Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 32

COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL

IMPROVEMENT PLAN

School Board Approved


March 23, 2015
Updates Approved by School Board
February 22, 2016
December 19, 2016
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 Jones
CSIP Committee Chairman
Carl 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 District
Student 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.
MAP Results from 2015‐2016 School Year 
MAP Performance Index Scores
Comparison of Carl Junction to State of Missouri
354.8 481.6

Data Does Not Include Satellite School
440.6

407.5

401.2
399.2
388.2

385.1
384.4

500.0
377.3
376.9

377.0

374.8

374.8

372.1
369.0

367.4

367.0

366.8
364.8

360.2

356.7
356.1
355.0

354.8

354.8
351.9
350.7

345.8
342.9
341.9

340.8
337.9

335.7

333.1

332.6

450.0
364

322.7
322.3

318.6
316.5
353

311.4
330

284.1
280.4

400.0
MAP Index Score

350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0 MPI CJ
150.0
MPI State
100.0
50.0
0.0
3 4 5 6 7 8 E1 E2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A1 A1 A1 A2 5 8 B1 AH GV
HS JH DS
English Language Arts             Mathematics                     Science            Social Studies

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
MAP Results for Science & Social Studies
MAP Performance Index
2012‐2016

418.6

417.2
407.5
403.4

401.2
388.6
386.4
381.9

380.3
379.7
377.5

376.9
375.2

372.1
366.4
365.3

364.4

364.1
359.7

358.6

357.3
356.7
356.1

404

326.1
500
Map Performance Index

2012
300 2013

100 2014
2015
‐100 5th 8th Biology American History Government
2016
Science                                                                         Social Studies                    

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.

Percentage of Categories Making up the Super Subgroup
Carl Junction School District
2015‐2016
100.0% 84.9%
Percentage

80.0%
60.0%
40.0% 21.8%
20.0% 4.2% 9.5% 1.2%
0.0%
African American Hispanic Free & Reduced Individual Education English Language
Lunch (FRL) Plan (IEP) Learners (ELL)
Super Subgroup Categories

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

14
on Ruby Payne’s “A Framework for Understanding Poverty” has improved teacher’s work with
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.

Comparison of MAP Results for
Free and Reduced Lunch Students
MAP Performance Index Scores
Carl Junction vs. State
2015‐2016
Data Does Not Include Satellite School

379.2
370.0

368.8
366.7

362.6

349.0
348.8
342.7

340.7
340.0

339.1
338.9
338.8

335.1
331.3

326.5
324.8
324.1

321.9

318.4
317.3
315.4

315.5

313.3

312.9
306.4

305.6

300.6
300.0
299.0

299.1
400.0
286.6

283.9

282.9

280.2
275.5
274.7
268.1
MAP Performance Index

248.3
350.0

243.2
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0 MPI CJ
100.0
50.0 MPI State
0.0
3 4 5 6 7 8 E1 E2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A1 5 8 B1 AH GV
HS
English Language Arts                   Mathematics           Science             Social Studies

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
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

323.1
314.3
306.9

305.0
291.7
289.5

279.3

276.2

275.1
273.0
271.4

264.4
263.3
257.5
257.4

253.3

247.4

247.6
245.2

244.2
500.0
243.5

241.8

241.4

239.3

237.9
234.4

228.6
227.6

227.3
221.7
220.7
216.3
214.7

213.4

212.1
209.1
207.7
207.1
189.0
165.5
MAP Performance Index

400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0 MPI CJ
3 4 5 6 7 8 E1 E2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A1 5 8 B1 AH GV
HS MPI State
&
DS
English Language Arts          Mathematics                            Science            Social Studies              

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
Ranking of CSIP School Districts with Average Rank
Based on MAP/EOC Scores at Each Grade Level
(Rankings do not include Satellite School and Voluntary EOC Assessments)
14
11.67
12 10.67 11.17
10 8.94
7.94 8.28
Ranking

8 7 7.17
5.78
6 4.11 4.22
4 2.78
2 1.28 District Average

Comparison Districts

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!

Rankings of CSIP School Districts
Based 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 Assessments)
14 13 13
13
12 12
12 12 12
12 11
1111 11 11 11
11
10 101010
10 10
10 99 9 9 99
8 88 8 8
Ranking

8 7 7 7 77 7 7 2011 Rank
6 6 66 6 6
6 5 5 5 55 2012 Rank
44 44 444
4 3 33 333 2013 Rank
22222 2
2 111111 2014 Rank
0 2015 Rank
2016 Rank

Comparison Districts

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.

