School Plan

BUTTERFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
3050 OLD MISSOURI,FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703

Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Plan

2009-2010


At Butterfield Trail Elementary we are setting the climate for developing responsible citizens and lifelong learners by involving the students in the core curriculum, arts and technology.

Grade Span: K-5 Title I: Title I Targeted Assistance School Improvement: MS

Table of Contents

Priority 1: Literacy
    Goal: All students will improve in reading comprehension and written expression with additional attention to literary and content reading passages and content and style writing domains.
Priority 2: Mathematics
    Goal: All students will improve in mathematic skills and responding to constructed response questions with additional attention to number sense, properties and operations, geometry and spatial sense and data analysis mathematic strands.
Priority 3: Wellness Priority
    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: English Language Learners (ELL)
    Goal: All English Language Learners (ELL) students will improve in literacy skills and responding to constructed response questions.
Priority 1: We expect all students to become proficient in literacy.
Supporting Data: 
  1. ACSIP CRT Data Source for BUTTERFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL  
    	  
	  
Benchmark-3rd Grade Literacy Exam 
    					  
 
Report Created:  Sep 2, 2008
     
					 
2009-# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 
    	  
  
	   68 Students:    83.8% of Combined Students 
    		  
    
	   52 Students:    90.3% of Caucasian Students 
    		 
	   19 Students:    52.6% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
    	 
	   10 Students:    50% of Students with Disabilities 
    
	   11 Students:    63.6 % of African American Students 
    

Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulation groups of Limited
English Proficient (LEP), Hispanic and Asian. 
    

The lowest identified areas for the combined population in the five
writing domains are content and style. The lowest identified area in the
analysis of the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is
practical and open response questions is content.
    	    
		   
Caucasian Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified area(s) are: Content Passage and
Practical Passage. The trend analysis of the open response questions in
the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are
content and style. 
     		      
					    Ecomically Disadvantaged
Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response and mulitple-choice
questions, in the three types of reading passages, revealed that the
lowest identified area (s) are: Content Passage and Practical Passage. 
The trend analysis of the open resopnse questions in the five writing
domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are Content and
Style.
      
 
Students with Disabilities Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open
response and mulitple-choice questions, in the three types of reading
passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Content
Passage and Practical Passage.	The trend analysis of the open resopnse
questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified
area (s) are Content and Style.
      
 
African American Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response
and mulitple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Content Passage and
Practical Passage.  The trend analysis of the open resopnse questions in
the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are
Content and Style.
    	   

2008-# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 
    	  
  
	   59 Students:        84.7% of Combined Students 
    		  
	
	   45 Students:        86.7% of Caucasian Students 
     	  
  
	   21 Students:        76.2% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
     
  
			 
  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
practical and open response questions is content.
    	  
    
  Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulation groups of IEP,
LEP, Asian Pacific Islander, African Americans, Hispanic, and Native
American. 
    		     
		    
Caucasian Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Content Passage and
Practical Passage. The trend analysis of the open response questions in
the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are
Content and Style. 
     		      

Ecomically Disadvantaged Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open
response and mulitple-choice questions, in the three types of reading
passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Content
Passage and Practical Passage.	The trend analysis of the open resopnse
questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified
area (s) are Content and Style.
    	
						  2007-# Tested & Percent
of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 
    	     
	   64 Students:        43.8% of Combined Students 
    		  
  
	   10 Students: 	 30% of African American Students 
    	  
  
	    47 Students:	51.1% of Caucasian Students 
    	  
   
	   19 Students:        31.6% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
     
  
  
43% of the Combined Population Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
29% of the Economically Disadvantaged (SES) students scored, at or above,
Proficient; 49% of the Caucasian Students scored at, or above,
Proficient.
    

Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulation gripus of LEP,
IEP, African American and Hispanic.
    

  
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
practical and open response questions is content.
    	  
       
The lowest identified areas for the Economically Disadvantaged Students
(SES) 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 Causcasian 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
content and open response questions is content.
    


2006-# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 
    	  
  
	   67 Students:        74.6% of Combined Students 
    		  
  
	   56 Students:        76.8% of Caucasian Students 
           
	   17 Students:        64.7% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
     
  
  
72.2% of the Combined Population Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
59% of the Economically Disadvantaged (SES) students scored, at or above,
Proficient; 60% of the Limited English Proficient (LEP) students scored,
at, or above, Proficient; 44% of the Students with Disabilities (IEP)
scored at, or above Proficient; 25% of the African American students
scored at, or above, Proficient; 75% of the Hispanic students scored, at,
or above, Proficient, 74.5% of the Caucasian Students scored at, or above,
Proficient.
    

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 practical.
    	  
       
The lowest identified areas for the Economically Disadvantaged Students
(SES) 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 literary and open response questions is content.
    
 

The lowest identified areas for the Limited English Proficient Students
(LEP) 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 literary and open response questions is content.
    


The lowest identified areas for the Students with Disabilities (IEP) 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 literary and open response questions is content.
    

The lowest identified areas for the African American 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
literary and open response questions is content.
    

The lowest identified areas for the Hispanic 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
content 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
content and open response questions is practical.
    


  2.  
    ACSIP CRT Data Source for BUTTERFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL  
       
	   
Benchmark-4th Grade Literacy Exam 
    					  
 
Report Created:  Sep 2, 2008					      

     

2009-# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 
    	  
  
	   61 Students:        89%% of Combined Students 
    		  
 
	   48 Students:        91.8% of Caucasian Students 
     	  
  
	   25 Students:        85.1% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
     
  
			
The lowest identified areas for the combined population in the five
writing domains are content and style. The loswest identified areas in the
analysis of the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is
practical and open response questions is literacy.
    	 
      
Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulation groups of IEP,
LEP, African American and Hispanic. 
    	       
		    
Caucasian Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Literacy Passage and
Practical Passage. The trend analsis of the open response questions in the
five writing domains revealed that hte lowest identified area (s) are
Content and Style.
    
   
Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open
response and multiple choice questions, in the three types of reading
passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Literacy
Passages. The trend analsis of the open response questions in the five
writing domains revealed that hte lowest identified area (s) are Content
and Style.
    	       
		       
2008-# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 
    	  
  
	   55 Students:        78.2% of Combined Students 
    		  
  
	   10 Students: 	 60% of African American Students 
    	  
		 
	   39 Students:        89.7% of Caucasian Students 
     	  
  
	   15 Students: 	 80% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
     
  
			
The lowest identified areas for the combined population in the five
writing domains are content and style. The loswest identified areas in the
analysis of the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is
practical and open response questions is content.
    	
      
Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulation groups of IEP,
LEP, and Hispanic. 
     	      
		    
Caucasian Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Content Passage and
Practical Passage. The trend analsis of the open response questions in the
five writing domains revealed that hte lowest identified area (s) are
Content and Style.
    
   
African American Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response
and multiple choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Content Passage and
Style Passage. The trend analsis of the open response questions in the
five writing domains revealed that hte lowest identified area (s) are
Content and Style.
     

Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open
response and multiple choice questions, in the three types of reading
passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Content
Passage and Practical Passage. The trend analsis of the open response
questions in the five writing domains revealed that hte lowest identified
area (s) are Content and Style.
    					  
       
2007-# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 
    	  
  
	   70 Students:        85.7% of Combined Students 
    		  
  
	   57 Students:        89.5% of Caucasian Students 
     	  
  
	   18 Students:        66.7% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
     
  
	    
83% of the Combined Population Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;68% of the Economically Disadvantaged (SES) students scored, at
or above, Proficient; 88% of the Caucasian Students scored at, or above,
Proficient.

Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulation groups of LEP,
IEP, African American, and Hispanic.
    

The lowest identified areas for the combined population in the five
writing domains are content and style. The loswest 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 Students
(SES) in the five writing domains are content and style. The loswest
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 Students in the five writing
domains are content and style. The loswest identified areas in the
analysis of the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is
content and open response questions is content.
       

2006-# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced:
    

	   57 Students:        70.2% of Combined Students
    
	   43 Students:        76.7% of Caucasian Students
    
	   23 Students:        47.8% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
    

72.5% of the Combined Population students scored at, or above, Proficient;
52% of the Economically Disadvantaged (SES) students scored, at or above,
Proficient; 100% of the Limited English Proficient (LEP) scored at, or
above, Proficient; 16.6% of the Students with Disabilities (IEP) scored
at, or above, Proficient; 66.6% of the African American students scored
at, or above, Proficient; 50% of the Hispanic students scored, at or
above, Proficient; 78.7% of the Caucasian Students scored at, or above,
Proficient.
    

The lowest identified areas for the Combined Population 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
content and open response questions is practical.
    	

The lowest identified areas for the Economically Disadvantaged students
(SES) 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 students (LEP) 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
literary and open response questions is literary.
    	

The lowest identified areas for the Students with Disabilities students
(IEP) 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.
    	 

The lowest identified areas for the African American 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
content and open response questions is practical.
    	

The lowest identified areas for the Hispanic students in the five writing
domains are content and mechanics. 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 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 content and
open response questions is practical.
       


  3.  
    ACSIP CRT Data Source for ELEMENTARY SCHOOL  
    		  

 Benchmark-5th Grade Literacy Exam 
     				  
  
Report Created:  Sep 2, 2008						

     

2009-# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 
    	  
  
	   53 Students:        78.5% of Combined Students 
    		  
  
	   38 Students:        87.5% of Caucasian Students 
     	  
  
	   16 Students:        55.5% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
     
  
	    
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
practical and open response questions is content.
    	
      
  Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulation groups of
African American, IEP, LEP, and Hispanic. 
    		     
		    
Caucasian Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified area(s) is Practical Passage. The
trend analsis of the open response questions in the five writing domains
revealed that the lowest identified area(s) are Content and Style.
     

Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open
response and multiple choice questions, in the three types of reading
passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Content
Passage and Practical Passage. The trend analsis of the open response
questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified
area (s) are Content and Style.
    			   
	   
2008-# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 
    	  
  
	   69 Students:        85.5% of Combined Students 
    		  
  
	   58 Students:        86.2% of Caucasian Students 
     	  
  
	   22 Students:        77.3% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
     
  
	    
 The lowest identified areas for the combined population in the five
writing domains are content and style. The loswest identified areas in the
analysis of the three types of literacy passages in multiple choice is
practical and open response questions is literacy.
    	 
