COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

PLAN

School Board Approved March 23, 2015

Updates Approved by School Board

February 22, 2016December 19, 2016

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Letter from the CSIP Committee Chairman..............................................2

District Philosophy........................................................................................3

Mission Statement/Vision Statement...........................................................4

History of Carl Junction R-1 School District.............................................5

CSIP History/Planning Process...................................................................8

CSIP Committee Members……………………………………………….11

Student Performance Data.........................................................................12

Objective 1: District MAP/EOC scores....................................................22

Objective 2: Four Year Graduation Rate................................................25

Objective 3: Map Performance Index for Subgroups............................28

Implementation, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Revising.........................31

i

February 4, 2015

Dear Reader,

It is with great pride that I present the Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP) for the Carl Junction R-1 School District. When the Vision Committee set out to complete this project earlier this fall, we had one overriding goal: to create a plan that would help our district ensure the future success of our students. 22While our district’s successful past has been noted by numerous awards and accreditations, the vision committee recognizes that we cannot rest on our past successes. We must continue to evaluate our strengths and weaknesses and use that information to plan for our promising future.

It is the Vision Committee’s hope that the following plan will serve as a blueprint for the staff, students and community of Carl Junction. It was developed by teachers, students, administrators, parents, board of education members and community members who care very much about our students and their futures.

As the Committee Chairman, I have been blessed with the opportunity to collaborate with such an amazing group of people that worked diligently to develop this plan. Through many meetings, emails, appointments, and ideas, I am confident in the plan the committee has created. It is my sincere hope that this plan will allow Carl Junction R-1 Schools to not only continue its reputation of excellence, but rather, that Carl Junction will set the standard of excellence by which other schools measure themselves.

Sincerely,

Ryan JonesCSIP Committee ChairmanCarl Junction R-1 Schools

2

DISTRICT PHILOSOPHY

A democratic society depends upon public education designed to prepare students to become productive members of society. The Carl Junction Public Schools strive to provide an environment that recognizes each student as a unique individual with special abilities. These abilities require the formulation of a curriculum to promote the intellectual, physical, social, and career development of all students on a level commensurate with their capabilities, thus preparing responsible citizens accountable for their own actions.

We believe the school is an integral part of the community, and as such, must complement the child’s development as a member of the family and community. Students should have access to educational opportunities regardless of race, color, creed, or socioeconomic status. In turn, students are expected to achieve to their greatest potential, thus enabling them to make their greatest contribution to society.

The educational development process is life-long. A thorough understanding of the basic skills is essential for all areas of development. At the same time, it is necessary to teach students to be flexible enough to adapt to an ever-changing society. Opportunities of growth in vocational skills, fine arts, and humanities will enable students to develop technical skills, creativity, self-expression and aesthetic values. Guidance through these processes develops both the desire to continue learning throughout their lives and the skills to do so. Through this, we will foster a feeling of self-worth by providing all students with opportunities to succeed.

It is our intent that parents/guardians impart to students a basic confidence in the schools. Only through the joint efforts of all students, educators, and parents can the goals of education be fully realized.

3

MISSION STATEMENT

Carl Junction Schools, in partnership with our community, cultivates a vibrant and diverse learning environment that prepares students to be productive citizens.

VISION STATEMENT

Carl Junction Schools seeks to create a challenging learning environment that empowers our students to be positive community members who have a sense of understanding and compassion for others along with the courage to act on their beliefs.

4

HISTORY OF CARL JUNCTION SCHOOLS

-Timeline-

1877 Charles L. Skinner first plotted Carl Junction with 81 lots, seven streets, and four alleys.

1884 Carl Junction was incorporated as a fourth-class city in Jasper County, Missouri.

1887 First grade school built – Knight School – Two story brick building named after Augustus Knight who donated the land for the building.

1914 Knight School was torn down and classes were temporarily held in churches and store buildings until a new, slightly larger building that also housed a high school was constructed. The new building was called the West Town School.

1923 First yearbook, The Knights of ’23, was published and the first mascot name, The Reds and Whites, was adopted.

1924 The mascot name was changed to the Warriors.

1926 Enterprise and Smithfield #5 consolidated with Carl Junction #70.

1929 A fire destroyed the school building and a new brick tri-level building was erected. With the construction of the new building, the mascot name, “Wardogs,” was adopted. This building was demolished in 1982.

1933 The mascot name was changed to the “Bulldogs.”

1947 The state of Missouri mandated school reorganization with the 64th General Assembly’s enactment of Bill 307. Many transitions were made among the smaller districts in the area before they eventually were consolidated with Carl Junction R-1. This entire plan was the beginning of the construction boom for the district.

1952 Zincite #96 (Bellville) consolidated with Carl Junction R-1.

1954 Two new grade school buildings were erected to help accommodate the consolidation. These buildings housed grades 1-6. Grades 7-12 remained at the old West Town School.

1958 A gymnasium with a large lobby area and locker rooms was added to the school campus as well as a vocational agriculture building.

1960 During this year, there were several construction projects:

5

A new high school was built, making the West Town School a junior high school.

A stage and music room was added to the gymnasium. The two grade school buildings constructed in 1954 were connected, as well

as the addition of several more classrooms on the north end of the building.

1961 Brick #94 consolidated with Carl Junction R-1.

1964 Asbury R-3, Waco R-4, and Galesburg #37 consolidated with Carl Junction R-1.

1968 The high school added a new library and five additional classrooms. The intermediate building added two new classrooms.

