ACSIP

School Plan

ASBELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1500 N. SANG AVE.,FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72701

Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Plan

2009-2010

Asbell Elementary is a community dedicated to becoming literate, self-motivated, life-long learners and productive members of society.

Grade Span: K-5

Title I: Title I Schoolwide

School Improvement: A

Table of Contents

Priority 1: Literacy
    Goal: All students will improve in literacy for 2009-2010 school year.
Priority 2: Math
    Goal: All students will improve in math skills and responding to constructed response questions with additional attention to computation and problem-solving math strands.
Priority 3: Wellness
    Goal: Provide support for students in making healthy lifestyle choices by implementing systems to aid in decreasing the average BMI on routine annual student screening and increasing collaboration between all segments of the school community in support of positive lifestyle choices.
Priority 4: Title III/English Language Learners
    Goal: Provide support for students that are English Language Learners.

Priority 1:

We expect all students to improve in the area of Open Response in both Practical Passages and Content, since this was consistently identified as the weakest area in all subpopulations.

Supporting Data:

2009 Grade 3 Literacy Benchmark Exam:

59 students:  56% of Combined Population Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
12 students:  42% of African American Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
10 students:  20% of Hispanic Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
34 students:  67% of Caucasian Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
46 students:  48% of ESD scored at, or above, Proficient;
Less than 10 students:	44% of LEP Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
Less than 10 students:	38% of IEP scored at, or above, Proficient.

An insufficient number of LEP students and IEP students were tested.

The lowest identified areas for the COMBINED POPULATION in the five
writing domains are Style. The lowest identified areas in the analysis of
the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is Practical and
open response questions is Content.

The lowest identified areas for the EDS in the five writing domains are
Style. The lowest identified areas in the analysis of the three types of
literacy passages in multiple choice is Practical and open response
questions is Content.

The lowest identified areas for the African American Students in the five
writing domains are Style. The lowest identified areas in the analysis of
the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is Practical and
open response questions is Content.

The lowest identified areas for Hispanic Students in the five writing
domains are Multiple Choice. The lowest identified areas in the analysis
of the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is Practical
and open response questions is Content.

The lowest identified areas for the Caucasian Students in the five writing
domains are Style. The lowest identified areas in the analysis of the
three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is Practical and open
response questions is Content.

2008 Grade 3 Literacy Benchmark Exam:

51 students:  45.1% of Combined Population Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
10 students:  20% of African American Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
Less than 10 students:	33.3% of Hispanic Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
29 students:  58.6% of Caucasian Students scored at, or above, Proficient;

38 students:  39.5% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
Less than 10 students:	14.3% of LEP Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
Less than 10 students:	0% of Students with Disabilities scored at, or
above, Proficient.

An insufficient number of  Hispanic students, LEP students, and Students
with Disabilities were tested.

The lowest identified areas for the COMBINED POPULATION in the five
writing domains are Style. The lowest identified areas in the analysis of
the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is Practical and
open response questions is Content.

The lowest identified areas for the African American Students in the five
writing domains are Style. The lowest identified areas in the analysis of
the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is Writing and
open response questions is Content.

The lowest identified areas for the Caucasian Students in the five writing
domains are Style. The lowest identified areas in the analysis of the
three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is Practical and open
response questions is Content.

The lowest identified areas for the Econ. Disadvantaged Students in the
five writing domains are Style. The lowest identified areas in the
analysis of the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is
Practical and open response questions is Content.





	       
		


2007 Grade 3 Literacy Benchmark Exam:

58% of the Combined Population Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
47.8% of the Caucasian Students scored at, or above, Proficient.
70% of Limited English Proficiency Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
51.5% of Economically Disadvantaged Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
61.5% of African American Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
66.6% of Hispanic Students scored at, or above Proficient.
An insufficient number of students with disablities were tested.

The lowest identified areas for the COMBINED POPULATION in the five
writing domains are Content and Style. The lowest identified areas in the
analysis of the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is
Content and open response questions is Content.

The lowest identified areas for the ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED POPULATION
in the five writing domains are Content and Style. The lowest identified
areas in the analysis of the three types of literacy passages in multiple
choice is Content and open response questions is Content.

The lowest identified areas for the LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY POPULATION
in the five writing domains are Content and Style. The lowest identified
areas in the analysis of the three types of literacy passages in multiple
choice is Content and open response.

The lowest identified areas for the CAUCASIAN POPULATIION in the five
writing domains are Content and Style. The lowest identified areas in the
analysis of the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is
Content and open response questions is Content.

The lowest identified areas for the HISPANIC POPULATION in the five
writing domains are Content and Style. The lowest identified areas in the
analysis of the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is
Content and open response questions is Content.

The lowest identified areas for the AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION in the
five writing domains are Content and Style. The lowest identified areas in
the analysis of the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is
Content and open response questions is Content.

An insufficient number of STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES were tested.

2009 Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam:

57 students:  55% of Combined Population Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
18 students:  50% of African American Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
Less than 10 students:	57% of Hispanic Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
29 students:  16% of Caucasian Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
45 students:  51.% of ESD scored at, or above, Proficient;
Less than 10 students:	40% of LEP Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
Less than 10 students:	50% of IEP scored at, or above, Proficient.

An insufficient number of LEP students and IEP students were tested.

The lowest identified areas for the COMBINED POPULATION in the five
writing domains are Content. The lowest identified areas in the analysis
of the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is Practical
and open response questions is Literacy Passage.

The lowest identified areas for the EDS in the five writing domains are
Content. The lowest identified areas in the analysis of the three types of
literacy passages in multiple choice is Practical and open response
questions is Literacy Passage.

The lowest identified areas for the AFRICAN AMERICAN students in the five
writing domains are Style. The lowest identified areas in the analysis of
the three types of open response questions is Literacy Passage and Content
Passage.

The lowest identified areas for the AFRICAN AMERICAN students in the five
writing domains are Content. The lowest identified areas in the analysis
of the three types of open response questions is Literacy Passage and
Content Passage.

   
The lowest identified areas for the CAUCASIAN students in the five writing
domains are Multiple Choice. The lowest identified areas in the analysis
of the three types of open response questions is Literacy Passage and
Content Passage.

2008 Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam:

50 students:  58% of Combined Population Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
14 students:  50% of African American Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
11 students:  72.7% of Hispanic Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
24 students:  54.2% of Caucasian Students scored at, or above, Proficient;

37 students:  51.4% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
Less than 10 students:	75% of LEP Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
Less than 10 students:	12.5% of Students with Disabilities scored at, or
above, Proficient.

An insufficient number of LEP students and Students with Disabilities were
tested.

The lowest identified areas for the COMBINED POPULATION in the five
writing domains are Content. The lowest identified areas in the analysis
of the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is Practical
and open response questions is Content.

The lowest identified areas for the African American Students in the five
writing domains are  Content. The lowest identified areas in the analysis
of the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is Practical
and open response questions is Content.

The lowest identified areas for the Hispanic Students in the five writing
domains are Content. The lowest identified areas in the analysis of the
three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is Writing and open
response questions is  Content.

The lowest identified areas for the Caucasian Students in the five writing
domains are Style. The lowest identified areas in the analysis of the
three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is Practical and open
response questions is Content.

The lowest identified areas for the Econ. Disadvantaged Students in the
five writing domains are  Style. The lowest identified areas in the
analysis of the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is
Writing and open response questions is Content. 		   

2007 Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Exam:

40.3% of the Combined Population Students scored at, or above, Proficient;

34.1% of the Economically Disadvantaged (SES) students scored, at or
above, Proficient;
43.7% of the Caucasian Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
30.7% of the Limited English Proficiency students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
8.3% of Hispanic Students scored at, or above, Proficient.

An insufficient number of Students with Disablities and African American
students were tested.

The lowest identified areas for the COMBINED POPULATION in the five
writing domains are Content and Style. The lowest identified areas in the
analysis of the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is
Content and open response questions is Content.

The lowest identified areas for the ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED POPULATION
in the five writing domains are Content and Style. The lowest identified
areas in the analysis of the three types of literacy passages in multiple
choice is Content and open response questions is Content.

The lowest identified areas for the LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY POPULATION
in the five writing domains are Content and Style. The lowest identified
areas in the analysis of the three types of literacy passages in multiple
choice is Content and open response questions is Content.

The lowest identified areas for the HISPANIC POPULATION in the five
writing domains are Content and Style. The lowest identified areas in the
analysis of the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is
Content and open response questions is Content.

The lowest identified areas for the CAUCASIAN POPULATION in the five
writing domains are Content and Style. The lowest identified areas in the
analysis of the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is
Content and open response questions is Content.

An insufficient number of AFRICAN AMERICAN and STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
were tested.

2009 Grade 5 Literacy Benchmark Exam:

50students:  56% of Combined Population Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
14 students:  50% of African American Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
11 students:  63% of Hispanic Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
22 students:  55% of Caucasian Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
37 students:  49% of EDS scored at, or above, Proficient;
Less than 10 students:	57% of LEP Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
Less than 10 students:	11% of IEP scored at, or above, Proficient.

An insufficient number of LEP and IEP students were tested.

The lowest identified areas for the COMBINED POPULATION in the five
writing domains are  Style. The lowest identified areas in the analysis of
the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is Practical and
open response questions is Content.

The lowest identified areas for the EDS in the five writing domains are
Style. The lowest identified areas in the analysis of the three types of
literacy passages in multiple choice is Practical and open response
questions is Content.

The lowest identified areas for the AFRICAN AMERICAN students in the five
writing domains are  Style. The lowest identified areas in the analysis of
the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is Practical and
open response questions is Content.

The lowest identified areas for the HISPANIC students in the five writing
domains are Style. The lowest identified areas in the analysis of the
three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is Practical and open
response questions is Literacy Passage.


The lowest identified areas for the CAUCASIAN in the five writing domains
are  Content. The lowest identified areas in the analysis of the three
types of literacy passages in multiple choice is Practical and open
response questions is Content.

2008 Grade 5 Literacy Benchmark Exam:

40 students:  62.5% of Combined Population Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
Less than 10 students:	100% of African American Students scored at, or
above, Proficient;
Less than 10 students:	55.6% of Hispanic Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
26 students:  57.7% of Caucasian Students scored at, or above, Proficient;

23 students:  52.2% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
Less than 10 students:	50% of LEP Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
Less than 10 students:	0% of Students with Disabilities scored at, or
above, Proficient.

An insufficient number of African American students, Hispanic students,
LEP students and Students with Disabilities were tested.

The lowest identified areas for the COMBINED POPULATION in the five
writing domains are  Style. The lowest identified areas in the analysis of
the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is Practical and
open response questions is Content.


The lowest identified areas for the Caucasian Students in the five writing
domains are  Content and Style. The lowest identified areas in the
analysis of the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is
Writing and open response questions is Content.

The lowest identified areas for the Econ. Disadvantaged Students in the
five writing domains are Style. The lowest identified areas in the
analysis of the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is
Practical and open response questions is Content.  



2007 Grade 5 Literacy Benchmark Exam:

54.5% of the Combined Population Students scored at, or above, Proficient;

51.2% of the Economically Disadvantaged (SES) students scored, at or
above, Proficient;
58.0% of the Caucasian Students scored at, or above, Proficient; 
60% of the Limited English Proficiency students scored, at or above,
Proficient;
45.4% of Hispanic students scored at, or above, Proficient;

An insufficient number of African American and Students with disabilities
were tested.

The lowest identified areas for the COMBINED POPULATION in the five
writing domains are Content and Style. The lowest identified areas in the
analysis of the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is
Content and open response questions is Content.

The lowest identified areas for the ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED POPULATION
in the five writing domains are Content and Style. The lowest identified
areas in the analysis of the three types of literacy passages in multiple
choice is Content and open response questions is Content.

The lowest identified areas for the LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY POPULATION
in the five writing domains are Content and Style. The lowest identified
areas in the analysis of the three types of literacy passages in multiple
choice is Content and open response questions is Content.

The lowest identified areas for the CAUCASIAN POPULATION in the five
writing domains are Content and Style. The lowest identified areas in the
analysis of the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is
Practical and open response questions is Content.

The lowest identified areas for the HISPANIC POPULATION in the five
writing domains are Content and Style. The lowest identified areas in the
analysis of the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is
Content and open response questions is Practical.

An insufficient number of AFRICAN AMERICAN and STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
were tested.

Grade K-Metropolitan8 2009: 
Combined Population: 84 students were tested and 46% scored at or above
the 50th percentile. 

African American: 19 students were tested and 42% scored at or above the
50th percentile.

Hispanic: 13 students were tested and 15% scored at or above the 50th
percentile. 

Caucasian: 41 students were tested and 56% scored at or above the 50th
percentile.

IEP: Less than 10 students were tested and 20% scored at or above the 50th
percentile. 

LEP students: 18 students were tested and 33% scored at or above the 50th
percentile. 

EDS: 66 students were tested and 41% scored at or above the 50th
percentile.  


Grade K-Metropolitan8 2008: 
Combined Population: 81 students were tested and 57% scored at or above
the 50th percentile. 

African American: 18 students were tested and 47% scored at or above the
50th percentile.