      
  Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulation groups of
African American, IEP, LEP, and Hispanic. 
    		     
		    
Caucasian Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Literary Passage. The
trencd analsis of the open response questions in the five writing domains
revealed that hte lowest identified area (s) are Content.
     

Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open
response and multiple choice questions, in the three types of reading
passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Content
Passage, Literary Passage and Practical Passage. The trend analsis of the
open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the
lowest identified area (s) are Content and Style.
    			  
  
									
2007-# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 
    	  
  
	   59 Students:        69.5% of Combined Students 
    		  
  
	   49 Students:        73.5% of Caucasian Students 
     	  
  
	   21 Students:        52.4% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
     
  
	    
68% of the Combined Population Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
52% of the Economically Disadvantaged Students (SES) students scored at,
or above, Proficient; 72% of the Caucasian Students scored at, or above,
Proficient.

Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulation groups of LEP,
IEP, African American, and Hispanic.

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/practical and open response questions is content.
    	

The lowest identified areas for the Economically Disadvantaged Students
(SES) 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 literary and open response questions is
practical.
    	 

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 content and
open response questions is practical.
       

2006-# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 
    	  
  
	   58 Students:        81% of Combined Students 
    		  

	   44 Students:        86.4% of Caucasian Students 
     	  
  
	   22 Students:        63.6% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
     
  
	    
73.8% of the Combined Population Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
53.6% of the Economically Disadvantaged Students (SES) students scored at,
or above, Proficient; 42.8% of the Limited English Proficient (LEP)
students scored, at or above, Proficient; 16.6% of the Students with
Disabilities (IEP) scored at, or above, Proficient; 40% of African
American students scored at, or above, Proficient; 42.8% of Hispanic
students scored at, or above, Proficient; 82.9% of the Caucasian students
scored at, or above, Proficient.

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
literary and open response questions is practical.
    	 

The lowest identified areas for the Economically Disadvantaged Students
(SES) 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 literary and open response questions is
practical.
    	 

The lowest identified areas for the Limited English Proficient (LEP)
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 literary and open response questions is
literary.
    	

The lowest identified areas for the Students with Disabilities (IEP)
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 literary and open response questions is
literary.
    	

The lowest identified areas for the African American 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
practical and open response questions is practical.
       

The lowest identified areas for the Hispanic 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 content and
open response questions is literary.
       

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 literary and
open response questions is practical.
       


  4. Grade MAT-8 (08): Combined (Total) Population: Reading
Comprehension, Grade K:
    

In 2008, 80 students were tested and 76% had an NPR score of 50, or above.

    

Economically disadvantaged students: 33 students were tested and 64%
scored above the 50th percentile.  

Caucasian students: 54 students were tested and 85% scored above the 50th
percentile.

African American students: 15 students were tested and 53% scored above
the 50th percentile.

Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulation grops of Hispanic,
LEP, Asian/Pacific Islander and IEP.

Grade K-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population:  93 Students were tested and 68% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in vocabulary.
    

LEP students:  10 Students were tested and 30% scored above the 50th
percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses in
vocabulary.
    

Economically disadvantaged students:  36 Students were tested and 50%
scored above the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests
revealed weaknesses in vocabulary.
    

Hispanic students:  12 Students were tested and 17% scored above the 50th
percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses in
vocabulary.
    

Caucasian students:  67 Students were tested and 79% scored above the 50th
percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses in
vocabulary.
    

Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulation groups of IEP and
African American.
    

Grade K-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2006:
Combined Population:  42 Students were tested and 64.6% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in vocabulary.
    


  5. SAT-10 (08): Combined (Total) Population: Reading Comprehension,
Grade 1:
      

In 2008, 87 students were tested and 56.3% had a NPR score of 50, or
above.
      
 
Grade 1-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population:  86 Students were tested and 78% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in vocabulary.
    

LEP students:  10 Students were tested and 40% scored above the 50th
percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses in
vocabulary.
    

Economically disadvantaged students:  36 Students were tested and 61%
scored above the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests
revealed weaknesses in vocabulary.
    

Hispanic students:  12 Students were tested and 33% scored above the 50th
percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses in
vocabulary.
    

Caucasian students:  60 Students were tested and 90% scored above the 50th
percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses in
vocabulary.
    

African American students:  11 Students were tested and 64% scored above
the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in vocabulary.
    

Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulation group of Students
with Disabilities.
    

Grade 1-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2006:
    

Combined Population:  58 Students were tested and 81.6% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in vocabulary.
    


  6.  SAT-10 (08): Combined (Total) Population: Reading Comprehension,
Grade 2:
    
 
In 2008, 64 students were tested and 59.4% had a NPR score of 50, or
above.
     

Grade 2-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
    

Combined Population:  67 Students were tested and 81% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in vocabulary.
    

Economically disadvantaged students:  27 Students were tested and 63%
scored above the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests
revealed weaknesses in vocabulary.
    

Caucasian students:  46 Students were tested and 93.5% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in word analysis.
    

Fewer that 10 students were tested in the subpopulation groups of African
American, Hispanic, LEP, and IEP.
    

Grade 2-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2006:
    

Combined Population:  49 Students were tested and 81.6% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in vocabulary.
    


  7. SAT-10 (09): Combined (Total) Population: Reading Comprehension,
Grade 3:
    
 
In 2009, 68 students were tested and 65.1% had a NPR score of 50, or
above.
    

Grade 3-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2008:
    

64 students were tested and 71.9% had an NPR score of 50, or above.
     

Grade 3-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
    

Combined Population:  72 Students were tested and 66% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in word analysis.
    

Economically disadvantaged students:  24 Students were tested and 50%
scored above the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests
revealed weaknesses in vocabulary.
    

Caucasian students:  53 Students were tested and 70% scored above the 50th
percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses in
word analysis.
    

African American students:  11 Students were tested and 64% scored above
the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in vocabulary.
    

Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulation group of LEP, IEP
and Hispanic.
    

Grade 3-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2006:
    

Combined Population:  53 Students were tested and 76.8% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in vocabulary.
    


  8. SAT-10 (09): Combined (Total) Population: Reading Comprehension,
Grade 4:
    
 
In 2009, 64 students were tested and 74.4% had a NPR score of 50, or
above.
    

Grade 4-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2008:
    

58 students were tested and 79.3% had an NPR score of 50, or above.
     

Grade 4-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
    

Combined Population:  79 Students were tested and 86% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in vocabulary.
    

Economically disadvantaged students:  24 Students were tested and 75%
scored above the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests
revealed weaknesses in vocabulary.
    

Caucasian students:  63 Students were tested and 87.3% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in vocabulary.
    

Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulation groups of LEP,IEP,
Hispanic and African American.
    

Grade 4-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2006:
    

Combined Population:  48 Students were tested and 80% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in vocabulary.
    


  9. SAT-10 (09): Combined (Total) Population: Reading Comprehension,
Grade 5:
    
 
In 2009, 56 students were tested and 68.2% had a NPR score of 50, or
above.
    

Grade 5-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2008:
    

76 students were tested and 84.2% had an NPR score of 50, or above.
     

Grade 5-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
    

Combined Population:  71 Students were tested and 76% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in comprehension.
    

Caucasian: 55 students were tested and 78% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the Reading subtests revealed weaknesses in
comprehension.
    

Economically Disadvantaged: 29 students were tested and 68% scored above
the 50th percentile. The analysis of the Reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in Reading comprehension.
    

Few than 10 students were tested in the subpopulations of LEP, IEP,
African American and Hispanic.
    

Grade 5-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2006:
    

Combined Population:  48 Students were tested and 76.1% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in vocabulary.
    

Caucasian: 47 students were tested and 89.3% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the Reading subtests revealed weaknesses in
comprehension.
    

Economically Disadvantaged: 23 students were tested and 52.1% scored above
the 50th percentile. The analysis of the Reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in Reading comprehension.
    

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


  10. Attendance Rate: In 2009, the attendance rate was 95.7%. In 2008,
the attendance rate was 91.13%.  In 2007, the attendance rate was 95.2%. 
In 2006, the attendance rate for the building was 96%.
Goal All students will improve in reading comprehension and written expression with additional attention to literary and content reading passages and content and style writing domains.
Benchmark The Combined Population, and each Subpop MET the 2009 AYP target of 64% scoring 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 AYP through either the "Safe Harbor" or "Growth" models.
Intervention: Parental Engagement
Scientific Based Research: Parent Involvement; National PTA Standards 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. Supplimental materials for training purposes will be purchased to allow participation of all families.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
 Heather Williams Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • District Staff
ACTION BUDGET: $
The school will have a newly constructed designated area to be used as the Parent Center. Furnishings will be purchased and parenting books, magazines and other informative material regarding responsible parenting will be available for parents to borrow for review in each building. Parent Center materials, which may include, but not limited to brochures, pamphlets, computers for use on site, or laptops to be checked out will be purchased by each building. Materials designed to be used for an extension of learning from the classroom to home will be purchased.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
 Rebecca Webb Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • District Staff
Title I - Materials & Supplies: $1522.00
ACTION BUDGET: $1522
Teachers and administrators will receive training to enhance understanding of effective parental involvement strategies.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Professional Development
 Lori West Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Outside Consultants
ACTION BUDGET: $
All parents will receive informational packets that include: *School Calendar Information *A system encouraging the home and school connection *Information addressing the school's process for resolving parental concerns *School's commitment to parental involvement *Process for resolving parental concerns.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Title I Target Assistance
 Heather Williams Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • District Staff
ACTION BUDGET: $
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
 Donna Modica Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • District Staff
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.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
 Jessica Byram, teacher Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • District Staff
ACTION BUDGET: $
All parents and students will be mailed reminders to come to a "Back to School Bash" to welcome them to our school, to meet the faculty and staff, to be introduced to PTO board members, to have the opportunity to volunteer for PTO/school projects and to tour the school facilities.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
 Willy Berry, teacher Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • District Staff
ACTION BUDGET: $
"Open House" will be held at the beginning of the year to discuss with parents what students will be expected to learn, how that learning will be addressed and how parents can assist to make a difference in their child's education. All parents will be asked to sign a parent involvement contract. An annual report for the school will be given. Staff members who coordinate/supervise student activities for the evening will be compensated.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
 Stephanie Self Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • District Staff
ACTION BUDGET: $
The district will designate two Parent/Teacher Conferences each school year.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
 Heather Williams Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • District Staff
ACTION BUDGET: $
Teachers and other staff members will use Star Reading test scores and Augmented Benchmark scores as a summative evaluation to determine which students need support with Title I activities. Parents will be notified of child's qualification for Title I support.
Action Type: Collaboration
 Becky McCain Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
A "WatchDog Dad/Kid" Night will be held to provide information about the Watchdog program and recruit volunteers as WatchDog Dads to help at school. Refreshments will be served and childcare will be provided.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
 Jeff Boyett Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Community Leaders
ACTION BUDGET: $
TARGETED ASSISTANCE: 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.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Title I Target Assistance
 Joey Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Central Office
  • Outside Consultants
  • Teachers
  • Title Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
Teachers are provided with instructional meeting time in order to plan for the implementation of best practices chosen to help improve student achievement at each student's readiness level. Time will be reserved for vertical and horizontal team meetings throughout the year.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Title I Target Assistance
 Joey Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Performance Assessments
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
An alumni advisory committee will be formed to help do a formative evaluation of academic progress, the amount of parental participation within the school and identification of barriers that exist that hinder greater participation by parents.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
 Joey Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
An annual meeting will be held to inform parents of the right of parents to be involved in planning, review, and improvement of parent programs and a description and explanation will be given of the curriculum used in the school, types of assessment and proficiency levels. In addition, parents will be involved in the annual planning of school improvement programs. Annual surveys will evaluate the parent involvement activities.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Title I Target Assistance
 Joey Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
ACTION BUDGET: $
Program Evaluation:  At the conclusion of the 2008 -2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention/Program through: the number of items checked out via counselor and librarian and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The following EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrate that this Intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning that are part of this program: Parent Center/Parent Library Program. During the 2009 - 2010 school year, we plan to use the following protocol in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program: Parent Center/Parent Library Program.