1972 A new primary school was built. The construction of this building further divided the grade levels. Kindergarten through third grade were now in the new primary school building, fourth through sixth grades were now considered intermediate and were located in the 1954 school additions building, seventh and eighth grades were still in the West Town School, and ninth through twelfth grades were in the new high school. Two classrooms, a home economics room and an art room were added to the high school. Two classrooms were added on to the intermediate school.

1982 A new junior high building was constructed and an addition was made to the existing vocational agriculture building. During this year, the West Town School was demolished.

1984 A new bus barn, maintenance building, and trade center were constructed.

1986 A greenhouse was constructed on the high school campus.

1988 Many construction projects occurred during this year: High school additions: a lunchroom, five science classrooms, two business

rooms, a counselor’s office, a shop, drafting room, and several classrooms to the vocational agriculture building. Existing space in the vocational agriculture building was converted to art classrooms.

Intermediate school additions: an office area and two classrooms. Primary school additions: a library and eight classrooms. The District Central Office building was constructed at 206 S. Roney. A baseball concession stand was constructed.

1994 The growth continued…. High school additions: Technology center and shop. Junior high additions: cafeteria, kitchen, four classrooms, and restrooms. Intermediate school additions: library, four classrooms, and restrooms. Primary school additions: nine classrooms and restrooms.

1998 A performing arts center was added to the existing high school.

6

2000 A new high school was constructed. This facility allowed the district to reorganize and reduce class sizes. The primary building became a kindergarten and first grade building. The intermediate building became a primary school housing grades two and three. The former high school building became an intermediate school housing grades four through six.

2004 Five new classrooms and a new media center were added to the junior high school. The former junior high media center was remodeled to create three additional classrooms. Two computer labs were a part of this addition. A new sixth grade center was constructed between the existing intermediate building and junior high building. This addition created thirteen classrooms, student restrooms, faculty restrooms, an office area and a lobby. A new football stadium was added at the site of the new high school.

2006 A bond issue was passed and construction began in 2007.

2008 A new junior high building was opened adjacent to the high school building. This facility allowed the district to reorganize and reduce class sizes. The primary building was split into Primary K-1 North and Primary K-1 South and students were organized into pods of Kindergarten and First Grade. Each building had an equitable number of students and classrooms. The Primary 2-3 building relocated to the prior Intermediate building and the Intermediate building moved into the prior Junior High building. The fourth grade classes occupied the prior 6th grade section of the building. A new playground for grades 2-6 was erected inside the old football stadium on the main campus.

2014 The district passed a bond issue to provide safe rooms through additional classroom space. Saferooms/classroom space will be built on the Primary K-1 South site and Primary 2-3 site. Additional athletic space/saferoom will be added to the High School site. Groundbreaking is expected during the summer of 2015.

2016 Safe Rooms/classrooms were completed and occupied. The Primary K-1 Safe Room functions as classrooms, the Primary 2-3 Safe Room is a multi-purpose lunchroom/gymnasium, and the High School Safe Room functions as an indoor multipurpose facility. Bulldog stadium upgrades: new track surface, 1,000 additional seats added to the home stands.

7

CSIP HISTORY/PLANNING PROCESS

Spring 1996 The Board approved the first of the district’s school improvement plans. The plan was titled “Plans for Improvement” and was driven by the A+ program. The plan addressed district needs in school facilities, at-risk programs, Gifted programs and technology.

Spring 1997 The district approved a new school improvement plan in response to the Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP). The plan also met requirements for Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Missouri Career Ladder Program, Missouri Professional Development Program and Title I Program. The plan had two goals that focused on decreasing the district’s drop-out rate and improving the student mastery rate on the MMAT.

Spring 1998 Specific strategies were added to the existing improvement plan. This is the first document that was referred to as a Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP).

Spring 2000 The CSIP was revised. The plan contained the same goals as the 1997 plan, however extensive strategies were added.

Spring 2001 Several goals were added to the CSIP during this revision. The revisions were made in response to changes in MSIP recommendations In addition, the district addressed areas as prescribed by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Spring 2002 The Board approved revisions to the CSIP in response to concerns identified in the district’s MSIP Cycle II review in the spring of 2001. The revisions contained 10 goals and extensive strategies for reaching each.

Spring 2005 The CSIP team began discussions of revising the current CSIP plan. The plan had been revised annually since 2002, however, the process was lacking a means of monitoring the successes and concerns of the CSIP. There was little input from staff and community members and revisions were generally left to the four member CSIP team. There were also concerns with the number of goals and the fact that the document was not used to drive school improvement. The decision was made to completely revise the CSIP and develop new goals and processes for evaluation.

Fall 2005 Surveys were prepared for staff and community. The purpose of the surveys was to identify areas of strength and concerns for the district. Once the results of the surveys were tabulated, the Board of Education used that data to generate four goals for the district that focused on Facilities and Growth, School Climate, Curriculum and Assessment, and Technology.

8

January 2006 A school improvement team was established consisting of over 50 individuals. That team was divided into smaller teams that focused on the specific goals of the district. Each individual team, which consisted of one Central Office Administrator, One Building Administrator, a teacher from each building, two students, four community members and one Board member, met to write a goal, set objectives, and establish strategies for reaching each goal. Each team met for an entire day and a process was established to meet annually to review progress.

Summer 2006 Action plans were written by the team chairs for each goal. The CSIP document was prepared for Board approval.

Winter 2012 A decision was made by the school board to streamline the CSIP in order to make it relevant and specific for Carl Junction Schools. Committees were formed of all stakeholders including teachers, students, administrators, board members, community members and parents. Individual committees met and all committees joined together later to discuss district goals. A revised, streamlined CSIP was created to focus on the greatest district needs. Two goals became the focus for improvement. The goals were improvement in student achievement on the state tests and an increase in the graduation rate.

