School Plan History Log Shelby County (792) Public District - FY 2018 - John P. Freeman Optional School (792-2362) Public School - School Plan - Rev 0 Date User Status (S) / Comment (C) S / C 9/29/2017 9:45:38 AM Derrick Morris Status changed to 'LEA School Plan Reviewer Approved'. S 9/29/2017 9:21:53 AM Randi Scott- Howard Status changed to 'School Plan Reviewer Approved'. S 9/27/2017 4:42:17 PM Theresa Utley Status changed to 'Draft Completed'. S 5/22/2017 11:06:37 AM Tasha Woodus Status changed to 'Draft Started'. S 12/9/2016 10:31:09 AM eplan Administrator Status changed to 'Not Started'. S Page 1 of 69
School Planning Team Shelby County (792) Public District - FY 2018 - John P. Freeman Optional School (792-2362) Public School - School Plan - Rev 0 Please identify all planning team members, including team member titles. The school plan must be developed in consultation with teachers, principals, other school leaders, paraprofessionals in the school, administrators (including administrators of Title programs), students (if a secondary school), other appropriate school personnel, and with parents of students. Randi Scott Howard, Principal Michell Watkins, Asst. Principal Tasha Warren-Woodus, PLC Coach Theresa Utley, Federal Programs, Manager Christie Mitchell, Literacy Specialist Marya Maclin, Math Interventionist Michelle Sutton, SPED Teacher Jennifer Donald, Teacher Yolanda Crawford, Teacher Willie Thomas, Teacher Frances Somerville, Paraprofessional Stephanie McCarroll, Parent, Parent Joi Richardson, Student Jade Jordan, Student Describe how the school actively and consistently involves all stakeholders identified in the development of the school plan and how the plan is regularly monitored and revised based on students' needs. Parental support for school improvement is welcomed and needed. At the beginning of each school year, parents are given a interest survey to inform them of the areas that parents can support the school. The school solicits help from parents to serve in various leadership roles at the school. Parents serve on the school's Instructional Leadership Team. This team serves as the decision making body in regards to school improvement. As the team meets, we discuss instructional decisions based the data that the administrative team collects each month. Parents give their input on the instructional needs of the school as well as other areas of interest for parents. Parents attend monthly meeting to helps with development of the school improvement plan. Parents help to review and revise the school compact and the family engagement plan. Page 2 of 69
School Plan - Elementary and Middle Grades Academic Data Shelby County (792) Public District - FY 2018 - John P. Freeman Optional School (792-2362) Public School - School Plan - Rev 0 CHECK HERE IF NOT APPLICABLE (HIGH SCHOOLS) Elementary/Middle School Subjects 3-8 Reading/Language Arts - Data Tables 3-8 Reading/Language Arts % Proficient / Advanced 2013-14 Improvement 2014-15 Improvement 2015-16 All Students 76.4 76.9 - Asian * - Black or African American 76.1 0.9 77 - Hispanic or Latino * - Native American / Alaskan Native - Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander - White Economically Disadvantaged 71 7.4 78.4 Students with Disabilities * English Learners After analyzing data for all students, provide a summary of the progress and challenges, and identify underlying causes for each. Cite specific examples and address racial/ethnic subgroups where relevant. (Include all local data analyzed as part of the comprehensive needs assessment.) For the 2016-2017 school year, John P. Freeman used the Northwest Evaluation Association Measures of Academic Progress (NWEA MAP) assessments as the universal benchmark.the benchmark is given three time throughout the academic school year (Fall, Winter, Spring). NWEA MAP Reading Grades 3-8 Percentage Proficient Plus Advanced Page 3 of 69
Grade Levels Student Count Fall Winter Spring Change from Fall to Spring Third Grade 40 95.0 82.5 92.5-2.5 Fourth Grade 55 83.6 85.5 87.3 3.6 Fifth Grade 62 88.7 83.9 82.3-6.5 Sixth Grade 72 97.2 88.9 90.3-6.9 Seventh Grade 71 88.7 78.9 77.5-11.3 Eighth Grade 60 95.0 88.3 86.7-8.3 While Language Arts presents an area of strength with a performance rate of 88.1% proficient plus advanced students, Reading st an 83.6% proficient/advanced students presents a challenge for John P. Freeman. We attribute these proficiency rates to the progress made through tutoring and special intervention classes, Professional Learning Communities (PLC) meetings around understanding the components of the test and data reports, vertical team meetings, data digs, and common planning times among content areas and grade level teachers. Even though we our students are able to achieve high proficiency rates, teachers struggle with increasing student growth for high performing students. During the benchmark testing periods, the following challenges and their causes were present: - assisting teachers with understanding the difference between summative/formative assessments and adaptive assessments (K-8, teachers)- provided training on how to utilize data to fill in student learning gaps -analysis of informal text (3-8 students)- the low frequency for: incorporating complex text during instruction and exposure to lengthy passages -answering multi-step questions (3-8 students)- exposure to new questioning format and test-taking strategy practice -intervention programs not as enrich or to fill the learning gaps for Tier 1 students- teachers received training in Reading intervention to provide all students with individualized instruction -lack of continuous data tracking/ progress monitoring for all Tier 1 student in between benchmark testing- increasing data meeting to monitor teacher data tracking Discuss the progress and challenges of students who are economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, and English learners. Cite specific examples and include local data analyzed as part of the comprehensive needs assessment. NWEA MAP Reading Subgroup Page 4 of 69
Percentage Proficient Plus Advanced Subgroup Student Count Fall Winter Spring Change from Fall to Spring Economically Disadvantage 156 92.4 88.9 89.6-2.8 Non- Economically 361 92.3 85.6 85.6-6.7 Disadvantage For the 2016-2017 school year, John P. Freeman used the NWEA MAP assessment as the universal benchmark. The assessment was taken three times throughout the academic school year. Science presents an area of strength with a performance rates of 86.6% proficient and advanced students. We attribute these proficiency rates to the progress made through NWEA MAP Reading Subgroups Percentage Proficient Plus Advanced Subgroup Student Count Fall Winter Spring Change from Fall to Spring English Learners 3 66.7 66.7 100 33.3 Non- English Learners 514 92.5 86.8 86.8-5.7 NWEA MAP Reading Subgroups Percentage Proficient Plus Advanced Page 5 of 69
