Review, comment, or add new information about this topic:
Discuss this school with others on our active Michigan forum
School Safety Practices:
Warning codes used to alert faculty of a critical incident: Yes Tactical evacuation route for students or entry routes for emergency support teams: Yes Off-site staging area for assembly and communication at the onset of critical incident: Yes Emergency communication tree or plan: Yes Facility blueprints and site plan on file with emergency support team: Yes Control access to site during school hours (doors locked or monitored): Yes Control access to grounds during school hours (gates locked or monitored): No Students required to pass through metal detectors each day: No Visitors required to pass through metal detectors: No Campus closed for most students during lunch: Yes Integrated home-land security in school practices into school safety plans: Yes Random sweeps for weapons: No Require clear book bags or ban book bags: Yes Require students to wear badges or picture IDs: No Require staff to wear badges or picture IDs: No Provide staff training in risk assessment: Yes Security cameras used to monitor the school: Yes Telephones provided in most classrooms: Yes Emergency button provided in lavatories: No In compliance with the state law that requires that a student who brings a firearm to school be expelled for one year: Yes In compliance with Elem. and Sec. Edu. Act (ESEA), that requires referral to juvenile delinquency system of any student who brings a firearm to school: Yes School wide training in positive behavioral support and interventions: Yes
School Safety Plans:
Safety plan exists - Shootings: Yes Safety plan exists - Riots: Yes Safety plan exists - Bomb scares or comparable threats (excluding fire): Yes Safety plan exists - Disaster planning (tornadoes, floods, chemical spill, etc.): Yes Safety plan exists - Hostages: Yes Safety plan exists - Lock down: Yes
School Prevention Programs:
Implemented a violence prevention curriculum: Yes Practiced behavior modification/intervention with students: Yes Provided group counseling (social work) or therapeutic activity for students: Yes Provided peer mentoring or coaching program: No Provided peer mediation (student court) in resolving conduct problems: No Provided conflict resolution training to staff and students: Yes Provided programs that promote a sense of social integration among students: Yes Established a hot line for students to report problems: No Provided training and assistance in classroom management to teachers: Yes Revised or reviewed school wide discipline policy: Yes Made architectural or environmental modifications to reduce crime or violence: No Used a paid law enforcement or security service: No Implemented a drug prevention service: No Conducted community service projects on prevention: No Implemented teacher/staff training on violence/drug prevention: Yes Conducted public/parent awareness activities on violence/drug prevention: No Offered after-school or before-school programs: No Provided alternative education programs: Yes Underwent curriculum acquisition or development: Yes Provided services for out-of-school youth (school-age): Yes Administered special one-time events (not included in the above mentioned programs): Yes Involved organizations in administering drug and violence-prevention services via joint service delivery (including referrals): Yes Involved organizations in administering drug and violence prevention services via teacher/staff training: Yes Involved organizations in administering drug and violence prevention services via public awareness activities: No Involved organizations in administering drug and violence prevention services via fund raising: No Allowed students to participate in the design, delivery or critiquing of a drug or violence prevention program: No Balanced and restorative justice conferencing (aka transformative conferencing): No
Attendance Statistics:
Attendance Rate (2006): 100.0%
Here:
100.0%
State average from 3668 schools:
93.6%
Attendance Rate (2005): 100.0%
This school:
100.0%
State average from 3919 schools:
92.3%
Attendance Rate (2004): 100.0%
Here:
100.0%
State average from 3863 schools:
92.4%
2002 Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) Math Statistics:
Students Tested: 2
Students Scoring Below Proficient: 2
Students Scoring Below Proficient (%): 100.0%
Here:
100.0%
State average from 805 schools:
25.7%
Did Not Meet Standard: 2
Did Not Meet Standard (%): 100.0%
Here:
100.0%
State average from 805 schools:
41.1%
2002 Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) Reading Statistics:
Students Tested: 2
Students Scoring Below Proficient: 2
Students Scoring Below Proficient (%): 100.0%
This school:
100.0%
State average from 804 schools:
23.1%
Did Not Meet Standard: 2
Did Not Meet Standard (%): 100.0%
Here:
100.0%
State average from 804 schools:
35.6%
2002 Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) Writing Statistics:
Students Tested: 1
Students Scoring Below Proficient: 1
Students Scoring Below Proficient (%): 100.0%
Allegan Co. Development Center School:
100.0%
State average from 802 schools:
17.6%
Did Not Meet Standard: 1
Did Not Meet Standard (%): 100.0%
Here:
100.0%
State average from 802 schools:
41.7%
2002 Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) Science Statistics:
Students Tested: 2
Students Scoring Below Proficient: 2
Students Scoring Below Proficient (%): 100.0%
This school:
100.0%
State average from 802 schools:
26.8%
Did Not Meet Standard: 2
Did Not Meet Standard (%): 100.0%
Here:
100.0%
State average from 802 schools:
47.6%
2002 Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) Social Studies Statistics:
Review, comment, or add new information about this topic: