Oklahoma state department of education

Report
DATA REVIEW
OCTOBER 10, 2013
ROOSEVELT MIDDLE SCHOOL
OKLAHOMA STATE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Math Department
Data Review
Agenda
• Looking at Benchmark 1:
- Comparing 2012-13 with 2013-14
• Mastery of skills taught by Benchmark 1
• Student Growth on Math OCCT:
-2011-12 2012-13
• Findings
• Interventions
• Questions
Breakdown of Students Tested
Math Benchmark I
• A total of 621 students were tested
7th Grade: 308 of 308
8th Grade: 313 of 325
98% of Roosevelt’s students tested
Comprehensive Benchmark I
7th Grade Math SY2013-14
4
7
Per Band Performance
Met 4%
Below 7%
Far Below 89%
89
Comprehensive Benchmark I
7th Grade Math SY2012-13
4
11
Per Band Performance
Met 4%
Below 11%
Far Below 85%
85
Comprehensive Benchmark I
7th Grade Math SY2012-13 vs SY2013-14
100
89
90
85
80
70
60
50
SY2013-14
40
SY2012-13
30
20
10
4
4
7
11
0
Met Benchmark
Below Benchmark Far Below Benchmark
Comprehensive Benchmark I
8th Grade Math SY2013-14
1
23
Per Band Performance
Met 1%
Below 23%
Far Below 76%
76
Comprehensive Benchmark I
8th Grade Math SY2012-13
3
18
Per Band Performance
Met 3%
Below 18%
Far Below 79%
79
Comprehensive Benchmark I
8th Grade Math SY2012-13 vs SY2013-14
90
80
76
79
70
60
50
SY2013-14
40
SY2012-13
30
23
18
20
10
1
3
0
Met Benchmark
Below Benchmark
Far Below Benchmark
Percent Correct – Benchmark I
34.5
34%
34
33.5
33%
33
32.5
32%
32
SY2013-14
SY2012-13
31.5
31%
31
30.5
30
29.5
7th Grade
8th Grade
Comprehensive Benchmark I
Algebra I SY2013-14
4
Per Band Performance
Met 4%
Below 56%
56
Far Below 40%
40
*Note: 25 students
Percent Correct: 39%
Comprehensive Benchmark I
Algebra I SY2012-13
24%
29%
Per Band Performance
Met 24%
Below 48%
Far Below 29%
48%
Comprehensive Benchmark I
Algebra I SY2012-13 vs SY2013-14
60%
56%
48%
50%
40%
40%
29%
30%
24%
SY2012-13
20%
10%
4%
0%
Met Benchmark
SY2013-14
Below Benchmark Far Below Benchmark
Algebra I
Mrs. Shepelwich (Algebra I teacher) attends PLCs at
U.S. Grant High School
She is there 3 days a week
7th Grade
Skills Taught By Benchmark 1
• Add, subtract, multiply and divide
integers
• Add, subtract, multiply, and divide
fractions
Skills Mastered: Benchmark 1
• None, w/ exception of Honors Math
(PASS 1.1, 2.1a, 2.2a, 3.1)
*Note:7th grade has been remediating towards their power standard of two-step
equations, which is one-third of the exam. Will have been taught by Benchmark 2.
8th Grade
Skills Taught By Benchmark 1
• PASS 2.2a: Laws of Exponents
Skills Mastered: Benchmark 1
• PASS 2.2a: Laws of Exponents (For all
classes)
• ALG I (8th grade): 1.1a, 1.1b, 2.2a, 3.1,
5.1, 5.3
Student Growth on Math OCCT
2011-2012  2012-2013
Math OCCTs 2011-12 vs 2012-13
Subject
2011-12
2012-13
6th Math
43%
37%
-6%
7th Math
28%
42%
14%
8th Math
29%
48%
19%
Student Growth OCCTs SY2011-12 to SY2012-13
50%
7th Grade (2012-13)
45%
45%
6th Grade (2011-12)
38% 39%
40%
35%
35%
30%
25%
22%
20%
15%
13%
*Note: mobility
at RMS is high.
However, useful
to think of as
“cohort.”
10%
5%
4% 4%
0%
Advanced
Proficient
Limited
Knowledge
Unsatisfactory
Student Growth OCCTs SY2011-12 to SY2012-13
60%
56%
50%
8th Grade (2012-13)
7th Grade (2011-12)
40%
37%
30%
30%
25%
22%
20%
16%
11%
10%
3%
0%
Advanced
Proficient
Limited
Knowledge
Unsatisfactory
*Note: mobility
at RMS is high.
However, useful
to think of as
“cohort.”
Algebra I
For SY 2012-13, there was a 100% pass rate on EOI
Findings
Benchmark 1
• 7th Grade: showed no mastery of PASS Skills
– The lesson plans are oriented to build a good foundation
th
for students
who
are
deficient
in
skills
from
either
the
5
or 6th grade. These skills include performing operations
with integers, fractions and mixed numbers , order of
operations and one-step equations. The
pass skill for two
th
