shown they share common characteristics. The following nine characteristics are embedded in the plan:
Clear and Shared Focus
High Standards and Expectations
Effective Leadership
High Levels of Collaboration and Communication
Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment Aligned with Standards
Frequent Monitoring of Teaching and Learning
Focused Professional Development
Supportive Learning Environment
High Levels of Community and Parent Involvement
Assurance 8: Focus Schools must implement locally developed interventions associated with a minimum of one of the below principles, while Priority Schools must implement all seven:
Providing strong leadership by: (1) reviewing the performance of the current principal; (2) either replacing the principal if such a change is necessary to ensure strong and effective leadership or demonstrating to the State Education Agency that the current principal has a track record in improving achievement and has the ability to lead the turnaround effort; and (3) providing the principal with operational flexibility in the areas of scheduling, staff, curriculum and budget.
Ensuring that teachers are effective and able to improve instruction by: (1) reviewing the quality of all staff and retaining only those who are determined to be effective and have the ability to be successful in the turnaround effort; and (2) preventing ineffective teachers from transferring to these schools.
Redesign the school day, week, or year to include additional time for student learning and teacher collaboration
Strengthen the school’s instructional program based on student needs and ensuring that the instructional program is research-based, rigorous, and aligned with state academic content standards.
Use data to inform instruction and for continuous improvement, including providing time for collaboration on the use of data.
Establish a school environment that improves school safety and discipline and addresses other non-academic factors that impact student achievement, such as students’ social, emotional and health needs.
Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement
Assurance 9: The school improvement plan delineates responsibilities fulfilled by the school, the LEA and the SEA serving the school under the plan.
Statement 10: Establish specific annual, measurable targets for continuous and substantial progress by each relevant subgroup, which will ensure all such groups of students, update to align with the new AMOs to close the achievement gap
Statement 11: A mentoring/induction program used with teachers new to the school exists; the essential elements of the mentoring/induction program are documented and the documentation is available for review upon request by LEA or SEA authorities.
Statement 12: All parents with enrolled students will receive an annual notification letter which includes the reasons for its identification as Priority or Focus and the school’s plan to improve student achievement.

Assurance 13

The school is communicating with parents regarding school improvement efforts via the following strategies:

School web site
School newsletter
Board meeting presentations
District's annual report
District report card
Press releases to local media
Yearly letter to parents
Periodic mailings/letters, postcards, etc.
Invitations to planning (etc.) meetings
Family Night/ Open House / Back to School Night/ Meet-the-Teachers Night, etc.
Parent-Teacher Conferences
Home-school visits
Student Handbook

Assurance for Priority Schools (Annually Updated SIP)

The school has indicated the following response to indicate if it has completed an evaluation with the assistance of our Academic Recovery Liaison:

Title I Schoolwide program

The school has indicated the following response as to whether or not it intends to run a Title I Schoolwide program :

Yes

A completed Title I Schoolwide program planning addendum is required if the school is running a Title I Schoolwide program.

DOCX file uploaded.

Needs Assessment

School Accomplishments

Accomplishment #1:

SPP score increase to 40.3 (2015) from 36.3 (2014).

Data Source: 2015 SPP

Accomplishment #2:

ELA/Literature met 100% of the requirement for closing the Achievement Gap in the 2014/2015 school year.

Data Source: 2015 SPP

Accomplishment #3:

Reading/Literature Scoring:

HS Literature:

Increase in Proficient Level Scoring:

Overall: Increase of 3.1% (5.7% -2014 to 8.8% -2015)

ED: Increase of 9.7% (0.0% -2014 to 9.7% -2015)

Title I: Increase of 10.3% (0.0% -2014 to 10.3% -2015)

HU: Increase of 9.7% (0.0% -2014 to 9.7% -2015)

Decrease in all Groups of Below Basic level scoring:

Overall: Decrease of 28.9% (37.7% -2014 to 8.8% -2015)