MAP Index Score Ranking Comparisons with CSIP Districts
English Language Arts
by Grade Level for 2012‐2016
13
Grade Level Ranking

9
8 8 8 8 8 8 2012
8 7 7
6 6 6 6 6 2013
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
4 4 4 4 4
3 3 3 3 3 2014
3 2 2 2
2015
2016
‐2 3rd ELA 4th ELA 5th ELA 6th ELA 7th ELA 8th ELA English 2
Grade Level 

MAP Index Score Ranking Comparisons with CSIP Districts
Mathematics
by Grade Level for 2012‐2016
13

11 10 10 1010
9 9 9 9
Grade Level Ranking

9 8 8 8 8 8 8
7 7 7 7 2012
7 6 6 6 6 2013
5 5 5 5
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 2014
3 3
3 2015
2
2016
1

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


Grade Level

18
MAP Index Score Ranking Comparisons with CSIP Districts
Science
by Grade Level for 2012‐2016
13

11
9
9
Grade Level Ranking

7 7 2012
7 6 6 2013
5 5
5 2014
4 4 4 4 4 4
3 2015
3 2 2016

‐1 5th Science 8th Science Biology


Grade Levels/Content Area

MAP Index Score Ranking Comparisons with CSIP Districts
Social Studies
by Grade Level for 2012‐2016

12

10
Course Ranking

8 2012
2013
6
4 4 2014
4 3 3 2015

2 2016
1

0
Government
Content Area

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.

Graduation Rates
4‐Year, 5‐Year, 6‐Year, 7‐Year 
2012‐2016 if Available
Carl Junction School District 
94 92.5 93 93 93
91 90.8 91.4
92
90.2 90 90 90.1 89.7 90.1
Percentage

90 2012
88.3
88 86.8 86.8 86.8 2013
86 2014
84 2015
82 2016
4‐Year 5‐Year 6‐Year 7‐Year
Rate Years

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
4‐Year Graduation Rates
Comparison of Carl Junction to CSIP Districts and Missouri
2015‐2016
100 96.4 95.8 95.1 94.9 93.7 92.9 92.3 91.8
Percentage

95 90.5 90 89.7 88.8


90
83.5 82.4
85
80
75 Rate

CSIP Districts & Missouri

21
Carl Junction R-1 School District
Comprehensive 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 2013 2014 2015 2016


Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank
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, 2
Persons Responsible: Assistant Superintendent, Building Principals, Teachers, Paraprofessionals
Date to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2015 (Implementation dates for specific action steps are listed below)

Date of Completion: 05/31/2019


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

Implement and evaluate the K-12 research-based ELA program, with resources,
1b. Strategy:
that is aligned to core area Missouri Learning Standards.
MSIP Standard: 1, 2
Assistant Superintendent, Building Principals, ELA Instructional Coach, ELA
Persons Responsible:
Curriculum Team
Date to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2014
Date of Completion: 05/31/2016
 Evaluate K-12 reading, writing, and language resource for the ELA
program.
Action Step:
 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
Assistant Superintendent, Building Principals, Instructional Coaches, PD
Persons Responsible:
Committee, Teachers

22
Date to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2015
Date of Completion: 05/31/2019

 Provide content and grade level specific professional development, to assist


in implementation of Quad D lessons. (8/1/2015)
Action Step:
 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, 2
Persons Responsible: Assistant Superintendent, Building Principals, Curriculum Leadership Teams
Date to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2015
Date of Completion: 05/31/2019
 Provide time and resources to align curriculum to new Missouri Learning
Action Step:
Standards.

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

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

Date to Implement Strategy: Spring 2015

Date of Completion: 05/31/2019

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

1f. Strategy: Implement technology across the curriculum K-12.


MSIP Standard: 1, 2, 3
School Board, Central Office Administration, Building Principals, Teachers, IT
Persons Responsible:
Department, Students, Parents, Community, Instructional Technology Coach
Date to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2015
Date of Completion: 05/31/2019

 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.
Action Step:  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

23
Preschool will continue to be offered to help develop the skills needed for
kindergarten/school success and developing reading/communication arts
1g. Strategy:
readiness for children exhibiting the need for supplemental assistance for
academic preparedness.
MSIP Standard: 1, 2
Persons Responsible: Preschool administrator/Title Coordinator, preschool teachers
Date to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2015
Date of Completion: 05/31/2019
 Assess the need to expand preschool program, especially to address low-
Action Step: 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 08/01/2015
Date to Completion 05/31/2019
 Collect and analyze data from assessments. (Spring 2015, ongoing)
Action Step:  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: 08/01/2015


Date of Completion: 05/31/2019

 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)
Action Step:  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 2016-2017


Goal/Actual Goal
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: 5
Persons Responsible: Building Principals, Students, Teachers
Date to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2015
Date of Completion: 05/31/2019

Action Steps:
 Review and evaluate current code of conduct policies to ensure alignment
K-12.

