2015-16 Annual Report

 

Embed or link this publication

Description

Annual report

Popular Pages


p. 1

2015-16 Annual Report on Curriculum, Instruction, and Student Achievement MN Charter School District #4070 Maychy Vu, Director 720 Payne Avenue Saint Paul MN 55130 Phone: (651) 796-4500 Fax: (651) 796-4599 Email: maychyvu@hope-school.org Prepared by Designs for Learning, Inc. 2233 University Avenue West., Suite 450 Saint Paul, MN 55114 Phone: (651) 645-0200 Fax: (651) 645-0240 Email: aadelmann@designlearn.net

[close]

p. 2

Table of Contents Executive Summary......................................................................................................... 3 Academic Goals .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Program Highlights ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 HOPE Academic Program................................................................................................ 5 Mission and Vision ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Mission Statement........................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 HOPE Community Academy Addresses the Purposes for Charter Schools ............................................................................................. 5 Accountability Plan Data ................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Hmong Language & Culture Program ..........................................................................................................................................................12 Special Needs Populations Academic Expectations ..................................................................................................................................12 School Specific Academic Goals....................................................................................................................................................................13 Non-Academic Goals ..................................................................................................................................................................................14 Summer Programming ......................................................................................................................................................................................14 Parent Involvement............................................................................................................................................................................................14 Curriculum............................................................................................................................................................................................................15 Scheduling ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................17 Professional Development and Teacher Evaluation...................................................................................................................................17 Teacher Evaluation.......................................................................................................................................................................................18 Innovative Practices, New Initiatives, and Future Plans.............................................................................................................................18 New Initiatives Undertaken During 2015/16.............................................................................................................................................18 Future Plans ........................................................................................................................................................................................................19 HOPE Governance and Operations............................................................................... 20 Teaching ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................20 Management and Administration ..................................................................................................................................................................21 Director’s Professional Development Plan ...................................................................................................................................................22 School Enrollment and Admissions..................................................................................................................................................................22 Community Connections and Partnerships....................................................................................................................................................23 HOPE Community Academy Board Member Information 2015-16 / 2016-17.................................................................................25 Finances ........................................................................................................................ 25 Overview.............................................................................................................................................................................................................27 Revenues..............................................................................................................................................................................................................27 Expenses..............................................................................................................................................................................................................27 Net Income and Fund Balance........................................................................................................................................................................27 HOPE Community Academy Annual Report for 2015-16 Page 2

[close]

p. 3

Executive Summary This report provides the University of Saint Thomas, families of HOPE Community Academy (HOPE), and the general public with information describing the progress of HOPE and its students during the school’s thirteenth year of operation. This is the first year of a three-year authorizer contract with the University of St. Thomas. The key findings are as follows: Academic Goals HOPE’s academic goals and indicators are defined in its contract with its authorizer, the University of St. Thomas. There were three Academic Goals, focusing on Adequate Yearly Progress; the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments; and the Measures of Academic Progress.  Adequate Yearly Progress Results for 2016 show HOPE Community Academy meeting targets in Participation and Attendance, but not for all student groups in Reading and Math Proficiency. In the All Students group, HOPE met their AYP target in Reading via the Safe Harbor adjustment and was below their target in Math by 7.42 points. In Reading Proficiency, the Limited English Proficient and Special Education groups were below the target. In Mathematics Proficiency the All, Asian, Free/Reduced, LEP and Special Education groups were below the target.  On the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCA’s), 30% of continuously enrolled HOPE students scored proficient in Reading, as did 34.5% in math.  MCA growth data shows that in mathematics; 25.3% of students tested demonstrated high growth from 2015 to 2016; 37.3% demonstrated medium growth, and only 37.4% low growth. In Reading, 23.7% of students tested demonstrated high growth on this measure; 41.8% medium growth; and only 34.5% low growth.  On the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) assessments, just 33% of HOPE grades 3-8 students tested at or above the national median for reading in the spring, as did 39% in math. However, a comparison of fall to spring results shows that of students who tested both times, 52% met or exceeded their Growth Projections in Reading, as did 58% in Mathematics. MAP norms are constructed such that nationwide, 50% of students meet Growth Projections, so HOPE exceeded the national comparison group on this measure, in both subjects.  When HOPE Community Academy’s Limited-English-Proficient (LEP) and non-LEP students were compared regarding the proportion meeting and not meeting growth projections on the MAP, more of the non-LEP students met their growth projections in Reading. LEP students score higher in Mathematics than non-LEP students. See Table 9 for details. Program Highlights  Math and reading/literacy instruction scheduled for an additional time daily in all grades: Students have 90 to 120 minutes of reading/literacy time, and 90-100 minutes of math daily. Math and reading are the areas of focus of HOPE Community Academy’s Record of Continuous Improvement which continue to be updated in an improvement planning and implementation process supported by specialists from the state of Minnesota’s Regional Centers of Excellence. o Plan-Do-Study-Act sequences were identified, for implementation in each subject area, which supports the school’s goals of increasing the proportion of students proficient in reading and math. o The implementation of Think Pair Share and Guided Reading was very successful. o Lexia Reading was implemented throughout the school during 2015/16.  HOPE continues to enjoy strong community support; community partners assist with some initiatives including providing tutors, who are an important resource to support student learning at HOPE. HOPE Community Academy Annual Report for 2015-16 Page 3

