ACSIP

School Plan

HOLCOMB ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
2900 N. SALEM RD.,FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72704

Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Plan

2009-2010

At Holcomb School, we are a diverse community of respectful, responsible, and creative life-long learners. Motto: Aim High!

Grade Span: K-5

Title I: Title I Schoolwide

School Improvement: A

Table of Contents

Priority 1: Literacy
    Goal: All students will improve in reading comprehension with additional attention to Literary and Content reading passages.
    Goal: All students will improve written expression with additional attention to Content, Style, Open Response Passages, and Practical Passage writing domains.
Priority 2: Mathematics
    Goal: All students will improve in answering open-response math questions with respect to consistent weaknesses in the areas of geometry and spatial sense as well as the multiple choice questions on geometry/spatial sense, data analysis/probability, computation, and measurement.
    Goal: All students will improve in mathematics skills with respect to consistent weaknesses in the area of geometry and spatial sense on the open-response questions as well as the multiple choice questions on measurement.
Priority 3: Wellness Priority
    Goal: Students will become more aware of healthier lifestyles to improve their overall wellness.
Priority 4: Science
    Goal: All students will improve in answering open-response and multiple choice science questions.
Priority 5: ELL/Title III
    Goal: ELL students will improve in reading comprehension with additional attention to Literary and Content reading passages.

Priority 1:

Improving Literacy

Supporting Data:

NRT Spring 2009 MAT-8 Kindergarten - 108 students were tested. Percent of students scoring advanced or above: Combined Population 108 tested - 86% African American 14 tested - 86% Economically Disabled 40 tested - 45% LEP 16 tested - 50% Disabilities less than 10 tested Caucasians 73 tested - 68% SAT-10 Grade 1 - 103 students were tested: Percent of students scoring advanced or above: Combined Population 103 tested - 68% Economically Disabled - 57% LEP - 39% Disabilities - 50% Second Grade - 95 students tested Percent of students scoring at or above the 50th percentile: Grade 2 - 95 students were tested: Percent of students scoring advanced or above: Combined Population 95 tested - 63% Economically Disabled 38 tested - 47% LEP 12 tested - 8 Disabilities 10 tested 70% Third Grade - 94 students tested Percent of students scoring at or above the 50th percentile: Combined Population 94 tested - 49.6% Reading, 43.4% Language Economically Disabled 36 tested - 18.6% Reading, 15.5% Language LEP 11 tested - 0% Reading, 0% Language Disabilities 10 tested - 49.6% Reading, 49.6% Language African American 22 tested - 22.73% Reading, 27.27% Language Caucasian 58 tested - 67.24% Reading, 56.9% Language Fourth Grade - 98 tested Percent of students scoring at or above the 50th percentile: Combined Population 98 tested - 68.2% Reading, 46.5% Language Economically Disabled 43 tested - 52.7% Reading, 24.8% Language LEP 17 tested - 58.9% Reading, 34.1% Language Disabilities 12 tested - 24.8% Reading, 0% Language African American 12 tested - 58.33% Reading, 25% Language Caucasian 60 tested - 75% Reading, 55% Language Fifth Grade - 89 tested Percent of students scoring at or above the 50th percentile: Combined Population 89 tested - 65.1% Reading, 49.6% Language Economically Disadvantaged 34 tested - 40.3% Reading, 27.9% Language LEP 12 tested - 24.8% Reading, 34.1% Language Disabilities fewer than 10 tested African American 17 tested - 41.18% Reading, 23.53% Language Caucasian 59 tested - 81.36% Reading, 59.32% Language

BENCHMARK - On the 2009 Third Grade Benchmark 91 students were tested
and of those tested:
Students who scored at, or above, Proficient in Literacy on the Benchmark
Exam:
Combined Population 91 tested - 71%
African American 12 tested - 67%
LEP 18 tested - 50%
Economically Disadvantaged 41 tested - 54%    
Disabilities 12 tested - 42%	

On the 2009 Fourth Grade Benchmark 93 students were tested and of
those tested.
Students who scored at, or above, Proficient in Literacy on the Benchmark
Exam:
Combined Population 93 tested - 74%
African American 16 tested - 75%
LEP 15 tested - 33%
Economically Disadvantaged 32 tested - 50%    
Disabilities less than 10 tested 
	     

On the 2009 Fifth Grade Benchmark 82 students were tested and of
those tested:
Students who scored at, or above, Proficient in Literacy on the Benchmark
Exam:
Combined Population 82 tested - 74%
African American 17 tested - 53%
LEP less than ten tested
Economically Disadvantaged 30 tested - 47%    
Disabilities less than ten were tested 
		

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 and open response questions are the open response literary
passages, open response content passages.

The lowest identified areas for the economically disadvantaged
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 and open response questions are the open response
literary passages, open response content passages, and open response
practical passages.

The lowest identified areas for the 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 and open
response questions are the open response and multiple choice literary
passages, open response and multiple choice practical passages.

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
and open response questions are the open response literary passages and
open response content passages.

The lowest identified areas for the Caucasian students 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 and
open response questions is the open response content passages.
NRT Fall 2008 MAT-8
Grade 1 - 112 students were tested:
Percent of students scoring advanced or above:
Combined Population 112 tested - 69%
African American 19 tested - 63%
Hispanic 14 tested - 67%
Caucasian 59 tested - 86%
Economically Disabled 33 tested - 39%
LEP 18 tested - 17%
Fewer than 10 students with Disabilities were tested.

NRT Spring 2008 SAT10 
Grade 1 - 104 students were tested:
Percent of students scoring at or above the 50th percentile
Combined Population 104 tested - 43.3%
African American 20 tested - 50%
Hispanic 18 tested - 11.1%
Caucasian 59 tested - 54.2%
Economically Disabled 46 tested - 28.3%
LEP 18 tested - 11.1%
Fewer than 10 students with Disabilities were tested.

Second Grade - 95 students tested
Percent of students scoring at or above the 50th percentile:
Combined Population 95 tested - 46.3%
African American 22 tested - 27.3%
Hispanic 11 tested - 9.1%
Caucasian 56 tested - 64.3%
Economically Disabled 38 tested - 13.2%
LEP 12 tested - 8.3%
Students with Disabilities 10 tested - 30%

Third Grade - 91 students tested
Percent of students scoring at or above the 50th percentile:
Combined Population 91 tested - 60.4%
African American 12 tested - 50%
Hispanic 18 tested - 44.4%
Caucasian 57 tested - 66.7%
Economically Disabled 41 tested - 39%
LEP 18 tested - 38.9%
Students with Disabilities 12 tested - 41.7%

Fourth Grade - 93 tested
Percent of students scoring at or above the 50th percentile:
Combined Population 93 tested - 73.1%
African American 16 tested - 75%
Hispanic 11 tested - 27.3%
Caucasian 61 tested - 83.6%
Economically Disabled 32 tested - 53.1%
LEP 15 tested - 33.3%
Students with Disabilities Fewer than 10 tested

Fifth Grade - 82 tested
Percent of students scoring at or above the 50th percentile:
Combined Population 82 tested - 74.4%
African American 16 tested - 62.5%
Hispanic fewer than 10 tested
Caucasian 54 tested - 79.6%
Economically Disabled 30 tested - 46.7%
LEP fewer than 10 tested
Students with Disabilities fewer than 10 tested

BENCHMARK - On the 2008 Third Grade Benchmark 84 students were tested
and of those tested:
73.8% of Combined Students scored at, or above, Proficient in Literacy.  
Of 84 tested, 73.8% Combined Students scored at, or above, Proficient; 
Of 12 tested, 66.7% of African American Students scored at, or above,
Proficient; 
Of 15 tested, 60% of the Hispanic Students scored at, or above,
Proficient; 
Of 53 tested, 79.2% of Caucasian Students scored at, or above, Proficient;

Of 35 tested, 57.1% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;	
Of 16 tested,  56.3% of LEP Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
Of 12 tested, 41.7% of Students with Disabilities 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
and open response questions are reading content and literary passages.

The lowest identified areas for the economically disadvantaged 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 and open response questions are open response content passages, and
open response literary passages.

The lowest identified areas for the 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 and open
response questions are the open response literary passages, open response
content passage, and multiple choice content passages.

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 and
open response questions are the open response literary passages and open
response content passages.

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 and open
response questions is open response content passages.

On the 2008 Fourth Grade Benchmark 93 students were tested and of
those tested:


75.3% of Combined Students scored at, or above, Proficient in Literacy;
15 tested, 73.3% of African American Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
10 tested 50% of Hispanic Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
63 tested, 82.5% of Caucasian Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
31 tested, 51.6% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
14 tested 35.7% of LEP Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
Fewer than 10 Students with Disabilities was tested.

	    

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 and open response questions are the open response content passages
and multiple choice practical passages.

The lowest identified areas for the economically disadvantaged
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 and open response questions are the open response
content passages and multiple choice practical passages.

The lowest identified areas for the 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 and open
response questions are the open response literary passages, open response
and multiple choice content passage, multiple choice practical passages,
multiple choice literary passages, and open response practical passages.

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
and open response questions are the open response content passages and
multiple choice practical passages.

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 open
response questions are the open response content passages and multiple
choice practical passages.