Hispanic: 14 students were tested and 23% scored at or above the 50th
percentile. 

Caucasian: 44 students were tested and 67% scored at or above the 50th
percentile.

IEP Students: Less than 10 students were tested and 25% scored at or above
the 50th percentile. 

LEP students: 13 students were tested and 38% scored at or above the 50th
percentile. 

Economically Disadvantaged: 61 students were tested and 51% scored at or
above the 50th percentile.  


Grade K-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population:  87 Students were tested and 55.2% scored above the
50th percentile.  An analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster
performance reveals the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.
AFRICAN AMERICAN: 19 Students were tested and 36.8% scored above the 50th
percentile.  An analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster
performance reveals the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.
HISPANIC: 10 Students were tested and 60.0% scored above the 50th
percentile.  An analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster
performance reveals the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.
CAUCASIAN: 52 Students were tested and 63.5% scored above the 50th
percentile.  An analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster
performance reveals the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.

ECONOMICALY DISADVANTAGED: 52 Students were tested and 63.3% scored above
the 50th percentile.  An analysis of the content sub skill and skill
cluster performance reveals the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT: 12 Students were tested and 33.3% scored above
the 50th percentile.  An analysis of the content sub skill and skill
cluster performance reveals the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.

Fewer than 10 students with disabilities were tested.

 Grade 1 - SAT 10 2009:
Combined Population:  83 Students were tested and 31% scored above the
50th percentile.

AFRICAN AMERICAN:  19 students were tested and 21% scored above the 50th
percentile.

CAUCASIAN:  42 students were tested and 38% scored above the 50th
percentile.

EDS:  61 students were tested and 28% scored above the 50th percentile.

LEP students:  14 students were tested and 21% scored above the 50th
percentile.

HISPANIC:  15 students were tested and 27% scored above the 50th
percentile.

IEP:  Less than 10 students were tested and 0% scored above the 50th
percentile.

 Grade 1 - SAT 10 2008:
Combined Population:  69 Students were tested and 34.8% scored above the
50th percentile.

AFRICAN AMERICAN:  15 students were tested and 26.7% scored above the 50th
percentile.

CAUCASIAN:  36 students were tested and 44.4% scored above the 50th
percentile.

ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED:  55 students were tested and 27.3% scored
above the 50th percentile.

LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT:  10 students were tested and 40% scored above
the 50th percentile.

HISPANIC:  13 students were tested and 15.4% scored above the 50th
percentile.

Fewer than 10 Students with disabilities were tested.

Grade 1-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 69 Students were tested and 47.1% scored above the
50th percentile. An analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster
performance reveals the following areas of concern: Vocabulary
AFRICAN AMERICAN: 12 Students were tested and 25.0% scored above the 50th
percentile.  An analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster
performance reveals the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.
HISPANIC: 10 Students were tested and 60.0% scored above the 50th
percentile.  An analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster
performance reveals the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.
CAUCASIAN: 43 Students were tested and 50.0% scored above the 50th
percentile.  An analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster
performance reveals the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.
ECONONMICALLY DISADVANTAGED: 45 Students were tested and 31.8% scored
above the 50th percentile.  An analysis of the content sub skill and skill
cluster performance reveals the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT: 11 Students were tested and 45.5% scored above
the 50th percentile.  An analysis of the content sub skill and skill
cluster performance reveals the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.

Fewer than 10 students with disabilities were tested.

 Grade 2 - SAT 10 2009:
Combined Population:  68 Students were tested and 43% scored above the
50th percentile.

AFRICAN AMERICAN:  20 students were tested and 15% scored above the 50th
percentile.

CAUCASIAN:  32 students were tested and 69% scored above the 50th
percentile.

EDS:  55 students were tested and 38% scored above the 50th percentile.

LEP:  Less than 10 students were tested and 25% scored above the 50th
percentile.

HISPANIC:  11 students were tested and 9% scored above the 50th
percentile.

IEP:  11 students were tested and 27% scored above the 50th percentile.

 Grade 2 - SAT 10 2008:
Combined Population:  67 Students were tested and 50.7% scored above the
50th percentile.

AFRICAN AMERICAN:  10 students were tested and 40% scored above the 50th
percentile.

CAUCASIAN:  42 students were tested and 52.4% scored above the 50th
percentile.

ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED:  46 students were tested and 52.2% scored
above the 50th percentile.

LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT:  10 students were tested and 80% scored above
the 50th percentile.

HISPANIC:  10 students were tested and 70% scored above the 50th
percentile.

Fewer than 10 Students with disabilities were tested.

Grade 2-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 61 Students were tested and 66.7% scored above the
50th percentile.  An analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster
performance reveals the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.
AFRICAN AMERICAN: 15 Students were tested and 60.0% scored above the 50th
percentile.  An analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster
performance reveals the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.
CAUCASIAN: 32 Students were tested and 71.9% scored above the 50th
percentile.  An analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster
performance reveals the following areas of concern: Reading Comprehension.

ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED:  47 Students were tested and 63% scored above
the 50th percentile.  An analysis of the content sub skill and skill
cluster performance reveals the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT: 11 Students were tested and 60% scored above
the 50th percentile.  An analysis of the content sub skill and skill
cluster performance reveals the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.

Fewer than 10 Hispanic and Student with disabilities were tested.

  Grade 3 - SAT 10 2009:
Combined Population:  61 Students were tested and 31% scored above the
50th percentile.

AFRICAN AMERICAN:  12 students were tested and 25% scored above the 50th
percentile.

CAUCASIAN:   35students were tested and 37.14% scored above the 50th
percentile.

ESD:  48 students were tested and 27.9% scored above the 50th percentile.

HISPANIC:   10 students were tested and 20% scored above the 50th
percentile.

LEP:  10 students were tested and 31% scored above the 50th percentile.

Fewer than 10 IEP students were tested.

  Grade 3 - SAT 10 2008:
Combined Population:  66 Students were tested and 43.9% scored above the
50th percentile.

AFRICAN AMERICAN:  14 students were tested and 50% scored above the 50th
percentile.

CAUCASIAN:  37 students were tested and 51.4% scored above the 50th
percentile.

ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED:  50 students were tested and 36% scored above
the 50th percentile.


HISPANIC:  11 students were tested and 18.2% scored above the 50th
percentile.

Fewer than 10 Students with disabilities and Limited English Proficient
students were tested.

Grade 3-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 60 Students were tested and 63.3.3% scored above the
50th percentile.  An analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster
performance reveals the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.
AFRICAN AMERICAN: 
16 Students were tested and 50% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.
HISPANIC:
13 Students were tested and 61.5% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.
CAUCASIAN:
29 Students were tested and 69.0% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Reading Comprehension.
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED: 
39 Students were tested and 51.3% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT:
10 Students were tested and 60% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.

Fewer than 10 students with disabiities were tested.

  Grade 4 - SAT 10 2009
Combined Population:   57Students were tested and 62% scored above the
50th percentile.

AFRICAN AMERICAN:   18 students were tested and 38.89% scored above the
50th percentile.

CAUCASIAN:   29 students were tested and 72.41% scored above the 50th
percentile.

EDS:   45 students were tested and 58.9% scored above the 50th percentile.


Fewer than 10 IEP, LEP and Hispanic students were tested.


  Grade 4 - SAT 10 2008
Combined Population:  61 Students were tested and 57.4% scored above the
50th percentile.

AFRICAN AMERICAN:  15 students were tested and 53.3% scored above the 50th
percentile.

CAUCASIAN:  27 students were tested and 59.3% scored above the 50th
percentile.

ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED:  48 students were tested and 50% scored above
the 50th percentile.


HISPANIC:  16 students were tested and 50% scored above the 50th
percentile.

LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT:  10 students were tested and 40% scored above
the 50th percentile.

Fewer than 10 Students with disabilities were tested.

Grade 4-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 65 Students were tested and 46.2% scored above the
50th percentile.  An analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster
performance reveals the following areas of concern: Vocabuluary.
AFRICAN AMERICAN:
10 Students were tested and 50% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.
HISPANIC:
12 Students were tested and 16.7% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.
CAUCASIAN:
39 Students were tested and 53.8% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Reading Comprehension.
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED:
38 Students were tested and 44.7% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT:
13 Students were tested and 46.2% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.

Fewer than 10 students with disabilities were tested.

  Grade 5 - SAT 10 2009
Combined Population:  50 Students were tested and 58.9% scored above the
50th percentile.

CAUCASIAN: 22 students were tested and 63.64% scored above the 50th
percentile.

EDS:  37 students were tested and 49.6% scored above the 50th percentile.


HISPANIC:  11 students were tested and 54.55% scored above the 50th
percentile.

AFRICAN AMERICAN:  14 students were tested and 50% scored above the 50th
percentile.

Fewer than 10 IEP and LEP students were tested.


  Grade 5 - SAT 10 2008
Combined Population:  53 Students were tested and 54.7% scored above the
50th percentile.

CAUCASIAN:  35 students were tested and 51.4% scored above the 50th
percentile.

ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED:  35 students were tested and 51.4% scored
above the 50th percentile.


HISPANIC:  11 students were tested and 54.5% scored above the 50th
percentile.

LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT:  10 students were tested and 40% scored above
the 50th percentile.

Fewer than 10 Students with disabilities and African American Students
were tested.

Grade 5-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 64 Students were tested and 59.4% scored above the
50th percentile. An analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster
performance reveals the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.
AFRICAN AMERICAN:
11 Students were tested and 45.5% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.
HISPANIC:
12 Students were tested and 41.7% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Reading Comprehension.
CAUCASIAN:
36 Students were tested and 66.7% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED:
46 Students were tested and 54.3% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT:
12 Students were tested and 58.3% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Vocabulary.

Fewer than 10 students with disabilities were tested.

Attendance Rate: 
2009, 94.52%
2008, 94.6%
2007, 94.16%

Goal

All students will improve in literacy for 2009-2010 school year.

Benchmark

The following population(s): Caucasian and Economically Disadvantaged DID NOT meet the 2009 AYP target of 64% Proficient/Advanced. It is expected that each of these populations will meet, or exceed, the 2010 AYP Target of 71.20% scoring Proficient/Advanced, or make the necessary gains to invoke "Safe Harbor". The 2009 AYP status is ALERT for the sub populations of Combined, Caucasian and Economically Disadvantaged. The target for the 2009-2010 school year is 71.2% Proficient or Advanced for Literacy.

Intervention: Parent Involvement Plan ACT 307 National PTA Standards, 2007

Scientific Based Research: National PTA Standards,2007 Learning Early to Achieve program for preschool students; Report from Arkansas Blue Ribbon Commission 2003; No child Left Behind 2003; Act 49 of the 2nd Extraordinary Session of the Arkansas Legislature 2003; Harms, Clifford, Cryar, Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale 1998.

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

The building principal will designate one certified staff member to serve as a parent facilitator to organize meaningful training for staff and parents and to undertake efforts to ensure that parental participation is recognized as an asset to the school. The district will pay the parent facilitator a stipend for assuming duties as required by ACT 307 of 2007.
Action Type: Parental Engagement

La Tayna Greene, Principal

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

District Staff


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PARENT INVOLVEMENT: Parents and highly qualified teachers collaborate to develop and distribute a SCHOOL INFORMATION PACKET for each family.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Jennifer Ebert, Parent Facilitator

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Community Leaders
District Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

All parents are invited to monthly PTA Meetings. The first meeting is to welcome parents and students to our school and to share expectations for the school year. The annual report will be shared. The school's process for RESOLVING PARENTAL CONCERNS will also be discussed.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Jill Jackson

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
District Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

VOLUNTEER RESOURCE BOOK: Administrators, teachers and parents will develop a volunteer resource book including: a parent interest survey, an option for parents to designate how frequently they would participate in the program, and include opportunities for parents to assist from home.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Jennifer Ebert, Parent Facilitator

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

District Staff


ACTION BUDGET:	$

As required in Act 307, PARENT INVOLVEMENT MEETINGS will be held twice a year to discuss what students will be expected to learn and what the academic standards are, how student's learning will be assessed and how parents can assist to make a difference in his or her child's education. Parents will be provided instruction on how to incorporate developmentally appropriate learning activities in the home environment. The school's process for RESOLVING PARENTAL CONCERNS will also be discussed, including but not limited to parental concerns in the handbook. To supplement the materials provided by the school for these meetings, the PARENT FACILITATOR will work with grade-level teams to select and purchase curriculum resource materials, appropriate for each grade level, which will support and scaffold student learning at home. These supplemental materials will be provided for low-income families, who otherwise would not be able to purchase them.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Kelly Wade

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
District Staff
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Administrators, teachers, and parents will develop a parental involvement plan addressing the diverse needs of the students and their parents to increase the school's ability to provide for the educational success of their children. The plan will be reviewed and updated annually. Funds will be used to purchase student planners for grades 4-5 and Communication Folders to increase facilitate in increasing communication between school and home.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Jeannie Burgers

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
District Staff
Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$1072.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$1072