[close]

p. 4

 For the 2015/16 school year, HOPE extended the school day to 4:00 pm Mondays through Thursdays, to provide additional learning time for all students (on Fridays, school ended at 2:30). The after-school program was dropped, but enrichment activities were incorporated into the school day in place of this. For 16/17 the schedule will be the same Monday – Friday.  HOPE hired a full-time Program Development Coordinator for the 2015/16 school year; this position has the following responsibilities: Development of Community Partnerships and Outreach, the Hmong Language and Culture program, Student Recruitment and Marketing, Parent Involvement. o The Parent Education program began in March of 2016. During this six-week program, we provide discussion and training on assisting student learning at home, supporting homework and school projects, planning for high school and college, accessing scholarship funds, and visits to college campuses. The goal of this program is to connect parents and school administrators and support the academics of families and students.  HOPE’s music and art programs include three music and art concerts throughout the school year.  During 2015-16 HOPE administration reviewed all student files and streamlined the student information filing systems. While completing this process, we identified two new software programs which will be influential in serving our students more comprehensively. We have purchased ELLevation and ViewPoint for use during the 2016/17 school year. ELLevation (http://ellevationeducation.com/) enables our teachers to take a detailed look at our EL students’ progress, accommodations, and current status. ViewPoint (http://viewpoint.technology.cmerdc.org/#&panel1-1) will allow HOPE to coordinate the EL data, JMC data, and discipline data in one place. Utilizing a comprehensive system model to consolidate date and make it easily accessible will greatly improve our ability to gather a whole picture of each student and their unique needs. HOPE Community Academy Annual Report for 2015-16 Page 4

[close]

p. 5

HOPE Academic Program Mission and Vision The Hmong Open Partnerships in Education (HOPE) Community Academy is a Saint Paul charter school which serves urban students in grades K-8. HOPE emphasizes a rigorous academic foundation with mastery of fundamental and higher-order thinking skills to prepare students for life-long learning. HOPE also instills Hmong and American values in their students. Mission Statement The mission of HOPE Community Academy is to provide students in grades K-8 with a rigorous academic foundation, focusing on the mastery of fundamental and higher-order thinking skills that prepare them for lifelong learning, while instilling in them the finest Hmong and American values. HOPE Community Academy provides quality instruction in core curriculum areas, to provide the solid academic foundation called for in the mission. Our teachers strive for excellence and are working with consultants from Minnesota’s Regional Centers of Excellence to create a Record of Continuous Improvement which identifies strategies for improving the effectiveness of instruction in specific core academic areas. Other elements of HOPE’s efforts to live up to the school mission and vision include:  In addition to our K-8 classroom instruction of core curriculum, we have licensed teachers in the areas of Hmong language, Library, Computer Applications, Music, Art, and Physical Education. Our Middle School teachers are licensed to teach in their specific content areas. Media and Technology instruction is integrated into each content area.  HOPE partners with other organizations to supplement our students' learning. The East Side Learning Center continues to provide on-site, one-on-one tutoring for our primary students. Summer School offerings are provided in collaboration with St. Paul Public Schools.  A year-round, co-ed Athletic program encourages physical fitness and team building amongst students. HOPE Community Academy Addresses the Purposes for Charter Schools The primary purpose of charter schools in Minnesota is to improve pupil learning and student achievement. HOPE Community Academy strives to do this through the provision of a rigorous academic program with high expectations, as described throughout this report. See, in particular, the Accountability Plan Data section for evidence of success in improving pupil learning; and the Innovative Practices, New Initiatives, and Future Plans section for discussion of improvement initiatives currently underway. Of the five additional purposes for charter schools in Minnesota, HOPE Community Academy is currently focusing strongly on the one to measure learning outcomes and create different and innovative forms of measuring outcomes. HOPE has established common assessments at each grade level, depending on students’ reading level; and teachers analyze data from these assessments, using it to inform instruction. Also, HOPE Community Academy’s updated Record of Continuous Improvement specifies instructional strategies now being implemented schoolwide, which include innovative processes for measurement of learning outcomes. There are two instructional strategies: using questioning to extend student thinking (employed in both reading and math); and Gradual Release (“I do,” “We do,” “You do”) in reading. Both strategies include a Plan-Do-Study-Act sequence; the Study element specifies innovative strategies to measure outcomes. In the case of the questioning to extend student thinking, Professional Learning Community (PLC) teams study student outcomes weekly based on sample lessons, then identify and schedule student intervention HOPE Community Academy Annual Report for 2015-16 Page 5