On the 2008 Fifth Grade Benchmark 81 students were tested and of
those tested:
77.8% of Combined Students scored at, or above, Proficient in Literacy;
16 tested, 56.3% of African American Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
54 tested, 88.9% of Caucasian Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
27 tested, 51.9% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
Fewer than 10 Hispanic students, LEP Students with Disabilities were
tested.
		

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 and open response questions are the open response literary
passages, open response content passages.

The lowest identified areas for the economically disadvantaged
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 and open response questions are the open response
literary passages, open response content passages, and open response
practical passages.

The lowest identified areas for the 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 and open
response questions are the open response and multiple choice literary
passages, open response and multiple choice practical passages.

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
and open response questions are the open response literary passages and
open response content passages.

The lowest identified areas for the Caucasian students 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 and
open response questions is the open response content passages.
On the 2007 Third Grade Benchmark 93 students were tested and of
those tested:
73.1% of Combined Students scored at, or above, Proficient; 
53.3% of African American Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
50.0% of Hispanic Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
80.0% of Caucasian Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
65.7% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
63.6% of LEP Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
80.0% of Students with Disabilities 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
and open response questions are reading content and literary passages.

The lowest identified areas for the economically disadvantaged 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 and open response questions are open response content passages, and
open response practical passages.

The lowest identified areas for the 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 and open
response questions are the open response literary passages, open response
content passage, and open response practical passages.

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 and
open response questions are the open response literary passages, multiple
choice and open response content passages and open response practical
passages.

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 and open
response questions is open response content passages.

On the 2007 Fourth Grade Benchmark 81 students were tested and of
those tested:


69.1% of Combined Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
40.0% of African American Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
80.0% of Hispanic Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
75.4% of Caucasian Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
50.0% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
87.5% of LEP Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
40.0% of Students with Disabilities scored at, or above, Proficient;

	    

The lowest identified areas for the Combined Population Students in
the five writing domains are multiple choice writing, content and style.
The lowest identified areas in the analysis of the three types of literacy
passages in multiple choice and open response questions are the open
response literary passages, multiple choice and open response content
passages.

The lowest identified areas for the economically disadvantaged
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 and open response questions are the open response
literary passages, multiple choice and open response content passages.

The lowest identified areas for the 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 and open
response questions are the open response literary passages, open response
and multiple choice content passage, and open response and multiple choice
practical passages and the multiple choice writing.

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
and open response questions are the open response literary passages and
multiple choice and open response content passages.

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 and
open response questions are the open response literary passages, multiple
choice and open response content passages, and multiple choice writing.

On the 2007 Fifth Grade Benchmark 86 students were tested and of
those tested:
51.1% of Combined Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
27.2% of African American Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
12.5% of Hispanic Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
65.4% of Caucasian Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
26.4% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
12.5% of LEP Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
33.3% of Students with Disabilities 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 and open response questions are the open response literary
passages, open response content passages and open response practical
passage.

The lowest identified areas for the economically disadvantaged
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 and open response questions are the open response
literary passages, open response content passages, and open response
practical passages.

The lowest identified areas for the 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 and open
response questions are the open response and multiple choice literary
passages, open response and multiple choice content passages, and open
response and multiple choice practical passages.

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
and open response questions are the open response literary passages,
multiple choice and open response content passages and the multiple choice
writing.

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 and
open response questions are the open response content passages, and open
response practical passages.


Grade K-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 89 Students were tested and 69% scored above the 50th
percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses in
vocabulary. 
The weakest areas for the Subpopulation of Free and Reduced population are
Vocabulary at 38% and Listening at 47%.
The weakest areas for the Subpopulation of African American students are
Listening at 52% and Language at 53%.

Grade 1-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 86 Students were tested and 68% scored above the 50th
percentile in reading and 69% scored above the 50th percentile in
language.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses in
vocabulary. 
The weakest area for the Subpopulation of Free and Reduced population is
Vocabulary at 35%.
The weakest area for the Subpopulation of African American students is
Vocabulary at 37%.

Grade 2-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 97 Students were tested and 68% scored above the 50th
percentile in reading and 74% scored above the 50th percentile in
language.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses in
word analysis. 
The weakest areas for the Subpopulation of Free and Reduced population are
Reading Comprehension and Vocabulary at 47% each.
The weakest area for the Subpopulation of African American students is
Comprehension (54%).

Grade 3-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 91 Students were tested and 71% scored above the 50th
percentile in reading and 73% scored above the 50th percentile in
language.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses in
vocabulary and punctuation. 
The weakest areas for the Subpopulation of Free and Reduced population are
Punctuation (42%), Usage and Expression (44%).
The weakest areas for the Subpopulation of African American students are
Reading Comprehension (48%), Listening (46%), Punctuation (41%).

Grade 4-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 82 Students were tested and 70% scored above the 50th
percentile in reading and 71% scored above the 50th percentile in
language.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses in
vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation. 
The weakest area for the Subpopulation of Free and Reduced population is
Vocabulary (44%).
The weakest area for the Subpopulation of African American students is
Vocabulary (51%).

Grade 5-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 87 Students were tested and 62% scored above the 50th
percentile in reading and 63% scored above the 50th percentile in
language.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses in
spelling. 
The weakest areas for the Subpopulation of Free and Reduced population are
Vocabulary (47%) and Reading Comprehension (45%).
The weakest areas for the Subpopulation of African American students are
Reading (46%) and Spelling (48%).
Attendance Rate: In 2009, the attendance rate for the building was
95.94%. In 2008, the attendance rate for the building was 95%. In 2007,
the attendance rate for the building was 95.54%.

Goal

All students will improve in reading comprehension with additional attention to Literary and Content reading passages.

Benchmark

The Combined Population and each subgroup is expected to meet the AYP target calculated by the ADE and included in the NCLB Accountability Workbook. In 2009, Holcomb students did NOT meet the AMO target of 71.2% Proficient or Advanced and has been notified by the ADE of their ALERT status. The reason for this status in Literacy is the African American sub population. All sub populations should be at 71.2% proficient or advanced. Our African American group was only at 52.6%

Intervention: Provide teachers with quality professional development in the reading process and data analysis that will provide with strategies and skills to help promote and enhance learning opportunities for students.

Scientific Based Research: Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development Joellen Killion ,2002, www.nsdc.org "Assessing Impact of Professional Development on Teaching and STudents", Seth Aldrich, Ph.D, 2004, www.programevaluation.org; Professional Development Design: 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

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: In compliance with ACT 83, the following professional development will be provided: All teachers will have the opportunity to participate in the school and district professional development plan. A collaborative faculty district/building needs assessment will be completed each year based on needs identified through test data. Holcomb has a professional development committee which helps teachers with the financial needs of approved PD. All Holcomb teachers and para-pros are highly qualified. This money will be used to pay for substitute salaries and benefits.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Tracy Mulvenon

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

Administrative Staff
District Staff
Teachers
Title Teachers

Title I - Employee Salaries:	$500.00
Title I - Employee Benefits:	$130.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$630

COLLABORATION: Teachers are provided with weekly instructional meeting time during the course of the day to plan for the implementation of best practices chosen to help improve student achievement at each student's readiness level. They will evaluate horizontal and vertical alignment with district curriculum and state frameworks.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Tracy Mulvenon

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

NEEDS ASSESSMENT: We formed ACSIP Leadership Teams and analyzed the test scores from the 2009 administration of the 3-5th grade Augmented Benchmark, MAT8 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 the needs of all our populations. Based on our Data Analysis we came to the conclusion that the following areas reflect our greatest need within the Literacy Priority: OPEN RESPONSE IN BOTH THE LITERARY PASSAGES and the CONTENT 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 at least quarterly 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 folders.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Tracy Mulvenon

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

Performance Assessments
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

INVOLVE TEACHERS IN DECISION MAKING: We involve teachers in the decision making process and staff development by holding frequent meetings where we obtain feedback and ask for guidance in policy making. Our teachers meet for the purpose of engaging in data analysis over and above the state requirement. We continually seek to support an educational climate whereby all our staff feels they have a voice in how we shape the instructional program. Use subs to give teachers release time to attend professional development for RTI.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Tracy Mulvenon

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/20/2010

Administrative Staff
District Staff
Teachers

Title I - Employee Salaries:	$1000.00
Title I - Employee Benefits:	$260.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$1260

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. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. During the 2009-20010 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. In addition, we will implement Target Assessments aligned with state standards and developed by the NWAESC.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Janice Herring

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP: Regular professional development days will be conducted at each grade level, with the Response to Intervention team and non-classroom personnel. These meetings will focus on building capacity within our school to address the academic needs of all students particularly those who are not meeting their trajectory of growth. Each meeting agenda will include the following Core Principles: A. The selection, and continuous evaluation, of research-based, scientifically validated, Interventions designed to improve our ability to improve student performance on the Literacy portion of all Assessments. B. The ongoing monitoring of student progress in order to influence classroom instruction. C. The utilization of Formative and Summative Assessment Data to make decisions that impact: Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. D. Coordination of resources in order to better meet the needs of all students. Written minutes of each meeting, along with a sign-in sheet, will be kept and made available upon request. The intent is that each Intervention, and Action, is carefully monitoredthrough the collection of Formative and Summative Data.so that those strategies that prove ineffective can be revised, or abandoned. Our ACSIP Plan will be revised each spring, and fall, in order to keep it timely and valid in our efforts to improve teaching and learning. Teachers will receive release time for professional development training on using and analyzing data to be used in determining instructional and curriculum adjustments. Computers will be purchased specifically for data analysis used to track student achievement. This purchase is supplemental in nature, over and above the state and federal requirement of data analysis.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Sonya Zimmer

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

Title II-A - Employee Salaries:	$5625.00
Title II-A - Employee Benefits:	$1875.00
Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$3000.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$10500

Teachers will participate in two book studies during the 2009-10 school year. One book will be Better Learning Through Structured Teaching. The second will be a small group study of a book of the teacher's choosing from the Responsive Classroom materials.