The district will designate two PARENT/ TEACHER CONFERENCES each school year. At the end of the school year, the school will publish a notice in the local newspaper thanking the parents as a group for attending the conferences.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Jill Jackson

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

District Staff


ACTION BUDGET:	$

TRANSITION: (Pre-K) Kindergarten teachers will collaborate to incorporate research/best practices related to early childhood development so that there will be a seamless transition for students between preschool and kindergarten environments. The kindergarten curriculum includes instructional strategies, teaching methodologies, and assessment techniques based upon the theories of early childhood growth and development. Each kindergarten classroom will have a ½ or full-time instructional assistant to support this process. Entrance conferences will be held with all parents and students at the beginning of the school year and teachers will maintain contact with the parents on a regular basis and arrange for additional conferences with parents as needed.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Christina Brown

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Central Office
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

The school will engage in other activities to help a parent assist in his or her child's learning which include, but are not limited to hosting PARENT INVOLVEMENT events such as Kindergarten Round Up, Family Week, a Book Club, Musicals (for grades 1,3,and 5), Back to School Night, Field Day, Kite Day, Spelling Bee, Geography Bee, Read Across America, Graduation, Awards Assembly, and Family Fun Night as ways to raise parent and community involvement and to help parents assist in their childs learning. Funds will be used to purchase any materials, supplies, and prepackaged food needed.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Jennifer Ebert

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Community Leaders
Teachers
Title Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$5649.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$5649

PROGRAM EVALUATION: During the 2009-2010 school year we plan to use the following protocol of a SURVEY and QUESTIONNAIRE in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention program: Parent Involvement Plan ACT 307 National PTA Standards, 2007. We further plan to use appropriate CRT, NRT and formative data to evaluate our progress in Literacy. We will use this data/information to determine whether the objective (s) of this Intervention/Program was achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results, in our 2010-2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program."
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Jennifer Ebert

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention through: SURVEY and QUESTIONNAIRE and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The results of the Parent SURVEY/QUESTIONNAIRE indicated that a majority of parents felt there was open communication between parents and teachers through many different outlets, but that teachers needed to continue to offer ways parents can help their children at home with curriculum being taught in the classroom. The above EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrated that this Intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning process of all involved. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to use the following protocol of SURVEY and QUESTIONNAIRE in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention. We will use the information obtained to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention were achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results in our 2010/2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kelly Wade

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

ANNUAL TITLE ONE MEETING: Our school will host an annual community meeting to discuss the Title I program. This meeting will be scheduled during the fall of each school year. A sign-in sheet will be kept to document attendance. An agenda will be provided that includes: Goals for the program, Rights of parents to be involved in the planning, review and revision of parent programs (including the school parental involvement policy) School accreditation, coordination of federal programs, the schools academic performance report, overview of the curriculum along with an explanation of the kinds of assessments used. There will be a time for dialogue with our parents and they will be encouraged to ask questions and offer suggestions as they relate to budgeting of all federal monies. Parents will be encouraged to form a partnership with the school. A committee will be formed for the purpose of, annually, revising our school parental involvement policy.
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Kelly Wade

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

SCHOOL-PARENT COMPACT: A school-parent compact will be created by staff and parents to reflect the school's reponsibility to provide high-quality curriculum and instruction in a supportive and effective learning environment that enables children to meet the state's student academic achievement standards. The compact will include ways in which parents will be responsible for supporting their children's learning, as well as stating the importance of communication between teachers and parents on an ongoing basis. The compact will be a tool for parents because it will provide assistance to parents in understanding how to monitor their child's progress through school curriculum by providing standards and academic assessments. Parents will be provided with materials and training which will help them work with their children to improve academic achievement, as well as receive information related to school and parent programs and provide additional reasonable support for parental involvement activities as requested by parents. The compact will be a tool for educators because it focuses on the importance of effective communication as well as value and utility of contributions of parents. The compact will be available for viewing online on our school website and will be sent home in print for parents to view in a language that is practical to understand. The compact encompasses parent involvement because it coordinates and integrates parent involvement programs and activities.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Kelly Wade

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

BUILDING CAPACITY: To ensure effective involvement of parents and to support a partnership between the school, parents and community, for the purpose of improving student academic achievement we will provide assitance to parents of children served at our school as appropriate in understanding such topics as the State's academic content standards and State academic achievement standards, State and local academic assessments, the requirements of this part, and how to monitor a child's progress and work with educators to improve the achievement of their children.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Kelly Wade

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

BUILDING CAPACITY: To ensure effective involvement of parents and to support a partnership between the school, parents and community, for the purpose of improving student academic achievement we will provide materials and training to help parents to work with their children to improve their children's achievement, such as literacy training and using technology, as appropriate, to foster parental involvement.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Kelly Wade

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

BUILDING CAPACITY: To ensure effective involvement of parents and to support a partnership between the school, parents and community, for the purpose of improving student academic achievement we will educate teachers, pupil services personnel, principals, and other staff, with the assistance of parents, in the value and utility of contributions of parents and in how to reach out to, communicate with, and work with parents as equal partners, implement and coordinate parent programs, and build ties between parents and the school.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Kelly Wade

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

BUILDING CAPACITY: To ensure effective involvement of parents and to support a partnership between the school, parents and community, for the purpose of improving student academic achievement we will to the extent feasible and appropriate, coordinate and integrate parent involvement programs and activities with Head Start, Reading First, Early Reading First, Even Start, The Home Instruction Programs for Preschool Youngsters, the Parents as Teachers Program, and public preschool and other programs, and conduct other activities, such as parent resource centers, that encourage and support parents in more fully participating in the education of their children.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Kelly Wade

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

BUILDING CAPACITY: To ensure effective involvement of parents and to support a partnership between the school, parents and community, for the purpose of improving student academic achievement we will insure that information related to school and parents programs, meetings, and other activities is sent to the parents of participating children in a format and, to the extent practicle, in a language the parents can understand.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Kelly Wade

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

BUILDING CAPACITY: To ensure effective involvement of parents and to support a partnership between the school, parents and community, for the purpose of improving student academic achievement we will provide such other reasonable support for parental involvement activities under this section as parents may request.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Kelly Wade

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$6721

Intervention: Comprehensive Literacy Model

Scientific Based Research: Ganske, Kathy,Word Journeys 2000; Adams, M., Beeler, T., Foorman, B. Lundberg, I. Phonemic Awareness in Young Children 1998; The Art of Teaching; Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, Put Reading First 2002

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

ALIGNMENT: Use Observation Survey, Developmental Reading Assessment, standardized tests, classroom assessments, Developmental Spelling Assessment, DIBELS, and/or accuracy checks for formative and summative evaluations of student progress and plan instruction for students.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Carolyn Baughman

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

SCHOOLWIDE REFORM: Participate in trainings and implement Reading First, Literacy Lab, ELLA and Effective Literacy balanced-literacy skills and strategies in the appropriate classrooms including special education and ESL classrooms.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Special Education
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Linda Granbois

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

COORDINATION AND INTEGRATION OF PROGRAMS: Classroom teachers, ESL teachers, special education teachers, Encore teachers,and other support staff will collaborate to implement differentiated strategies for students to include but not limited to the use of formative assessments such as: Waterford Software, Accelerated Reader, and STAR testing software. For students who are below proficient, this will be documented in their AIP and IRI as an intervention. Provide upkeep and maintenance of ELMOs, projectors, and DVD/VCR combos for each classroom.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Special Education
Action Type: Technology Inclusion
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Melissa Harrell

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Central Office
Computers
District Staff
School Library
Teachers
Teaching Aids
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

We will maintain personnel to work with families of educationally disadvantaged students to address family and student issues relevant to improving academic achievement.
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Sara Chamberlin

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Teachers and staff will participate in Comprehensive Literacy training such as, but not limited to ELLA, Effective Literacy, Reading First, Arkansas Reading Association workshops, and Literacy Lab to receive training in the 5 essential elements of literacy during the 09-10 school year as they become avaliable. Teachers will also participate in trainings in how to plan and provide interventions for differentiated instruction. Provide teacher stipends or substitute pay for training. Purchase books and classroom literacy supplies/materials to supplement classroom instruction and/or provide food for trainings.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Special Education

Linda Granbois

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Central Office
Computers
District Staff
Outside Consultants
School Library
Teachers
Teaching Aids
Title Teachers

Title I - Purchased Services:	$2125.00
Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$45964.00
Title I - Employee Salaries:	$11840.00
Title I - Employee Benefits:	$4160.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$64089

POINT IN TIME REMEDIATION: Progress Monitor below basic students in grades K-3 bi-monthly and grades 4-5 at the beginning of year and middle of the year using DIBELS and other formative and summative assessment tools such as DRA, DSA, Peabody, PPVT, GORT-4 and TPRI.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Pat Shepard

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
District Staff
Outside Consultants
Teachers
Teaching Aids
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

HIGHLY QUALIFIED: The school will continue to hire and maintain "highly qualified" teachers and support staff. All instruction will be given by "highly qualified" staff. Teachers will work closely with Title I staff to implement school wide reform strategies. Data will be used to continue to monitor progress and point-in- time remediation. Instructional aides will be hired to provide additional instruction for students at-risk for not meeting grade-level benchmarks in reading. Two full-time 1.0 FTE and six part-time .5 FTE instructional assistants will be hired.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

La Tayna Greene

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Central Office
Outside Consultants
Teachers
Title Teachers

Title I - Employee Benefits:	$13903.00
Title I - Employee Salaries:	$39572.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$53475

COLLABORATION: Teachers are provided with weekly instructional meeting time in order to plan for the implementation of best practices that are chosen to help improve student achievement. This planning time is provided during the course of the day. One faculty meeting date a month will be reserved for vertical and horizontal team meetings. The actions described in our schools ACSIP plan are monitored to determine how closely aligned they are with the mission of our school.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Ann Grigg

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

NEEDS ASSESSMENT: NRT, CRT, local achievement assessments and other relevant indicators will be analyzed by the faculty at each grade level with consideration to the combined population as well as each subpopulation in order to determine student learning needs and achievement gaps within subpopulations. NRT & CRT data will be analyzed annually. Local assessments will be analyzed quarterly.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

LaTayna Greene- Principal

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Performance Assessments
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

HIGHLY QUALIFIED: Strategies will be developed in conjunction with the central office staff for attracting highly qualified teachers to the Fayetteville school district.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

LaTayna Greene

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
District Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Substitute teachers will be utilized as needed, to provide supplemental release time in each grade level to work on the disaggregation of data to align curriculum and interventions to meet the needs of individual Tier 2 and Tier 3 students.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

La Tayna Greene

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
District Staff
Outside Consultants
Teachers
Title Teachers

Title II-A - Employee Benefits:	$1994.00
Title II-A - Employee Salaries:	$5674.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$7668

Provide 3 one week intersession intervention programs for identified students who are at risk. The program will run Monday through Friday from 8:00-11:00 during the intersessions of our continuous learning calender, ( Oct. 5-9, Feb. 8-12, & May 3-7). Students will be identified for the program based on DIBELS, DRA, Quarterly Assessments and teacher observations. The program will accomodate students K-5. Funds will be used to pay stipends for certified teachers, materials, supplies and student transportation.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Professional Development

Kasi Davis

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Central Office
District Staff
Teachers
Title Teachers

Title I - Purchased Services:	$400.00
Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$350.00
Title I - Employee Salaries:	$9500.00
Title I - Employee Benefits:	$2500.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$12750

PROGRAM EVALUATION: During the 2009-2010 school year we plan to use the following protocol: OBSERVATION and SURVEY in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention program: Comprehensive Literacy Model. We further plan to use appropriate CRT, NRT and formative data to evaluate our progress in Literacy. We will use this data/information to determine whether the objective (s) of this Intervention/Program was achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results, in our 2010-2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program."
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Professional Development

Kelly Wade

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP TEAM: Closing the Achievement Gap: Regular meetings of our ACSIP Leadership Committee will continue to be held. These meetings will focus on building capacity within our school. Each meeting agenda will include the following Core Principles: A. The selection, and continuous evaluation, of research-based, scientifically validated, Interventions designed to improve our ability to improve student performance on the Literacy portion of all Assessments. B. The ongoing monitoring of student progress in order to influence classroom instruction. C. The utilization of Formative and Summative Assessment Data to make decisions that impact: Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. D. Coordination of resources in order to better meet the needs of all students. Written minutes of each meeting, along with a sign-in sheet, will be kept and made available upon request. The intent is that each Intervention, and Action, is carefully monitoredthrough the collection of Formative and Summative Data.so that those strategies that prove ineffective can be revised, or abandoned. Our ACSIP Plan will be revised each spring, and fall, in order to keep it timely and valid in our efforts to improve teaching and learning.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Ginger Mayes

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Computers
Performance Assessments
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention through: OBSERVATION and SURVEY and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The results of the SURVEY indicated that our staff follows the Comprehensive Literacy Model and would like more training that supports the Comprehensive Literacy Model. The results of the OBSERVATION indicate that the majority of our staff use curriculum and assessment based off of the Comprehensive Literacy Model in their classroom on a daily basis. Through OBSERVATION it was determined that the continued use of the Comprehensive Literacy Model is needed to continue to increase Literacy scores on summative and formative assessments. The above EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrated that this Intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning process of all involved. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to use the following protocol of SURVEY and QUESTIONNAIRE in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention. We will use the information obtained to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention were achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results in our 2010/2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Professional Development

Kelly Wade

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

A book room will be maintained with books and materials in order for staff members to have access to rich student material for familiar, shared, and guided reading. Shelving units, storage units, printed books, book making material, big books and any other material to enhance instruction will be purchased.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development

Linda Granbois

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$137982

Intervention: Reading Across the Curriculum.