[close]

p. 6

groups based on benchmark percent of mastery data. In the alignment of curricula to the state standards, the PLC teams discuss the use of standards as a baseline; utilize a Data Day to examine common benchmark assessment results, and identify and schedule student intervention groups based on benchmark percent of mastery data. See the Innovative Practices, New Initiatives, and Future Plans section below for details. Accountability Plan Data HOPE Community Academy’s Accountability Plan for 2014/15 remained the same as for the previous year. The Accountability Plan includes three sets of Academic Goals with multiple measurements and indicators of success, as well as two Non-Academic Goals, which are summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1: HOPE Accountability Plan Academic Goals AYP Goal: HOPE Community Academy students will meet the requirements of AYP under the No Child Left Behind Act MCA-II Goal Series:  Proficiency: UST-authorized charter schools should perform as well as or better than the state, the district where the school, resides, and schools with comparable demographics  Growth: Student growth on the MCA-II over time is at least comparable to growth of students in the state, the district, and schools with comparable demographics NWEA Goal Series:  National Median: UST- authorized schools should perform better than the national median  RIT Growth: UST-authorized schools have students that grow at the same rate or better than at least 50 percent of the schools tested nationally Special Needs Populations Academic Expectations: For special education or English Measurements State-determined annual Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments-Series II (MCA’s): Reading and Mathematics (Grades 3-8 for Proficiency; Grades 4-8 for Growth) Northwest Evaluation Association’s Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) assessments in Reading and Mathematics (Grades 2-8) Northwest Evaluation Association’s Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) as- Indicators of Success Meeting AYP in all areas (Participation and Proficiency for Reading and Mathematics; Attendance)  Proficiency: Percent of students that meet or exceed expectations compared to the average: o Statewide o In the resident district o In comparable schools  Growth: o Percent of students that made low, medium, and high growth o Percent of students who are proficient with medium and high growth and not proficient with high growth compared to the percent of students in the same groups:  Statewide  In the resident district  In comparable schools  National Median: Percent at or above national medians (at least 50% to meet target)  RIT Growth: Percent meeting RIT growth projection1 (at least 50% to meet target)  Participation: Number and percent who completed fall and spring MAP tests in each category 1 Language in the Accountability Plan references “growth goals;” however, with the change to 2011 norms, NWEA now uses the term “projection” for the typical RIT score growth amount. HOPE Community Academy Annual Report for 2015-16 Page 6