Subgroup Student Count Fall Winter Spring Change from Fall to Spring Students with Disabilities 8 100 100 100 0.0 Students without Disabilities 509 92.2 86.4 86.7-5.6 NWEA MAP Reading Subgroup Percentage Proficient Plus Advanced Racial Groups Student Count Fall Winter Spring Change from Fall to Spring Black 512 89.2 82.5 83.4-5.8 Hispanic 4 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 White 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 After analyzing the data, the economic status did not play a significant role in student performance in Reading. Even though there was a decline in the achievement performance, economically disadvantaged student performed better in Reading than non economically disadvantaged students. The students with disabilities maintained high achievement throughout all three benchmark assessments in Reading. English learners increased in achievement performance and growth from the Fall benchmark to the Spring benchmark by 33.3 percent. Page 6 of 69
The challenges and causes were the same as previously identified for the school-wide data. During the benchmark testing periods, the following challenges and their causes were present: - assisting teachers with understanding the difference between summative/formative assessments and adaptive assessments (K-8, teachers)- provided training on how to utilize data to fill in student learning gaps -analysis of informal text (3-8 students)- the low frequency for: incorporating complex text during instruction and exposure to lengthy passages -answering multi-step questions (3-8 students)- exposure to new questioning format and test-taking strategy practice -intervention programs not as enrich or to fill the learning gaps for Tier 1 students- teachers received training in Reading intervention to provide all students with individualized instruction -lack of continuous data tracking/ progress monitoring for all Tier 1 student in between benchmark testing- increasing data meeting to monitor teacher data tracking In addition, We acknowledge that students have challenges that are not related to school but their home environment. A challenge for EL students is the lack of foundation skills and limited opportunities to speak English at home. Most of these students have little to no support at home with Reading and reading related subjects assignments. A challenge for ED students is the lack of resources to continue intervention/enrichment programs at home due to lack of technology. 3-8 Mathematics - Data Tables 3-8 Mathematics % Proficient / Advanced 2013-14 Improvement 2014-15 Improvement 2015-16 All Students 77 85 - Asian * - Black or African American 76.8 8.1 84.9 - Hispanic or Latino * - Native American / Alaskan Native - Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander - White Economically Disadvantaged 77.5 7.9 85.4 Students with Disabilities * English Learners After analyzing data for all students, provide a summary of the progress and challenges, and identify underlying causes for each. Cite specific examples and address racial/ethnic subgroups where relevant. (Include all local data analyzed as part of the comprehensive needs assessment.) Page 7 of 69
NWEA MAP Mathematics Grades 3-8 Percentage Proficient Plus Advanced Grade Levels Student Count Fall Winter Spring Change from Fall to Spring Third Grade 40 97.5 100.0 92.5-5.0 Fourth Grade 55 96.4 85.5 80.0-16.4 Fifth Grade 62 90.3 77.4 80.6-9.7 Sixth Grade 72 90.3 81.9 72.2-18.1 Seventh Grade 71 77.5 70.4 85.9 8.5 Eighth Grade 60 76.7 71.7 83.3 6.7 NWEA MAP Mathematics Grades 3-8 Percentage Proficient Plus Advanced Grade Levels Student Count Fall Winter Spring Change from Fall to Spring Third Grade 40 97.5 100.0 92.5-5.0 Fourth Grade 55 96.4 85.5 80.0-16.4 Fifth Grade 62 90.3 77.4 80.6-9.7 Sixth Grade 72 90.3 81.9 72.2-18.1 Seventh Grade 71 77.5 70.4 85.9 8.5 Eighth Grade 60 76.7 71.7 83.3 6.7 Page 8 of 69
For the 2016-2017 school year, John P. Freeman used the Northwest Evaluation Association Measures of Academic Progress (NWEA MAP) assessments as the universal benchmark.the benchmark is given three time throughout the academic school year (Fall, Winter, Spring). Mathematics performance has some areas of growth in certain grades even though we did not meet our projected growth performance level. Grades 7 and 8 made significant gains from the Fall benchmark to the Spring benchmark. We attribute these proficiency rates to the progress made through intervening through tutoring, tracking student performance/progress monitoring, and the use of intervention programs tailored for individual students needs. In addition, we conducted PLC meetings around understanding the components of the test and interpreting data reports. However, in the grades in which performance declined, we notices that teachers we not allowing all students to utilize intervention/enrichment math program to support all learners. Teachers in grades K-5 began a new math program, Eureka Math, and were not provided adequate training from the district for effective implementation. K-5 teachers had difficulty adjusting to a new math program and trying to support students with missing resources from the math program. The decline in sixth grade performance was to due the teacher being out on maternity leave during the second semester and did not return until May 2017. The challenges and causes were the same as previously identified for the school-wide data. During the benchmark testing periods, the following challenges and their causes were present: - assisting teachers with understanding the difference between summative/formative assessments and adaptive assessments (K-8, teachers)- provided training on how to utilize data to fill in student learning gaps -answering multi-step questions (3-8 students)- exposure to new questioning format and test-taking strategy practice - district implemented new curriculum and did not provide adequate training fro teacher- school administration had district literacy coaches come to provide training for teachers -mathematics was not a focus content area for the district for the last two years- school administrator planned PLC meeting for math teachers to assist in understanding new standards and assessments -develop fluency & computation skills (K-6, students)- school administrator planned PLC meeting for math teachers to assist in understanding new standards and assessments -intervention programs not as enrich or to fill the learning gaps for Tier 1 students- teachers received training in Mathematics intervention to provide all students with individualized instruction -lack of continuous data tracking/ progress monitoring for all Tier 1 student in between benchmark testing- increasing data meeting to monitor teacher data tracking Discuss the progress and challenges of students who are economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, and English learners. Cite specific examples and include local data analyzed as part of the comprehensive needs assessment. NWEA MAP Mathematics Subgroups Page 9 of 69