step equations and inequalities are 7 grade pass skills
that will be covered before the next comprehensive
benchmark test.
• 8th Grade: mastery on skill 2.2a (Exponent Laws)
Math OCCTs
• 6th Grade: 6% decrease
• 7th Grade: 14% increase
– As a cohort (6th 7th, more students in
Unsatisfactory Performance Band)
Findings (Continued)
Math OCCTs
• 8th Grade: 19% increase
– As a cohort (7th8th, 34% decrease in
Unsatisfactory, increase of students in LK,
Proficient, and Advanced)
Algebra I
• 100% pass rate for SY 2012-13.
• Students this year are coming in a little lower.
Interventions
• Students who have not mastered skills
are asked to come to tutoring before/after
school and/or Saturday School.
• Algebra I students will be monitored
closely and pulled after Benchmark 2 if
necessary.
• 6th Grade Teachers (2012-13) who
moved to 7th Grade currently receive
instructional coaching through Pearson.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES
AND
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
ROOSEVELT MIDDLE SCHOOL MATH DEPARTMENT
PLC ACTIVITIES
• Subject Level Collaboration (common lesson plans
and common assessments)
• Grade Level Collaboration (behavior issues and
interventions, attendance issues/initiatives,
engaging activities)
• Department Level Collaboration (vertical alignment
from year to year)
• School Level Collaboration (feeder site
connectivity, coming year preparation and
placement)
PLC EXPECTATIONS
• Establish Norms (have them posted)
• Have an Agenda (if an agenda is thorough enough,
minutes are not really necessary)
• Focus (WHAT
DO WE WANT THEM TO
KNOW?)
• Co-Create and Administer Common Assessments and
Lesson Plans (HOW WILL WE KNOW IF THEY
KNOW IT?)
• Discuss Common Assessment Results in PLC (WHAT
WILL WE DO IF THEY DID NOT LEARN IT?
and WHAT WILL WE DO IF THEY DID?)
7TH GRADE MATH PLC
• Protocol……………………………………..B• Focus………..……………………………….B
• Common Tests/Lessons…………..………C
• Remediation………….…………………….B
• Enrichment……………….…………………C
8TH GRADE MATH PLC
• Protocol……………………………………..A
• Focus………..……………………………….A
• Common Tests/Lessons…………..………A
• Remediation………….…………………….B
• Enrichment……………….…………………C
MATH DEPARTMENT
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
• Mrs. Nelson & Mrs. Tyler – PAR Coaching
• RMS Veteran Teachers - PEER Coaching
• Dr. Sharon Kramer – PLC Coaching
• Jenifer Albright-Borts – SIOP Coaching
• Dedra Stafford – Technology Coaching
• Carole Kelley – CCSS Coaching
• Jane Guffey – Best Practices Coaching
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP
70%
58%
60%
50%
58%
51%
40%
33%
30%
20%
23%22%
15%
20%
13%
10%
0%
Math 6
Math 7
Math 8
Regular Ed
IEP
ESL
NEW MONITORED INTERVENTIONS
• WATCH THE DATA
• CHANGE ADVISORY (25 MINUTES/DAY) TO LITERACY
INITIATIVES ONLY (READING STRATEGIES, JIGSAW BOOK
STUDIES, COMPASS ON COWS, ETC.)
• MAPS ADJUSTMENT OF LIBRARY RECONSTRUCTION
• LOCATE OUR BEST READING/READING COMPREHENSION
TEACHERS AND CHANGE SCHEDULES/PULL OUTS AS NEEDED
• LUNCH AND LEARN
• RE-ARRANGE OUR LIBRARY PROCEDURES SO THAT ALL
STUDENTS ARE READING LEXILE APPROPRIATE BOOKS ONLY
• COMPASS IN COMPUTER CLASS POPULATED BY READING
SCORES, PRESCRIPTIVE TO STUDENT BY STANDARD
• SIOP COACHING (DISTRICT AND PEARSON)
BENCH 1 MATH 8 BY ED GROUPS
80%
75%
70%
60%
57%
50%
50%
RegEd
40%
ELL
SpEd
30%
20%
10%
0%
Standard 2.2a
Data Review – Language Arts
Roosevelt Middle School
October 10, 2013
OCCT
SY2011-12 vs. SY2012-13
45%
42%
40%
39%
37%
37%
35%
30%
25%
25%
6th Grade Reading
20%
16%
15%
10%
5%
1%
3%
0%
Advanced
Proficient
Limited
Unsatisfactory
Knowledge
7th Grade Reading
OCCT
SY2011-12 vs. SY2012-13
50%
46%
45%
40%
40%
39%
34%
35%
30%
25%
7th Grade Reading
20%
16%17%
15%
10%
5%
5%
2%
0%
Advanced
Proficient
Limited
Unsatisfactory
Knowledge
8th Grade Reading
OCCT
SY2011-2 vs. SY2012-3
2011-12
2012-13