[close]

p. 7

Academic Goals Learner student populations, if either exceeds 20% of the school’s total student population. School Specific Academic Goals Non-Academic Goals Attendance: Each school will meet or exceed its attendance rate goal for Adequate Yearly Progress Parent Satisfaction: Each school shall survey its parents annually and report on the level of parent satisfaction with the school. Measurements sessments in Reading and Mathematics (Grades 2-8) Specific to the goal Measurements Attendance rate for the school year ((ADA/ADM)*100) Parent survey results Indicators of Success  RIT Growth: Percent meeting RIT growth projection, compared to other students Specific to the goal Indicators of Success Percent-of-attendance more than 90% or improves by at least 0.1% over the previous year At least 80% of parents surveyed are satisfied with the school The Goals and Indicators are stated below, along with HOPE academic results data from the 2014/15 school year. The indicators for each goal are organized into a four-point rubric, scored as: 4 – Exceeds standard 3 – Meets Standard 2 – Approaching standard 1 – Does not meet standard. AYP Goal: HOPE Community Academy students will meet the requirements of AYP under the No Child Left Behind Act as established by federal and state law. Failure to meet AYP for three consecutive years will automatically result in the school being placed on intervention with the University of St. Thomas. o Adequate Yearly Progress Results for 2016 show HOPE Community Academy meeting targets in Participation and Attendance, but not for all student groups in Reading and Math Proficiency. In the All Students group, HOPE met their AYP target in Reading via the Safe Harbor adjustment and was below their target in Math by 7.42 points. In Reading Proficiency, the Limited English Proficient and Special Education groups were below the target. In Mathematics Proficiency the All, Asian, Free/Reduced, LEP and Special Education groups were below the target. Note: Under the state’s waiver of federal Title I requirements, the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) system is being de-emphasized, and its place taken by a Multiple Measurements Rating system consisting of four measurements: Proficiency, Student Growth, Achievement Gap Reduction, and Graduation Rate (for high schools). Proficiency is measured regarding the proportion of students testing at the Meeting or Exceeding Expectations level on the spring MCA’s; Student Growth and Achievement Gap Reduction consider changes in MCA scores for students testing two consecutive years at a given school. However, Adequate Yearly Progress measures are still calculated. MCA-II Goal Series MCA-II Proficiency: UST-authorized charter schools should perform as well as or better than the state, the district where the school, resides, and schools with comparable demographics (schools in the same region that serve similar populations of students, as defined by socioeconomic and minority status). Schools will work with UST annually to determine 3-5 comparable school(s). MCA-II proficiency will be measured on a school-wide level. HOPE Community Academy Annual Report for 2015-16 Page 7

[close]

p. 8

Indicator MCA-II: Reading Percent of students that meet or exceed expectations compared to the average:  Statewide  In the resident district  In comparable school(s) MCA-II: Math Percent of students that meet or exceed expectations compared to the average:  Statewide  In the resident district  In comparable school(s) 4 Meets or exceeds the comparison group by more than 5 percentage points Meets or exceeds the comparison group by more than 5 percentage points 3 Within 5 percentage points of comparison group 2 6-10 percentage points below the comparison group 1 More than 10 percentage points below the comparison group Within 5 percentage points of comparison group 6-10 percentage points below the comparison group More than 10 percentage points below the comparison group The tables below summarize MCA proficiency data from spring 2016. Table 2: MCA-II/III Reading Proficiency at HOPE, Spring 2016 Percent Meeting or Exceeding on MCA III Reading Spring 20162 # of Students Percent Percent Ex- Tested Meeting ceeding Grade 3 68 22% 6% Grade 4 62 23% 2% Grade 5 56 29% 4% Grade 6 46 35% 9% Grade 7 41 22% 2% Grade 8 40 25% 5$ Overall 313 26% 4% Overall, 2015 267 26% 3% Table 3: MCA-/III Math Proficiency at HOPE, Spring 2016 Percent Meeting or Exceeding on MCA-II/III Math Spring 2016 # of Students Percent Percent Ex- Tested Meeting ceeding Grade 3 68 25% 9% Grade 4 62 24% 6% Grade 5 55 18% 2% Grade 6 46 30% 9% Grade 7 41 34% 7% Grade 8 40 18% 33% Overall 312 25% 10% Overall, 2015: 267 31% 5% 2 October 1-enrolled students only. HOPE Community Academy Annual Report for 2015-16 Page 8

