Pekin Community School District School Improvement Advisory Committee

Pekin Community School District School Improvement Advisory Committee Meeting October 25, 2011

Mission Statementt The mission of the Pekin Community School, serving as a unifying agent of our communities, is to provide and promote lifelong learning through its commitment to quality educational programs that prepare the students to be effective, successful, and responsible citizens.

District Long Range Goals v All K-12 students will achieve at high levels in reading comprehension, prepared to be effective, successful, and responsible citizens. v All K-12 students will achieve at high levels in mathematics, prepared to be effective, successful, and responsible citizen. v All K-12 students will achieve at high levels in science, prepared to be effective, successful, and responsible citizens. v All K-12 students will use technology in developing proficiency in reading, mathematics, science, social studies, and 21 st century learning skills. v All K-12 students will feel safe and connected to school.

Previous SIAC Goals v Improve secondary student achievement in science on standardized tests, such as on the ACT or ITEDs by ensuring alignment between the curriculum and the test (e. g. give students more practice with applied knowledge, like analyzing data on charts and graphs) v Continue to improve and update student access to technology and increase the students understanding of technology and the applications of technology throughout the grade levels.

District Assessments ITBS/ITED-Common Assessment used to determine AYP ( Adequate Yearly Progress )--Spring Skills Iowa—Alternate Assessment submitted the APR (Annual Progress Report) Fall, Winter, and Spring Basic Reading Inventory (BRI)- Additional Alternate Assessment--Fall, Winter, and Spring

Historical High School ITED Data Class of 2012 -Seniors Reading % Proficient Math% Proficient Science % Proficient Scores in 9 th grade 29. 3 75. 8 80. 3 10 th grade Plan Test 11 th grade 86 83 80 Class of 2013 --Juniors Percent Proficient Percebt Proficient Percent Proficient Reading Math Science Scores in 8 th grade 72. 2 77. 8 75 9 th grade 62 78 80 10 th grade Plan Test Class of 2014 -Sophomores Percent Proficient Reading Math Science Scores in 7 th grade 73 71 69 8 th grade 75 79 92 9 th grade 86 83 80 Class of 2015 -Freshmen Percent Proficient Reading Math Science Scores in 6 th grade 62 68 76 7 th grade 57 72 80 8 th grade 76 88 90

Historical Middle School ITBS Data Class of 2016 -8 th Graders Percent Proficient Reading % Proficient Percent Proficient Science % Proficient Percent Proficient Math % Proficient Scores in 5 th Grade 92 66 83 6 th Grade 65 67 90 7 th Grade 78 89 85 Class of 2017 -7 th Graders Percent Proficient Reading Math Science Scores in 4 th Grade 87 83 91 5 th Grade 89 83 89 6 th Grade 77 85 87 Class of 2018 -6 th Graders Percent Proficient Reading Math Science Scores in 3 rd Grade 92 89 89 4 th Grade 95 92 98 5 th Grade 94 95 97

Elementary Historical ITBS Data Class of 2019 -5 th Graders Percent Proficient Reading Math Science Scores in 2 nd grade 84 71 52 3 rd grade 95 93 91 4 th grade 98 100 98 Class of 2020 -4 th Graders Percent Proficient Math Reading Science Scores in 1 st grade 90 78 N/A 2 nd grade 80 66 60 3 rd grade 96 94 94 Percent Proficient Reading Math Science Scores in 1 st grade 84 78 N/A 2 nd grade 87 76 62 98 78 N/A Class of 2021 --3 rd Graders Class of 2022 --2 nd Graders Scores in 1 st grade

2011 ITBS/ITED Pekin vs State Percent Proficient Comparison Reading Math Grade Pekin State 3 rd 96. 09% 77. 32% 3 rd 94. 00% 77. 70% 4 th 97. 67% 79. 85% 4 th 100% 81. 34% 5 th 93. 84% 79. 85% 5 th 95. 39% 79. 41% 6 th 76. 47% 69. 12% 6 th 84. 61% 74. 22% 7 th 78. 18% 74. 00% 7 th 89. 09% 78. 93% 8 th 76. 47% 74. 35% 8 th 88. 24% 76. 46% 11 th 78. 57% 76. 77% 11 th 87. 50% 76. 41% Science Grade Pekin State 3 rd 94. 12% 81. 59% 4 th 97. 67% 82. 45% 5 th 96. 92% 81. 84% 6 th 86. 54% 75. 64% 7 th 85. 44% 82. 72% 8 th 90. 20% 85. 53% 11 th 83. 93% 81. 32%

Skills Iowa Benchmark Assessment Reading Percent of Students Grade Exceeds Standards Meets Standards Approaching Standards Below Standards Fall vs Spring Scores 3 rd 0 vs 6 4 vs 37 19 vs 39 77 vs 18 4 th 0 vs 9 9 vs 21 41 vs 67 50 vs 2 5 th 1 vs 22 5 vs 30 33 vs 36 61 vs 13 6 th 0 vs 35 3 vs 39 8 vs 14 89 vs 12 7 th 3 vs 46 10 vs 30 40 vs 15 47 vs 9 8 th 0 vs 24 0 vs 35 12 vs 22 88 vs 19