We will use this data/information to determine whether the objective(s) of this Intervention/Program was (were) achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives.  We will report these 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
 Heather Williams Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Computers
  • District Staff
  • School Library
ACTION BUDGET: $
ANNUAL TITLE ONE MEETING: Our school will host an annual community meeting to discuss the Title 1 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 paretns to be involved in the planning, review and revision of parent programs (including the parental involvment 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 related to budgeting of all federal monies. Parents will be encouraged to form a partnership with the school. A committee willb e formed for the purose of, annually, revising our school parental involvement policy.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Title I Target Assistance
 Heather Williams Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • None
ACTION BUDGET: $
Two Parent Involvement Meetings will be held each year.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
 Heather Williams Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • None
ACTION BUDGET: $
School's process for resolving parental concerns is currently in the elementary district handbook.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
 Heather Williams Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • None
ACTION BUDGET: $
Counselor will provide academic parenting classes to provide instruction to parents on how to incorparate developmentally appropriate learning activities in the home environment.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
 Heather Williams Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • None
ACTION BUDGET: $
School will provide activies to help assist parents in his or her child's learning.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
 Heather Williams Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • None
ACTION BUDGET: $
Total Budget: $1522
Intervention: Step Up to Writing.
Scientific Based Research: Marzano, Robert J.; Norfold, Jennifer S.; Paynter, Diane E.; Pickering, Deborah J.; and Gaddy, Barbara B. (2001). A Handbook for Classroom Instruction That Works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD & McREL.
Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
All teachers will participate in ongoing professional development in writing, including training in programs such as Step Up to Writing, ELLA, Effective Literacy, and Literacy Lab--all of which include components for effective writing instruction. Substitutes will be provided.
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Special Education
 Stephanie Self Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • District Staff
  • Outside Consultants
  • Performance Assessments
  • Teaching Aids
ACTION BUDGET: $
All students will use technology to access information, develop writing skills, and publish student work.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Special Education
Action Type: Technology Inclusion
 Misty Simpson Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Computers
  • Public Library
  • School Library
  • Teaching Aids
ACTION BUDGET: $
Provide all students with access to a rich collection of diverse resources (to include, but not be limited to books, videos, tapes, and other media materials) through the school library.
Action Type: Equity
 Rebecca Webb Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • District Staff
  • School Library
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
As a formative evaluation, a schedule of writing prompts (to be done each quarter) will be established for the year, with each grade level choosing a prompt to be done by all the students and graded according to a standardized rubric or grading scale.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Special Education
 Margaret Connors Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Teachers
  • Teaching Aids
ACTION BUDGET: $
Communicate writing expectations and student progress in writing to parents through classroom assignment sheets, parent-teacher conferences, graded work, newsletters, and Web access to the curriculum.
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Special Education
 Karen Ervin Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
TRANSITION: Transition from Pre-School to Kindergarten Action: (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: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Title I Target Assistance
 Joey Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Community Leaders
  • Teachers
  • Title Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
Benchmark test scores will be used as a summative evalution of student progress in writing.
Action Type: Program Evaluation
 Jennifer Condron Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Program Evaluation:  At the conclusion of the 2008 -2009 school year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through: pre/post testing, CRT/NRT assessments, and local summative assessments and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The following EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrate that this Intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning that are part of this program: Step Up to Writing. During the 2009 - 2010 school year, we plan to use the following protocol in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program: Step Up to Writing.
    

We will use this data/information to determine whether the objective(s) of this Intervention/Program was (were) achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives.  We will report these 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
    		 Joette Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Total Budget: $0
    Intervention: Comprehensive Literacy Model: Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA);Effective Literacy; Phonetic Connections; Word Journeys; and Literacy Lab
    Scientific Based Research: Adams, M., Beginning to Read; Allington, R., Classrooms That Work (1999).
    Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
    Plan, prepare and implement district ELLA/Effective Literacy/Literacy Lab professional development. Full implementation of these programs will ensure that all students are fluent readers and able to reach state and national benchmarks. To support these programs, teachers and instructional assistants will be trained in ELLA/Effective Literacy/Literacy Lab/Phonetic Connections/ Word Journeys strategies with the goal being all teachers in K-5 being trained by 2008-2009. The comprehensive literacy model ensures that all students master the five fundamental compenents of reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension, word study (spelling), and vocabulary. Manipulative materials to be used in small group instruction and centers will be purchased and substitutes will be employed so that teachers may attend follow up sessions during the school year.
    Action Type: Professional Development
    Action Type: Special Education
    		 Joey Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Central Office
    • District Staff
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    All classroom teachers will be trained in the use of Accelerated Reader as part of the ongoing reading instruction for all students in the classroom.
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Rose Tacker Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Computers
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Purchase levelized reading books, well reviewed library books, AR software, LCD projectors, Interwrite Pads or other interactive technologies and other supplies for implementation of ELLA/Effective Literacy/Literacy Lab strategies and Accelerated Reader to enhance classroom activities.
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    		 Isabelle Brummer Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Computers
    • District Staff
    Title I - Capital Outlay: $6541.00
    ACTION BUDGET: $6541
    Instruct K-3 special education and ESL students in their Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky) through guided reading groups and the use of STAR Reading software.
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Special Education
    		 Donna Modica Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    • Teaching Aids
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Teachers will utilize MS Office, Rosetta Stone and other appropriate technology programs to integrate technology into literacy instruction for all students. This will provide students with additional reinforcement for the standards-based literacy instruction which benefits all students, including English Language Learners and students with special needs.
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Special Education
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    		 Lisa Snyder Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Computers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Classroom teachers, special education teachers, and other support staff will collaborate to implement differentiated strategies including, but not limited to, the use of Rosetta Stone, for students with Academic Improvement Plans and/or special needs to improve literacy skills.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Special Education
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    		 Mary Taylor Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Computers
    • Teaching Aids
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    As a summative evaluation, we will use achievement test results and district K-1 assessment results to annually evaluate implementation of ELLA/Effective Literacy balanced literacy strategies in K-1 classroom instruction.
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Brooks Anne Courtway Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    • Teaching Aids
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    COORDINATION AND INTEGRATION OF PROGRAMS and STUDENT IDENTIFICATION FOR SERVICES: All teachers will be encouraged to attend the state, regional or national reading conferences. Training provides teachers with the necessary skills for more effective student-based instruction. Substitutes will be provided and expenses will be covered for registration, transportation, meals, lodging and some other misc. expenses. This knowledge is supported by grade-level work by each team of teachers with the district literacy specialist to ensure effective implementation. Students will be identified for participation in the targeted assistance program based on the following criteria: • Children identified by the school as failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet the State's challenging student academic achievement standards; • Children from preschool through grade two (2) selected solely on the basis of criteria such as teacher judgment, interviews with parents, and developmentally appropriate measures; • Children who are economically disadvantaged, children with disabilities, migrant children or limited English proficient children, are eligible for Title I services on the same basis as other children selected to receive Title I services; • Children who, at any time in the two (2) years preceding the year for which the determination is made, participated in a Head Start, Even Start, or Early Reading First program, or in preschool Title I services; • Children who, at any time in the two (2) years preceding the year for which the determination is made, received services under the migrant program; • Children in a local institution for neglected or delinquent children and youth or attending a community day program for such children; and or • Children who are homeless and attending any school served by the local educational agency. Children are selected for Title I services on the basis of multiple, educationally related, objective criteria established by the district and supplemented by the school.
    Action Type: Professional Development
    Action Type: Special Education
    Action Type: Title I Target Assistance
    		 Brandy Wingo Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teaching Aids
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Individual and classroom group AR data, as well as state and local mandated testing data will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the AR program.
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Nancy Smith Start: 07/31/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Computers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Instructional assistants, twelve .5 FTE, will be employed to support and supplement instructional strategies with students in grades K-5 in reading/language arts instruction, as well as in several small groups utilizing researched based programs. These highly qualified paraprofessional will participate in focused professional development, as feasible, to provide seamless support of classroom instruction.
    Action Type: Equity
    		 Sherrie Lindsay Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    Title I - Employee Salaries: $54015.00
    Title I - Employee Benefits: $14055.00
    ACTION BUDGET: $68070
    K-1 teachers will utilize the Phonetic Connection program as a daily part of literacy instruction. This provides systematic instruction focused on research-based instructional methods.
    Action Type: Alignment
    		 Jessica Byram Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Outside Consultants
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Teachers in grades 2-4 will utilize the Word Journeys program for explicit word study/spelling instruction.
    Action Type: Alignment
    		 Jane Arnold Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    • Outside Consultants
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Teachers and staff will utilize individual AR test scores as a formative evaluation, as well as other information, to create a prioritized list of students in need of Title I services. This assessment will provide additional data to assist teachers in identifying specific student needs.
    Action Type: AIP/IRI
    		 Kelly Mangan Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      Kindergarten students who score delayed in both written and oral communication on the QELI, and 1st and 2nd grade students who scored "below basic" in reading on the SAT 10 will be provided Intensive Reading Instruction utilizing ELLA and Accelerated Reader, both scientifically based reading programs. The DIBELS will be administered to all K-2 students who are shown to have a substantial reading deficiency to determine the specific area of deficiency. Intensive reading interventions (IRI) will be comprehensive in nature and will be targeted to remediate the area of deficiency. Student achievement will be monitored bi-weekly until proficiency is reached, with additional interventions being put in place for those who do not achieve proficiency. Parents will be notified in writing if their child has a substantial reading deficiency as described above.
      Action Type: AIP/IRI
      Action Type: Equity
      		 Randi Dodson Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • District Staff
      • 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 Target Assistance
      		 Joey Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • Administrative Staff
      • District Staff
      • Teachers
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      In our school TITLE I RESOURCES ARE USED TO HELP PARTICIPATING CHILDREN ACHIEVE our annual Adequate Yearly Progress targets by supporting, and supplementing, the implementation of a tightly aligned instructional program. Our staff is continually working toward alignment of our: Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development so that gaps in instruction are eliminated, instruction is made more effective and student achievement improves, over time.
      Action Type: AIP/IRI
      Action Type: Title I Target Assistance
      		 Paula Jones Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • District Staff
      • Teachers
      • Teaching Aids
      • Title Teachers
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      The METHODS AND STRATEGIES WE USE HAVE SCIENTIFICLY BASED RESEARCH that shows they have been effective. The use of “differentiated and cognitively guided instruction” is but one example of the kinds of strategies we use to support meeting the needs of our students. IN addition, we have discovered that Accelerated Reader and SOAR have been effective in increasing student achievement in our school. We have implemented these programs which are designed to provide accelerated opportunities for our students. In addition, we offer before school remediation programs. We believe in the “inclusion” model and work very hard to provide supplemental instruction within the regular classroom setting.
      Action Type: AIP/IRI
      Action Type: Collaboration
      Action Type: Title I Target Assistance
      		 Tammy Withers Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • Administrative Staff
      • School Library
      • Teachers
      • Teaching Aids
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      We use TITLE I FUNDS TO SUPPORT, AND SUPPLEMENT, THE REGULAR EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM. To assess early literacy development, we have implemented STAR Early Literacy.
      Action Type: Technology Inclusion
      Action Type: Title I Target Assistance
      		 Rose Tacker Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • Administrative Staff
      • Teachers
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      School Leadership Team: Closing the Achievement Gap(Literacy): Regular monthly meetings of our (Literacy) 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 sing-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 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: Collaboration
      		 Joette Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • District Staff
      • Performance Assessments
      • Teachers
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      Program Evaluation:  At the conclusion of the 2008 -2009 school year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through: pre/post testing, CRT/NRT assessments, and local summative assessments and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The Following EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrate that this Intervention is valid in support of the teachiing adn learning that are part of this program: Accelerated Reading Program. During the 2009 - 2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program: Accelerated Reading Program.
      

