Mount+Hope+High+School+Fall+2012

Mount Hope High School 199 Chestnut Street- Bristol, RI, 02809 401-254-5980 Mt. Hope High School girl's lacrosse team celebrate taking the Division One-A lacrosse championship on May 31, 2008.

C.S. Bascom Jr.
= = = Introduction = Mount Hope High School, the high school for the Bristol-Warren Regional School District, is a part of a district that is "on the rise." Located on the north-eastern section of Rhode Island, the school is on the grounds of the former Bristol High School, becoming Mount Hope High School when the Bristol and Warren school districts merged in September of 1993. The principle is Donald Rebello, working under the superintendent Melinda L. Theis, with Nat Squatrito and Russell Noble as co-deans of students. The goals for the district, which apply to the high school specifically, are to educate students so that they "achieve at the high levels needed to prepare them to lead fulfilling and productive lives, to succeed in academic and employment settings, and to make a positive contribution to society." The data on the school, collected from the U.S. Census, RI Kids Count, and InfoWorks Live, paint a picture of a school that is positioned just above state averages. The purpose of this statement is to provide an annotated and abridged representation of the data available on this school. While potentially helpful for families looking for good schools to send their children to, it is aimed more for those in a more administrative role.

= **Community Background** =

Bristol County is on the eastern side of the state of Rhode Island (right), just south the affluent Barrington county. As of the 2010 U.S. census, the population was 49,800 individuals, or about 4.7% of the population of Rhode Island. The demographics of the state are rather monochromatic (below). Both towns of Bristol and Warren are more than 95% Caucasian (White), and the second most abundant ethnicity is Hispano or Latino, only around 2.0% (Bristol, 2.0%, Warren, 1.6%). The effect this has on t he community cannot be fairly judged, and is merely a point of fact. The first point of significance to be made is about the median household income versus the median family household income, and when you take into account how many families in the county are with a single parent.

The Median Household Income(below) for Bristol County (taken as an average of Bristol and Warren) was $58,976.50 as of the 2010 census. This is comparison to the state and national averages, which are $54,902 and $51,914, respectfully. These data show that Bristol County is above state and national averages, but not by very much. Only 7% above state levels, and 12% above national levels.

The story told by the Median Family Income is nearly the same, though the values are systematically higher. The average ($77,307.50) is only 8.5% above the state average ($70,663), and about 18.5% above the national average ($62,982). In both cases, however, Bristol is the community that is bringing the over-all community above averages. Alone, Warren is pretty near to state levels. The Median Household Income there is actually 2% below state levels, and the Median Family Income is only 3.4% percent above the same levels. The data would suggest here that, of the two towns, Bristol brings the over all community to above-average status, at least in the ways that money are concerned. Another layer of this that is of interest to point out is the percent of the community that has single parent households. In this case, Bristol (21%) is well below the state rate of 31%, but Warren is actually slightly above the state average at 32%. The community average then falls way below the state level, at 26.5%, but this is done mostly by Bristol's very low rate. For the community, there is a bit of a dichotomy. In many ways it appears that Bristol has risen above the state and national levels, but Warren is either at or below them (except in the case of Single-Parent Families, but a low rate is generally considered as better in that context). The cause of this dichotomy is anyone's guess, but considering that it is generally not that dramatic, it is not much cause for concern in this report.

= District Summary = Whether it is the best means of measurement or not is a hotly-contested subject, but the fact remains that the standardized New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) test scores are the most accessible and quantifiable means of comparing the public schools within Rhode Island. Here, we see the NECAP scores for each subject over the grades that they a re used to assess students.



= = = = = = = = = = = =

In line with the statements made above, Bristol-Warren seems to score either at or just above the state averages in every subject, in every grade level tested. There are exceptions, however. In seventh grade reading, Mount Hope is only 2% above the state proficiency rating, and in eighth grade science they are at a dead-heat with a 25% proficiency score. Whether these scores reflect the curriculum quality in those subjects in those grades, or are representative of a particularly misinformed batch of students is hard to say. Further data would need to be collected to see if the dip in scores stays at the same grade, or continues as the kids move through the school system.

