The Number of Students by Grade Level that Exhibited Each Early Warning Indicator

Early Warning Indicators

Students with Two or More Indicators

The Number of Students Retained

Grades 9-12 (Optional)

This section intentionally left blank because it addresses grades not taught at this school or the school opted not to include data for these grades.

Needs Assessment/Data Review (ESEA Section 1114(b)(6))

ESSA School, District, State Comparison

The district and state averages shown here represent the averages for similar school types (elementary, middle, high school or combination schools). Each “blank” cell indicates the school had less than 10 eligible students with data for a particular component and was not calculated for the school. Data for 2024-25 had not been fully loaded to CIMS at time of printing.

ESSA School-Level Data Review

2024-25 ESSA FPPI

• ESSA Category (CSI, TSI or ATSI): N/A
• Overall FPPI – All Students: 80%
• Overall FPPI Below 41% – All Students: No
• Total Number of Subgroups Missing the Target: 0
• Total Points Earned for the FPPI: 718
• Total Components for the FPPI: 9
• Percent Tested: 99%

ESSA Overall FPPI History

ESSA Subgroup Data Review

Accountability Components by Subgroup

Each “blank” cell indicates the school had less than 10 eligible students with data for a particular component and was not calculated for the school.

Grade Level Data Review – State Assessments

The data are raw data and include ALL students who tested at the school. This is not school grade data. The percentages shown here represent ALL students who received a score of 3 or higher on the statewide assessments. An asterisk (*) in any cell indicates the data has been suppressed due to fewer than 10 students tested or all tested students scoring the same.

2024-25 Spring

2024-25 Fall

Planning for Improvement

Data Analysis/Reflection (ESEA Section 1114(b)(6))

Most Improvement

Which data component showed the most improvement? What new actions did your school take in this area?

Overall our ELA PM 3 FAST achievement scores for all grade levels (6-8) were at an 86% proficiency, up 3% from the previous year and a 6% growth from the 2022-2023 year prior. Our subgroup of students with disabilities in ELA overall percentages for all grades rose from 6% to 9% with achievement scores of a Level 3 or better. Sixth grade ELA scores for PM 3 for a Level 3 or above were a 90%. Algebra EOC scores had 100% proficiency. Geometry EOC scores had 98% proficiency. Math PM 3 FAST achievement scores for all grade levels (6-8) were at an 90% proficiency, down from 92% overall, but still above the state and district averages. New actions were taken in this area were teacher coaching support from the ILC. Training with the Assistant Principal on best practices for documenting accommodations and supporting students with education plans. Teacher professional development and PLCs in areas of need were also beneficial to this improvement.

Lowest Performance

Which data component showed the lowest performance? Explain the contributing factor(s) to last year’s low performance and discuss any trends.

The math achievement level was 90%. Algebra and Geometry EOC achievement were 100% and 98% respectively. However the subgroup of SWD dropped from 67% in 2023-2024 to 58% in 2024-2025. Seventh grade PM3 FAST scores dropped to a 64% in 2024-2025 from an 82% in 2023-2024. The bottom quartile decreased from 81% to 69% in achievement. Due to replacing an 8th grade teacher in the first quarter and finding a permanent replacement not until the end of that first quarter, there was a transition period that required adjustment in the learning process. One 7th grade math teacher took on added 8th grade Pre-Algebra class and took on a full schedule.

Greatest Decline

Which data component showed the greatest decline from the prior year? Explain the factor(s) that contributed to this decline.

The greatest decline from the prior year were the 7th grade FAST PM 3 achievement scores from 2023-2024 to 2024-2025. It declined from 82% to 64% achievement level, a 18% decrease. The SWD subgroup in overall grades 6-8 also declined from 67% to 58%, a 9% decrease.

Greatest Gap

Which data component had the greatest gap when compared to the state average? Explain the factor(s) that contributed to this gap and any trends.

The greatest gap in a positive trend from LMS to the state average are our combined grades (6-8) math FAST PM 3 scores, which is 34% in favor of Landrum Middle School. A big contributing factor is increased planning time in PLCs where teachers shared best practices, planned units and common assessments together. All of our state test data outperformed the state averages. Again, our grade 7 math FAST PM3 scores narrowly outperformed the state average by 4%. As per reasons stated above in staffing may have contributed to this trend.

EWS Areas of Concern

Reflecting on the EWS data from Part I, identify one or two potential areas of concern.

Students with Disabilities Subgroup Performance

In the 7th grade ELA, the students with disabilities (SWD) subgroup had a 56% achievement success rate, while 44% did not reach achievement cut scores in their FAST PM3. The 6th and 8th grades both had a 64% achievement success rate in SWD subgroups, with 36% not reaching achievement cut scores in their FAST PM3.

