SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Boyet Junior High
Gayle G. Sloan
Superintendent
Mitch Stubbs
Principal
Charles Edwards
Assistant Principal
< October 2004
DISTRICT ASSURANCE
For schools in School Improvement, and for schools with CSRP models, I hereby certify that this plan was developed with the assistance of a District Assistance Team in collaboration with the School Improvement Team and/or School Support Team, as applicable.
I hereby certify that this plan was designed to improve student achievement, with input from all stakeholders.
I assure that the school level personnel, including subgroup representatives responsible for implementation of this plan, have collaborated in the writing of the plan.
I hereby certify that this plan has all of the following components as required in Bulletin 741:
A statement of the school's beliefs, vision, and mission
A comprehensive needs assessment, which includes the following quantitative and qualitative data:
Student academic performances on standardized achievement tests (both CRT, NRT) and performance/authentic assessment disaggregated by grade
vs. content vs. exceptionality
Demographic indicators of the community and school to include socioeconomic factors
School human and material resource summary, to include teacher demographic indicators and capital outlay factors
Interviews with stakeholders: principals, teachers, students, parents
Student and teacher focus groups
Questionnaires with stakeholders (principals, teachers, students, parents) measuring conceptual domains outlined in school effectiveness/reform research
Classroom observations
Measurable objectives and benchmarks
Effective scientifically-based methods and strategies
Parental and community involvement activities
Professional development component aligned with assessed needs
External technical support and assistance
Evaluation strategies
Coordination of resources and analysis of school budget (possible redirection of funds)
Action plan with timelines and specific activities
I further certify that the information contained in this assurance is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
______
Superintendent's SignaturePrincipal's Signature
______
District Assistance Team LeaderChair, School Improvement Team
______
______
District Assistance Team Members
ASSURANCE OF FACULTY REVIEW OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
The following faculty members have reviewed the School Improvement Plan and have discussed their part in implementing it.
NAME / TITLE/POSITION / SIGNATUREMitch Stubbs / Principal
Charles Edwards / Assistant Principal, SIP Chairman
Gloria Morris / Resource Helping Teacher
Eugene Rovena / Counselor
Jeanne Wilson / Librarian
Suzanne Abney / Teacher
Nyla Barrett / Teacher
Thomas Barrett / Teacher
Mary Battle / Teacher
Traci Beaucoudray / Teacher
Marsha Blackstock / Teacher
Bart Carr / Teacher
Jennifer Clark / Teacher
Stacey Cooper / Teacher
Paul Davis / Teacher
Melanie DeJong / Teacher
Robert Duncan / Teacher
Vicci Fairchild / Teacher
Barbara Fischer / Teacher
Gloria Francis / Teacher
Dianne Gaines / Teacher
Jasmine Gentile / Teacher
Lloyd Harris / Teacher
Marilyn Harsch / Teacher
Roxanna Hill / Teacher
Stacey LeBlue / Teacher
Edgar LeTard / Teacher
Nancy Lockhart / Teacher
Patrick Mackin / Teacher
Sherryle Mathis / Teacher
Sally McKellip / Teacher
Kit McLellan / Teacher
Danyel Muegge / Teacher
Charity Nelson / Teacher
Karen Payne / Teacher
Kathleen Payne / Teacher
Cherie Pizzuto / Teacher
David Polk / Teacher
LeighAnn Polk / Teacher
Sylvia Pope / Teacher
Jules Raymond / Teacher
Beth Robertson / Teacher
Misty Schmidt / Teacher
Angela Scott / Teacher
Lisa Selzer / Teacher
Mark Selzer / Teacher
Robert Shoultz / Teacher
Susan Slater / Teacher
Cathelia Smith / Teacher
Rene’ Smith / Teacher
Shelly Smith / Teacher
Linn Standridge / Teacher
Ann Taylor / Teacher
Bonnie Trippe / Teacher
Denise Urreta / Teacher
Kathleen Will / Teacher
Betty Bacino / Paraprofessional
Patricia Cyr / Paraprofessional
Joanna Duncan / Paraprofessional
Mary Lyall / Paraprofessional
Evelyn Manale / Paraprofessional
Brenda Pressman / Paraprofessional
Cindy Perkins / Paraprofessional
Kim Cambrey / Paraprofessional
Donna VandeVoorde / Paraprofessional
Jarrod Nix / Paraprofessional
BELIEFS STATEMENT
In correlation with the philosophy and curricula of the St. Tammany Parish School Board and the State of Louisiana, the philosophy of the faculty and staff of BoyetJunior High School is based on the vision students will come first, all students will learn, and we will accept differences in each other.
