Wood School Plan 2007/08

Wood Middle School was a 6-8 school with an enrollment of 703 in 2007/08. To review Wood's state Academic Performance Index scores since 2000 click here.

Disclaimer: Single School Plan were hand typed and transcribed from source documents. Please pardon the typos as the webmaster is a poor typist. While an effort was made to spell acronyms, here is a reference guide for those acronyms.

Single School Plan Components

What Did You Learn from 2006/07 Cycle of Inquiry?

1. Looking at your data, what general trends do you see? What does the data tell us about how the focus group did? How much progress did they make? How does this compare to growth of other subgroups? Is the student achievement gap closing?

Our 2007 Accountability Progress Report shows that Wood School students, overall, performed well. Our growth target was 5 points. Our actual API growth was 13 points. We met our target growth both school wide and in our Comparable Improvement category. All of our subgroups also met the growth targets. We also met all federal growth targets for our AYP. While our school-wide data shows that we are making the targeted growths necessary to stay out of Program Improvement (PI), we are concerned about the growing number of students at Basic. In addition, our African American and Hispanic students are not making gains at the rate necessary to close the achievement gap.

AUSD assessment data gave us significant information. CST 2007 data shows that in ELA 50% of our 6th graders, 58% of our 7th graders, and 44% of our 8th graders are Proficient/Advanced. This data reflects an improvement for grades 7 and 8 over 2006 scores. In Math 48 % of our 6th graders, 24% of our 7th graders, and 7% of our 8th graders are Proficient/Advanced. Only the 6th grader improved over 2006 scores. In Algebra I 24% of our students are Proficient/Advanced. In Geometry 51% of our students are Proficient/Advanced.

For our focus groups in ELA: 2007 CST matched results show that of 25 African American students scoring Basic in 2006, 5(20%) moved to Proficient, 13(52%) stayed at Basic, and 7(28%) fell to Below Basic. Of 30 Hispanic students scoring Basic in 2006, 7(23.5%) moved to Proficient, 15(50%) remained at Basic, 7(23.5%) fell to Below Basic, and 1(4%) fell to Far Below Basic.

For our focus groups in Math: 2007 CST matched results show that of 21 African American students scoring Basic in 2006, 1(5%) moved to Proficient, 11(52%) remained at Basic, 8(38%) fell to Below Basic, and 1(5%) fell to Far Below Basic. Of 25 Hispanic students scoring Basic, 1(4%) moved to Proficient, 16(64%) remained at Basic, 7(28%) fell to below Basic and 1(4%) fell to Far Below Basic.

Comparing the ELA data from our focus groups to other significant subgroups, 36% of our Asian students are 19% of our White students scoring Basic in 2006 moved to Proficient or Advanced in 2007. Comparing the Math data from our focus groups to other significant subgroups, 15% of our Asian students and 13% of our White students scoring Basic in 2006 moved to Proficient or Advanced in 2007.

AUSD Matched Student Set CST 06-07 Movement Chart data show that we continue to make inconsistent improvement in our efforts to close the achievement gap for our students.

2. What evidence/data do you have regarding the level of implementation of the teacher/instructional practice and/or schoolwide practices that you planned in your last COI? (Include data from walk-throughs, teacher self-assessment, etc.) Include information about what was not implemented as well as what was implemented.

The staff met on a minimum day to address this question. Each member was given a survey of implementation of the major strategies and their related activities from the 2006-2007 Single School Plan.

The general consensus of the staff was that we did the most thorough job in implementation of the two activities related to common word lists of academic vocabulary. Classrooms have “word walls” or other ways of displaying the agreed upon lists. All teachers were provided with lists…either in a laminated or downloadable form. Teachers reported some success in incorporating academic vocabulary into lessons and tests. Language arts, math, and science teachers reported the most success. Dissecting sample tests for key vocabulary had the least implementation. Reasons for this included lack of access to sample test materials and lack of time that can be used to work on these materials.

Teachers reported that they have worked hard to fully implement the activities related to establishing, integrating, and reviewing purpose/focus questions into the curriculum. Math and science teachers reported the most implementation. Language arts/history teachers reported that implementation is an on-going project linked to the new texts/adoptions. Many teachers reported a standardized location and procedure for review of focus/purpose questions throughout the teaching of each unit.

