2011-2012 Annual Report

 

Embed or link this publication

Popular Pages


p. 1

hope community academy charter school 2011 annual report on curriculum instruction and student achievement minnesota charter school district #4070 maychy vu director 720 payne avenue saint paul mn 55130 phone 651796-4500 fax 651796-4599 email maychyvu@hope-school.org prepared by acet inc 9868 lyndale avenue south minneapolis mn 55420 phone 952 922-1811 fax 952 922-1911 email info@acetinc.com

[close]

p. 2

table of contents i executive summary 3 ii mission goal and accountability plan 5 iii school program school enrollment and student attrition 6 iv academic performance 10 v operational performance 14 vi successes and challenges innovative and best practices implementation and future plans 16 vii professional development 17 viii finances 18 ix staffing 19 x governance and management 21 xi about acet inc 22 xii appendix a registration with minnesota attorney general s office 23 xiii appendix b enrollment policy 25 prepared by acet inc 2

[close]

p. 3

executive summary this report provides the minnesota department of education 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 eighth year of operation the key findings are as follows academic goals hope used two instruments to assess student progress toward academic goals the measures of academic progress map and the minnesota comprehensive assessments series ii/iii mca-ii/iii on the map assessment the majority of hope students scored as low or low-average in reading 61.7 and mathematics 53.7 hope fell short of the goal of increasing the proportion of students scoring as average or above each spring assessment by showing an increase of +1.1 in reading and -1.7 in mathematics slightly more than one-third of hope students made above growth in reading 38.2 and slightly less than half in mathematics 46.3 on the map on the 2011 mca-ii/iii assessment hope students had lower rates of proficiency in reading 40.6 than their peers in saint paul public school district spps and statewide in mathematics hope students also had lower rates of proficiency 22.1 than students in spps and statewide non-academic goals hope set two non-academic goals for 2010-2011 a parent satisfaction and b staff satisfaction each intended to be measured via survey hope chose not to administer either the parent survey or the staff survey in 2010-2011 instead hope collected data on parent involvement practices o middle school staff were surveyed on strategies to improve family involvement staff indicated parents would be best motivated to attend activities through fundraisers or reinforcing the importance of attendance parents would like to learn about helping their children in education and changes or issues at school and parents would best be communicated with through notes phone calls or emails or having a personal conversation o surveyed middle school parents indicated interesting/better topics would keep them attending activities they would like more information on a variety of topics e.g education discipline life planning they could be best communicated with by phone and they generally get information about events via phone calls o hope tracked attendance at 16 different parental involvement events in 2010-2011 hope averaged 16.3 families per event 39.0 students and 5.4 staff participating in each event program successes innovative and best practices and implementation hope as a school experienced a number of improvements and successes in academic programs and performance and utilized a number of best practices and innovative practices hope continued successful second-year implementation of the response to intervention framework and the refined literacy curriculum middle school also newly adapted the read 180 and system 44 literacy interventions staff focused efforts on refining the alignment between curriculum and minnesota standards for mathematics and literacy realignment of paraprofessional roles and responsibilities ensured more focused and targeted services to students at-risk hope also faced a number of challenges throughout the school year and has strategies in place to address them students reading below grade level has had an impact on other academic areas hope employs siop strategies to scaffold information by providing extensive background knowledge and vocabulary development for literacy instruction and all content areas 3 prepared by acet inc.

[close]

p. 4

hope sought to provide responsive and intensive support in kindergarten and first grade by using the dibels assessment to identify students in need of reading intervention hope has also extended summer school to include the early grades hope has implemented several strategies by which to address the challenge with student mathematical foundations including math facts in a flash that allows students to practice basic computation in a systematic fashion and provides teachers and students daily feedback on progress hope has a number of plans for future school years improving teacher investment in future planning and improvement by involving more teachers in leadership roles increasing consistency in curriculum and instruction by completing curricular maps for mathematics and literacy providing one-on-one reading instruction for students in grades k-3 by partnering with eastside tutors increasing the intensity of teacher observation and coaching support that leads to improved instruction expanding the pre-k programming to include more students and delivering quality early childhood instruction that will lead to greater success in kindergarten prepared by acet inc 4