6th Reading
41%
37%
-4%
7th Reading
44%
45%
1%
8th Reading
44%
48%
4%
Writing Interventions
1. Every test in the school is required to have at least one
short answer.
2. Short Answer Rubric.
3. School-Wide Paragraph Format.
4. Cross-curricular collaboration.
5. Research writing support from computer classes.
School-Wide Paragraph Format
Writing Interventions
1. Every test in the school is required to have at least one
short answer.
2. Short Answer Rubric.
3. School-Wide Paragraph Format.
4. Cross-curricular collaboration.
5. Research writing support from computer classes.
Total Reading Students Tested
7th Grade
8th Grade
Total
305
312
617
97%
of Roosevelt Middle School
reading students were tested.
7th Grade Reading
Benchmark 1, SY 2013-4
1%
10%
15%
Exceeded Benchmark
Met Benchmark
Below Benchmark
Far Below Benchmark
74%
7th Grade Reading
Comprehensive Benchmark 1, SY2012-13 vs. SY2013-14
90
78
80
74
70
60
50
40
SY2012-13
30
SY2013-14
20
10
0
8
0
10
15
15
1
Exceeded
Benchmark
Met Benchmark
Below
Benchmark
Far Below
Benchmark
8th Grade Reading
Benchmark 1, SY 2013-4
0%
15%
Exceeded Benchmark
16%
Met Benchmark
Below Benchmark
Far Below Benchmark
69%
8th Grade Reading
Comprehensive Benchmark 1, SY2012-13 vs. SY2013-14
80
71
70
69
60
50
40
SY2012-13
30
SY2013-14
20
15
15
15
16
10
0
0
0
Exceeded
Benchmark
Met Benchmark
Below
Benchmark
Far Below
Benchmark
Interventions
1. Focus on Foundational Standards
2. Test-Taking Strategies.
3. Exit Assessments
a) ACE Paragraph
b) OCCT-aligned multiple choice practice
4. Weekly test practice.
5. In-class Accountable Reading.
a) Differentiation
b) Independence
6. 25 Book Campaign
7. Tracking
8. Scales
Focus on Foundational Standards
Interventions
1. Focus on Foundational Standards
2. Test-Taking Strategies.
3. Exit Assessments
a) ACE Paragraph
b) OCCT-aligned multiple choice practice
4. Weekly test practice.
5. In-class Accountable Reading.
a) Differentiation
b) Independence
6. 25 Book Campaign
7. Tracking
8. Scales
Test-Taking Strategies
Interventions
1. Focus on Foundational Standards
2. Test-Taking Strategies.
3. Exit Assessments
a) ACE Paragraph
b) OCCT-aligned multiple choice practice
4. Weekly test practice.
5. In-class Accountable Reading.
a) Differentiation
b) Independence
6. 25 Book Campaign
7. Tracking
8. Scales
Exit Assessments
Interventions
1. Focus on Foundational Standards
2. Test-Taking Strategies.
3. Exit Assessments
a) ACE Paragraph
b) OCCT-aligned multiple choice practice
4. Weekly test practice.
5. In-class Accountable Reading.
a) Differentiation
b) Independence
6. 25 Book Campaign
7. Tracking
8. Scales
25 Book Campaign
Interventions
1. Focus on Foundational Standards
2. Test-Taking Strategies.
3. Exit Assessments
a) ACE Paragraph
b) OCCT-aligned multiple choice practice
4. Weekly test practice.
5. In-class Accountable Reading.
a) Differentiation
b) Independence
6. 25 Book Campaign
7. Tracking
8. Scales
Tracking
Interventions
1. Focus on Foundational Standards
2. Test-Taking Strategies.
3. Exit Assessments
a) ACE Paragraph
b) OCCT-aligned multiple choice practice
4. Weekly test practice.
5. In-class Accountable Reading.
a) Differentiation
b) Independence
6. 25 Book Campaign
7. Tracking
8. Scales
Scales
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES
AND
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
ROOSEVELT MIDDLE SCHOOL ELA DEPARTMENT
7TH GRADE LANGUAGE ARTS PLC
• Protocol……………………………………..A
• Focus………..……………………………….B• Common Tests/Lessons…………..………A