This school seeks to enhance an awareness of individual self-worth and to develop each student’s maximum potential. For the reason that our philosophy encompasses the whole individual, we strive to provide learning tasks and experiences for the physical, intellectual, and social development of each student.
In order to execute the philosophy of BoyetJunior High School, we strive to create an environment conducive to learning, recognizing that each student is unique and that learning styles differ. We provide diverse and complex activities that address these individual differences emphasizing interest, creativity, and talent development. We strive to assist students to think logically, to make rational decisions, and to practice self-control. We encourage students to be self-motivated and to respect themselves and others.
We recognize that it is through continual and cooperative efforts involving parents, students, community, and teachers that the student will achieve his growth potential. We strive to cultivate such cooperation and to provide positive experiences that will encourage student success and the acceptance of responsibilities and challenges for now and in the future.
VISION STATEMENT
The vision of BoyetJunior High School is a faculty, staff, and community cooperating in the education of all children to enable each individual to become a productive member of the community through the development of their unique abilities.
MISSION STATEMENT
Our future builds upon the past and our diversity as we seek to provide opportunities that all students may learn to their utmost potential.
Reference appendices for stakeholder participant
SCHOOL DEMOGRAPHICS/CHARACTERISTICS
A
DM / Total # / # Certified / # Expected Vacancies / # in LA Principal Internship/Induction Program for SY 03-04
Principals
/ 2 / 2 / 0 / 1T
EA
C
H
E
R
S
* / SchoolNon-Title I /
Title I
/ Total % in School / % Change from 2003Schoolwide / Targeted Asst.
HIGHLY QUALIFIED**
/ GeneralEd / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed
# Highly Qualified Core Academic Teachers (Subtotal)
/ 37 / 10 / 97.4 / 91NOT HIGHLY QUALIFIED
/ GeneralEd / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed
Non-Standard
*** (TAT) (OFAT) (TEP) (EP) / 1 / 1 / 2.6 / 9
Other
Subtotal Not Highly Qualified
/1
/1
/2.6
/9
TOTAL TEACHERS (Highly Qualified and Not Highly Qualified)
/ 38 / 11 / 100% / 100%P
A
R
A
S /
HIGHLY QUALIFIED**
/ GeneralEd / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed
# Highly Qualified Paras / 0 / 3 / 0 / 60
NOT HIGHLY QUALIFIED / General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed
# Not Highly Qualified Paras / 2 / 2 / 100 / 40
Total Paraprofessionals /
2
/5
/ 100 / 100* Teachers include all teaching in core academic courses (English/Reading/Language Arts; Math; Science; Civics/Government; Economics; Arts; History; Geography)
**Highly Qualified: Has met all requirements as specified by the LA Board of Elementary and Secondary Education’s definition of “Highly Qualified” under NCLB adopted June 19, 2003.