Scientific Based Research: Houghton Mifflin, Soar to Success, 2001; Routman, R., Conversations,2000; SRA, Scholastic Research Associates, Multiple Skills Services; Clay, M., An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement, 2002; Reading Recovery: A Guidebook for Teachers in Training

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Classroom teachers, special education teachers, and other support staff will collaborate to implement differentiated strategies for students with Academic Improvement Plans, Individual Reading Intervention Plans, and/or special needs to improve literacy.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Special Education

Melissa Harrell

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
District Staff
Performance Assessments
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

La Tayna Greene

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
District Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Integrate instruction in writing strategies and require students to write to demonstrate their learning in every content area, using the Arkansas Writing Rubric, in non-language arts classes taught by certified teachers.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Linda Granbois

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
District Staff
School Library
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Purchase and use varied instructional methodologies, techniques, and resources in the classroom and library to address the needs of all students, including students with special needs and ELL students. Examples of the products to purchase would include trade books, literature sets, Scholastic News, Weekly Readers, and other supplies to support instruction.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Special Education

Janette Harris

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Computers
District Staff
School Library
Teachers
Teaching Aids
Title Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$11022.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$11022

Analyze the scores on the literacy portion of the benchmark exam, and SAT-10 to the aligned curriculum to identify areas of weakness and gaps in the curriculum.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Ginger Mayes

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Central Office
District Staff
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Kindergarten students, who score delayed in both written and oral communication, on the Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI), and first and second grade students who score below basic, in reading, on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) will be considered to have a substantial reading deficiency. These children will be provided Intensive Reading Instruction utilizing Reading First, a scientifically based reading program. The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) will be administered to all K-5 students who are shown to have a substantial reading deficiency. The DIBELS will be used as: A. The evaluation instrument to determine which areas of reading the child is deficient. B. The progress-monitoring instrument to document progress toward grade level proficiency, and C. The assessment instrument used for discontinuing services. The DIBELS evaluation will be administered within thirty days after the beginning of the school year, for applicable first and second grade students, and within 30 days after receiving the QELI report, for applicable kindergarten students. Intensive reading interventions will be comprehensive in nature and will be targeted to remediate the area of deficiency. For those affected students, school personnel will develop an Intensive Reading Improvement Plan (IRI) that will describe our intervention program. Intervention will be provided in the form of more intensive one on one and small group instruction from the teacher and Title I and Guided Literacy aides using ELLA and Phonics Connection strategies. These intervention strategies and methods will continue until each student has reached grade level proficiency in all essential areas of reading. Student achievement in each of the essential elements shall be monitored bi-weekly until proficiency occurs. Students who are not meeting current expectations shall be provided additional interventions. Each parent, or guardian, will be notified in writing when their child has been identified with a substantial reading deficiency.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Linda Granbois

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
District Staff
Teachers
Teaching Aids
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: During the 2009-2010 school year we plan to use the following protocol: OBSERVATION in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention program: Reading Across the Curriculum. We will use this data/information to determine whether the objective (s) of this Intervention/Program was achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results, in our 2010-2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program."
Action Type: AIP/IRI

Sandi Rommel

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Performance Assessments
School Library
Teachers
Teaching Aids
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention/Program through: OBSERVATION and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The results obtained through OBSERVATION indicate that classroom teachers are using test data and speciality teachers to help guide instruction in all areas of literacy. The above EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrated that this Intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning process of all involved. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to use the following protocol of OBSERVATION in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention. We will use the information obtained to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention were achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results in our 2010/2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program.
Action Type: Collaboration

Kelly Wade

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$11022

Intervention: Professional Development

Scientific Based Research: Report of the National Reading Panel, 2000: Teaching Children to Read, Put Reading First, 2002; National Institute for Literacy, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; The U.S. Department of Education, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children; National Research Council, Beginning to Read, Marilyn J. Adams. NSDC, Learning Teams; Loucks-Horsley, S., Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics, 2003

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Elect a professional development committee that offers broad representation of teachers throughout the school to evaluate professional development activities bi-annually based on teacher growth (documented changes in teacher practice and assessment of student learning) and teacher response to an evaluation survey.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Program Evaluation

La Tayna Greene

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Central Office
District Staff
Performance Assessments
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Evaluate the implementation of the professional development plan annually by assessing its involvement of teachers, focus on teacher and student needs, and implementation efficiency and effectiveness. Conduct an individualized needs assessment with teachers to enable them to identify their own needs in relation to the targeted special education and ELL areas. Assess professional development needs in the targeted areas of prereferral interventions, postitive behavioral supports, integrating students with disabilities into general education classrooms (general curriculum content, modifications, differentiated instruction, multiple intelligences, and co-teaching), conflict resolution and negotiation skills, assistive technology, and learning disabilities.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Special Education

Sandi Rommel

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Central Office
District Staff
Outside Consultants
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: All teachers will have the opportunity to participate in the school and district professional development plan. Teachers will use an instrument developed by the district professional development committee to evaluate the effectiveness of the professional development plan, the course offerings and the effectiveness of the knowledge gained. Annually, upon review of the test data, the professional development committee, working under the guidelines of the district professional development plan, will develop a professional development plan for the school and individual teachers based on information obtained through data analysis. All new teachers (first 3 years) and teachers in need of assistance will be assigned a mentor to assist them in reaching their professional development goals and needs. All teachers will have the opportunity to have input on the district and building level professional development plan. The district will provide all teachers and administrators will no less than 60 hours of professional development including 6 hours of technology and 2 hours of parental involvement development (3 hours of Parental Involvement for Administrators) and for those who teach Arkansas History, 2 hours of training in that subject. Teachers will have the opportunity to evaluate the benefit of the professional development activities and provide feedback on needed changes.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

LaTayna Greene

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Central Office
School Library
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Retain Reading First trained 1.0 FTE Literacy Coach to assist staff in implementing a comprehensive reading program utilizing the essential elements: comprehension; fluency; phonemic awareness; phonics; and vocabulary. the literacy coach will provide professional development for teachers, including modeling lessons in the classroom, working with teams of teachers to identify at-risk students, supporting the implementation of researched best practices for literacy instruction.
Action Type: Professional Development

La Tayna Greene

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Title Teachers

Title I - Employee Salaries:	$47909.00
Title I - Employee Benefits:	$12457.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$60366

Create a Professional Development Training Space to be used for weekly grade level and team meetings to disaggregate data and PD in areas of student need. These training hours are over and above the 60 required hours. Training materials, copies, professional literature, and food for trainings will be purchased. This action is supplemental in nature for professional development at the school level.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development

Linda Granbois

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$5000.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$5000

PROGRAM EVALUATION: During the 2009-2010 school year we plan to use the following protocol: District Focus Plan and a staff survey will be used along with a QUESTIONNAIRE in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention program: Professional Development. We will use this data/information to determine whether the objective(s) of this Intervention/Program was achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results, in our 2010-2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program."

Jennifer Ebert

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Community Leaders
District Staff
Outside Consultants
School Library
Teachers
Teaching Aids
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention through: QUESTIONNAIRE and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The results of the QUESTIONNAIRE indicated that a majority of our staff had Literacy Based Professional Development training they wanted to receive to help guide instruction in their classroom. The above EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrated that this Intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning process of all involved. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to use the following protocol of QUESTIONNAIRE in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention. We will use the information obtained to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention were achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results in our 2010/2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program.
Action Type: Professional Development

Kelly Wade

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: We formed ACSIP Leadership Teams and analyzed the test scores from the 2009 administration of the 3-5 grade Augmented Benchmark and K-2 SAT 10 Exams. We examined the results from both the combined population and EACH subpopulation. We conducted data analysis to determine our main areas of weakness. In addition, we studied the three most recent years of Attendance, Formative and Summative Achievement Data across grade levels within our building. We aggregated and disaggregated all the data for the purpose of establishing student learning and behavioral goals. We looked at our trend data in order to better identify the specific areas of need and help align classroom instruction with our curriculum, assessment and professional development. We examined our routines, customs, and norms in order to dig deeper for the root cause why more of our students are not achieving to their full potential. We are modifying our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development practices to better meet the needs of all our populations. Based on our Data Analysis we came to the conclusion that the following areas reflect our greatest need within the Literacy Priority: MULTIPLE CHOICE in PRACTICAL PASSAGES, and OPEN RESPONSE in CONTENT. We will select Interventions and coordinate our various state and federal funding sources to address these areas. IN addition, we meet in grade level teams, weekly and as an entire faculty monthly so that we can review formative, real time classroom performance data for the purpose of making decisions regarding the direction, and focus, of our Classroom Instruction. We chart progress on our Assessment/Intervention wall.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development

Linda Granbois

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$65366

Intervention: Renaissance Place.

Scientific Based Research: "Impact of the Accelerated Reader in Overall Academic Achievement and School Attendance"; Advantage Learning, 1996. Renaissance Independent Research Report; "Achievement and Effects of Computerized Accelerated Reader Program on Reading Achievement", Peak, Janie P. and Dewalt, Mark W. 1992.

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Train teachers in the use of Reading Renaissance strategies as needed. Teachers in grades 2-5 will administer the STAR,a computerized reading comprehension assessment, as a pretest, midyear test, and posttest to analyze and track student progress and to determine ZPD. Formative and Summative evaluations will be utilized by classroom teachers. We will renew the Renaissance license as needed, as well as purchase and maintain the STAR Reading license.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Pat Shepard

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Computers
Performance Assessments
School Library
Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$177.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$177

Students will participate in the Accelerated Reader program at their ZPD (Zone of Proximal Development). Teachers will share information with parents concerning their children's progress through the use of reports generated from Reading Renaissance software. Renew Renaissance software as needed.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Andrea Kitchen

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Computers
School Library
Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$1200.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$1200

Teachers will motivate, monitor, and guide students' reading to reflect their individual needs so that the reading ability of every student advances by providing reading practice time and access to a wide variety of books to enhance book selection.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Jane Skinner

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Computers
School Library
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: During the 2009-2010 school year we plan to use the following protocol: SURVEY in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention program: Renaissance Place. We will use this data/information to determine whether the objective (s) of this Intervention/Program was achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results, in our 2010-2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program."
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Sandi Rommel

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Computers
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention through: SURVEY and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The results of the SURVEY indicated that our staff utilizes instruction and testing components from Renaissance Place to help guide their instruction when necessary or applicable. The above EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrated that this Intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning process of all involved. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to use the following protocol of SURVEY in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention. We will use the information obtained to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention were achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results in our 2010/2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program.
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Kelly Wade

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$1377

Priority 2:

All students will improve in the area of Open Response in all strands, since this was consistently identified as the weakest area in all subpopulations.

Supporting Data:

2009 Grade 3 Mathematics Benchmark  tested & percent of students
scoring proficient/Advanced:	 

59 Students: 66% of Combined Students	 
12 Students: 41% of African American Students 
10 Students: 30% of Hispanic Students 
34 Students: 82% of Caucasian Students 
46 Students: 60% of EDS
Less than 10 Students:	55% of LEP Students
Less than 10 Students:	51% of IEP Students

An insufficient number of LEP and IEP students were tested.
  

The lowest identified areas for the COMBINED POPULATION in the analysis of
Open Response questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses in
Geometry and Data and Probability. 

The lowest identified areas for the EDS in the analysis of the multiple
choice questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses in Geometry
and Numbers and Operation. 

The lowest identified areas for the AFRICAN AMERICAN students in the
analysis of the multiple choice questions in the five math strands
revealed weaknesses in Data and Probability and Numbers and Operation. 

The lowest identified areas for the HISPANIC students in the analysis of
the multiple choice questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses
in Geometry and Data and Probability. 

The lowest identified areas for the CAUCASIAN in the analysis of the
multiple choice questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses in
Geometry and Numbers and Operation. 

2008 Grade 3 Mathematics Benchmark  tested & percent of students
scoring proficient/Advanced:	 

51 Students: 64.7% of Combined Students    
10 Students: 50.0% of African American Students 
Less than 10 Students: 55.6% of Hispanic Students 
29 Students: 69% of Caucasian Students 
38 Students: 63.2% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
Less than 10 Students:	57.1% of LEP Students
Less than 10 Students:	60% of Students with Disabilities

An insufficient number of Hispanic Students, LEP Students, and Students
with Disabilities were tested.
  

The lowest identified areas for the COMBINED POPULATION in the analysis of
the multiple choice questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses
in Geometry and Measurement. The lowest identified areas in the analysis
of the open response questions, in the five math strands, revealed
weaknesses in Geometry and in the multiple choice questions in
Measurement.