[close]

p. 5

mission goal and accountability plan the hmong open partnerships in education hope community academy is a saint paul charter school which serves urban students in grades prek-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 hope is a non-profit trust registered with the minnesota attorney general s office see also appendix a mission statement the mission of hope community academy is to provide students in grades k-12 with a rigorous academic foundation focusing on the mastery of fundamentals and higher-order thinking skills that prepare them for life-long learning while instilling in them the finest hmong and american values goals accountability plan hope developed two academic and two non-academic goals for the 2010-2011 school year as part of their commitment to accountability all of the academic and non-academic goals were developed with specific measurement tools and indicators of success see table 1 below table 1 hope accountability plan academic goals achieve high levels of student academic performance in reading achieve high levels of student academic performance in mathematics non-academic goals achieve high levels of family satisfaction for school climate parent involvement and overall satisfaction achieve high levels of staff satisfaction for the hope program measurements northwest education association s measures of academic progress map grades 3-8 reading mathematics minnesota comprehensive assessments ­ series ii mca-ii grades 3-8 reading mathematics measurements family survey indicators of success the proportion of students scoring `average or above will increase by 5 each year tested students will perform at or above district-wide levels of performance on the mca-ii indicators of success at least 75 of hope parents of those who respond will express satisfaction with the school s program at least 75 of hope staff will express satisfaction with the school s program staff survey please note that the northwest evaluation association nwea defines average performance on the map as a percentile rank score of 41 to 60 therefore `average or above refers to percentile rank scores on the map of 41 or higher prepared by acet inc 5

[close]

p. 6

school program school enrollment and student attrition sponsor university of st thomas dr david w peterson administrative licensure coordinator and charter school liaison 651-962-4550 or dwpeterson@stthomas.edu hope opened in the 2000-2001 school year contracts were renewed in 2003-2004 1 year 2004-2005 3 years and 2007-2008 3 years hope was granted a 1 year extension for 20102011 description of sponsor accountability initiatives or reports hope s school director meets with the charter liaison as needed communication between the sponsoring authority and hope includes email and telephone quarterly reports including financial statements and school board meeting minutes are provided regularly to the charter liaison and the university of st thomas relationship with sponsor hope community academy continues to value its relationship with the university of st thomas the original sponsor of hope school calendar/hours of operation school was in session august 23 2010 through june 15 2011 the school day at hope ran from 8:00 am to 2:50 pm monday through friday hope offered three different after school programs throughout the year 1 two 20-day academic support sessions during the school year from 3:30-5:00pm 2 after school sports programming from 3:30-5:00pm and 3 hmong cultural program every tuesday and thursday 3:305:00pm student/classroom teacher ratio hope employed 20 classroom teachers in 2010-2011 and enrolled 465 students the overall classroom to teacher ratio was 23.3:1 enrollment and admissions hope accepts all applicants as long as the maximum capacity per grade level has not been met for the applicant s grade hope caps enrollment at 17 for grades k-1 and at 25 for grades 2-8 students enrolled in the previous school year will keep their space until they graduate if more students apply than can be accommodated a lottery determines acceptance hope gives priority to siblings of admitted students and then applicants in the region where the school resides hope s enrollment application can be found in appendix b characteristics of hope students table 2 below shows several demographic characteristics of hope students the majority of hope students were students of color 99.0 and asian or pacific islander 93.5 furthermore most students qualified for free or reduced price meals 84.7 and were classified as limited english proficient 68.0 prepared by acet inc 6

[close]