Janice Herring

Start: 10/01/2009
End: 06/06/2010

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$952.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$952

Total Budget:

$13342

Intervention: Parent Involvement Plan

Scientific Based Research: A new wave of evidence. The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Henderson, A., & Mapp, K., 2002: National Center for Family & Community Connections with Schools, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, http://www.sedl.org/connections/)

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

PARENT FACILITATOR: The building principal will designate one certified staff member to increase awareness of trainings offered in our community for staff and parents and also undertake efforts to ensure that parental participation is recognized as an asset to the school. Title I funds will be used to supplement efforts over and above Act 307 and 397. Effectiveness will be documented by results of parental involvement survey.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Jody Robertson

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

District Staff

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$630.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$630

Administrators and highly qualified teachers will receive at least 3hrs/2hrs training respectively to enhance understanding of effective parental involvement strategies. Home/school folders will be purchased to foster two way communication. In addition to requirements already funded with local monies, materials and supplies will be purchased throughout the year to make available additional opportunities for student learning.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Professional Development

Gina Broyles

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

District Staff

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$100.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$100

Administrators will receive training to enhance understanding of effective parent involvement strategies and the importance of setting expectations and creating a climate conducive to parental participation. This allocation will pay for substitute teachers.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Professional Development

Janice Herring

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

District Staff

Title I - Employee Salaries:	$160.00
Title I - Employee Benefits:	$40.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$200

INFORMATIONAL PACKETS: Parents and highly qualified teachers will collaborate to develop and distribute Informational Packets for each family that include: *Parental Involvement/Community Connection Plan *School Calendar *A School-Parent Compact *District Handbook Envelopes will be purchased. This is supplemental in nature to the requirements for parental involvement. Refreshments will be supplied for this meeting.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Jody Robertson

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

Community Leaders
District Staff
Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$200.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$200

PARENT INVOLVEMENT MEETINGS: All parents will be invited to a Back to School Information Night to welcome parents and students to our school and to share expectations for the school year. The school's PROCESS FOR RESOLVING PARENTAL CONCERNS will be discussed at this meeting. Descriptions and explanations of the curriculum as well as school and classroom procedures will be discussed during Information Night. An annual meeting will be held. Materials and Supplies, such as refreshments for visitors will be purchased.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Jody Robertson

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

Administrative Staff
District Staff
Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$200.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$200

In compliance with act 307, administrators, highly qualified teachers, and parents will DEVELOP A VOLUNTEER RESOURCE BOOK including: a parent interest survey, an option for parents to designate how frequently they would participate in the program, and include opportunities for parents to assist from home.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Jody Robertson

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

District Staff


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Open forums will be held twice per year to discuss procedures, testing data, school improvements, and other topics declared needed by the Parent Committee. Materials will be purchased such as markers, poster board, and other materials so that parents have an opportunity to participate using a "hands on" strategy.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Jody Robertson

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

Administrative Staff
District Staff
Teachers
Title Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$200.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$200

The district will designate two PARENT/TEACHER CONFERENCES each school year. Brochures detailing child development information at a specific grade level will be purchased to give to parents.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Jason Edwards

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

District Staff

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$600.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$600

The school will have a designated area to be used as the Parent Center. Parenting books, magazines and other informative materials regarding responsible parenting, computers and/or laptops will be available. 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 designated by each building. In addition to requirements already funded with local monies, materials and supplies will be purchased throughout the year to make available additional opportunities for parent involvement. We will Provide instruction to a parent on how to incorporate developmentally appropriate learning activities in the home environment. We will engage in other activities determined by the school to help a parent assist in his or her child's learning.
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Jody Robertson

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

Computers
District Staff


ACTION BUDGET:	$

To increase awareness and appreciation for the diverse cultures we will host a yearly multicultural event and provide student learning opportunities throughout the year. Materials will be purchased to enhance the programs. In addition to requirements already funded with local monies, materials and supplies will be purchased throughout the year to make available additional opportunities for student learning.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Tracy Mulvenon

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

Community Leaders
Computers
School Library
Teachers
Teaching Aids
Title Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$600.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$600

In order to take advantage of community resources our school will enable the formation of a PARENT TEACHER ASSOCIATION, OR ORGANIZATION that will foster parental and community involvement within the school. Registration fees will be paid to allow parents to attend parent training. This is supplemental in nature, over and above the simple PTA requirement. In addition to requirements already funded with local monies, fees will be paid.
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Jody Robertson, Parent Facilitator

Start: 08/20/2009
End: 06/20/2010

Title I - Purchased Services:	$500.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$500

Janice Herring

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$3230

Intervention: Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA)

Scientific Based Research: Effective Literacy; Calkins, L., The Art of Teaching Writing, 1994; McCarrier, A., Pinnell, G. S., and Fountas, I., Interactive Writing, 2000; Routman, R., Conversations,2000

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS AND PARA PROS: Employ the following staff members: a full time 1.0 FTE highly qualified Certified Title I reading and math teacher, and four highly-qualified part time .5 FTE instructional aides. Supplemental instructional materials will be purchased to fully implement comprehensive literacy.
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Tracy Mulvenon

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

Title Teachers

Title I - Employee Salaries:	$92287.00
Title I - Employee Benefits:	$23993.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$116280

Purchase well-reviewed trade books for the library to support implementation of ELLA and Effective Literacy strategies. Purchase levelized guided reading books. In addition to requirements already funded with local monies, materials and supplies will be purchased throughout the year to make available additional opportunities for student learning.
Action Type: Alignment

Debbie Santeford

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

Central Office
District Staff
School Library
Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$4500.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$4500

HIGHLY QUALIFIED: Holcomb will participate in the district's recruiting efforts to attract highly qualified teachers. Classroom teachers, Title I, and instructional assistants will continue to receive staff development training. Training will provide teachers with a method of instructions for students including all sub-populations and homeless. The cost of the training will be supplemented and include travel cost, food, lodging, substitutes, stipends, and registration.
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Brooke Parker

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

District Staff


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Classroom, Special Education, Title 1, and ESL teachers, and the Response to Intervention Team will collaborate to implement differentiated strategies and activities to improve literacy skills. As a means to use differentiated instructions in the classrooms and in small groups, the school will use a variety of instructional materials to enhance the learning of all students. In addition to requirements already funded with local monies, materials and supplies will be purchased throughout the year to make available additional opportunities for student learning.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Special Education
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Charla Myers

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

Computers
District Staff
School Library
Teachers
Teaching Aids
Title Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$3469.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$3469

Use formative evaluations such as Observation Survey, DIBELS, Developmental Reading Assessments, classroom assessments, running records as well as summative standardized tests, to evaluate student progress and plan instruction for students in their Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky).
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Anita Ulrich

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

District Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Kindergarten teachers and Special Education staff will collaborate with area preschools to share information about kindergarten transitions. Instructional Aides will be available for each kindergarten classroom teacher. Title 1 and Sp. Ed. staff will consult with outside agencies (Ozark Guidance Center, Headstart, etc.).
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Special Education

Nadean Yoakum

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

Administrative Staff
Central Office
District Staff
Outside Consultants
School Library
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

COORDINATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMS: Implement ELLA and Effective Literacy, Lit. Lab, and Word Jouneys, as well as computer programs such as RAZ Kids and Read 180 for a balanced-literacy skills and strategies in K-5 classrooms. In addition to requirements already funded with local monies, guided reading books and other supplies for implementation will be purchased throughout the year to make available additional opportunities for student learning.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Paula Aldama

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

Administrative Staff
Central Office
District Staff
Teachers
Title Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$2000.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$2000

REFORM STRATEGIES: Teachers will have the opportunity to attend state, regional and local professional development conferences to learn about effective teaching strategies in regard to math and literacy student achievement. The cost will be supplemented and include travel, lodging, and substitutes. The conferences to be attended are great expectations, character counts, and the responsive classroom.
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Tammy Bradley

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

District Staff
Teachers
Title Teachers

Title I - Purchased Services:	$2000.00
Title I - Employee Salaries:	$750.00
Title I - Employee Benefits:	$250.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$3000

Inform parents of ELLA, Lit. Lab, Word Journeys, and Effective Literacy strategies for reading and writing. The purchase of materials for students to use at home will be supplemented.
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Gail Lumpkin

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

Administrative Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-09 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. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. 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. In addition, we will implement Target Assessments aligned with state standards and developed by the NWAESC.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Janice Herring

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$129249

Intervention: Reading Across the Curriculum

Scientific Based Research: Billmeyer, R. and Barton, M. L., Teaching Reading in the Content Areas, 1999; Routman, R., Conversations,2000

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

POINT IN TIME REMEDIATION: Through Response to Intervention, IRI/AIPs will be developed for identified students who will be offered skill enhancement sessions. These sessions will include small group remediation and instruction based on student needs. Parents will be notified of students' participation in the skills enhancement sessions. Holcomb will use the following summative assessments to evaluate student progress in literacy: QUALLS & MAT-8 (Kindergarten), SAT-10 (grade 1) and Benchmark Exam (grades 3, 4, and 5). Materials will be purchased according to recommendations by the staff to the RTI team for further materials that will enhance Team time (intervention and enrichment.)
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Jennifer Reich