*** Temporary Authority to Teach (TAT); Out-of-Field Authorization to Teach (OFAT); Temporary Employment Permit (TEP); Emergency Permit (EP)
School SupportNumber of Related Service and Support Personnel and Areas (i.e., Speech Pathologist, Social Worker):
Speech Pathologist –1, Psychologist –1, MHP –1, Social Worker –1, Educational Consultant –1, OT –1, APE -1, Asst. Tech. –1, Talented Art –1, Talented Drama –1, Talented Music –1, String Teachers -3
School Improvement Team Members/Position: Johnny Vitrano, Principal; Charles Edwards, AP; Gloria Morris, RHT; Marilyn Harsch, Teacher; Stacey LeBlue, Teacher; Patrick Mackin, Teacher; Sylvia Pope, Teacher; Lisa Selzer, Teacher; Glen Walden, Teacher
District Assistance Team Leader and Contact #
(if applicable): / Distinguished Educator and Contact # (if applicable):
Parish Homeless Liaison: (Contact Parish Title I Supervisor to get further information)Ann Presley / Parish Homeless Liaison’s Contact #:
892-2276
Learning-Intensive Networking Communities for Success (LINCS) Information (if applicable)
Regional LINCS Coordinator: / Content Leader(s): / Content Area of Focus for School:
High Schools That Work (HSTW) Site Coordinator and Contact #: / Making Middle Grades Work (MMGW) Site Coordinator and Contact #:
Leadership Team Members/Position at the School: Gail Carr, ELA Teacher; Patrick Mackin, Mathematics Teacher; Nancy Lockhart, SpEd Teacher
Federal/State Instructional Programs and/or Initiatives
(Place a check in the status area for each program implemented at your school)
Program List: (Include during and after school programs) / Currently Using / Proposed Program / Deleted Program
21st Century Community Learning Centers
Big Buddy
Career to Work / X
DARE / X
Early Reading First
HIPPY
INTECH / X
INTECH 2 Science / X
INTECH Social Studies / X
K-3 Reading/Math Initiative
La GEAR-UP
Federal/State Instructional Programs and/or Initiatives
(Place a check in the status area for each program implemented at your school)
Program List: (Include during and after school programs) / Currently Using / Proposed Program / Deleted Program
LaSIP / X
LEAD TECH
Learning Intensive Networking Communities for Success (LINCS)
LINCS/High Schools That Work (HSTW)
LINCS/Making Middle Grades Work (MMGW)
Louisiana Virtual School
Making Middle Grades Work
SAGE
School Tech
School to Work
School wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Support / X
The Louisiana Literacy Corps
The Multisensory Structured Language Program / X
The Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) / X
Other: Thinking Maps, SIMS, Graphic Organizers / X
List the Supplemental Educational Services provided for your students (Title I schools, if applicable):
List the Distance Learning (i.e., web-based, satellite, etc.) courses provided for your students:
School Policies
Policies / Yes / No
Discipline Policy / X
Security Procedures (Metal detectors, etc.) / X
Safe and Drug-Free Prevention Activities / X
Student Code of Conduct / X
Crisis Management (Emergency/evacuation plan) / X
School Partnerships:(Place the name of each partner in the space provided.)
University:
Technical Institute:
Feeder School(s): / Cypress Cove Elementary,HoneyIsland Elementary, Little Oak Middle, Northshore High
Community: / Slidell Police Dept., Slidell Fire Dept., St. Tammany Sheriff’s Department, City of Slidell, Slidell Art League, Slidell Junior Achievement, Slidell Elks Club, PRIDE of St. Tammany
Business/Industry: / Coca Cola, Winn Dixie, Captain Humble’s, SAM’s Club, Dominoes Pizza, Wendy’s, Pappa John’s, Subway, Ray’s Bullpen,Embree’s Ssupplies, New Orleans Hornets
Private Grants:
Other:
Student Information
List the number of students in each area:
Total at School / # of grade 4 and above / Students w/ Disabilities / Gifted and Talented / 504 / Option III / LEP / Homeless / Migrant
737 / 737 / 83 / 66 / 14 / 0 / 9 / 0 / 0
Number of Households Served by School:
Subgroups by Ethnicity
American Indian / Asian/Pacific Islander / Black / Hispanic / White
2 / 14 / 117 / 15 / 589
Poverty Profile
# of Free/Reduced Lunch Students: 203 / Percent of Free/Reduced Lunch Students: 27.5%
Note 1. Additional community demographics and capital outlay data are located in the appendices.
DATA COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT
SUMMARY REPORT
Strengths and challenges were rank-ordered by evaluating the magnitude of the evidence in conjunction with its association with student achievement. Exogenous factors were eliminated from these results; however, they were included during the analytical phase as a contextual reference.
