School Improvement Plan SIP 06-07.pdf · Directions on What to Submit to the LDE and How to Complete the SIP Template For schools in School Improvement, submit the plan with the state’s

School Improvement Plan Template for

Delhi Elementary School

Division of Educational Improvement and Assistance Office Student and School Performance

Louisiana Department of Education

Submission Date: 5-19-06 Revised

Delhi Elementary School PK-4

509 Main Street Delhi, LA 71232 Shelly Crawford

318-878-2269 [email protected]

Check where applicable:

Louisiana Approved School Charter School Alternative School School in School Improvement School with Comprehensive School Reform Program

X Title I School X Schoolwide ___ __Targeted Assistance Member of Southern Association of Colleges and Schools

X LINCS Distinguished Educator Reading First School Grant Application

Name of Grant: _Enter Name of the Grant_ Contact Person: _Enter Contact Person's Name_ Phone: _Enter Contact's Phone Number_ E-mail: _Enter Contact's Email Address_ Principal’s Signature: ________________________________________

Date: ______________

Superintendent’s Signature: ________________________________________

Date: ______________

2 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006


Directions on What to Submit to the LDE and How to Complete the SIP Template

For schools in School Improvement, submit the plan with the state’s Rubric for the Evaluation of School Improvement Plans Summary Report on

disk to the designated division of the LDE, if required.

Mail the Cover Page, District Assurance, and Faculty Assurance.

Use 11 point font.

Insert page numbers in the Table of Contents.

For SIPs that have been revised, indicate material that has changed on the Strategy Planning Worksheet with strikethroughs (lines inserted through the changes). Place revisions in bold after the strikethroughs.

For any completed activity, write the word completed in parenthesis following the strikethroughs.

If any item/activity is incomplete, explain in a brief note in parenthesis why the activity was not completed.

For grant applications, place in bold Activities and Action Steps for targeted funding should the grant be awarded. Include the title of the grant as well

as the name, email address, and phone number of the contact person on the Cover Page of the School Improvement Plan Template.

For original signatures, USE BLUE INK.

Principal’s Signature Superintendent’s Signature DAT Members’ Signatures, if assigned. School Support Team Members’ Signatures School Improvement Team Chair’s Signature

*Schools submit SIPs to the district for evaluation using the state’s rubric



TABLE OF CONTENTS <The page numbers for each component will change as information is added.>

DATA PORTFOLIO .......................................................................................................................................... 5

DISTRICT ASSURANCE.................................................................................................................................. 6

ASSURANCE OF FACULTY REVIEW OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN................................................. 8

MISSION STATEMENT.................................................................................................................................. 10

FEDERAL/STATE INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS AND/OR INITIATIVES .................................................. 11

SCHOOL POLICIES AND PARTNERSHIPS...................................................................................................12

DATA TRIANGULATION SHEETS..................................................................................................................13

DATA COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: SUMMARY REPORT .................................................. 17

SCHOOL PERFORMANCE SCORE CHART..................................................................................................19

STRATEGY PLANNING WORKSHEET..........................................................................................................20

TOTAL SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR RESTRICTED AND DISCRETIONARY FUNDS ............34

FEDERAL FUNDING.......................................................................................................................................35



DATA PORTFOLIO The following items should make up the Data Portfolio (to be kept on file at the school):

o Subgroup Component Report and Principal’s Report Card for the last three years. o Summary of Findings of Survey Data and all source documents. (Teachers, Parents, Students, and Principal) May be completed online.

If Parent sample size is inadequate, there must be Parent Focus Group(s). o Summary of Findings of Interview Data and all source documents. (Principal, Counselor, and Teachers) (Not Optional for Schools in

School Improvement/CSRP) o Summary of Findings of Focus Group Data and all source documents. (Teachers, Students, and Parents) (Not Optional for Schools in

School Improvement/CSRP) o Copy of the Data Triangulation Form o Comprehensive Needs Assessment: Final Report o DRA and DIBELS Reports o Data Analysis Template (Trend Data history, Discipline/Behavior history, etc.) o Data Notebook (for schools participating in School Analysis Model-SAM 2000 or LANA online) o Cognitive Summary Data (ITBS/ITED, ACT, PSAT, etc.) o Citation from monitoring of Federal Programs – if applicable (e.g., Special Education and corresponding Corrective Action Plans) o Scholastic Audit Next Steps, if applicable.



DISTRICT ASSURANCE

For schools in School Improvement, and for schools with CSRP models, I hereby certify that this plan was developed with the assistance of a District Assistance Team and/or School Support Team, as applicable, in collaboration with the School Improvement Team.

I hereby certify that this plan was designed to improve student achievement with input from all stakeholders. I assure that the school-level personnel, including subgroup representatives responsible for implementation of this plan, have collaborated in the

writing of the plan. I hereby certify that this plan has all of the following components: • A statement of the school's mission • Evidence of the use of a comprehensive needs assessment, which should include the following data analysis information:

- Data Triangulation tables - Data Comprehensive Needs Assessment Summary Report

• Goals and measurable objectives • Scientifically based research methods, strategies, and activities that guide curriculum content, instruction, and assessment • Professional Development components aligned with assessed needs • Family and community involvement activities aligned with assessed needs • Evaluation strategies that include methods to measure progress of implementation • Coordination of fiscal resources and analysis of school budget (possible redirection of funds) • An action plan with timelines and specific activities for implementing the above criteria

I further certify that the information contained in this assurance is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. ___________________________________________________________ Superintendent's signature (in blue ink)

___________________________________________________________ Principal's signature (in blue ink)

___________________________________________________________ District Assistance or School Support Team Leader (in blue ink)

___________________________________________________________ Chair, School Improvement Team (in blue ink)

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ District Assistance or School Support Team Members (original signatures in blue ink) Not Applicable (No District Assistance or School Support Team in place)



SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT TEAM

School Improvement Team Members Position

Shelly Crawford Principal

Chyrisse Staten Principal Intern/Teacher

Melissa Ezell Teacher

Connie Gordon Teacher

Launa Martin Teacher

Joan Rhodes Teacher



ASSURANCE OF FACULTY REVIEW OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Total Faculty in School: 21 Date: May 24, 2006 The following faculty members have reviewed the School Improvement Plan and have discussed their part in implementing it.