The lowest identified areas for the African American Students in the
analysis of the multiple choice questions in the five math strands
revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Measurement. The lowest identified
areas in the analysis of the open response questions, in the five math
strands, revealed weaknesses in Measurement and in the multiple choice
questions in Geometry.

The lowest identified areas for the Caucasian Students in the analysis of
the multiple choice questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses
in Geometry and Measurement. The lowest identified areas in the analysis
of the open response questions, in the five math strands, revealed
weaknesses in  Measurement and in the multiple choice questions in
Measurement.

The lowest identified areas for the Econ. Disadvantaged Students in the
analysis of the multiple choice questions in the five math strands
revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Measurement. The lowest identified
areas in the analysis of the open response questions, in the five math
strands, revealed weaknesses in Measurement and in the multiple choice
questions in Measurement.





2007 Grade 3 Mathematics Benchmark tested & percent of students
scoring Proficient /Advanced:	 

50 Students: 74.0% of Combined Students 
 
13 Students: 69.2% of African American Students
12 Students: 66.6% of Hispanic Students 

23 Students: 78.2% of Caucasian Students 
	33 Students: 60.6% of
Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
	    
10 Students: 70.0% of LEP Students 
     

Fewer than 10 students with disablities were tested.	   

The lowest identified areas for the COMBINED POPULATION in in the analysis
of the multiple choice questions in the five math strands revealed
weaknesses in Measurement and Data Anaylis and Probability. The lowest
identified areas in the analysis of the open response questions, in the
five math strands, revealed weaknesses in Data Analysis and Probability
and in the multiple choice questions in Measurement.

The lowest identified areas for the ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED POPULATION
in the analysis of the multiple choice questions in the five math strands
revealed weaknesses in Measurement and Data Anaylis and Probability. The
lowest identified areas in the analysis of the open response questions, in
the five math strands, revealed weaknesses in Data Analysis and
Probability and in the multiple choice questions in Measurement.

The lowest identified areas for the LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY POPULATION
in the analysis of the multiple choice questions in the five math strands
revealed weaknesses in Measurement and Data Anaylis and Probability. The
lowest identified areas in the analysis of the open response questions, in
the five math strands, revealed weaknesses in Data Analysis and
Probability and in the multiple choice questions in Measurement.

The lowest identified areas for the AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION in the
analysis of the multiple choice questions in the five math strands
revealed weaknesses in Measurement and Data Anaylis and Probability. The
lowest identified areas in the analysis of the open response questions, in
the five math strands, revealed weaknesses in Data Analysis and
Probability and in the multiple choice questions in Data Analysis and
Probability.

The lowest identified areas for the CAUCASIAN POPULATION in the analysis
of the multiple choice questions in the five math strands revealed
weaknesses in Measurement and Data Anaylis and Probability. The lowest
identified areas in the analysis of the open response questions, in the
five math strands, revealed weaknesses in Data Analysis and Probability
and in the multiple choice questions in Measurement.

The lowest identified areas for the HISPANIC POPULATION in the analysis of
the multiple choice questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses
in Measurement and Data Anaylis and Probability. The lowest identified
areas in the analysis of the open response questions, in the five math
strands, revealed weaknesses in Data Analysis and Probability and in the
multiple choice questions in Measurement.


There was an insufficient number if STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES were
tested.

2009 Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark  tested & percent of students
scoring proficient/Advanced:	 

57 Students: 69% of Combined Students	 
18 Students: 61% of African American Students 
Less than 10 Students: 57% of Hispanic Students 
29 Students: 72% of Caucasian Students 
45 Students: 62% of EDS
Less than 10 Students:	40% of LEP Students
Less than 10 Students:	75% of IEP Students
An insufficient number of  LEP Students and IEP Students were tested.
  

The lowest identified areas for the COMBINED POPULATION in the analysis of
the Open Response questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses
in Geometry and Measurement. 

The lowest identified areas for the EDS in the analysis of the Open
Response questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses in Numbers
and Operation and Measurement. 


The lowest identified areas for the AFRICAN AMERICAN in the analysis of
the Open Response questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses
in Numbers and Operation and Measurement. 

The lowest identified areas for the HISPANIC students in the analysis of
the Open Response questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses
in Numbers and Operation and Measurement. 

The lowest identified areas for the CAUCASIAN in the analysis of the Open
Response questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses in
Geometry and Measurement. 


2008 Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark  tested & percent of students
scoring proficient/Advanced:	 

50 Students: 76% of Combined Students	 
14 Students: 64.3% of African American Students 
11 Students: 100% of Hispanic Students 
24 Students: 70.8% of Caucasian Students 
37 Students: 70.3% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
Less than 10 Students:	100% of LEP Students
Less than 10 Students:	37.5% of Students with Disabilities

An insufficient number of  LEP Students and Students with Disabilities
were tested.
  

The lowest identified areas for the COMBINED POPULATION in the analysis of
the multiple choice questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses
in Geometry and Data Analysis and Probability. The lowest identified areas
in the analysis of the open response questions, in the five math strands,
revealed weaknesses in	   Data Analysis and Probability and in the
multiple choice questions in Geometry.

The lowest identified areas for the African American Students in the
analysis of the multiple choice questions in the five math strands
revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Measurement. The lowest identified
areas in the analysis of the open response questions, in the five math
strands, revealed weaknesses in Measurement and in the multiple choice
questions in Measurement.

The lowest identified areas for the Hispanic Students in the analysis of
the multiple choice questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses
in Geometry and Measurement. The lowest identified areas in the analysis
of the open response questions, in the five math strands, revealed
weaknesses in Data Analysis and Probability and in the multiple choice
questions in Geometry.


The lowest identified areas for the Caucasian Students in the analysis of
the multiple choice questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses
in Geometry and Data Analysis and Probability. The lowest identified areas
in the analysis of the open response questions, in the five math strands,
revealed weaknesses in Measurement and in the multiple choice questions in
Geometry.

The lowest identified areas for the Econ. Disadvantaged Students in the
analysis of the multiple choice questions in the five math strands
revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Data Analysis and Probability. The
lowest identified areas in the analysis of the open response questions, in
the five math strands, revealed weaknesses in Data Analysis and
Probability and in the multiple choice questions in Geometry.





2007 Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark # tested & percent of students
scoring proficient/Advanced:	 

57 Students: 54.3% of Combined Students 
   
12 Students: 50.0% of Hispanic Students 
	32 Students: 53.1% of
Caucasian Students 
   41 Students: 46.3% of Econ. Disadvantaged
Students 
		
13 Students: 69.2% of LEP Students

			       
Fewer than 10 African American and 
Students with Disabilities were tested. 
   

The lowest identified areas for the COMBINED POPULATION in the analysis of
the multiple choice questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses
in Measurement and Data Anaylis and Probability. The lowest identified
areas in the analysis of the open response questions, in the five math
strands, revealed weaknesses in Data Analysis and Probability and in the
multiple choice questions in Geometry.

The lowest identified areas for the ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED POPULATION
in the analysis of the multiple choice questions in the five math strands
revealed weaknesses in Measurement and Data Anaylis and Probability. The
lowest identified areas in the analysis of the open response questions, in
the five math strands, revealed weaknesses in Data Analysis and
Probability and in the multiple choice questions in Geometry.
       
The lowest identified areas for the LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY POPULATION
in the analysis of the multiple choice questions in the five math strands
revealed weaknesses in Measurement and Data Anaylis and Probability. The
lowest identified areas in the analysis of the open response questions, in
the five math strands, revealed weaknesses in Data Analysis and
Probability and in the multiple choice questions in Geometry.

The lowest identified areas for the CAUCASIAN POPULATION in the analysis
of the multiple choice questions in the five math strands revealed
weaknesses in Measurement and Algebra. The lowest identified areas in the
analysis of the open response questions, in the five math strands,
revealed weaknesses in Data Analysis and Probability and in the multiple
choice questions in Algebra.

The lowest identified areas for the HISPANIC POPULATION in the analysis of
the multiple choice questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses
in Measurement and Data Anaylis and Probability. The lowest identified
areas in the analysis of the open response questions, in the five math
strands, revealed weaknesses in Data Analysis and Probability and in the
multiple choice questions in Geometry.

An insufficient number of STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES and AFRICAN AMERICAN
Students were tested.

2009 Grade 5 Mathematics Benchmark  tested & percent of students
scoring proficient/Advanced:	 

50 Students: 64% of Combined Students	 
14 Students: 50% of African American Students 
11 Students: 81% of Hispanic Students 
22 Students: 63% of Caucasian Students 
37 Students: 57% of EDS
Less than 10 Students:	72% of LEP Students
Less than 10 Students:	11% of IEP Students

An insufficient number of  LEP and IEP Students were tested.  

The lowest identified areas for the COMBINED POPULATION in the analysis of
the open response questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses
in Data and Probability and Measurement. 

The lowest identified areas for the EDS in the analysis of the open
response questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses in Data
and Probability and Measurement. 


The lowest identified areas for the AFRICAN AMERICAN students in the
analysis of the open response questions in the five math strands revealed
weaknesses in Data and Probability and Measurement. 


The lowest identified areas for the HISPANIC students in the analysis of
the open response questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses
in Data and Probability and Measurement. 

The lowest identified areas for the CAUCASIAN students in the analysis of
the open response questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses
in Data and Probability and Measurement. 


2008 Grade 5 Mathematics Benchmark  tested & percent of students
scoring proficient/Advanced:	 

40 Students: 52.5% of Combined Students    
Less than 10 Students: 25% of African American Students 
Less than 10 Students: 66.7% of Hispanic Students 
26 Students: 50% of Caucasian Students 
23 Students: 43.5% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
Less than 10 Students:	62.5% of LEP Students
Less than 10 Students:	0% of Students with Disabilities

An insufficient number of  African American Students, Hispanic Students,
LEP Students and Students with Disabilities were tested.
  

The lowest identified areas for the COMBINED POPULATION in the analysis of
the multiple choice questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses
in Geometry and Measurement. The lowest identified areas in the analysis
of the open response questions, in the five math strands, revealed
weaknesses in Geometry and in the multiple choice questions in
Measurement.

The lowest identified areas for the Caucasian Students in the analysis of
the multiple choice questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses
in Geometry and Measurement. The lowest identified areas in the analysis
of the open response questions, in the five math strands, revealed
weaknesses in Geometry and in the multiple choice questions in
Measurement.

The lowest identified areas for the Econ. Disadvantaged Students in the
analysis of the multiple choice questions in the five math strands
revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Measurement. The lowest identified
areas in the analysis of the open response questions, in the five math
strands, revealed weaknesses in Geometry and in the multiple choice
questions in Measurement.





2007 Grade 5 Mathematics Benchmark # tested & percent of students
scoring proficient/Advanced:

55 Students: 52.7% of Combined Students 

11 Students: 54.5% of Hispanic Students 
	 
31 Students: 45.1% of Caucasian Students 
	41 Students: 48.7% of
Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
	    
10 Students: 60.0% of LEP Students 
      

Fewer than 10 African American and Students with Disabilities were tested.


The lowest identified areas for the COMBINED POPULATION in the analysis of
the multiple choice questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses
in Data Anaylis and Probability and Numbers and Operations. The lowest
identified areas in the analysis of the open response questions, in the
five math strands, revealed weaknesses in Numbers and Operations and in
the multiple choice questions in Data Analysis and Probability.

The lowest identified areas for the ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED POPULATION
in the analysis of the multiple choice questions in the five math strands
revealed weaknesses in Data Anaylis and Probability and Numbers and
Operations. The lowest identified areas in the analysis of the open
response questions, in the five math strands, revealed weaknesses in
Numbers and Operations and in the multiple choice questions in Data
Analysis and Probability.

The lowest identified areas for the LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY POPULATION
in the analysis of the multiple choice questions in the five math strands
revealed weaknesses in Data Anaylis and Probability and Measurement. The
lowest identified areas in the analysis of the open response questions, in
the five math strands, revealed weaknesses in Data Analysis and
Probability and in the multiple choice questions in Data Analysis and
Probability.

The lowest identified areas for the HISPANIC POPULATION in the analysis of
the multiple choice questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses
in Data Anaylis and Probability and Numbers and Operations. The lowest
identified areas in the analysis of the open response questions, in the
five math strands, revealed weaknesses in Data Analysis and Probability
and in the multiple choice questions in Data Analysis and Probability.

The lowest identified areas for the CAUCASIAN POPULATION in the analysis
of the multiple choice questions in the five math strands revealed
weaknesses in Data Anaylis and Probability and Numbers and Operations. The
lowest identified areas in the analysis of the open response questions, in
the five math strands, revealed weaknesses in Numbers and Operations and
in the multiple choice questions in Data Analysis and Probability.

An insufficient number of AFRICAN AMERICAN and STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
were tested.

Grade K-Metropolitan8 2009: 
Combined Population: 83 students were tested and 33% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.

