2010 - 2011
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Title I Schoolwide Plan
Note: Blank copy is available on www.alsde.edu , e-GAP, Document Library
Federal Programs Director submits required plans to LEA system’s e-GAP Document Library
NAME OF SCHOOL: Carver Senior High SchoolSTREET ADDRESS: 2001 W. Fairview Ave. / CITY: Montgomery, AL / STATE: Alabama / ZIP CODE: 36108-4199
CONTACT: Gary Hall / TELEPHONE: (334) 269-3636 / E-MAIL:
Identified for School Improvement? No Yes Delay Status
Year 1 or Year 2 *Submit to LEA for Board approval. Retain the original plan in the LEA. Submit the plan electronically to your system’s e-GAP Document Library by November 3, 2009.
Year 3 or Year 4 or more Submit to LEA for Board approval. Scan PAGE ONE and PAGE TWO to indicate signatures. Submit the plan and signature pages electronically to your system’s e-GAP Document
Library by November 3, 2009.
Made AYP?
YES NO / Made AMAOs (ELL)?
YES
NO
N/A / Career Tech Made AYP?
YES
NO
N/A
/ Are all federal resources (including Titles I, II, III, IV, V, and VI) used to coordinate and supplement existing services and not used to provide services that, in the absence of federal funds, would be provided by another fund source?
YES NO / Describe how this plan will be made available to parents and other stakeholders, such as through parent meetings or on Web sites.
NOTE: The Parental Involvement section of this plan must be distributed to all parents.
1. A copy of the plan will be sent to the State Department of Education, Montgomery Public School’s Central Office, and
Title I Office
2. A copy of the plan will be placed in the Guidance office and Main Administrative Office.
3. A copy of the plan will be on file in the school’s library for parents and the public to view.
4. Every Department Chair, as well as teacher, will have a copy of the Continuous Improvement Plan.
*Board Approval: Yes No Board approval received on ______, 2010.
Board Signature:
Superintendent Signature: / Date:
Federal Programs Coordinator Signature: / Date:
Principal Signature: / Date:
September 10, 2010
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION TEAM
This plan was developed/or revised during the following time period (e.g. April, May – September 2009):Provide a brief description of the planning process, including how teachers will be involved in decisions regarding the use of state academic assessments, and other data sources in order to provide information on and to improve the achievement of individual students and the overall instructional program and how parents were involved with faculty and staff in developing, and implementing the CIP (Title I, Section 1116(b)(A)(viii):
In May 2010, the school leadership team (including parent members) reviewed the 2009-2010 Continuous Improvement Plan to assess the degree to which implemented strategies have been met. This information was shared with all staff and interested parents. The staff and parents provided input on the following: which elements have been successfully mastered and need not be included in the next year’s plan; the elements that have been mastered but still require continued monitoring during the 2010-2011 school years; the elements that have not been mastered and must be included in the 2010-2011CIP. In August 2010, the school leadership team and school staff, along with interested parents convened to disaggregate standardized assessment data, Pride survey data, School Incident Report data, PEPE data, Career and Technical Education Improvement Plan data and other local data. Parents, teachers, and the school leadership team began construction of a survey regarding school culture. This survey was sent home August 30, 2009 and completed by all ninth – twelfth grade students on August 31, 2009. School teachers and staff completed the survey no later than August 31, 2009. The school leadership team (including parent members) reconvened to disaggregate data including subgroups. Results were shared with school faculty, staff, and parents. Faculty, staff, and parents were asked for their input. The school leadership team met to suggest strategies, professional development, and budget requirements for the CIP plan. When the draft was completed, faculty and staff reviewed it and had the opportunity to suggest modifications if needed. The CIP for the 2010-2011 school years was published and shared with the district Roundtable. Requested modifications were examined and decisions made by school leadership team and faculty/staff. The finalized CIP was sent to the district school board for approval and signatures.