In 7th grade Math, the SWD subgroup had a 53% achievement success rate, while 47% did not reach achievement cut scores in their FAST PM3.

Highest Priorities

Rank your highest priorities (maximum of 5) for school improvement in the upcoming school year:

1. Increase student achievement in ELA and Math by 2 percentage points in our students with disabilities subgroup.
2. Increase student achievement in ELA and Math by 2 percentage points in the Lower 25% bottom quartile students subgroup.
3. Increase teacher retention by strengthening relationships and fostering positive collaboration among staff with the goal of increasing student achievement through professional development in effective classroom management practices and coaching styles.
4. Strengthen instructional practices by improving areas in creating curriculum unit plans and developing common assessments for all classes through the process of collaborative PLCs.

Area(s) of Focus (Instructional Practices)

Area of Focus #1

Address the school’s highest priorities based on any/all relevant data sources.

ESSA Subgroups Specifically Relating to Students With Disabilities (SWD)

Area of Focus Description and Rationale

ELA Fast PM3 scores for all students had an 86% achievement level across all grade levels. ESSA subgroups in ELA scored 61% in all grade levels, which was still higher than the district. Math FAST PM3 for all students had a 90% achievement level across all grade levels. 3% of SWD in all grade levels did not achieve proficiency level for the Math FAST PM3. Conversely, 9% of SWD in all grade levels achieved proficiency in Math FAST PM3.

There is room for improvement to address the learning gaps by meeting the needs of these students through differentiated instruction practices outlined in their Individual Education Plans.

Measurable Outcome

Students with disabilities will continue to improve in ELA, Math, and Science achievement scores. ELA scores in students with disabilities are expected to rise from 46% to 60% in 2024 to 2025. ELA learning gains in the bottom 25% quartile are projected to be 64% in that same timeframe. Math learning gains in the bottom 25% quartile are expected to improve by 69% in that same timeframe. Science achievement is anticipated to improve in the subgroup of students with disabilities from 46% to 53% in 2024 to 2025. Increased professional development will include one-on-one coaching cycles and PLC planning.

Monitoring

Targeted instruction with the subgroups of students with disabilities and bottom quartile will be monitored through achievement in formative assessments tied to state standards. Data will be analyzed in PLCs during FAST PM1 and PM2 assessments to identify learning gaps in not only students with disabilities and bottom quartile students but all students. The MTSS team will help track low-performing students with added supports to assist teachers and students alike. PLC teams will continue to create and revise unit plans that use backwards design planning tied to state standards assessed in common summative assessments.

Person Responsible for Monitoring Outcome

Troy Kasting

Evidence-based Intervention

Description of Intervention #1

Teacher coaching and support with ILC based on needs.

Rationale

A 2018 meta-analysis of 60 causal studies found that the difference in effectiveness between teachers with instructional coaches and those without was equivalent to the difference between novice teachers and teachers with five to ten years of experience. Professional learning communities (PLCs) have been acknowledged as highly effective, with their characteristics being identified with reasonable consistency.

Tier of Evidence-based Intervention

Tier 1 – Strong Evidence

Will this evidence-based intervention be funded with UniSIG?

Yes

Action Steps to Implement

Action Step #1

Teacher coaching and support with ILC based on needs.

Person Monitoring: Jarred Shaw

By When/Frequency: Weekly and monthly depending on the needs of each teacher.

Describe the Action to Be Taken: Meet the needs of new teachers in classroom management, planning instruction, curriculum planning of unit plans, creating common assessments, and instructional strategies. Coaching cycles can be met in various ways to plan, co-teach, model, observe, collect data and analyze it, and then debrief. It is an ongoing process that roots in a problem of practice that the teacher agrees they want to grow and work on throughout the year.

Action Step #2

PLC Planning Time TDE Unit Planning and Common Assessments

Person Monitoring: Troy Kasting / Jarred Shaw

By When/Frequency: Monthly PLC time and literacy walkthroughs and observations

Describe the Action to Be Taken: PLC teams were created. Teachers will be trained in unit planning and begin creating a living document in the backwards design planning of Wiggins and McTeague model to improve their instructional strategies that tie to state standards and prepare all students for proficiency in assessments. In PLC teams, teachers will create common assessments to use in each unit. Teachers will discuss their data tied to the standards and determine best practices for instruction, re-teaching, remediation, differentiation, and enrichment based on data-driven discussions.

Positive Learning Environment

Area of Focus #1

Teacher Retention and Recruitment

Area of Focus Description and Rationale

Strengthening relationships and fostering collaboration amongst staff with the goal of increasing student achievement for all students. Focus on retention of new teachers so they feel supported at the beginning of their teaching profession, especially in classroom management.

