Section D: The Content of the Plan

Table of Contents

Previous

Next

Revised SPOs, with explanations and clarifications, submitted to Middle States April 23, 2007

Selinsgrove Area High School

(Revised) Student Performance Objectives

With

Baseline Data

April, 2007

Once again, comments in italics are offered by way of explanation, but are not formally part of the SPO or the related measurement. Our general understanding is that these goals are to be achieved by the seventh year of our plan cycle, which would be 2013-2014. Changes to our previous submission are indicated in red.

Meeting as the whole Planning Committee, and again in the Action Plan teams focusing on each SPO, we debated our original proposals, as well as your advice, at length. In the end, we made some of the changes you recommended, but also elected to retain the original wording of much of our first submission. It is our hope that the explanations attached, as well as the new baseline data, will adequately explain our reasoning.

SPO #1: Students will maintain or improve academic achievement as measured by:

A. Students scoring proficient or advanced on the 8 th grade PSSA math, reading , and writing assessments will maintain proficiency. ( Maintained as originally submitted. The specific problem we were trying to address with this measurement is the fact that, as you can see in the baseline data below, we have been “losing” a certain percentage of our students who are scoring proficient or better at the 8 th grade level. By the time they reach 11 th grade, these kids have fallen below acceptable achievement levels, and thus are a drag on our PSSA success rate. We thought it wise to target this group specifically, as it seems likely that restoring their 8 th grade success levels would have a significant positive impact on our overall PSSA scores. We also discussed your point that this approach may appear to ignore students who transfer in after the 8 th grade year. While it is true that this latter group’s success or failure will not be measured here, we believe that this measurement is the most valid measure of the effectiveness of our overall program. When we’re doing a good job preserving student achievement and keeping them on an upward trajectory, any students who transfer can only benefit from our efforts. )

Baseline data:

Note: Percentages of those “maintaining” or “falling” are percentages of the number who originally scored Proficient or Advanced in 8 th grade and were subsequently retested in 11 th grade. Our goal is to raise the row 2 statistic to 100% and to reduce the row 3 statistic to 0%.

B. Students scoring below proficiency on the 8 th grade PSSA math, reading , and writing assessments will , for each assessment in which they were not proficient, achieve proficiency and/or achieve a 7% increase in their raw scores. (After reviewing your comments on the NCE measurement and reconsidering the probably cumbersome task of manipulating those numbers, our group decided on the 7% solution. The number is not arbitrary. It represents, according to our administrators, the point at which a change in the PSSA score begins to become statistically significant--that is, the point at which we can say with confidence that significant improvement has occurred. We purposefully did NOT choose the NCLB-mandated 100% success level because 1. we have serious doubts about whether that will survive, given its unrealistic nature, and 2. whatever happens to NCLB, the PSSA is likely to remain. We felt that significant improvement of every under-performing student’s score was a worthwhile and realistic goal--one that we have the “resources and energy” to achieve.)

Baseline data:

Note: Percentages of those “improving . . . by 7% OR achieving Proficient or Advanced” are percentages of the number who originally scored Basic or Below Basic in 8 th grade and were subsequently retested in 11 th grade. Our goal is to raise the row 2 statistic to 100%.

C. Sixty percent of students in each AP course will score a three or higher on the AP exam.

Baseline data on AP scores for 2005-06:

( Maintained as originally submitted. The point immediately apparent here will be that we are already achieving our stated goal in 7 out of 9 A. P. offerings. Why then, do we need this goal? Two reasons: First, it will serve as the formal benchmark of minimal expected success for teachers who take on or continue to teach A. P. courses. Second, this goal parallels another goal in SPO#2, which is to increase the number of students taking A. P. courses. We expect that, as the number of students enrolled goes up, our challenges will increase. Therefore, we believe this to be a useful measure of both improvement and continued success.)

SPO#2: Students will demonstrate increased expectations about their own capabilities as measured by:

A. The percentage of the student body taking AP courses will increase from 11.3 percent to 13.6 percent.(Note: this is an increase of 20 percent, as decided by the committee.) (Our A. P. students are primarily seniors and juniors, with the occasional sophomore. Incidentally, it is board policy in Selinsgrove that all students who sign up for an A. P. course MUST take the corresponding exam.)

B. The percentage of the student body taking the PSAT will increase from 42 percent to 60 percent. (Note: We chose the target of 60% as representing a high but achievable goal that would represent a significant boost in our students’ sense of their own possibilities. This measurement affects primarily sophomores, with a number of juniors also participating. An increase in both grades would be useful. The annual benchmarks below were decided by the committee.)