In the Bristol-Warren school district, there is an average student-to-teacher ratio of 10:1. This is lower than both the state level (11:1) and Barrington (12:1), but the really interesting point to be made is that it is the same as Central Falls, 10:1. So while Bristol-Warren and Central Falls, statistically, have the same amount of students per teacher, they score consistently lower, suggesting that the number of teachers alone does not for a good school make. An insight to what is going on here is in the percent of teachers that are not highly qualified. As of the 2010-2011 school year, the average percent of teachers that were not highly qualified was 3%. Both Bristol-Warren and Barrington include 1% of their teachers a "not highly qualified." Meanwhile, Central Falls has 6% of their teachers in the category in question. Clearly, this is strong evidence for that, when it comes to teachers, quality means far more than quantity. And to this end, Bristol-Warren has the quality, but has only enough quantity to bring their scores just above average.

One last thing to note is represented in the graph on the right. Of the three regions discussed here (Barrington, Central Falls, and Bristol-Warren) there is a strange discrepancy between the property value, the expenditure per student, and median family income. One might think that as property and median family income values rise, that the expenditure per student might also rise as the community and district as a whole have more money. That is not the case, and nor is it the exact opposite. Likely a result of the joined towns, the Bristol-Warren district has the highest property value, at over $1.25 million, with Barrington and Central Falls behind at $0.894 million and $0.196 million respectively. And while Bristol-Warren then also has the highest per student expenditure at $17,210, Barrigton and Central falls are reversed for second and third place from what one might expect, with Central Falls spending $14,350/student, and Barrington spending $12,380/student. And lastly, as discussed previously, the median family income for the three regions falls along with what one might expect, with Barrington making the most ($84,560), followed by Bristol-Warren ($53,740), which is then followed by Central Falls ($26,840).

= =

= School Analysis =

The high school itself, again, seems to be at or just above the state levels. Looking back at the NECAP scores taken in the eleventh grade, we see that Mt. Hope only scores just above the state averages in Math and Science. Interestingly enough, however, they score at or above Barrington High School's level in both Reading and Writing. This would suggest that, perhaps, the curricula and teachers of the two later subjects is very strong at this school. But it would be prudent to look for this trend within another standardized test. And therefore, we check with SAT scores. The state average for the reading portion of the SAT was 482, and Bristol-Warren just above that at 488, only 1.2% higher. And in writing, the state average was 474, and Bristol-Warren actually scored just below that, at 473. Both are exceeded significantly by Barrington, scoring at 554 for writing, and 557 for reading. Math, it seems, is right online with what the NECAP said, being just at the average. So, given at the same grade level (Eleventh grade), the NECAP and SAT scores paint very different pictures of the English curriculum at Bristol-Warren. On the one hand, NECAP says that the curriculum is strong, above average, and truly in line with the school's mission. The SAT, however, suggests that the curriculum right on the mean for the state. Given that the SAT is the standard that the whole nation uses, and NECAP is merely regional, the story that the SAT data tell is likely to be much more valid.

Another way one might compare the success of a school would be to look at it's graduation record. And to that end, we look to the graduation rates for 2011, shown left. This is more in-line with the theme of this report. The graduation rate for Bristol-Warren high school, in 2011, was 86.9%, which is just a bit higher than the state rate of 77.2%. This theme carries through all the data, with a below-average drop out rate, and less students opting to get their GED instead of a diploma. Something worth pointing out, however, is the percent of students still in school. That is to say, the rate of students that are taking more than four years to graduate high school. The state average for these so called "fifth-year-seniors" is at a rate of 7.3%, which is only just higher than Bristol-Warren's of 7.1%. This might suggest that students that might otherwise drop out or get their GED, are instead saying at Mt. Hope for longer than the typical four years. This trend continues as one looks to the affluent Barrington High School, where the rates of dropping out or opting for a GED instead have diminished to each being within less that 1%, the percent of fifth-year-seniors is significant at 3.1%. A similar mentality of "staying in school longer than my friends is better than dropping out" can be inferred from data from Central Falls, where the graduate rate is only just above 70%, the drop out rate is 8.9% (less than the state average of 12.5%), GED rate is 1.2%, but the percent that is staying out to finish their degree is an astounding 19.6%. This all suggests that the faculty, beyond the teachers, is very strong at Mount Hope High School. They have the ability to convince kids to stay at the school and finish their degree, when otherwise they might poetically give up hope and drop out of school entirely.

