2016-2017 Balanced Scorecard/
Annual Report Commerce City Schools The purpose of Commerce City Schools is to be a respected charter system of high achieving schools with shared governance providing a safe environment and engaging students in learning experiences that will prepare them for post-secondary options and a healthy, productive life.
270 Lakeview Drive Commerce, Georgia 30529 Phone: 706-335-5500 Fax: 706-335-5214 Web address: www.commercecityschools.org
Purpose of this Report The Commerce City School System has developed an accountability system for improving schools called the Commerce City Continuous Improvement Process (CCCIP). This process is a part of our efforts to create an environment where all students have the opportunity to learn, grow, and succeed. The process fairly and systematically measures progress and communicates expectations. As our system evaluates performance, it is important that we share the results with staff, parents, and community members. The annual report provides consolidated information on our system’s effectiveness based on multiple measures and student characteristics. The report includes demographic data, student achievement data, and satisfaction data. Please review this report to learn more about our system’s improvement efforts and progress.
Mission, Vision, Values and Beliefs
Commerce City Schools Mission To ensure that we do everything possible to help each child maximize achievement and establish a pattern of life-long learning.
Vision The purpose of Commerce City Schools is to be a respected charter system of high achieving schools with shared governance providing a safe environment and engaging students in learning experiences that will prepare them for post-secondary options and a healthy, productive life.
Values and Beliefs We value the improvement of student learning and achievement by: -providing a challenging instructional program that meets the needs of all students, -providing a highly qualified staff, -providing safe, clean, and educationally appropriate facilities, -managing and using resources in an efficient and effective manner, and -involving parents and community stakeholders.
Commerce City Schools Continuous Improvement Planning Cycle Late Spring/Summer• System will analyze test data to identify strengths/weaknesses at each school and participate in Data Dig at Northeast Georgia RESA • System will complete Annual Report/System Improvement Plan through the Consolidated Application after input from the annual stakeholder meeting • Title I schools will update parent involvement policies, school-wide plans, and parent compacts based upon input from annual parent involvement surveys/parent meeting-mark revision date on front page of policy Late Summer• Share the draft of the Balanced Scorecard/Annual Report and System Improvement Plan with principals • Principals will share the plan with School Governance Teams • Review AdvancED Standards for Schools and Systems/Complete Accreditation Assurances Form August/September• Finalize the Action Plan at each school based upon the system plan. • The Board will review the Balanced Scorecard/Annual Report. • Evaluate progress on CCRPI. • Title I schools update the school-wide improvement plan based upon input from School Governance Teams and annual parent meeting • Title I schools host parent meeting to cover Title I requirements. • Title I schools send home Parent/Teacher/Student Compacts October• Administer online surveys to teachers, parents, and students • Evaluate progress on CCRPI. • Administer the School Climate Survey (DOE) for CCRPI Climate Rating November• Summarize survey results-add results to portfolio/improvement plans and communicate to faculty • Conduct Internal Quality Assurance Visit (or schedule GAPSS Review-once every three years). • Evaluate progress on CCRPI. December-April: • In December, Title I (federally) paid employees complete Periodic Certification Forms • Focus on mid-year check of Improvement Plan/ CCRPI for the current year. • Keep stakeholder groups involved with updates on progress toward the goals. • In January-Update Equity Plan. May• Collect and analyze data for the Annual Report • In May-June Complete the Needs Assessment Worksheet (Title II-A). • Write the tentative Annual Report for the next school year based upon test results, selfassessments, CCRPI, and survey results. • Title I schools conduct annual parent involvement surveys to gather input for parent involvement activities • In May-Title I employees complete Periodic Certification Forms Throughout the year, the School Improvement Coordinators will meet to monitor this process. Also, principals will meet with School Governance Teams to keep stakeholders involved in the school improvement process.