• Remediation………….…………………….B
• Enrichment……………….…………………C
8TH GRADE LANGUAGE ARTS PLC
• Protocol……………………………………..A
• Focus………..……………………………….A
• Common Tests/Lessons…………..………A
• Remediation………….…………………….A
• Enrichment……………….…………………A
LANGUAGE ARTS DEPARTMENT
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
• Mrs. Nelson & Mrs. Tyler – PAR Coaching
• RMS Veteran Teachers - PEER Coaching
• Dr. Sharon Kramer – PLC Coaching
• Jenifer Albright-Borts – SIOP Coaching
• Dedra Stafford – Technology Coaching
• Carole Kelley – CCSS Coaching
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP
80%
70%
60%
71%
70%
53%
50%
Regular Ed
40%
IEP
ESL
30%
20%
21%
12%13%
15%14%
14%
10%
0%
ELA 6
ELA 7
ELA 8
Social Studies Department
Data Review
7th Grade Geography
Rice – Ford - Leake
HOW DOES THE 7th GRADE SOCIAL STUDIES
TEAM GATHER AND INTERPRET DATA?
•
•
•
In September the first common summative assessment was
administered. The student body averaged out around 50% as a
whole.
The test was analyzed. It was determined that the questions
were too wordy and there were not enough document based
questions. Therefore the test was shortened, and the test
format included a larger portion of document based questions.
Also, the test was created before the teaching of the content
began which helped each geography teacher stay focused.
In October, the students scored much higher on the test. For
the chapter 3 test the student body scored around 70% as an
average.
8th Grade American History
DeForest – Beery- Guthrie
"On average, the practice of
having students track their own
progress was associated with a
32 percentile point gain in their
achievement."
Robert J. Marzano
1st Benchmark
&
Common Assessment
In order to facilitate student growth the
8th grade American History PLC followed
the following best practices to drive
instruction with the use consistent data
tracking.
Time Block Averages by Team
Team 8 A
TB1
TB3
TB4
TB6
TB7
49.6%
63%
58.1%
47.3%
61%
Team 8 B
TB1
TB2
TB3
TB4
TB6
62.6%
60.9%
53.9%
55.6%
59.7%
Team 8 C
TB1
TB2
TB3
TB6
NA
32.2%
46.7%
56.9%
Question by Question Average- 8A
Q#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
TB1
TB3
38
23
80
61
52
23
33
23
61
33
80
33
TB4
57
57
89
57
73
52
10
42
63
63
73
73
TB6
75
37
79
75
79
58
25
50
66
45
83
66
TB7
30
30
46
30
46
53
30
23
53
23
61
46
60
35
95
65
60
50
30
45
70
60
85
60
Q#
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
TB1
TB3
80
57
71
23
9
80
71
66
76
76
52
33
TB4
89
73
89
52
5
78
84
84
89
63
68
31
TB6
66
33
54
50
16
58
91
87
70
62
70
29
TB7
76
61
53
53
15
69
61
61
46
61
53
23
85
50
80
60
5
70
95
80
65
70
60
25
Q#
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Question by Question Average- 8A
TB1
TB3
80
19
52
57
52
66
61
52
23
42
61
TB4
73
26
63
73
84
84
89
52
10
47
73
TB6
75
12
58
75
58
66
83
54
16
41
58
TB7
46
15
61
76
61
46
61
92
7
23
46
75
20
80
80
70
90
80
50
35
55
40
Q#
TB1
TB2
TB3
TB6
1
10
15
30
32
2
25
25
23
40
3
55
55
65
92
4
55
60
80
76
5
45
35
61
56
6
55
80
65
60
7
55
20
15
32
8
35
30
19
72
9
55
45
26
64
10
35
35
38
32
11
50
50
69
88
12
40
25
42
52
Q#
TB1
TB2
TB3
TB6
13
50
45
50
88
14
30
25
46
52
15
35
40
34
56
16
15
40
50
68
17
10
31
30
24
18
25
42
57
76
19
15
26
38
28
20
30
36
50
60
21
20
50
57
64
22
15
44
38
52
23
5
44
69
80
24
10
33
38
36
Q#
TB1
TB2
TB3
TB6
25
15
11
38
64
26
15
72
38
40
27
30
22
53
64
28
10
11
50
44
29
25
27
38
64
30
20
38
65
72
31
10
55
53
76
32
5
27
65
52
33
15
22
34
32
34
15
38
30
40
35
15
38
65
64
Common Assessment / Benchmark