NAME TITLE/POSITION SIGNATURE (in blue ink) SIGNATURE DATE

1 Shelly Crawford Principal

2 Chyrisse Staten 3rd Grade Teacher / Principal Intern/SBLC Chairman

3 Connie Gordon Preschool Teacher/SIT Chairman

4 Vickie Watson Special Education Preschool Teacher

5 Toni Greer Kindergarten Teacher Teacher

6 Mamie Cleveland Kindergarten Teacher Teacher

7 Launa Martin Kindergarten Teacher Teacher

8 Linda Carr 1st Grade Teacher

9 1st Grade Teacher

10 1st Grade Teacher

11 Paula Cumpton 1st and 2nd Grade Special Education Teacher

12 Glynda Cobb Reading Coach Teacher

13 Monica Frost 2nd Grade Teacher

14 Blanche Harris 2nd Grade Teacher

15 Sarah Williams 2nd Grade Teacher

16 Linda Jones 3rd Grade Teacher



NAME TITLE/POSITION SIGNATURE (in blue ink) SIGNATURE DATE

17 Rise’ Worsley 3rd Grade Teacher

17 Sammie Gordon 4th Grade Teacher

18 Carolyn Grantham 4th Grade Teacher

19 Kaye Kyzar P.E. Teacher/Title IV Chairman

20 NEW TEACHER 3rd and 4th Grade Special Education Teacher

21 Joan Rhodes Instructional Facilitator



MISSION STATEMENT

We are committed to all children learning. List the names and occupations of those persons who participated in developing the mission statement:

Name Title/Occupation

Shelly Crawford Principal

Chyrisse Staten Principal Intern/Teacher

Connie Gordon Teacher

Joan Rhodes Teacher

Launa Martin Teacher

Peicola Kie Parent

Alvin Kie Student

Kenya Grimes Parent

Shereeka Grimes Student

Terrence Grimes Student

Franklin Wheat Pastor/Grandfather

Antonio Johnson Paraprofessional

William Cleveland Pastor/Community Leader



FEDERAL/STATE INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS AND/OR INITIATIVES

(Place a check or X in the status area for each program implemented at your school)

Program List: (including during- and after-school programs)

Currently

Using

No. of Years

Proposed Program Deleted Program

Multisensory Structured Language Program (Language!) X 6 INTECH X 8 Five Essential Components of Reading/ Balanced Literacy X 9 McCracken Spelling X 9 DARE X 10+ LaSIP X 6 LEAD TECH X 2 Balanced Literacy X 9 Pre-School Program (REAP Grant) X 2 Daily Orals X 9 Mountain Math X 4 Mountain Language X 4 K-3 Reading/Math Initiative 9 X Learning Intensive Networking Communities for Success (LINCS) X 4 Accelerated Math X 7 Fastforword X 4 ALS X 5 Accelerated Reading X 5 K-3 Monitoring X 2 Comprehensive Curriculum/GLE X 2 Other: Click Here to Enter _#_

List Supplemental Educational Services provided for your students (Title I schools in SI 3 and above): • Tutoring for LEAP students, Reading Coach for Kindergarten, 1st, and 2nd grades, and Summer School Reading Intervention Program.

List the Distance Learning (i.e., web-based, satellite) courses provided for your students: •



SCHOOL POLICIES AND PARTNERSHIPS

Policy Policy #/Bulletin # Date revised Copy on file at school?

Discipline/Behavior Plan (Juvenile Justice Reform Act requirement) § 1301/741 and § 1127/741 Jan 2006 X Yes No Family Involvement Policy § 1903/741 and § 1118/Title I Aug 2005 X Yes No Security Procedures (metal detectors, etc.) § 339/741 Aug 2005 X Yes No

Safe and Drug-Free Prevention Activities § 1127/741 and § 2305/741 Aug 2005 X Yes No

Student Code of Conduct § 1115/741 Aug 2005 X Yes No Crisis Management (emergency/evacuation plan) § 339/741 Aug 2005 X Yes No

School Partnerships (Type the name of each partner in the space provided)

University LaTech – Elevate; LaTech – LaSip, ULM (student teachers) Technical Institute

Feeder School(s)

Community Richland Manor Nursing Home

Business/Industry Fred’s, Alcoa Foundation (Tifton Aluminum); Amsouth; Stop-n-Go Video

Private Grants

Other



DATA

TRIANGULATION

Contributing Factors to the Strength:

Language

Domain: Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment

Subdomain: Instructional Strategies

Supporting Source #2 Instrument: Parent Questionnaire

Data Type: Qualitative/Attitudinal

Findings: School does a good job teaching students to write

Supporting Source #1 Instrument: Iowa Test Data

Data Type: Quantitative

Findings: Language – 2004 NRT Score 3rd grade highest area (192.5 S.S.)

Supporting Source #4 Instrument: Student Questionnaire

Data Type: Attitudinal

Findings: Students say they are good at writing because of their teachers

Supporting Source #3 Instrument: Classroom Observations

Data Type: Behavioral

Findings: Expectation of learner behavior established



DATA TRIANGULATION

Contributing Factors to the Strength:

Supporting Source #2 Instrument: Instructional Staff Interview

Data Type: Qualitative/ Attitudinal

Findings: Collaboration of teachers

Supporting Source #1 Instrument: Iowa Test Data


Findings: Social Studies – 2004 NRT 2nd highest area – 3rd grade (183.8 S.S.) 4th grade 2004 CRT – 62% Approaching Basic and above

Curriculum and Instruction



Supporting Source #4

Instrument: Classroom Observations


Findings: Content presented at developmentally appropriate level

Supporting Source #3 Instrument: Administrative Interview and Teacher Focus Group Data Type: Attitudinal

Findings: Materials, programs, teaching, tools, and resources are adequate



DATA TRIANGULATION

Contributing Factors to the Weakness:

