i state board of education horizon waiver request.pdfschool years and an f for the 2016-2017 school...

INDIANA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

1

BEFORE THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

PROPOSED DETERMINATION

In Re the Matter of:

Horizon Christian Academy Cause No.: 12-052018

Horizon Christian Academy is requesting a waiver to delay A-F consequences for the 2018-

2019 school year pursuant to I.C. 20-51-4-9.

Recommendation: deny Horizon Christian Academy’s request for a waiver to delay A-F

consequences for the 2018-2019 school year.

COMBINED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND PROPOSED

DETERMINATION

I. Basis for Agency Review

During the 2017 legislative session, the Indiana General Assembly enacted P.L. 251-2017,

which, in relevant part, amended IC 20-51-4-9 to include subpart (b). Subpart (b) permits an

eligible school subject to the consequences imposed under IC 20-51-4-9(a) to request that the State

Board of Education (“Board”) waive those consequences for one year.

A. Consequences under IC 20-51-4-9(a)

In general, an eligible school may accept choice scholarship funds from eligible choice

scholarship students enrolled at the school. However, an eligible school that receives any

combination of D’s or F’s in consecutive years will have its ability to enroll new choice scholarship

students suspended. Under subsection (a), the school’s ability to enroll new choice scholarship

students shall remain suspended until the eligible school receives a C or better in consecutive years

as prescribed by statute. For a summary of how these consequences are applied, see Exhibit A

(attached).

B. Requests for Waiver or Delay of Consequences under IC 20-51-4-9(b)

Indiana Code § 20-51-4-9(b) provides eligible schools with an opportunity to seek a waiver

to avoid the consequences imposed under subsection (a). Pursuant to IC 20-51-4-9(b), an eligible

school subject to the consequences imposed under subsection (a) may submit a request to the Board

to waive consequences for a period of one year. In order to obtain the waiver, subsection (b)

provides, in relevant part, that the Board “may grant a request to an eligible school that requests a

waiver or delay under this subsection if the eligible school demonstrates that a majority of

students in the eligible school demonstrated academic improvement during the preceding

school year.” (emphasis added).

In other words, the Board’s ability to grant an eligible school’s waiver request is contingent

upon whether the eligible school satisfies the legal threshold that a majority of students

demonstrated academic improvement during the preceding year. Even if an eligible school satisfies

the legal threshold necessary to receive a waiver, the Board may still deny the request. Waivers

can only be granted for one year, however, schools may return to the Board and ask for a waiver

the following year until it is removed from consequences under the statute.

II. Combined Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Horizon Christian Academy (“Horizon”) received a D for the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016

school years and an F for the 2016-2017 school year.1 Because Horizon has been placed in one of

the lowest two categories of school improvement for three consecutive years, absent a waiver of

consequences, the school’s ability to receive choice scholarship funds for new students will be

suspended until the school receives a C or better for two consecutive years. See IC 20-51-4-9(a)(2).

In December of 2017, Horizon received a Notice of Consequences informing the school it

would not be able to accept new students under the Choice Scholarship program. On May 16,

2018, Horizon submitted its request for a waiver of consequences to the Board, and on June 14,

2018, a hearing regarding Horizon’s waiver request was held at the Board’s offices in Indianapolis.

Dr. Tammy Henline, Horizon’s Superintendent, Mr. Anthony Beasley, Horizon’s Director of

Development, and Chad Ranney, Administrative Law Judge, were present at the hearing.

A. Horizon Background Information

Founded in 2009 by Dr. Tammy Henline and Mr. Anthony Beasley, Horizon is a nonpublic

school located in Fort Wayne, Indiana, that participates in the Indiana Choice Scholarship

program. Horizon has experienced exponential growth since its founding. Total enrollment grew

from 35 students in 2009 to 294 students in 2015. Before the start of the 2016-2017 school year,

Horizon expanded its educational offerings and began enrolling students in grades 9 through 12.