= Conclusion = In nearly every avenue explored here, the result has been the same: "Bristol-Warren county, district, and it's high school Mt. Hope High, are above state averages, but only just." The only exception, however, is when one looks at the SAT scores. One sees that Mt. Hope High falls a statistically insignificant distance from the state average. However, the data present here represent only a snap-shot in time. Should these data be compared across a longer time frame, over many years into the past, one might find that the superintendent Melinda L. Theis' words are indeed accurate, and that this is a district that is "on the rise." = = = References =

InfoWorks Live: http://infoworks.ride.ri.gov/

U.S. 2010 Census: www.census.gov

RI Kids Count: www.rikidscount.org//matriarch/default.asp

Peer Evaluation / Feedback for EDC 102 Context Statement
 * Author: CJ Bascom**
 * Editor:** Self
 * Total Score for this Evaluation:** 30.5 /35 pts

The purpose of the context statement in EDC 102 is to provide each student with an opportunity to demonstrate his or her ability to research a school, its district, and its community in order to better understand its strengths and challenges. Each report should describe their school based solely on evidence that they cite in their Reference section.

As a peer editor, your tasks are:
 * Read author's report.
 * Carefully **evaluate** report by assigning a score for each criterion
 * provide **constructive comments** that will help the strengthen the author's report for each category.
 * Create a link to your evaluation at the end of the report.

Rubric

Introduction = 4/ 5 pts.
Constructive comments about report's introduction:
 * 5 - Intro provides an overview of the upcoming analysis, including what school/district/community is being analyzed, what aspects are being analyzed, and who the report is intended to inform. || 4 - Intro names the school/district/community and previews the scope of the report, but does not describe who the report is intended to inform. || 3 - Intro names the school/district/community but not much else. || 2 - Intro fails to name the school, district, and community. || 0 - No introduction section is apparent. ||

Organization = 5/ 5 pts.
Strengths and constructive comments about report's organization:
 * 5 - Report includes an Introduction, a Conclusion, and sections for the School, District, and Community. Within each section, paragraphs logically group the information presented. || 4 - Report includes all of the sections mentioned previously, but does not break down information into paragraphs within each section. || 3 - Report is missing one of the sections. || 2 - Report is missing more than one section. || 0 - Report does not include any sections. ||

Mechanics = 4.5/ 5 pts.

 * 5 - All information in the report is cited using APA styled- citations after the information and in a Reference section at the end of the report.

and

There are extremely few typos and misspelled words in the report. || 4 - Most information is cited using APA style.

and/or

There are a noticeable number of typos or misspellings. || 3 - Some citations in the References section are not in APA style, e.g. URLs are listed without the title of the website.

and/or

There are many typos, misspellings, or other writing errors. || 2 - Most of the report's information is not cited, or APA style was not used. || 0 - Report does not include a Reference section. || Strengths and constructive comments about report's organization:

Conclusion = 4 / 5 pts.
Strengths and constructive comments about conclusion:
 * 5 - Conclusion reviews analysis of school, district and community and describes why findings should be important to reader. || 4 - Conclusion reviews analysis of school, district and community. || 3 - Conclusion does not refer back to report findings. || 0 - No conclusion section is apparent. ||