Supporting Source #2 Instrument: Student Focus Group


Findings: Few Group Projects

Supporting Source #1 Instrument: Test Data LEAP 21 Test

Data Type: Quantitative / Cognitive

Findings: Math 2004 CRT Scores 67% below Basic and 30% unsatisfactory

Math




Instrument: Classroom observations


Findings: Lack of stimulating higher order thinking

Supporting Source #3 Instrument: Instructional Staff Interview


Findings: Lack of Technology in Classroom



DATA TRIANGULATION

Contributing Factors to the Weakness:

Supporting Source #2 Instrument: Adm. Questionnaire & Parent Questionnaire Data Type: Attitudinal

Findings: Low Parental involvement

Supporting Source #1 Instrument: Test Data LEAP 21 Test


Findings: Reading 2004 NRT Scores Weak area (3rd grade) 177.8 SS

Reading




Instrument: Instructional Staff Questionnaire


Findings: High use of direct instruction

Supporting Source #3 Instrument: Classroom Observations


Findings: Lack of use of technology in classroom instruction



DATA COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: SUMMARY REPORT

Part 1: For Title I Schools: ELA and Math by subgroups should be primary when considering weaknesses that will lead to the goals in the SIP. This data should reflect findings on step10 of the Trend Data Analysis worksheet. Rank-order the identified areas of strength (3-5) from the student performance and attendance and/or dropout data and indicate the supporting data sources:

STRENGTHS DATA SOURCE 1. Language – 3rd grade – 192.5 Standard Score 2004 NRT Test Data 2. Social Studies – 3rd grade – 183.8 Standard Score 2004 NRT Test Data 3. Social Studies – 4th grade – 62% A.B. and above 2004 CRT Test Data 4. 5.

Rank-order the identified areas of weakness (3-5) from the student performance and attendance and/or dropout data and indicate the supporting data sources:

WEAKNESSES DATA SOURCE 1. Math – 4th grade – 67% below Basic, 30% Unsatisfactory 2004 CRT Test Data 2. Reading – 3rd grade – 177.8 SS, 54.6 index 2004NRT Test Data 3. Reading – 5th grade – 33.3 Index 2004 NRT, Trend Data 4. 5.

The identified weaknesses will lead to the goals.



Part 2: This data should reflect the findings from the needs assessment as reported on the Data Triangulation sheets. List the contributing factors from the attitudinal/perceptual, behavioral, and archival data of the previously identified strengths:

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO THE STRENGTHS DATA SOURCE 1. Parents & students think teachers do a good job teaching students to

write Parent Questionnaire & Student Questionnaire

2. Teachers establish learner behavior Classroom Observations 3. Adequate materials, programs, teaching tools Administrative interview & Teacher focus group 4. Teacher Collaboration Instructional Staff Interview 5. Content presented at developmentally appropriate level Classroom Observations

List the contributing factors from the attitudinal/perceptual, behavioral, and archival data of the previously identified weaknesses:

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO THE WEAKNESSES DATA SOURCE 1. Lack of technology in classroom instruction Instructional Staff Interview & Classroom Observations 2. Lack of stimulating higher order thinking Classroom Observations 3. High use of direct instruction & few group projects Instructional Staff Questionnaires & Student Focus Group 4. Low parental involvement Adm. Questionnaire & Parent Questionnaire 5.

The contributing factors of the weaknesses will lead to the strategies.



SCHOOL PERFORMANCE SCORE CHART

Baseline SPS (Select year and enter score.)

Growth SPS (Select year and enter score.)

Growth Target (Select year and enter target.)

School Baseline SPS 2003: 61.0 School Growth SPS 2003: 64.4 School GT 2003: 5.3



Use Principal’s Report Card: www.louisianaschools.net/lde/pair/1989.asp



http://www.louisianaschools.net/lde/pair/1989.asp

STRATEGY PLANNING WORKSHEET

GOAL 1: To improve student achievement in math

OBJECTIVE(S): • To increase 3rd grade NRT Math Index scores from 64.0 to 70.2 by Spring 2007 • To increase 4th grade CRT Math Index Scores from 90.5 to 93.8 by Spring 2007. • To increase the Math Percent Proficient Index Scores of 4th grade Economically Disadvantaged students from 71.0 to 73.9 by Spring 2007.

SCIENTIFICALLY BASED RESEARCH STRATEGY: (Derived from the contributing factors) – Job-Embedded Professional Development

Bibliographic Notation: Easton, L.B. (2002, March). How the Tuning Protocol Works. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 28-30. Guskey, T. (1996, June). Staff Development and the Process of Teacher Change. Educational Researcher, 15(5)5-12. Learning First Alliance. (2000) Every Child Reading: A Professional Developmental Guide. Washington, D.C.: Author. www.learningfirst.org/readingguide.html National Education Goals Panel. (2000, Dec.). Bringing All Students to High Standards. NEGP Monthly. www.negp.gov/issues/issu/monthly/1200.pdf Nolan, K. (2000). Looking at Student Work: Improving Practice by Closing in. Providence, R.I: Annenburg Institute for School Reform. Schmoker, M. (1996). Results: The Key to Continuous School Improvement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Sparks, D. Designing Powerful Professional Development for Teachers and Principals. NSDC, 2002. http://www.nsdc.org/library/book/sparksbook.pdf Sparks, D. (1999, Spring). Assessment Without Victims: An Interview with Rick Stiggins. Journal of Staff Development. 20(2), 54-56. www.nscd.org/library/jsd/stiggins203.html Sparks, D. (1999, Summer). Try on Strategies to Get a Good Fit: An Interview with Susan Loucks-Horsley. Journal Of Staff Development. 20(3), 56-60. www.nscd.org/library/jsd/loucks-horsley203.html WestEd. (2000). Teachers Who Learn, Kids Who Achieve: A Look at Schools with Model Professional Development. San Francisco: Author. Web/WestEd.org/online_pubs/modelIPD/welcome.shtml Brief Summary of Research: Professional development that is conducted during the hours of an educator’s work day is described as job-embedded professional development. This concept is derived from fairly recent research which concludes that in order for professional development to be truly effective, it should be integrated into the established teaching schedule. Two studies in particular articulate and validate the importance of embedding training into the school day. Every Child Reading: A Professional Development Guide from the Learning First Alliance (2000) and Teachers Who Learn, Kids Who Achieve: A Look at Schools with Model Professional Development, a report of WestEd (2000). Malcolm Knowles, in his book The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species, makes several assumptions about adults which are all addressed