African American: 19 students were tested and 16% scored at or above the
50th percentile.

Hispanic: 12 students were tested and 0% scored at or above the 50th
percentile. 

Caucasian: 41 students were tested and 44% scored at or above the 50th
percentile. 

IEP Students: less than 10 students were tested and 0% scored at or above
the 50th percentile. 

LEP Students: 17 students were tested and 29% scored at or above the 50th
percentile. 

EDS: 65 students were tested and 29% scored at or above the 50th
percentile. 


Grade K-Metropolitan8 2008: 
Combined Population: 81 students were tested and 46% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.

African American: 18 students were tested and 44% scored at or above the
50th percentile.

Hispanic: 14 students were tested and 14% scored at or above the 50th
percentile. 

Caucasian: 44 students were tested and 50% scored at or above the 50th
percentile. 

IEP Students: less than 10 students were tested and 14% scored at or above
the 50th percentile. 

LEP Students: 13 students were tested and 31% scored at or above the 50th
percentile. 

Economically Disadvantaged: 61 students were tested and 43% scored at or
above the 50th percentile. 

Grade K-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined population: 87 students were tested and 64.4% had an NPR score of
50 or above. scored above the NPR score of 50. An analysis of the content
sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals the following areas of
concern: Vocabulary.
AFRICAN AMERICAN:
19 Students were tested and 52.6% scored above the 50th percentile.  
HISPANIC:
10 Students were tested and 60% scored above the 50th percentile. 
CAUCASIAN:
52 Students were tested and 71.2% scored above the 50th percentile.  
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED:
60 Students were tested and 61.7% scored above the 50th percentile.  
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT:
12 Students were tested and 41.7% scored above the 50th percentile.

Fewer than 10 students with disabilities were tested.

 Grade 1 - SAT 10 2009:

Combined Population: 83 Students were tested and 27% scored above the 50th
percentile.  


AFRICAN AMERICAN:
19 Students were tested and 16% scored above the 50th percentile.  

CAUCASIAN:
42 Students were tested and 36% scored above the 50th percentile.  

EDS:
61 Students were tested and 21% scored above the 50th percentile.  

LEP:
14 Students were tested and 14% scored above the 50th percentile.  

HISPANIC:
15 Students were tested and 7% scored above the 50th percentile.


Fewer than 10 IEP Students were tested.



 Grade 1 - SAT 10 2008:

Combined Population: 69 Students were tested and 43.5% scored above the
50th percentile.  


AFRICAN AMERICAN:
15 Students were tested and 20% scored above the 50th percentile.  

CAUCASIAN:
36 Students were tested and 55.6% scored above the 50th percentile.  

ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED:
55 Students were tested and 38.2% scored above the 50th percentile.  

LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT:
10 Students were tested and 60% scored above the 50th percentile.  

HISPANIC:
13 Students were tested and 30.8% scored above the 50th percentile.


Fewer than 10 Students with disabilities were tested.


Grade 1-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 69 Students were tested and 58% scored above the 50th
percentile.  The analysis of the math subtests revealed weaknesses in
Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.
 
AFRICAN AMERICAN:
12 Students were tested and 58% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.
HISPANIC:
10 Students were tested and 40% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.
CAUCASIAN:
43 Students were tested and 62.8% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED:
45 Students were tested and 46.7% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT:
11 Students were tested and 45.5% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.

Fewer than 10 students with disabilities were tested.

 Grade 2 - SAT 10 2009:
Combined Population: 68 Students were tested and 79% scored above the 50th
percentile.  

AFRICAN AMERICAN:
2Students were tested and 65% scored above the 50th percentile.  

CAUCASIAN:
32 Students were tested and 88% scored above the 50th percentile.  

EDS:
55 Students were tested and 76% scored above the 50th percentile.  
 

LEP:
Less than 10 Students were tested and 75% scored above the 50th
percentile.  

HISPANIC:
11 Students were tested and 73% scored above the 50th percentile.


IEP:
11 students were tested and 45% scored above the 50th percentile.

 Grade 2 - SAT 10 2008:
Combined Population: 67 Students were tested and 64.2% scored above the
50th percentile.  

AFRICAN AMERICAN:
10 Students were tested and 50% scored above the 50th percentile.  

CAUCASIAN:
42 Students were tested and 61.9% scored above the 50th percentile.  

ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED:
46 Students were tested and 56.5% scored above the 50th percentile.  
 

LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT:
10 Students were tested and 90% scored above the 50th percentile.  

HISPANIC:
10 Students were tested and 70% scored above the 50th percentile.


Fewer than 10 Students with disabilities were tested.

Grade 2-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 61 Students were tested and 67.2% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the math subtests revealed weaknesses in
Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.
AFRICAN AMERICAN:
15 Students were tested and 60% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Math Concepts.
CAUCASIAN:
32 Students were tested and 71.9% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED:
47 Students were tested and 57.4% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Math Concepts.
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT:
11 Students were tested and 54.5% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Math Concepts.

Fewer than 10 Hispanic and students with disabilities were tested.

  Grade 3 - SAT 10 2008:
Combined Population:  61 Students were tested and 49.6% scored above the
50th percentile.  

AFRICAN AMERICAN: 12 Students were tested and 25% scored above the 50th
percentile.  

CAUCASIAN:
 35 Students were tested and 68.57% scored above the 50th percentile.  

EDS:
 48 Students were tested and 46.5% scored above the 50th percentile.  
 
HISPANIC:
 10 Students were tested and 20% scored above the 50th percentile.

LEP:
10 students were tested and 40.3% scored above the 50th percentile.

Fewer than 10 IEP Students were tested.

Grade 3-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 60 Students were tested and 66.7% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the math subtests revealed weaknesses
Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.
AFRICAN AMERICAN:
16 Students were tested and 56.3% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Math Computation.
HISPANIC:
13 Students were tested and 61.5% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.
CAUCASIAN:
29 Students were tested and 72.4% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Math Computation.
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED:
39 Students were tested and 53.8% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT:
10 Students were tested and 50% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.

Fewer than 10 students with disabilities were tested.

Grade 3-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2006:
Combined Population:  75 Students were tested and 57% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the math subtests revealed weaknesses in
Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.

  Grade 4 - SAT 10 2008:
Combined Population:  57 Students were tested and 55.8% scored above the
50th percentile.  

AFRICAN AMERICAN:
 18 Students were tested and 50% scored above the 50th percentile.

CAUCASIAN:
 29 Students were tested and 62.07% scored above the 50th percentile.  

EDS:
 45 Students were tested and 49.6% scored above the 50th percentile.  
 
Fewer than 10 LEP, IEP and HISPANIC Students were tested.

Grade 4-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 65 Students were tested and 56.9% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the math subtests revealed weaknesses in
Math Computation.
AFRICAN AMERICAN:
10 Students were tested and 60% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.
HISPANIC:
12 Students were tested and 58.3% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.
CAUCASIAN:
39 Students were tested and 53.8% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Math Computation.
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED:
38 Students were tested and 55.3% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT:
13 Students were tested and 69.2% scored above the 50th percentile.  An
analysis of the content sub skill and skill cluster performance reveals
the following areas of concern: Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.

Fewer than 10 students with disabilities were tested.




Grade 4-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2006:
Combined Population:  74 Students were tested and 71% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the math subtests revealed weaknesses in
Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.

  Grade 5 - SAT 10 2008:
Combined Population:  50 Students were tested and 58.9% scored above the
50th percentile.  

CAUCASIAN:
 22 Students were tested and 54.55% scored above the 50th percentile.  

EDS:
 37 Students were tested and 52.7% scored above the 50th percentile.  
 
HISPANIC:
 11 Students were tested and 72.73% scored above the 50th percentile.

AFRICAN AMERICAN:
14 students were tested and 50% scored above the 50th percentile. 

Fewer than 10 IEP and LEP students were tested.

Grade 5-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 64 Students were tested and 65.6% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the math subtests revealed Math
computation.

African American: 11 students tested and 72.7% scored about the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the math subtests revealed no weaknessess.

Hispanic: 12 students tested and 58.3% scored above the 50th percentile. 
The analysis of the math subtests revealed Math Concepts.

Caucasian: 36 students tested and 63.9% scored above the 50th percentile. 
The analysis of the math subtests revealed weaknesses in Math Computation.


Economically Disadvantaged: 46 students tested and 63.0% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the math subtests revealed weaknesses in
Math Computation.

Limited Enlish Proficient: 12 students were tested and 66.7% scored above
the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the math subtests revealed
weaknesses in Math Computation.

Fewer than 10 students with disabilities were tested.

 
Grade 5-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2006:
Combined Population:  56 Students were tested and 63% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the math subtests revealed weaknesses in
Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.

Economically Disadvantaged: 34 students were tested and 55.8% scored above
the 50th percentile. The analysis of the Concepts and Estimation subtest,
Problem Solving and Data Interpretation subtests revealed weaknesses in
Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.


Few than 10 students were tested in the subpopulations of: African
American, Caucasian, Hispanic, Limited English proficent, and students
with disabilities

Attendance Rate: 
2009, 94.52%
2008, 94.6%
2007, 94.16%

Goal

All students will improve in math skills and responding to constructed response questions with additional attention to computation and problem-solving math strands.

Benchmark

The Combined Population and each Subpop MET the 2009 AYP target of 62.50% scoring Proficient/Advanced. It is expected that each of these populations will meet, or exceed, the 2010 AYP Target of 71% scoring Proficient/Advanced, or make AYP through either the "Safe Harbor" or "Growth" models.

Intervention: Strategies for developing competency and understanding of problem-solving,

Scientific Based Research: Carpenter, T.P., E. Fennema, P.L. Peterson, and D. Carey (1988).; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Principles and Standards for School Mathematics; Everyday Mathematics.

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Teachers will be trained in the best practices and will implement mathematics problem-solving strategies for all students.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Professional Development

Lorie Huff

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Computers
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

For formative and summative evaluations use rubrics to evaluate the effectiveness of problem-solving strategies using performance assessments, open-ended math prompts, and/or quarterly assessments at each grade level. Results will be shared with parents through grade reports, progress reports, and parent teacher conferences.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Special Education

Allison Coonrod

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Central Office
Performance Assessments
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Funds will be used to purchase materials and supplies to supplement Science Inquiry as related to problem-solving.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Sandi Rommel

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Teachers
Teaching Aids
Title Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$600.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$600

PROGRAM EVALUATION: During the 2009-2010 school year we plan to use the following protocol: OBSERVATION in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention program: Strategies for developing competency and understanding of problem-solving. We will use this data/information to determine whether the objective (s) of this Intervention/Program was achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results, in our 2010-2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program.

Kelly Wade

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Performance Assessments
Teachers
Teaching Aids
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention through: OBSERVATION and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The results of the OBSERVATION indicated that classroom teachers were guiding instruction to develop competency and understanding of problem solving in all grade levels. It was further noted that classroom teachers feel this intervention is necessary to help guide instruction in the classroom. The above EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrated that this Intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning process of all involved. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to use the following protocol of OBSERVATION in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention. We will use the information obtained to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention were achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results in our 2010/2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program.
Action Type: Collaboration

Kelly Wade

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$600

Intervention: Mathematics & Procedural Fluency

Scientific Based Research: McREL. Standards in Classroom Practice Research Synthesis. 2001. USDE OERI. Burns, Marilyn; Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics, 1999.

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Teachers will review available research on instructional strategies and instructional materials proven to be effective in improving math computation.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Dianna Reyes

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Central Office
Computers
Outside Consultants
School Library
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Implement pre-, mid-, and summative post-testing in STAR Math grades 1-5, Mastering Math Facts grades 1-5, Math Facts in a Flash, and CBM grades K-5 to assess math problem-solving and computation skills and to provide guided practice and tutoring on identified areas of weaknesses. Implement supplemental computational strategies and materials into the daily math program based on the needs indicated by the pre-test. Purchase paper for summative assessments.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Sandi Rommel

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Computers
Performance Assessments
Teachers
Title Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$1777.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$1777

Using quarterly assessments, Targeted Assessment, and Mastering Math Facts teachers will evaluate formative student progress in grade level-appropriate computation on a daily and/or quarterly basis. Communicate progress and continuing areas of development to parents. Purchase paper for formative assessments.
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Special Education

Sandi Rommel

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

HIGHLY QUALIFIED: The school will continue to hire and maintain "highly qualified" teachers and support staff. All instruction will be given by "highly qualified" staff. Teachers will work closely with Title I staff to implement school wide reform strategies. Data will be used to continue to monitor progress and point -in- time remediation. Instructional aides will be hired to provide additional instruction for students at-risk for not meeting grade-level benchmarks in math. Two full-time 1.0 FTE and 6 part-time .5 FTE instructional assistants will be hired.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Mignonne Scarbrough

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Central Office
Outside Consultants
Teachers
Title Teachers

Title I - Employee Benefits:	$13903.00
Title I - Employee Salaries:	$39572.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$53475

PROGRAM EVALUATION: During the 2009-2010 school year we plan to use the following protocol: SURVEY in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention program: Mathematics & Procedural Fluency. We will use this data/information to determine whether the objective (s) of this Intervention/Program was achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results, in our 2010-2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program."