Revised 06/17/16
Commerce City Schools System, Student, and Staff Data 2016-2017 Student Data Enrollment Average Daily Attendance (System) # Free and Reduced Lunch # Gifted Students Served # Special Education Students # ESOL # of Graduates
2015-16
2014-15
2013-14
2012-13
2011-12
2010-11
2009-10
1555
1519
1458
1476
1364
1457
1442
95.57%
95.26%
96.03%
95.95%
96.13%
96.08%
95.70%
1057/63%
1027/63%
1022/64%
1014/64%
966/70%
951/65%
892/62%
130
126
130
148
162
168
185
241
248
253
226
331
200
226
65
56
39
45
46
34
51
100
82
88
89
88
98
85
Years Teaching Experience 2015-2016 60
46
50 40
51
29
30 20
11
10 0 0-3 yrs
4-9 yrs 10-19 yrs 20+ yrs
Staff Certification Levels 2015-2016 53 48
60 40
31
20 2 0 Bachelors
Masters
Specialist Doctorate
Student Demographic Data 2015-2016 2015-16 Commerce Primary School 3 48
Asian Black
51
Hispanic
27
Multi-Racial
277
White
2015-16 Commerce Elementary School
Asian
1 28
Black
25 Hispanic
15
155
Multi-Racial White
2015-16 Commerce Middle School 5
Asian
57 51 27
Black Hispanic Multi-Racial
356
White
2015-16 Commerce High School
6
Asian
57 47 14
Black Hispanic Multi-Racial
305
White
Demographic Changes Within Commerce City Schools
Ethnicity
20112012
20122013
20132014
20142015
20152016
Asian Black White Two or More Races Hispanic
15 (1%) 181 (12%) 1050 (72%) 53 (4%)
13 (.8%) 180 (12%) 1064 (72%) 62 (4%)
12 (.8%) 170 (12%) 1058 (73%) 64 (4.3%)
13 (.8%) 180 (12%) 1070 (70%) 88 (6%)
15 (.9%) 190 (13%) 1093 (72%) 83 (5%)
149 (10%)
153 (10%)
153 (10%)
168 (11%)
174 (11%)
CHS Graduate Report The Governor’s Office of Student Achievement (GOSA)
Percentage of the Graduates that required remediation at Georgia public colleges and universities Subject English Math
2009 6.3% 37.5%
2010 10.9% 30.9%
2011 15.2% 34.8%
2012 10% 32%
2013 8.3% 25%
2014 7.7% 25.6%
Top Colleges/Universities by Enrollment- Year After High School Graduation (2014) Top In-State Colleges/Universities University of North Georgia Athens Technical College University of Georgia Armstrong Atlantic State University Brenau University
Top Out-of-State Colleges/Universities Anderson University Lenior-Rhyne University
Class of 2016- Senior Exit Survey- Prepared by LifeTrack Services, Inc.
Class of 2016 Exit Survey- Did school make learning exciting and encourage you to continue your education?
Class of 2016 Exit Survey- Did you have adequate access to information and guidance about your post-secondary choices and plans?
Class of 2016- Exit Survey- Did your teachers have high expectations for quality work?
Class of 2016- Exit Survey- Overall, do you feel that the faculty/staff cared about you?
School Reports- Governor’s Office of Student Achievement Commerce High School- 4-Year Graduation Rate- 94.3%
2015 CCRPI 4-Year Cohort Graduation Rate
2014 CCRPI 4-Year Cohort Graduation Rate by Subgroup-91.8%
Grade 3 4 5 6 7 8 Grade 3 4 5 6 7 8 Grade 3 4 5 6 7 8 Grade 3 4 5 6 7 8
Georgia Milestones- Commerce City Schools 2014-15 and 2015-16 Comparison English Language Arts % 1 (14-15) %1 (15-16) %2 (14-15) %2 (15-16) %3 %3 (15-16) %4 (14-15) (14-15) 21.6 14 31.5 28 34.2 48 12.6 18.3 19 44.0 33 30.3 42 7.3 18.9 14 42.3 36 36.9 42 1.8 26.5 20 31.6 33 37.6 42 4.3 25.7 15 39.0 35 32.4 44 2.9 25.2 15 40.2 41 29.1 37 5.5 Mathematics % 1 (14-15) %1 (15-16) %2 (14-15) %2 (15-16) %3 %3 (15-16) %4 (14-15) (14-15) 9.8 6.1 37.5 32 39.3 46 13.4 7.3 6.4 49.5 37 36.7 34 6.4 26.1 21 51.4 39 21.6 34 0.9 11.0 15 53.4 49 30.5 34 5.1 23.8 13 42.9 31 26.7 39 6.7 17.1 12 48.1 42 24.8 35 10.1 Science % 1 (14-15) %1 (15-16) %2 (14-15) %2 (15-16) %3 %3 (15-16) %4 (14-15) (14-15) 11.6 8.7 44.6 40 30.4 39 13.4 13.8 13 39.4 50 42.2 28 4.6 11.7 20 40.5 26 40.5 39 7.2 19.5 24 28.0 32 47.5 43 5.1 32.4 23 44.8 25 19.0 41 3.8 35.2 27 35.9 38 25.8 25 3.1 Social Studies % 1 (14-15) %1 (15-16) %2 (14-15) %2 (15-16) %3 %3 (15-16) %4 (14-15) (14-15) 16.2 9 41.4 46 28.8 28 13.5 17.4 17 33.9 31 39.4 35 9.2 13.5 13 61.3 43 18.0 25 7.2 24.3 22 40.0 49 22.6 24 13.0 26.9 8 44.2 27 17.3 41 11.5 22.4 29 42.4 43 26.4 23 8.8