Summer 2014 The Vision Committee met and it was determined that revising the CSIP document would be the goal for the 2014-2015 school year. The Vision Committee consists of 16 educators, 1 public relations director, and 3 administrators representing the district.

Fall 2014 The Vision Committee met as a group and leaders were chosen. A survey was developed with the purpose of identifying areas of strengths and concerns for the district. The survey was given to all staff district wide. The Vision Committee met to compile the results of the survey. From those results, three objectives were determined and written. The three objectives were district MAP/EOC scores, graduation rate, and MAP Index scores. Strategies were determined for each of those objectives and three committees were formed, one for each objective. The committees included board members, administrators, technology director, community members, students, and vision committee members.

9

Winter 2014 Each of the three committees met to discuss action steps for each strategy that correlated with their objective. When discussing the action steps, research based best practices were considered. The Vision Committee met afterward as a whole group. The action steps were discussed and a rough draft was written. Vision Committee members looked at the rough draft of the CSIP document and finalized the wording of the objectives/ strategies /action steps used. A timeline was created for implementation of individual action steps.

Spring 2015 The Vision Committee will continue to annually review the progress of the CSIP document. The CSIP document was prepared for Board approval.

Spring 2015 The current Vision Committee met and reviewed the progress of specific goals and action steps. The CSIP committee made alterations and/or revisions to the plan, based on recommendations from responsible parties.

Fall 2016 The Vision Committee met to review progress on goals and make suggested revisions to the CSIP. The suggested revisions were presented to the school board for approval during the December 19, 2016, board meeting.

10

The CSIP Committee Members are as follows:

Dion Friel – Teacher, High School/Parent Karen Lee-Teacher, Primary 2-3/Parent Caroline Corbett-Teacher, Primary 2-3/Parent Rich Neria-Math Teacher, High School/Parent Kristi Alford-English Language Arts Teacher, High School/Parent Austin Rhodes-Teacher, Physical Education, Primary 2-3 Janet Hackney-Media Specialist, Primary 2-3/Parent Wendy Wachs-Denton-Special Ed Teacher, Junior High/Parent Sarah Ellison-Special Ed Teacher, Junior High/Parent

Kim Cristy-Teacher, Early Childhood/Parent Ashley Tuggle-Teacher, Primary K-1/Parent Anna Passley-Teacher, Primary K-1 Christina Chandler-Teacher, Intermediate/Parent Jonna Brewer -Teacher, Intermediate Lynne Higgins-Teacher, Intermediate Dr. Phil Cook-Superintendent Dr. Kathy Tackett-Assistant Superintendent Tracie Skaggs, Public Relations Director

Original CSIP members:

Claire Adrian-Computer Assistant, Law Firm of Warton, Fisher, Lee and Brown/Parent Lori Jones-Director, Joplin Family Y/Parent Jane Graham-Private Business Owner Lance Adams-Empire District Electric James Marsh-Professor, Missouri Southern State University/Parent Larry Cowger-Board Member, Community Member Lisa Knutzen-Board Member, Community Member Andrew Marsh, CJHS (graduate) Lauren Buchele, CJHS (graduate) Hunter Adams-Senior, CJHS Emma Frack-Senior, CJHS Devin Dixon-CJHS (graduate) Kennedy Fitzgerald-CJHS (graduate)

11

Carl Junction R-1 School DistrictStudent Performance Data

2015-2016 School Year

Spring 2016 MAP/EOC Results

Assessment Results from MAP Grade Level Assessments (GLA) and End of Course (EOC) were high for the 2016 testing season and we are very proud. Teachers are excited to present them to you at the November meeting. MAP GLAs were given to Grades 3-8 in English Language Arts and Mathematics and were given to Grades 5 & 8 in Science. Required EOCs were given in English 2, Algebra 1, Biology, and Government. In addition, voluntary EOCs were given in English 1 and American History. The decision to stop giving other voluntary assessments was due to the fact that teachers did not feel the assessments were beneficial to students or teachers. The district continues to give English 1 as a “practice” for students and additional data for teachers leading up to the English 2 test and teachers believe the American History exam is a good indicator of success for students. EOC exam results are 10% of the student’s final grade.

There has been a new (revised) test for English Language Arts and Mathematics for the past two years (2015 & again in 2016) so results of the two content areas cannot be compared to previous years. Comparisons for English Language Arts and Mathematics can be made to the state and to the CSIP districts. Below you will see charts showing comparisons of CJ results to the state in all four content areas. For the first time I can remember, CJ scores were above the state in all areas. More importantly though, not only were scores higher than the state, but the majority of comparisons show CJ results at least 20 points or more above the state! This is significant because many times, CJ results are just a point or two above the state.

3 4 5 6 7 8 E1 E2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A1 HS

A1 JH

A1 DS

A2 5 8 B1 AH GV0.0

50.0100.0150.0200.0250.0300.0350.0400.0450.0500.0

369.0

376.9

384.4

350.7

355.0

364.8

377.0

399.2

367.4

377.3

360.2

345.8

333.1

284.1 367.0 48

1.6

385.1 440.6

356.1

356.7

407.5

372.1

401.2

341.9

353

351.9

337.9

330

340.8

364 388.2

335.7

342.9

322.3

316.5

311.4

280.4 354.8

354.8

354.8

374.8

332.6

322.7

374.8

318.6

366.8

MAP Results from 2015-2016 School Year MAP Performance Index Scores

Comparison of Carl Junction to State of MissouriData Does Not Include Satellite School

MPI CJMPI State

English Language Arts Mathematics Science Social Studies

MAP

Inde

x Sc

ore

12

The high results are attributed to the hard work of our teachers and students. Teachers are planning and working together through PLC early-out Fridays and throughout the week to create lessons that meet the standards and student needs. With additional technology, teachers can more easily differentiate for students. Consistency with programing (this is the second full year with the Math program and we have been more intentional with training teachers in Guided Reading) have helped increase scores. Teacher training with technology and several new technology-based instructional programs (Connect Ed, ALEKS, and Strategies for Writers, for example) have helped teachers feel more comfortable using technology and using it to differentiate for students. The specificity of teacher evaluations helps teachers feel more comfortable making changes that focus on teaching deeply rather than at a surface level.