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

Performance Assessments
Teachers
Title Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$1000.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$1000

Classroom, special education, Title I, and ESL teachers will collaborate to implement differentiated strategies for at-risk students to improve reading skills. Substitutes will be provided to provide released time for teachers during the school year for data reviews and intervention planning. We will provide additional/supplemental skill reinforcements through our grade level team times.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Special Education

Cindy Sutton

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

Administrative Staff
Computers
Performance Assessments
School Library
Teachers
Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Use technology to access information for content learning, develop reading skills, and publish student work. Additional tech. items such as additional IPODS will be purchased.
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Special Education
Action Type: Technology Inclusion
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Carol Wilson

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

Computers
District Staff
Public Library
School Library
Teaching Aids

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$1000.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$1000

Communicate reading expectations and student progress in reading to parents through classroom assignment sheets, parent-teacher conferences, graded work, progress reports, report cards, newsletters, and Web access to the curriculum.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Melanie Johnson

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

Administrative Staff
Central Office
Performance Assessments
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Students will use performance assessments and open-ended (constructed) responses with rubrics to assess and revise their own work. They will demonstrate proficiency by responding in writing to literary, practical and content passages by finding the main idea, interpreting, analyzing, drawing conclusions, and providing examples and evidence.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Carol Wilson

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

Administrative Staff
Central Office
District Staff
Performance Assessments
School Library
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Implement research-based reading strategies and supplemental materials according to the district curriculum and the identified needs of students. Purchase of supplemental resources like books, magazines and instructional consumables and other supplies for implementation. Educational games and educational software will be purchased.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Equity

Pam Andersen

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

Administrative Staff
District Staff
Performance Assessments
Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$8470.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$8470

Teachers will use research based supplemental reading programs. Materials will be purchased such as Text Talk.
Action Type: Collaboration

Christy Dugger

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

Administrative Staff
Computers
Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$3000.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$3000

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. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. 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. In addition, we will implement Target Assessments aligned with state standards and developed by the NWAESC.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Janice Herring

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

LITERACY NIGHT - Holcomb will host a literacy night in the spring for families to experience and learn various literacy strategies.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Beth Saferite

Start: 03/01/2010
End: 05/30/2010

Public Library
School Library

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$1000.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$1000

Teachers will address student needs through "Team Time", a period during the day for intervention or remediation of reading skills and/or strategies. Additional materials will be purchased by ESL, Gifted and Talented, Counselor, Art, Music, and PE for intervention and remediation. Cross-curricular literacy and reading strategies will be implemented by these non-core personnel.
Action Type: AIP/IRI

Tracy Mulvenon

Start: 08/19/2009
End: 05/30/2009

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$2000.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$2000

Total Budget:

$16470

Goal

All students will improve written expression with additional attention to Content, Style, Open Response Passages, and Practical Passage writing domains.

Benchmark

Intervention: Writing Across the Curriculum

Scientific Based Research: Calkins, L., The Art of Teaching Writing,1994; Graves, D., A Fresh Look at Writing, 1994; Routman, R., Conversations; Wiggins, G., Understanding by Design, 1998

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Communicate to parents writing expectations and student progress through sharing of graded work using the Arkansas Scoring Guide, teacher made rubrics, and Web access to the curriculum. Students will use formative evaluations such as rubrics to assess and revise their own work.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Leslie Leach

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

Administrative Staff
Performance Assessments
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Participate in on-going professional development in writing; including training in programs such as Scott Foresman, Step Up to Writing, ELLA, Effective Literacy, Arkansas Scoring Rubrics, and the Northwest Arkansas Writing Project. Title funds will be used to pay for materials and supplies, such as notebooks, professional development books, etc...
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development

Debbye Elledge

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

Administrative Staff
Central Office
District Staff
Outside Consultants
Performance Assessments
Teachers
Title Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$300.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$300

Integrate instruction of writing strategies into every content area. The students will utilize writing journals to record their responses. Teachers will be trained and materials will be purchased for the training.
Action Type: Alignment

Shannon Raffaelli

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

Computers
Performance Assessments
School Library
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Substitutes will be supplemented/hired in order to provide release time for classroom teachers to review data and collaborate with special education, ESL, and Title 1, and encore teachers to meet on a quarterly basis to structure and implement differentiated strategies for students at risk for falling below grade level proficiency and/or special needs to improve writing skills.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Equity

Tracy Mulvenon

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

Administrative Staff
District Staff
Outside Consultants
Performance Assessments


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Provide students opportunities for independent and group library research projects that are integrated with classroom instruction. Use technology to access information, develop writing skills, and publish student work.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Deborah Santeford

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

Central Office
Computers
District Staff
Performance Assessments
School Library
Teachers
Title 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. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. 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. In addition, we will implement Target Assessments aligned with state standards and developed by the NWAESC. Teachers will participate in a day after the end of the year to review progress.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Janice Herring

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

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$500.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$500

Total Budget:

$800

Intervention: Benchmark Exam Practice/Preparation

Scientific Based Research: Reeves, Douglas, Making Standards Work, 1998

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Classroom teachers will conference with all students to discuss writing strategies to use on Benchmark practice questions.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Special Education

Tanika Anderson

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

Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

NEEDS ASSESSMENT: All teachers will meet to evaluate student test scores to determine progress made and focus skills for the school year. Students' performance will be used to guide changes to ACSIP plan.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Janice Herring

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

Central Office
Computers
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Student needs for formative Benchmark practice assessments will be determined by summative evaluations. The Response to Interventions team will work with teachers to implement needed strategies.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Special Education

Laura Moore

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

Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Benchmark practice will be used in all grade levels. This will involve writing grade level appropriate questions and/or utilizing the school's current constructive response resources.
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Title I Target Assistance

Tamara Post

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

District Staff
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Classroom, ESL, Special Education, and Title 1 teachers will instruct students how to assess writing using the Arkansas Writing Rubric. These teachers will receive training on how to best accomplish this instruction and how to score writing pieces using the Arkanasas Writing Rubric. This allocation will pay for substitute teachers salaries and benefits.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Special Education

Helen Eaton

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

Title Teachers

Title I - Employee Salaries:	$500.00
Title I - Employee Benefits:	$130.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$630

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. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. 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. In addition, we will implement Target Assessments aligned with state standards and developed by the NWAESC.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Janice Herring

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: We formed ACSIP Leadership Teams and analyzed the test scores from the 2009 administration of grades K-5 MAT-8, 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 the needs of all our populations. Based on our Data Analysis we came to the conclusion that the following areas reflect our greatest need within the literacy Priority: CONTENT AND STYLE, READING CONTENT, AND LITERARY 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 weekly 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 in our AIP, IRI, and ASSESSMENT folders.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Janice Herring

Start: 09/13/2009
End: 06/06/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$630

Intervention: Phonetic Connections (K-1)

Scientific Based Research: Adams, M., Foorman, B., Lundberg, I., Beeler, T. Phonemics Awareness in Young Children, 1998; Phonic connections, Benchmark Education Company, LLC, 2004.

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Holcomb Elementary School will utilize the Phonetic Connections Phonemic Awareness Program for phonological and phonemic awareness instruction by purchasing supplemental materials to update the program in meeting the current needs of the students.
Action Type: Alignment

Brooke Parker

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

Outside Consultants
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

All students will participate in explicit and systematic phonemic awareness instruction. This includes teacher explanation and modeling of all phonemic awareness skills, followed by guided practice and independent practice.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Christy Dugger

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

Teachers
Teaching Aids
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

The summative evaluation, QELI will be administered to all kindergarten students at the beginning of the year. The MAT-8 will be administered to kindergarten students and the SAT-10 summative evaluation will be administered to first grade students at the end-of-year to identify those students who are on track for reading success as well as those who may be at-risk for reading difficulties. Additional formative diagnostic assessments will be administered to those students shown to be at risk of reading failure. Progress will be monitored using formative evaluations such as classroom running records and the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS).
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Anita Ulrich

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

Administrative Staff
Central Office
Teachers
Teaching Aids
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Parents will be informed of student progress in phonemic awareness. Suggested activities will be provided to parents in newsletters, at conferences, during information nights, etc.
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Jason Edwards

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

Performance Assessments
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Students identified with reading difficulty will receive additional phonemic awareness instruction and intensive reading interventions in small groups. Teachers will develop an Intensive Reading Improvement Plan (IRI) that describes the intervention program. Parents or guardians will be notified in writing when their child has been identified with a substantial reading deficiency. Progress will be monitored bi-weekly until expectation is met and maintained. This effort is above and beyond simply providing an IRI as mandated by the state.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Shannon Raffaelli

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

Performance Assessments
Teachers
Teaching Aids
Title Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$280.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$280

Holcomb Elementary School expects all students to segment and blend a minimum of 3 phonemes by the end of Kindergarten and 4 phonemes by the end of first grade. The program will be evaluated by assessing the number of students meeting the end of year benchmarks.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Laura Moore

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

District Staff
Performance Assessments
Teachers
Teaching Aids
Title 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. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. 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. In addition, we will implement Target Assessments aligned with state standards and developed by the NWAESC.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Janice Herring

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$280

Intervention: Word Study Instruction (2-5)

Scientific Based Research: National Reading Panel Report (2000); Ganske, K. Word Journeys (2000).