Percentage Proficient Plus Advanced Subgroups Student Count Fall Winter Spring Change from Fall to Spring Students with Disabilities 8 100 85.7 85.7-14.3 Students without Disabilities 509 89.1 82.7 83.6-5.6 NWEA MAP Mathematics Subgroups Percentage Proficient Plus Advanced Subgroups Student Count Fall Winter Spring Change from Fall to Spring English Learners 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 Non- English Learners 514 89.2 82.6 83.5-5.7 NWEA MAP Mathematics Subgroup Percentage Proficient Plus Advanced Subgroups Student Count Fall Winter Spring Change from Fall to Spring Page 10 of 69
Economically Disadvantage 362 90.7 84.0 85.0-5.8 Non- Economically 155 86.1 79.9 80.6-5.8 Disadvantage NWEA MAP Mathematics Subgroup Percentage Proficient Plus Advanced Racial Groups Student Count Fall Winter Spring Change from Fall to Spring Black 512 92.3 86.5 86.7-5.5 Hispanic 4 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 White 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 After analyzing the data, we believe the subgroups demographics was not an impact on students performance, but the impact on student performance was related to changes made by the district to K-5 Mathematics curriculum. Those were that grade levels in which we saw a significant decline in student performance. The only subgroup that was not impacted by the change was the English Learners. The challenges and causes were the same as previously identified for the school-wide data. Page 11 of 69
During the benchmark testing periods, the following challenges and their causes were present: - assisting teachers with understanding the difference between summative/formative assessments and adaptive assessments (K-8, teachers)- provided training on how to utilize data to fill in student learning gaps -answering multi-step questions (3-8 students)- exposure to new questioning format and test-taking strategy practice - district implemented new curriculum and did not provide adequate training fro teacher- school administration had district literacy coaches come to provide training for teachers -mathematics was not a focus content area for the district for the last two years- school administrator planned PLC meeting for math teachers to assist in understanding new standards and assessments -develop fluency & computation skills (K-6, students)- school administrator planned PLC meeting for math teachers to assist in understanding new standards and assessments -intervention programs not as enrich or to fill the learning gaps for Tier 1 students- teachers received training in Mathematics intervention to provide all students with individualized instruction -lack of continuous data tracking/ progress monitoring for all Tier 1 student in between benchmark testing- increasing data meeting to monitor teacher data tracking 3-8 Science - Data Tables 3-8 Science % Proficient / Advanced 2013-14 Improvement 2014-15 Improvement 2015-16 All Students 94.3-7.6 86.7 - Asian * - Black or African American 94.3 86.6 - Hispanic or Latino * - Native American / Alaskan Native - Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander - White Economically Disadvantaged 94.2 86.4 Students with Disabilities * English Learners After analyzing data for all students, provide a summary of the progress and challenges, and identify underlying causes for each. Cite specific examples and address racial/ethnic subgroups where relevant. (Include all local data analyzed as part of the comprehensive needs assessment.) Page 12 of 69
NWEA MAP Science Grades 3-8 Percentage Proficient Plus Advanced Grade Levels Student Count Fall Winter Spring Change from Fall to Spring Third Grade 40 97.5 90.0 87.5-10.0 Fourth Grade 55 98.2 98.2 96.4-1.8 Fifth Grade 62 93.5 87.1 88.7-4.8 Sixth Grade 72 100.0 91.5 87.3-12.7 Seventh Grade 71 90.1 90.1 80.3-9.9 Eighth Grade 60 93.3 93.3 81.7-11.7 For the 2016-2017 school year, John P. Freeman used the NWEA MAP assessment as the universal benchmark for Science. It was given three time during the academic year (Fall, Winter, Spring). Science presents an area of strength with a performance rate of 86.6% proficient and advanced students. We attribute these proficiency rates to the progress made through PLC meetings around understanding the components of the test and data reports, vertical team meetings, and data digs. However, we have two major challenges that impacted student performance. One is the lack of science instruction in grades K-3. Another is NWEA MAP science assessment contained content that was not covered in the Tennessee Science standards for grades K-6. In grades 6-8, teachers did not a system developed to track and monitor student progress. To address the challenges for Science the administrative team meet to discuss instructional times. Since the state mandates times for Reading and Math, the administrative team developed instructional schedules for grades K-5 to insure that students were receiving science instruction. In addition, Science classroom magazines were purchased to assist with Science topics that were not covered in grade level curriculum. PLC meetings focused on tracking and monitoring student performance. The challenges and causes were the same as previously identified for the school-wide data. During the benchmark testing periods, the following challenges and their causes were present: - assisting teachers with understanding the difference between summative/formative assessments and adaptive assessments (K-8, teachers)- provided training on how to utilize data to fill in student learning gaps Page 13 of 69