with properly conducted job-embedded professional development. Teachers are problem-centered and learn best, he states, when selfdirected. They also use past experiences to understand new information and are willing to learn when it is considered important to them. Mike Schmoker, for instance, argues that data should first be examined in order to determine which staff development initiative should be used to target a school’s student achievement goals (1996). The study of student work, for example, can result in the collection of such data that reveal student strengths and weaknesses. Rick Stiggins advises that this, along with effective monitoring of student progress, is crucial. (Sparks, 1999). Katherine Nolan (2000) discovered seven qualities that have proven effective in improving the quality of teacher assignments and student work, and a particular approach to examining student work is advocated by Lois Easton (2002). Susan Loucks-Horsley (1999) promotes the use of several learning strategies for teachers which, she argues, is coincidental to the progress of designing staff development. Leaders must ask themselves which strategies “make sense to use at what particular time with that particular set of teachers for a particular set of outcomes.” There are pitfalls, of course. Michael Fullan (2001) defines perhaps the most common of all---fragmentation/coherence. Powerful professional development must pursue only one of two student learning goals, and there must be alignment between those goals and teacher training. Goals also provide a meaningful purpose for teamwork and goal-oriented units, says Schmoker (1996). Moreover, teachers find it difficult to sustain a sense of passion for their time and effort if they are unable to see real growth. This will not occur, explains Tom Guskey, if focus is diffused (1986). Bringing All Students to High Standards, the 2000 report of the National Education Goals Panel, links sustained professional development directly to student achievement. So too does How Teaching Matters: Bringing the Classroom Back into Discussions of Teacher Quality (Wellington, 2000). Describe how this strategy, in relation to the research, addresses the needs of the student population in your school. Was the research conducted in a similar school with similar populations and needs? The use of Job-Embedded Professional Development encourages schools to gather and analyze student data, then determine the focus of reform efforts to meet the needs of the student population which they serve. Collaboration of this nature allows each school within the district to create an individual prescription plan that will enhance student performance for their particular population. Use of this strategy has been done in a variety of settings and populations similar to Delhi Elementary School. If this strategy addresses the needs of any of the subgroups, indicate which subgroup and describe how it will serve their needs: Using the format of the Job-Embedded Professional Development, the needs of the various subgroups within each school will be analyzed. As collaborative teams are formed to address the determined needs, and action plan will be designed that specifies the content or curriculum that will be pursued.

Procedures for Evaluating the Goal, Objective(s) and Strategy: Compare ITBS percentile scores for 3rd grade from spring 2001, spring 2002, spring 2003, spring 2004, spring 2005, spring 2006, and spring 2007. Compare LEAP 21 percentile scores for 4th grade from spring 2001, spring 2002, spring 2003, spring 2004, spring 2005, and spring 2006. Compile data from classroom observations, study group logs, and reflection journals to assess degree of implementation and effectiveness of strategies.



ACTION PLAN Activity(ies)

Include Persons Responsible, Timeline, and Target Audience Note: Activities indicated should address all children, including

subgroups.

Funding Sources

Object Code Cost

Indicator of Implementation

(Observable Change)

Procedures for Evaluating Indicators of Implementation

(How do you know the activity is working?)

*1a. Initial: Content team, Toni Greer, Blanche Harris, and Carolyn Grantham, will be trained at Start Elementary in a three-week course in math content, using appropriate hands-on strategies to promote less direct instruction and more use of group projects. Carolyn Smith, LaSip Coordinator from Louisiana Tech, will train the LINCS school team July 2006.

LaSIP (Stipends)

100 1,600 Teachers will become effective in using hands-on activities to promote less use of direct instruction and more group projects.

Teachers will demonstrate understanding of strategies by taking written tests, and through observations by instructors during training.

*1b. Follow-up: Teri Roberts, LINCS Reginal Coordinator, and Patricia Ezell, LINCS District Content Leader, will have the LINCS school team, Shelly Crawford, principal, Joan Rhodes, school facilitator, Toni Greer, Blanche Harris, and Carolyn Grantham meet three times, August 2006, October 2006, and April 2007 to receive up-dates, new ideas, and motivation. These meetings will be job embedded during the school year.

Teachers will incorporate ideas from LINCS and Connecting Math through the Number Strands into their teaching strategies to increase time on task.

The teachers will fill out an evaluation form stating what they learned immediately following the up-date inservice, what they would like to further investigate, and what they plan to implement in their school. The LINCS Regional Coordinator will review the forms and assess the needs of the participants.



*1c. Follow-up: Patricia Ezell, District Content Leader, Shelly Crawford, principal, and Joan Rhodes will initiate job embedded study groups meetings August 2006 – May 2007 on the first and third Thursday of each month for all teachers for 1 hour to discuss the implementation of the strategies, provide peer coaching and to share resources and ideas in effectively applying the new instructional methods using less direct instruction and more group projects.

LINCS (sub-stitutes)

LINCS (Benefits)

100

200

2,627.00

482.00

The LINCS School Facilitator will be responsible for facilitating the meetings, maintaining the study group logs, and providing a group report to the principal after every meeting. Student work will be analyzed in WFGS bi-monthly to assess student performance.The logs will be kept on file and reviewed monthly by the principal to assist in meeting the needs of the teachers and students.

1d. Shelly Crawford, principal, Joan Rhodes, LINCS school facilitator, instructional facilitator, Patricia Ezell, District Content Leader, will have all teachers from August 2006 through May 2007 implement strategies daily that use less direct instruction and more group projects in their classroom.