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Each grade level will provide approximately 15 minutes each day of explicit instruction in word study. Students identified on assessments or class performance as not meeting proficiency will receive additional word study instruction in small groups. Progress will be monitored according to the feature continuum in Word Journeys (2000). Card Stock and additional colored paper will be purchased.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Tracy Mulvenon

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

Administrative Staff
Central Office
District Staff
Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$300.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$300

Teachers will participate in comprehensive literacy training such as ELLA, Effective literacy or Literacy Lab to learn about Word Journeys. Supplemental training materials and supplies will be purchased for teachers that support the training of ELLA, Effective Literacy and Literacy Lab to support the implementation of literacy programs.
Action Type: Professional Development

Tracy Mulvenon

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

Administrative Staff
District Staff
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Parents will be informed of student progress in word study. Suggested activities will be provided to parents through newsletters and teacher web sites. Spelling lists will be provided for practice at home on a weekly basis. Additional paper of various sizes will be purchased.
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Helen Eaton

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

Administrative Staff
District Staff
Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$500.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$500

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. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. 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. In addition, we will implement Target Assessments aligned with state standards and developed by the NWAESC.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Janice Herring

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$800

Intervention: Holcomb Elementary School uses the Comprehensive Literacy approach for comprehension and fluency instruction for students.

Scientific Based Research: National Reading Panel Report (2000); Rasinski, T., The Fluent Reader (2003); Goudvis, A. & Harvey, S., Strategies That Work (2000).

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

The fluency instruction used will be aligned with the ELLA Framework standard 11. Teachers will identify the benchmarks of grades K-5 and monitor progress of at-risk students. Additional formative diagnostic assessments will be administered to those students shown to be at-risk of reading failure. Progress will be monitored until the student reaches expected levels of performance.
Action Type: Alignment

Tracy Mulvenon

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

Administrative Staff
Central Office
District Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Teachers will participate in Comprehensive Literacy training such as ELLA, Effective Literacy and/or Literacy Lab to learn about fluency instruction. Training costs will be supplemented and reflect travel expenses, substitutes pay, stipends, and registration costs.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development

Tracy Mulvenon

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

Administrative Staff
Teachers
Title Teachers

Title I - Purchased Services:	$3000.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$3000

Parents will be informed of student progress in fluency. Suggested activities will be provided to parents through newsletters, conferences, and informational nights.
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Ashley Jones

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

Administrative Staff
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Teaching staff will purchase new supplemental literacy sets and other supplemental reading materials for students' use in classroom libraries.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Equity

Tracy Mulvenon

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

Administrative Staff
School Library
Teachers
Title Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$500.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$500

Fourth and Fifth grade Language Arts teachers will implement reading workshop. Additional shelving and/or materials will be purchased to implement this program.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development

Melody Johnson

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

Administrative Staff
Outside Consultants
Public Library
School Library
Teachers
Title Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$800.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$800

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. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. 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. In addition, we will implement Target Assessments aligned with state standards and developed by the NWAESC.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Janice Herring

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$4300

Intervention: Character Development

Scientific Based Research: Williams & Taylor, Leading With Character to Improve Student Achievement, 2004; Berkowitz, W. & Bier, M.C.(2004), Research Based Character Education, ANNALS, APSS, 591,

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Students will be recognized daily for participation with "Super Student" awards, weekly in the "Good Apple" program, and in monthly character assemblies. These assemblies are educationally motivational in nature and supplemental to the district character education program.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Rhonda Crouch

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

Computers
Teachers
Title Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$1000.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$1000

Teachers will participate in character education training such as Great Expectations, Character Counts, and/or Responsive Classroom. This money will be used for registration fees for the aforementioned conferences.
Action Type: Professional Development

Tracy Mulvenon

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

Administrative Staff
Outside Consultants
Teachers
Title Teachers

Title II-A - Purchased Services:	$3000.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$3000

Teachers will implement strategies learned in last year's study of Marcia Tate books and materials. They will implement the 20 Brain Compatable Strategies in their classrooms.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development

Charla Myers

Start: 08/20/2009
End: 06/20/2010

Administrative Staff
Teachers
Title Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$1800.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$1800

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. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. 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. In addition, we will implement Target Assessments aligned with state standards and developed by the NWAESC.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Janice Herring

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$5800

Priority 2:

Improving Mathematics

Supporting Data:

MAT-8 2009 Kindergarten - 108 students were tested. Percent of students scoring advanced or above: Combined Population 108 tested - 88% African American 14 tested - 79% Economically Disabled 40 tested - 48% LEP 16 tested - 56% Disabilities less than 10 tested Caucasians 73 tested - 95% SAT-10 2009 Grade 1 Percent of students scoring at or above the 50th percentile: Combined Population 104 tested - 73% Math Economically Disadvantaged - 54% Math LEP - 27% Math Disabilities fewer than 10 tested Grade 2 Percent of students scoring at or above the 50th percentile: Combined Population 95 tested - 67.3% Math Economically Disadvantaged 38 tested - 36.8% Math LEP 13 tested - 41.6% Math Disabilities 10 tested - 70% Math Grade 3 Percent of students scoring at or above the 50th percentile: Combined Population 94 tested - 65.1% Math Economically Disadvantaged 36 tested - 40.3% Math LEP 11 tested - 18.6% Math Disabilities 10 tested - 58.9% Math African American 22 tested - 50% Math Caucasian - 58 tested - 75.86% Math Grade 4 Percent of students scoring at or above the 50th percentile: Combined Population 98 tested - 80.6% Math Economically Disadvantaged 43 tested - 71.3% Math LEP 17 tested - 77.5% Math Disabilities 12 tested - 49.6% Math African American 12 tested - 75% Math Caucasian - 60 tested - 83.33% Math Grade 5 Percent of students scoring at or above the 50th percentile: Combined Population 89 tested - 77.5% Math Economically Disadvantaged 34 tested - 58.9% Math LEP 12 tested - 49.6% Math Disabilities less than 10 tested African American 17 tested - 47% Math Caucasian - 59 tested - 89.83% Math On the 2009 Third Grade Benchmark 91 students were tested and of those tested: Students who scored at, or above, Proficient in Literacy on the Benchmark Exam: Combined Population 91 tested - 84% African American 16 tested - 75% LEP 18 tested - 72% Economically Disadvantaged 41 tested - 71% Disabilities 12 tested - 67% On the 2009 Fourth Grade Benchmark 93 students were tested and of those tested: Students who scored at, or above, Proficient in Literacy on the Benchmark Exam: Combined Population 93 tested - 80% African American 16 tested - 75% LEP 15 tested - 47% Economically Disadvantaged 32 tested - 59% Disabilities less than 10 tested. On the 2009 Fifth Grade Benchmark 82 students were tested and of those tested: Students who scored at, or above, Proficient in Literacy on the Benchmark Exam: Combined Population 82 tested - 74% African American 17 tested - 53% LEP less than 10 were tested Economically Disadvantaged 30 tested - 50% Disabilities less than 10 were tested.

NRT Fall 2008 MAT-8 Grade 1 - 112 students were tested: Percent of students scoring at or above the 50th percentile: Combined Population 112 tested - 67% African American 19 tested - 53% Hispanic 14 tested - 61% Caucasian 59 tested - 85% Economically Disabled 33 tested - 27% LEP 18 tested - 6% Fewer than 10 students with Disabilities were tested. NRT Spring 2008 SAT10 First Grade - 104 students were tested: Percent of students scoring at or above the 50th percentile Combined Population 104 tested - 56.7% African American 20 tested - 55% Hispanic 18 tested - 16.7% Caucasian 59 tested - 74.6% Economically Disabled 46 tested - 32.6% LEP 18 tested - 5.6% Fewer than 10 students with Disabilities were tested. Second Grade - 95 students tested Percent of students scoring at or above the 50th percentile: Combined Population 95 tested - 64.2% African American 22 tested - 45.5% Hispanic 11 tested - 54.5% Caucasian 56 tested - 73.2% Economically Disabled 38 tested - 34.2% LEP 12 tested - 33.3% Students with Disabilities 10 tested - 60% Third Grade - 91 students tested Percent of students scoring at or above the 50th percentile: Combined Population 91 tested - 71.4% African American 12 tested - 75% Hispanic 18 tested - 66.7% Caucasian 57 tested - 71.9% Economically Disabled 41 tested - 58.5% LEP 18 tested - 61.1% Students with Disabilities 12 tested - 50% Fourth Grade - 93 tested Percent of students scoring at or above the 50th percentile: Combined Population 93 tested - 75.3% African American 16 tested - 68.8% Hispanic 11 tested - 54.5% Caucasian 61 tested - 83.6% Economically Disabled 32 tested - 59.4% LEP 15 tested - 46.7% Students with Disabilities Fewer than 10 tested Fifth Grade - 82 tested Percent of students scoring at or above the 50th percentile: Combined Population 82 tested - 72% African American 16 tested - 43.8% Hispanic fewer than 10 tested Caucasian 54 tested - 79.6% Economically Disabled 30 tested - 46.7% LEP fewer than 10 tested Students with Disabilities fewer than 10 tested

2008 Benchmark Exam 
Third Grade 84 students were tested:
86.9% of Combined Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
12 tested, 75% of African American Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
15tested, 86.7% of Hispanic Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
53 tested, 90.6% of Caucasian Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
35 tested, 77.1% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
16 tested, 81.3% of LEP Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
12 tested, 75% of Students with Disabilities scored at, or above,
Proficient;

 On the 2008 Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Exam 93 students were
tested: 
79.6% of Combined Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
15 tested, 73.3% of African American Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
10 tested, 50% of Hispanic Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
63 tested, 88.9% of Caucasian Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
31 tested, 58.1% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
14 tested, 42.9% of LEP Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
Fewer than 10 Students within the subpopulation of Students with
Disabilities was tested.