3. What evidence do you have that your focus on these students has positively impacted their learning?

Comparing the California Accountability Progress Report (APR) date from 2005-06 to 2006-07 shows the following:

In ELA the school-wide growth in percent Proficient rose from 50% to 54% (a 4 point growth). While our white students actually showed a loss of 2.4%, our African American students gained 3% and our Hispanic students gained 6%.

In Math, the school-wide growth in percent Proficient fell from 43% to 37.6% (a 5.4% loss in proficiency that was part of a common statewide trend). While our white students actually showed a loss of 3.2% and our Asian students showed a loss of 9.5%, our African American students only lost 2% and our Hispanic students only lost 4%.

4. Is there anything else you learned in examining your data that will inform your revised problem statement?

Our staff believes that there are more variables that need to be explored such as attendance data, suspension data, etc. We also need to have these focus students identified for their teachers by name. While we are clearly aware that we need to focus our efforts on the students in the Basic range, we also feel that we need to make sure we continue to support students scoring Below Basic and Far Below Basic. We will continue our effort to fully implement SIM routines and strategies during the 2007-08 school year for those teachers who have been trained.

Fall 2007

1. What are your problem statements?

Problem Statements

Student Achievement Problems

Teacher Practice Problems

2. What are your inquiry questions?

Student Achievement Questions

Are students in the grade level ELA Core and FUSION classes increasing their comprehension as measured by the CSTs, Prentice Hall benchmark and GRADE assessments and their ability to use the SIM strategies/routines when necessary?

Are students increasing their academic vocabulary across the curriculum?

Are students in Math Tech, the Learning Center, and the after-school math tutoring program making significant growth as measured by comparison of Math Tech mid-term/final pass rates and CST results to non-Math Tech students. (Equivalent pass rates and CST results would indicate significant growth for Math Tech, the Learning Center and the after-school math tutoring program participants.)?

Does the Learning Center provide appropriate intervention support for Wood’s low achieving students, specifically, African American and Hispanic population?

Are Peer Mediation/Conflict resolution, Lifeskills and Lifelong Guidelines, and staff professional development on effective classroom management improving classroom instruction?

Teacher Practice Questions

What SIM routines will we implement in the ELA Cores? What instructional practices will teachers adapt to gain mastery in the delivery of FUSION?

How are teachers using the benchmark assessment results to guide/inform instruction? What changes need to be made to the assessment to make it more useful?

How are teachers collaborating about instructional strategies & techniques and what effect does that have on student achievement? How does this use of assessments in math inform instructional practices?

What additional academic support do we need to ensure movement of our Basic students to the Proficient level, particularly our African American and Hispanic students? What changes do we need to implement in our Math program to increase academic achievement across ethnicity and grade levels?

3. What are your measurable goals?

There will be a 50% or 15 point gap between the highest and lowest groups in CST scores.

There will be a 25% net increase in CST scores in vocabulary and reading comprehension.

The percent Proficient of African American and Hispanic students will increase by 50% in both ELA and Math.

Of the students scoring at the Basic level in ELA, particularly African American and Hispanic students, there will be a 50% increase moving to Proficient.

Of the students scoring at the Basic level in Math, particularly African American and Hispanic students, there will be a 50% increase moving to Proficient.

4. What are your major strategies?

Wood 2006/07 Single School Plan

Wood 2005/06 Single School Plan

Wood 2004/05 Single School Plan

Wood 2003/04 Single School Plan

Wood

4 Year District API Base Data

Definitions

School Mobility Percent - Represents the percentage of students attending the school for the first time.

Parent Education Average - The average of all responses where "1" represents "Not a high school graduate", "2" represents "High School Graduate", "3" represents "Some College", "4" represents "College Graduate" and "5" represents "Graduate School".

School Classification Index - A mathematically computed index using other non academic API components to create indicator of similar demographics and school environment to be used for similar school rankings.

Disclaimer: All data has been hand created. If there are questions about the validity of the data, please contact the webmaster.

Single School Plan Home

TOP

Send mail to mikemcmahonausd@yahoo.com with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: February 8, 2007

Disclaimer: This website is the sole responsibility of Mike McMahon. It does not represent any official opinions, statement of facts or positions of the Alameda Unified School District. Its sole purpose is to disseminate information to interested individuals in the Alameda community.