p. 7

table 2 characteristics of hope students year grade levels 2008-2009 k-8 2009-2010 k-8 2010-2011 k-8 enrollment attendance rate1 male female race/ethnicity american indian asian/pacific islander black/non-hispanic caucasian hispanic students of color free or reduced lunch limited english proficient special education status mobility index3 429 96.6 214 50.0 215 50.0 0 0.0 408 95.1 15 3.5 2 1 4 1.0 427 99.5 360 83.9 284 66.2 44 10.3 .20 420 96.3 195 46.4 225 53.6 0 0.0 399 95.0 14 3.3 4 1.0 3 1 416 99.0 345 82.1 297 70.7 49 11.7 .11 465 n/a2 217 46.7 248 53.3 2 1 435 93.5 21 4.5 4 1 3 1 461 99.1 394 84.7 316 68.0 37 8.0 n/a4 figures 1-4 below show the demographics of students enrolled at hope in comparison to the demographics of students enrolled in the surrounding district st paul public schools spps as can be seen in the figures the proportion of students of color enrolled at hope 99 is greater than those enrolled at spps 78 in addition hope has a slightly larger proportion of students eligible for free or reduced-price meals 85 than at spps 72 and hope has nearly twice the proportion of students with limited english proficiency 68 than at spps 38 in contrast spps has a slightly larger proportion of students eligible to receive special education services 16 than does hope 8 figure 1 proportion of students of color enrolled at spps and hope students of color 100 80 60 40 20 0 spps hope 08-09 75 99 09-10 75 99 10-11 78 99 99 75 99 78 99 75 1 the formula for attendance rate is the average daily attendance ada divided by the average daily membership adm ada is computed by taking the number of days a student was marked in attendance divided by the number of instructional days reported for that school adm is computed by taking the number of days the student was reported as enrolled divided by the number of instructional days reported for that school 2 not yet available 3 mobility represents how much activity occurs annually based on student transfers after the school year begins mobility is calculated by adding mid-year enrollments transfers and withdrawals and then dividing by the district s october 1 enrollment 4 not yet available prepared by acet inc 7

[close]

p. 8

figure 2 proportion of students eligible for free or reduced price lunch at spps and hope free reduced price lunch 100 84 82 74 72 85 80 60 40 20 0 spps hope 69 08-09 69 84 09-10 74 82 10-11 72 85 figure 3 proportion of students with limited english proficiency at spps and hope limited english proficiency 100 80 66 71 68 60 40 38 40 37 20 0 spps hope 08-09 40 66 09-10 37 71 10-11 38 68 prepared by acet inc 8

[close]

p. 9

figure 4 proportion of students with special education status at spps and hope special education status 100 80 60 40 20 16 10 16 12 16 8 0 spps hope 08-09 16 10 09-10 16 12 10-11 16 8 prepared by acet inc 9

[close]

p. 10

academic performance summary hope s academic goals are to achieve high levels of academic performance in reading and mathematics hope staff measure academic progress using the measures of academic progress map reading and mathematics and the minnesota comprehensive assessment ii/iii mca-ii/iii reading and mathematics the achievement of hope student progress showed the following goals hope students were assessed on the map in reading and mathematics hope s goal was that the proportion of students scoring as average or above would increase by 5 each year the majority of hope students scored low or low-average in reading 61.7 and mathematics 53.7 hope fell short of the goal for reading with an increase in the proportion of students scoring as average or above from 2010 to 2011 in reading of +1.1 and for mathematics with a -1.7 decrease slightly more than one-third of hope students 38.2 made above growth in reading and nearly half in mathematics 46.3 hope students were assessed on the mca-ii/iii mandatory statewide test of reading and mathematics performance the proportion of students proficient on the mca-ii/iii in reading was 40.6 while the proportion of students proficient in mathematics was 22.1 hope fell short of the goal to perform at or above spps district-wide performance for reading and mathematics measures of academic performance map during the 2010-2011 school year hope used northwest evaluation association s nwea s map in part to monitor student progress towards school accountability goals the map is a computer-adaptive assessment that is aligned with minnesota state educational objectives and can be used to assess student understanding in reading and mathematics hope administered the map survey tests for reading and mathematics in fall 2010 and spring 2011 to students in grades two through eight hope currently has one map-related goal in its accountability plan the percentage of hope students performing at or above average will increase 5 each progressive school year table 3 below shows the number and proportion of hope students in each of the five percentile rank groups by grade for the 2011 spring map reading assessment as can be seen in the table the majority of hope students 61.7 scored low or low-average while less than half 38.3 scored average or above table 3 2010 spring map reading percentile ranks by grade low percentiles 1-20 low-average percentiles 21-40 average percentiles 41-60 high-average percentiles 61-80 high percentiles 81-99 2nd 17 32.7 12 23.1 11 21.2 10 19.2 2 3.8 3rd 24 49.0 11 22.4 8 16.3 2 4.1 4 8.2 4th 21 35.6 15 25.4 17 28.8 4 6.8 2 3.4 5th 18 40.0 16 35.6 10 22.2 0 0.0 1 2.2 6th 17 50.0 5 14.7 9 26.5 1 2.9 2 5.9 7th 16 35.6 8 17.8 10 22.2 10 22.2 1 2.2 8th 14 32.6 8 18.6 12 27.9 7 16.3 2 4.7 total 127 38.8 75 22.9 77 23.5 34 10.4 14 4.3 table 4 below shows the five percentile rank groups by grade for the 2011 spring map mathematics assessment as can be seen in the table slightly more than one-half 53.7 of hope students scored low or low-average while slightly less than half 46.3 scoring as average high-average or high prepared by acet inc 10

[close]

p. 11

table 4 2010 spring mathematics percentile ranks by grade low percentiles 1-20 low-average percentiles 21-40 average percentiles 41-60 high-average percentiles 61-80 high percentiles 81-99 2nd 14 28.6 14 28.6 6 12.2 12 24.5 3 6.1 3rd 22 43.1 12 23.5 9 17.6 8 15.7 0 0.0 4th 10 16.7 23 38.3 16 26.7 10 16.7 1 1.7 5th 12 26.7 16 35.6 9 20.0 6 13.3 2 4.4 6th 15 42.9 4 11.4 9 25.7 6 17.1 1 2.9 7th 10 21.7 5 10.9 16 34.8 7 15.2 8 17.4 8th 10 23.8 9 21.4 8 19.0 9 21.4 6 14.3 total 93 28.4 83 25.3 73 22.3 58 17.7 21 6.4 in 2011 38.2 of students scored average or above in reading and although this was an increase of 1.1 from 2010 the increase did not meet hope s goal of a 5 increase each year for the mathematics assessment in the spring of 2011 46.3 of hope students scored average or above and in the previous spring 2010 48.0 scored as average or above average a decrease of 1.7 which fell short of hope s goal of a 5 increase figure 5 and table 5 below display the proportion of students scoring average or above across years figure 5 proportion of students scoring average or above average across years 100 80 60 40 20 0 reading math 2009 2010 2011 37.1 27.5 38.2 43.7 48.0 46.3 table 5 number of proportion of students scoring average or above across years subject 2009 2010 2011 reading 60 27.5 115 37.1 125 38.2 mathematics 95 43.7 149 48.0 152 46.3 student growth was categorized using the norms developed by nwea.5 table 6 below shows the number and proportion of students making above growth or below growth in reading and mathematics across years 5 to determine growth each student s initial map score from fall 2009 was identified and compared to national mean growth obtained from nwea students gaining less than 80 of the national mean growth were categorized as showing less than one year s growth students who gained between 80 and 120 of the national mean growth were categorized as showing one year s growth and students who gained more than 120 of the national mean growth were categorized as showing more than one year s growth for example in grade 2 a fall 2009 reading-rit score of 180 has a national mean growth of 12.72 points a grade 2 student who had a fall 2008 reading-rit score of 180 and gained less than 10.176 points less than 80 of 12.72 by spring would be categorized as showing less than one year s growth if the same student gained between 10.176 and 15.264 points the student would be categorized as showing one year s growth and if the same student gained more than 15.624 points the student would be categorized as showing more than one year s growth prepared by acet inc 11

[close]