Instructional
Leadership Team Names
(The Leadership Team must include the principal, faculty [including ELL resource lead teacher if applicable], staff, parents, community stakeholders, and/or students.) / Positions
(Identify position held, e.g., Administration, Faculty, Staff, Grade Level and/or Subject Area, Parents and Community members.) / Signatures
(Indicates participation in the
development of the CIP)
Gary Hall
Milanda Dean
Sharon Cargill
Felicia Fleming
Bernice Floyd
Bernita Patterson-Ryan
Indi Hines
Kristen Dial
Lizzie Hardy
Eris Beasley / Principal
Assistant Principal for Instruction
Teacher/Language Arts
Teacher/Mathematics
Teacher/Special Education
Teacher/Science
Teacher/History
Counselor
Parent Liason
Parent
Part I - SUMMARY OF NEEDS BASED ON A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF DATA
Alabama AYP Accountability Reports
School Status Report
Alabama Department of Education
Adequate Yearly Progress Status for 2010-2011
Based on School Year 2009-2010 Data
051 Montgomery County - 0130 Carver Senior High School
2010-2011 AYP Status / This school met 13 goals out of 13 (100%).Made AYP
Not in School Improvement
Reading
Made AYP / Percent Participation Goal = 95% / Met Participation Goal / Proficiency Index
Goal = 0.00 / Met Proficiency
Goal
Not in School Improvement
All Students / 99 / Yes / -5.67 / Yes(UA)
Special Education / 100 / N/A / -46.50 / N/A
American Indian / Alaskan Native / No Data / No Data / No Data / No Data
Asian / Pacific Islander / No Data / No Data / No Data / No Data
Black / 99 / Yes / -5.67 / Yes(UA)
Hispanic / No Data / No Data / No Data / No Data
White / No Data / No Data / No Data / No Data
Limited English Proficient / No Data / No Data / No Data / No Data
Free / Reduced Meals / 99 / Yes / -6.65 / Yes(UA)
Mathematics
Made AYP / Percent Participation Goal = 95% / Met Participation Goal / Proficiency Index
Goal = 0.00 / Met Proficiency
Goal
Not in School Improvement
All Students / 99 / Yes / 2.00 / Yes
Special Education / 100 / N/A / -22.00 / N/A
American Indian / Alaskan Native / No Data / No Data / No Data / No Data
Asian / Pacific Islander / No Data / No Data / No Data / No Data
Black / 99 / Yes / 2.00 / Yes
Hispanic / No Data / No Data / No Data / No Data
White / No Data / No Data / No Data / No Data
Limited English Proficient / No Data / No Data / No Data / No Data
Free / Reduced Meals / 100 / Yes / 0.12 / Yes
Additional Academic Indicator - Graduation Rate
Made AYP / Graduation Rate Goal = 90% / Met Additional Academic Indicator
Not in School Improvement
All Students / 98% / Yes
Legend
~ Fewer than 10 students / SH Safe Harbor
N2 Small school rule for participation / CI Confidence Interval
* Small school rule for proficiency / IM Improvement
¯ Small school rule for AAI / N/A Not applicable (for subgroups), fewer than 40 students
UA Uniform Averaging
Part I - continued – Directions: needs assessment- Summary of Data: Indicate data sources used during planning by identifying strengths and weaknesses or program gaps. If your school did not review a particular data source, please write N/A. School improvement goals should address program gaps (weaknesses) as they relate to student achievement or AYP categories such as graduation rate or other academic indicators. Close attention should be given to the proficiency index. Please include all disaggregated subgroups including those with less than forty students.
Briefly describe the process your faculty used to conduct the needs assessment (analysis of all data).1. Utilize assessment data for evaluation and development processes to improve student performance.
2. Set clear goals and standards for a focused instructional program.
3. Expand the AHSGE initiative previously developed that focuses on the improvement/success of for all students.
4. Align school curriculum to local and state standards and assessments through departmental meetings and collaboration between special education and general classroom teachers.
Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT): Describe how staffing decisions ensure that highly qualified, well-trained teachers provide instruction and how their assignments most effectively address identified
academic needs.
Number and percentage of teachers Non-HQT:
100% are currently HQ / Number and percentage of Classes Taught by Non-HQT:
0% are taught by non-HQ teachers
Alabama High School Graduation Exam (AHSGE):
Strengths:
75% of the 10th graders passed the Biology portion on the AHSGE.
· A total of 95% of the 12th graders passed Social Studies on the AHSGE
· A total of 97% of the 12th graders passed Language on the AHSGE
· A total of 98% of the 12th graders passed Math on the AHSGE
· A total of 97% of the 12th graders passed Biology on the AHSGE
· A total of 98% of the 12th graders passed Reading on the AHSGE / Weaknesses:
34% of the 10th graders passed reading portion on the AHSGE.
· A 2% decrease for 12th graders passing Reading on the AHSGE
· A 1% decrease for 12th graders passing Social Studies on the AHSGE
· A 3% decrease for 12th graders passing Language and Science on the AHSGE
Alabama Reading and Mathematics Test (ARMT):
Strengths: N/A / Weaknesses: N/A
Alabama Science Assessment:
Strengths:
N/A / Weaknesses:
N/A
Stanford 10
Strengths: N/A / Weaknesses: N/A
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS):
Strengths: N/A / Weaknesses: N/A
Part I - Continued:
Alabama Direct Assessment of Writing (ADAW):
Strengths:
Test was administered, but not scored. / Weaknesses:
Test was administered, but not scored.