Teachers have taken ownership of their results and feel a sense of competition with other districts to improve their scores. Students, as well, are starting to realize the competition among districts and have been compelled to do their best on the test. In addition, CJ’s One to World initiative helps students be familiar with using the computer for most any task, including testing. Students were able to take the practice MAP GLA test last year prior to testing and were also able to stay in their classrooms to test in all but 3rd Grade. The district has already implemented technology-based assessments for the 2016-2017 school year with NWEA assessments and this will not only help teachers with instruction but will also be great practice testing on a computer as many of the testing functions are the same as are on the MAP GLA. We are excited to build on the successes from 2015-2016 and continue to improve our results for 2016-2017.

Science & Social Studies

As previously stated, comparisons to previous years for the ELA and Math tests are not possible. Comparisons to previous years for Science and Social Studies, however, is possible. The chart below shows comparisons for Science and Social Studies over the past five years, from 2012-2016. When reviewing the data, American History, Government, and Biology show a trend of improvement. Teachers and students, alike, should be commended for their hard work.

Additional review indicates 5th Grade Science is declining while 8th Grade Science is remaining flat. The science test has not changed but it was moved to the online platform two years ago (2015). The district has followed the state Grade Level Expectations since they were adopted in 2007. CJ has used the same science kits at each grade throughout this time. I believe the science kits have made a positive increase in student engagement and interest in science as well as in achievement. This is the review year for science and CJ is currently in the process of revising to the newly adopted Missouri Learning Standards for Science. With the new adoption of standards, we will review materials to use for science instruction to update to the new standards. We are looking at materials with a strong STEM focus so we are excited to see what we find to help move our science achievement and instruction forward.

13

5th 8th Biology American History Government0

100200300400500

381.

9

359.

7

357.

3

326.

1

380.

3

375.

2

377.

5

418.

6

376.

9

379.

7

365.

3

358.

6

403.

4

386.

4

417.

2

366.

4

364.

4

404

364.

1

388.

6

356.

1

356.

7

407.

5

372.

1

401.

2

MAP Results for Science & Social StudiesMAP Performance Index

2012-201620122013201420152016

Science Social Studies

Map

Per

form

ance

Inde

x

Super Subgroup

An area for which Missouri school districts are accountable is each district’s Super Subgroup. DESE identifies Super Subgroup students as those who are classified as Free & Reduced Lunch (FRL,) Individual Education Plans (IEP,) English Language Learners (ELL,) Hispanic, and African American. The chart below displays the percentage of CJ students within each super subgroup category. Students may be found in more than one area, however, the chart simply shows how many super subgroup students were from identified areas. You will see that almost 85% of our super subgroup is made up of students who are identified as FRL with the second closest category being our IEP students. This is a major reason why we have had a district focus on working with students living in poverty for the past two years.

African American Hispanic Free & Reduced Lunch (FRL)

Individual Education Plan (IEP)

English Language Learners (ELL)

0.0%20.0%40.0%60.0%80.0%

100.0%

4.2% 9.5%

84.9%

21.8%1.2%

Percentage of Categories Making up the Super SubgroupCarl Junction School District

2015-2016

Super Subgroup Categories

Perc

enta

ge

Free & Reduced Lunch. Similar to MAP GLA/EOC results for all students, CJ results for FRL and IEP students are high when compared to the state. For the first time I can remember, CJ FRL student scores are higher than the state scores at all grade levels and content areas except for 8th Grade Math. District professional development on working with students in poverty has helped teachers focus on and understand FRL student needs in a different way. The book study on Ruby Payne’s “A Framework for Understanding Poverty” has improved teacher’s work with

14

FRL students. The chart below shows CJ FRL student results compared to the state FRL student results. Comparisons for FRL student results to CSIP districts has not been made at this time.

3 4 5 6 7 8 E1 E2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A1 HS

5 8 B1 AH GV0.0

50.0100.0150.0200.0250.0300.0350.0400.0

342.7

338.8

366.7

324.8

324.1

315.5

348.8

370.0

338.9

349.0

321.9

313.3

274.7

243.2

335.1

331.3

312.9 37

9.2

340.7

368.8

306.4

317.3

315.4

299.0

286.6

299.1 340.0

362.6

300.0

305.6

283.9

275.5

268.1

248.3 31

8.4

300.6

282.9 339.1

280.2 326.5

Comparison of MAP Results for Free and Reduced Lunch Students

MAP Performance Index ScoresCarl Junction vs. State

2015-2016Data Does Not Include Satellite School

MPI CJMPI State

English Language Arts Mathematics Science Social Studies

MAP

Per

form

ance

Inde

x

Individual Education Plan. The chart below shows CJ IEP student results compared with state IEP student results. You will see that a majority of the IEP comparisons show CJ above the state. This is great and I believe a better understanding, training and consistency with Co-teaching and a focus on writing standards-based IEPs can be attributed to this. Areas not above the state include 4th Grade in both ELA & Math, 8th Grade Math, and English 2, Algebra 1, and Government EOCs. The special education department in these areas is reviewing their scores and practices and updating those for continued improvement this school year. Comparisons for IEP student results to CSIP districts have not been made at this time.