Jennifer Ebert

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Performance Assessments
School Library
Teachers
Teaching Aids
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention through: SURVEY and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The results of the SURVEY indicated that a majority of the teachers feel this intervention helps guide instruction in all 3 Tiers of instruction in the classroom. This intervention is necessary to help achieve our goal in the Math Priority based off of summative and formative assessment results. The above EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrated that this Intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning process of all involved. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to use the following protocol of SURVEY in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention. We will use the information obtained to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention were achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results in our 2010/2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program.
Action Type: Collaboration

Kelly Wade

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$55252

Intervention: The curriculum will be mapped and aligned across the disciplines

Scientific Based Research: Mapping the Big Picture: Integrating Curriculum and Assessment, K12. Heidi Hayes Jacobs. ASCD, 1997.

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Teachers will be provided professional development opportunities to address the area of best practices for all students in math.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development

Jennifer Ebert

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Central Office
Computers
Teachers
Teaching Aids
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

We will assess annually using summative assessments such as: ITBS, Benchmark, Renaissance Place, and formative assessments such as: Quarterly Assessments, CBM, and/or Accelerated Math to determine gaps and redundancies in our curriculum. We will create student Academic Improvement Plans for all students below proficient. Our ACSIP plan will be modified based on these assessments and appropriate professional development activities will be addressed according to the results.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Program Evaluation

La Tayna Greene

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Central Office
District Staff
Performance Assessments
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Teachers will follow the scope and sequence of the District Math Curriculum and identify areas of weakness from the results of the ITBS, Quarterly Assessment scores, and Benchmark Exam scores.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kasi Davis

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Central Office
Computers
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: During the 2009-2010 school year we plan to use the following protocol: OBSERVATION in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention program: The curriculum will be mapped and aligned across the disciplines. We will use this data/information to determine whether the objective (s) of this Intervention/Program was achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results, in our 2010-2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program.
Action Type: Alignment

Sandi Rommel

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
District Staff
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention through: OBSERVATION and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The results of the OBSERVATION indicated that a majority of of the staff throughout each grade level mapped and aligned curriculum across the disciplines and that this intervention was necessary to help guide instruction and increase test scores in both summative and formative assessments. The above EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrated that this Intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning process of all involved. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to use the following protocol of OBSERVATION in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention. We will use the information obtained to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention were achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results in our 2010/2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program.
Action Type: Collaboration

Kelly Wade

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: We formed ACSIP Leadership Teams and analyzed the test scores from the 2009 administration of the 3-5 grade Augmented Benchmark and K-2 SAT 10 Exams. We examined the results from both the combined population and EACH subpopulation. We conducted data analysis to determine our main areas of weakness. In addition, we studied the three most recent years of Attendance, Formative and Summative Achievement Data across grade levels within our building. We aggregated and disaggregated all the data for the purpose of establishing student learning and behavioral goals. We looked at our trend data in order to better identify the specific areas of need and help align classroom instruction with our curriculum, assessment and professional development. We examined our routines, customs, and norms in order to dig deeper for the root cause why more of our students are not achieving to their full potential. We are modifying our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development practices to better meet the needs of all our populations. Based on our Data Analysis we came to the conclusion that the following areas reflect our greatest need within the Math Priority: DATA and PROBABILITY in OPEN RESPONSE. We will select Interventions and coordinate our various state and federal funding sources to address these areas. IN addition, we meet in grade level teams, weekly and as an entire faculty monthly so that we can review formative, real time classroom performance data for the purpose of making decisions regarding the direction, and focus, of our Classroom Instruction. We chart progress on our Assessment/Intervention wall.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development

Linda Granbois

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Intervention: Implement Open-Response Problem Strategies for students.

Scientific Based Research: Everyday Mathematics; Benchmark Exam; Standards in Classroom Practice Research Synthesis, U.S. Dept. of Ed. October 2001

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Teachers will receive and use training on the use of performance assessments, scoring guides (rubrics), and Benchmark open-response scoring to use this as a formative assessment tool.
Action Type: Professional Development

Priscilla Davenport

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Central Office
District Staff


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Teachers will discuss/review student performance on open-response problems as part of curriculum mapping and implementation of existing programs quarterly.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kay Greenwood

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Central Office
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

During Parent Conferences teachers will provide information on open-response problems in mathematics.
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Lorie Huff

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Performance Assessments
Teachers
Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Principal will evaluate teacher/student efforts each school year to improve open-response performance. Principals will evaluate results annually and determine effectiveness in reducing achievement gaps.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Program Evaluation

La Tayna Greene

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Performance Assessments


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: During the 2009-2010 school year we plan to use the following protocol OBSERVATION in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention program: Implement Open-Response Problem Strategies for students. We will use this data/information to determine whether the objective (s) of this Intervention/Program was achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results, in our 2010-2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program.
Action Type: Alignment

Kelly Wade

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention through: OBSERVATION and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The results of the OBSERVATION indicated that a majority of the staff implement open-response problem strategies for students during the math block and the TEAM time block when deemed necessary. The above EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrated that this Intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning process of all involved. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to use the following protocol of OBSERVATION in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention. We will use the information obtained to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention were achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results in our 2010/2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program.
Action Type: Collaboration

Kelly Wade

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Intervention: Implement Everyday Mathematics in all classrooms.

Scientific Based Research: Everyday Mathematics, third edition, 2007 (Wright Group/McGraw-Hill); A Research-Based Curriculum: The Research Foundations of the UCSMP Everyday Mathematics Curriculum, Andrew Isaacs, William Carroll and Max Bell; Student Achievement Studies, Everyday Learning, 2001.

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Classroom teachers, special education teachers, and other support staff will collaborate to implement differentiated strategies for students with Academic Improvement Plans and/or special needs to improve mathematics skills including, but not limited to, the use of Renaissance Place and other mathematics tutorial software.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Special Education
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Lorie Huff

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Computers
District Staff
Performance Assessments
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Grade level learning teams will meet quarterly to review student work, share effective teaching and assessment strategies, and align instructional objectives to assist all students to achieve proficiency in mathematics.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Professional Development

Dianna Reyes

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Performance Assessments
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Implement Everyday Mathematics lessons and assessments in kindergarten through fifth grade classrooms. Supplement curriculum with online Everyday Math supplemental technology programs.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Ashley Lester

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$3120.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$3120

Use SUMMATIVE EVALUATION: SAT 10 (Grades K-5) and the Primary Benchmark Exam (Grade 3-5), FORMATIVE EVALUATION: such as Targeted Assessments to evaluate student progress in math achievement annually.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Priscilla Davenport

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Central Office
Computers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: During the 2009-2010 school year we plan to use the following protocol: OBSERVATION and INTERVIEWS in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention program: Implement Everyday Mathematics in all classrooms. We will use this data/information to determine whether the objective (s) of this Intervention/Program was achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results, in our 2010-2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program.
Action Type: Alignment

Jennifer Ebert

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP TEAM: Closing the Achievement Gap: Regular meetings of our ACSIP leadership Committee will continue to be held. These meetings will focus on building capacity within our school. Each meeting agenda will include the following Core Principles: A. The selection, and continuous evaluation, of research-based, scientifically validated, Interventions designed to improve our ability to improve student performance on the Math portion of all Assessments. B. The ongoing monitoring of student progress in order to influence classroom instruction. C. The utilization of Formative and Summative Assessment Data to make decisions that impact: Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. D. Coordination of resources in order to better meet the needs of all students. Written minutes of each meeting, along with a sign-in sheet, will be kept and made available upon request. The intent is that each Intervention, and Action, is carefully monitored...through the collection of Formative and Summative Data.... so that those strategies, which prove ineffective, can be revised, or abandoned. Our ACSIP plan will be revised each spring, and fall, in order to keep it timely and valid in our efforts to improve teaching and learning.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Jennifer Ebert

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Computers
Performance Assessments
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention through: OBSERVATION and INTERVIEWS and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The results of the OBSERVATION and INTERVIEWS indicated that our staff implements Everyday Mathemics in all classrooms. Through Observation and Interviews it has been noted that summative and formative assessments indicate that Everyday Math has been effective throughout our building and the district and must continue to be taught. Everyday Math instruction is a strong piece in the Math Priority and needs to continue to be used/taught. The above EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrated that this Intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning process of all involved. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to use the following protocol of OBSERVATION and INTERVIEWS in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention. We will use the information obtained to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention were achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results in our 2010/2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program.
Action Type: Collaboration

Kelly Wade

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$3120

Intervention: Implement and utilize Renaissance Learning

Scientific Based Research: Renaissance Learning Software Corporation, 1986, Founded by Judith and Terrance Paul

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Teachers will receive training and integrate Accelerated Math grade 4-5 so that software can be implemented to improve math and skills.
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Laura Wainscott

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Computers
District Staff
Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$1000.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$1000

Teachers will collaborate with special education teachers and the ELL teachers to use differentiated strategies for students with Academic Improvement Plans.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Special Education
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Melissa Harrell

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Computers
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Teachers will evaluate students using Star Math pre-, mid-, and summative post- assessments annually. Parents will receive printed reports of students' progress in Star Math and Accelerated Math at parent-teacher conferences.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Laura Wainscott

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Computers
Performance Assessments
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: During the 2009-2010 school year we plan to use the following protocol: SURVEY in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention program: Establish and utilize Renaissance Place. We will use this data/information to determine whether the objective (s) of this Intervention/Program was achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results, in our 2010-2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program."
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Sandi Rommel

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Computers
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention through: SURVEY and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The results of the SURVEY indicated that a majority of of the staff throughout each grade level implement and utilize Renaissance Learning and that this intervention was necessary to help guide instruction and increase test scores in both summative and formative assessments. The above EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrated that this Intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning process of all involved. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to use the following protocol of SURVEY in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention. We will use the information obtained to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention were achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results in our 2010/2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program.
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Kelly Wade

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$1000

Priority 3:

To increase student awareness and knowledge of the effects of good nutrition and physical activity.

Supporting Data:

2008-2009: 173 students in the school population assessed, the following represents the percent of students at risk of becoming overweight or overweight: Grade K: Males 19.2%, Females 26.3% Grade 1: Not Tested Grade 2: Males 44.8%, Females 41.7% Grade 3: Not Tested Grade 4: Males 44%, Females 48.4% Grade 5: Not Tested The lowest two areas are Kindergarten Males and Kindergarten Females. 2007-2008: 189 student population assessed, the following represents the percent of students at risk of overweight or overweight: Grade K: Males 26.1%, Females 30.3% Grade 1: Not Tested Grade 2: Males 38.7%, Females 42.9% Grade 3: Not Tested Grade 4: Males 47.8%, Females 35.7% Grade 5: Not Tested The lowest two areas are Kindergarten Males and Kindergarten Females. 2006-2007: 325 student population assessed, the following represents the percent of students at risk of overweight or overweight: Grade K: Males 45.2%, Females 43.2% Grade 1: Males 29.2%, Females 37.8% Grade 2: Males 29.2%, Females 35.7% Grade 3: Males 33.3%, Females 36.0% Grade 4: Males 68.0%, Females 36.0% Grade 5: Males 50.0%, Females 39.3% The lowest 2 areas are 4th and 5th grade males. 2005-2006: 374 student population assessed, the following represents the percent of students at risk of overweight or overweight: Grade K: Males 35.0%, Females 21.6% Grade 1: Males 33.3%, Females 36.4% Grade 2: Males 41.4%, Females 30.0% Grade 3: Males 58.8%, Females 36.7% Grade 4: Males 48.4%, Females 44.4% Grade 5: Males 20.9%, Females 43.5% The lowest 2 areas are 3rd and 4th grade males. 2004-2005: 365 student population assessed, the following represents the percent of students at risk of overweight or overweight: Grade K: Males 35.0%, Females 35.9 % Grade 1: Males 32.0%, Females 28.9 % Grade 2: Males 35.9%, Females 37.0 % Grade 3: Males 44.0 %, Females 32.0% Grade 4: Males 34.7 %, Females 45.5 % Grade 5: Males 44.4 %, Females 29.1 % The lowest areas are 4th Grade females and 5th grade males.
2008 The two weakest areas for our School Health Index were in module 4: Nutrition Services 61-80%(Food Service Collaboration) and module 5: Health Services 81-100%(Unintentional injuries, Violence, and Suicide). 2007 The two weakest areas for our School health Index were in module 2: Health Education (Asthma Training) 79% and module 5: Health Services (Emergency Crisis Plan) 88%. 2006 The two weakest areas for our School Health Index were in module 7: Health Promotion for Staff (0-22%) and module 8: Family and Community Involvement (21-40%).

 Free and Reduced Lunch Population

2009 = 78.6% of our total population was on free/reduced lunch

2007 = 75% of our total population was on free/reduced lunch

2006 = 74% of our total population was on free/reduced lunch

2005 = 67% of our total population was on free/reduced lunch

Goal

Provide support for students in making healthy lifestyle choices by implementing systems to aid in decreasing the average BMI on routine annual student screening and increasing collaboration between all segments of the school community in support of positive lifestyle choices.