IEP: Decrease of 31.2% (50.0% -2014 to 18.8% -2015)

ED: Decrease of 25.4% (35.1% -2014 to 9.7% -2015)

Title I: Decrease of 24.6% (34.9% -2014 to 10.3% -2015)

HU: Decrease of 31.8% (41.5% -2014 to 9.7% -2015)

8th Grade Reading:

Decrease in Below Basic level scoring of 17.1% (57.1% -2014 to 40.0% -2015)

7th Grade Reading:

Increase in Proficient Level Scoring:

ED: Increase of 2.3% (7.7% -2014 to 10.0% -2015)

IEP: Increase of 2.4% (14.3% -2014 to 16.7% -2015)

HU: Increase of 2.3% (7.7% -2014 to 10.0% -2015)

Decrease in all Groups of Below Basic Level Scoring:

Overall: Decrease of 17.1% (57.1% - 2014 to 40.0% -2015)

ED: Decrease of 21.5% (61.5% -2014 to 40.0% -2015)

IEP: Decrease of 23.8% (57.1% -2014 to 33.3% -2015)

Title I: Decrease of 7.1% (57.1% -2014 to 50.0% -2015)

HU: Decrease of 21.5% (61.5% -2014 to 40.0% -2015)

Data Source: 2015 eMetric

Accomplishment #4:

Increase in 2015Proficient/Advanced scoring from the2014 year in PSSA Reading/Keystone Literature by 1.64% (19.35%-2013 to 25.86%-2014 to 27.50% -2015).

Data Source: 2015 SPP

Accomplishment #5:

Grade 8 Reading: There is evidence that the Below Basic group met the Standard for PA Academic Growth in 2015 with growth of 3.1 from the 2014 with growth of -1.3.

Grade 7 Reading data indicates that growth of -3.3 met the Standard for PA Academic Growth.

Data Source: 2015 PVAAS

Accomplishment #6:

Science: HS Biology:

Increase in Advance level Scoring in the following groups:

Overall: Increase of 3.1% (0.0% -2014 to 3.1% -2015)

ED: Increase of 3.3% (0.0% -2014 to 3.3% -2015)

Title I: Increase of 2.0% (0.0% -2014 to 2.0% -2015)

HU: Increase of 3.2% (0.0% -2014 to 3.2% -2015)

Increase in Proficient level Scoring in All Groups:

Overall: Increase of 7.9% (5.9% -2014 to 13.8% -2015)

IEP: Increase of 4.8% (0.0% -2014 to 4.8% -2015)

ED: Increase of 6.6% (5.1% -2014 to 11.7% -2015)

Title I: Increase of 5.4% (4.8% -2014 to 10.2% -2015)

HU: Increase of 7.9% (4.8% -2014 to 12.7% -2015)

Decrease in all Groups of Below Basic level scoring:

Overall: Decrease of 10.1% (68.6% -2014 to 58.5 -2015)

IEP: Decrease of 6.0% (91.7% -2014 to 85.7 -2015)

ED: Decrease of 10.9% (69.2% -2014 to 65.3% -2015)

Title I: Decrease of 1.4% (66.7% -2014 to 65.3% -2015)

HU: Decrease of 12.7% (71.4% -2014 to 58.7% -2015)

Science: Grade 8 Science:

Increase in Proficient level Scoring in All Groups:

Overall: Increase of 14.4% (11.9% -2014 to 26.3% -2015)

IEP: Increase of 19.0% (14.3% -2014 to 33.3% -2015)

ED: Increase of 20.8% (8.6% -2014 to 29.4% -2015)

Title I: Increase of 9.6% (21.7% -2014 to 31.3% -2015)

HU: Increase of 15.5% (10.8% -2014 to 26.3% -2015)

Decrease in the following Below Basic level scoring:

Overall: Decrease of 18.3% (76.2% -2014 to 57.9% -2015)

IEP: Decrease of 13.1% (71.4% -2014 to 58.3% -2015)