-lack of continuous data tracking/ progress monitoring for all Tier 1 student in between benchmark testing- increasing data meeting to monitor teacher data tracking Discuss the progress and challenges of students who are economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, and English learners. Cite specific examples and include local data analyzed as part of the comprehensive needs assessment. NWEA MAP Science Subgroups Percentage Proficient Plus Advanced Subgroups Student Count Fall Winter Spring Change from Fall to Spring Students with Disabilities 6 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 Students without Disabilities 353 95.2 91.5 86.4-8.8 NWEA MAP Science Subgroups Percentage Proficient Plus Advanced Subgroups Student Count Fall Winter Spring Change from Fall to Spring English Learners 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 Non- English Learners 356 95.2 91.6 86.5-8.7 Page 14 of 69
NWEA MAP Science Subgroup Percentage Proficient Plus Advanced Subgroups Student Count Fall Winter Spring Change from Fall to Spring Economically Disadvantage 238 95.0 92.4 87.0-8.0 Non- Economically 121 95.9 90.1 86.0-9.9 Disadvantage NWEA MAP Science Subgroup Percentage Proficient Plus Advanced Racial Groups Student Count Fall Winter Spring Change from Fall to Spring Black 355 95.2 91.5 86.5-8.7 Hispanic 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 White 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 Page 15 of 69
After analyzing the data, we believe the subgroups demographics was not an impact on students performance, but the impact on student performance was related to the lack of Science instruction in grades K-5 and the lack of tracking and monitoring student performance in grades 6-8. Those were that grade levels in which we saw a significant decline in student performance. The only subgroups that were not impacted were the English Learners and Students with Disabilities. To address the challenges for Science the administrative team meet to discuss instructional times. Since the state mandates times for Reading and Math, the administrative team developed instructional schedules for grades K-5 to insure that students were receiving science instruction. In addition, Science classroom magazines were purchased to assist with Science topics that were not covered in grade level curriculum. PLC meetings focused on tracking and monitoring student performance for teachers in grades 6-8. The challenges and causes were the same as previously identified for the school-wide data. During the benchmark testing periods, the following challenges and their causes were present: - assisting teachers with understanding the difference between summative/formative assessments and adaptive assessments (K-8, teachers)- provided training on how to utilize data to fill in student learning gaps -lack of continuous data tracking/ progress monitoring for all Tier 1 student in between benchmark testing- increasing data meeting to monitor teacher data tracking Other K-8 Data (K-2 Assessments, benchmark data, etc.) Analyze any additional data and provide a summary of progress and challenges, identifying underlying reasons for each. Cite specific examples where possible. Other data points may be inserted as needed. NWEA MAP Reading Grades K-2 Percentage Proficient Plus Advanced Grade Levels Student Count Fall Winter Spring Change from Fall to Spring First Grade 38 94.7 92.1 94.7 0.0 Second Grade 59 96.6 94.9 89.8-6.8 Page 16 of 69
NWEA MAP Mathematics Grades K-2 Percentage Proficient Plus Advanced Grade Levels Student Count Fall Winter Spring Change from Fall to Spring First Grade 38 94.7 94.7 94.7 0.0 Second Grade 59 98.3 93.2 88.1-10.2 After we analyze the data, we see a decline in student performance in Reading and Mathematics. We attribute these proficiency rates to the progress made through tutoring and special intervention classes, Professional Learning Communities (PLC) meetings around understanding the components of the test and data reports, vertical team meetings, data digs, and common planning times among content areas and grade level teachers. Even though we our students are able to achieve high proficiency rates, teachers struggle with increasing student growth for high performing students. During the benchmark testing periods, the following challenges and their causes were present: - assisting teachers with understanding the difference between summative/formative assessments and adaptive assessments (K-8, teachers)- provided training on how to utilize data to fill in student learning gaps -analysis of informal text (K-2 students)- the low frequency for: incorporating complex text during instruction and exposure to grade level lengthy passages -developing foundational skills(k-2, teachers and students)- the ability to incorporate all the elements of Reading during instruction, such as alphabetic principle, phonics, phonemic awareness, and fluency -intervention programs not as enrich or to fill the learning gaps for Tier 1 students- teachers received training in Reading intervention to provide all students with individualized instruction -lack of continuous data tracking/ progress monitoring for all Tier 1 student in between benchmark testing- increasing data meeting to monitor teacher data tracking - Navigation of the computer(k-1, students)- early learners have not been exposed to using computer operations and computerized testing Page 17 of 69
School Plan - High School Academic Data Shelby County (792) Public District - FY 2018 - John P. Freeman Optional School (792-2362) Public School - School Plan - Rev 0 CHECK HERE IF NOT APPLICABLE (ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS) High School Subjects English I - Data Tables English I % Proficient / Advanced 2013-14 Improvement 2014-15 Improvement 2015-16 All Students - Asian - Black or African American - Hispanic or Latino - Native American / Alaskan Native - Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander - White Economically Disadvantaged Students with Disabilities English Learners After analyzing data for all students, provide a summary of the progress and challenges, and identify underlying causes for each. Cite specific examples and address racial/ethnic subgroups where relevant. (Include all local data analyzed as part of the comprehensive needs assessment.) Not Applicable Discuss the progress and challenges of students who are economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, and English learners. Cite specific examples and include local data analyzed as part of the comprehensive needs assessment. Not Applicable English II - Data Tables Page 18 of 69