Measurable Outcome

Provide professional development opportunities and resources for teachers to gain and maintain expertise in classroom management, positive behavioral incentive systems, as well as expertise in content and pedagogy. Provide one-on-one coaching cycles with ILC and mentor groups (new teacher cadre) in areas of classroom management so teachers are supported with classroom management, curriculum, and school-wide issues.

Monitoring

One-on-one coaching cycles will be documented by ILC through collaborative planning, observation, and debriefing notes. Professional development workshops will be documented with survey results regarding the effectiveness of the workshop. Multiple whole staff luncheons and staff outings will be organized to increase collaboration.

Person Responsible for Monitoring Outcome

Troy Kasting

Evidence-based Intervention

Description of Intervention #1

Professional development will include PLC time, TDE time, and district workshops.

Rationale

Spending time with colleagues that is mission-driven to achieve student success is beneficial for school success.

Tier of Evidence-based Intervention

Tier 1 – Strong Evidence

Will this evidence-based intervention be funded with UniSIG?

No

Action Steps to Implement

Action Step #1

Principal spotlight on a teacher, staff outings at the end of each semester will improve positive culture amongst staff.

Person Monitoring: Troy Kasting

By When/Frequency: Monthly

Describe the Action to Be Taken: Multiple whole staff luncheons and staff outings will be organized to increase collaboration.

Amount and Quality of Learning Time

Help provide an enriched and accelerated curriculum. Include the Area of Focus if addressed in Part II of the SIP (20 U.S.C. § 6314(b)(7)(A)(ii), ESEA Section 1114(b)(7)(A)(ii)).

N/A

How Plan is Developed

If appropriate and applicable, describe how this plan is developed in coordination and integration with other federal, state and local services, resources and programs, such as:

• Programs supported under this Act
• Violence prevention programs
• Nutrition programs
• Housing programs
• Head Start programs
• Adult education programs
• Career and technical education programs
• Schools implementing CSI or TSI activities under section 1111(d) (20 U.S.C. § 6314(b)(5) and §6318(e)(4), ESEA Sections 1114(b)(5) and 1116(e)(4))

N/A

Component(s) of the Schoolwide Program Plan

Components of the Schoolwide Program Plan, as applicable. Include descriptions for any additional, applicable strategies that address the needs of all children in the school, particularly those at risk of not meeting the challenging state academic standards which may include the following:

Improving Student’s Skills Outside the Academic Subject Areas

Describe how the school ensures counseling, school-based mental health services, specialized support services, mentoring services and other strategies to improve students’ skills outside the academic subject areas (20 U.S.C. § 6314(b)(7)(A)(iii)(I), ESEA Section 1114(b)(7)(A)(iii)(I)).

N/A

Preparing for Postsecondary Opportunities and the Workforce

Describe the preparation for and awareness of postsecondary opportunities and the workforce, which may include career and technical education programs and broadening secondary school students’ access to coursework to earn postsecondary credit while still in high school (20 U.S.C. § 6314(b)(7)(A)(iii)(II), ESEA Section 1114(b)(7)(A)(iii)(II)).

N/A

Addressing Problem Behavior and Early Intervening Services

Describe the implementation of a schoolwide tiered model to prevent and address problem behavior and early intervening services coordinated with similar activities and services carried out under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 6314(b)(7)(A)(iii)(III), ESEA Section 1114(b)(7)(A)(iii)(III)).

N/A

Professional Learning and Other Activities

Describe the professional learning and other activities for teachers, paraprofessionals and other school personnel to improve instruction and use of data from academic assessments, and to recruit and retain effective teachers, particularly in high-need subjects (20 U.S.C. § 6314(b)(7)(A)(iii)(IV), ESEA Section 1114(b)(7)(A)(iii)(IV)).

N/A

Strategies to Assist Preschool Children

Describe the strategies the school employs to assist preschool children in the transition from early childhood education programs to local elementary school programs (20 U.S.C. § 6314(b)(7)(A)(iii)(V), ESEA Section 1114(b)(7)(A)(iii)(V)).

N/A

ATSI, TSI and CSI Resource Review

This section must be completed if the school is identified as ATSI or CSI (ESEA Sections 1111(d)(1)(B)(4) and (2)(C) and 1114(b)(6).

Process to Review the Use of Resources

Describe the process you engage in with your district to review the use of resources to meet the identified needs of students.

N/A

Specifics to Address the Need

Identify the specific resource(s) and rationale (i.e., data) you have determined will be used this year to address the need(s) (i.e., timeline).

N/A

Budget to Support Areas of Focus

Check if this school is eligible for 2025-26 UniSIG funds but has chosen NOT to apply.

No