|
THE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROCESS (SIP)
Introduction In the last decade, the School Improvement Process (SIP) has become the generally accepted quality process for schools in the United States. It is a formal process published by the National Study of School Evaluation (NSSE) and its associated accreditation organizations, and is the most formal and important institutional self-evaluation and improvement program at Most Holy Redeemer Inter-Parochial School. The staff, parents, students, and parish communities participate in various ways. One of the most familiar aspects of the program is the annual SIP parent survey that we ask all our families to complete. Through its extensive documentation, the SIP is the foundation for the school's Annual Update. In compliance with the Diocese of St. Petersburg, it is also one of the primary conditions of reaccredidation (see below). The SIP involves rigorous procedures, copious data, and thorough analysis and documentation. All the details are available any time to any interested staff and families through the assistant principal's office. The SIP's bottom line, however, is its goals and how well they are being achieved or maintained. The sections below explain how the goals are developed, what they currently are, and how the school is measuring up to them.
To expand on each of these points: Measurability. The school's goals are stated in measurable terms. Test score percentiles and ratings are utilized for the first two goals; the number of detentions issued is utilized for the third goal. Academic Achievement. By NSSE definition, the school's SIP goals must be crafted to directly support student achievement. Thus, they support the academic facets of the school mission and the social environment that contributes to academic achievement. Practicality: A SIP goal must also be practical. Total school resources—financial, staff, temporal, logistic, and any volunteer resources—are finite. Plus, some of those resources must be allocated for missions and requirements that may not be directly addressed by SIP goals—physical education programs, for example, not to mention utilities and infrastructure. In practice, therefore, a SIP goal has to be pragmatic; if not, it will be both unachievable and of no value to the improvement process of which it forms such an important part. Student Population. As a matter of policy, Most Holy Redeemer Inter-Parochial School has always maintained a very charitable posture in accepting students from a broad socio-economic, academic, physical and religious spectrum. This philosophy affects SIP goals. At the individual level, the school still strives for—and in many cases achieves—near-perfection in standardized evaluations. However, MHR's overall standardized percentile goals can be expected to differ from those of, say, a highly admission-restrictive preparatory school. Realistic overall targets must be set in light of the collective ability of our entire, diverse student body. Grade Level. Quantified goals are inappropriate for younger children whose progress is measured qualitatively. Therefore, SIP academic goals are not defined for grades kindergarten through two when using ITBS scores as a measure of improvement. However, programs in the primary grades are designed to lay a firm foundation for future academic success. Evaluation Issues. A tendency for schools to focus teaching on standardized evaluations is well documented. Most observers, including many throughout the Florida public school system and elsewhere, agree this is not a desirable end state. MHR concurs. Therefore, goals associated with standardized examinations should not be inflated. As long as such goals remain realistic, the school should be able to avoid the "teaching the test" syndrome. Achievability. All the above notwithstanding, it is also mathematically impossible to improve quantitative scores indefinitely. At some point, quantitative goals must evolve from percentile increases into maintaining high testing score results. Strategic. SIP goals, by definition, are overarching. While measurable, they should be sufficiently broad to foster appropriately focused plans and programs without dictating the details.
The data that support the progress summaries below are voluminous and context-sensitive. For these reasons, it is impractical to publish comprehensive tables of results here on the website. Instead, we keep all this information readily available in the school offices for our staff and families. We strongly encourage those who may be interested to come see us and review all the results in whatever detail they wish. Please contact the office of the assistant principal for details. ITBS scores were re-normed in the 2008 - 2009 testing year and are more difficult than the previous (year 2000) norms. According to The Riverside Publishing Company (which publishes the ITBS), "This means that a person must score a greater number of raw score points to get the same percentile." They go on to say, "If a student scored at the 75th percentile in reading using 2000 norms, you would expect that to correspond to the 72nd percentile [using current] norms. . . ." In another example, "If a grade 5 student scored at the 50th percentile . . . you might expect him to score in the middle 40s [now]." The above notwithstanding, here are a few highlights from the five year period of 2006-2007 to 2010-2011, using scores from 2005-2006 as baseline data: Goal 1: Targeted area - Math Improvements noted in year five of our 5-year average: ITBS Grade 6 increased 1 percentile point in math concepts and estimation Grade 4 increased 1 percentile point in math problem solving Grade 5 increased 3 percentile points in math computation Grade 6 increased 2 percentile points in math computation STAR MATH scores: Improvements noted over the years Grade 4 increased 17 percentile points from 52% in 2007 to 69% in 2010 Grade 6 increased 18 percentile points from 60% in 2007 to 78% in 2010 Grade 8 increased 13 percentile points from 67% in 2008 to 80% in 2010 These scores are compared to scores of students nationally who tested in the STAR Math program. Improvements noted longitudinally (tracking the same group) Grade 4 increased 12 percentile points from 52% in 2007 to 64% in 2010 Grade 5 increased 8 percentile points from 72% in 2007 to 80% in 2010 Grade 6 increased 9 percentile points from 60% in 2007 to 69% in 2009 Grade 7 increased 3 percentile points from 64% in 2007 to 67% in 2008
Goal 2: Targeted area - Writing Improvements noted in year five of our 5-year average: Baseline scores from 2005-2006 on Language Usage and Expression. These subtests were strong to begin with. Maintaining these high scores is also a goal of MHR--see the discussion on "Achievability," above. Grade 4 scores remained at the 84th percentile Grade 7 scores remained at the 81st percentile While the scores for grades 3, 5, 6, and 8 were down slightly, the scores were in the upper quartile, ranging from 78th percentile to the 84th percentile. (Reminder: A score at the 50th percentile denotes the national average score. Anything above the 50th percentile is above average. Scores in the 80th percentile are very strong.)
Goal 3: Targeted area - Interpersonal Skills Over the past years the number of detentions relating to infractions regarding interpersonal skills (harassment, disrespect, physical contact) has dropped. The number of detentions for the baseline year of 2005-06 was 17. For 2006-07 the number was 16; for 2007-08 the number was 15; for 2008-09, the number was 13; for 2009-2010 the number was 15.
MHR will continue to examine the strategies that have been used to determine which ones we should continue to use, alter, or eliminate in order to reach the goals we have set.
2011 |