 

On the 2008 Grade 5 Mathematics Benchmark Exam 81 students were
tested:
76.5% of Combined Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
16 tested, 50% of African American Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
54 tested, 83.3% of Caucasian Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
27 tested, 55.6% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students scored at, or above,
Proficient;
Fewer than 10 Students within the subpopulations of Students with
Disabilities, Hispanic, and LEP were tested.

 	      

On the 2007 Grade 3 Mathematics Benchmark Exam 93 students were
tested:
84.9% of Combined Students 
66.6% of African American Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
50.0% of Hispanic Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
93.8% of Caucasian Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
76.3% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
63.6% of LEP Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
100.0% of Students with Disabilities 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 measurement and data analysis/probability. The lowest
identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the
five math strands, revealed weaknesses in geometry measurement and data
analysis/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 measurement and data analysis/probability. The
lowest identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions,
in the five math strands, revealed weaknesses in algebra, geometry,
measurement and data analysis/probability.

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 data analysis/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/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 measurement and data analysis/probability. The lowest
identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the
five math strands, revealed weaknesses in numerical operations, geometry,
measurement and data analysis/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 measurement and data analysis/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/probability.


On the 2007 Grade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Exam 81 students were
tested: 
80.2% of Combined Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
46.6% of African American Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
80.0% of Hispanic Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
87.7% of Caucasian Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
66.6% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
87.5% of LEP Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
60.0% of Students with Disabilities 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 measurement and data analysis/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/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 measurement and data analysis/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/probability.

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 data analysis/probability. The
lowest identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions,
in the five math strands, revealed weaknesses in numerical operations,
algebra, measurement and data analysis/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 measurement and data analysis/probability. The lowest
identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the
five math strands, revealed weaknesses in algebra, measurement and data
analysis/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 data analysis/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/probability.


On the 2007 Grade 5 Mathematics Benchmark Exam 86 students were
tested:
63.9% of Combined Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
40.9% of African American Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
37.5% of Hispanic Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
76.3% of Caucasian Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
47.0% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
37.5% of LEP Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
66.6% of Students with Disabilities 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 numeric operations and data analysis/probability. The lowest
identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the
five math strands, revealed weaknesses in geometry, numeric operations and
data analysis/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 numeric operations, algebra, geometry, and data
analysis/probability. The lowest identified area in the analysis of the
multiple choice questions, in the five math strands, revealed weaknesses
in numeric operations, algebra, geometry, measurement and data
analysis/probability.

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 numeric operations, algebra, geometry, and data
analysis/probability. The lowest identified area in the analysis of the
multiple choice questions, in the five math strands, revealed weaknesses
in numeric operations, algebra, geometry, measurement and data
analysis/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 numeric operations and data analysis/probability. The lowest
identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the
five math strands, revealed weaknesses in numeric operations, algebra,
geometry, measurement, and data analysis/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 numeric operations and data analysis/probability. The lowest identified
area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the five math
strands, revealed weaknesses in numeric operations, geometry, and data
analysis/probability.

On the 2007 IOWA scores:
Kindergarten Combined population and subpopulations- 70% scored average or
above in Math
Subpopulation of Free and Reduced population scored 59%
The Subpopulation of African American students scored 60%.
First Grade - 70% scored average or above in Math
The weakest areas for the Subpopulation of Free and Reduced population are
Problem Solving (36%) and Concepts (50%).
The weakest area for the Subpopulation of African American students is
Problem Solving (43%)
Second Grade - 71% scored average or above in Math
The weakest areas for the Subpopulation of Free and Reduced population are
Concepts (57%) and Problems (46%).
The weakest areas for the Subpopulation of African American students are
Problem Solving (50%) and Concepts (56%).
Third Grade - 75% scored average or above in Math. 
The weakest area for the Subpopulation of Free and Reduced population is
computation (38%).
The weakest area for the Subpopulation of African American students is
Concept and Estimation (42%).
Fourth Grade - 76% scored average or above in Math.
The weakest areas for the Subpopulation of Free and Reduced population are
Computation (58%) and Problem Solving and Data (59%).
The weakest area for the Subpopulation of African American students is
(56%). 
Fifth Grade - 63% scored average or above in Math.
The weakest area for the Subpopulation of Free and Reduced population is
computation (43%)
The weakest area for the Subpopulation of African American students is
Computation (44%).
Attendance Rate: 2009 attendance rate was 95.94%. In 2008, the
attendance rate for the building was 95%. In 2007, the attendance rate for
the building was 95.54%.

Goal

All students will improve in answering open-response math questions with respect to consistent weaknesses in the areas of geometry and spatial sense as well as the multiple choice questions on geometry/spatial sense, data analysis/probability, computation, and measurement.

Benchmark

The Combined Population and each subgroup is expected to meet the AYP target calculated by the ADE (70%) and included in the NCLB Accountability Workbook. The African American population at Holcomb did not meet that goal. They were only at 56.8% proficient or advanced.

Intervention: Open-Ended Problem-Solving Strategies

Scientific Based Research: Smart Step,2001; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Principles and Standards for School Mathematics,2000; Journal of Research in Mathematics Education,2001; TERC at www.terc.edu,2001; New Resources for School Mathematics published by COMAP & funded by NSF, 2000.

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Highly qualified teachers (including Title I, ESL, etc) will implement mathematics problem-solving strategies in the classroom by teaching students scoring expectations and a variety of open-ended problem solving techniques. Comprehensive open-ended math assessment materials will be used to reinforce student learning. Student needs will be based on summative evaluations.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Technology Inclusion
Action Type: Title I Target Assistance

Gwen Norman

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

Computers
Teachers
Teaching Aids
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Teachers will use the Everyday Math series, Mastering Math Facts, performance assessments, questioning techniques, scoring guides (rubrics) and Benchmark open-response scoring to increase student math skills. Training for teachers will be offered. Training materials will be purchased for teachers to reinforce math skills. In addition to requirements already funded with local monies, teacher training materials and supplies (such as manuals and other training materials) will be purchased throughout the year to make available additional opportunities for student learning.
Action Type: Professional Development

Rhonda Crouch

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

Administrative Staff
District Staff
Performance Assessments
Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$1000.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$1000

Hire a highly qualified instructional aide (non-certified) to provide students with additional assistance in order to improve math skills.
Action Type: Equity

Tracy Mulvenon

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

Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Evaluate effectiveness of problem-solving strategies on a regular basis.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Special Education

Teresa Martin

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

Computers
Performance Assessments
Teachers
Title 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. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. 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. In addition, we will implement Target Assessments aligned with state standards and developed by the NWAESC.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Janice Herring

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP: Regular 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 continuous evaluation, of research-based, scientifically validated, Interventions designed to improve our ability to improve student performance on the Math portion of all Assessments. B. The ongoing monitoring of student progress in order to influence classroom instruction. C. The utilization of Formative and Summative Assessment Data to make decisions that impact: Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. D. Coordination of resources in order to better meet the needs of all students. Written minutes of each meeting, along with a sign-in sheet, will be kept and made available upon request. The intent is that each Intervention, and Action, is carefully monitoredthrough the collection of Formative and Summative Data.so that those strategies that prove ineffective can be revised, or abandoned. Our ACSIP Plan will be revised each spring, and fall, in order to keep it timely and valid in our efforts to improve teaching and learning.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Mary Briggs

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$1000

Intervention: Small Group Remediation Sessions

Scientific Based Research: Fagar, J. "Strategies for Successful Learning." ERIC Database. 1999;US Department of Education, Office of the Deputy Secretary, "Evidence That Tutoring Works," Eric database, 2001;Engman, L. R. "In-a-Roll: A Successful After-School Tutoring Program."ERIC Database1992.

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Teachers will work with students scoring below the 60th percentile on MAT-8/SAT-10(2009) and Basic and Below on areas of need as well as released Benchmark Items during Team Time each week during the school day. These sessions will include small group remediation and enrichment instruction based on student needs. Materials will be purchased to be used with students. In addition to requirements already funded with local monies, materials and supplies will be purchased throughout the year to make available additional opportunities for student learning.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Tracy Mulvenon

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

Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$2800.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$2800

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. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. 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. In addition, we will implement Target Assessments aligned with state standards and developed by the NWAESC.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Janice Herring

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$2800

Goal

All students will improve in mathematics skills with respect to consistent weaknesses in the area of geometry and spatial sense on the open-response questions as well as the multiple choice questions on measurement.