LINCS (supplies)

Title I (Supplies) Title II

(Salary) Title II (Benefits)

600

610

115

200

2,591.00

4,000.00

29,536.00

11,327.45

Students will be actively engaged in math.

Principal, Instructional Facilitator, and, LINCS content leader will conduct classroom observations to assess student engagement and progress at least once a six weeks.

**1e. Dr. Julie Holmes, project ELEVATE director at LaTech, will host “Number Fun with Cards”, September 12, 2006. Parents will interact with their children doing math games with playing cards. Shelly Crawford, principal, will facilitate activity.

Title I (Family Involve-

ment)

610

1054.00 Parents will be aware of school activities and will become actively involved in assisting their children at home.

Students and family members will complete the assigned activities during family math night. The parents will complete an evaluation to assess the impact and offer suggestions for improvements. The information on the evaluations will be posted in the newsletter. “Bear Paws” by the Toni Greer, SAT Chairman.

* Indicates Professional Development Learning ** Indicates Family Involvement Activities *** Indicates Curriculum Activities (if applicable)

# Indicates Safe and Drug-Free Activities (if applicable) ## Indicates Discipline Support Activities (if applicable) ### Indicates PK –12 Literacy Activities (if applicable)




GOAL 2: To improve student achievement in language arts.

OBJECTIVE(S) 1: To increase 4th grade CRT ELA Index Scores from 78.4 to 83.1 by Spring 2007. OBJECTIVE 2: To increase the ELA Percent Proficient Index Scores of 4th grade Economically Disadvantaged students from 51.0 to 55.9 by Spring 2007. OBJECTIVE 3: To increase the ELA Percent Proficient Index Scores of 4th grade students with disabilities from 20.0 to 28.0 by Spring 2007. SCIENTIFICALLY BASED RESEARCH STRATEGY: (Derived from the contributing factors) - Response-To-Intervention

Bibliographic Notation: Fuchs, Douglas, Fuchs, Lynn. (Sept/Oct 2001). Responsiveness –To-Intervention: A Blueprint for Practitioners, Policymakers, and Parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 57 – 61. Fuchs, Douglas; Devery Mock; Paul L. Morgan and Caresa L. Young Responsiveness-to-Intervention: Definitions, Evidence, and Implications for Learning Disabilities Construct Gresham, F.M. (1991). Conceptualizing behavior disorders in terms of resistance to intervention, School Psychology Review, 20, 23-36. Gresham, Frank Responsiveness to Intervention: an Alternative Approach to the Identification of Learning Disabilities. University of California, Riverside. Mellard, Daryl. (Sept 2004) NRCLD Principal Investigator. Understanding Responsiveness to Intervention in Learning Disabilities Determination. Understanding RTI. Mellard, D.F., Byrd, S.E., Johnson, E., Tollefson, J.M., & Boesche, L. (Fall 2004). Foundations and Research on Identifying Model Responsiveness-to-Intervention Sites. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 243-256. Torgesen, Joseph K. Individual Differences in Response to Early Interventions in Reading: The Lingering Problem of Treatment Resisters Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(1), 55-64. Brown-Chidsey, R., Steege, M.W. (2005). Response to Intervention Principles and Strategies for Effective Practice. New York: Guilford Publications. Brown-Chidsey, Rachel. Assessment for Intervention : A Problem-Solving Approach (Guilford School Practitioner Series) Shapiro, Edward S. Academic Skills Problems: Direct Assessment and Intervention, Third Edition (Guilford School Practitioner) Shapiro, Edward S. Academic Skills Problems Workbook, Revised Edition (Guilford School Practitioner Series) The Response-To-Intervention (RTI) Model www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/assessment/response_to_intervention.httml Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium http://www.nrcld.org/html/symposium2003/index.html



Information Sheet for Regional Resource Centers Response-To-Intervention Models Identify, Evaluate & Scale 6/14/03 http://www.nrcld.org/html/research/rti/RTIinfor.pdf Responsiveness-to-Intervention Evaluation Technical Assistance & Dissemination Activities http://www.nrcld.org/html/research/rti,.html Mellard, Daryl Basic Principles of the Responsiveness-to-Intervention Approach in two parts http://www.schwablearning.org What You Need to Know about IDEA 2004 Articles and Free Publications: Responsiveness to Intervention (RTI) http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/rti.index.html Kovaleski, Joseph PhD, NCSP, Indiana University of Pennsylvania and David P. Prasse, PhD, NCSP, Loyola University Response to Instruction in the Identification of Learning Disabilities: A Guide for School Teams http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq325instruction.html Brief Summary of Research: Responsiveness to Intervention can be defined as the change in behavior or performance as a function of an intervention (Gresham, 1991). The Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA; P.L. 108-446) encourages educators to use Response-To-Intervention (RTI) as a substitute for, or supplement to, the Discrepancy Model to identify students with learning disabilities (LD). Although there is no universal RTI model, it is generally understood to include multiple tiers that provide a sequence of programs and services for students showing academic difficulties. Tier one provides high-quality instruction and behavioral supports in general education, tier two provides more specialized instruction for students whose performance and rate of progress lag behind classroom peers, and tier three provides comprehensive evaluation by a multidisciplinary team to determine if the student has a disability and is eligible for special education and related services. The emphasis of RTI is to focus on providing more effective instruction by encouraging earlier intervention for at-risk students and represent a better method of LD identification. The IQ-achievement discrepancy, which had been the predominant method of identifying learning disabilities since the original establishment of regulations was challenged on a number of issues (wrong students being identified, requires that students “wait to fail” before receiving needed services, does not lead to useful educational remediation of academic difficulties). The research has demonstrated through a number of studies (Mellard, Byrd, Johnson, Tollefson, & Boesche, 2004) that an RTI framework can benefit students by addressing academic difficulties in an individualized and timely way. In current aptitude-achievement discrepancy models, the standard of unexpected underachievement is when the student’s achievement score is significantly lower than a predicted achievement score or a measure of cognitive ability or aptitude. In contrast, in the RTI concept, the student’s achievement is lower than expected when compared to his/her grade level placement or same-age peers’ performance where all students have been provided appropriate, scientifically-based instruction. RTI proposes discrepancy relative to opportunities to learn as a way of defining unexpected underachievement and, as such, offers promise for identifying at risk students for whom appropriate instruction has not proven effective. Describe how this strategy, in relation to the research, addresses the needs of the student population in your school. Was the research conducted in a similar school with similar populations and needs? Balanced Literacy, technology, and leveled groups in the classroom will address student achievement by offering an opportunity to develop from their academic proficiency level. By intervening with the Language! Program, Reading Coach Program, Fastforword, and the use of paraprofessionals, students will receive small group and individualized instruction to help at risk students improve their achievement level. Our school population has a high percentage of at risk students.