Continue to examine and utilize research of current trends and issues


2b. Strategy:
regarding school climate.
MSIP Standard: 5
Persons Responsible: Superintendent, Principals, Counselors, Graduation Coach, Vision Committee
Date to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2015
Date of Completion: 05/31/2019
 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.
Action Steps:
 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
Assistant Superintendent, At-Risk Committee Members, Principals,
Persons Responsible:
Graduation Coach
Date to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2015
Date of Completion: 05/31/2019
 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.
Action Steps:
 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: 5

25
Persons Responsible: Assistant Superintendent, Principals, Teachers, Alternative School Director
Funding Source Name: Local Funds, Basic Formula, State Monies
Date to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2015
Date of Completion: 05/31/2019
 Move the alternative school to a vacated building due to the passage of
the bond issue. (8/1/2016)
Action Steps:  Research and evaluate the need and feasibility of alternate attendance
times for students. (ex. 9am-4pm. Discussions should also include night
hours.)

Implement and/or maintain At-Risk Classrooms in each building for students


2e. Strategy:
without other services.
MSIP Standard: 5
Assistant Superintendent, Principals, Teachers, At Risk Committee,
Persons Responsible:
Graduation Coach
Date to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2015
Date of Completion: 05/31/2019
 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,
Action Steps: 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.

Continue to promote "Graduation Matters" throughout the Carl Junction R-1


2f. Strategy:
School District and include parents/community in the effort.
MSIP Standard: 5
Assistant Superintendent, Building Principals, At-Risk Committee, Teachers,
Persons Responsible:
CJ Chamber of Commerce
Date to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2015
Date of Completion: 05/31/2019
 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)
Action Steps:  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
Expand and evaluate transitional plans that are currently in place in each
2g. Strategy:
building so that transition for students to new buildings is successful.
MSIP Standard: 5
Persons Responsible: Principals, Teacher
08/01/2015
Date of Completion: 05/31/2019
 Principals will visit incoming students each spring/summer. (ongoing)
 Students will tour new buildings, speak to new teachers, etc.
(ongoing)
Action Steps:  The district will evaluate and research the current “At Risk”
assessment tools that may help staff identify at risk students.
(ongoing)

Create a task-force to review strategies from CSIP districts to improve


2h. Strategy:
graduation rates.
MSIP Standard: 5
Persons Responsible: Superintendents, HS Principals, Vision Committee, At-Risk Committee
08/01/2015
Date of Completion: 05/31/2019
 Create task force (1/1/2017)
Action Steps:
 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 338.7 336.6 343.8 325.7 332.3
Mathematics 334.9 330.9 331.2 273.5 309.7

Maintain a student-classroom teacher ratio that meets local and state


3a. Strategy:
desirable standards.
MSIP Standard: 2
Persons Responsible: Administration, School Board
Date to Implement Strategy: 08/01/2015
Date of Completion: 05/31/2019
 Maintain smaller class sizes allowing for the teacher to create
relationships with students that fall into the subgroups.
Action Steps:  Reduce size of Co-Teaching to reach subgroup students.
 Use High School Homeroom time to identify subgroups and build
student/teacher relationships.

Assess the need for transportation services for new and existing after-
3b. Strategy:
school support and enrichment programs.
MSIP Standard 2, 5
Persons Responsible Administration, School Board, Teachers
Date to Implement Strategy 08/01/2015
Date of Completion 05/31/2019
 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.
Action Steps:
 Evaluate resources to fund after school support and enrichment
programs.
 Develop and implement an after school program if determined it is
needed.

Examine ways to increase awareness and participation of the


3c. Strategy:
qualification/benefits for free and reduced lunch.
MSIP Standard 2
Person Responsible Administration, School Board
Date to Implement Strategy 08/01/2015
Date of Completion 05/31/2019
 Develop a plan to inform teachers, parents, and students about all the
Action Steps: opportunities that filling out the free and reduced lunch form
provides.

28
Provide professional development to faculty and staff on instructional
3d. Strategy:
strategies for students dealing with poverty.
MSIP Standard 2, 4, 5
Person Responsible Central Office, Administration, Professional Development Committee
Date to Implement Strategy 08/01/2015
Date to Completion 05/31/2019
 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.
Action Steps:
 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, 5
Person Responsible Administration, Teachers, Students
Date to Implement Strategy 08/01/2015
Date to Completion 05/31/2019
 Research software programs to help students who are struggling.
 Provide training opportunities for parents to help them with school
Action Steps: 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, 5
Person Responsible Central Office, Administration, Teachers
Date to Implement Strategy 08/01/2015
Date to Completion 05/31/2019
 Develop both district level and building level at-risk committees that
will include, but not be limited to counselors, PBS teachers, and
graduation coaches.
Action Steps:
 Committees will use data from multiple sources that can identify at-
risk students.
 Committees will seek out solutions and support for those students.

29
Adopt a research-based co-teaching model and provide teacher training,
3g. Strategy:
staff, and resources, for effective implementation.
MSIP Standard 2
Person Responsible Central Office, Administration, Leadership Teams
Date to Implement Strategy 08/01/2015
Date to Completion 05/31/2019
 Professional development on Anne Benninghof’s model will be
provided. (Fall 2016)
Action Steps:  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 Revising
The 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