Benchmark

Intervention: Computation Strategies/Practice

Scientific Based Research: TERC/Communications Math Packs www.terc.edu, TIMSS, McREL, Standards in Classroom Practice Research Synthesis, USDE-OERI, Oct.2001

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Integrate supplemental computational strategies and materials into the math program. The school will use computational materials and calculators to support the standards-based Everyday Mathematics Program. Mastering Math Facts will be used to monitor student progress. In addition to requirements already funded with local monies, materials and supplies will be purchased throughout the year to make available additional opportunities for student learning.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Special Education

Jennifer Reich

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

Computers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$2000.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$2000

Provide professional development for identifying students with math computation needs using formative and summative evaluations. Evaluate student progress on grade level formative quarterly assessments and communicate results to parents. Funds will be used for professional development trainers, conferences, workshops, travel and registration. This is in addition to requirements already funded with local monies.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Special Education

Karen Stowe-Rains

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

Computers
Teachers
Title Teachers

Title II-A - Employee Salaries:	$535.00
Title II-A - Employee Benefits:	$179.00
Title I - Purchased Services:	$2800.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$3514

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. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. 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. In addition, we will implement Target Assessments aligned with state standards and developed by the NWAESC.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Janice Herring

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$5514

Intervention: Parent Involvement

Scientific Based Research: Schools and Families: Creating a Math Partnership. Scott Foresman/Addison-Wesley, 2002; Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. NCTM, 2000

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Parenting materials will be purchased for the parent reference area. Registration fees for parents and teachers to attend parenting seminars and workshops will be paid. In addition to requirements already funded with local monies, materials and supplies will be purchased throughout the year to make available additional opportunities for student learning.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Special Education

Jody Robertson

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

Community Leaders
Outside Consultants
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PARENT INVOLVEMENT: Parents will review student performance samples on open-response problems in mathematics during parent teacher conferences. In addition to requirements already funded with local monies, materials and supplies will be purchased throughout the year to make available additional opportunities to enable and encourage parents and students to practice open response problems at home. In addition to requirements already funded with local monies, materials and supplies will be purchased throughout the year to make available additional opportunities for student learning.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Katie Parker

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

Administrative Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

TRANSITION: Each spring we travel with students who will be transitioning from our elementary school to the middle school to the middle schools they will attend. The receiving school organizes a tour and an orientation night for parents so that they are more familiar with policies, proceedures and expectations at the middle school level.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Teresa Martin

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/20/2010

District Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

TRANSITION: Each spring the kindergarten teachers and the special education teachers work together with outside agencies to transition students with special needs to the public school setting.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Debbye Elledge

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/20/2010

District Staff
Outside Consultants
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. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. 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. In addition, we will implement Target Assessments aligned with state standards and developed by the NWAESC. We will Provide instruction to a parent on how to incorporate developmentally appropriate learning activities in the home environment. We will engage in other activities determined by the school to help a parent assist in his or her child's learning;
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Janice Herring

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Holcomb will conduct a Family Math Night that will highlight current research in mathematics and it will provide parents and students opportunities to experience the current math curriculum through Everyday Math Games.

Mary Briggs

Start: 09/13/2009
End: 06/06/2010

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$1000.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$1000

Total Budget:

$1000

Intervention: Standards-Based Math Program

Scientific Based Research: Everyday Mathematics (McGraw-Hill); A Research-Based Curriculum: The Research Foundations of the UCSMP Everyday Mathematics Curriculum,1999, Andrew Isaacs, William Carroll and Max Bell; Student Achievement Studies, Everyday Learning, 2004, Mastering Math Facts.

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Employ a .25 FTE certified, highly qualified Title I Teacher (for reading and math), and three .5 FTE highly-qualified part time instructional aides to provide students with additional assistance in order to improve math skills. This money is in addition to requirements already funded with local monies.
Action Type: Equity

Tracy Mulvenon

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

Title Teachers

Title I - Employee Benefits:	$6717.00
Title I - Employee Salaries:	$25832.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$32549

Use summative evaluations such as the QUALLS, MAT-8, SAT-10, and the Primary Benchmark Exam (Grades 3, 4, and 5) to evaluate student progress in math achievement. To prepare the students for the SAT-10, the school will purchase and utilize SAT-10 preparation booklets. In addition to requirements already funded with local monies, materials and supplies will be purchased throughout the year to make available additional opportunities for student learning.
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Beth Saferite

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

Central Office
Computers
District Staff
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Use Everyday Mathematics lessons and assessments in kindergarten through fifth grade classrooms. Monitor student progress using Mastering Math Facts, or CBM. Use Every Day Math formative quarterly assessments as the assessment tool.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration

Renee Deshommes

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

Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Title 1, Special Education, ESL, classroom teachers, and Response to Intervention team will collaborate to implement differentiated strategies for all students with Academic Improvement Plans and/or special needs to improve mathematics skills. Materials will be considered for purchase by the RTI committee to help with interventions and enrichments.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Special Education

Beth Saferite

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

Computers
District Staff
Performance Assessments
Teachers
Teaching Aids
Title Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$1000.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$1000

Train new teachers in the use of Everyday Mathematics. In addition to requirements already funded with local monies, training will be provided.
Action Type: Professional Development

Tracy Mulvenon

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

Central Office
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. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. 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. In addition, we will implement Target Assessments aligned with state standards and developed by the NWAESC.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Janice Herring

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$33549

Intervention: The Curriculum will be mapped and aligned

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

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Parents will have the opportunity to review and have access to Holcomb's School Curriculum map by attending school meetings, previewing the website, and accessing materials in the parent center. Materials will be purchased such as addtional paper for copies
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Jody Robertson

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

District Staff

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$200.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$200

NEEDS ASSESSMENT: NEEDS ASSESSMENT: We formed ACSIP Leadership Teams and analyzed the test scores from the 2009 administration of the 3-5th grade Augmented Benchmark, MAT8 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 the needs of all our populations. Based on our Data Analysis we came to the conclusion that the following areas reflect our greatest need within the Math Priority: NUMERICAL OPERATIONS, GEOMETRY, MEASUREMENT, AND DATA ANALYSIS/PROBABILITY. 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 at least quarterly 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 folders.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Janice Herring

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

Performance Assessments
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

SCHOOLWIDE REFORM STRATEGIES: After the curriculum maps are completed, grade level teams, special areas, special education, and cross grade-level meetings will be held to correct gaps and duplications. This will include horizontal and vertical alignment and alignment to the Arkansas State Frameworks.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Emily Gunn

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

Administrative Staff
District Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

SCHOOLWIDE REFORM STRATEGIES: Teachers are provided with weekly instructional meeting time in order to plan for the implementation of best practices that are chosen to help improve student achievement. This planning time is provided during the course of the day. The actions described in our school's ACSIP plan are monitored to determine how closely aligned they are with the mission of our school.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Tracy Mulvenon

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

Administrative Staff
District Staff
Teachers
Title 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. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. 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. In addition, we will implement Target Assessments aligned with state standards and developed by the NWAESC.

Janice Herring

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: We formed ACSIP Leadership Teams and analyzed the test scores from the 2009 administration of grades K-5 MAT-8, 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 the needs of all our populations. Based on our Data Analysis we came to the conclusion that the following areas reflect our greatest need within the MATH Priority: MEASUREMENT, DATA ANALYSIS/PROBABILITY, AND GEOMETRY. We will select Interventions and coordinate our various state and federal funding sources to address these areas. IN addition, we meet in grade level weekly 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 in our AIP, IRI, and ASSESSMENT folders.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Janice Herring

Start: 09/13/2009
End: 06/06/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$200

Priority 3:

Following Arkansas Act 1220, Holcomb students participated in a yearly BMI screening.

Supporting Data:

Body Mass Index Data 2008-2009: of the 615 student population, 143 students were assessed. Of the students assessed, the following represents the percent of students at risk of overweight and overweight: Grade K: Males 34%, 36.2% Females Grade 2: Males 24.4%, 30.6% Females Grade 4: Males 44.2%, 40% Females Total Population: Males 35% Females 34.8%
Body Mass Index Data 2007-2008: of the 580 student population, 267 students were assessed. Of the students assessed, the following represents the percent of students at risk of overweight and overweight: Grade K: Males 38.6%, 43.1% Females Grade 2: Males 39%, 30.2% Females Grade 4: Males 38.5%, 25% Females Total Population: Males 38.7% Females 33.9%
Body Mass Index Data 2006-2007: of the 632 student population, 535 students were assessed. Of the students assessed, the following represents the percent of students at risk of overweight and overweight: Grade K: Males 33.3%, 28.0% Females Grade 1: Males 27.3%, 34.7% Females Grade 2: Males 38.8%, 29.3% Females Grade 3: Males 33.3%, 27.5% Females Grade 4: Males 43.2%, 25.8% Females Grade 5: Males 45.2%, 50.0% Females Total Population: Males 36.4% Females 32.9%

 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS):2005 The percentage
of 9-12 grade students that did not participate in any vigorous or
moderate physical activity has not significantly changed since 1999. 

The number of students who attended physical education classes on one or
more days in an average week when they were in school has not
significantly changed since 1995. 

The number of students who watched television on an average school day for
three or more hours per day has significantly decreased (5.6%) since 1999.
08-09 School Health Index Data showed that our staff needs to be
trained in CPR and first aid and that our playground needs to have
drainage issues addressed. A plan was created to improve both situations. 