Creativity = 4 / 5 pts.
Strengths and constructive comments about presentation:
 * 5 - Report is written in an engaging style. || 4 - Report has some interesting sections. || 3 - Report generally reports information without seemingly without purpose. ||

Thoroughness = 9 /10 pts

 * 5 - Report includes at least ten different facts in each section (school, community, district) and

compares each figure with another relevant figure (e.g. state or national average) and

states whether or not the school is meeting NCLB standards. || 4 - Report includes at least eight different facts in each section and

compares most figures with relevant values and

states whether or not the school is meeting NCLB standards. || 3 - Report includes at least six different facts in each section and

compares some of the figures to other relevant figures || 2 - Report includes at least four different facts in each section and

compares some of the figures to other relevant figures. || 0 - Report includes less than four different facts for any section or

fails to compare any figures with other relevant figures. ||

Peer Evaluation / Feedback for EDC 102 Context Statement
 * Author: (Person who wrote report.)**
 * Editor: (Person evaluating report.)**
 * Total Score for this Evaluation:** _/35 pts

The purpose of the context statement in EDC 102 is to provide each student with an opportunity to demonstrate his or her ability to research a school, its district, and its community in order to better understand its strengths and challenges. Each report should describe their school based solely on evidence that they cite in their Reference section.

As a peer editor, your tasks are:
 * Read author's report.
 * Carefully **evaluate** report by assigning a score for each criterion
 * provide **constructive comments** that will help the strengthen the author's report for each category.
 * Create a link to your evaluation at the end of the report.

Rubric

Introduction = REPLACEWITHSCORE/ 5 pts.
Constructive comments about report's introduction:
 * 5 - Intro provides an overview of the upcoming analysis, including what school/district/community is being analyzed, what aspects are being analyzed, and who the report is intended to inform. || 4 - Intro names the school/district/community and previews the scope of the report, but does not describe who the report is intended to inform. || 3 - Intro names the school/district/community but not much else. || 2 - Intro fails to name the school, district, and community. || 0 - No introduction section is apparent. ||

Organization = REPLACEWITHSCORE / 5 pts.
Strengths and constructive comments about report's organization:
 * 5 - Report includes an Introduction, a Conclusion, and sections for the School, District, and Community. Within each section, paragraphs logically group the information presented. || 4 - Report includes all of the sections mentioned previously, but does not break down information into paragraphs within each section. || 3 - Report is missing one of the sections. || 2 - Report is missing more than one section. || 0 - Report does not include any sections. ||

Mechanics = REPLACEWITHSCORE / 5 pts.

 * 5 - All information in the report is cited using APA styled- citations after the information and in a Reference section at the end of the report.

and

There are extremely few typos and misspelled words in the report. || 4 - Most information is cited using APA style.

and/or

There are a noticeable number of typos or misspellings. || 3 - Some citations in the References section are not in APA style, e.g. URLs are listed without the title of the website.

and/or

There are many typos, misspellings, or other writing errors. || 2 - Most of the report's information is not cited, or APA style was not used. || 0 - Report does not include a Reference section. || Strengths and constructive comments about report's organization:

Conclusion = REPLACEWITHSCORE / 5 pts.
Strengths and constructive comments about conclusion:
 * 5 - Conclusion reviews analysis of school, district and community and describes why findings should be important to reader. || 4 - Conclusion reviews analysis of school, district and community. || 3 - Conclusion does not refer back to report findings. || 0 - No conclusion section is apparent. ||

Creativity = REPLACEWITHSCORE / 5 pts.
Strengths and constructive comments about presentation:
 * 5 - Report is written in an engaging style. || 4 - Report has some interesting sections. || 3 - Report generally reports information without seemingly without purpose. ||