[close]

p. 9

MCA-II Growth: Student level data are available to measure a student’s growth on the MCA-II over time, if the student is continuously enrolled in a school. For more information on the MCA-II growth data go to the Minnesota Department of Education’s website. MCA-II growth data will be analyzed on a school-wide level. Indicator MCA-II: Reading Percent of students that made low, medium, and high growth MCA-II: Math Percent of students that made low, medium, and high growth 4 Low growth was less than 20%, AND high growth was more than 35% Low growth was less than 20%, AND high growth was more than 35% 3 High growth percentage ex- ceeds low growth percent- age High growth percentage ex- ceeds low growth percent- age 2 Low growth percentage ex- ceeds high growth percent- age Low growth percentage ex- ceeds high growth percent- age 1 High growth is less than 20%, AND low growth is more than 30% High growth is less than 20%, AND low growth is more than 30% The tables below summarize MCA growth data from spring 2016. Table 4: MCA-II/III Reading Growth at HOPE, Spring 2015 – Spring 2016 Percent Growth on MCA-II/III Reading, SY 2015-16 # of Students % In Each Category* %Not Prof, High Growth 39 16.8% %Not Prof, Med. Growth 68 29.3% %Not Prof, Low Growth 61 26.3% %Prof, High Growth 16 6.9% %Prof, Med. Growth 29 12.5% %Prof, Low Growth 19 8.2% TOTAL 232 *May not add to 100% due to independent rounding. Overall, 6.9% of HOPE students with MCA Growth data in Reading showed high growth with proficiency, and 8.2% showed low growth with proficiency. This puts the school at level 2, Does Not Meet Standard, for this measure. These results represent a decrease from previous years’ achievement. Some of this is attributed to a group of about 50 Karen students enrolling at HOPE at the start of the FY16 School year. HOPE also experienced staff turnover in several grades as well as a few Administrative positions filled after the start of this school year. The Record of Continuous Improvement focuses on reading and mathematics; specific action steps for improvement in reading are outlined below, in the Innovative Practices, New Initiatives and Future Plans section. Professional development topics also continue to focus on reading (see Professional Development and Teacher Evaluation, below). Table 5: MCA-II/III Math Growth at HOPE, Spring 2015 – Spring 2016 Percent Growth on MCA-II/III Math, SY2015-2016 # of Students % In Each Category* %Not Prof, High Growth 35 15% %Not Prof, Med. Growth 62 26.6% %Not Prof, Low Growth 57 24.5% %Prof, High Growth 24 10.3% %Prof, Med. Growth 25 10.7% HOPE Community Academy Annual Report for 2015-16 Page 9

[close]

p. 10

Percent Growth on MCA-II/III Math, SY2015-2016 # of Students % In Each Category* %Prof, Low Growth 30 12.9% TOTAL 233 *May not add to 100% due to independent rounding. Overall, 10.3% of HOPE students with MCA Growth data in Math showed high growth, and 12.9% showed low growth. This puts the school at level 1, Does Not Meet Standard, for this measure. These results are a decrease from previous years’ MCA Growth. The decrease is attributed to a large group of new immigrant students enrolling at HOPE fall of 2015 and changes in staffing. In our work with the Regional Centers of Excellence, we have isolated the root causes of the decrease in proficiency and feel our program is addressing student needs appropriately. Along with reading, mathematics performance remains an area of concern for HOPE leadership as the majority of students remain nonproficient. Strategies to improve in math are articulated in the Record of Continuous Improvement and are supported via ongoing staff training. NWEA Goal Series National Median: Percentages established for the national median goal compares the school’s progress with others across the country and are based on the expectations that UST-authorized schools perform better than the national median. For example, at least 50 percent of students in each grade should perform above the NWEA national median score for that grade level. Indicator NWEA MAP in Reading: Percent at or above national medians NWEA MAP in Math: Percent at or above national medians 4 More than 65% More than 65% 3 50-65% 50-65% 2 40-49% 40-49% 1 Less than 40% Less than 40% The table below summarizes the proportion of HOPE students at or above the national median based on Spring 2015 MAP test results. Table 6: NWEA MAP Levels of Achievement at HOPE, Spring 2016 NWEA % At or Above National Median – Reading Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Overall Students Tested, Spring 60 73 65 57 47 41 40 383 % At or Above National Median 13% 29% 38% 35% 40% 37% 50% 33% # At or Above National Medi- an 8 21 25 20 19 15 20 128 NWEA % At or Above National Median – Math Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Overall Students Tested, Spring 59 73 65 58 47 41 40 383 % At or Above National Medi- an 32% 32% 22% 26% 57% 56% 70% 39% # At or Above National Me- dian 19 23 14 15 27 23 28 149 Overall, 2015 347 29% 100 Overall 345 38% 131 HOPE Community Academy Annual Report for 2015-16 Page 10