%4 (15-16) 9.6 6.4 7 5 6 8 %4 (15-16) 17 23 6 2 17 11 %4 (15-16) 11 9 15 2 11 10 %4 (15-16) 18 18 19 6 24 4
Though there is still much work to be done to perform well on the End of Grade assessments on the Georgia Milestones, our system did experience growth in the following areas: In ELA, grades 5 and 7 improved their scores at every level (1, 2, 3, and 4); in Math, grades 3, 5, 7, and 8 improved their scores at every level (1, 2, 3, and 4); in Science, grade 7 improved its score at every level (1, 2, 3, and 4); in Social Studies, grades 5 and 7 improved their scores at every level (1,2,3, and 4).
Historical Comparison of Results from 2011-12 EOCT; 2012-13-EOCT; 2013-14 EOCT; 2014-15 EOC; 2015-16 EOC 2011-12 EOCT Does Not Meets/ Meet Exceeds 9th Literature American Literature Math I/Algebra Math II/Geometry Biology Physical Science US History Economics
5% 7%
95% 93%
2012-13 EOCT Does Meets/ Not Exceeds Meet 9.2% 91% 3.5% 96%
28% 28% 7% 9% 27% 12%
72% 72% 93% 91% 73% 88%
91% 67% 15.8% 2.6% 17.3% 22%
9% 33% 84% 97% 83% 78%
2013-14 EOCT Does Meets/ Not Exceeds Meet 5% 95% 2.2% 97.8% 50.3% 62.2% 3.7% 11.2% 18.3% 14.9%
40.7% 37.8% 96.3% 88.8% 81.7% 85.1%
2014-15 MILESTONES Does Not Meets/ Meet Exceeds
2015-16 MILESTONES Does Not Meets/ Meet Exceeds
44.2% 33.5%
55.8% 66.5%
25% 14%
75% 86%
42.5% 44.8% N/A 15.7% N/A 41.5%
57.5% 55.2% N/A 84.3% N/A 58.5%
24% 23% 28%
76% 77% 72%
22% 17%
78% 83%
2012-13 EOCT; 2013-14 EOCT; 2014-2015 Georgia Milestone End of Course (EOC) Subgroup Data (Scoring DNM or Level 1-Beginning) Grade/Subject 9th Literature 9th Biology th 9 C. Algebra 9th US History 10th (9th Lit) th 10 A. Geometry th 10 Am. Lit. 10th Biology 10th C. Algebra 10th Economics 11th A. Geometry th 11 Am. Lit. th 11 Economics 12th A. Geometry 12th A. Lit. th 12 Economics
ED-DNM or Level 1 2013 2014 2015 2 2 8 14 3 4 19 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 2 2 2 2 3 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 5 3
ELL-DNM or Level 1 2013 2014 2015 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SWD-DNM or Level 1 2013 2014 2015 2 2 10 18 3 6 23 7 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 2 2 4 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 2 6 4
2013 2 4 18 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
Black 2014 2 2 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3
2015 6 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 6
2013 1 5 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Hispanic 2014 2015 2 4 2 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
2013 5 16 89 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
White 2014 5 8 0 3 2 43 0 1 0 0 5 1 0 4 0 11
2015 14 9 10 2 2 18 1 0 1 1 3 8 1 1 1 12
Career, Technical and Agricultural Education-CTAE End of Pathway Assessment Results 2015-2016 CTAE Pathway Video Production Healthcare Food and Nutrition Business Administration Overall
# of students who passed 10 6 18 18
# of students who attempted 12 22 18 20
EOP Assessment Pass Rate 83.33% 27.27% 100% 90%
52
72
72%
CHS Student Performance on ACT, SAT, and AP (Advanced Placement) Exams
Perkins Core Indicators-Commerce High School Core Indicators
1S1 Reading/Language Arts 1S2 Mathematics
System Target 2015-2016