The 8th grade social studies PLC first created a 35
question comprehensive benchmark by combining
national test items. Test items were compiled with the
use of released tests from the state departments of
education of Oklahoma, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New
York, and Georgia.
Test items encompassed C3 CCSS Standards 1 and
partially assessed literacy standards 1-2.
Example Test Item:
Using The Test Data:
 Remediate missed/low performing standards
 Aligned seating charts in classroom to set up
best peer assistance learning according to
scores
 Use high performing standards to associate
new content and remediation of content
Administering the Benchmark
 Students took the test with
the use of Smart Response
Technology.™ This
technology allowed students
to securely complete the
exam at their own pace while
simultaneously compiling
student performance.
Data Review
 After the examination, teachers
compiled data for each student by
standard and test item. This analysis
allowed future instruction and review
to adequately address the individual
need of each class and student.
Comprehensive Benchmark #2
US History:
 Will take November 1st
 Covering C3 Standards 1 and 2; Literacy
Standards 1 and 2
 Target goal- increase 15%
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES
AND
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
ROOSEVELT MIDDLE SCHOOL
SOCIAL STUDIES DEPARTMENT
7TH GRADE SOCIAL STUDIES PLC
• Protocol……………………………………..B
• Focus………..……………………………….C
• Common Tests/Lessons…………..………B-
• Remediation………….…………………….C
• Enrichment……………….…………………D
8TH GRADE SOCIAL STUDIES PLC
• Protocol……………………………………..A
• Focus………..……………………………….B
• Common Tests/Lessons…………..………A
• Remediation………….…………………….A
• Enrichment……………….…………………C
SCIENCE DEPARTMENT
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
• Mrs. Nelson & Mrs. Tyler – PAR Coaching
• RMS Veteran Teachers - PEER Coaching
• Dr. Sharon Kramer – PLC Coaching
• Jenifer Albright-Borts – SIOP Coaching
• Dedra Stafford – Technology Coaching
• Carole Kelley – CCSS Coaching
Science Data
OSDE Data Review
October 10, 2013
• CRTs
• Directive from OKCPS not to compare SY2012-3 Science
CRT pass rates to the previous year’s pass rates, due to the
increases in rigor and cut scores.
Review/Analyze Science Data
• Less collaboration between the three teams than there is
this year. Where we lacked most was in common
assessments, with rigorous test questions.
• We didn’t remediate as often as needed.
• No blueprint for the CRT test (this caused preparatory
material to be out of date).
• Teams were created with most ESL/IEP students on one
team, and most Regular Ed/Honors students on the other
team.
Science Team’s Explanation
of CRT Results:
• 7th Grade Team
• Questions on weekly quizzes and tests are mostly DOK level two
and three.
• Each student has to reach 70% or greater on two out of three tests,
to achieve “mastery”.
If they don’t master it, they are leveled into remedial groups.
If they do master it, they are leveled into enrichment groups.
• Daily use of the Marzano tracking system.
• Creation of a benchmark test, using the McDougal/Little test prep
books.
Science Team’s Response
to Increased Rigor…
• 8th Grade Team
• Test and quiz questions are mostly DOK level two and
three.
• Group tracking of the unit test results to see if remediation
is needed.
• Last year’ benchmark will be modified to include more
level two and at least 25-30% level three questions.