If this strategy addresses the needs of any of the subgroups, indicate which subgroup and describe how it will serve their needs: This will address the economically disadvantaged students. By using alternative assessments, these students will experience many different types of strategies to show learning. This should close the differences due to poverty.

Procedures for Evaluating the Goal, Objective(s) and Strategy: Compare ITBS percentile scores for 3rd grade from spring 2001, spring 2002, spring 2003, spring 2004, spring 2005, and spring 2006. Compare LEAP 21 percentile scores for 4th grade from spring 2001, spring 2002, spring 2003, spring 2004, spring 2005, spring 2006, and spring 2007. . Compile data from classroom observations, study group logs, and reflection journals to assess degree of implementation and effectiveness of strategies.





subgroups.

Funding Sources

Object Code Cost


(Observable Change)



*2a. Initial: Teachers and paraprofessionals will attend an inservice at the beginning of the school year with the Instructional Facilitar to review the strategies that will promote the five essential components of reading and interventions for at risk students. Glynda Cobb will facilitate.

Teacher will become knowledgeable in teaching high risk students decoding skill, comprehension strategies, and higher order thinking skills.

Teachers will be observed at least three times a year to monitor the teaching of the reading strategies that will help at risk students reach success in their daily education.

*2b. Follow-up: All teachers will attend an inservice conducted by the Instructional Facilitator at mid term reviewing the strategies that promote the five essential components of reading and interventions for at risk students. Shelly Crawford, principal will monitor the inservice and questions that need to be cleared up in January 2007.

Teachers will write down questions immediately following the inservice for clarification and principal will address the questions on an individual basis.

*2c.Initial: One teacher per grade level will attend the La. Reading Conference in Monroe in the Fall of 2006. Shelly Crawford, principal, will coordinate activity.

Title I (Travel)

500 1,400.00 Teachers will become knowledgeable in the latest reading strategies and techniques.

Teachers will fill out an evaluation of the sessions attended and what information that will be used in the classrooms. The Reading Association will review forms and assess the needs of the participants.



*2d. Follow-up: Teachers that attended the Reading Conference will present information learned at the Conference at the next faculty meeting after the conference in the fall of 2006 to the rest of the faculty. Glynda Cobb will facilitate the meeting.

Teachers will fill out an evaluation of the information presented immediately following the meeting and chose a topic from the presented material that they are interested in using in their classrooms or topics for future professional development opportunities. The principal, Shelly Crawford will review evaluations and make plans for future topics for professional development.

2e. Teachers grade K-4, Glynda Cobb, Reading Coach teacher, Joann Dunn, Brenda Lewis, Antonio Johnson, and Bea Jones, paraprofessionals, will implement reading strategies daily for individual and small group instruction beginning in August 2006 – May 2007.

Title I (Salaries)

Title I (Benefits)

Title I (Library Books)

Title I (Supplies)

IDEA (Salary)

IDEA (Benefits)

115

200

641

610

115

200

57,359.00

9,929.00

2,819.30

3,700.00

37,273.98

13,007.95

At-risk students will improve reading skills.

Teachers will evaluate student growth by using guided reading level books, running records, retelling, and observations every other month. These activities are documented and turned into district supervisor for evaluation of effectiveness each semester.



**2f. Family literacy night will be held in the Spring of 2007 to involve all family members in balanced literacy strategies and to introduce the parent literacy library where they can check out materials for their children to use at home. Chyrisse Staten, principal intern, will facilitate the activity.

Title I (Parental

Involvement)

610 814.00 Parents will be aware of balanced literacy activities, and will become actively involved in their child’s education.

Students and family members will complete the assigned activities during family literacy night. The parents will complete an evaluation to assess the impact and offer suggestions for improvements. The information gotten from the evaluations will be printed in the newsletter, “Bear Paws” by Toni Greer, SAT Chairman.

**2g.Teachers will maintain open communication with students’ families via, bear packs weekly. Students will take books home and read them orally to the parents. School Messenger will be used to make announcements. Shelly Crawford, principal, will facilitate these activities.

Title I (Supplies)

600

239.00

Students will take books home and read orally for the parent to see the progress in their child’s reading ability. Parents will sign Bear Packs weekly.

Students will take books home and read orally for the parent to see the progress in their child’s reading ability. Parents will sign Bear Packs weekly.

* Indicates Professional Development Learning ** Indicates Family Involvement Activities *** Indicates Curriculum Activities (if applicable)

# Indicates Safe and Drug-Free Activities (if applicable) ## Indicates Discipline Support Activities (if applicable) ### Indicates PK –12 Literacy Activities (if applicable)




GOAL 1: To improve student achievement in math

OBJECTIVE(S) 1: To increase 3rd grade NRT Math Index scores from 64.0 to 70.2 by Spring 2007. OBJECTIVE 2: To increase 4th grade CRT Math Index Scores from 90.5 to 93.8 by Spring 2007. OBJECTIVE 3: To increase the Math Percent Proficient Index Scores of 4th grade Economically Disadvantaged students from 71.0 to 73.9 by Spring 2007. SCIENTIFICALLY BASED RESEARCH STRATEGY: (Derived from the contributing factors) - Job-Embedded Professional Development