C. The average number of core course credits (English, Math, Science, Social Studies and Foreign Language), out of the 8 credits taken by students each academic year, will increase by approximately 15%, from 4.7 to 5.4 core course credits per year. (We include this measurement in the belief that if students choose to take a more rigorous curriculum, this evidences their increased self-confidence. The committee carefully considered your misgivings about our definition but elected to maintain it as written. We do not intend to slight other disciplines, but are relying in part on input received from committee members who work at Susquehanna University. They have explained how their admissions department calculates a “stripped” G.P.A. from the students’ transcripts by eliminating non-core courses from their consideration. We are hopeful that measurement D. will mollify any objectors by validating the challenging and competitive work performed in other disciplines. This measurement covers students at all grade levels.)

D. The percentage of students participating in educationally competitive programs will increase by 20%, from 34 percent to 41 percent. (Note: twenty percent parallels the recommendation for criterion A. Once again this measurement covers all grade levels.)

Competitive events compiled in 2006-2007: Bloomsburg Math Contest; Gold Math Contest; National History Day; Technology Student Association competition; Envirothon; District Chorus; Art contest; Mock Trial; Pa. Junior Academy of Science; Forensics; Yearbook layouts; Overall yearbook; Future Business Leaders of America competition; Susquehanna Valley Band; District Band; District Orchestra; District Jazz; University Honors Ensembles; Beaver Fair; Soil Judging, Greenhand and Forestry Day; FFA Quiz Bowl; Ag Mechanics, Agronomy and Small Engines; Public Speaking and Parliamentary Procedure; SUN Area FFA Leadership Training; Farm Show; FFA SAE Record Book; FFA Penn State Summer Conference; Bloomsburg Science Iditarod.

Now, finally, I give you the whole thing as a single, unified piece, with the commentary excerpted:

SPO #1: Students will maintain or improve academic achievement as measured by:

A. Students scoring proficient or advanced on the 8 th grade PSSA math, reading , and writing assessments will maintain proficiency.

Baseline data:

B. Students scoring below proficiency on the 8 th grade PSSA math, reading, and writing assessments will, for each assessment in which they were not proficient, achieve proficiency and/or achieve a 7% increase in their raw scores.

Baseline data:

C. Sixty percent of students in each AP course will score a three or higher on the AP exam.

Baseline data on AP scores for 2005-06:

SPO#2: Students will demonstrate increased expectations about their own capabilities as measured by

A. The percentage of the student body taking AP courses will increase from 11.3 percent to 13.6 percent.

B. The percentage of the student body taking the PSAT will increase from 42 percent to 60 percent.

C. The average number of core course credits (English, Math, Science, Social Studies and Foreign Language), out of the 8 credits taken by students each academic year, will increase by approximately 15%, from 4.7 to 5.4 core course credits per year.

D.The percentage of students participating in educationally competitive programs will increase by 20%, from 34 percent to 41 percent.

Competitive events compiled in 2006-2007: Bloomsburg Math Contest; Gold Math Contest; National History Day; Technology Student Association competition; Envirothon; District Chorus; Art contest; Mock Trial; Pa. Junior Academy of Science; Forensics; Yearbook layouts; Overall yearbook; Future Business Leaders of America competition; Susquehanna Valley Band; District Band; District Orchestra; District Jazz; University Honors Ensembles; Beaver Fair; Soil Judging, Greenhand and Forestry Day; FFA Quiz Bowl; Ag Mechanics, Agronomy and Small Engines; Public Speaking and Parliamentary Procedure; SUN Area FFA Leadership Training; Farm Show; FFA SAE Record Book; FFA Penn State Summer Conference; Bloomsburg Science Iditarod.

Well, there you have it! Once again, we await your advice.

Thanks,

Larry

Middle States Response to Second SPO submission, May 31, 2007

TECHNICAL REVIEW CHECKLIST:

RESPONSE TO THE SCHOOL

Date of Review: May 31, 2007 #2

School Name: Selinsgrove High School

Staff Reviewer: Lynn McLean, Associate Director

Projected Visit Dates: November 6-9, 2007

Next Steps:

x Objectives are approved as submitted. This approval denotes that the objective(s) meet the AFG technical criteria. The Validation Team will conduct a second level of review, applying the Achievability and Appropriateness Criteria (see the AFG School Guide for Planning, Section 7, for the criteria) during the Validation Team’s visit.

Minor modifications recommended. Do not resubmit.

Baseline data needed. Please resubmit when data are available.

Modifications required. Please make changes and resubmit as soon as possible.

Call the MSA reviewer at 267-284-5040 to discuss.