ED: Decrease of 27.1% (80.0% -2014 to 52.9% -2015)

HU: Decrease of 20.5% (78.4% -2014 to 57.9% -2015)

Data Source: 2015 eMetric

Accomplishment #7:

Algebra I:

Increase in Advanced Scoring in Overall Group of 2.4% (0.0% -2014 to 2.4% -2015)

Increase in Advanced Scoring in Title I Group of 3.1% (0.0% -2014 to 3.1% -2015)

Decrease in all Groups of Below Basic level scoring as indicated below:

Overall: Decrease of 10.4% (62.8% -2014 to 52.4% -2015)

IEP: Decrease of 35% (85.0% -2014 to 50.0% -2015)

ED: Decrease of 3.3% (57.6% -2014 to 54.3% -2015)

Title I: Decrease of 9.4% (62.5% -2014 to 53.1% -2015)

HU: Decrease of 3.0% (58.3% -2014 to 55.3% -2015)

Data Source: 2015 eMetric

Accomplishment #8:

Grade 8 Math: There is evidence that the Below Basic group met the Standard for PA Academic Growth in 2015 with growth of 0.8 from the 2014 growth of 0.7.

Data Source: 2015 PVAAS

Accomplishment #9:

Special Education Program: Indicator 5 (% of instruction inside the regular classroom) was met with 82.1% in 2014 (target of 65%).Source: 2014PennData

School Concerns

Concern #1:

Grade 8 Reading scoring showed a decrease in Advanced/Proficient scoring from the previous year with the new PSSA.

Overall: Decrease of 22.1% (31.6% -2014 to 9.5% -2015)

ED: Decrease of 25.0% (35.5% -2014 to 10.5% -2015)

IEP: Decrease of 5.6% (13.3% -2014 to 7.7% -2015)

Title I: Decrease of 37.6% (43.5% -2014 to 9.5% -2015)

HU: Decrease of 22.9% (32.4% -2014 to 9.5% -2015)

Data Source: 2015 eMetric

Concern #2:

HS Literature:

The standard for PA Academic Growth was not met in any performance level.

Data Source: 2015 PVAAS

Concern #3:

Algebra I:

The standard for PA Academic Growth was not met in any performance level.

Data Source: 2015 PVAAS

Concern #4:

Student academic history, attendance, and transiency/mobility of the at-risk Charter School. 2015 Semester One data indicate a transiency/mobility rate of 62%.

Data Source: 2015 Local Data/Records

Concern #5:

Increase in Student Assistance Program (SAP) referrals during semester one (August to January) of 2014/2015(18 students) to semester one (August to January) of 2015/2016 (20 students) by 0.9%.

Data Source: 2015 Local Data

Concern #6:

High level of high risk behaviors of student population that involve drug use, alcohol use, weapons access, depression, self-worth, and gang activity compared to local schools.

Data Source: 2015 Local Data and 2014 P.A.Y.S. Survey

Concern #7:

2015 Graduation Rate indicates a three-year decrease. 2015 data indicates a decrease of 6.52%. 2.48%. Previous year (68.52%- 2013to 66.04%- 2014).

Data Source: 2015 SPP

Prioritized Systemic Challenges

Systemic Challenge #1(Guiding Question #6) Ensure that there is a system within the school that fully ensures a safe and supportive environment for all students.

Aligned Concerns:

Student academic history, attendance, and transiency/mobility of the at-risk Charter School. 2015 Semester One data indicate a transiency/mobility rate of 62%.

Data Source: 2015 Local Data/Records

2015 Graduation Rate indicates a three-year decrease. 2015 data indicates a decrease of 6.52%. 2.48%. Previous year (68.52%- 2013to 66.04%- 2014).

Data Source: 2015 SPP

Increase in Student Assistance Program (SAP) referrals during semester one (August to January) of 2014/2015(18 students) to semester one (August to January) of 2015/2016 (20 students) by 0.9%.