English II % Proficient / Advanced 2013-14 Improvement 2014-15 Improvement 2015-16 All Students - Asian - Black or African American - Hispanic or Latino - Native American / Alaskan Native - Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander - White Economically Disadvantaged Students with Disabilities English Learners After analyzing data for all students, provide a summary of the progress and challenges, and identify underlying causes for each. Cite specific examples and address racial/ethnic subgroups where relevant. (Include all local data analyzed as part of the comprehensive needs assessment.) Not Applicable Discuss the progress and challenges of students who are economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, and English learners. Cite specific examples and include local data analyzed as part of the comprehensive needs assessment. Not applicable English III - Data Tables English III % Proficient / Advanced 2013-14 Improvement 2014-15 Improvement 2015-16 All Students - Asian - Black or African American - Hispanic or Latino - Native American / Alaskan Native Page 19 of 69
- Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander - White Economically Disadvantaged Students with Disabilities English Learners After analyzing data for all students, provide a summary of the progress and challenges, and identify underlying causes for each. Cite specific examples and address racial/ethnic subgroups where relevant. (Include all local data analyzed as part of the comprehensive needs assessment.) Not Applicable Discuss the progress and challenges of students who are economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, and English learners. Cite specific examples and include local data analyzed as part of the comprehensive needs assessment. Not applicable Algebra I - Data Tables Algebra I % Proficient / Advanced 2013-14 Improvement 2014-15 Improvement 2015-16 All Students 92.9 97.1 46.7 - Asian - Black or African American 97 46.7 - Hispanic or Latino * - Native American / Alaskan Native - Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander - White Economically Disadvantaged 100 25 Students with Disabilities English Learners Page 20 of 69
After analyzing data for all students, provide a summary of the progress and challenges, and identify underlying causes for each. Cite specific examples and address racial/ethnic subgroups where relevant. (Include all local data analyzed as part of the comprehensive needs assessment.) TN READY Algebra I Results Percentage of Students On Track and Mastered Tested Years Student Count Below Percentage Approaching Percentage On Track Percentage Mastered Percentage On Track Plus Mastered Percentage Change from 2016 to 2017 Students On Track and Mastered Spring 2016 Results 60 13.3% 40.0% 41.7% 5.0% 46.7% -15.9 Spring 2017 Results 39 23.0% 46.2% 30.8% 0.0% 30.8% TN READY Algebra I Results by Subgroup Percentage of Students On Track and Mastered Tested Years Student Count Below Percentage Approaching Percentage On Track Percentage Mastered Percentage On Track Plus Mastered Percentage Change from 2016 to 2017 Students On Track and Mastered Spring 2016 Results 60 13.3% 40.0% 41.7% 5.0% 46.7% Economically Disadvantaged 20 10.0% 65.0% 20.0% 5.0% 25.0% Page 21 of 69
Non-Economically 40 15.0% 27.5% 52.5% 5.0% 57.5% Disadvantaged Spring 2017 Results 39 23.0% 46.2% 30.8% 0.0% 30.8% -15.9 Economically Disadvantaged 14 14.3% 64.3% 21.4% 0.0% 21.4% -3.6 Non-Economically 25 28.0% 36.0% 36.0% 0.0% 36.0% -21.5 Disadvantaged Spring 2016 was the first administration of the TN Ready End-of-Course Algebra I assessment. Based on the results, our students performance rate of 46.7% on track plus mastered for Spring 2016 and 30.8% on track plus mastered for Spring 2017. We did not meet our goal of having 100% of our student on track plus mastered and saw a decline in student performance. We attribute this to not having curriculum materials and resources that supported the new standards and state assessment, students not use to working math tasks, and the teacher utilizing different instructional strategies for students. The school only has one teacher that teaches Algebra I, so he does not have a support system for planning. The only subgroup that represented in the TN Ready EOC Algebra I data is the Economically Disadvantaged and Non-economically Disadvantaged. The challenges and causes were the same as previously identified for the school-wide data. During the benchmark testing periods, the following challenges and their causes were present: - assisting teachers with understanding the difference between summative/formative assessments and adaptive assessments (K-8, teachers)- provided training on how to utilize data to fill in student learning gaps -answering multi-step questions (3-8 students)- exposure to new questioning format and test-taking strategy practice -mathematics was not a focus content area for the district for the last two years- school administrator planned PLC meeting for math teachers to assist in understanding new standards and assessments -intervention programs not as enrich or to fill the learning gaps for Tier 1 students- teachers received training in Mathematics intervention to provide all students with individualized instruction -lack of continuous data tracking/ progress monitoring for all Tier 1 student in between benchmark testing- increasing data meeting to monitor teacher data tracking Discuss the progress and challenges of students who are economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, and English learners. Cite specific examples and include local data analyzed as part of the comprehensive needs assessment. TN READY Algebra I Results Percentage of Students On Track and Mastered Page 22 of 69
Tested Years Student Count Below Percentage Approaching Percentage On Track Percentage Mastered Percentage On Track Plus Mastered Percentage Change from 2016 to 2017 Students On Track and Mastered Spring 2016 Results 60 13.3% 40.0% 41.7% 5.0% 46.7% Economically Disadvantaged 20 10.0% 65.0% 20.0% 5.0% 25.0% Non-Economically 40 15.0% 27.5% 52.5% 5.0% 57.5% Disadvantaged Spring 2017 Results 39 23.0% 46.2% 30.8% 0.0% 30.8% -15.9 Economically Disadvantaged 14 14.3% 64.3% 21.4% 0.0% 21.4% -3.6 Non-Economically 25 28.0% 36.0% 36.0% 0.0% 36.0% -21.5 Disadvantaged The only subgroups represent for the TN Ready EOC Algebra I assessment is the Economically Disadvantaged and Non-economically Disadvantaged students. The challenges and causes were the same as previously identified for the school-wide data. During the benchmark testing periods, the following challenges and their causes were present: - assisting teachers with understanding the difference between summative/formative assessments and adaptive assessments (K-8, teachers)- provided training on how to utilize data to fill in student learning gaps -answering multi-step questions (3-8 students)- exposure to new questioning format and test-taking strategy practice -mathematics was not a focus content area for the district for the last two years- school administrator planned PLC meeting for math teachers to assist in understanding new standards and assessments -intervention programs not as enrich or to fill the learning gaps for Tier 1 students- teachers received training in Mathematics intervention to provide all students with individualized instruction -lack of continuous data tracking/ progress monitoring for all Tier 1 student in between benchmark testing- increasing data meeting to monitor Page 23 of 69