Enrollment peaked during the 2016-2017 school year when Horizon’s total enrolled reached 492

students spread across 14 grades, prekindergarten through grade 12.2

According to Horizon’s waiver request, attached as Exhibit B, Horizon “serves primarily

inner-city students from poor to lower middle-class families.” Horizon points out that when the

school first opened, “the student body was made up of students that transferred from other

Christian schools or where [sic] leaving a homeschooling environment.” As more parents entrusted

the school with the responsibility of educating their children, the school experienced a change in

the type of families and students it served. Horizon suggests “there was a shift in the

socioeconomic status, academic proficiency, and education backgrounds” of its student body.3 The

1 Horizon received 60.3 points for the 2015-2016 school years and 38.3 points for the 2016-2017 school year. 2 During the 2016-2017 school year, 13 students were enrolled in Horizon’s prekindergarten program, 365 students

were enrolled in the K-8 program, and 114 students were enrolled in the high school program. 3 Students enrolled at Horizon receiving free or reduced meals expressed as a percentage of the school’s student

body:

2013-2014: 88.2%

2014-2015: 65.7%

school’s waiver request implies these were downward shifts, as the school believes most students

now arrive at Horizon two to three letter grades below grade level after spending years in the public

school system.

B. Review of Academic Improvement Data

i. Horizon’s Analysis

Horizon presented information it believes demonstrates that during the 2016-2017 school

year, a majority of its students exhibited academic improvement from the preceding school year.4

In addition, Horizon’s waiver request describes a number of steps the school has taken or will take

in the future to address the school’s performance and improve student outcomes.5 For instance,

Horizon has partnered with local educational centers and providers to offer students the services

needed to succeed academically. A speech pathologist, tutors from Sylvan Learning Centers, and

a consultation teacher worked with 32 of the school’s lowest performing students. In addition,

Horizon has placed a new focus on data-driven instruction. During the 2017-2018 school year,

teachers began creating differentiated lessons for students using formative assessment data.6

Finally, Horizon has provided instructional coaching and professional development to teachers.

Based on the initiatives Horizon has undertaken, the school believes it should be granted a

waiver from consequences so it may continue to accept new choice scholarship students.

ii. Analysis of State Data

BRIEF DATA SUMMARY

IREAD-

3

ISTEP+

ELA

ISTEP+

Math

ISTEP+

ELA &

Math

ISTEP+

10 ELA

ISTEP+

10

Math

ISTEP+

10 ELA

& Math

Graduation

Rate

2014-15 83.30% 39.50% 35.70% 26.80% N/A N/A N/A N/A

2015-16 55.30% 34.90% 25.70% 17.20% N/A N/A N/A N/A

2016-17 32.40% 24.80% 9.80% 7.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 75.00%

2016-17 ELA Growth (4-8) 2016-17 Math Growth (4-8)

Low Standard High Low Standard High

N 100 21 37 N 110 25 24

Percent 63.30% 13.30% 23.40% Percent 69.20% 15.70% 15.10%

2015-2016: 59.2%

2016-2017: 91.3%

2017-2018: 99% 4 Horizon provided Sylvan Learning Center data for the 32 students that worked with the tutors from the Sylvan

Learning Center as part of the school’s reading and math interventions. However, results from the elementary math

intervention were not provided. 5 In October of 2017, Horizon conducted an internal performance analysis of the school, and the results of that

analysis were used to develop a school improvement plan. The school began implementing portion of its school

improvement plan during the 2017-2018 school year. 6 Math, reading, and language arts assessments from NWEA were used to test certain students each quarter.

2016-17 ELA Growth (9-12) 2016-17 Math Growth (9-12)

Low Standard High Low Standard High

N 11 8 1 N 5 8 7

Percent 55.00% 25.00% 20.00% Percent 25.00% 40.00% 35.00%

Horizon received D’s for the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years. In 2016-2017 the school

received an F. From the 2015-2016 school year to the 2016-2017 school year, Horizon’s A-F

score decreased from 60.3 to 38.3. In addition to the substantial decline in Horizon’s A-F score,

student performance on statewide assessments has declined in each of the past three years at the

school.