STRENGTHS / DATA SOURCE1 Strong administrators; experienced, caring teachers and staff / School-wide survey, community feedback, Teacher Interviews, Observations
2 Collaborative Integrated Culture / Teacher Interviews, Teaming Logs, School Master Schedule
3.Parental involvement / PTA Records, Volunteer Records, Administrative Feedback, Team Logs, Observations
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE / DATA SOURCE
Strength 1.Faculty/Staff Feedback; Parent-teacher/administrative contacts; Years of teaching experience, graduate degrees, multi-certified personnel; Extracurricular activities provided for students and extra educational services (before/after school tutoring and study groups) provided for students; 100% faculty PTA membership / School survey,Conference/contact logs, SACS records/reports, personnel files, Tutoring records, Daily calendar (meetings, games, practices), Extracurricular and team rosters, PTA membership records
Strength 2. Teachers wants students to succeed, teachers team and plan together, desire by faculty to be at Boyet Jr. High / Interviews, Teacher Focus Groups, Observations
Strength 3. PTA membership, Volunteer hours, Fund raiser, Cultural and social activities/programs for students, educational resources provided for students/teachers / PTA Records, Volunteer Logs, MonthlySchool Calendars, PTA Newsletters
DATA COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT
SUMMARY REPORT (cont.)
CHALLENGES / DATA SOURCE1.Applying reasoning and problem-solving skills – reading and responding to text across academic areas / Content Analysis, CRT, NRT, Direct observations
2.Addressing Patterns, Relations, and Functions in mathematics across academic areas / Content Analysis, CRT, NRT, Direct observations
3. To improve Instructional Strategies: Science / Content Analysis, CRT, NRT, Direct observations
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE / DATA SOURCE
1a.17.5% of SWD are proficient in English-language arts; An achievement gap of approximately 50 percentage points exists between regular and SWD.
1b. 58.1% of teachers were not observed “accommodating individual differences” in the classroom. This was significantly below the district-wide average.
1c. Approximately 1/3rd of 7th graders had a lower NPR in Reading than the prior year (6th grade)
1d. More than 1/4th of all students in Grade 7 are at-risk in Reading; thus are now at-risk of being non-proficient on the LEAP 21 – 8th grade test / Content Analysis, CRT, NRT, Observations, TLS – Winter 2003
*TLS data were from a previous administration.
Every Child, Every Day – Longitudinal Analysis
Every Child, Every Day – Cross-sectional analysis
2a.42.5% of SWD are proficient in Mathematics; An achievement gap of approximately 30 percentage points exists between regular and SWD.
2b. Approximately 2/3rds of all teachers at Boyet were not observed Integrating Technology into their instruction.
2c. 46.2% 7th graders had a lower NPR in mathematics than the prior year (6th grade)
2d. More than 1/4th of all student in Grade 7 are at-risk in Math; thus are now at-risk of being non-proficient on the LEAP 21 – 8th grade test / Content Analysis, CRT, NRT, Observations, TLS – Spring 2004
Every Child, Every Day – Longitudinal Analysis
Every Child, Every Day – Cross-sectional analysis
3. Limited effective or variety of instructional strategies in the classroom / Content Analysis, CRT, NRT, Observations, TLS
STRATEGY PLANNING WORKSHEET
GOAL 1[i]:To improve student proficiency in applying reasoning and problem-solving skills to their reading and responding to text across academic areas. / School SPS 2004: 112.9 School GT 2005: 115.0
OBJECTIVES[ii]:
1. [ LA Accountability] To increase, the percentage of student performances classified as “Green” as measured by the Reading Total of the norm-referenced assessment (28.5% in 2004 to 32.0% in 2005)
2. [ NCLB Accountability] To increase by no less than 10% the percentage of students scoring proficient on the English-language arts component of the standards-based assessment (71.0% in 2004 to 78.1% in 2005) – Whole School – included non- FAY
Targeted Subgroups
Black: 53.2% to 58.5% White: 73.7% to 81.0% ED: 52.6% to 57.8% SWD: 17.5% to 47.4% / SCIENTIFICALLY BASED RESEARCH STRATEGY
Stimulates higher order thinking at the appropriate grade levels (HOT)
ACTION PLAN
EXPECTED IMPACT[iii]
/ACTIVITIES[iv]
/PERSONS[v]
RESPONSIBLE / TARGET[vi] AUDIENCE and TIMELINE / FUNDING SOURCES[vii]OBJECT CODE[viii]
COST / IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS[ix]
(Benchmarks)
1 / 2 / 3
Students will be able to use higher order thinking strategies in context, apply reasoning skills to life experience, evaluate points of view, and distinguish fact from opinion / probability, determine cause and effect, generating inquiry, and making connections with real-life situations across texts.