ACCESS for English Language Learners (ELLs):
Strengths: N/A / Weaknesses: N/A
Professional Education Personnel Evaluation (PEPE) School Profile Information:
Strengths:
Due to the fact that a small percentage of teachers fell under Educate AL system last year, and the fact that we are
noticing the same strengths and weaknesses, the previous year’s PEPE results will be used. The Alabama Teacher Evaluation School Summary Reports reveal the
following areas of strength:
· 4.1 Manages class time
· 4.2 Manages student behavior
· 8.1 Completes job requirements according to established timelines
· 8.2 Adheres to written local/state board policies and federal laws/regulation / Weaknesses:
Due to the fact that a small percentage of teachers fell under Educate AL system last year,
and the fact that we are noticing the same strengths and weaknesses, the previous year’s PEPE
results will be used. The Alabama Teacher Evaluation School Summary Reports reveal the
following areas of weakness
· 2.1 Orients students to the lesson
· 2.3 Develops the lesson
Additional Data Sources: (e.g., Alabama Alternate Assessment [AAA], School Technology Plan Data)
Strengths:
100% of students met or exceeded the standards in both reading and math. / Weaknesses:
No known weakness at this time
Local Data (e.g., LEA, school, and grade-level assessments, surveys, program-specific assessments):
Strengths:
· During the 2009-2010 school year, 100% of the faculty, staff and administration attended Professional
Development to improve student achievement / Weaknesses:
· The number of days students were tardy increased from 8,034 in 20089-2009 to
9,459 in 2009-2010
Career and Technical Education Program Improvement Plan:
Strengths:
· The programs have been divided into academies to maximize instruction, mastery of skills, and hands on
training. / Weaknesses:
· Partnerships with more companies are need to ensure various learning experiences
· More equipment is need to keep up with advancing technology
Part I – Continued (CULTURE RELATED DATA):
School Demographic Information related to student discipline (e.g. total office referrals, long- and short-term suspensions, expulsions, alternative school placements, School Incidence Report (SIR) data, or student attendance).
Strengths:
There was a 7.5% decrease in disobedience infractions for the 2009-2010 school years. / Weaknesses:
There was an 8% increase on infractions related to defiance to authority.
School Demographic Information related to drop-out information and graduation rate data.
Strengths:
98% of the 12th grade students graduated / Weaknesses:
2% of 12th grade students did not graduate during the Spr. of the 2010 school year
School Demographic Information related to teacher attendance, teacher turnover, or challenges associated with a high percent of new and/or inexperienced faculty.
Strengths:
We retained 81% of our teachers for the 2010-2011 school year. / Weaknesses:
19% of the teachers hired in 2010-2011 are non-tenured/first year teachers
School Demographic Information related to student attendance, patterns of student tardiness, early checkouts, late enrollments, high number of transfers, and/or transiency including migratory moves (if applicable).
Strengths:
· ADA was 98.2% for the 2009-2010 school year / Weaknesses:
· The number of days students were tardy increased from 8,034 in 2008-2009 to
9,459 in 2009-2010
School Perception Information related to parent perceptions and parent needs including information about literacy and education levels.
Strengths:
Increase the amount of information and activities provided to families about how to assist in student
learning from the previous yearly average of 75 % to 80 % (5%). / Weaknesses:
Need to increase parental involvement by providing parent communication and counseling that address at risk students
School Perception Information related to student PRIDE data.
Strengths:
89% of the students feel that they are in a safe and conducive learning environment / Weaknesses:
Out of the 34% of the students surveyed, 27.5% of those students are 9th graders who have experimented with illegal drugs
School Process Information related to an analysis of existing curricula focused on helping English Language Learners (ELLs) work toward attaining proficiency in annual measurable academic objectives (AMAOs).
Strengths:
N/A / Weaknesses:
School Process Information related to an analysis of existing personnel focused on helping English Language Learners (ELLs) work toward attaining proficiency in annual measurable academic objectives (AMAOs).
Strengths:
N/A / Weaknesses:
School Process Information uncovered by an analysis of curriculum alignment, instructional materials, instructional strategies, reform strategies, and/or extended learning opportunities.
Strengths:
Teachers have several opportunities to attend Professional Development throughout the year. These PD
opportunities allow them to broaden their knowledge and skills for teaching various subjects. / Weaknesses:
Teachers have very little time for small group instruction during the course of a period
on the Seven Bell Schedule. Modified Block Scheduling would allow more time to individualize instruction for struggling students. General education teachers and exceptional needs resource teachers find it difficult to cooperatively enhance learning experiences for the exceptional needs students in the regular education class settings.
Part II - GOAL TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC NEEDS – All components to support improving academic achievement, INCLUDING SCHOOL CULTURE CONSIDERATIONS, should be related to the weaknesses identified in the data summary. DUPLICATE PAGES AS NEEDED TO ADDRESS TOP PRIORITIZED GOALS INCLUDING SACS DISTRICT GOALS, IF APPLICABLE. Use the SMART Goals format to address areas of need.