An analysis of Horizon’s student growth scores shows Horizon is able to demonstrate academic

improvement with respect to some of its students. However, the number of students demonstrating

either standard or high growth falls well below a majority.

During the 2016-2017 school year, 36.7% of Horizon’s students in grades 3 through 8

demonstrated either standard or high growth in English language arts, while only 30.8% of those

same students demonstrated standard or high growth in mathematics. At the high school level,

45% of Horizon’s students demonstrated standard or high growth in English language arts, while

75% of those same students demonstrated standard or high growth in mathematics.

Ultimately, only 37.4% of Horizon’s students (grades 4 through 8 and grade 10) demonstrated

growth in English language arts, and an even smaller percentage, 35.8%, of the school’s students

(grades 4 through 8 and grade 10) demonstrated growth in mathematics.

III. Proposed Determination

It is evident that Horizon is presently taking steps it believes will lead to academic

improvement. However, Horizon’s performance does not establish that a majority of students

demonstrated academic improvement during the preceding school year, as required under IC 20-

51-4-9(b), and the waiver should not be granted.

NOTICE OF POST-HEARING RIGHTS

Horizon may submit an objection to the proposed determination in writing fifteen (15) days after

the proposed determination is served on the petitioner, unless Horizon waived this time

requirement. An objection must identify the basis of the objection with reasonable particularity.

Once the time period to submit an objection to the proposed determination has expired, the

proposed determination will be submitted to the Board for consideration and to make a final

determination during the Board’s monthly business meeting. Any party impacted by the proposed

determination may attend the meeting and directly address the Board members. Written objections

are to be submitted to the administrative law judge as follows:

Chad E. Ranney

Administrative Law Judge, Deputy General Counsel

Indiana State Board of Education

143 W. Market, Suite 500

Indianapolis, IN 46204

[email protected] F: 317.232.7701

Dated: July 3, 2018 __________________________________

Chad E. Ranney



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent to the follow via certified mail:

Horizon Christian Academy

2000 North Wells Street

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46808

Dated: July 3, 2018 __________________________________

Chad E. Ranney



Exhibit A

2000 North Wells Street • Fort Wayne, IN 46808 • (260) 420-8395 • Fax: (260) 423-3508

Page | 1

May 16, 2018

To the Indiana State Board of Education:

Thank you for considering our request for a waiver or delay of consequences. We

received a Notice of Consequences on December 13, 2017 stating we would not be able to

accept new students under the Choice Scholarship Program until the 2020-2021 school year.

We welcome the accountability and have made great strides in moving our students toward

proficiency in each of the core areas. Horizon Christian Academy is a school for all students, and

we believe that once the Board understands our unique situation that consideration will be

given to our request.

About Horizon Christian Academy

Horizon Christian Academy is a private Christian school that serves students in grades

Pre-K through 12. The school has been in operation for eight years and serves primarily inner-

city students from poor to lower middle-class families. Horizon has experienced exponential

growth since its founding, going from 35 students in the first year, to over 450 in year seven.

Over 65 percent of the students receive Title 1 funds, and last year 98 percent of the students

received free or reduced lunch. We have one of the highest percentages of students with ISPs

in the region. In the 2016-17 school year 25 percent of students in grades 3-8 and 10 passed the

ISTEP+. Many of the students were unable to succeed in public schools due to academic or

behavioral issues.

Dr. Tammy Henline and Mr. Anthony Beasley founded the school in 2009 to provide an

educational environment that would foster the growth and development of each learner

mentally, physically, and spiritually. Our motto: “Education without compromise” speaks to our

dedication to provide a well-rounded education that prepares students for the academic, social,

and professional rigors of life after graduation. The founders believed that everyone child

should have the opportunity to learn in a loving environment.

When the school opened its doors, the staff consisted of dedicated teachers and staff

that believed in the school’s mission and purpose. They hoped to make a difference in the lives

of students, many of which had given up on themselves and on school. Initially the student

body was made up of students that transferred from other Christian schools or where leaving a

homeschooling environment. Over the past few years, more parents have entrusted us with the

important responsibility of education their children, which brought a change in the type of


Page | 2

families that we served. There was a shift in the socioeconomic status, academic proficiency,

and education backgrounds of our student body. Most the students arrived at Horizon two to

three grades (or more) below grade level, after spending years in the public-school system. But

at Horizon we do not turn students away. We accept all students regardless of their current

academic proficiency level.

