Lakeview Community Schools NeSA Results Data from: 2010, 2011, 2012 NeSA-Reading 2011, 2012 NeSA-Math 2011, 2012 NeSA- Writing 2012 NeSA Science

Comparison Data: Percent of Students Who Are Proficient in- Reading Grade 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 LV 2010 LV 2011 LV 2012 70% 53 82 60% 71 54% 43% 76 71% 73 63% 70 68 76% 75 77 NE2010 NE 2011 NE 2012 67% 69% 78 74 68% 67 64

Comparison Data: Percent of Students Who demonstrated Proficiency in -Math NeSA-Math Grade 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 LV 2011 LV 2012 37% 77 61% 67 66% 69 57% 57 59% 59 49 64% 74 NE 2011 NE 2012 67% 72 68% 75 62% 68 60% 61 53% 54

Comparison Data: Percent of Students Who Were Proficient in Science NeSA-Science Grade 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 LV 2012 68% 67% 69% NE 2012 66%

Program Data or Grade Level data- Percent of students who were Proficient- NeSA Reading 2010&2011 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 11th 2010 70% 60% 54% 43% 71% 63% 76% 2011 2012 53% 82% 73% 68% 75% 77%

NeSA-Reading Cohort data Using Average Scale Score Class Of 2010 Avg. Scale Score 2011 Avg. Scale Score 2012 Avg. Scale Score 2021 NA 3rd 91 4th 104 2020 3rd 94 4th 103 5th 108 2019 4th 92 5th 112 6th 109 2018 5th 91 6th 111 7th 106 2017 6th 82 7th 108 8th 107 2016 7th 107 8th 101 2015 8th 97 9th NA

NeSA-Reading Cohort Data Using Percent Proficient Class Of 2010 Percent Proficient 2011 Percent Proficient 2012 Percent Proficient 2021 NA 3rd 53% 4th 71 2020 3rd 70% 4th 71% 5th 71 2019 4th 60% 5th 71% 6th 71 2018 5th 54% 6th 76% 7th 73 2017 6th 43% 7th 71% 8th 68 2016 7th 71% 8th 70% 2015 8th 63% 9th NA

NeSA-Reading – Nebraska Cohort Data Using Percent Proficient Grade 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 Lakeview 70% 60% 54% 43% 71% 63% 76% State 67% 69% 68% Grade 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 Lakeview 53% 71% +1 +11 76% +22 +28 70% -1 75% State +9 74% +7 +5 +2 67%

NeSA-Reading and Math – Nebraska Cohort Data Using Percent Proficient NeSA – Math 2011-2012 Grade 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 Lakeview 82% 71% +18 +0 73% -3 68% 77% State 76% 78% +7 74% +4 -1 64% Grade 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 11th LV 2011 LV 2012 37% 77 61% 67 +30 66% 69 +8 57% 57 -9 59% 59 +2 49 -10 64% 74 NE 2011 NE 2012 67% 72 68% 72 +5 75 +7 62% 68 +2 68 +6 60% 61 +0 53% 54

Comparison data: Percent of Students demonstrating Proficiency in-Writing Grade 4th Grade 8th Grade 11th Grade Lakeview 2011 85% 88% State 2011 89% Lakeview 2012 98% 52% 82% State 2012 92% 63% 62%

Plans to Improve Short Term/Immediate 1. Increase timed practices/mental Math/strategic review 2. Use Math reference sheet 3. Increase interventions for students struggling in Math 4. Increase Mastery of Math facts 5. Targeted Math practice at home 6. Increase student engagement in our instruction 7. Set individual goals 8. Set classroom goals

Plans to Improve -Continued Long Term/Big Picture 1. Check 4 Learning/ More on-going formative assessment 2. New Math series and intervention materials 3. Improved collaboration among school buildings 4. Analyze the use of time during the school day 5. Develop a long range curriculum plan

Setting S.M.A.R.T. Goals Specific Measureable Attainable Realistic Timely Hand out SMART goal worksheet District Goal- review goal and gather input Explain District Goal- 20 grade levels In 2010-11 we were tested in Reading and Math grades 3-8 and 11 and Writing grades 4 and 8. Total of 16 grade levels. In 2011-12 we were tested in Reading and Math grades 3-8 and 11, Writing grade 4, 8 and 11. And Science grades 5,8,11. Total of 20 grade levels.

SMART goals continued How did we do last year? 2010-11=Reading (7), Mat h(7), Writing (2),16 grade levels At or above state average in 6 out 16 grade levels- 38% In 2011-1=Reading (7), Math (7), Writing (3), Science (3) 20 grade levels At or above state average in 9 grade levels = 45% *50% if we also use 5th Math Scale Score 2011-12 = Goal was to be at or above the state proficiency average in 11 out of 20 grade levels being tested. 55%

SMART Goal Results Met Goal in 9 out of 20 areas. 45% *10 if we use 5th Math Scale Score (50%) What is our new SMART Goal?