General Comments about All Objectives:

Congratulations! Your objectives are approved as submitted. Your objectives reflect a high level of planning and thinking about how assessments are used and interpreted at your school. I certainly suggest that your explanatory notes submitted with the draft of the objectives be included in the documents submitted to your visiting team members, so that they are privy to your team’s line of thought.

Best wishes as you proceed with action planning and preparation for the team visit!

Objective #1: As submitted by the school

SPO #1: Students will maintain or improve academic achievement as measured by:

A. Students scoring proficient or advanced on the 8 th grade PSSA math, reading , and writing assessments will maintain proficiency.

Baseline data:

B. Students scoring below proficiency on the 8 th grade PSSA math, reading , and writing assessments will, for each assessment in which they were not proficient, achieve proficiency and/or achieve a 7% increase in their raw scores.

Baseline data:

Note: Percentages of those “improving . . . by 7% OR achieving Proficient or Advanced” are percentages of the number who originally scored Basic or Below Basic in 8 th grade and were subsequently retested in 11 th grade. Our goal is to raise the row 2 statistic to 100%.

C. Sixty percent of students in each AP course will score a three or higher on the AP exam.

Baseline data on AP scores for 2005-06:

Objective #1: Technical Review Criteria

• Is the objective stated as a desired end result in student performance? (What do we expect our students to know? What do we expect them to do with what they know? And/or What qualities or characteristics do we want them to demonstrate?)

Yes. Improved academic performance is the desired end result in student performance.

• Is the objective currently measurable?

Yes.

• Are multiple forms of assessment used to measure growth on this objective?

Yes.

• Is the objective measured by an external assessment? (Note: We strongly recommend that the institution give consideration to having at least one of the objectives measured by an external tool.)

Yes.

• Is the objective related to improvement in an area of academics? (Note: If none of the objectives relate to academics, the institution needs to be prepared to explain why academics are not a focus for growth over the next seven years. In addition, public schools need to be prepared to provide an explanation if their improvement objectives and plan do not include areas of student performance mandated for improvement under the requirements of NCLB.)

Yes.

• Does the objective relate to as many of the institution’s students as possible?

Yes.

• Does the objective relate to culminating expectations for students at or near the end of their experiences in the institution?

Yes.

• Does the objective reflect expected growth in student performance, over time (i.e., are baseline data available for the measures identified along with appropriate targets for those measures)?

Yes.

• Is the baseline year noted as well as the year when the objective will be realized?

Yes. Baseline year is identified as 2005-06. Year of realization is identified as 2013-14.

Suggestions for Revising Objective #1:

This objective is approved as submitted. Thank you for your clarification and notes related to each of your measures. It is evident that your Planning Team has given significant time and reflection to various aspects of the assessments used and how they will be most useful in the future at Selinsgrove.

Objective #2: As submitted by the school

Students will demonstrate increased expectations about their own capabilities as measured by

A. The percentage of the student body taking AP courses will increase from 11.3 percent to 13.6 percent.

B. The percentage of the student body taking the PSAT will increase from 42 percent to 60 percent.

C. The average number of core course credits (English, Math, Science, Social Studies and Foreign Language), out of the 8 credits taken by students each academic year, will increase by approximately 15%, from 4.7 to 5.4 core course credits per year.

D. The percentage of students participating in educationally competitive programs will increase by 20%, from 34 percent to 41 percent.

Competitive events compiled in 2006-2007: Bloomsburg Math Contest; Gold Math Contest; National History Day; Technology Student Association competition; Envirothon; District Chorus; Art contest; Mock Trial; Pa. Junior Academy of Science; Forensics; Yearbook layouts; Overall yearbook; Future Business Leaders of America competition; Susquehanna Valley Band; District Band; District Orchestra; District Jazz; University Honors Ensembles; Beaver Fair; Soil Judging, Greenhand and Forestry Day; FFA Quiz Bowl; Ag Mechanics, Agronomy and Small Engines; Public Speaking and Parliamentary Procedure; SUN Area FFA Leadership Training; Farm Show; FFA SAE Record Book; FFA Penn State Summer Conference; Bloomsburg Science Iditarod.

Objective #2: Technical Review Criteria

• Is the objective stated as a desired end result in student performance? (What do we expect our students to know? What do we expect them to do with what they know? And/or What qualities or characteristics do we want them to demonstrate?)

Yes. Increased expectations about their own capabilities is the desired end result in student performance.

• Is the objective currently measurable?

Yes.

• Are multiple forms of assessment used to measure growth on this objective?

Yes.