Data Source: 2015 Local Data

High level of high risk behaviors of student population that involve drug use, alcohol use, weapons access, depression, self-worth, and gang activity compared to local schools.

Data Source: 2015 Local Data and 2014 P.A.Y.S. Survey

Systemic Challenge #2(Guiding Question #4) Ensure that there is a system within the school that fully ensures consistent implementation of effective instructional practices that meet the needs of all students across all classrooms and aligns with the Pennsylvania Framework for Teaching

Aligned Concerns:

HS Literature:

The standard for PA Academic Growth was not met in any performance level.

Data Source: 2015 PVAAS

Algebra I:

The standard for PA Academic Growth was not met in any performance level.

Data Source: 2015 PVAAS

Grade 8 Reading scoring showed a decrease in Advanced/Proficient scoring from the previous year with the new PSSA.

Overall: Decrease of 22.1% (31.6% -2014 to 9.5% -2015)

ED: Decrease of 25.0% (35.5% -2014 to 10.5% -2015)

IEP: Decrease of 5.6% (13.3% -2014 to 7.7% -2015)

Title I: Decrease of 37.6% (43.5% -2014 to 9.5% -2015)

HU: Decrease of 22.9% (32.4% -2014 to 9.5% -2015)

Data Source: 2015 eMetric

Systemic Challenge #3(Guiding Question #2) Ensure that there is a system within the school that fully ensures school-wide use of data that is focused on school improvement and the academic growth of all students

Aligned Concerns:

HS Literature:

The standard for PA Academic Growth was not met in any performance level.

Data Source: 2015 PVAAS

Algebra I:

The standard for PA Academic Growth was not met in any performance level.

Data Source: 2015 PVAAS

Grade 8 Reading scoring showed a decrease in Advanced/Proficient scoring from the previous year with the new PSSA.

Overall: Decrease of 22.1% (31.6% -2014 to 9.5% -2015)

ED: Decrease of 25.0% (35.5% -2014 to 10.5% -2015)

IEP: Decrease of 5.6% (13.3% -2014 to 7.7% -2015)

Title I: Decrease of 37.6% (43.5% -2014 to 9.5% -2015)

HU: Decrease of 22.9% (32.4% -2014 to 9.5% -2015)

Data Source: 2015 eMetric

Systemic Challenge #4(Guiding Question #1) Ensure that there is a system in the school and/or district that fully ensures the principal is enabled to serve as a strong instructional leader who, in partnership with the school community (students, staff, parents, community, etc.) leads achievement growth and continuous improvement within the school.

Aligned Concerns:

Student academic history, attendance, and transiency/mobility of the at-risk Charter School. 2015 Semester One data indicate a transiency/mobility rate of 62%.

Data Source: 2015 Local Data/Records

2015 Graduation Rate indicates a three-year decrease. 2015 data indicates a decrease of 6.52%. 2.48%. Previous year (68.52%- 2013to 66.04%- 2014).

Data Source: 2015 SPP

Increase in Student Assistance Program (SAP) referrals during semester one (August to January) of 2014/2015(18 students) to semester one (August to January) of 2015/2016 (20 students) by 0.9%.

Data Source: 2015 Local Data

Systemic Challenge #5(Guiding Question #3) Ensure that there is a system within the school that fully ensures consistent implementation of a standards aligned curriculum framework across all classrooms for all students.

Aligned Concerns:

HS Literature:

The standard for PA Academic Growth was not met in any performance level.

Data Source: 2015 PVAAS

Algebra I:

The standard for PA Academic Growth was not met in any performance level.

Data Source: 2015 PVAAS

Grade 8 Reading scoring showed a decrease in Advanced/Proficient scoring from the previous year with the new PSSA.