teacher data tracking Algebra II - Data Tables Algebra II % Proficient / Advanced 2013-14 Improvement 2014-15 Improvement 2015-16 All Students - Asian - Black or African American - Hispanic or Latino - Native American / Alaskan Native - Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander - White Economically Disadvantaged Students with Disabilities English Learners After analyzing data for all students, provide a summary of the progress and challenges, and identify underlying causes for each. Cite specific examples and address racial/ethnic subgroups where relevant. (Include all local data analyzed as part of the comprehensive needs assessment.) Not applicable Discuss the progress and challenges of students who are economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, and English learners. Cite specific examples and include local data analyzed as part of the comprehensive needs assessment. Not Applicable Biology I - Data Tables Biology I % Proficient / Advanced 2013-14 Improvement 2014-15 Improvement 2015-16 All Students - Asian - Black or African American Page 24 of 69
- Hispanic or Latino - Native American / Alaskan Native - Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander - White Economically Disadvantaged Students with Disabilities English Learners After analyzing data for all students, provide a summary of the progress and challenges, and identify underlying causes for each. Cite specific examples and address racial/ethnic subgroups where relevant. (Include all local data analyzed as part of the comprehensive needs assessment.) Not Applicable Discuss the progress and challenges of students who are economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, and English learners. Cite specific examples and include local data analyzed as part of the comprehensive needs assessment. Not Applicable Other HS Data Analyze any additional data and provide a summary of progress and challenges, identifying underlying reasons for each. Cite specific examples where possible. You may insert other data points as needed. Not Applicable Page 25 of 69
School Plan - College/Career Readiness Shelby County (792) Public District - FY 2018 - John P. Freeman Optional School (792-2362) Public School - School Plan - Rev 0 N/A ACT - Data Tables ACT Scores 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Composite English Math Reading Science Graduation Rate - Data Tables Graduation Rate 2013-14 Improvement 2014-15 Improvement 2015-16 All Students - Asian - Black or African American - Hispanic or Latino - Native American / Alaskan Native - Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander - White Economically Disadvantaged Students with Disabilities English Learners Page 26 of 69
Analyze the school's ACT data, summarize the progress and challenges, and describe how the school will address those challenges and increase the ACT scores of students (including ACT re-take, ACT preparation courses, etc.). Address how the school is considering variation across subjects, and across different subgroups (i.e. BHN, ELL, SWD, ED). Review the school's graduation data and summarize progress and challenges students are facing, especially if graduation rates are below 90 percent. Consider graduation rates overall, and among different subgroups (i.e. BHN, ELL, SWD, ED). Include information regarding early identification of students at risk of not graduating and the supports provided to those students. Page 27 of 69
School Plan - School Climate and Culture Shelby County (792) Public District - FY 2018 - John P. Freeman Optional School (792-2362) Public School - School Plan - Rev 0 Student Enrollment - (represents student enrollment on October 1) 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 # % # % # % All Students 592 538 548 - Asian 1 0.2 2 0.4 - Black or African American 587 99.2 530 98.5 545 99.5 - Hispanic or Latino 3 0.5 3 0.6 2 0.4 - Native American / Alaskan Native 1 0.2 - Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander - White 1 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.2 Economically Disadvantaged 363 61.3 364 67.7 208 38.1 Students with Disabilities 10 1.7 6 1.1 11 2 English Learners 0.5 3 0.6 2 0.4 Student Attendance Student Attendance - Elementary and Middle Grades 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 % % % All Students 98 97.7 97.8 - Asian 99.2 99.2 99.7 - Black or African American 97.9 97.7 97.8 - Hispanic or Latino Page 28 of 69
- Native American / Alaskan Native - Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander 99.4 98.9 - White 98.3 95.4 98.3 Economically Disadvantaged 97.7 97.6 97.1 Students with Disabilities 98.1 97.9 98.1 English Learners 99.6 98.7 98.9 Student Attendance - High School 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 % % % All Students - Asian - Black or African American - Hispanic or Latino - Native American / Alaskan Native - Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander - White Economically Disadvantaged Students with Disabilities English Learners Chronic Absenteeism - Data Tables Students Who Were Chronically Absent (by subgroup) 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Page 29 of 69
10% or More 20% or More 10% or More 20% or More 10% or More 20% or More # % # % # % # % # % # % All Students 5 0.8 1 0.2 7 2 2 0.4 9 1.6 2 0.4 - Asians - Black or African American - Hispanic or Latino - Native American / Alaskan Native - Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander - White Students Who Were Chronically Absent (by grade level) 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 10% or More 20% or More 10% or More 20% or More 10% or More 20% or More # % # % # % # % # % # % All Students 5 0.8 1 0.2 7 2 2 0.4 9 1.6 2 0.4 Kindergarten 2 3.8 1 1.9 0 0 1 1.7 3 4.3 1 1.4 Grade 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.7 0 0 Grade 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.6 0 0 Grade 3 1 1.8 0 0 1 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 4 0 0 0 0 1 1.7 0 0 2 2.9 0 0 Grade 5 2 3.2 0 0 2 3.2 0 0 2 3.3 0 0 Grade 6 0 0 0 0 1 1.5 1 1.5 0 0 0 0 Grade 7 0 0 0 0 2 3.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.7 Page 30 of 69
Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Student Discipline - Suspensions (by subgroup) - Percentages are calculated using all students enrolled at any point during the school year as the denominator and will differ from the report card percentages. 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 # % # % # % All Students (students suspended; not incidents) 20 3.6 - Asian - Black or African American 20 3.7 - Hispanic or Latino - Native American / Alaskan Native - Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander - White Economically Disadvantaged Students with Disabilities English Learners Student Discipline - Suspensions (by grade level) - Percentages are calculated using all students enrolled at any point during the school year as the denominator and will differ from the report card percentages. 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 # % # % # % All Students Page 31 of 69
Kindergarten 1 1.7 Grade 1 1 1.6 Grade 2 1 1.9 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 3 4.8 Grade 6 Grade 7 4 5.6 2 3.1 Grade 8 5 6 4 5.4 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Student Discipline - Expulsions (by subgroup) - Percentages are calculated using all students enrolled at any point during the school year as the denominator and will differ from the report card percentages. 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 # % # % # % All Students (students expelled; not incidents) - Asian - Black or African American - Hispanic or Latino - Native American / Alaskan Native - Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander - White Page 32 of 69
Economically Disadvantaged Students with Disabilities English Learners Student Discipline - Expulsions (by grade level) - Percentages are calculated using all students enrolled at any point during the school year as the denominator and will differ from the report card percentages. 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 # % # % # % All Students Kindergarten 0 0 Grade 1 0 0 Grade 2 0 0 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 0 0 Grade 6 Grade 7 0 0 0 0 Grade 8 0 0 0 0 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Review student attendance and chronic absenteeism data. Discuss progresses and challenges with student attendance, especially if chronic absenteeism rates exceed 10% (overall or by school, grade level or subgroup), and identify specific steps to be taken to ensure that students have opportunities to learn. Page 33 of 69
For 2016-2017 we had a total of 5 students deemed as chronically absent-missing 10 percent or more of the school year for any reason. Our goal is to reduce by 25%. Our chronic absenteeism is rate is 3.1% and our attendance rate is 97.8%. We exceeded the district goal of 96%. Our students were absent mainly due to an illness and parents/guardians provided documentation upon students return to school. Below are the steps we take to address student absenteeism progressively. 1. SMS Secretary, Teachers, and Counselors collaborate to monitor absences and tardies. 2. continued awareness of the Department of Optional Schools attendance requirements. 3. Utilization of Parent Connect as a tool for parents/guardians to monitor attendance information. 4. Utilization of School Messenger to notify parents of attendance requirements and incentives. Review student discipline data. Discuss progress and challenges with student discipline. If suspension and/or expulsion rates exceed state average by 25% (i.e. out-of-school suspension rates above 7.75% or expulsion rates above.25%), describe the steps to be taken to reduce lost instructional time and/or disparate impact. - Note: 2015-16 statewide suspension rate was 6.2% and the statewide expulsion rate was.2%. We met our 2015-2016 goal of reducing office referrals by 10% with a total is 112. However, in 2016-2017 the number of office referrals increased to a total of 131. Office referrals increased by 17% in 2016-2017. Each 20 day period is reviewed-looking closely at the attendance periods in which an increase or decrease is observed. In addition, each grade level is monitored notating the number of office referral incidents each 20 day period. Describe the school's progress and challenges in providing safe, supportive and healthy environments and the steps to be taken to ensure that all students are provided with such a learning environment. The challenges that impact our school environment are -bullying and social media activity between students -young learners (kindergarten) know and understanding positive interactions -encouraging positive interactions between students We have made progress in providing safe, supportive environments by -increasing Guidance classes for grade levels that have an increase in office referrals during the 20 day period -increasing Guidance classes for students with common incidents -providing sessions with the school psychologist for students that present a need -including students in the revisions of the School Culture and Climate plan (PBIS) -implement planned incentive programs for teachers and students Every school year, we revise our School Culture and Climate plan (PBIS). School administration, teachers, and students revise and update parts of the plan. The PBIS plan contains student behavior data, attendance data, school wide behavior expectations for students and teacher, and incentive Page 34 of 69
programs. Page 35 of 69