p. 12

table 6 number and proportion of students making above growth across years subject 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 reading 132 60.6 150 61.5 152 59.4 mathematics 121 54.3 142 56.8 142 56.8 figure 6 below shows the proportion of students making one year s growth or more as can be seen in the figure the majority 59.4 of hope students made above growth or more in reading and above growth in mathematics 56.8 figure 6 proportion of students above growth by subject 100 80 60.6 60 40 20 0 61.5 59.4 54.3 56.8 56.8 08/09 09/10 10/11 reading mathematics minnesota comprehensive assessments ­ series ii/iii the minnesota comprehensive assessments ­ series ii/iii mca-ii/iii is a mandatory statewide assessment of reading and mathematics performance in grades 3-8 reading in grade 10 and mathematics in grade 11 the mca-ii/iii is used to measure students progress toward mastery of minnesota s academic standards and was first administered in spring 2006 performance on the mca-ii/iii is reported in scaled scores and achievement levels does not meet expectations partially meets expectations meets expectations exceeds expectations those students who achieve `meets expectations and `exceeds expectations are identified as having proficiency with minnesota s academic standards by the minnesota department of education hope s goal was that students would perform at or above district-wide proficiency levels in reading and mathematics figure 7 below shows the proportion of students scoring at or above proficiency on the 2011 administration of the reading and mathematics mca-ii/iii at hope saint paul public schools spps and across minnesota as can be seen in the figure hope did not meet the goal for both reading and mathematics in reading hope had a smaller proportion of hope students proficient on the mca-ii 40.6 compared to students in spps 56.4 or statewide 74.4 in mathematics hope had a smaller proportion of students scoring as proficient 22.1 than spps 42.7 and statewide 57.8 prepared by acet inc 12

[close]

p. 13

figure 7 proportion of students scoring at or above proficiency on 2011 mca-ii/iiis at hope saint paul public school district and across minnesota 100 90 80 74.4 57.8 42.7 proportion proficient 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 mca-ii reading mca-ii math hope 40.6 22.1 spps 56.4 42.7 statewide 74.4 57.8 22.1 40.6 56.4 adequate yearly progress ayp results are not yet available from mde prepared by acet inc 13

[close]

p. 14

operational performance hope set two non-academic goals for 2010-2011 a parent satisfaction and b staff satisfaction each intended to be measured via survey hope chose not to administer either the parent survey or the staff survey in 2010-2011 instead hope collected data on parent involvement practices in 2010-2011 through a review of parental involvement plans a survey administered to staff and a measurement of parental involvement at various activities middle school staff survey middle school staff were asked four items about improving parental involvement below are the top three responses to each question table 7 middle school staff survey top responses item top responses · fundraiser with education n=21 what will motivate your parents to attend school · emphasize to them the importance of coming activities n=14 · more interesting topics n=11 · how school can help child and more progress reports on child s grade n=28 what would you like your parents to learn or · changes and problems at school n=20 know about · homework/learning at school for each class and what teaching goes into the class n=19 · send a note home n=36 what can we do to help your parents understand · call or email and explain to them n=34 changes at school · invite them to meetings and talk to them about what they want changed n=9 · call by phone n=46 what is the best way that you can communicate · personally talking to them n=28 with your parents · send letters n=14 middle school parent survey middle school parents were asked four items about improving parental involvement top responses to each question are presented in table 8 below table 8 middle school parent survey top responses item top responses · interesting topics/better topics n=3 what will keep you attending school activities · more about health and immunization n=2 · various responses all n=1 education discipline what other topics are you interested in learning life planning budgeting banking dance hmong about list 2 writing for adults chicken pox learning updates what is the best way to communicate with you · phone n=8 how do you get information about school events · phone call n=10 from hope community academy family attendance at parental involvement activities hope measured family involvement by recording the number of families number of total people and prepared by acet inc 14

[close]

p. 15

proportion of students participating in parental involvement activities table 9 below shows the level of parental involvement for each of the 16 events offered in 2010-2011 as can be seen in the table hope averaged 16.3 families per event 39.0 students and 5.4 staff participating in each event table 9 parent involvement activities in 2010-2011 activity special education parent night parent information night parent academy ftip and tip night family fieldtrip mears park family game night parent academy cyber crime night family harvest night simply good eating family holiday night ses registration night special education parent night registration for high schools parent tax night family cooking night family health immunization night family saint patrick s night average number of families participating 16 1 11 14 14 21 45 7 28 11 11 24 7 25 17 8 16.3 number of students participating 34 3 27 51 34 45 139 20 72 20 19 24 14 63 38 21 39.0 number of staff participating 8 2 5 8 8 5 10 1 6 4 5 8 3 4 2 8 5.4 involved only families of 8th graders and was not used in calculating overall proportions prepared by acet inc 15

[close]

Comments

no comments yet