Kroc Middle School Restructuring Plan, 2006–2007: Key Elements * 1. Principal Challenges a. How to improve schoolwide academic performance and the performance of all significant subgroups of students. In particular: – How to improve the performance of English learners and students with disabilities in English language arts and mathematics. How to help students sustain gains made in English and mathematics as they move to a higher grade level. How to help students stalled at the Basic level of proficiency on the CST to achieve proficiency while also supporting students scoring at the Far Below Basic and Below Basic levels. e. Inclusion of students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment. f. Participation in the Madison Community of Schools, to improve students’ academic performance and encourage enrollment of local students. Pgs. 29, 30 g. Implementation of a focused discipline policy, including a character education component. Pgs. 14, 31, 32, 35 h. Enrichment and expansion of the music program. Pgs. 32, 33 b. How to improve the timely acquisition of English by English learners. c. How to create a sense of community among students and families, almost 50 percent of whom reside outside Kroc’s geographical boundaries. d. How to encourage and facilitate parent participation in their children’s education.
– –
2. Current Effective Practices to be Integrated into the Kroc Restructuring Plan a. Instruction focused clearly on State academic standards.
b. Regular meetings of administrators and staff to monitor the progress of struggling students and adjust instruction as necessary. Pg. 15 c. Professional development that focuses on the needs of English learners and students with disabilities. Pg. 15
d. Use of a block schedule, to provide more instructional time and more time for teacher planning and collaboration. Pg. 15 3. Key Proposals a. Reconfigure Kroc as a grades 6–8 middle school, in 2007–2008, to provide a comprehensive middle school curriculum and increase parent involvement. Pgs. 17, 18
b. Add a weekly minimum day to the schedule, to support identified academic interventions by providing the time necessary for teacher planning and collaboration.; end full school day later. Pgs. 20, 21 c. Create interdisciplinary teaching teams of core content and physical education teachers, each team to serve a common set of 90–120 students and their families. Pgs. 21, 22
f. Provide professional development for all teachers to help them improve their teaching practices, to support students to become proficient in reading, writing, listening and speaking in all content areas. Pgs. 24, 25 g. Establish a parent and community involvement subcommittee, to enhance and increase opportunities for involvement and improve Kroc’s image. Pgs. 26, 27 h. Add a bilingual (English-Spanish) parent involvement and community outreach (PICO) coordinator to the staff, to implement a parent academic support plan. Pgs. 28, 29 i. j. Implement a cultural diversity plan, to educate the Kroc staff on the cultural backgrounds of their students. Pgs. 30, 31 Establish a Program Improvement Oversight Committee, representing all stakeholders, to oversee implementation of the Kroc restructuring plan and recommend mid-course corrections as needed. Pgs. 37, 38
d. Add four resource teachers—two in literacy and two in mathematics—to work directly with students in small groups, to improve learning outcomes and to plan collaborative work for teachers on minimum days. Pgs. 22, 23, 35 e. Provide daily academic support classes for all students, to help students achieve proficiency on the CST, and enrichment classes, for students who have achieved proficiency. Pg. 23
4. Priority Resources Required and Projected Costs a. 5 CPUs (3 block schedule, 1 literacy resource, 1 math resource teachers) Pgs.18, 19, 22, 23, 35 $354,967 c. 1 clerk, front office bilingual (classified) Pg. 27 e. Curriculum and technology tools for Academic Support Classes (reading, writing, mathematics) Pg. 23 $36,528 $75,000
b. 1 community assistant I, bilingual (classified) Pg. 28 $39,852 5. Additional Requests a. c. Priority staffing for all new positions at Kroc. Provision of additional requested staffing for a minimum of three years.
b. Transfer without prejudice of current staff who cannot commit to Kroc’s restructuring plan. d. Explore application of current funding for EDRP/EDMP to school-day Academic Support Classes instead.
*
Please see the complete text of the Proposal to Restructure Ray A. Kroc Middle School for background and supporting information.
Kroc Middle School at a Glance Kroc School Student Population at a Glance, 2005–2006
Number of Students Resident Students Students, Grade 7 Students, Grade 8 Special Education Students English Learners
690 362 287 344 142
Ethnic/Racial Representation Hispanic White African American Other (including Indochinese, Filipino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American) Meal Program Eligibility 44.5% 28.3% 13.8% 13.4%
Parents Who Are High School Graduates 1 Average Attendance, 2004– 2005 Stability Rate, 2003–2004 Mobility Index, 2003–2004 Suspensions (Number), 2004–2005 Suspensions (Rate), 2004– 2005
60.9% 94.19% 90.3 19.9 208
156 2
57.9% 3
26.0
Kroc School, 2005 Adequate Yearly Progress Summary, with 2003–2004 Comparisons English Language Arts Group 4 AMO 5 % Proficient 6 33.9 24.3 48.8 33.3 28.8 15.7 11.4 2005 Met AMO Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No 2004 2003 AMO Mathematics % Proficient 33 25.8 41.3 31.7 26.2 23.9 12.2 2005 Met AMO Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 7 Yes 8 No 2004 2003
Schoolwide Hispanic White African American Economically Disadvantaged English Learners Students with Disabilities
24.4% 24.4% 24.4% 24.4% 24.4% 24.4% 24.4%
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
26.5% 26.5% 26.5% 26.5% 26.5% 26.5% 26.5%
Yes No Yes No No No No
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Kroc Middle School, English Learners’ Timely Acquisition of English, 2002–2005
BELOW EXPECTATIONS Year 2001–2002 2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006 (unofficial) Kroc 80.3% 84.4% 85.0% 86.9% 81.25% District 65.8% 73.2% 83.3% 69.9% N/A
MET OR EXCEEDED EXPECTATIONS Kroc 19.7% 15.6% 15.0% 13.1% 18.75% District 34.2% 26.8% 16.7% 30.1% N/A
1
2 3 4 5
6 7
8
In a self-report by 77.2 percent of Kroc parents of students who took the 2005 STAR tests regarding their education levels, 24.1 percent of parents of all students tested reported having graduated from high school and an additional 36.8 percent reported having participated in formal education beyond high school. January 2006 information. 2004–2005 data. Schoolwide and numerically significant subgroups only. Annual Measurable Objective expressed as a percentage of a school’s students who are required to meet or exceed proficiency in order to meet schoolwide and subgroup targets. Percentage of students who scored at or above the proficient level. Passed by Safe Harbor, an alternate measure of meeting the AMO. When a subgroup increases the percentage of students scoring at or above Proficient by at least 10 percent, the subgroup is considered to have met its target even though it did not meet the designated annual measurable objective. Passed by Safe Harbor.