System Actual Performance Level 2014-2015
Met/Did Not Meet
100 N/A
96 N/A
Yes N/A
System Target 20162017
100 N/A
Strategies to Address Core Indicators
2S1 Technical Skill Attainment
46.75
87.5
Yes
87.5
3S1 Secondary School Diploma
100
100
Yes
100
4S1 Student Graduation Rate
96.3
100
Yes
100
5S1 Secondary Placement
86.84
100
Yes
100
6S1 Nontraditional Participation
24.11
23.91
No
24.11
6S2 Nontraditional Completion
21.43
14.29
No
21.43
CTAE teachers will align their course curriculum with academic and technical standards. CTAE teachers will emphasize reading, writing, and math in the technical fields. CTAE teachers will enhance learning of technical skills by closely relating course content to real-world experiences. (follow blueprint for EOPA) Reinforce to students advantages of program completion and high school graduation. CTAE teachers will maintain close contact with parents as students progress through their programs. Assist students in developing a Career Plan. Help plan Career Fair, including information on nontraditional careers. Coordinate school-to-work transition activities with role model mentors in nontraditional careers.
Move On When Ready and Work-Based Learning at CHS 2015-2016 Grade MOWR WBL th 9 0 0 th 10 0 0 th 11 0 11 12th 20 31
Georgia Department of Education Fiscal Year 2015 Financial Data Collection System School Year Per Pupil Allocation for Commerce City Schools 2011-2012 $8,691.14 2012-2013 $8,593.19 2013-2014 $8,408.25 2014-2015 $8,051.91 2015-2016 $8,033.86
System Financial Information Five Year Budget History 13.0 Budget Amounts in Millions
12.9 11.9
11.5
12.0
11.0
11.3
11.2
11.0 10.0 2008-09 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 School Year
% of Budget 2016-17 Admin (RESA, Pupil Services, School Nutrition, Media) 9.9% Transportation .55%
Direct Instruction 89%
Maintenance .55%
Five Year Millage Rate History 20 19 Number of Mills
18 17 16 20112012
20122013
20132014 School Year
20142015
20152016
20112012 20122013 20132014 20142015
Results from Stakeholder (Student, Parent, Teacher) Perception Surveys At Commerce Primary, the stakeholder perceptions indicate that school improvement efforts be focused toward Standards 2 and 3. Specifically, CPS can focus on Indicators 2.3, 3.7, 3.8, 4.3, and 4.6. At Commerce Elementary, the stakeholder perceptions indicate that school improvement efforts be focused toward Standards 2 and 5. Specifically, CES can focus on Indicators 2.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.12, 4.6, and 5.1. Though these indicators are not within the lowest rated standards, they did receive the lowest overall scores among the indicators. At Commerce Middle, the stakeholder perceptions indicate that school improvement efforts be focused toward Standards 2, 4, and 5. Specifically, CMS can focus on Indicators 2.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.9, 3.10, 4.3, and 4.5. Though these indicators are not within the lowest rated standards, they did receive the lowest overall scores among the indicators. At Commerce High, the stakeholder perceptions indicate that school improvement efforts be focused toward Standards 2 and 5. Specifically, CHS can focus on Indicators 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 3.5, 3.8, 3.11, and 5.2. Though these indicators are not within the lowest rated standards, they did receive the lowest overall scores among the stakeholders. As a system, the implications will be to focus system improvement efforts toward Indicators 2.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 4.3, and 4.6 since those indicators were rated as the lowest in multiple schools.