Many of our students were experiencing several risk factors that continued to hinder

their progress (i.e. single-parent households, lack of parental guidance, poor nutrition, and poor

living conditions). But we understood that it would take financial resources and years of

focused effort to help these young people succeed. For students that stayed five or more years

at Horizon, the graduate at a rate of 98 percent, and they attend some of the top colleges in the

region (i.e. Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Purdue University, University of Indianapolis,

and Ball State, and Anderson University).

Current Reality

Many of the students that enroll at Horizon were not successful in the public-school

setting. Either they had a learning disability of some sort, they come from a challenging home

environment. The traditional classroom setting has not met many of our students’ needs, so

we’ve learned to create a unique experience for each student through the use of personalized

education plans and differentiated instruction. We believe that all students can be successful

given enough time and proper instruction. Eight-five percent of the students in the lower 25th

percentile do not have good study skills, and they lack support in the home, making it more

difficult for students to retain what they’re learning in the classroom.1

A performance analysis of our school was conducted by an internal consultant and

evaluated by professors at Purdue University in October of 2017. The results of the analysis

were used to develop a school improvement plan. We identified several interventions that can

help improve learning outcomes at Horizon, namely:

Hiring interventionists to implement personalized learning plans

School-wide data-driven instruction

Instructional coaching for teachers

Professional development for teachers

In the 2017-18 school year, we acted upon on these interventions.

1 Performance Analysis conducted in October 2017 by the Director of Christian Studies.


Page | 3

Hiring Interventionists

Horizon has always sought to partner with local educational centers and providers to

offer students the services they need to succeed academically. Students received services from

a speech pathologist, tutors from Sylvan Learning Centers, and a consultation teacher this year.

There was a total of ten intervention specialists that worked with 32 of our most needy

students. A student growth analysis can be found in the Data Analysis section below.

Data-Driven Instruction

Data-driven instruction is a powerful method for improving student learning throughout

the school year. It involves assessment, analysis, and acting on the data by creating

differentiated lessons. We used math, reading, and language arts assessments from NWEA to

test our students each quarter. Formative assessment data was gathered daily and used to

determine the effectiveness of instruction. Student performance tasks showed us what our

students know, what they’re able to do, and where the gaps are in their learning. Teachers then

used the data to create lessons with the scaffolding necessary for each learner.

Instructional Coaching

Throughout the school year, administrators and instructional coaches observed teachers

as they interacted with students to ensure that our curriculum was being taught with fidelity,

and that students were getting daily support and intervention. Timely feedback was provided to

each teacher based upon performance criteria that can be found on the teacher evaluation

form contained in Appendix B. When teachers received a rating that was lower than 3 (out of 5)

they completed training in that specific area using our Leading Students to Mastery professional

development system. Instructional coaches continued to monitor teacher and student progress,

and provided strategies for classroom management, differentiation, and content mastery.

Professional Development

Working with NWEA consultants, our teachers engaged in a series of professional

learning activities to improve formative assessment, data-analysis, and instructional design.

Ongoing professional development was conducted via the Leading Students to Mastery

platform. Targeted coaching and performance evaluations were used to improve learning

outcomes in classrooms that had a high number of students that were three or more grades


Page | 4

behind grade level. Phase 1 of response-to-intervention was implemented which is detailed in

Appendix B.

Data Analysis

In the 2014-15 school year, the State of Indiana switched to more rigorous college-and-career

readiness standards, so a new statewide assessment was used to measure those standards2.

We have included an analysis of student growth and proficiency using:

ISTEP+ Proficiency & Growth

Data from Sylvan Learning Center’s Program

ISTEP+ Proficiency & Growth

The growth to proficiency below is used to measure individual student growth and

award points for the observed growth of each student3.