We will use this data/information to determine whether the objective(s) of this Intervention/Program was (were) achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives.  We will report these 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
      		 Joette Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • District Staff
      • Performance Assessments
      • Teachers
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      Rosetta Stone ---IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 2: "During the 2009-2010 school year we will evaluate Rosetta Stone through pre/post testing, CRT/NRT assessments, and local summative assessments to determine its effectiveness in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development.  During the 2009-2010 school year we plan to use the following protocol in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program.
      

We will use this data/information to determine whether the objective (s) of this Intervention/Program was acheived and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives.  We will report the results, in our 2009/2010 ACSIP plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program."

      Action Type: Program Evaluation
      		 Joette Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • Computers
      • District Staff
      • Performance Assessments
      • Teachers
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: We formed ACSIP Leadership Teams and analyzed the test scores from the 2009 administration of the 5th grade Augmented Benchmark and 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, Disciplinary, 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. Our 2009 Supporting Data Statements show the discrepancies in achievement, among our various populations. We are modifying our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development practices to better meet theneeds of all our populations. Based on our Data Analysis we came to the conclusion that the follwoing areas reflect our greatest need within the Literacy Priority: Open Response Literacy Passages and Practical Passages. 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 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: Professional Development
      Action Type: Program Evaluation
      		 Joette Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • None
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      Total Budget: $74611
      Intervention: Curriculum mapping: Aligning curriculum K-5
      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
      All students' needs will be addressed through the application of the school's curriculum.
      Action Type: Equity
      Action Type: Special Education
      		 Jane Arnold Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • Teachers
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      SCHOOLWIDE REFORM STRATEGIES: Curriculum mapping checklists of literacy, science and social studies will occur both at the building level and the district level as a formative evaluation to ensure continuity in the instructional program at both levels, and to assist in planning for appropriate computer activities. Substitutes will be employed to give teachers release time during the school day.
      Action Type: Alignment
      Action Type: Collaboration
      Action Type: Equity
      Action Type: Technology Inclusion
      Action Type: Title I Target Assistance
      		 Karen Ervin Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • District Staff
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      POINT IN TIME REMEDIATION: There will be an annual summative evaluation using data from SAT 10 scores to analyze areas of weakness and address sub skills, content clusters, subtest and subgroups that may need to be addressed in the curriculum mapping process. Other indicators will also be analyzed. An annual review and adjustment to the curriculum maps will be made according to gaps and/or duplications noted from the data analysis.
      Action Type: Alignment
      Action Type: Program Evaluation
      Action Type: Title I Target Assistance
      		 Lori West Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • Performance Assessments
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      We are continually PLANNING FOR HOW BEST TO SERVE OUR STUDENTS. Our staff meets on a regular basis for the purpose of reviewing the results from our formative assessments. Those interventions that continue to support increasing the level of student achievement are kept and those that the data does not support, as being effective, are either modified or abandoned.
      Action Type: AIP/IRI
      Action Type: Collaboration
      Action Type: Title I Target Assistance
      		 Dena Griffin Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • Administrative Staff
      • District Staff
      • Teachers
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      Program Evaluation:  At the conclusion of the 2008 -2009 school year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through: teacher observation and local summative assessments and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The following EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrate that htis Intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning that are part of this program: Curriculum Mapping Checklists of Literacy, Science and Social Studies. During the 2009 - 2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program: Curriculum Mapping Checklists of Literacy, Science and Social Studies.
      

We will use this data/information to determine whether the objective(s) of this Intervention/Program was (were) achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives.  We will report these 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
      		 Joette Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • District Staff
      • Teachers
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      Total Budget: $0
      Priority 2: Improve Mathematics
      Supporting Data: 
      1. ACSIP CRT Data Source for BUTTERFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL  
        	  
	  
 Benchmark-3rd Grade Mathematics Exam 
        				  
  
Report Created:  Sep 2, 2008						

         
 
2009-# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 
        	  
  
	   68 Students:        92.6% of Combined Students 
        		  
  
	   52 Students:        98% of Caucasian Students 
        		  

	   19 Students:        73.6% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
         
  
	   10 Students:        80% of Students with Disabilities
        
	   11 Students:        81.8% of African American Students
        

Combined Population: The lowest identified area (s)(based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Number Operations. The lowest
identified area (s)(based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice
questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in
Measurement and Data Analysis and Probability.
         

Caucasian Subpopulation: The lowest identified area(s)(based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Data Analysis and Probability. The
lowest identified area (s)(based on the trend analysis of the multiple
choice questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in
Measurement and Data Analysis and Probability.
         

Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation:The lowest identified area
(s)(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the
five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Measurement.
The lowest identified area (s)(based on the trend analysis of the multiple
choice questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in
Measurement and Data Analysis and Probability .
         

Student with Disabilities (IEP) Subpopulation:The lowest identified
area(s)(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the
five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Measurement and Data
Analysis and Probability. The lowest identified area (s)(based on the
trend analysis of the multiple choice questions), in the five mathematics
strands, revealed weaknesses in Algabra and Data Analysis and Probability
.
         

African American Subpopulation:The lowest identified area(s)(based on the
trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics
strands, revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Measurement. The lowest
identified area (s)(based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice
questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in
Measurement and Data Analysis and Probability .
         

2008-# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 
        	  
  
	   59 Students:        89.8% of Combined Students 
        		  
  
	   45 Students:        91.1% of Caucasian Students 
         	  
  
	   21 Students:        90.5% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
         
  
	       
Combined Population: The lowest identified area (s)(based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Measurement. The lowest identified
area (s)(based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions), in
the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Measurement and
Geometry.
         

Caucasian Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)(based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Measurement. The lowest identified
area (s)(based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions), in
the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Geometry and
Measurement .
         

Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation:The lowest identified area
(s)(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the
five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Measurement.
The lowest identified area (s)(based on the trend analysis of the multiple
choice questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in
Geometry and Measurement .
         

2007-# Tested &Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 
        	  
  
	   64 Students:        81.3% of Combined Students 
        		  
  
	   10 Students: 	 50% of African American Students 
        	  
		 
	   47 Students:        87.2% of Caucasian Students 
         	  
  
	   19 Students:        73.7% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
         
  
	    
80% of the Combined Population Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
71% of the Economically Disadvantaged (SES) students scored at, or above,
Proficient; 54% of the African American Students scored at, or above,
Proficient; 86% of the Caucasian Students scored at, or above, Proficient.


Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulation groups of LEP, IEP
and Hispanic.

The lowest identified areas for the Combined Population students in the
analysis of the open response questions in the five math strands revealed
weaknesses in Measurement and Data Analysis and Probability. The lowest
identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the
five math strands, revealed weaknesses in Measurement and Data Analysis
and Probability.
        