• Is the objective measured by an external assessment? (Note: We strongly recommend that the institution give consideration to having at least one of the objectives measured by an external tool.)

No, but none is required for this type of assessment.

• Is the objective related to improvement in an area of academics? (Note: If none of the objectives relate to academics, the institution needs to be prepared to explain why academics are not a focus for growth over the next seven years. In addition, public schools need to be prepared to provide an explanation if their improvement objectives and plan do not include areas of student performance mandated for improvement under the requirements of NCLB.)

Yes.

• Does the objective relate to as many of the institution’s students as possible?

Yes.

• Does the objective relate to culminating expectations for students at or near the end of their experiences in the institution?

Yes.

• Does the objective reflect expected growth in student performance, over time (i.e., are baseline data available for the measures identified along with appropriate targets for those measures)?

Yes.

• Is the baseline year noted as well as the year when the objective will be realized?

Yes. Baseline year is identified as 2005-06. Year of realization is identified as 2013-14.

Suggestions for Revising Objective #2:

This objective is approved as submitted.

5c. Student Performance Objectives, with updated data

SPO #1: Students will maintain or improve academic achievement as measured by:

A. Students scoring proficient or advanced on the 8 th grade PSSA math, reading , and writing assessments will maintain proficiency.

Baseline data:

B. Students scoring below proficiency on the 8 th grade PSSA math, reading, and writing assessments will, for each assessment in which they were not proficient, achieve proficiency and/or achieve a 7% increase in their raw scores.

Baseline data:

C. Sixty percent of students in each AP course will score a three or higher on the AP exam.

Baseline data on AP scores for 2005-06 and 2006-07:

SPO#2: Students will demonstrate increased expectations about their own capabilities as measured by

A. The percentage of the student body taking AP courses will increase from 11.3 percent to 13.6 percent.

B. The percentage of the student body taking the PSAT will increase from 42 percent to 60 percent.

C. The average number of core course credits (English, Math, Science, Social Studies and Foreign Language), out of the 8 credits taken by students each academic year, will increase by approximately 15%, from 4.7 to 5.4 core course credits per year.

D. The percentage of students participating in educationally competitive programs will increase by 20%, from 34 percent to 41 percent.

Competitive events compiled in 2006-2007: Bloomsburg Math Contest; Gold Math Contest; National History Day; Technology Student Association competition; Envirothon; District Chorus; Art contest; Mock Trial; Pa. Junior Academy of Science; Forensics; Yearbook layouts; Overall yearbook; Future Business Leaders of America competition; Susquehanna Valley Band; District Band; District Orchestra; District Jazz; University Honors Ensembles; Beaver Fair; Soil Judging, Greenhand and Forestry Day; FFA Quiz Bowl; Ag Mechanics, Agronomy and Small Engines; Public Speaking and Parliamentary Procedure; SUN Area FFA Leadership Training; Farm Show; FFA SAE Record Book; FFA Penn State Summer Conference; Bloomsburg Science Iditarod.

  5d. Copies of assessment tools used to measure each objective

We do not require any specific tools to measure our progress in each objective beyond the data provided by the PSSA. Additional necessary information will be acquired each year through teacher surveys and enrollment information.

6. Internal Scan (Optional)

We did not feel the need to complete additional surveys beyond those required for assessing our compliance with the twelve Middle States standards for quality schools.

7. External Scan (Optional)

At the beginning of our Planning Committee process, we decided to survey students and the community in order to learn their impressions of Selinsgrove Area High School. The questions for that survey were derived from discussion within the Planning Committee as to the perceived strengths and needs of the school. The survey was intended to help us consider likely areas of focus for the SPOs that we knew we would be crafting. Indeed, the survey results were very helpful in that regard.

The initial survey:

This survey can be completed by one or two respondents. First, please start by indicating your relationship to the school. Select the general category to which you belong and then check all subcategories that apply to you.

Respondent #1 Respondent #

Here are several proposals about possible ways to improve the job done by Selinsgrove Area High School. Please consider each proposal carefully and separately. You don’t need to think about ranking them. If you are returning this paper survey rather than taking the on-line survey, you may indicate choices for two people in the household.

Please use the following scale to select your responses:

5 (strongly agree) 4 (agree) 3 (don’t know/care) 2 (disagree) 1 (strongly disagree)

1. SAHS needs to strengthen the general literacy levels of all students.

Respondent #1: 5 4 3 2 1 Respondent #2: 5 4 3 2 1

2. SAHS needs to strengthen its academic program for those students who will move to the workforce or to a two-year school situation after graduation.