[close]

p. 11

These National Median results from the spring 2016 MAP tests show HOPE Community Academy at level 1, Does not meet standard, in Reading, and in Mathematics. Overall results are consistent with results from Spring 2015. RIT Growth: Percentages established for the RIT growth goal3 are based on the expectation that UST-authorized schools have students that grow at the same rate, or better than at least 50 percent of the schools tested nationally. For example, if 65 percent of the school’s students meet their RIT growth goal, then the school is performing with the top 25 percent of schools, nationally. If 40 percent of the school’s students meet their RIT growth goals, then the school is performing with the bottom 25 percent of schools, nationally. Indicator NWEA MAP in Reading: Percent meeting RIT growth goal NWEA MAP in Math: Percent meeting RIT growth goal 4 More than 65% (ranked in first quartile) More than 65% (ranked in first quartile) 3 50-65% (ranked in second quar- tile) 50-65% (ranked in second quar- tile) 2 40-49% (ranked in third quartile) 40-49% (ranked in third quartile) 1 Less than 40% (ranked in fourth quartile) Less than 40% (ranked in fourth quartile) The table below shows growth in MAP score results for students who tested both fall and spring. Table 7: NWEA MAP Growth, Fall 2015 – Spring 2016 NWEA % Meeting RIT Growth Projections – Reading Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Overall # of Students Tested, Fall & Spring 67 61 50 45 39 40 302 # Meeting Proj. Score 29 24 34 22 19 28 156 % meeting Proj. Score 43% 39% 68% 49% 49% 70% 52% NWEA % Meeting RIT Growth Projections – Math Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Overall # of Students Tested, Fall & Spring 68 61 55 45 40 40 309 # Meeting Proj. Score 38 17 29 34 29 33 180 % meeting Proj. Score 56% 28% 53% 76% 73% 83% 58% Overall, 2014-15 263 130 49% Overall, 2014-15 247 137 55% These MAP Growth results from 2015-16 NWEA Growth Summary report show HOPE Community Academy at level 3, Meets standard in Reading and in Mathematics. This is an improvement over last year’s results on this measure, in both subjects. Middle School results were particularly strong in math. 3 The Northwest Evaluation Association now uses the term “Growth Projection” rather than “Growth Goal,” in recognition of the fact that the projected post-test score may or may not be an appropriate goal for any given student. The growth-projection score is based on the initial score and is simply the median post-test score for students with that initial score. MAP norms are constructed such that nationwide, 50% of students are meeting Growth Projections. HOPE Community Academy Annual Report for 2015-16 Page 11

[close]

p. 12

The graphs below compare MAP test growth results from 2015-16 to those from the previous year. 43% 33% 45% 39% 68% 63% 57% 49% 59% 49% 70% 45% 4592%% 56% 51% 49% 4539%% 76% 60% 73% 67% 83% 63% 58% 55% 28% Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Overall 2016 Meeting 2015 Meeting Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Overall 2016 Meeting 2015 Meeting Hmong Language & Culture Program Results from the Hmong Language and Culture program show that most grade levels met the targeted benchmarks for each grade level. Each grade level spends time during their day studying Hmong Language and Culture. This is part of the Mission of HOPE Community Academy and is within our Charter Agreement. 100% 80% 60% % of students who met grade level benchmarks 92.50% 85% 75% 60% 71% 79% 87% 69.50% 63.50% Goal of 70% 40% 20% 0% KG 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Special Needs Populations Academic Expectations If a school’s special education or English language learner population exceeds 20 percent, then the school should also report the following information. This information is used to better analyze the school’s progress with high need populations.  Number and percent of students who completed the fall and spring MAP tests in each category  Percent of students with special needs that meet their RIT growth goals compared to the percent of students without special needs that meet their RIT growth goals. At Hope Community Academy, the proportion of students categorized as Limited English Proficient (56% of the total student population as of 10/1/15) exceeds 20%. The proportion of special education students (5.9%) does not. All LEP students who were in attendance during MAP testing completed the tests. HOPE Community Academy Annual Report for 2015-16 Page 12