15

3 4 5 6 7 8 E1 E2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A1 HS & DS

5 8 B1 AH GV0.0

100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0

306.9

243.5

271.4

253.3

227.6

220.7

289.5

291.7

279.3

221.7

276.2

263.3

241.4

165.5

209.1

247.6

237.9 323.1

314.3

227.3

257.4

257.5

241.8

234.4

214.7

216.3

273.0

305.0

245.2

247.4

228.6

207.7

207.1

189.0

239.3

244.2

213.4

275.1

212.1

264.4

Comparison of MAP Results for Students with Individual Education Plans (IEP) MAP Performance Index Scores

Carl Junction vs. State 2015-2016

Data Does Not Include Satellite School

MPI CJMPI State

English Language Arts Mathematics Science Social Studies

MAP

Per

form

ance

Inde

x

MAP/EOC Comparisons to CSIP Districts

Goal 1 in the CSIP is for CJ to rank in the top quartile of comparison districts. I am pleased to report that CJ is ranked 3rd again this year out of all 12 comparison districts! I’m even more excited though, because CJ ranked 3rd without the addition of ACT comparisons. (Last year we ranked fourth without the ACT but third with the ACT included.) Once we include the ACT (district results have not been released yet,) I believe the ranking will not decline. In addition, Ozark and Nixa are, again, ahead of CJ in the ranking but the gap is closing between 2nd Place (Ozark) and 3rd Place (CJ). Last year there was a 2.6 difference and this year, the difference is 1.3. Teachers and students should be commended for their hard work! Also, CJ’s average rank was 5.6 and this year, the average rank was 4.11. This means that last year (2015) CJ ranked 5th or 6th at most content areas and/or grade levels while this year (2016) CJ ranked 4th in most content areas and/or grade levels.

As a reminder, rankings are determined by looking at and comparing each individual test at each grade level. I list the results for each district and then rank by grade level and content area. I then take the ranking for each grade level and content area and average those by school. For example, CJ ranked 3rd in 3rd Grade ELA, 4th in 3rd Grade Math, 4th in 5th Grade Science, etc. I add up all the rankings in each comparison group (there are 18) and get their average rank overall. That is what I compare.

I do not include Satellite School scores in the comparisons because so many students attend CJ for such a short time. For the 2016 school year, eight Satellite School students took GLAs and all at 8th Grade. No students were given the EOC. If I had used Satellite School results in the ranking calculation, it would not have changed our overall ranking. Below is a chart showing how CJ ranked to comparison districts along with the districts’ average overall rank.

16

NixaOza

rk

Carl Juncti

on

Webb City

Willard

Branson

Republic

Marshfield

Nevada

Bolivar

Neosho

Joplin

Carthage

02468

101214

1.282.78

4.11 4.225.78

7 7.17 7.94 8.28 8.9410.67 11.17 11.67

Ranking of CSIP School Districts with Average RankBased on MAP/EOC Scores at Each Grade Level

(Rankings do not include Satellite School and Voluntary EOC Assessments)

District Average

Comparison Districts

Rank

ing

Below shows the rankings of each school district since CJ began comparing. You will notice that CJ has shown the most improvement, from 7th Place initially, to consistently 3rd. You will also notice Republic moving up the rankings each year while several districts are declining. My goal is to close the gap to 2nd soon!

NixaOza

rk

Carl Juncti

on

Webb City

Willard

Branson

Republic

Marshfield

Nevada

Bolivar

Neosho

Joplin

Carthage

02468

101214

13

7

24

10

5

97

6

1211

12

6

34

9

5

108

7

1211

12

43

4

97

10

68

11 11

12

43

65

87

109

1113

12

12

34

76

5

810

911

1213

12

34

56

78

910

1112

13

Rankings of CSIP School DistrictsBased on MAP/EOC Results

Average Ranking of All Grade Level and Content Areas Combined 2011-2016

(Rankings do not include Satellite School or Voluntary EOC As-sessments)

2011 Rank2012 Rank2013 Rank2014 Rank2015 Rank2016 Rank

Comparison Districts

Rank

ing

17

The charts below show how each grade level for each content area ranked overall since 2012. There are four charts, one for each content area. You will notice a significant improvement in ranking for 5th Grade ELA and Math as well as improved rankings in all grade levels at the Intermediate Building. Intermediate Building staff worked diligently, cooperatively, and focused to improve their results and I could not be more proud of them! Teachers in all buildings as well, worked hard to achieve their rankings and all should be commended.