Skills Iowa Benchmark Assessment Math Percent of Students Grade Exceeds Standards Meets Standards Approaching Standards Below Standards Winter vs Spring Scores 3 rd 2 vs 6 26/37 28 vs 39 45/18 4 th 3 vs 9 27 vs 21 52 vs 67 18 vs 2 5 th 8 vs 22 11 vs 30 50 vs 36 32 vs 13 6 th 3 vs 35 11 vs 39 29 vs 14 58 vs 12 7 th 0 vs 46 40 vs 30 40 vs 15 20 vs 9 8 th 20 vs 24 30 vs 35 33 vs 22 20 vs 19

2010 -2011 Basic Reading Inventory Fall compared to Spring Comprehension Data %Frustrated %Instructional %Independent Grade Level Fall/Spring Grade 1 71/0% 13/23% 16/77% Grade 2 24/5% 29/49% 47/45% Grade 3 15/12% 35/28% 50/60% Grade 4 22/13% 46/40% 32/47% Grade 5 12/22% 55/46% 21/32% Grade 6 16/6% 25/23% 49/71% Grade 7 30/22% 47/49% 22/29% Grade 8 45/42% 30/43% 25/16% Grade 11 14/26% 58/49% 28/25% Fall/Spring

ACT Five Year Trend Pekin versus State Data Year Percent of Senior Students English Math Reading Science Composite Number of Senior Students Tested Pekin vs State Score Pekin vs State Score 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 23 50% 20. 5 /21. 6 21. 0/21. 9 21. 0/22. 6 21. 7/22. 3 21. 3/22. 3 33 55% 21. 8/21. 9 21. 5/22. 0 22. 5/22. 9 21. 3/22. 3 21. 9/22. 4 22 42% 19. 3/21. 9 20. 4/21. 9 21. 8/22. 9 21. 1/22. 4 20. 8/22. 4 27 36% 20. 6/21. 8 20. 7/21. 8 22. 4/22. 6 21. 5/22. 3 21. 3/22. 2 25 56% 20. 6/21. 7 19. 7/21. 9/22. 6 22. 0/22. 4 21. 2/22. 3

2011 Senior Facts v 89. 80% of the 2011 Pekin senior class upon graduation last May intended to pursue post secondary level classes v 100% of the 2011 Pekin senior class completed the Core program v 57. 45% of those tested in 2011 Pekin senior class had a composite ACT score of 20 or higher v Graduation rate for the 2011 senior class was 97. 9% (48 out of 49 students-1 dropped out)

Iowa Youth Survey Results Given Fall 2010— Grades 6, 8, and 11 School Perceived to be Safe (I feel safe at school. ) 90% Favorable Response School Expectations/Boundaries (At my school there are clear rules about what students can and cannot do. ) 72% Favorable Response Safe (Nonviolent) School Environment (Things stolen, deliberately damaged, threatened or injured by someone with a weapon) 98% Favorable Response

Continued… Iowa Youth Survey Results Given Fall 2010—Grades 6, 8, and 11 School Staff/Student Support (My teachers care about me, my teachers are available to talk with students one-on-one, my teachers notice when I am doing a good job and let me know about it. ) 47% Favorable Response Bullying (In the last 39 days, how many times have you been…called names, was made fun of, teased in a hurtful way, other students left me out of things on purpose, I was hit, kicked, pushed or shoved around. ) 49% Favorable Response Family Involvement and Support (How often do my parents/guardian knows where I am, who I am with, checks to make sure I have done my homework, finds out if I have done something wrong/punishes, good/praises me. ) 61% Favorable Response

Long Range Goal Report Card Reading, Math, Science v. Assessments Data: • Did BRI Scores Improve from Fall to Spring? • Was There Improvement in Skills Iowa Benchmark Exam Data From Fall to Spring? • Was there Improvement in our ITBS/ITED Scores from 2010 to 2011?

Long Range Goal Report Card Technology Did the District’s Technology Increase? The District Has Approximately 550 Computers for Student Usage K-12 1: 1 Computers in 6 th Grade – 12 Grade 2 Mac. Book Mobile Labs for the 3 -5 Wing 1 Mac. Book Mobile Lab for the K-2 Wing 1 Dedicated Lab in the Media Center for K-12 2 Dedicated Labs in the High School Computer Application Courses offered) All high school graduates must take at least one application class (multiple classes are Keyboarding is taught as early as 3 rd grade

Report Card for Post Secondary Preparation Are We Preparing our Students for Post Secondary Life better? v. Concurrent Enrollment • 83% of the 2012 senior class is enrolled in at least v. ACT one concurrent enrolled course • Improvement in the percent of students taking the ACT • Composite score growth in trend data and Pekin versus State data

Long Range Report Card Student Connection and Safety What are we Doing to Help Make our Students Feel Safe and Connected? v Classroom Curriculum • Linda Anderson, Guidance K-5, Student Success Skills • Tim Bartels, Guidance 6 -12, I Have A Plan, Career Exploration, Building Relationships, Bullying and Harassing Units • KC STARR v Presenters Tina Mier, Cyber-bullying, • Buck Coleman and Brain Hiller, Making good choices and being a positive influence to others • Climb Theater •

Changes In Pekin Education Has it Changed? Must it Continue to Change? NCLB Required Changes 2002 vs 2012 Grade Level Reading Math 4 th grade 64% vs 88% 62% vs 87% 8 th grade 60% vs 86% 58% vs 86% 11 th grade 69% vs 85% 69% vs 90% Iowa Blueprint May Require Changes Governor Branstad and the Iowa Department of Education Blueprint represents a comprehensive plan that “Builds on Iowa’s strong education foundation but takes the steps necessary to remodel our house for years to come. ”