keystone oaks school district middle school
DESCRIPTION
Keystone Oaks School District Middle School. Keith Konyk Principal. Background—Keystone Oaks. A suburban district south of Pittsburgh bordering Pittsburgh, Mt Lebanon & Chartiers Valley Includes the communities of Castle Shannon, Dormont & Green Tree - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Keith KonykPrincipal
Background—Keystone OaksA suburban district south of Pittsburgh bordering Pittsburgh, Mt Lebanon & Chartiers Valley
Includes the communities of Castle Shannon, Dormont & Green Tree
2,175 students in 5 buildings (3 elementary schools, 1 middle school and 1 high school)
Strong history of making AYP (with one exception)
My SituationNew Principal—Started 10 days before school
Lean administrative staff—me and me!Middle School covers grades 6 thru 8 and shares staff with the adjoining High School
My primary administrative contact left in mid-year
Middle School had not made AYP for the past four years!!
Some AdvantagesDedicated staff—they wanted to do well and make AYPGood data system (EdInsight Data Window) but too many staff members did not know how to use it
Outside technical assistance—Partnership for School District Improvement (PSDI)
Focus AreasEmphasis on dataEligible content emphasisSmaller class sizesMore time in math and language artsP
PSSA coaches in math and reading
Tutoring
Math Results for Four YearsAll Students (% Adv/Prof)
Math 2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
Grade 6
66.0% 66.1% 78.0% 85.1%
Grade 7
70.6% 72.6% 75.0% 84.1%
Grade 8
58.2% 69.9% 70.9% 83.3%Source: EdInsight Data WindowNote: Data includes all tested students—may not exactly match AYP data
Reading Results for Four YearsAll Students (% Adv/Prof)Reading 2006-
20072007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
Grade 6
69.1% 69.5% 67.1% 74.2%
Grade 7
65.4% 71.6% 64.1% 76.9%
Grade 8
82.5% 84.4% 84.5% 84.9%Source: EdInsight Data WindowNote: Data includes all tested students—may not exactly match AYP data
Math Results for Four YearsIEP Students (% Adv/Prof)
Math 2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
Grade 6
8.7% 0.0% 40.0% 57.9%
Grade 7
15.8% 25.9% 34.8% 60.0%
Grade 8
18.8% 15.0% 18.5% 57.1%Source: EdInsight Data WindowNote: Data includes all tested students—may not exactly match AYP data
Math Results for Four YearsIEP Students (% Adv/Prof)
Math 2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
Grade 6
8.7% 0.0% 40.0% 57.9%
Grade 7
15.8% 25.9% 34.8% 60.0%
Grade 8
18.8% 15.0% 18.5% 57.1%Source: EdInsight Data WindowNote: Data includes all tested students—may not exactly match AYP data
Reading Results for Four YearsIEP Students (% Adv/Prof)Reading 2006-
20072007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
Grade 6
21.7% 15.8% 20.0% 30.4%
Grade 7
10.5% 33.3% 21.7% 26.3%
Grade 8
43.8% 42.9% 37.0% 63.2%Source: EdInsight Data WindowNote: Data includes all tested students—may not exactly match AYP data
PSSA Improvement—IEP Students
Grade and Subject
Increase in Adv/Prof
Grade 6 Reading 10/4%Grade 7 Reading 4.7%Grade 8 Reading 26.2%Grade 6 Math 17.9%Grade 7 Math 25.2%Grade 8 Math 38.6%
We Made Math AYP Targets with our Special Education Subgroup Outright!
Our Focus: DataWithout data all we have is an opinion
Data rarely answers questions but it almost always raises questions!
In God We Trust—All others bring data
Don’t fix the blame—fix the problem
Started Over with 4Sight DataTrained teachers in using the EdInsight Data Window to get data
Trained teachers on open-ended scoringDissected the grade level item analysis data from PSDI—focus on eligible content
Examined the individual student item analysis on Edinsight
Shared the data with studentsFocused on bubble student weak areasHeld special sessions with IEP teachers
Developed and Followed A PlanGetting Results process helpedCurriculum alignmentPSSA coachesDouble periods—more time on taskTutoring/Study IslandConstant analysis of data—eligible content and student level
Identified at-risk kids and provided supports for them
Included the Entire StaffEveryone examined the PVAAS, PSSA and 4Sight data
All major disciplines analyzed 4Sight data during in-service days and late start days
Adopt-an-anchor program involved every teacher
Increased communication and collaboration
Involved the StudentsShared the data with them—discussed progress and areas requiring improvement and set goals
Explained the importance of the test
Developed incentives and rewardsGrouped kids during testing daysProvided calculator trainingLots of “open-ended” practice
Leadership Is ImportantPrincipal participated in every training session
Assistant Superintendent an active participant
Superintendent spent time on major inservice days
Collaboration time was provided for teachers