Academic Report 2007/2008 AYP

Adequate Yearly Progress

Adequate Yearly Progress

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Spring 2008 Test Results 62.5 % or Safe Harbor Subjects – Reading and Math

As a whole, the District did not make adequate yearly progress. District AYP Data As a whole, the District did not make adequate yearly progress. Reading Our Score AYP Target Students with Disabilities 40.4% 44.6% Math Students with Disabilities 49.2% 52.4% Economically Disadvantaged 59.7% 62.5%

Adequate Yearly Progress Schools that made AYP: Balmoral Elementary School Coretta Scott King Magnet School Crete Elementary Crete-Monee Middle School Crete-Monee Sixth Grade Center Monee Elementary School Talala Elementary School

2007 vs. 2008 Reading Increased Scores in 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th Grades

Increased scores in 4th, 6th, 7th Grades 2007 vs. 2008 Math

Trend Data Reading & Math Due to reconfiguration, we have only two years of trend data for our current K-5 elementary schools, Coretta Scott King, and our Sixth Grade Center 4th & 7th grades have 3 years of testing data. Only 3rd, 8th & 11th grades have 5 years of testing data.

Two Year Data Reading Grades 3-11 Math District-wide 22 Scores* 12 increases 3 increases > 10% 11 increases 9 decreases 4 decreases > 10% 11 decreases 3 decreases > 10% * One Reading score remained the same

Two Year District Cohort Data Reading & Math Current Grade Levels Except for our current 5th grade students, cohort scores decreased in Math Cohort scores increased in Reading

District Reading vs. State Averages The 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th grade Reading scores are slightly below state averages. The 11th grade score is significantly below the state average.

District Math vs. State Averages The 3rd and 4th grade scores are slightly above state averages. The 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th grade scores are within single digits of the state average. The 11th grade score is well below the state average.

School Scores Above State Averages Reading Math Balmoral 3rd 4th Crete Monee Talala 5th Coretta Scott King 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th Sixth Grade Center Crete-Monee Middle School

Crete-Monee High School AYP Decrease in scores from 2007 Implementation of Restructuring Plan

Crete-Monee High School Did not make AYP in the following areas: Reading Subgroups All White Black Economically Disadvantaged* Math Subgroups Black* * Did not make AYP in 2007

Comparisons to 2007 Reading Subgroups 2007 2008 All 60.6% 34.3% White 73.6% 51.5% Black 50.4% 23.5% Economically Disadvantaged 41.7% 23.0%

Comparison to 2007 Math Subgroup 2007 2008 All 45.8% 34.2% White 65.5% 57.6% Black 29.7% 19.3% Economically Disadvantaged 27.4% 23.6%

Contributing Factors Junior Class 2007 vs. 2008 EPAS History WorkKeys Years in District EPAS History WorkKeys Grade Reclassification Staffing Changes in Math and English Implementation Dip with SpringBoard

ACT Composite decreased for both groups Years in District Year 2007 2008 Grade Entered K-6th 7th-11th Percent of Class 46% 48% 54% 51% # 112 158 133 168 ACT Composite 20.4 18.2 17.3 More students tested ACT Composite decreased for both groups ACT Average decreased

Reading Decrease of 1.4 Math Decrease of 1.2

Reading 50% of students not scoring in the 5-7 range Math Clear decrease in scores in the 5-7 range

PSAE = ACT + WorkKeys To make AYP, students need to score a minimum of in Reading and Math For 2008, our ACT averages were Reading 18.2 Math 17.6 WorkKeys scores needed to be higher than 5 to compensate for the lower ACT scores

Grade Reclassification AYP Reading AYP Math S 1 S 2 Juniors Tested 2008 128 65 63 11% (7) 6% (4) 2007 74 47 27 11% (3) 7% (2) Significant increase in the number of students who were not classified as juniors in their third year of high school. +54 50% of those students became juniors at 2nd semester. More students in this group took the test compared to 2007 +36 Students in this situation do not pass the test. The number of students in this group who did not meet AYP doubled 55-60 This number was equivalent to 20% of the junior class.

How does this happen? Students fail second semester Sophomore English and Geometry. They could not retake courses until the Fall – no summer school Reclassified students as juniors with half a credit of geometry. Had not taken any Algebra II.

New English Program SpringBoard This instructional program maps what successful students should know and be able to do at each grade level to succeed in AP courses and college. SpringBoard uses a systematic approach to: Increase rigor in the curriculum Improve diversity in AP courses Prepare students to succeed in AP and college courses Challenge and engage all students

Implementation Teachers were provided a week long training in the summer of 2007. Teachers were given time that summer to develop and write model instructional units for the upcoming year. Representatives met with administrators to address needs and concerns of staff. We customized professional development for summer of 2008 for new and returning staff. New programs have implementation dips.

Plan for Improvement Additional Reading classes for identified struggling readers in grades 9-11 Training all teachers to use Reading strategies in their classes Math tutorials/directed study halls during the school day for students who need Math support Daily WorkKeys problems in English and Math classes. Students are tested every two weeks ACT readings in U.S. History classes – junior level course Double periods of math for Algebra I and Geometry students who need extra time with those subjects Common planning time for teachers to look at student achievement data, identify students who need support, and determine interventions Changed our classification for Juniors - Enrollment in Algebra II Summer school approved by Board of Education Communicating with students the importance of test scores. Students need to have a better understanding of what the scores mean and the implications the scores have on their plans beyond high school

November Benchmark Assessment Data Gates McGinitie - Grades 6-11 ThinkLink – Grades 3-8 Aimsweb – Grades K-6 Strategies for Improvement Response to Intervention

December ACT Averages Subgroups Comparisons to Surrounding Districts

Strategic Priority Indicator When Baseline Target Current   Strategic Priority Indicator When Baseline Target Current Reporting Department Provide an effective instructional program to ensure growth for every student. AYP / ISAT / PSAE Annually 67 (R ) / 73.2 (M) 5% + Curriculum & Instruction Graduation Rate Dropout Rate K-5 Retention Rate 6-12 Failure Rate Semester EXPLORE/Plan/ACT 2x per year Aimsweb K-8 Benchmark Assessment 9-11 Benchmark Assessment Student Attendance Safe Schools Discipline Referrals Student Engagement Attract and retain quality staff in a self-renewing organization. Staff Retention Human Resources Continuing Education/PD Professional Development Grievances Staff Satisfaction Engage community partnerships. Student Satisfaction Communications Parent Satisfaction Make effective, efficient, and equitable use of resources. Budget/Actual Business Annual Financial Report Yearly Fund Balances State Financial Profile Rating