3rd ELA 4th ELA 5th ELA 6th ELA 7th ELA 8th ELA English 2-113579

1113

5

98 8

45 5

45

76

5

8 8

24

8

43

86

34

67

2

65

3

6

2

53 3

5

MAP Index Score Ranking Comparisons with CSIP DistrictsEnglish Language Arts

by Grade Level for 2012-2016

20122013201420152016

Grade Level

Grad

e Le

vel R

anki

ng

3rd Math 4th Math 5th Math 6th Math 7th Math 8th Math Algebra 1-1

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

5

89

8

109

54

910

910

4

8

2

8

67

5

766

87

10

6

3

8

4 43

45

7

4

MAP Index Score Ranking Comparisons with CSIP DistrictsMathematics

by Grade Level for 2012-2016

20122013201420152016

Grade Level

Grad

e Le

vel R

anki

ng

18

5th Science 8th Science Biology-1

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

6

3

9

7

2

4

67

44 45

45

4

MAP Index Score Ranking Comparisons with CSIP DistrictsScience

by Grade Level for 2012-2016

20122013201420152016

Grade Levels/Content Area

Grad

e Le

vel R

anki

ng

Government0

2

4

6

8

10

12

43

1

43

MAP Index Score Ranking Comparisons with CSIP DistrictsSocial Studies

by Grade Level for 2012-2016

20122013201420152016

Content Area

Cour

se R

anki

ng

19

Graduation Rate

DESE uses the graduation rate of districts to evaluate performance for Standard 5 of the APR by looking at a 4-Year rate, 5-Year rate, 6-Year rate, and 7-Year rate. Rates are calculated based upon when a student entered 9th Grade. When a student enters 9th Grade, they have four years to graduate (4-Year rate). If students take another year, they are calculated in to the 5-Year rate, etc. The 7-Year rate means a student took seven years from when they entered high school as a freshman, to graduate from high school. The district 4-Year Graduation Rate was 90.0%, identical to the graduation rate for 2015. As stated above, in order to earn full APR points for Standard 5: Graduation Rate, a district must have a graduation rate equal to or greater than 92% or show progress from year to year in any one of the yearly calculations. I believe there is some discrepancy in the current rate and plan to compare CJ dropout data with DESE dropout data and update the APR if applicable. The chart below shows the Carl Junction graduation rates for the past five years for each rate length. You can see that CJ is consistently in the low 90% range.

4-Year 5-Year 6-Year 7-Year82

84

86

88

90

92

94 92.5

86.888.3

93

86.8

90.2 90.1

93

86.8

9091

89.7

93

9090.8 91.4

90.1

Graduation Rates4-Year, 5-Year, 6-Year, 7-Year

2012-2016 if AvailableCarl Junction School District

20122013201420152016

Rate Years

Perc

enta

ge

The chart below shows how the CJ Graduation Rate compares to CSIP districts. You will see that CJ should continue to focus on getting students to graduation and the fact that it is a goal within our CSIP is needed. I can assure you that high school staff make a concerted effort each year trying to recover students who have dropped out. Phone calls are made to students and parents and credit recovery, CJU, Missouri Options and Guided Study are among strategies offered for assistance at the high school. The elementary schools continue to focus on graduation from high school and entering college by taking field trips to area colleges each year and taking “half-way there” pictures at 6th Grade. We have many effective programs in place and will continue to build on those and look for additional strategies for continual improvement.

20

Willard

Ozark

Branson

Nixa

Republic

Carthage

Marshfield

Webb City

Bolivar

Carl Juncti

on

Nevada

Missouri

Neosho

Joplin7580859095

100 96.4 95.8 95.1 94.9 93.7 92.9 92.3 91.8 90.5 90 89.7 88.883.5 82.4

4-Year Graduation RatesComparison of Carl Junction to CSIP Districts and Missouri

2015-2016

Rate

CSIP Districts & Missouri

Perc

enta

ge

21

Carl Junction R-1 School DistrictComprehensive School Improvement Plan

2016-2017

Objective 1: District MAP/EOC and ACT scores will be in the top quartile when comparing CJ to 12 area school districts.*

Content 2012 Rank

2013 Rank

2014 Rank

2015 Rank

2016Rank

English Language Arts 5th 5th 4th 4th 4th

Mathematics 7th 8th 7th 8th 4th

Science 6th 5th 6th 4th 4th

Social Studies 4th 2nd 1st 6th 3rd

ACT 6th 5th 2nd Overall District Rank 6th 4th 4th 3rd 3rd

1a. Strategy: RtI strategies will continue K-12.MSIP Standard: 1, 2Persons Responsible: Assistant Superintendent, Building Principals, Teachers, ParaprofessionalsDate to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2015 (Implementation dates for specific action steps are listed below)

Date of Completion: 05/31/2019

Action Step:

Assess the time frame and the staff used in “Kids’ Block.” Math will continue to be implemented into “Kids’ Block” time. Add comprehension to the RTI reading focus. Use RTI data to recruit/remediate students for summer school.

1b. Strategy: Implement and evaluate the K-12 research-based ELA program, with resources, that is aligned to core area Missouri Learning Standards.

MSIP Standard: 1, 2

Persons Responsible: Assistant Superintendent, Building Principals, ELA Instructional Coach, ELA Curriculum Team

Date to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2014 Date of Completion: 05/31/2016

Action Step: Evaluate K-12 reading, writing, and language resource for the ELA program. Ensure tangible resources are available for home use by students 9-12. Purchase NWEA benchmark and progress monitoring assessments

1c. Strategy: Increase Rigor and Relevance through Quad D lessons.

MSIP Standard: 1, 2, 3

Persons Responsible: Assistant Superintendent, Building Principals, Instructional Coaches, PD Committee, Teachers

Date to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2015

Date of Completion: 05/31/2019

Action Step: Provide content and grade level specific professional development, to assist

22

in implementation of Quad D lessons. (8/1/2015) Provide time weekly for teachers to collaborate, create, evaluate, and revise

Quad D lessons. (8/1/2015)

1d. Strategy: Align curriculum objectives to Missouri Learning Standards.MSIP Standard: 1, 2Persons Responsible: Assistant Superintendent, Building Principals, Curriculum Leadership TeamsDate to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2015Date of Completion: 05/31/2019

Action Step: Provide time and resources to align curriculum to new Missouri Learning Standards.

1e. Strategy: Teacher driven PLC groups will collaborate to review and use assessment data.