The lowest identified areas for the Economically Disadvantaged Students
(SES) in the analysis of the open response questions in the five math
strands revealed weaknesses in Measurement and Data Analysis and
Probabililty. The lowest identified area in the analysis of the multiple
choice questions, in the five math strands, revealed weaknesses in Data
Analysis 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 Geometry and Data Analysis and Probabililty. The lowest
identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the
five math strands, revealed weaknesses in Number Sense and Operations 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 Measurement and Data Analysis and Probabililty. The lowest identified
area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the five math
strands, revealed weaknesses in Measurement and Data Analysis and
Probability. The lowest identified area in the analysis of the muliple
choice questions, in the five math strands, revealed weaknesses in Data
Analysis and Probability and Measurement.  
 
2006-# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 
        	  
  
	   67 Students:        83.6% of Combined Students 
        		  
  
	    2 Students: 	  0% of African American Students 
        	  
  
	    4 Students: 	100% of Hispanic Students 
        		  
  
	   56 Students:        83.9% of Caucasian Students 
         	  
  
	   17 Students:        76.5% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
         
  
	    5 Students: 	100% of LEP Students 
        		  
  
	    8 Students:        87.5% of Students with Disabilities 
            

      2. ACSIP CRT Data Source for BUTTERFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL  
        	  
	  
 Benchmark-4th Grade Mathematics Exam 
        				  
  
Report Created:  Sep 2, 2008						 

         
2009-# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 
        	  
  
	   61 Students:        92.1% of Combined Students 
        		  
  
	   48 Students:        95.9% of Caucasian Students 
         	  
  
	   25 Students:        88.8% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
         
  
	    
Combined Population: The lowest identified area (s)(based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Measurement. The lowest identified
area (s)(based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions), in
the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Measurement and Data
Analysis and Probability.
         

Caucasian Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)(based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Measurement. The lowest identified
area (s)(based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions), in
the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Measurement and Data
Analysis and Probability .
         

Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation: The lowest identified area
(s)(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the
five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Measurement.
The lowest identified area (s)(based on the trend analysis of the multiple
choice questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in
Measurement and Data Analysis and Probability.
         

2008-# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 
        	  
  
	   55 Students:        85.5% of Combined Students 
        		  
  
	   10 Students: 	 80% of African American Students 
        	  
  
	   39 Students:        84.6% of Caucasian Students 
         	  
  
	   15 Students: 	 80% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
         
  
	    
Combined Population: The lowest identified area (s)(based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Measurement. The lowest identified
area (s)(based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions), in
the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Measurement and
Geometry.
         

Caucasian Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)(based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Measurement. The lowest identified
area (s)(based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions), in
the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Geometry and
Measurement .
         

Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation: The lowest identified area
(s)(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the
five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Measurement.
The lowest identified area (s)(based on the trend analysis of the multiple
choice questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in
Geometry and Measurement .
         
 
2007-# Tested &Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 
        	  
  
	   70 Students:        87.1% of Combined Students 
        		  
  
	   57 Students:        91.2% of Caucasian Students 
         	  
  
	   18 Students:        66.7% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
         
  
	   
85% of the Combined Population Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
68% of the Economically Disadvantaged (SES) students scored, at or above,
Proficient; 88% of the Caucasian Students scored at, or above, Proficient.


Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulation groups of LEP,
IEP, African American and Hispanic.

The lowest identified areas for the Combined Population students in the
analysis of the open response questions in the five math strands revealed
weaknesses in Measurement and Data Analysis and Probabililty. The lowest
identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the
five math strands, revealed weaknesses in Algebra and Geometry.

The lowest identified areas for the Economically Disadvantaged students in
the analysis of the open response questions in the five math strands
revealed weaknesses in Measurement and Data Analysis and Probabililty. The
lowest identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions,
in the five math strands, revealed weaknesses in Algebra and Geometry.

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

2006-# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 
        	  
  
	   57 Students:        71.9% of Combined Students 
        		  
  
	   43 Students:        74.4% of Caucasian Students 
         	  
  
	   23 Students:        52.2% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
         
  
	    
74.1% of the Combined Population Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
56% of the Economically Disadvantaged (SES) students scored, at or above,
Proficient; 100% of the Limited English Proficient (LEP) students scored
at, or above, Proficient; 33.3% of the Students with Disabilities (IEP)
scored at, or above, Proficient; 66.6% of the African American students
scored at, or above, Proficient; 83.3% of the Hispanic students scored at,
or above, Proficient; 76.6% of the Caucasian students socred at, or above,
Proficient.

The lowest identified areas for the Combined Population students in the
analysis of the open response questions in the five math strands revealed
weaknesses in Geometry and Measurement. The lowest identified area in the
analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the five math strands,
revealed weaknesses in Algebra and Geometry.

The lowest identified areas for the Economically Disadvantaged students in
the analysis of the open response questions in the five math strands
revealed weaknesses in Measurement and Geometry. The lowest identified
area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the five math
strands, revealed weaknesses in Algebra and Measurement.
The lowest identified areas for the Limited English Proficient students in
the analysis of the open response questions in the five math strands
revealed weaknesses in Data Analysis and Probability and Geometry. The
lowest identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions,
in the five math strands, revealed weaknesses in Algebra and Geometry.

The lowest identified areas for the Students with Disabilities students in
the analysis of the open response questions in the five math strands
revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Number Sense and Operations. The
lowest identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions,
in the five math strands, revealed weaknesses in Measurement and Data
Analysis and Probability.

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 Algebra and Measurements. The lowest identified area in the
analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the five math strands,
revealed weaknesses in Geometry 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 Algebra and Geometry. The lowest identified
area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the five math
strands, revealed weaknesses in Algebra and Geometry.

The lowest identified areas for the Caucasian
students in the analysis of the open response questions in the five math
strands revealed weaknesses in Measurement and Number Sense and
Operations. The lowest identified area in the analysis of the multiple
choice questions, in the five math strands, revealed weaknesses in Algebra
and Geometry.


      3. ACSIP CRT Data Source for BUTTERFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL  
        	  
	  
 Benchmark-5th Grade Mathematics Exam 
        				  
  
Report Created:  Sep 2, 2008						 

         

2009-# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 
        	  
  
	   53 Students:        76.7% of Combined Students 
        		  
  
	   38 Students:        80% of Caucasian Students 
        		  

	   16 Students:        66.6% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
         
  
	    
Combined Population: The lowest identified area (s)(based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in Measurement and Data Analysis and Probability. The
lowest identified area (s)(based on the trend analysis of the multiple
choice questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in
Measurement and Geometry.
         
 
Caucasian Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)(based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in Measurement and Data Analysis and Probability. The
lowest identified area (s)(based on the trend analysis of the multiple
choice questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in
Geometry and Measurement .
         

Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation:
The lowest identified area (s)(based on the trend analysis of the open
response questions) in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses
in Measurement and Data Analysis and Probabiltiy. The lowest identified
area(s)(based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions), in
the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Measurement and
Number Operations .
         
 
2008-# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 
        	  
  
	   69 Students:        85.5% of Combined Students 
        		  
  
	   58 Students:        87.9% of Caucasian Students 
         	  
  
	   22 Students:        81.8% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
         
  
	    
Combined Population: The lowest identified area (s)(based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Measurement. The lowest identified
area (s)(based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions), in
the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Measurement and
Numbers and Operations.
         
 
Caucasian Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)(based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Measurement. The lowest identified
area (s)(based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions), in
the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Measurement .
         

Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation:
The lowest identified area (s)(based on the trend analysis of the open
response questions) in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses
in Geometry and Measurement. The lowest identified area (s)(based on the
trend analysis of the multiple choice questions), in the five mathematics
strands, revealed weaknesses in Measurement and Number Operations .
         

2007-# Tested &Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 
        	  
  
	   59 Students:        71.2% of Combined Students 
        		  
	   
	   49 Students:        69.4% of Caucasian Students 
         	  
  
	   21 Students:        61.9% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
         
  
	    
69% of the Combined Population Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
59% of the Economically Disadvantaged (SES) students scored at, or above,
Proficient; 70% of the Caucasian Students scored at, or above, Proficient.


Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulation groups of LEP,
IEP, African American and Hispanic.

The lowest identified areas for the Combined Population students in the
analysis of the open response questions in the five math strands revealed
weaknesses in Geometry and Data Analysis and Probabililty. The lowest
identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the
five math strands, revealed weaknesses in Measurement and Data Analysis
and Probability.

The lowest identified areas for the Economically Disadvantaged students in
the analysis of the open response questions in the five math strands
revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Data Analysis and Probabililty. The
lowest identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions,
in the five math strands, revealed weaknesses in Measurement and Data
Analysis and Probability.

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

2006-# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 
        	  
  
	   58 Students:        77.6% of Combined Students 
        		  
       
	   44 Students:        84.1% of Caucasian Students 
         	  
  
	   22 Students:        54.5% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
         
  
	    
72.3% of the Combined Population Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
46.1% of the Economically Disadvantaged (SES) students scored, at or
above, Proficient; 42.8% of the Limited English Proficient (LEP) students
scored at, or above, Proficient; 16.6% of the Students with Disabilities
(IEP) scored at, or above, Proficient; 20% of the African American
Students scored at, or above, Proficient; 42.8% of the Hispanic Students
scored at, or above, Proficient; 82.9% of the Caucasian Students scored at
, or above, Proficient.

The lowest identified areas for the Combined Population students in the
analysis of the open response questions in the five math strands revealed
weaknesses in Geometry and Data Analysis and Probabililty. The lowest
identified area 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 for the Economically Disadvantaged students in
the analysis of the open response questions in the five math strands
revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Data Analysis and Probabililty. The
lowest identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions,
in the five math strands, revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Algebra.
The lowest identified areas for the Limited English Proficient students in
the analysis of the open response questions in the five math strands
revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Algebra. The lowest identified area in
the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the five math strands,
revealed weaknesses in Measurement and Algebra.

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

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 Number Sense and Operations and Data Analysis and
Probability. The lowest identified area in the analysis of the multiple
choice questions, in the five math strands, revealed weaknesses in Algebra
and Geometry.