Bibliographic Notation: Easton, L.B. (2002, March). How the Tuning Protocol Works. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 28-30. Guskey, T. (1996, June). Staff Development and the Process of Teacher Change. Educational Researcher, 15(5)5-12. Learning First Alliance. (2000) Every Child Reading: A Professional Developmental Guide. Washington, D.C.: Author. www.learningfirst.org/readingguide.html National Education Goals Panel. (2000, Dec.). Bringing All Students to High Standards. NEGP Monthly. www.negp.gov/issues/issu/monthly/1200.pdf Nolan, K. (2000). Looking at Student Work: Improving Practice by Closing in. Providence, R.I: Annenburg Institute for School Reform. Schmoker, M. (1996). Results: The Key to Continuous School Improvement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Sparks, D. Designing Powerful Professional Development for Teachers and Principals. NSDC, 2002. http://www.nsdc.org/library/book/sparksbook.pdf Sparks, D. (1999, Spring). Assessment Without Victims: An Interview with Rick Stiggins. Journal of Staff Development. 20(2), 54-56. www.nscd.org/library/jsd/stiggins203.html Sparks, D. (1999, Summer). Try on Strategies to Get a Good Fit: An Interview with Susan Loucks-Horsley. Journal Of Staff Development. 20(3), 56-60. www.nscd.org/library/jsd/loucks-horsley203.html WestEd. (2000). Teachers Who Learn, Kids Who Achieve: A Look at Schools with Model Professional Development. San Francisco: Author. Web/WestEd.org/online_pubs/modelIPD/welcome.shtml Brief Summary of Research: Professional development that is conducted during the hours of an educator’s work day is described as job-embedded professional development. This concept is derived from fairly recent research which concludes that in order for professional development to be truly effective, it should be integrated into the established teaching schedule. Two studies in particular articulate and validate the importance of embedding training into the school day. Every Child Reading: A Professional Development Guide from the Learning First Alliance (2000) and Teachers Who Learn, Kids Who Achieve: A Look at Schools with Model Professional Development, a report of WestEd (2000). Malcolm Knowles, in his book The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species, makes several assumptions about adults which are all addressed with properly conducted job-embedded professional development. Teachers are problem-centered and learn best, he states, when selfdirected. They also use past experiences to understand new information and are willing to learn when it is considered important to them.



Mike Schmoker, for instance, argues that data should first be examined in order to determine which staff development initiative should be used to target a school’s student achievement goals (1996). The study of student work, for example, can result in the collection of such data that reveal student strengths and weaknesses. Rick Stiggins advises that this, along with effective monitoring of student progress, is crucial. (Sparks, 1999). Katherine Nolan (2000) discovered seven qualities that have proven effective in improving the quality of teacher assignments and student work, and a particular approach to examining student work is advocated by Lois Easton (2002). Susan Loucks-Horsley (1999) promotes the use of several learning strategies for teachers which, she argues, is coincidental to the progress of designing staff development. Leaders must ask themselves which strategies “make sense to use at what particular time with that particular set of teachers for a particular set of outcomes.” There are pitfalls, of course. Michael Fullan (2001) defines perhaps the most common of all---fragmentation/coherence. Powerful professional development must pursue only one of two student learning goals, and there must be alignment between those goals and teacher training. Goals also provide a meaningful purpose for teamwork and goal-oriented units, says Schmoker (1996). Moreover, teachers find it difficult to sustain a sense of passion for their time and effort if they are unable to see real growth. This will not occur, explains Tom Guskey, if focus is diffused (1986). Bringing All Students to High Standards, the 2000 report of the National Education Goals Panel, links sustained professional development directly to student achievement. So too does How Teaching Matters: Bringing the Classroom Back into Discussions of Teacher Quality (Wellington, 2000). Describe how this strategy, in relation to the research, addresses the needs of the student population in your school. Was the research conducted in a similar school with similar populations and needs? The use of Job-Embedded Professional Development encourages schools to gather and analyze student data, then determine the focus of reform efforts to meet the needs of the student population which they serve. Collaboration of this nature allows each school within the district to create an individual prescription plan that will enhance student performance for their particular population. Use of this strategy has been done in a variety of settings and populations similar to Delhi Elementary School. If this strategy addresses the needs of any of the subgroups, indicate which subgroup and describe how it will serve their needs: Using the format of the Job-Embedded Professional Development, the needs of the various subgroups within each school will be analyzed. As collaborative teams are formed to address the determined needs, and action plan will be designed that specifies the content or curriculum that will be pursued.

Procedures for Evaluating the Goal, Objective(s) and Strategy: Compare ITBS percentile scores for 3rd grade from spring 2001, spring 2002, spring 2003, spring 2004, spring 2005, and spring 2006. Compare LEAP 21 percentile scores for 4th grade from spring 2001, spring 2002, spring 2003, spring 2004, spring 2005, spring 2006, and spring 2007. Compile data from classroom observations, study group logs, and reflection journals to assess degree of implementation and effectiveness of strategies.





subgroups.

Funding Sources

Object Code Cost


(Observable Change)



*3a. Initial: Content team, Toni Greer, Blanche Harris, and Carolyn Grantham, will be trained at Start Elementary in a three-week course in math content, using appropriate hands-on strategies to promote less direct instruction and more use of group projects. Carolyn Smith, LaSip Coordinator from Louisiana Tech, will train the LINCS school team July 2006.

Teachers will become effective in using technology as a teaching tool.

Teachers will demonstrate understanding of strategies by taking written tests and through observations by instructors during training upon conclusion of meetings.

*3b. Follow-up: Teri Roberts, LINCS Reginal Coordinator, and Patricia Ezell, LINCS District Content Leader, will have the LINCS school team, Shelly Crawford, principal, Joan Rhodes, school facilitator, Toni Greer, Blanche Harris, and Carolyn Grantham meet three times, August 2006, October 2006, and April 2007 to receive up-dates, new ideas, and motivation. These meetings will be job embedded during the school year.

Teachers will incorporate ideas from LINCS and Connecting Math through the Number Strands into their teaching strategies to increase use of instruction using technology.