Table 1. Observed Growth Values

2 DOE Compass. Retrieved from

https://compass.doe.in.gov/dashboard/overview.aspx?type=school&id=A307

3 Growth. https://www.doe.in.gov/accountability/growth

https://compass.doe.in.gov/dashboard/overview.aspx?type=school&id=A307

https://www.doe.in.gov/accountability/growth


Page | 5

Schools are awarded points for each student based upon their ISTEP+ scores. Low movement

describes students that had negative movement (they slid backward in one or more

performance categories). Standard movement describes students that are keeping up with

their peers. High movement describes students that are moving up and/or catching up. Tables

2-5 present Horizon’s growth during the 2016-17 school year.

Table 2. Grades 4-8 ELA (2016-17 School Year)

Eligible

Students

High

Movement

Standard

Movement Total

Growth

Percentage

Top 75% 119 25 13 38 31.9%

Bottom 25% 39 12 8 20 51.3%

Total 158 37 21 58 36.7%

Percentage 23.4% 13.3% 36.7%

Analysis. There were 158 students that were counted in Horizon’s English/Language

Arts growth scores. Of these students, 23.4% closed their learning gaps and caught up with

their peers around the State. In the standard movement category 13.3% kept up with their

peers and made significant progress. Interestingly, 51.3% of the students in the bottom 25%

showed growth, and most of these students were in the high movement category. The total

growth percentage for students in grades 4-8 during the 2016-17 school year was 36.7%

Table 3. Grades 4-8 Math (2016-17 School Year)

Eligible

Students

High

Movement

Standard

Movement Total

Growth

Percentage

Top 75% 119 15 17 32 26.9%

Bottom 25% 40 9 8 17 42.5%

Total 159 24 25 49 30.8%

Percentage 15.1% 15.7% 30.8%

Analysis. There were 159 students counted in Horizon’s math growth scores in for

students in grades 4-8. Of these students 15.1% closed their learning gaps and caught up with

their peers around the State. In the standard movement category 15.7% kept up with their

peers and made significant progress. It is worth noting that 42.5% of the students in the bottom

25% of scores improved, which shows that are intervention strategies are working for almost

half of our students that are the furthest behind. The total growth percentage for students in

grades 4-8 was 30.8%.


Page | 6

Table 4. Grade 10 ELA (2016-17 School Year)

Eligible

Students

High

Movement

Standard

Movement Total

Percentage

of students

Top 75% 15 1 7 8 53.3%

Bottom 25% 5 0 1 1 20.0%

Total 20 1 8 9 45.0%

Percentage 5.0% 40.0% 45.0%

Analysis. There were not many eligible students for the growth category in 2016-17

(there were 20 total). Only one student out of 20 caught up with their peers, while 8 students

showed significant progress, and kept up with their peers. About half of the 10th graders kept

up with students across the State of Indiana. Students in the top 75% of scores continued to

improve during the school year.

Table 5. Grade 10 Math (2016-17 School Year)

Eligible

Students

High

Movement

Standard

Movement Total

Growth

Percentage

Top 75% 15 5 7 12 80.0%

Bottom 25% 5 2 1 3 60.0%

Total 20 7 8 15 75.0%

Percentage 35.0% 40.0% 75.0%

Analysis. Horizon 10th graders had a good year in mathematics. Eighty percent of the

top 75 percent showed growth with 33.3% catching up with their peers. Sixty percent of the

bottom 25 percent showed growth. Fifteen out of the 20 eligible students (75%) improved their

scores over the course of the school year.

Sylvan Learning Center Data Analysis

Horizon brought in Sylvan Learning Center to provide intervention services for 32

students. Sylvan pulled students out of class during intervention and enrichment. Below, in

Tables 5-8, is the data reports that were provided by Sylvan Learning Center.

Here is a description of the scores that were compiled by Sylvan.

Percentile Score: a comparison of students against identical peers (I.e., other students in the same grade during the same time of the school year around the


Page | 7

country.) If a student’s percentile grade improves this is great as this “target” is always moving. Percentile Rank (PR) scores indicate the percentage of students in the same grade. For example, a Percentile Rank of 85 means that the student is performing at a level that exceeds 85% of other students in that grade at the same time of the year. PRs range from 1–99.