School Plan - Human Capital Shelby County (792) Public District - FY 2018 - John P. Freeman Optional School (792-2362) Public School - School Plan - Rev 0 STAFF Characteristics - Data Tables - (Please enter data in the fields provided.) STAFF Characteristics 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 # % # % # % Principal Years in position 0 3 Teaching Staff (Certified) Number of Teachers 38 38 41 1 to 3 years 6 16 8 21 10 24 4 to 10 years 12 31 8 21 6 15 11 to 20 years 14 38 15 40 17 41 21 + years 3 16 7 19 8 20 How are new teachers supported in the school? What strategies are currently in place to generate growth among new hires? New teachers at John P. Freeman are supported in the following ways -receive a mentor teacher who has been at the school for a minimal of 3 years -school-based new teacher orientation that reviews school level policies and expectations -regular classroom observations fro mentor teacher and PLC Coach -lesson and instructional planning support from mentor teacher, grade level chair, and PLC Coach -provide with several opportunities for professional development For the 2016-17 school year the teaching staff characteristics are as follows: CAMPUS_DESCRIPTION John P. Freeman Optional School 1-3 Years Experience 4-10 Years Experience 11-20 Years Experience 21+ Years Experience 9 9 18 10 Page 36 of 69
What retention practices, incentives, or growth opportunities are in place, specifically for teachers who have demonstrated strong performance over time? For teachers that have demonstrated strong instructional performance and professionalism, they a given opportunities for leadership and incentives -selected to serve on the Instructional Leadership Team, grade level chair, Principal Advisory Council, and other school leaderhsip opportunities -selected to be new teacher mentors -model classroom for instructional practices -lead student activity groups or clubs -have other opportunities to represent the school on a district, state, or national level at professional development conferences -opportunities for rewards monthly, nine-week period, semester, or end of the year -teacher rewards for full implementation of RTI2, excellent instructional displays, attending to professional duties What procedures are in place to ensure that low income and minority students are not being taught at a higher rate than other students by ineffective, inexperienced, or out-of-field teachers. Include steps to be taken in order to address these disparities and ensure equitable access to highly-effective teachers. Before the beginning of each school year, a review is done on classroom dynamics. When planning for classes for the next year, school administration takes into consideration several factors: student behaviors, number of gifted students, male/female ratio, and student performance. These factors are considered in making sure that all classes closely equal in behavior, performance, and male and female student. We believe this practice is best and we continue to improve teacher effectiveness. Page 37 of 69 The District is exploring the following initiatives and strategies to address the equitable distribution of effective teachers: a. Creating incentives that work for experienced, effective teachers and leaders to move to high-need schools and keep working there b. Building principal capacity to implement strong recruitment and retention practices that can improve teacher talent c. Enable and encourage target schools to hire earlier for vacancies d. Help target school leaders develop retention strategies and hold them accountable for results e. Work actively to distribute new teacher hires evenly across schools and provide intensive early support f. Offer financial and/or leadership incentives to attract experienced and effective teachers to target schools g. Recruit clusters of effective teachers and leaders to target schools h. Network with other schools and prep programs to identify top candidates i. Create accurate, positive representations of the school during recruitment j. Rethink placement and assignment practices (like co-teaching) k. Enforce a culture of motivation and collaboration for all teaching staff
School Plan - Additional Areas Shelby County (792) Public District - FY 2018 - John P. Freeman Optional School (792-2362) Public School - School Plan - Rev 0 School Data - Data Tables - (Please enter data in the fields provided.) School Report as 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Length of school year Instructional days (#) 180 Length of school day Instructional minutes (#) 420 Additional Areas RTI2 Describe the school's progress in implementing RTI2 across all grades. Identify areas of strength and weakness, identify root causes and discuss actions needed. As we began the process of implementing RTI2, we had to be able to meet the needs of our unique school make up as a Kindergarten- eighth grade school. For our middle school teachers and students (grades 6-8), we revised the school day schedule to create a second period called Academic Enrichment for tier 1, 2, and 3 students. In addition, some teachers gave up one or two days for planning to provide additional time for tier 2 and tier 3 students. Even though the RTI2 time was built into the school day, we still faced some challenges with implementation. One issue was getting other content areas (science, social studies, physical education, fine arts) teachers to implement RTI2 with fidelity and monitor student usage in intervention programs. Another issue was teachers not monitoring and tracking students usage and performance in the intervention programs. The administrative team discovered that teachers were not familiar with all the components of the intervention program; therefore, they were not able to to maximize the program. As a result, the administrative team and PLC Coach planned PLC meeting and professional development session to training teachers on the various intervention programs. The administrative team began to monitor usage of the programs and track student performance in the programs. Moreover, the administrative team met with middle school teachers regularly to review intervention reports. For elementary students RTI2 was conducted differently. Elementary students that were tested and identified as Tier 2 and Tier 3 students were pulled out to work with an interventionist. After reviewing intervention reports, the data revealed that students were not using the intervention programs unless they were with the interventionist, and teachers were not monitoring and tracking students usage and performance in the intervention programs. In addition, the data revealed that teachers were not familiar with all the components of the intervention program;; therefore, they were not able to to maximize the program. As a result, the administrative team and PLC Coach planned PLC meeting and professional development session to training teachers on the various intervention programs. The administrative team began to monitor usage of the programs and track student performance in the programs. Moreover, the administrative team met with middle school teachers regularly to review intervention reports. Technology Access and Use Page 38 of 69