[close]

p. 13

The tables below summarize grade 3-8 students’ MAP test data from 2015/16, split out based on students’ LEP status. Table 8: HOPE Academy Grades 3-8 Students Taking the MAP, by LEP Status Students Tested Fall 2015 – All Fall 2015 – LEP Fall 2015– Non-LEP Spring 2016 – All Spring 2016 – LEP Spring 2016 – Non-LEP Reading 316 137 171 323 139 180 Mathematics 317 137 172 324 140 180 Not all students tested were designated as LEP or Non-LEP in MARSS, which is the data used to link MAP Scores to LEP status. LEP and Non-LEP numbers may not add up to the total number of students tested. Table 9: HOPE Academy Grades 3-8 Students with Valid Pre and Post MAP Scores4, by LEP Status Students Tested, Fall and Spring Total Number of Students Tested Fall + Spring Percent Meeting Growth Projection (Total) Percent Meeting Growth Projection (LEP) Percent Meeting Growth Projection (non-LEP) Reading 313 50% 41% 57% Mathematics 302 59% 54% 41% Results reported in Table 8 show that most grades 3-8 students enrolled at HOPE during 2015/16 took the MAP in fall and spring, permitting pre-post test score analysis to determine whether students met growth projections. Results reported in Table 9 show that when HOPE’s LEP and non-LEP students are compared in terms of proportions meeting or exceeding growth projections on the NWEA MAP LEP students performed better than their non-LEP peers in Mathematics, but did less well on the Reading tests. School Specific Academic Goals Based on the Charter school’s mission, each school should propose at least one school-specific academic goal to be considered and approved by UST. For the 2015/16 school year, HOPE identified four SMART goals, which were articulated in its Focus Record of Continuous Improvement which was submitted to MDE most recently on June 1, 2016. These goals are listed below, and outcome data reported: SMART Goal (Reading): Students at HOPE Community Academy will increase their reading proficiency scores from 29.21% to 45.41% in the year 2015/16 based on MCA tests. Did Not Meet: Overall proficiency score was 30% for 2015/16 Focus SMART Goal: The proficiency gap between the non-LEP and LEP students enrolled the full academic year in grades K-8 at HOPE Academy Charter School on all state reading accountability tests will decrease from 31.58% in 2015 to 19.9% in 2016 by increasing the proficiency rate of the groups as follows: Met Goal: The proficiency gap between the All Student group and LEP students fell to 16.6%. a) non-LEP students from 40.23% in 2015 to 53.5% in 2016 4 The numbers of students with pre-post MAP scores reported here are slightly different from the figures reported in the RIT Growth discussion above (Table 7). This is because a different method was used to derive the pre-post scores reported here: for purposes of Table 9, students were identified based on NWEA data on all students tested; and projected-growth scores here were calculated using NWEA’s “Achievement Status and Growth Calculator” spreadsheet which uses slightly different parameters from the reports on which the figures in the RIT Growth discussion are based. Also, there were a few students without an LEP designation, whose scores are reflected in Table 7 data but not in Table 9. HOPE Community Academy Annual Report for 2015-16 Page 13

[close]