Benchmark

The number of students being considered overweight or at risk of overweight, according to their BMI, will decrease by 1/2% during the 2009-2010 school year when compared with the 2008-2009 school year.

Intervention: Increase awareness and knowledge of the benefits of physical activity for lifelong health and wellness.

Scientific Based Research: Kids for Health, 2004-2005

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

All students receive 120 minutes of Physical Education each week and 75 minutes of Physcial Acitvity each week.
Action Type: Wellness

Carlena Lambert

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Students BMI assessments will be analyzed annually to determine the percentage of students decreasing in the categories of at risk of overweight or overweight. Interventions will be evaluated for their effectiveness based on this data.
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Wellness

Anna Ritter

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Implement and encourage participation in physical education program taught by a highly qualified teacher that supports physical activity.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Wellness

Cheyanne Plunkett

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Promote reduction of time children spend engaged in sedentary activities such as watching television and playing video games by sending home informational packages that include tips for parents/caregivers.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Wellness

Becky Roberts

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Encourage participation in family oriented, community-based physical activity program.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Wellness

Clarisa Pierce

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

To assess Asbell Elementary School's physical education program, parents, students, and faculty members will be invited to participate in a survey.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Wellness

Mary Tannehill

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: During the 2009-2010 school year we plan to use the following protocol: INTERVIEWS in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention program: Increase awareness and knowledge of the benefits of physical activity for lifelong health and wellness. We will use this data/information to determine whether the objective (s) of this Intervention/Program was achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results, in our 2010-2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program."
Action Type: Wellness

Kelly Wade

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention through: INTERVIEWS and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The results of the INTERVIEWS indicated that a majority of the staff and Asbell Community feel they aren't fully aware of benefits of physical activity and believe that students would benefit from this knowledge. The above EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrated that this Intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning process of all involved. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to use the following protocol of INTERVIEWS in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention. We will use the information obtained to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention were achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results in our 2010/2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program.
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Kelly Wade

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: We formed ACSIP Leadership Teams and analyzed the test scores from the 2009 administration of the 3-5 grade Augmented Benchmark, K-2 SAT 10 Exams, and the School Health Index. We examined the results from both the combined population and EACH subpopulation. We conducted data analysis to determine our main areas of weakness. In addition, we studied the three most recent years of Attendance, Formative and Summative Achievement Data across grade levels within our building. We aggregated and disaggregated all the data for the purpose of establishing student learning and behavioral goals. We looked at our trend data in order to better identify the specific areas of need and help align classroom instruction with our curriculum, assessment and professional development. We examined our routines, customs, and norms in order to dig deeper for the root cause why more of our students are not achieving to their full potential. We are modifying our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development practices to better meet the needs of all our populations. Based on our Data Analysis we came to the conclusion that the following areas reflect our greatest need within the Wellness Priority: MODULE 4 NUTRITION SERVICES. We will select Interventions and coordinate our various state and federal funding sources to address these areas. IN addition, we meet in grade level teams, weekly and as an entire faculty monthly so that we can review formative, real time classroom performance data for the purpose of making decisions regarding the direction, and focus, of our Classroom Instruction. We chart progress on our Assessment/Intervention wall.
Action Type: Collaboration

Angie Schuldt

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Intervention: Increase awareness and knowledge of the benefits of sound nutritional practices for lifelong health and wellness.

Scientific Based Research: Kids for Health, 2004-2005

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Implementation of Kids for Health.
Action Type: Wellness

Mary Mitchell

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Outside Consultants
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: During the 2009-2010 school year we plan to use the following protocol: INTERVIEWS in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention program: Increase awareness and knowledge of the benefits of sound nutritional practices for lifelong health and wellness. We will use this data/information to determine whether the objective (s) of this Intervention/Program was achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results, in our 2010-2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program."
Action Type: Wellness

Cheyanne Plunkett

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention through: INTERVIEW and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The results of the INTERVIEW indicated faculty and Asbell families need an increased awareness of sound nutritional practices to help lower the rate of high BMI in all students. It is necessary to continue to educate staff and families to help ensure BMI will decrease in overweight students. The above EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrated that this Intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning process of all involved. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to use the following protocol of INTERVIEW in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention. We will use the information obtained to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention were achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results in our 2010/2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program.
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Kelly Wade

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Priority 4:

District will provide support to English Language Learners.

Supporting Data:

2009 CRT Data

In 3rd grade, fewer than 10 LEP students were tested. 44% of LEP Students
scored at or above proficient.
In 4th grade, fewer than 10 LEP students were tested. 40% of LEP Students
scored at or above proficient.
In 5th grade, fewer than 10 LEP students were tested. 57% of LEP students
scored at or above proficient.
2008 CRT Data

In 3rd grade, fewer than 10 LEP students were tested. 14.3% of LEP
Students scored at or above proficient.
In 4th grade, Fewer than 10 LEP students were tested. 75% of LEP Students
scored at or above proficient.
In 5th grade, Fewer than 10 LEP students were tested. 50% of LEP Students
scored at or above proficient.
2007 CRT Data

In 3rd grade, 10 LEP students were tested. 70% of LEP students scored at
or above proficient.
In 4th grade, 13 LEP students were testd. 30.8 LEP Students scored at or
above proficient.
In 5th grade, 10 LEP students were tested. 60 % of LEP Studens scored at
or above proficient.
 2009 3rd Grade ELDA Data
 
11 LEP students were tested. 
1 student scored a composite level of 1, 
4 students scored a composite level of 2, 
1 student scored a composite level of 3, 
2 students scored a composite level of 4, 
and 1 student scored a composite level of 5.

 2009 4th Grade ELDA Data

5 LEP students were tested. 
1 student scored a composite level of 1, 
2 students scored a composite level of 3, 
and 2 students scored a composite level of 4.
 2009 5th Grade ELDA Data

6 LEP students were tested.
1 student scored a composite level of 2,
1 student scored a composite level of 3,
3 students scored a composite level of 4,
and 1 student scored a composite level of 5.
2008 3rd Grade ELDA Data

7 LEP students were tested. 
3 students scored a composite level of 2, 
and 4 student scored a composite level of 3. 

 2008 4th Grade ELDA Data

9 LEP students were tested. 
2 students scored a composite level of 2, 
2 student scored a composite level of 3, 
and 5 students scored a composite level of 4.

 2008 5th Grade ELDA Data

10 LEP students were tested. 
1 students scored a composite level of 2, 
3 student scored a composite level of 3, 
and 6students scored a composite level of 4. 

 2007 3rd Grade ELDA Data

11 LEP students were tested. 
1 student scored a composite level of 1, 
4 students scored a composite level of 2, 
1 student scored a composite level of 3, 
and 5 students scored a composite level of 4.
 2007 4th Grade ELDA Data

14 LEP students were tested. 
1 student scored a composite level of 1, 
4 students scored a composite level of 2, 
4 student scored a composite level of 3, 
and 5 students scored a composite level of 4. 

 5th Grade ELDA Data

11 LEP students were tested. 
1 student scored a composite level of 1, 
2 students scored a composite level of 2, 
1 student scored a composite level of 3, 
6 students scored a composite level of 4, 
and 1 student scored a composite level of 5.
Attendance Rate: 
2009, 94.52%
2008, 94.6%
2007, 94.16%

Goal

Provide support for students that are English Language Learners.

Benchmark

It is expected that this population will meet, or exceed, the 2009 AYP Target of 62.50% scoring Proficient/Advanced, or make AYP through either the "Safe Harbor" or "Growth" models.

Intervention: Comprehensive Literacy Model

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Hire a Highly Qualified Certified ELL Teacher to provide supplemental instruction to ELL students. Title III and ELL Monies necessary for this intervention are budgeted in the District Plan.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Parental Engagement

La Tayna Greene

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
District Staff
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Hire an ELL instructional assistant to provide supplemental instruction to ELL students. This instructional assistant will work under the direct supervision of a certified/highly qualified ELL teacher.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Parental Engagement

La Tayna Greene

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Central Office
District Staff
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Teachers and staff will participate in Comprehensive Literacy training such as, but not limited to ELLA, Effective Literacy, Reading First, Arkansas Reading Association workshops, and Literacy Lab to receive training in the 5 essential elements of literacy. Teachers will also participate in trainings in how to plan and provide interventions for differentiated instruction. The Title III/ELL monies are budgeted in the District Plan to pay for one full-time staff member. Provide substitute pay for training. Purchase books and supplies/materials to supplement classroom instruction and/or provide food for trainings.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Linda Granbois

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Central Office
District Staff
Teachers
Title Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$1478.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$1478

PROGRAM EVALUATION: During the 2009-2010 school year we plan to use the following protocol of a OBSERVATION in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention program: Comprehensive Literacy Model We will use this data/information to determine whether the objective (s) of this Intervention/Program was achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results, in our 2010-2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program."
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development

Ginger Mayes

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: We formed ACSIP Leadership Teams and analyzed the test scores from the 2009 administration of the 3-5 grade Augmented Benchmark and K-2 SAT 10 Exams. We examined the results from both the combined population and EACH subpopulation. We conducted data analysis to determine our main areas of weakness. In addition, we studied the three most recent years of Attendance, Formative and Summative Achievement Data across grade levels within our building. We aggregated and disaggregated all the data for the purpose of establishing student learning and behavioral goals. We looked at our trend data in order to better identify the specific areas of need and help align classroom instruction with our curriculum, assessment and professional development. We examined our routines, customs, and norms in order to dig deeper for the root cause why more of our students are not achieving to their full potential. We are modifying our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development practices to better meet the needs of all our populations. Based on our Data Analysis we came to the conclusion that the following areas reflect our greatest need within the Literacy Priority: MULTIPLE CHOICE in PRACTICAL PASSAGES, and OPEN RESPONSE in CONTENT. Based on our Data Analysis we came to the conclusion that the following areas reflect our greatest need within the Math Priority: DATA and PROBABILITY in OPEN RESPONSE.We will select Interventions and coordinate our various state and federal funding sources to address these areas. IN addition, we meet in grade level teams, weekly and as an entire faculty monthly so that we can review formative, real time classroom performance data for the purpose of making decisions regarding the direction, and focus, of our Classroom Instruction. We chart progress on our Assessment/Intervention wall.
Action Type: Collaboration

Ginger Mayes

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$1478

Planning Team

Classification	Name	Position	Committee
Business Representative	Joyce Prowell	Ozark Guidance Counselor	Wellness
Classroom Teacher	Allison Helton	3rd Grade	Math
Classroom Teacher	Andrea Kitchen	4th Grade	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Ashley Lester	1st Grade	Math
Classroom Teacher	Becky Roberts	2nd Grade	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Carolyn Baughman	2nd Grade	ELL
Classroom Teacher	Christina Brown	Kindergarten	Math
Classroom Teacher	Clarisa Pierce	1st Grade	Math
Classroom Teacher	Dianna Reyes	2nd Grade	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Jeannie Burgers	4th Grade	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Jennfier Doyle	3rd Grade	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Jennifer Ebert	1st Grade	ACSIP Leadership
Classroom Teacher	Jill Jackson	Kindergarten	ELL
Classroom Teacher	Kasi Davis	1st Grade	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Kay Greenwood	2nd Grade	Math
Classroom Teacher	Kelly Wade	Kindergarten	ACSIP Leadership
Classroom Teacher	Lorie Huff	5th Grade	Math
Classroom Teacher	Mary Tannehill	3rd Grade	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Pat Shepard	5th Grade	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Priscilla Davenport	Kindergarten	Math
Community Representative	Julia Cox	Student	Wellness
Community Representative	Levani Damuni	Student	Wellness
District-Level Professional	Christie Jay	Federal Programs Coordinator	ASCIP Leadership
District-Level Professional	Sandi Rommel	4th Grade	ACSIP Leadership
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Ann Grigg	Speech Pathologist	Literacy
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Anna Ritter	Psych. Examiner	Literacy
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Carlena Lambert	Music	Parental Engagement
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Cheyanne Plunkett	Physical Education	Wellness
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Ginger Mayes	ESL Teacher	ELL
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Jane Skinner	Art	Parental Engagement
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Janette Harris	Media Specialist	Literacy
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Joy Pitts	Cafeteria Manager	Wellness
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Katie Williams	Resource	Literacy
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Laura Wainscott	Technology Curriculum Specialist	Math
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Linda Granbois	Literacy Coach	Literacy
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Maranda Seawood	Instructional Aide	Parental Engagement
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Mary Mitchell	Counselor	Wellness
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Melissa Harrell	Resource	Literacy
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Mignonne Scarbrough	Gifted Teacher	Math
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Monte Henderson	Physical Education	Wellness
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Sara Chamberlin	Social Worker	Parental Engagement
Parent	Angie Schuldt	Parent	Wellness
Parent	John Collier	Parent	Parental Engagement
Parent	Kathy Collier	Parent	Community Representative
Principal	La Tayna Greene	Principal	ACSIP Leadership