Thoroughness = REPLACEWITHSCORE /10 pts

 * 5 - Report includes at least ten different facts in each section (school, community, district) and

compares each figure with another relevant figure (e.g. state or national average) and

states whether or not the school is meeting NCLB standards. || 4 - Report includes at least eight different facts in each section and

compares most figures with relevant values and

states whether or not the school is meeting NCLB standards. || 3 - Report includes at least six different facts in each section and

compares some of the figures to other relevant figures || 2 - Report includes at least four different facts in each section and

compares some of the figures to other relevant figures. || 0 - Report includes less than four different facts for any section or

fails to compare any figures with other relevant figures. ||

Peer Evaluation / Feedback for EDC 102 Context Statement
 * Author: (Person who wrote report.)**
 * Editor: (Person evaluating report.)**
 * Total Score for this Evaluation:** _/35 pts

The purpose of the context statement in EDC 102 is to provide each student with an opportunity to demonstrate his or her ability to research a school, its district, and its community in order to better understand its strengths and challenges. Each report should describe their school based solely on evidence that they cite in their Reference section.

As a peer editor, your tasks are:
 * Read author's report.
 * Carefully **evaluate** report by assigning a score for each criterion
 * provide **constructive comments** that will help the strengthen the author's report for each category.
 * Create a link to your evaluation at the end of the report.

Rubric

Introduction = REPLACEWITHSCORE/ 5 pts.
Constructive comments about report's introduction:
 * 5 - Intro provides an overview of the upcoming analysis, including what school/district/community is being analyzed, what aspects are being analyzed, and who the report is intended to inform. || 4 - Intro names the school/district/community and previews the scope of the report, but does not describe who the report is intended to inform. || 3 - Intro names the school/district/community but not much else. || 2 - Intro fails to name the school, district, and community. || 0 - No introduction section is apparent. ||

Organization = REPLACEWITHSCORE / 5 pts.
Strengths and constructive comments about report's organization:
 * 5 - Report includes an Introduction, a Conclusion, and sections for the School, District, and Community. Within each section, paragraphs logically group the information presented. || 4 - Report includes all of the sections mentioned previously, but does not break down information into paragraphs within each section. || 3 - Report is missing one of the sections. || 2 - Report is missing more than one section. || 0 - Report does not include any sections. ||

Mechanics = REPLACEWITHSCORE / 5 pts.

 * 5 - All information in the report is cited using APA styled- citations after the information and in a Reference section at the end of the report.

and

There are extremely few typos and misspelled words in the report. || 4 - Most information is cited using APA style.

and/or

There are a noticeable number of typos or misspellings. || 3 - Some citations in the References section are not in APA style, e.g. URLs are listed without the title of the website.

and/or

There are many typos, misspellings, or other writing errors. || 2 - Most of the report's information is not cited, or APA style was not used. || 0 - Report does not include a Reference section. || Strengths and constructive comments about report's organization:

Conclusion = REPLACEWITHSCORE / 5 pts.
Strengths and constructive comments about conclusion:
 * 5 - Conclusion reviews analysis of school, district and community and describes why findings should be important to reader. || 4 - Conclusion reviews analysis of school, district and community. || 3 - Conclusion does not refer back to report findings. || 0 - No conclusion section is apparent. ||

Creativity = REPLACEWITHSCORE / 5 pts.
Strengths and constructive comments about presentation:
 * 5 - Report is written in an engaging style. || 4 - Report has some interesting sections. || 3 - Report generally reports information without seemingly without purpose. ||

Thoroughness = REPLACEWITHSCORE /10 pts

 * 5 - Report includes at least ten different facts in each section (school, community, district) and

compares each figure with another relevant figure (e.g. state or national average) and

states whether or not the school is meeting NCLB standards. || 4 - Report includes at least eight different facts in each section and

compares most figures with relevant values and

states whether or not the school is meeting NCLB standards. || 3 - Report includes at least six different facts in each section and

compares some of the figures to other relevant figures || 2 - Report includes at least four different facts in each section and

compares some of the figures to other relevant figures. || 0 - Report includes less than four different facts for any section or

fails to compare any figures with other relevant figures. ||