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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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%

5. 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%

6. 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
4th
2020
3rd
4th
5th
2019
4th
5th
6th
2018
5th
6th
7th
2017
6th
7th
8th
2016
7th
8th
2015
8th
9th NA

7. NeSA-Reading Cohort Data Using Percent Proficient
Class Of
2010 Percent Proficient
2011 Percent Proficient
2012 Percent Proficient
2021 NA
3rd %
4th
2020
3rd %
4th %
5th
2019
4th %
5th %
6th
2018
5th %
6th %
7th
2017
6th %
7th %
8th
2016
7th %
8th %
2015
8th %
9th NA

8. 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%

9. NeSA-Reading and Math – Nebraska Cohort Data Using Percent Proficient
NeSA – Math
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

10. 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%

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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 we were tested in Reading and Math grades 3-8 and 11 and Writing grades 4 and 8. Total of 16 grade levels.
In 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.

14. SMART goals continued How did we do last year?
=Reading (7), Mat h(7), Writing (2),16 grade levels
At or above state average in 6 out 16 grade levels- 38%
In =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
= Goal was to be at or above the state proficiency average in 11 out of 20 grade levels being tested. 55%

15. 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?