Emphasis will be placed on:
ELA-7-E3 (author’s life and times are reflected in a text);
ELA-7-E2 (justify solutions to problems in text by verifying, confirming, and supporting), and
ELA-7-E4 (demonstrate understanding of information using a variety of strategies) / HOT (Students) –Students will participate in activities designed to promote higher order thinking through the teacher’s use of Thinking Maps, Project Read, and Brain Child, GO Charts (Graphic Organizers), Cold Comprehension Drills, SSR (Sustained Silent Reading), and content reading strategies with emphasis on increasing ability to use HOTS.
Emphasis will be placed on:
ELA-7-E3 (author’s life and times are reflected in a text);
ELA-7-E2 (justify solutions to problems in text by verifying, confirming, and supporting), and
ELA-7-E4 (demonstrate understanding of information using a variety of strategies) / Mr. Stubbs
(Principal)
Mr. Edwards
(Assist. Principal)
Ms. Morris
(RHT)
Instructional Staff / Complete Student Body
IMP:
Weekly
Adm/Team Meetings:
11/17, 1/19, 2/23, 3/16, 4/18
EFF:
Quarterly by
October 14th,
December 21st,
March 10th, and May 25th / [Implementation] The administrative staff (who) will review a sample of lesson plans using a checklist (instrument) each week (frequency) and provide written feedback to the teachers in the months of November, January, February, March and April.
[Effectiveness] Grade-level teachers (who) will review selected students responses on pre-designed, grade-appropriate constructed responses (instrument) each quarter (frequency) in planning for future instruction. Each team will report to the principal the student progress each nine weeks.
Teachers will stimulate and encourage the use of higher order thinking strategies in context, apply reasoning skills to life experience, evaluate points of view, and distinguish fact from opinion / probability, determine cause and effect, generate inquiry, and make connections with real-life situations across texts.
Emphasis will be placed on:
ELA-7-E3 (author’s life and times are reflected in a text);
ELA-7-E2 (justify solutions to problems in text by verifying, confirming, and supporting), and
ELA-7-E4 (demonstrate understanding of information using a variety of strategies) / HOTS (Teachers) – Teachers will present lessons designed to use thinking maps and differentiate instruction so as to address students at their level of ability, need, and/or interest. Information regarding student ability will be gleaned from prior and ongoing formal and informal assessment.
Content: the aforementioned lessons will explicitly detail area and method of differentiation.
Instruction: Instructional delivery will be differentiated so as to be developmentally appropriate for all members of a heterogeneous class, and focused on stimulating higher order thinking strategies at all levels of ability and interest by engaging students in activities of knowledge in real-life situations.
Assessment: Student learning will be evaluated through the use of informal teacher assessment, formal teacher assessment, and grade-level specific teacher developed rubrics.
Motivation/Engagement:
Student engagement on selected activities will be maximized by initiating student-selected reading topics and differentiating performance tasks. / Mr. Stubbs
(Principal)
Mr. Edwards
(Asst. Principal)
Team Leaders / Complete Student Body
IMP:
Observations quarterly by 10/14, 12/21, 3/10, 5/25
EFF:
Quarterly by
October 14th,
December 21st,
March 10th, and May 25th / [Implementation] Using the TLS (instrument) the administrators (who) will observe all Reading and English teachers each quarter (frequency) with emphasis on HOTS.
[Effectiveness] - Reading and English teachers (who) will review selected students’ responses on pre-designed, grade level appropriate constructed responses (instrument) each quarter (frequency) in planning for future instruction. Each team will report to the principal the student progress each nine weeks.
ACTION PLAN
EXPECTED IMPACT