The teachers will fill out an evaluation form stating what they learned from the up-date inservice, what they would like to further investigate, and what they plan to implement in their school. The LINCS Regional Coordinator will review the forms and assess the needs of the participants.



*3c. Follow-up: Patricia Ezell, District Content Leader, Shelly Crawford, principal, and Joan Rhodes will initiate job embedded study groups meetings August 2006 – May 2007 on the first and third Thursday of each month for all teachers for 1 hour to discuss the implementation of the strategies, provide peer coaching and to share resources and ideas in effectively applying the new instructional methods using less direct instruction and more group projects.

The LINCS School Facilitator will be responsible for facilitating the meetings, maintaining the study group logs, and providing a group report to the principal after every meeting. Student work will be analyzed bi-monthly by teachers to assess student growth. The logs will be kept on file and reviewed monthly by the principal to assist in meeting the needs of the teachers and students.

3d. Shelly Crawford, principal, Joan Rhodes, LINCS school facilitator, instructional facilitator, Patricia Ezell, District Content Leader, will have all teachers from August 2006 through May 2007 implement strategies daily that use less direct instruction and more group projects in their classroom.

Title I (Supplies)

Title I (Salary)

Title I (Benefits)

610

115

200

2,400.00

4,251.00

1,104.00

Students will be actively engaged in math.

Principal, principal intern, LINCS content leader will conduct classroom observations to assess student engagement and progress every two weeks.

3e. 3rd and 4th grade teachers will daily use Fastforword and ALS in the computer lab as enrichment tool for the LEAP and IOWA test. Brenda Lewis, paraprofessional, along with the homeroom teacher will facilitate this activity.

Title I (Supplies)

600 3,000.00 The teachers will use the assessment printouts on the software to use as a guiding point to direct students. The assessment forms will be printed and sent to principal and supervisor quarterly.

**3f. . Dr. Julie Holmes, project ELEVATE director at LaTech, will host “Number Fun with Cards”, September 12, 2006. Parents will interact with their children doing math games with playing cards. Shelly Crawford, principal, will facilitate activity.

Parents will be aware of school activities and will become actively involved in assisting their children at home.

Students and family members will complete the assigned activities during family math night. The parents will complete an evaluation to assess the impact and offer suggestions for improvements. The information on the evaluations will be posted in the newsletter. “Bear Paws” by the Toni Greer, SAT Chairman.



TOTAL SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR RESTRICTED AND DISCRETIONARY FUNDS

FUNDING SO URCES* LINCS Title II Title I LaSIP IDEA TO TAL

SALARIES (100) 2627 29,536 61,610.00 1,600 37,274 $132,646.98

EM PLOYEE BENEFITS (200) 482 11,327.45 11,033 13,007.95 $35,850.40

PURCHASED PROFESSIONAL and TECHNICAL SERV ICES (300) $0.00

PURCHASED PROPERTY SERV ICES (400) $0.00

OTHER PURCHASES SERV ICES (500) 1,400.00 $1,400.00

SUPPLIES (600) 2591 18,026.30 $20,617.30

IN DIRECT COSTS (If applicable) 7862.7 $7,862.70

PROPERTY (700) $0.00

OTHER OBJECTS (800) $0.00

OTHER USES OF FUNDS (900) $0.00

TO TAL $5,700.00 $40,863.45 $99,932.00 $1,600.00 $50,281.93 $0.00 179,369.30*Funding Sources: Title I – Part A (Im proving Basic Program s, NCLB School Im provem ent Funds), Part B (Reading First, Early Reading First, Even Start), Part C (M igrant), Part D (N & D), Part F (CSRP); Title II – Part A (Professional Developm ent), Part D (Technology); Title III – English Language Proficient; Title V – Parental Choice and Innovative Program s; Title VII – Part A (Indian Education), Part B (Native Hawaiian Education), Part C (Alaska Native Education); Learn and Serve Am erica; Stewart B . M cKinney Hom eless Assistance Act; State Funding; 8(g); LaSIP; IDEA; K-3 Initiatives; M SL; Education Excellence Fund; State School Im provem ent Funds; m iscellaneous funding sources; foundations/grants, etc.



FEDERAL FUNDING

SIP Expenditures * $92,069.30 SIP Expenditures *

§ Indirect Cost $7,862.70 § § § § § § § § § § §

TOTAL Title I Part A Expenditures $99,932.00 TOTAL Title I Part B Expenditures $0.00

SIP Expenditures * SIP Expenditures *

§ § § § § § § § § §

Non SIP Expenditures (list) Non SIP Expenditures (list)


TITLE I PART B EXPENDITURES

TITLE I PART D EXPENDITURES (N & D) TITLE I PART F EXPENDITURES (CSRP)Projected Expenditures Projected Expenditures

Projected Expenditures

TITLE I PART A EXPENDITURES(Improving Basic Programs, NCLB School Improvement Funds)


35 School Improvement Plan

Revised Spring 2006 Louisiana Department of Education

FEDERAL FUNDING

SIP Expenditures * SIP Expenditures * $40,863.45

§ § § § § § § § § § § §

TOTAL Other Title I Expenditures $0.00 TOTAL Title II Expenditures $40,863.45

SIP Expenditures * SIP Expenditures *

§ § § § § § § §

Projected Expenditures Projected Expenditures

Projected Expenditures TITLE IV EXPENDITURES

OTHER TITLE I EXPENDITURES TITLE II EXPENDITURES


TITLE V EXPENDITURES





FEDERAL FUNDING

SIP Expenditures * SIP Expenditures * $50,544.93

§ § § § § § § § § § § §

TOTAL K-3 Initiative Expenditures $0.00 § § §

TOTAL Other Funds $50,544.93

K-3 Initiative Expenditures

Non SIP Expenditures (list) Non SIP Expenditures (Indicate Source and Expense)

Projected Expenditures Projected ExpendituresOTHER FUNDS



Documents

School Improvement Plan SIP 06-07.pdf · Directions on What to Submit to the LDE and How to Complete the SIP Template For schools in School Improvement, submit the plan with the state’s