MSIP Standard: 1, 2, 3Persons Responsible: School Board, Superintendent, Building Principals, Teachers

Date to Implement Strategy: Spring 2015

Date of Completion: 05/31/2019

Action Step: Teachers will use PLC time to act upon data. (Spring 2015) Consider ways to maximize PLC time. (ongoing)

1f. Strategy: Implement technology across the curriculum K-12.MSIP Standard: 1, 2, 3

Persons Responsible: School Board, Central Office Administration, Building Principals, Teachers, IT Department, Students, Parents, Community, Instructional Technology Coach

Date to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2015Date of Completion: 05/31/2019

Action Step:

Implement one-to-one Technologies for grades K-2 within the next 2-4 years.

Improve electrical and technological infrastructure. Parent/Student orientation as part of one-to-one implementation. Hiring of Technology Coaches, one per building, K-12. Hiring of one IT person per building K-12. Recruit, train, and utilize technology cadet teachers in K-12 technology

classrooms to facilitate technology instruction. Scope and sequence software programs and applications to ensure

consistency throughout the district. Purchase NWEA benchmark and progress monitoring assessments

1g. Strategy:

Preschool will continue to be offered to help develop the skills needed for kindergarten/school success and developing reading/communication arts readiness for children exhibiting the need for supplemental assistance for academic preparedness.

MSIP Standard: 1, 2Persons Responsible: Preschool administrator/Title Coordinator, preschool teachersDate to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2015Date of Completion: 05/31/2019Action Step: Assess the need to expand preschool program, especially to address low-

23

income, pre-k students. (8/1/2015) Investigate sources of funding for low-income students. (8/1/2015)

1h. Strategy: Implement and evaluate the effectiveness of the K-12 math program.

MSIP Standard 1, 2

Persons Responsible: Assistant Superintendent, Building Principals, Math Instructional Coach, Math Curriculum Team, Math Teachers

Date to Implement Strategy 08/01/2015Date to Completion 05/31/2019

Action Step: Collect and analyze data from assessments. (Spring 2015, ongoing) Implement ALEKS program. (Spring 2015-ongoing) Purchase NWEA benchmark and progress monitoring assessments

1i. Strategy: Train students on test-taking strategies.MSIP Standard: 1, 2, 3

Persons Responsible: Building Principals, Teachers, IT Department, Students

Date to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2015Date of Completion: 05/31/2019

Action Step:

Classroom practice of electronic test taking. (8/1/2015) Students and teachers will have access to practice on testing software.

(8/1/2015) Assessments will be given online. (8/1/2015) Train individuals on constructed response and multiple choice questions and

answers. (8/1/2015) Purchase NWEA benchmark and progress monitoring assessments

*Comparison Schools Chosen by the School Board: Bolivar, Branson, Carthage, Joplin, Marshfield, Neosho, Nevada, Nixa, Ozark, Republic, Webb City, Willard**Calculated by MSIP5 Content Area MPI

24

Objective 2: The four year graduation rate will increase annually with a goal of 95% or higher.

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Goal/Actua

l

2016-2017Goal

94.6% 87.9% 90.0% 91.3%/90% 92%

2a. Strategy: Maintain a comprehensive code of conduct that promotes social skills K-12.MSIP Standard: 5Persons Responsible: Building Principals, Students, TeachersDate to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2015Date of Completion: 05/31/2019

Action Steps: Review and evaluate current code of conduct policies to ensure alignment

K-12.

2b. Strategy: Continue to examine and utilize research of current trends and issues regarding school climate.

MSIP Standard: 5Persons Responsible: Superintendent, Principals, Counselors, Graduation Coach, Vision Committee Date to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2015Date of Completion: 05/31/2019

Action Steps:

Develop a school climate committee to address student needs as well as staff needs.

Continue to support the Bright Futures program whose work includes meeting basic needs of students and their families.

Explore the possibility of a student led peer mentoring program to address the needs of at risk students.

Research and analyze the need for an ROTC program and how that might be implemented.

2c. Strategy: The district at-risk committee will review at-risk student issues monthly.MSIP Standard: 5

Persons Responsible: Assistant Superintendent, At-Risk Committee Members, Principals, Graduation Coach

Date to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2015Date of Completion: 05/31/2019

Action Steps:

Develop and continue both district level and building level at risk committees that will include, but not be limited to: counselors, PBS teachers, and graduation coaches.

Committees will be tasked with using data from existing or future “at risk assessment” tools that test to identify at risk students, in addition, committees will seek out solutions and support for those students.

2d. Strategy: Increase the size of the alternative school to allow for greater enrollment.MSIP Standard: 5Persons Responsible: Assistant Superintendent, Principals, Teachers, Alternative School Director

25

Funding Source Name: Local Funds, Basic Formula, State MoniesDate to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2015Date of Completion: 05/31/2019

Action Steps:

Move the alternative school to a vacated building due to the passage of the bond issue. (8/1/2016)

Research and evaluate the need and feasibility of alternate attendance times for students. (ex. 9am-4pm. Discussions should also include night hours.)

2e. Strategy: Implement and/or maintain At-Risk Classrooms in each building for students without other services.

MSIP Standard: 5

Persons Responsible: Assistant Superintendent, Principals, Teachers, At Risk Committee, Graduation Coach

Date to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2015Date of Completion: 05/31/2019

Action Steps:

Continue to implement the following programs that are designed to aid at risk students: Alternative School, Missouri Options Program, Online Classes, Flex Program, Credit Recovery Program, Jasper County Juvenile Court Diversion Program, Service Learning mentoring program, Guided Study for incoming freshman who are at risk of not graduating, specialized homerooms for High School to address deficient areas, community member mentor program, Building Trades, Franklin Technology Center and Carthage Technical Center.

Continue to evaluate the performance of each of the above programs. Review additional at-risk classroom opportunities.

2f. Strategy: Continue to promote "Graduation Matters" throughout the Carl Junction R-1 School District and include parents/community in the effort.