2007-08 School Health Index data showed weaknesses in the areas of
Nutrition Services. A plan was created to improve choices of low calerie
dressings and additional fruit on the food bar. Other areas were within
the 81-100% range.
Free/Reduced Rate: 
2008-09 - 38%
2007-08 - 38% 
2006-07 - 41%
As related by the Arkansas Governors Initiative Healthy Arkansas,
55.3% of Arkansans failed to meet recommendations for moderate or vigorous
activity. (http://www.arkansas.gov/ha/physical)

Goal

Students will become more aware of healthier lifestyles to improve their overall wellness.

Benchmark

The Combined Population and each subgroup is expected to meet the AYP target calculated by the ADE (58.7%) and included in the NCLB Accountability Workbook. The African American population at Holcomb did not meet that goal. They were only at 58.7% proficient or advanced. 34.9% of Holcomb's students are considered Overweight/Obese. 65.1% is considered to be underweight/healthy

Intervention: Holcomb Elementary School will incorporate strategies and activities that encourage a non-sedentary lifestyle.

Scientific Based Research: P.E. 4 Life - Building Healthy Student Bodies - One at a Time; www.pe4life.org, 2000

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Encourage participation in the physical education program taught by a highly qualified teacher that supports physical activity.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Wellness

Tana Dawson

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

Administrative Staff
District 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 and/or suggestions in parent newsletters that include tips for parents/caregivers. Also, create a time before school for students to stretch their legs by "Running Across America" and other activities in the gym.
Action Type: Wellness

Tana Dawson

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

Administrative Staff
Community Leaders
Outside Consultants
Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$500.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$500

Encourage participation in family oriented, community-based physical activity programs.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Wellness

Tana Dawson

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

Administrative Staff
Community Leaders
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

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

Tracy Mulvenon

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 pre/post testing, CRT/NRT assessments (BMI), Health Index Survey, and local summative assessments and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. 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.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Janice Herring

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$500

Intervention: Students at Holcomb Elementary School will understand concepts related to nutrition and develop skills for making healthy food choices.

Scientific Based Research: Kids for Health Program; www.kidsforhealth.com, 1994

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Students will learn about making healthy food choices through participation in Kids for Health classes. Lessons will be based on current Arkansas standards.
Action Type: Wellness

Tanika Anderson

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

Administrative Staff
Outside Consultants


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Penny Morgan

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: We formed ACSIP Leadership Teams and analyzed the test scores from the 2009 administration of grades K, 2, 4 BMI Exams. We examined the results from both the combined population and by sex. 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 the needs of all our populations. Based on our Data Analysis we came to the conclusion that the following areas reflect our greatest need within the Wellness Priority. Our weaknesses are in the area of OVERWEIGHT OR OBESITY in all grade levels in which the BMI was given. We will select Interventions and coordinate our various state and federal funding sources to address these areas. IN addition, we meet in grade level weekly 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 in our AIP, IRI, and assessment folders.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Janice Herring

Start: 09/13/2009
End: 06/06/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Priority 4:

Improving Science

Supporting Data:

FIFTH GRADE SCIENCE 2008-09 DATA: 82 students were tested Percentages of students scoring above the 50th percentile: Combined 82 tested - 61.80% FRLP 30 tested - 35.29% IEP less than 10 were tested LEP less than 10 were tested African-American 17 tested - 41.18% White - 74.58%

Goal

All students will improve in answering open-response and multiple choice science questions.

Benchmark

Intervention: Open-Ended Problem Solving

Scientific Based Research:

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Teachers will use science materials and equipment to teach the scientific method of problem solving to students.
Action Type: Alignment

Teresa Martin

Start: 09/13/2009
End: 06/06/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we used CRT/NTR assessments and determined that our science program is effective in for student achievement. In an effort to increase achievement 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.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Teresa Martin

Start: 09/13/2009
End: 06/06/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Janice Herring

Start: 09/13/2009
End: 06/06/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Priority 5:

Comprehensive Literacy Model

Supporting Data:

NRT Spring 2009 MAT-8 Kindergarten - 108 students were tested. Percent of students scoring advanced or above: Combined Population 108 tested - 86% LEP 16 tested - 50% SAT-10 Grade 1 - 103 students were tested: Percent of students scoring advanced or above: Combined Population 103 tested - 68% LEP - 39% Second Grade - 95 students tested Percent of students scoring at or above the 50th percentile: Grade 2 - 95 students were tested: Percent of students scoring advanced or above: Combined Population 95 tested - 63% LEP 12 tested - 8 Third Grade - 94 students tested Percent of students scoring at or above the 50th percentile: Combined Population 94 tested - 49.6% Reading, 43.4% Language LEP 11 tested - 0% Reading, 0% Language Fourth Grade - 98 tested Percent of students scoring at or above the 50th percentile: Combined Population 98 tested - 68.2% Reading, 46.5% Language LEP 17 tested - 58.9% Reading, 34.1% Language Fifth Grade - 89 tested Percent of students scoring at or above the 50th percentile: Combined Population 89 tested - 65.1% Reading, 49.6% Language LEP 12 tested - 24.8% Reading, 34.1% Language

BENCHMARK - On the 2009 Third Grade Benchmark 91 students were tested
and of those tested:
Students who scored at, or above, Proficient in Literacy on the Benchmark
Exam:
Combined Population 91 tested - 71%
LEP 18 tested - 50%

On the 2009 Fourth Grade Benchmark 93 students were tested and of
those tested.
Students who scored at, or above, Proficient in Literacy on the Benchmark
Exam:
Combined Population 93 tested - 74%
LEP 15 tested - 33%

On the 2009 Fifth Grade Benchmark 82 students were tested and of
those tested:
Students who scored at, or above, Proficient in Literacy on the Benchmark
Exam:
Combined Population 82 tested - 74%
LEP less than ten tested

Goal

ELL students will improve in reading comprehension with additional attention to Literary and Content reading passages.

Benchmark

Intervention: Provide teachers with quality professional development in ELL and the reading process and data analysis that will provide with strategies and skills to help promote and enhance learning opportunities for ELL students.

Scientific Based Research: Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development Joellen Killion ,2002, www.nsdc.org "Assessing Impact of Professional Development on Teaching and Students", Seth Aldrich, Ph.D, 2004, www.programevaluation.org; Professional Development Design: 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

Charla Myers

Start: 09/15/2009
End: 06/06/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

HIGHLY QULALIFIED STAFF will be hired to work with ELL students. ELL teachers will be given $500 for ELL specific resources.
Action Type: Equity

Charla Myers

Start: 09/16/2009
End: 06/06/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

An instructional assistant will be hired to assist with ELL students.
Action Type: Equity

Charla Myers

Start: 09/16/2009
End: 06/06/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Interpreters will be provided for parent / teacher conferences or other meetings.
Action Type: Equity

Mary Taylor

Start: 09/16/2009
End: 06/06/2010


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Planning Team

Classification	Name	Position	Committee
Classroom Teacher	Anita Ulrich	Kindergarten	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Ashley Jones	2nd Grade	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Brooke Parker	1st Grade	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Cara Mendoza	Kindergarten	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Christy Dugger	2nd Grade	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Cindy Sutton	Special Ed.	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Debbye Elledge	VI Teacher	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Emily Gunn	4th Grade	Math
Classroom Teacher	Gina Broyles	Kindergarten	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Gwen Norman	5th Grade	Math
Classroom Teacher	Haley Weaver	2nd Grade	Math
Classroom Teacher	Helen Eaton	4th Grade	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Jason Edwards	1st Grade	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Jennifer Reich	2nd Grade	Math
Classroom Teacher	Julie Brandt	3rd Grade	Math
Classroom Teacher	Karen Stowe-Rains	Kindergarten	Math
Classroom Teacher	Katie Parker	1st Grade	Math
Classroom Teacher	Mary Briggs	4th grade	ACSIP Leadership
Classroom Teacher	Melanie Johnson	5th Grade	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Pam Andersen	3rd Grade	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Renee` Deshommes	3rd Grade	Math
Classroom Teacher	Rhonda Crouch	3rd Grade	Math
Classroom Teacher	Shannon Raffaelli	Kindergarten	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Sonya Zimmer	1st grade	ACSIP Leadership
Classroom Teacher	Tamara Post	2nd Grade	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Tammy Bradley	5th Grade	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Tanika Anderson	4th Grade	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Teresa Martin	5th Science	Math
Classroom Teacher	Wendy McCain	1st Grade	Math
District-Level Professional	Christie Jay	Federal Programs Coordinator	ACSIP Admin. Leadership
District-Level Professional	Kay Magness	Literacy Specialist	Literacy
District-Level Professional	Lester Long	Title V Coordinator	Title V
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Beth Saferite	Title 1 Math	Math
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Carol Wilson	Resource	Literacy
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Charla Myers	ESL	Literacy
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Claude McGehee	Technology Curriculum Specialist	Math
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Debbie Santeford	Media Specialist	Parent Engagement
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Don Helms	Gifted and Talented	Math
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Gail Lumpkin	Title 1 / Literacy	Literacy
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Janice Herring	Assistant Principal / ASCIP Chairperson	ACSIP Leadership
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Jody Robertson	Counselor	Parent Involvement
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Nadean Yoakum	Speech Pathologist	Literacy
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Paula Aldama	Music	Literacy
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Penny Morgan	School Nurse - LPN	Wellness
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Tana Dawson	Certified PE instructor	Wellness
Parent	Kamron Whitehead	Parent	Parent Involvement
Parent	Lisa Stinnett	Team Member	Parent Involvment
Principal	Tracy Mulvenon	Principal	ACSIP Leadership