p. 14

a. Did Not Meet: Non-LEP students increased to 48% Meets or Exceeds on MCA Growth data. b) LEP students from 8.65% in 2015 to 33.6% in 2016. a. Did Not Meet: Continuously Enrolled LEP Students scored as 13.4% proficient on the Reading MCA. SMART Goal (Math): Students at HOPE Community Academy will increase their math proficiency scores from 37.08% to 49% in 2016 based on MCA tests. Did Not Meet: HOPE students scored as 34.5% proficient on the Mathematics MCA. Focus SMART Goal: The proficiency gap between the non-LEP and LEP students enrolled the full academic year in grades K-8 at HOPE Academy Charter School on all state mathematics accountability tests will decrease from 30.02% in 2015 to 20.9% in 2016 by increasing the proficiency rate of the groups as follows: Met Goal: The proficiency gap between the All Student Group and LEP students fell to 16.9%. a) non-LEP students from 48.22% in 2015 to 58.15% in 2016 a. Did Not Meet: Non-LEP students increased to 38% Meet or Exceeds on MCA Growth Data. b) LEP students from 18.18% in 2015 to 37.25% in 2016. Did Not Meet: LEP Students at HOPE Scored at 17.6% proficient on the Math MCA. Non-Academic Goals HOPE Community Academy met the Attendance Goal, with total percent-ofattendance for 2016 average attendance 95.75% (per MARSS data as of late July 2016). Percent-of-attendance has been essentially unchanged the past several years (it was 96.8 in 2014/15, 97.29% in 2013/14). No comprehensive parent survey was completed during the 2015/16 school year. HOPE is unable to report on this goal at this time. Summer Programming HOPE summer school was opened to all students who attended HOPE during the year 2015-2016, regardless of academic performance. There were two sessions of each grade K-4, one 5th grade class, and two classes of 6th/7th. Students received 1.5 hours of literacy and 1.5 hours of math instruction. The teachers used Summer Success Math and Summer Success Reading as the main curriculum. Students were also able to attend P.E. class every other day for 30 minutes. East Side Tutoring was also on site during the summer, and they were able to work with students in grades K, 1st, and 3rd-grade students for some one-on-one reading instruction. Summer school started on June 20 and ended on July 14, for a total of 18 instructional days and approximately 215 students enrolled in summer school. Parent Involvement During the 2015/16 school year we held two large Family Nights events. The first focused on resources around education and engagement. A State Senator came to talk to our parents about the importance of their engagement in students learning. At the second event, we had two community organizations present. One organization focused on informing parents about resources for free cell phones and the Pacer Center spoke about Special Education and student’s rights. HOPE Community Academy Annual Report for 2015-16 Page 14

[close]

p. 15

New in 2015/16 is our Parent Education Program. This program is a 6-week long course designed to teach parents about working with their students on homework and school projects. For many parents, English is not their first language, and they feel poorly equipped to assist students with their homework. They are also given information on higher education – we go on a visit to a local college and teach parents about how to look for and apply for scholarships. Parents feel that college is not accessible to their students due to the prohibitive cost. Exposing them to information on scholarships and community colleges provides insight into making college affordable. Parent-Teacher conferences are held twice a year at HOPE Community Academy, once in the Fall and once in the Spring. Conferences provide an effective way means to bring together parents and teachers to discuss student progress. Middle school conferences are student-led. Curriculum HOPE Community Academy starts with the Minnesota Standards and Benchmarks and uses each curriculum as a resource to get to the standards and benchmarks. Each curriculum is supplemented with other materials as needed, to assure that all the standards are addressed at an appropriate level for students. The Assistant Director provided the following narrative which describes the strengths and weaknesses of HOPE’s present curriculum:  Reading: Treasures (K-5) was adopted in 2009. This reading program was purchased because it is a comprehensive, research-based reading program that offers a wealth of high-quality literature to engage learners. Teachers liked the explicit instruction to help them ensure students' growth in reading proficiency. Each week's lesson integrates grammar, writing, and spelling for a total language arts approach. The strengths of the program are that it gives the teachers a good basis for instruction, and it enables teachers to differentiate easily through the leveled guided reading books and allows teachers to make copies of the correct level of worksheets. The weaknesses of the program include that it incorporates too many different concepts in each lesson which is detrimental to English Learners. Another weakness is that it doesn’t allow for the use of books for instruction instead of the basal. The reading program for Middle School is being reorganized. This re-development of the curriculum is being done to align HOPE curriculum with MN Standards. During the 2014/15 school year, HOPE teachers identified weaknesses in the Treasures curriculum. They worked together to identify a supplement and then purchased supplemental resources to improve the overall curriculum. Additions to the reading curriculum include the Reading Corners and small classroom libraries. New books were added to the classroom libraries, especially at the independent reading levels. A book room was organized with reading games and multiple copies of books at all reading levels that have been used for guided reading groups.  Math: enVisionMATH Common Core, Realize Edition (K-5) & Holt (6-8) enVisionMATH was adopted in 2015, it demonstrates the careful development of deep understanding. Deep understanding empowers our learners to achieve the level of rigor required by the Common Core State Standards, and it is fully aligned to the Common Core. Materials are readily available and easy to navigate, leaving more time for direct instruction and differentiation. Teachers at HOPE use guided math groups for targeting specific needs of students. Data is easier to manage and provides teachers a more comprehensive look at the information HOPE Community Academy Annual Report for 2015-16 Page 15

[close]

Comments

no comments yet