MSIP Standard: 5

Persons Responsible: Assistant Superintendent, Building Principals, At-Risk Committee, Teachers, CJ Chamber of Commerce

Date to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2015Date of Completion: 05/31/2019

Action Steps:

Develop a program that connects students/staff with local businesses that will allow at risk students to either be employed or understand the employment process. (8/1/2017)

Partner with the Carl Junction Chamber of Commerce to promote “Graduation Matters”. (8/1/2015)

Grades 2-6 will continue to take college visits to promote graduation. (Spring 2015)

26

2g. Strategy: Expand and evaluate transitional plans that are currently in place in each building so that transition for students to new buildings is successful.

MSIP Standard: 5Persons Responsible: Principals, Teacher

08/01/2015Date of Completion: 05/31/2019

Action Steps:

Principals will visit incoming students each spring/summer. (ongoing) Students will tour new buildings, speak to new teachers, etc.

(ongoing) The district will evaluate and research the current “At Risk”

assessment tools that may help staff identify at risk students. (ongoing)

2h. Strategy: Create a task-force to review strategies from CSIP districts to improve graduation rates.

MSIP Standard: 5Persons Responsible: Superintendents, HS Principals, Vision Committee, At-Risk Committee

08/01/2015Date of Completion: 05/31/2019

Action Steps: Create task force (1/1/2017) Present findings to stakeholders (5/1/2017)

27

Objective 3: Increase the Map Performance Index score by 5 index points from the previous year for identified subgroups.*

Content 2012 MPI 2013 MPI 2014 MPI 2015 MPI 2016 MPI**

Communication Arts 338.7 336.6 343.8 325.7 332.3Mathematics 334.9 330.9 331.2 273.5 309.7

3a. Strategy: Maintain a student-classroom teacher ratio that meets local and state desirable standards.

MSIP Standard: 2Persons Responsible: Administration, School BoardDate to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2015Date of Completion: 05/31/2019

Action Steps:

Maintain smaller class sizes allowing for the teacher to create relationships with students that fall into the subgroups.

Reduce size of Co-Teaching to reach subgroup students. Use High School Homeroom time to identify subgroups and build

student/teacher relationships.

3b. Strategy: Assess the need for transportation services for new and existing after-school support and enrichment programs.

MSIP Standard 2, 5Persons Responsible Administration, School Board, TeachersDate to Implement Strategy 08/01/2015Date of Completion 05/31/2019

Action Steps:

Evaluate the community need and interest level in after school program.

Complete a cost analysis of after school program that extends later into the evening including busing.

Evaluate resources to fund after school support and enrichment programs.

Develop and implement an after school program if determined it is needed.

3c. Strategy: Examine ways to increase awareness and participation of the qualification/benefits for free and reduced lunch.

MSIP Standard 2Person Responsible Administration, School BoardDate to Implement Strategy 08/01/2015Date of Completion 05/31/2019

Action Steps: Develop a plan to inform teachers, parents, and students about all the

opportunities that filling out the free and reduced lunch form provides.

28

3d. Strategy: Provide professional development to faculty and staff on instructional strategies for students dealing with poverty.

MSIP Standard 2, 4, 5Person Responsible Central Office, Administration, Professional Development CommitteeDate to Implement Strategy 08/01/2015Date to Completion 05/31/2019

Action Steps:

Evaluate the cost to offer Ruby Payne’s training to our teachers. Certify a district staff member on “Train the Trainer”, for Ruby Payne

poverty education program so he/she can provide training to teachers. Develop and implement a plan to allow opportunities for professional

development on strategies for students living in poverty. Have teachers implement strategies in their classroom instruction.

3e. Strategy: Implement technology across the curriculum K-12.MSIP Standard 2, 4, 5Person Responsible Administration, Teachers, StudentsDate to Implement Strategy 08/01/2015Date to Completion 05/31/2019

Action Steps:

Research software programs to help students who are struggling. Provide training opportunities for parents to help them with school

issued technology. Identify new ways to provide internet access to our students. Expand the use of Wi-Fi on buses.

3f. Strategy: District at-risk committee reviews at-risk student issues.MSIP Standard 2, 4, 5Person Responsible Central Office, Administration, TeachersDate to Implement Strategy 08/01/2015Date to Completion 05/31/2019

Action Steps:

Develop both district level and building level at-risk committees that will include, but not be limited to counselors, PBS teachers, and graduation coaches.

Committees will use data from multiple sources that can identify at-risk students.

Committees will seek out solutions and support for those students.

29

3g. Strategy: Adopt a research-based co-teaching model and provide teacher training, staff, and resources, for effective implementation.

MSIP Standard 2Person Responsible Central Office, Administration, Leadership TeamsDate to Implement Strategy 08/01/2015Date to Completion 05/31/2019

Action Steps:

Professional development on Anne Benninghof’s model will be provided. (Fall 2016)

Book study on co-teaching materials. (Fall 2016) Require training for teachers who participate in co-teaching. (Fall

2016)

*Calculation based on MSIP5 Super Subgroup MPI**State assessment changed

30

Implementation, Monitoring, Evaluation, and RevisingThe CSIP committee recognizes the need for designing a school improvement plan that can be modified and adjusted due to circumstances that may be unforeseen. In addition, the CSIP committee also thinks the ability to alter the plan after specific actions have been completed is just as vital. Therefore, every year, the Vision Committee and additional stakeholders will meet bi-annually to have responsible parties report on the progress of specific action plans. After being informed on the progress of specific goals and actions, the CSIP Committee can make alterations and/or revisions to the plan, based on recommendations from the responsible parties.

31