Scaled score: measures a student against what they should know. The scaled

scores provide a single scale for all students in grades 1 through 12, and ranges

from 0 to 1400. This score correlates to placement bands and content within the

Learning Progression of Sylvan Sync.

The pretest percentiles, pretest scaled scores, along with the final percentiles and scaled scores are found in the data tables below.

Table 6. Elementary Reading Intervention Results

Analysis. Of the 11 students that participated in the intervention, 10 of them improved

their percentile ranking. The average improvement was 22 percentile points. The scaled scores

improved by 73 points on average. Six students were in the 5th percentile or lower, and they

improved their reading percentiles by 18 points on average. Four elementary students

Student(Reading) Pretest Progress Pretest Progress Final Percentile Final Scaled

Percentile Percentile Scaled Scaled Percentile Growth Scaled Growth

Student 1 1 11 105 241 31 30 352 247

Student 2 14 39 251 370 33 19 361 110

Student 3 2 28 117 329 45 43 402 285

Student 4 2 13 182 328 5 3 261 79

Student 5 17 33 269 348 52 35 433 164

Student 6 49 80 400 559 94 45 725 325

Student 7 5 17 181 277 19 14 296 115

Student 8 13 47 320 494 57 44 546 226

Student 9 1 2 96 116 5 4 264 168

Student 10 43 43 466 473 33 -10 442 -24

Student 11 2 1 227 187 17 15 450 223

Ave 13.55 28.55 237.64 338.36 35.55 22.00 412.00 174.36

Min 1.00 1.00 96.00 116.00 5.00 -10.00 261.00 -24.00

Max 49.00 80.00 466.00 559.00 94.00 45.00 725.00 325.00

Sylvan Learning Center - Elementary School Reading


Page | 8

improved their scaled scores by over 100 points; and five of students improved their scaled

scores by over 200 points, meaning that they’ve closed their knowledge gaps significantly (an

improvement of 50 points on the scaled score is equivalent to approximately 3 months of

learning). So, a scale score improvement of 285 points is roughly the equivalent of 1 year of

progress. We had five elementary schools gain a year of proficiency over the course of the

intervention.

Table 7. Elementary School Math Intervention Results

I’m still waiting on the final Sylvan scores for elementary math. They will not be in until May

24th.

Table 8. Middle School Reading Intervention Results

Analysis. Of the 18 students that participated in the middle school reading intervention,

14 (78%) students improved their percentile ranking by 10 percentage points or more. The

average improvement of each students scaled score was 297 points, while the average

Pretest Progress Pretest Progress Final Percentile Final Scaled

Percentile Percentile Scaled Scaled Percentile Growth Scaled Growth

Student 1 35 60 618 835 68 33 919 301

Student 2 4 27 351 583 22 18 563 212

Student 3 1 2 86 296 5 4 377 291

Student 4 1 2 133 254 3 2 349 216

Student 5 1 10 197 450 45 44 718 521

Student 6 19 22 517 540 29 10 613 96

Student 7 1 28 230 650 45 44 843 613

Student 8 21 21 580 596 47 26 857 277

Student 9 5 15 418 541 19 14 590 172

Student 10 13 31 510 676 39 26 778 268

Student 11 2 19 319 583 56 54 914 595

Student 12 36 57 705 916 57 21 916 211

Student 13 24 41 607 782 57 33 940 333

Student 14 29 50 746 961 67 38 1204 458

Student 15 14 27 586 737 44 30 928 342

Student 16 45 35 906 839 57 12 1080 174

Student 17 1 3 340 415 2 1 408 68

Student 18 1 6 283 488 5 4 483 200

Ave 14.06 25.33 451.78 619.00 37.06 23.00 748.89 297.11

Min 1.00 2.00 86.00 254.00 2.00 1.00 349.00 68.00

Max 45.00 60.00 906.00 961.00 68.00 54.00 1204.00 613.00

Sylvan Learning Center - Middle School Reading

Student(Reading)


Page | 9

improvement for percentile ranking was 23 points. Every middle school student that

participated in the intervention improved their reading.