Science Team’s Response
to Increased Rigor…
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES
AND
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
ROOSEVELT MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT
7TH GRADE SCIENCE PLC
• Protocol……………………………………..C• Focus………..……………………………….B
• Common Tests/Lessons…………..………A
• Remediation………….…………………….A
• Enrichment……………….…………………A
8TH GRADE SCIENCE PLC
• Protocol……………………………………..D
• Focus………..……………………………….C
• Common Tests/Lessons…………..………B
• Remediation………….…………………….B
• Enrichment……………….…………………D
SCIENCE DEPARTMENT
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
• Mrs. Nelson & Mrs. Tyler – PAR Coaching
• RMS Veteran Teachers - PEER Coaching
• Dr. Sharon Kramer – PLC Coaching
• Jenifer Albright-Borts – SIOP Coaching
• Dedra Stafford – Technology Coaching
• Carole Kelley – CCSS Coaching
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP
50%
45%
44%
40%
35%
30%
Regular Ed
25%
ELL
20%
IEP
13%
15%
10%
5%
3%
0%
Science 8
Student Behavior
Changing Culture
RMS Attendance Trend 2011 vs 2012 vs 2013
98
2011-12 6th
Grade
2011-12 7th
Grade
2011-12 8th
Grade
6th Grade
2012-13
7th Grade
2012-13
8th Grade
2012-13
7th Grade
2013-14
8th Grade
2013-14
96
94
92
90
88
86
84
82
80
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
SY2011-12 vs SY201 2-13 vs SY2013-14 Referrals
800
686
700
573
600
537
516
500
400
300
SY2011-12
360
356
289
SY2012-13
SY2013-14
275
200
100
95
0
Quarter 1
0
0
0
Quarter 2
Quarter 3
Quarter 4
Q1 Disciplinary Incidents by Type
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Teacher 1
Teacher 2
Teacher 3
Teacher 4
Teacher 5
Teacher 6
Teacher 7
Teacher 8
Teacher 9
Teacher 10
Teacher 11
Teacher 12
Teacher 13
Teacher 14
Teacher 15
Teacher 16
Teacher 17
Teacher 18
Teacher 19
Teacher 20
Teacher 21
Teacher 22
Teacher 23
Teacher 24
Teacher 25
Teacher 26
Teacher 27
Teacher 28
Teacher 29
Teacher 30
Teacher 31
Teacher 32
Teacher 33
Teacher 34
Teacher 35
Teacher 36
Teacher 37
Teacher 38
Teacher 39
Teacher 40
Teacher 41
Teacher 42
Teacher 43
Teacher 44
Teacher 45
Teacher 46
Teacher 47
Teacher 48
Disciplinary Referrals Q1-SY14 by Teacher
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Disciplinary Referrals S2 by Teacher
Number of Referrals
1
0 Referrals
21
1-5 Referrals
26
2+ Referrals
Disciplinary Events SY2013-14 by Location
Distribution
11
3 2
CLASSROOM
17
HALLWAY
BUS
LUNCHROOM
PLAYGROUND
PARKING LOT
71
% of Students in Advanced Coursework
12%
11%
10%
8%
7%
6%
% of Students in Advanced
Coursework
4%
2%
2%
0%
SY2011-2012
SY2012-2013
SY2013-2014
Campus Wide Interventions
• Grade level PLC team meetings call home to parents of
students with behavior and attendance concerns
• Grade level team conferences with students and
parents with behavior and attendance concerns
• Attendance advocates closely monitor tardies and
attendance
• Pairing veteran teachers with teachers needing help
with classroom management
• After school activities/athletics
• Vertical Alignment with feeder schools
• Consistency in appropriate consequences
Community Outreach
Three Main Focus Areas:
1.Parent Teacher Student
Association (PTSA)
2.Parent Involvement
3.Community Outreach
• Roosevelt Leadership
Academy
President: Mrs. Lidia Rivera
Vice President: Mrs. Monica Mitchell
Treasurer: Mrs. Stephanie Johnson
 Meetings
once per month
 RoboCalls- automated calls home to students
in Spanish and English for all meetings and
events at school
 Beginning



