3:00 p.m. in the Art Room
Thanks: Thanks to Tonya Wampler and Cheryl Roeder for the excellent refreshments.
Five Star School Update: Vicki Brewer reported that she thinks we are on track with our Five Star School requirements. Presently we have 20 business partners, an increase over last year. She would like documentation for parent education programs held at or sponsored by the school during this school year. She or Mrs. Bruns will notify any individual or team about information and/or documentation that will be required for the school portfolio.
Upcoming Report to the School Board: Ginny reported that Englewood Elementary is scheduled to make a status of school improvement report to the members of the School Board in November, 2003. There is plenty of time to plan. SAC representatives should discuss the upcoming campus visit with their teams and report back on their suggestions and ideas. The SAC discussed some possibilities and agreed that plans should not be too elaborate. One suggestion was to give the School Board members a thorough tour of our facility additions and changes followed by a brief video or still picture “tour” of our student performance information, etc.
Student Performance Reports: The past few meetings have centered on SAC members familiarizing themselves with the data available for analyzing student performance as a needs assessment for further school improvement. At this meeting we reviewed the results of the analysis done by each analysis group. Those reporting were Tonya Wampler for Math, Sue Vandal for Reading, and Anne Talbott-Wycoff for Writing. Please share this information with your teams for their response, feedback, etc.
Math (summary of
report)
·
Grade 3:
o Using an average of two years of student performance (2000-01 and 2001-02), student performance was 5.5% below the district
o Total population scores reflect a 6% to 13% improvement from one year to the next, but still below the district.
o Male and female students performed above the state benchmark in 2002; the low income subgroup was 3 percentage points below the benchmark
·
Grade 4
o The overall district trend shows student math performance scores improving over the past 2 years, however Englewood shows a downward trend in student performance.
o Female and low income students performed above the district average.
o Male students and other subgroups performed below the average.
·
Grade 5
o All populations showed an improvement in 2001 and 2002 (8% – 19%). However, performance scores remain below the state benchmark except for 2002 females.
o Comparing Grades 3, 4, and 5, student performance from 5th grade shows the largest negative gap in performance as a whole when compared to the district.
·
Strengths
o Female student performance scores were generally higher.
o Grades 3 and 4 improved overall scores from 2001 to 2002.
·
Concerns
o 17% of all Englewood ESE students scored level 3 and above in Math as compared to a district average of 32%; The state benchmark is 70%, significantly above our ESE student performance.
o Grade 5 did not meet the state benchmark for math test performance in 2001 or 2002.
o Males in grades 3 through 5 did were 2% below the benchmark; females were 2% above.
Reading (summary of report)
·
Grade 3
o For 2002 testing, Englewood 3rd grade students performed above the district and above the state benchmark in all subgroups.
§ Standard E.E.S. 90% District 78%
§ White E.E.S. 92% District 83%
§ Male E.E.S. 91% District 79%
§ Female E.E.S. 90% District 77%
§ Low Income E.E.S. 90% District 65%
·
Grade 4
o Students in Grade 4 for 2002 testing showed a decline in performance from Grade 3 in all subgroups. They scored below the district average and below the state benchmark of 70%.
§ Standard E.E.S. 65% District 74% 2001 Grade 3 Performance 74%
§ White E.E.S. 65% District 79% 2001 Grade 3 Performance 73%
§ Male E.E.S. 64% District 79% 2001 Grade 3 Performance 77%
§ Female E.E.S. 67% District 76% 2001 Grade 3 Performance 72%
§ Low Income E.E.S. 59% District 60% 2001 Grade 3 Performance 64%
·
Grade 5
o Students in Grade 5 for 2002 testing stayed either static or showed a slight decline in performance from Grade 4, depending on the subgroup. They scored above the district average and the state benchmark in some subgroups.
§ Standard E.E.S. 77% District 74% 2001 Grade 4 Performance 77%
§ White E.E.S. 77% District 79% 2001 Grade 4 Performance 77%
§ Male E.E.S. 66% District 73% 2001 Grade 4 Performance 67%
§ Female E.E.S. 85% District 75% 2001 Grade 4 Performance 85%
§ Low Income E.E.S. 67% District 59% 2001 Grade 4 Performance 72%
·
Annual Learning Goals
o Based on performance of students in Grade 4 and Grade 5 and retained students in Grade 3, Englewood students performed below the district average in all subgroups except females and below the state benchmark of 85%. (*Philippi Shores has similar demographics to Englewood)
§ Standard E.E.S. 64% District 67%
§ White E.E.S. 64% District 68%
§ Male E.E.S. 59% District 67%
§ Female E.E.S. 68% District 67%
§ Low Income E.E.S. 58% District 61% *Phillippi Shores 66%
§ ESE E.E.S. 42% District 53% *Phillippi Shores 48%
o Suggestion: compare and identify students who are in all three or two of three of the lower performing groups --- i.e. Male / Low Income / ESE
·
Strengths
o Third Grade 12% above district for standard curriculum students and above district average and state benchmark in all subgroups.
o Fifth Grade above district for standard curriculum students, female students and low income students and above state benchmark for standard curriculum, white, and female students.
·
Concerns
o Male students and ESE students averaged scores at 10% below the district
o There was a drop in performance scores from Grade 3 performance (2001) to Grade 4 performance (2002) in all areas with scores below the district.
o There was no demonstration of performance growth from Grade 4 performance (2001) to Grade 5 performance (2002)
Writing (summary of report)
·
Strengths
o Narrative
§ 57% of Grade 4 students scored a 3.5 or higher, a gain of 11% over the previous year.
§ 2002 males outscored 2001 males by 26%
§ 67% of 2002 low income students scored a 3.5 or higher, a gain of 11% over the previous year.
§ Males and females scored with little deviation in 2002
o Expository
§ 43% of low income students scored 3.5% or higher, a 14% increase of 2001
·
Concerns
o Overall, E.E.S. scores are below the district average in both narrative and expository writing scores.
§ 2001 Narrative E.E.S. 46% District 64%
§ 2001 Expository E.E.S. 50% District 68%
§ 2002 Narrative E.E.S. 57% District 70%
§ 2002 Expository E.E.S. 45% District 60%
o In both testing years (2001 and 2002) males scored below females
Reminder: The next SAC meeting will be on
Wednesday, April at 3:00 p.m. in the
Art Room. Refreshments for the
meeting will be provided by Barb Walker.