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


      4. MAT-8 (08): Combined (Total) Population: Total Math, Grade K
        

In 2008, 80 students were tested and 73% had a NPR score of 50, or
above.
        

Caucasian students: 54 students were tested and 76% scored above the 50th
percentile.

Economically disadvantaged students: 33 students were tested and 70%
scored above the 50th percentile.

African American students:  15 students were tested and 60% scored above
the 50th percentile.

Fewer then 10 students were tested in the subpopulations of: Hispanic,
LEP, Asian/Pacific Islander and IEP.
 
Grade K-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:

Combined Population:  93 students were tested and 71% scored above the
50th percentile. 
 
Caucasian: 67 students were tested and 77.6% 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.

Economically Disadvantaged: 36 students were tested and 58.3% 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.

Hispanic: 12 students were tested and 25% 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.

LEP: 10 students were tested and 58.3% 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.


Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulations of: IEP and
African American.

Grade K-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2006 :

Combined Population:  49 Students were tested and 75.3% scored above the
50th percentile.
        


      5. SAT-10 (08): Combined (Total) Population: Total Math, Grade
1:
        

In 2008, 87 students were tested and 62.1% had a NPR score of 50, or
above.
        

Grade 1-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:

Combined Population:  86 Students were tested and 80% scored above the
50th percentile.

Caucasian: 60 students were tested and 88.3% 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.

Economically Disadvantaged: 36 students were tested and 61.1% 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.

Hispanic: 12 students were tested and 50% 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.

African American: 11 students were tested and 63.6% 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.

LEP: 10 students were tested and 60% 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.


Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulations of IEP.

  Grade 1-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2006 :

Combined Population:  60  Students were tested and 84.5% 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.
        


      6. SAT-10 (08): Combined (Total) Population: Total Math, Grade
2:
        

In 2008, 64 students were tested and 76.6% had a NPR score of 50, or
above.
        


Grade 2-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:

Combined Population:  67 Students were tested and 81% scored above the
50th percentile.

Caucasian: 46 students were tested and 87% 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.

Economically Disadvantaged: 27 students were tested and 77.8% 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.

Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulations of LEP, IEP,
Hispanic and African American.

    Grade 2-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2006 :

Combined Population:  48 Students were tested and 80% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the Concepts and Estimation subtest,
Problem Solving and Data Interpretation subtests revealed weaknesses in
math concepts.
        


      7. SAT-10 (09): Combined (Total) Population: Total Math, Grade
3:
        

In 2009, 68 students were tested and 86.8% had a NPR score of 50, or
above.
        .

Grade 3-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2008:

64 students were tested and 79.7% had a NPR score of 50, or above.
        

Grade 3-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:

Combined Population:  72 Students were tested and 66% scored above the
50th percentile.
  
Caucasian: 53 students were tested and 67.3% 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.

African American: 11 students were tested and 45.5% 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.

Economically Disadvantaged: 24 students were tested and 56.5% 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.

Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulations of LEP, IEP, and
Hispanic.
 Grade 3-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2006 :

Combined Population:  59  Students were tested and 85.5% 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.
        


      8. SAT-10 (09): Combined (Total) Population: Total Math, Grade
4:
        

In 2009, 64 students were tested and 86.8% had a NPR score of 50, or
above.
        

Grade 4-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2008:

58 students were tested and 86.2% had a NPR score of 50, or above.
        


Grade 4-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:

Combined Population:  79 Students were tested and 86% scored above the
50th percentile.  

Caucasian: 63 students were tested and 90.5% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the subtests, weaknesses were revealed in math
computation.

Economically Disadvantaged: 24 students were tested and 66.7% scored above
the 50th percentile. The analysis of subtests revealed weaknesses in math
computation.

Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulations of LEP, IEP,
Hispanic and African American.

  Grade 4-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2006 :

Combined Population:  47 Students were tested and 78.3% 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.
        


      9. SAT-10 (0): Combined (Total) Population: Total Math, Grade 5:
        


In 2009, 56 students were tested and 74.4% had a NPR score of 50, or
above.
        

Grade 5-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2008:

76 students were tested and 84.2% had a NPR score of 50, or above.
        

Grade 5-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:

Combined Population:  71 Students were tested and 70% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the math subtests revealed weaknesses in
problem solving and data interpretation.

Caucasian: 55 students were tested and 76% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the math subtests revealed weaknesses in math
computation.

Economically Disadvantaged: 29 students were tested and 50% scored above
the 50th percentile. The analysis of the math subtests revealed weaknesses
in math computation.


Few than 10 students were tested in the subpopulations of: IEP, LEP,
African American, and Hispanic.

Grade 5-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2006 :

Combined Population:  53 Students were tested and 84.1% 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.

Caucasian: 47 students were tested and 95.7% 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.

Economically Disadvantaged:  23 students were tested and 73.9% 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, Hispanic, Limited English proficient, and students with
disabilities.
        


      10. Attendance Rate: In 2009, the attendance rate for the building
was 95.7%. In 2008, the attendance rate for the building was 91.13%. In
2006, the attendance rate for the building was 96%.
      Goal All students will improve in mathematic skills and responding to constructed response questions with additional attention to number sense, properties and operations, geometry and spatial sense and data analysis mathematic strands.
      Benchmark The Combined Population, and each Subpop MET the 2009 AYP target of 62.5% scoring Proficient/Advanced. It is expected that each of these populations will meet, or exceed, the 2010 AYP target of 70% scoring Proficient/Advanced, or make AYP through either "Safe Harbor" or "Growth" models.
      Intervention: Technology Software: an individual academic plan for all students.
      Scientific Based Research: West Virginia Story: Achievement gains from a statewide comprehensive instructional technology program. Mann, D., Shakeshaft, C., Becker, J., and Kotthamp, R. 1998.
      Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
      Classroom teachers, special education teachers, and other support staff will collaborate monthly to review student achievement and to discuss the implementation of differentiated strategies, including, but not limited to, the use of software or other mathematics tutorial software, for students with Academic Improvement Plans and/or special needs to improve mathematics skills.
      Action Type: AIP/IRI
      Action Type: Equity
      Action Type: Program Evaluation
      Action Type: Special Education
      Action Type: Technology Inclusion
      		 Shirley Gorman Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • Computers
      • Performance Assessments
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      Teachers and other support personnel will use Star Math test scores, along with other pertinent information, as a formative evaluation to determine which students are in need of support with Title I activities. Parents will be notified of their child's qualification for Title I services.
      Action Type: Collaboration
      		 Nancy Smith Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        NEEDS ASSESSMENT: NRT, CRT, local achievement assessments and other relevant summative evaluations 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 Target Assistance
        		 JOEY FOLSOM Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Performance Assessments
        • Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        Program Evaluation:  At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through: pre/post testing, CRT/NRT assessments, and local summative assessments and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The following EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrate that this Intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning that are part of this program: Mastering Math Facts. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program: Mastering Math Facts.
        

We will use this data/information to determine whether the objective(s) of this Intervention/Program was (were) achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives.  We will report these results, in our 2010/2011 ACSIP plan, and will use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program.

        Action Type: Program Evaluation
        		 Joette Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Computers
        • District Staff
        • Performance Assessments
        • Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        Total Budget: $0
        Intervention: Everyday Mathematics: A Research-Based Curriculum
        Scientific Based Research: The Research Foundations for the UCSMP Everyday Mathematics Curriculum, Andrew Isaacs, William Carroll and Max Bell. 2002
        Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
        Purchase materials to be used to impliment activities and assessments that compliment lessons for Everyday Mathematics in regular classrooms, special education resource room and the computer lab to include LCD projectors, Interwrite Pads or other interactive technologies.
        Action Type: Collaboration
        Action Type: Equity
        Action Type: Special Education
        		 Susan Brown Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Teaching Aids
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        Grade level teachers will meet to review student work, share effective teaching and assessment strategies (including technology), and align instructional objectives to assist all students to achieve proficiency in mathematics.
        Action Type: Collaboration
        Action Type: Equity
        Action Type: Special Education
        Action Type: Technology Inclusion
        		 Isabelle Brummer Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Teaching Aids
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        Use SAT 10 scores(Grades 1-5), the state Benchmark Exams, STAR Math and and other teacher-made or program specific assessments as both a formative and summative evaluation of student progress in math achievement.
        Action Type: Equity
        Action Type: Program Evaluation
        Action Type: Special Education
        Action Type: Technology Inclusion
        		 Sherrie Lindsay Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Performance Assessments
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        The Knowing Mathematics program will be used to support those students in grades 4 and 5 who fall somewhat below grade level in math. Instructional aides will be employed to work with students in this program.
        Action Type: AIP/IRI
        Action Type: Equity
        		 Susan Brown Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Performance Assessments
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        Instructional aides, five .5 FTE, will be employed to support Title I identified students in all 1st grade students during regular math instruction, in 2nd-5th grade classes during intervention time and in K classes on a "as needed" basis.
        Action Type: Equity
        		 Karen Ervin Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
          Title I - Employee Salaries: $54285.00
          Title I - Employee Benefits: $14124.00
          ACTION BUDGET: $68409
          Program Evaluation:  At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through: pre/post testing, CRT/NRT assessments, and local summative assessments and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The following EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrate that this Intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning that are part of this program: Everyday Math. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program: Everyday Math.
          