after fall break
Desired by parents on the needs assessment at
the beginning of the school year
6 classes this semester
10 classes next semester
 Parent


needs assessment
To identify information and resources needed and
requested by parents
Outcomes: SmartWeb training sessions, language
learning sessions for parents, career fair, health
fair
 Hispanic



Heritage Month
Hispanic Pride Week – Oct. 7 – Oct. 11
Soccer watch party Friday October 11th
Culture Exchange Night:

Taste of Mexico & Dia de los Muertos
 Committee
of R.M.S. stakeholders (teachers,
administrators, state partners and
community members)

Knobbe, Linden, Mrs. Rivera (PTSA President),
Parkhill, Mrs. Espinoza, Taylor, Trejo
 Meets
once monthly to address community
outreach initiatives
 PTSA
meetings
 Culture Exchange Night: Friday Nov. 1
 Literacy Night
 Math Night
 Oklahoma Promise night

Information session for families on college
opportunities and funding
 Monthly

community service
Roosevelt adopted Woodson Park through the
OKC Beautiful Adopt-A-Park Program.
 Great
Idea Grant recipient for $5,000
 40 accepted students



Application, recommendation and interview
process
Interview process included community members
from: Downtown OKC Inc., Latino Community
Development Agency (LCDA), OKCPS
Communications and Bilingual Education
Department and Cimarron Alliance
Food was donated by Chaya Fletcher – Owner,
Urban Roots Restaurant.
 Steering

Michael Carnuccio


President, Oklahoma Council for Public Affairs
Todd Pauley


Committee
Business and Community Relations, Rep. Lankford
Meet bi-weekly to update program fundraising
goals and assess curriculum
Leadership Academy Schedule
Weekly meetings
Interact with every level of government (School
Board, City Council, State representatives,
National government)
Monthly field trips
Service Learning Projects
Capstone Learning Experience: Washington, D.C
 Barry


Thomas, Principal
[email protected]
(405) 587-8300
 Teresa


Tedder, Transformation Coach
[email protected]
(405) 587-8358

similar documents