Respondent #1: 5 4 3 2 1 Respondent #2: 5 4 3 2 1

3. SAHS needs to raise its expectations about the academic performance of all students.

Respondent #1: 5 4 3 2 1 Respondent #2: 5 4 3 2 1

4. SAHS needs to improve its preparation of students for general citizenship in the community, the nation, and the world.

Respondent #1: 5 4 3 2 1 Respondent #2: 5 4 3 2 1

5. SAHS needs to raise students’ expectations about their own capabilities.

Respondent #1: 5 4 3 2 1 Respondent #2: 5 4 3 2 1

6. SAHS needs to become a more actively inclusive school by helping both new students and students from non-mainstream backgrounds become involved in the life of the school and community.

Respondent #1: 5 4 3 2 1 Respondent #2: 5 4 3 2 1

7. SAHS needs to promote better understanding and appreciation of diversity within the school and in the larger community.

Respondent #1: 5 4 3 2 1 Respondent #2: 5 4 3 2 1

8. SAHS needs to improve its monitoring of and reflection about what happens to our students in the first five years after they graduate.

Respondent #1: 5 4 3 2 1 Respondent #2: 5 4 3 2 1

he flexibility of coaches and extra-curricular activities advisors in allowing students to participate in multiple programs.

Respondent #1: 5 4 3 2 1 Respondent #2: 5 4 3 2 1

10. SAHS needs to take greater precautions to protect the day-to-day safety of students and staff.

Respondent #1: 5 4 3 2 1 Respondent #2: 5 4 3 2

11. Finally, if you believe that these questions overlook any area of concern, please feel free to add one or two additional suggestions of specific ways that SAHS can improve what it does.

Suggestions here:

8. Non-Accreditation for Growth Objectives

All goals in this plan and in the Strategic Plan are “directly related to student performance.”

9. Action Plans

How the Action Plans were developed

Because the Planning Committee had decided to limit the number of proposed SPOs to two (reflecting the advice of Middle States staff, as conveyed at the Internal Coordinator Workshop of April, 2006) and had, further, drafted the proposed SPOs and identified useful measurements of success in regard to each, it was an inherently obvious decision simply to divide the Planning Committee into two subcommittees and have each subcommittee brainstorm possible Action Plans to facilitate the achievement of its assigned SPO. At the end of this process, volunteers offered to flesh out the original skeletal ideas, and in this way each proposed Action Plan found its own ad hoc working group. These groups agreed to bring their elaborated proposals back to Planning Committee for final consideration, possible modification, and formal adoption.

How the Action Plans support the mission and objectives

All action plans were developed with the specific purpose of supporting the Student Performance Objectives adopted by the Planning Committee and approved through Middle States review. Additionally, because those SPOs support our school’s mission, we feel confident that the Action Plans do the same.

How the necessary resources will be committed to ensure the success of each Action Plan

The resources necessary to ensure the success of each Action Plan are, primarily, time and commitment. The members of the Planning Committee have, in their work to this point, demonstrated their willingness to contribute both of these ingredients to ensure the success of the many Action Plans that we are adopting. All members of the Committee have had a hand in steering the direction of the Committee and a voice in fashioning the SPOs, as well as their related Action Plans. All members of the Committee understand that Accreditation for Growth is ongoing process, rather than a once-and-done deal, and have demonstrated their willingness to assist in the process of institutional growth. We are fully aware of, and in agreement with, the necessity of maintaining our commitment to the process of intentional growth.

Our internal and external scans did identify two particular issues of great concern to all stakeholders.

First, there was near-unanimous agreement on the need for drastic improvement in the climate control of the building. This issue has become more and more serious in recent years, and the faculty have appealed loudly and regularly to administrators and the school board for some action in this regard. Fortunately, the board’s adoption of Plancon A indicates, at the point of this report, that a resolution to this most serious of problems is in the works. Barring some change of heart by the board, this issue should be largely resolved within the next three years. For this reason no action plan addressing this particular facilities issue has been included as part of this AFG review.

The second area of tremendous concern to many stakeholders was the issue of how best to stay abreast of the rapidly changing technological possibilities associated with the delivery of education to 21 st century students. Fortunately once again, the school’s receipt of the Classrooms for the Future grant makes possible the infusion of a wonderful new collection of technological tools. Furthermore, this new technology comes “bundled” with a substantial commitment to teacher training in the effective use of that technology. In addition, the grant also provides additional staffing to help manage the expansion of our technology inventory, as well as to take care of the existing technological infrastructure. We consider ourselves quite fortunate to have these two significant improvements occurring nearly simultaneously. Together they help us to address the most serious needs identified in our surveys.

Next

Previous