We will use this data/information to determine whether the objective(s) of this Intervention/Program was (were) achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives.  We will report these 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
          		 Joette Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
          End: 06/30/2010
          • District Staff
          • Performance Assessments
          • Teachers
          ACTION BUDGET: $
          Total Budget: $68409
          Intervention: Professional Development Design--a plan for all teachers.
          Scientific Based Research: Loucks-Horsley, S., Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics 1998, National Institute for Science Education.
          Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
          Plan, design, purchase materials/equipment for implementation of professional development activities for school areas of focus, using district guidelines for design, content, implementation, and results.
          Action Type: Collaboration
          Action Type: Professional Development
          Action Type: Special Education
          		 Brooks Anne Courtway Start: 07/01/2009
          End: 06/30/2010
          • Central Office
          • District Staff
          • Performance Assessments
          • Teachers
          • Teaching Aids
          Title I - Materials & Supplies: $1067.00
          Title I - Capital Outlay: $6541.00
          ACTION BUDGET: $7608
          Provide diverse professional development opportunities to offer teachers a balanced approach to enhanced knowledge and skills (deep teacher knowledge of content, strong foundation in pedagogy, general content, strong foundation in pedagogy, general knowledge on teaching and learning processes, general knowledge about school culture).
          Action Type: Equity
          Action Type: Professional Development
          Action Type: Special Education
          Action Type: Technology Inclusion
          		 Mary Taylor Start: 07/01/2009
          End: 06/30/2010
          • Administrative Staff
          • Computers
          • Outside Consultants
          • Performance Assessments
          • Teachers
          • Teaching Aids
          Title II-A - Materials & Supplies: $8046.00
          ACTION BUDGET: $8046
          Use community resources and outside consultants to provide additional expertise in meeting the professional development needs of teachers.
          Action Type: Collaboration
          Action Type: Professional Development
          		 Shirley Gorman Start: 07/01/2009
          End: 06/30/2010
          • Administrative Staff
          • Central Office
          • Community Leaders
          • 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 a formative evaluation 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, after a summative evaluation of 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: Professional Development Action Type: Plan Evaluation Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Alignment
          Action Type: Alignment
          Action Type: Collaboration
          Action Type: Professional Development
          Action Type: Program Evaluation
          Action Type: Title I Target Assistance
          		 Sherri Watson Start: 07/01/2009
          End: 06/30/2010
          • Administrative Staff
          • District Staff
          • Teachers
          ACTION BUDGET: $
          Teachers are provided with weekly instructional meeting time in order to plan for the implementation of best practices chosen to help improve student achievement at each student's readiness level. A newly constructed area will be furnished and designated appropriately for grade level meetings and data display. This planning time will be provided during the course of the day.
          Action Type: Collaboration
          Action Type: Professional Development
          		 Margaret Connors Start: 07/01/2009
          End: 06/30/2010
          • Administrative Staff
          • Teachers
          ACTION BUDGET: $
          We support PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES, WITH TITLE I FUNDS, FOR BOTH LICENSED AND PARAPRO STAFF WHO SERVE TITLE I STUDENTS. Each year we send a team of teachers, support staff and/or parents to National/Regional conferences. In addition, our faculty and staff participate in outside district provided Professional Development classes.
          Action Type: AIP/IRI
          Action Type: Collaboration
          Action Type: Professional Development
          Action Type: Title I Target Assistance
          		 Laura Wilkins Start: 07/01/2009
          End: 06/30/2010
            ACTION BUDGET: $
            Program Evaluation:  At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through: summative evaluations and a local formative evaluation instrument and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The following EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrate that this Intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning that are part of this program: Professional Development. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol 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 (were) achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives.  We will report these 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
            		 Joette Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
            End: 06/30/2010
            • Central Office
            • District Staff
            • Performance Assessments
            • Teachers
            ACTION BUDGET: $
            Total Budget: $15654
            Intervention: In order to better teach a standards-based math curriculum we will create and adopt school-wide problem solving techniques based on prompts and using rubric scoring congruent with the Benchmark exams.
            Scientific Based Research: Scientific Based Research: Problem Solving Techniques Based on Prompts; "Strategies that Work" by Stephanie Harvey, Data Analysis Training, 2000.
            Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
            SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT: Grade level CRT & NRT scores will be compared on an individual basis. Individual student AIP's will address deficiencies in the area of critical/creative thinking and problem solving.
            Action Type: AIP/IRI
            Action Type: Alignment
            Action Type: Collaboration
            		 Susan Brown Start: 07/01/2009
            End: 06/30/2010
              ACTION BUDGET: $
              Teachers will be trained in the process of writing math prompts and responding to a math prompt in accordance with the state Benchmark Released Items.
              Action Type: Collaboration
              Action Type: Program Evaluation
              		 Isabelle Brummer Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
                ACTION BUDGET: $
                Grade level math prompts will be developed using problem solving strategies.
                Action Type: Alignment
                Action Type: Collaboration
                		 Karen Ervin Start: 07/01/2009
                End: 06/30/2010
                  ACTION BUDGET: $
                  Parents will be informed at Curriculum Night and Parent/Teacher conferences on the use of Homelinks, a parent/child math activity based on skills being taught in class. Homelinks are sent home regularly at each grade level.
                  Action Type: AIP/IRI
                  Action Type: Collaboration
                  Action Type: Equity
                  Action Type: Parental Engagement
                  		 Lisa Snyder Start: 07/01/2009
                  End: 06/30/2010
                    ACTION BUDGET: $
                    FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT: A rubric system will be designed for evalution of open response activities at each grade level.
                    Action Type: Collaboration
                    Action Type: Program Evaluation
                    		 Jane Arnold Start: 07/01/2009
                    End: 06/30/2010
                      ACTION BUDGET: $
                      We are developing a Comprehensive, STANDARDS BASED Math Plan based on the Five Strands of Math Proficiency. These strands include: 1) Understanding - comprehensive concepts, operations and relations 2) Computing - Carry out procedures. 3) Applying - Formulating problems and devise strategies in problem solving. 4) Reasoning - Use logic to explain and justify. 5) Engaging - view math as sensible, useful and achievable.
                      Action Type: Alignment
                      Action Type: Collaboration
                      Action Type: Professional Development
                      Action Type: Title I Target Assistance
                      		 Jennifer Condron Start: 07/01/2009
                      End: 06/30/2010
                        ACTION BUDGET: $
                        School Leadership Team: Closing the Achievement Gap (Math): Regular monthly meetings of our (Math) 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 coninuous 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 boetter 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, whcih 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
                        		 Joette Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
                        End: 06/30/2010
                        • District Staff
                        • Performance Assessments
                        • Teachers
                        ACTION BUDGET: $
                        Program Evaluation:  At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through: teacher observation, CRT/NRT assessments and local summative assessments and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The following EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrate that this Intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning that are part of this program: Math Prompt Writing. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program: Math Prompt Writing.
                        

We will use this data/information to determine whether the objective(s) of this Intervention/Program was (were) achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives.  We will report these results, in our 20010/2011 ACSIP plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program.

                        Action Type: Program Evaluation
                        		 Joette Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
                        End: 06/30/2010
                        • Performance Assessments
                        • Teachers
                        ACTION BUDGET: $
                        COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: We formed ACSIP Leadership Teams and analyzed the test scores from the 2009 administration of the 5th grade Augmented Benchmark and 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, Disciplinary, 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. Our 2009 Supporting Data Statements show the discrepancies in achievement, among our various populations. We are modifying our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development practices to better meet theneeds of all our populations. Based on our Data Analysis we came to the conclusion that the following areas reflect our greatest need within the Mathematics Priority: Open Response Questions and Data Analysis and Probability Questions. We will select Interventions and coordinate our vairous state and federal funding sources to address these areas. In addition, we meet in grade level teams weekly and as an entire faculty 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: Professional Development
                        Action Type: Program Evaluation
                        		 Joette Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
                        End: 06/30/2010
                        • None
                        ACTION BUDGET: $
                        Total Budget: $0
                        Priority 3: To increase student awareness and knowledge of the effects of good nutrition and physical activity.
                        Supporting Data:
                        1. Body Mass Index Data 2008-2009: of the 460 student population, 211 students were assessed. Of the students assessed, the following represents the percent of students at risk of overweight and overweight:
                          Grade K: Males 28.9%, 17.6% Females Grade 1: Males N/A, N/A Females Grade 2: Males 32.4%, 29.4% Females Grade 3: Males N/A, N/A Females Grade 4: Males 26.9%, N/A Females Grade 5: Males N/A, N/A Females
                          Body Mass Index Data 2007-2008: of the 473 student population, 193 students were assessed. Of the students assessed, the following represents the percent of students at risk of overweight and overweight: Grade K: Males 29.5%, 31.3% Females Grade 1: Males N/A, N/A Females Grade 2: Males 44.4%, N/A Females Grade 3: Males N/A, N/A Females Grade 4: Males 37.9%, 24.0% Females Grade 5: Males 35.2%, 24.5% Females Body Mass Index Data 2006-2007: of the 486 student population, 447 students were assessed. Of the students assessed, the following represents the percent of students at risk of overweight and overweight: Grade K: Males 30.8%, 16.7% Females Grade 1: Males 25.6%, 21.4% Females Grade 2: Males 21.7%, 13.6% Females Grade 3: Males 41.2%, 36.4% Females Grade 4: Males 48.6%, 24.4% Females Grade 5: Males 25.0%, 45.0% Females Body Mass Index Data 2005-2006: of the 403 student population, 360 students were assessed. Of the students assessed, the following represents the percent of students at risk of overweight and overweight: Grade 1: Males N/A %, 15.9% Females Grade 2: Males 26.7%, 35.8% Females Grade 3: Males 30.7%, 25.6% Females Grade 4: Males 32.1%, 30.4% Females Grade 5: Males 38.5%, 26.5% Females
                        2. The 2008-2009 School Index indicated that the 2 areas of need were Health Promotion for Staff and Family and Community Involvement.
                          The 2007-2008 School Index indicated that the 2 areas of need were Health Promotion for Staff and Family and Community Involvement.
                          The 2006-2007 School Index indicated that the 2 areas of need were Health Promotion for Staff and Family and Community Involvement.
                          The 2005-2006 School Index indicated that the 2 areas of need were Health Promotion for Staff and Family and Community Involvement.
                        3. Free/Reduced Rate: In 2008-2009 the percentage of free and reduced lunch was 40%. In 2007-2008 the percentage of free and reduced lunch was 36%. In 2006-2007 the percentage of free and reduced lunch was 40%. In 2005 - 2006 the percentage of free and reduced lunch was 38%.
                        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: Let's Get Physical--Promotion and Education Strategies by Dr. Hal Wechsler http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/menu/NNEC/Files/2003/LetsGetPhysical.pdf
                        Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
                        Certified PE teachers will be employed by the district for PE instruction.
                        Action Type: Wellness
                        		 Travis Shofner Start: 07/01/2009
                        End: 06/30/2010
                        • Administrative Staff
                        • Central Office
                        ACTION BUDGET: $
                        Students BMI assessments will be analyzed annually as a summative evalution 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
                        		 Joey Folsom- Principal Start: 07/01/2009
                        End: 06/30/2010
                        • Administrative Staff
                        • Teachers
                        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
                        		 Joey Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
                        End: 06/30/2010
                        • Administrative Staff
                        • Teachers
                        ACTION BUDGET: $
                        Program Evaluation:  At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through: teacher observation and the School Health Index Meetings and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The following EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrate that this Intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning that are part of this program: BMI Assessment. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program: BMI Assessment.
                        