Table 9. Middle School Math Intervention Results

Analysis. All but one of the students in the math intervention program improved their

proficiency (approx. 95%). Fifteen of the students improved their percentile ranking by 10

points or more. The average scaled growth for the students was 141 points. The average scaled

score improvement was 141 which is approximately six months of academic progress made

over the course of four months.

Our Plan Moving Forward

Horizon will continue to improve in all areas the school. We have already begun

developing our intervention plan with local learning centers to provide our students with the

intervention and enrichment they need. We have an instructional designer on staff that will use

data from NWEA and Star Assessments to develop a differentiated and curriculum that meets

Pretest Progress Pretest Progress Final Percentile Final Scaled

Percentile Percentile Scaled Scaled Percentie Growth Scaled Growth

Student 1 43 78 725 822 82 39 840 115

Student 2 11 25 616 685 82 71 840 224

Student 3 2 3 509 539 6 4 597 88

Student 4 1 8 433 598 29 28 703 270

Student 5 3 25 522 679 78 75 826 304

Student 6 35 20 701 663 37 2 725 24

Student 7 13 13 645 650 49 36 789 144

Student 8 8 9 616 636 45 37 777 161

Student 9 8 10 611 641 56 48 801 190

Student 10 16 16 664 671 48 32 781 117

Student 11 7 16 607 671 83 76 882 275

Student 12 11 35 638 735 64 53 817 179

Student 13 56 40 791 753 56 0 753 -38

Student 14 71 71 828 835 83 12 886 58

Student 15 49 67 801 855 79 30 903 102

Student 16 16 33 687 758 54 38 828 141

Student 17 18 18 694 703 44 26 797 103

Student 18 1 2 470 537 10 9 659 189

Student 19 29 59 737 833 39 10 780 43

Ave 20.95 28.84 647.11 698.11 53.89 32.95 788.63 141.53

Min 1 2 433 537 6 0 597 -38

Max 71 78 828 855 83 76 903 304

Sylvan Learning Center - Middle School Math

Student/Math


Page | 10

state standards. This was the first year that we implemented school-wide data-driven

initiatives, and we will continue to have professional development workshops to ensure that

are our teachers implement the program with fidelity. We are all set to launch our summer

tutoring program to help students beat the “summer slide” and get caught up in math, reading,

and language arts.

We appreciate the time that you have taken to review our request to waive or delay

consequences. Based upon our willingness to accept all children regardless of their academic or

behavioral background, along with our current efforts to nullify the impact of various risk

factors, we believe that our school has demonstrated significant growth. We understand the

gravity of your decision, and we hope that these documents have helped paint a clearer picture

of the amazing progress that is being made at Horizon Christian Academy.

Sincerely,

Dr. Tammy Henline

Superintendent and Principal

Horizon Christian Academy

Attachments:

Appendix A – Teacher Observation Form

Appendix B – Horizon Instructional System

Appendix C – Student Videos

Appendix D – Student Letters

Appendix A

Teacher Observation Form

Teacher _________________________ Date____________________________

Grade Level______________________ Subject__________________________

Observer________________________ # of Students_____________________

Instructions: Use the form while observing a teacher give a lesson. All items under each number DO NOT need to be marked. Provide a rating for each category (1 – Not

evident, 2 – slightly evident, 3 – meets the standard, 4 – above the standard, 5 – excellent)

1. Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction are Evident

Learners are engaged in solving real-world problems

Existing knowledge has been activated as a foundation for new knowledge

New knowledge is demonstrated to the learner

New knowledge is applied by the learner

New knowledge is integrated into the learner’s world

Rating: _____

2. Use of Instructional Materials and Techniques

Use of variety of materials suitable to objectives

Techniques provided for differences in learning styles and abilities

Say, See, Do Teaching

Direct instruction

Structured practice

Visual Instructional Plans are displayed during guided and individual practice

Social learning

Peer teaching Rating: _____

3. Student/Educator Interaction

Student participation is encouraged

Positive educator response to questions and comments

Feedback accepted and used to modify lesson

Question at various levels of thinking skills

Appropriate wait time after questions

Students treated in equitable manner

Rating: _____

4. Academic Learning/Time-on-Task

Plans and materials provide for smooth transitions

Pacing maintains student involvement, interest, and functional level

Sufficient direct instruction time given to content or skill learning

Students prepared to successfully perform a task

Educator promotes on task behavior in group/individual activities

Rating: _____

5. Behavior Management Evidence of discipline system and a

set of procedures

Fair and consistent management of system

Encourages positive behavior

Controls negative behavior

Uses praise, proximity, mobility, contracting, etc.

Teacher controls their emotions and actions

Rating: _____

6. Climate for Learning

Friendly, accepting, and encouraging (Voice, tone, facial expression, humor, etc.)

Functional classroom (i.e. arrangement, work space, convenience of materials, visual cues for procedures)

Attractive and stimulating environment

Productive and enthusiastic students

Rating: _____

7. Monitoring Student Progress During and After Lesson

Oral and written response to monitor each student’s progress toward learning objectives

Adjustment of instruction as needed based on feedback

Recording of student progress by ongoing and end of unit sampling

Feedback from recorded data is provided to students and parents (may be added during post-observation)

Rating: _____

8. Overall Instructional Planning

Planning evident in selection and implementation of objectives, activities and materials

Lesson is logical part of ongoing unit, related to past and future lessons

Evidence of long-term planning shown in written plans or discussed in conference

Organization of events in logical sequence for instruction

Instructional planning meets varied needs of learners.

Rating: _____

Appendix B – Horizon Instructional System

Horizon Christian Academy Instructional System

School-wide Learning Targets

Endurance – throughout life

Leverage – value in multiple areas

Necessity – success at the next level

Set weekly classroom goals

Lesson planning/Instructional design

Tier 1 Program (Core Instruction)

60-80 minutes daily (math, reading, &

language arts)

Research-based instruction

Scaffolded; differentiated

15-20 minutes with each group

Daily formative assessment

Progress monitoring & analysis

Revise instructional strategy

Enrichment

Strengthen each standard

Students complete tasks at higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy

Tier 2 Intervention

2-3 days/week

30 min. sessions

Groups of 3-6

Personalized Plans

Progress monitoring

Weekly Spiral Review

Based MAP Skills results

Based on formative assessment data

Class-level Summative Assessments

Chapter & Unit levels

Quarter & Semester

State-mandated Assessments

ISTEP+

IREAD (3rd grade)

WIDA (English Language Learners)

ISTAR

Tier 3 Intervention

Daily for 30 minutes

1-2 students

Ideally 1 to 1

Bottom 1-2%

District Level Assessments

MAP Skills (formative)

MAP Growth (summative)

Standards Biblical

Perspective

Teachers NWEA

Teacher Training &

Evaluation

Fail

Fail Pass

Pass

Pass

Revise

instruction

Revise

instruction

Appendix C – Student Videos

Student Video 1

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CUacu5E7RtpO4WIe1QbIkVLvsPGJh-ce

Student Video 2

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1SqLKfAaFvcCvxfpeeCKyMQuWLQ6gB9wz

Student Video 3

https://drive.google.com/open?id=10aJ4kjqBvnTlTxBZNoeTKkkF-ksN8Ph2

Student Video 4

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1eYboC8Pz8fgVPcpVdyuYtrRzM4Vy_uDW

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CUacu5E7RtpO4WIe1QbIkVLvsPGJh-ce

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1SqLKfAaFvcCvxfpeeCKyMQuWLQ6gB9wz

https://drive.google.com/open?id=10aJ4kjqBvnTlTxBZNoeTKkkF-ksN8Ph2

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1eYboC8Pz8fgVPcpVdyuYtrRzM4Vy_uDW

i state board of education horizon waiver request.pdfschool years and an f for the 2016-2017 school...

Documents