Overall: Decrease of 22.1% (31.6% -2014 to 9.5% -2015)

ED: Decrease of 25.0% (35.5% -2014 to 10.5% -2015)

IEP: Decrease of 5.6% (13.3% -2014 to 7.7% -2015)

Title I: Decrease of 37.6% (43.5% -2014 to 9.5% -2015)

HU: Decrease of 22.9% (32.4% -2014 to 9.5% -2015)

Data Source: 2015 eMetric

Systemic Challenge #6(Guiding Question #5) Ensure that the organizational structure, processes, materials, equipment, and human and fiscal resources within the school align with the school’s goals for student growth and continuous school improvement.

Aligned Concerns:

HS Literature:

The standard for PA Academic Growth was not met in any performance level.

Data Source: 2015 PVAAS

Algebra I:

The standard for PA Academic Growth was not met in any performance level.

Data Source: 2015 PVAAS

Grade 8 Reading scoring showed a decrease in Advanced/Proficient scoring from the previous year with the new PSSA.

Overall: Decrease of 22.1% (31.6% -2014 to 9.5% -2015)

ED: Decrease of 25.0% (35.5% -2014 to 10.5% -2015)

IEP: Decrease of 5.6% (13.3% -2014 to 7.7% -2015)

Title I: Decrease of 37.6% (43.5% -2014 to 9.5% -2015)

HU: Decrease of 22.9% (32.4% -2014 to 9.5% -2015)

Data Source: 2015 eMetric

Improvement Plan

Action Plans

Goal #1: Ensure that there is a system within the school that fully ensures a safe and supportive environment for all students.

Related Challenges:

Establish a system within the charter school that fully ensures barriers to student learning are addressed in order to increase student achievement and graduation rates.

Indicators of Effectiveness:

Type: Annual

Data Source: Bridges Inventory Data

Specific Targets: A target of 100% of charter school students utilizing the Bridges Inventory to develop skills, abilities and interests for career awareness and exploration as part of their graduation plan.

Type: Interim

Data Source: Bridges Inventory Data

Specific Targets: A target of 100% of the faculty and administration will be provided with the individual student information to support the student with the goal of graduation and realistic post-secondary options after the assessment and profile windows.

Type: Annual

Data Source: School Data

Specific Targets: A target of an increase of 25% in each year, after the baseline year, of graduating I.E.P. students attaining the goals defined from transition and bridges surveys that are listed in their I.E.P document.

Strategies:

Common Assessment within Grade/Subject

Description: WWC reports the effective use of data can have a positive impact upon student achievement; using common assessments to inform teacher practice is one such use of data. (Source: Teacher Moderation: Collaborative Assessment of Student Work and Common Assessments provide detailed looks at the development and use of common assessments. (Sources: and Common Assessments: Mike Schmoker. (2006) Results Now: How We Can Achieve Unprecedented Improvements in Teaching and Learning. Alexandria, Va.: ASCD.) Resource:

SAS Alignment: Assessment, Instruction

Data Analysis Procedures, Data-Informed Instruction, Data Teams & Data Warehousing

Description: Using Student Achievement Data to Support Instructional Decision Making provides a WWC reporting of various strategies related to the acquisition, analysis, and application of student data. (Source: )

SAS Alignment: Assessment, Instruction

Career Survey/Exploration/Planning through Bridges.com

Description:

The use of the Skills Survey, Interest Profiler, and Choices Planner in the Bridges.com career site will allow students to explore and plan for realistic post high school options. The student exploration will allow for the student to find personal skills and locate resource information for the skills to be matched to specific career choices. Through this programming, the student will determine the realistic options for post-secondary schooling, training, and career choices.

SAS Alignment: Standards, Assessment, Curriculum Framework, Materials & Resources, Safe and Supportive Schools

Implementation Steps:

Career Survey/Exploration/Planning: Step 1 - Renew Computer Based Site License

Description:

The site license for the Bridges.com Choices Planner will be renewed for the 2016/2017 school year.

Indicator of Implementation:

The renewal will indicate that the action plan step has occurred.

Indicator of Effectiveness:

The effectiveness of this step will be indicated by theusability of the program after renewal.