We will use this data/information to determine whether the objective(s) of this Intervention/Program was (were) achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives.  We will report these 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
                        		 Lisa Henderson Start: 07/01/2009
                        End: 06/30/2010
                        • District Staff
                        ACTION BUDGET: $
                        Total Budget: $0
                        Intervention: Increase awareness and knowledge of the benefits of sound nutritional practices for lifelong health and wellness.
                        Scientific Based Research: Kids for Health, 2006.
                        Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
                        The school based nutrition committee will do a formative evalution of various school activities to ensure compliance with state child nutrition laws.
                        Action Type: Program Evaluation
                        Action Type: Wellness
                        		 Misty Simpson Start: 07/01/2009
                        End: 06/30/2010
                        • Community Leaders
                        • Teachers
                        ACTION BUDGET: $
                        Student BMI assessments will be analyzed annually as a summative evalution 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
                        		 Lisa Henderson Start: 07/01/2009
                        End: 06/30/2010
                          ACTION BUDGET: $
                          School nurse or other appropriate personnel will provide information and training to staff regarding health issues related to asthma, first aid and food emergencies.
                          Action Type: Professional Development
                          		 Lisa Henderson Start: 07/01/2009
                          End: 06/30/2010
                          • District Staff
                          • Teachers
                          ACTION BUDGET: $
                          Program Evaluation:  At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through: the school based nutrition committee formative evaluation and teacher observation and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The following EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrate that this Intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning that are part of this program: State Child Nutrition Laws. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program: State Child Nutrition Laws. 
                          

We will use this data/information to determine whether the objective(s) of this Intervention/Program was (were) achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives.  We will report these 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
                          		 Travis Shofner Start: 07/01/2009
                          End: 06/30/2010
                          • District Staff
                          • Performance Assessments
                          • Teachers
                          ACTION BUDGET: $
                          COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: We formed ACSIP Leadership Teams and analyzed the test scores from the 2009 administration of the 5th grade Augmented Benchmark and 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, Disciplinary, 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. Our 2009 Supporting Data Statements show the discrepancies in achievement, among our various populations. We are modifying our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development practices to better meet theneeds 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: Personal Health and Personal Safety. 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 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: Professional Development
                          Action Type: Program Evaluation
                          Action Type: Wellness
                          		 Joette Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
                          End: 06/30/2010
                          • None
                          ACTION BUDGET: $
                          Total Budget: $0
                          Priority 4: We expect all English Language Learners (ELL) to become proficient in literacy.
                          Supporting Data:
                          1. ACSIP CRT Data Source for BUTTERFIELD TRAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
                            Benchmark-3rd Grade Literacy Exam
                            2009-Fewer than 10 students were tested in the English Language Learner (ELL) subpopulation.
                            2008-Fewer than 10 students were tested in the English Language Learner (ELL) subpopulation.
                            2007-Fewer than 10 students were tested in the English Language Learner (ELL) subpopulation.
                            2006-Fewer than 10 students were tested in the English Language Learner (ELL) subpopulation.
                          2. ACSIP CRT Data Source for BUTTERFIELD TRAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
                            Benchmark-4th Grade Literacy Exam
                            2009-Fewer than 10 students were tested in the English Language Learner (ELL) subpopulation.
                            2008-Fewer than 10 students were tested in the English Language Learner (ELL) subpopulation.
                            2007-Fewer than 10 students were tested in the English Language Learner (ELL) subpopulation.
                            2006-Fewer than 10 students were tested in the English Language Learner (ELL) subpopulation.
                          3. ACSIP CRT Data Source for BUTTERFIELD TRAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
                            Benchmark-5th Grade Literacy Exam
                            2009-Fewer than 10 students were tested in the English Language Learner (ELL) subpopulation.
                            2008-Fewer than 10 students were tested in the English Language Learner (ELL) subpopulation.
                            2007-Fewer than 10 students were tested in the English Language Learner (ELL) subpopulation.
                            2006-Fewer than 10 students were tested in the English Language Learner (ELL) subpopulation.
                          4. Aggregate Data: 2009-# Tested and Percent of 3rd, 4th & 5th Grade Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced:
                            10 Students Tested: 8 Students Scored Proficicent/Advanced in Math (80%)
                            10 Students Tested: 5 Students Scored Proficient/Advanced in Literacy (50%)
                          Goal All English Language Learners (ELL) students will improve in literacy skills and responding to constructed response questions.
                          Benchmark Due to the fact that fewer than 10 English Language Learners (ELL) students were tested the past 4 years in the 3rd, 4th and 5th grades, there is currently no AYP target for 2010.
                          Intervention: On Our Way to English: Oral Language Development Newcomer Kit
                          Scientific Based Research: Educational Research Institute of America (2004)
                          Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
                          The certified English Language Learner (ELL) teacher will use the On Our Way to English: Oral Language Development Newcomer Kit to meet the differing rates at which English Language Learners (ELL) develop language and literacy skills.
                          Action Type: Collaboration
                          		 Mary Taylor Start: 07/01/2009
                          End: 06/30/2010
                          • None
                          ACTION BUDGET: $
                          COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: We formed ACSIP Leadership Teams and analyzed the test scores from the 2009 administration of the 5th grade Augmented Benchmark and 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, Disciplinary, 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. Our 2009 Supporting Data Statements show the discrepancies in achievement, among our various populations. We are modifying our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development practices to better meet theneeds of all our populations. Based on our Data Analysis we came to the conclusion that the following areas reflect our greatest need within the English Language Learner (ELL) Priority: Open Response Literacy Passages. 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 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
                          		 Joette Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
                          End: 06/30/2010
                          • None
                          ACTION BUDGET: $
                          PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2009-2010 school year, we will evaluate this Intervention/Program: On Our Way to English: Language Development Newcomer Kit through: pre/post testing, CRT/NRT assessments, and local formative and summative assessments. We will use this data/information to determine whether the objectives of is Program were achieve and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report these results in our 2010/2011 ACSIP plan and will use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program.
                          Action Type: Program Evaluation
                          		 Joette Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
                          End: 06/30/2010
                          • None
                          ACTION BUDGET: $
                          Total Budget: $0
                          Intervention: Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) Model
                          Scientific Based Research: The SIOP Institute (Guarino, Echuvarria, Short, Schick, Forbes, & Rueda, 2001)
                          Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
                          The certified English Language Learner (ELL) teacher will use the SIOP model as a system that provides a concrete structure to plan and implement Sheltered Instruction in the content areas.
                          Action Type: Collaboration
                          		 Mary Taylor Start: 07/01/2009
                          End: 06/30/2010
                          • None
                          ACTION BUDGET: $
                          Total Budget: $0
                        • Planning Team

                          Classification Name Position Committee
                          Business Representative James Keenan Business person Parent Involvement
                          Classroom Teacher Andrea Lofton 3rd Grade Teacher Math
                          Classroom Teacher Becky McCain 4th Grade Teacher Literacy
                          Classroom Teacher Brandy Wingo 1st Grade Teacher Math
                          Classroom Teacher Brooks Anne Courtway Kindergarten Teacher Math
                          Classroom Teacher Caryn Finney 5th Grade Teacher Math
                          Classroom Teacher Dena Griffin Resource Teacher Literacy
                          Classroom Teacher Donna Modica 2nd Grade Teacher Math
                          Classroom Teacher Isabelle Brummer 5th Grade Teacher Literacy
                          Classroom Teacher Jane Arnold 3rd Grade Teacher Literacy
                          Classroom Teacher Jennifer Condron 4th Grade Teacher Math
                          Classroom Teacher Jessica Byram Kindergarten Teacher Literacy
                          Classroom Teacher Karen Ervin 5th Grade Teacher Math
                          Classroom Teacher Laura Wilkins Kindergarten Teacher Math
                          Classroom Teacher Lisa Snyder 4th Grade Teacher Literacy
                          Classroom Teacher Margaret Connors Classroom Teacher Literacy
                          Classroom Teacher Nancy Smith Kindergarten teacher Literacy
                          Classroom Teacher Randi Dodson 1st Grade Teacher Literacy
                          Classroom Teacher Sherri Watson 3rd Grade Teacher Literacy
                          Classroom Teacher Sherrie Lindsay 1st Grade Teacher Math
                          Classroom Teacher Stephanie Self 1st GradeTeacher Literacy
                          Classroom Teacher Susan Brown 3rd Grade Teacher Math
                          Classroom Teacher Tammy Withers PreK Teacher Literacy
                          Classroom Teacher Travis Shofner PE Teacher Wellness
                          Classroom Teacher Willy Berry 2nd Grade Teacher Math
                          District-Level Professional Christie Jay Federal Programs Coordinator Literacy
                          Non-Classroom Professional Staff April Herrin Art Teacher Math
                          Non-Classroom Professional Staff Heather Williams School Counselor ACSIP
                          Non-Classroom Professional Staff Kelly Whittle Music Teacher Math
                          Non-Classroom Professional Staff Laura Baxter Speech Therapist Nutrition
                          Non-Classroom Professional Staff Lisa Henderson School Nurse Wellness
                          Non-Classroom Professional Staff Mary Taylor ESL Teacher Literacy
                          Non-Classroom Professional Staff Paula Jones Technology Curriculum Specialist Math
                          Non-Classroom Professional Staff Rebecca Webb Library Media Specialist Literary
                          Non-Classroom Professional Staff Rose Tacker Instructional Aide/AR Coodinator Math
                          Non-Classroom Professional Staff Shirley Gorman G/T Teacher Literacy
                          Parent Cindy Caudle Parent Parent Involvement
                          Parent Jana Mix Parent Parent Involvement
                          Parent Jennifer Vaughn Parent Literacy
                          Principal Joey Folsom Principal ACSIP Leadership