School Plan

LEVERETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1124 W. CLEVELAND,FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72702

Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Plan

2009-2010


Leverett School promotes excellence by educating its diverse student population in a nurturing, challenging and disciplined environment. We are committed to helping all students gain the necessary skills to become responsible citizens and life-long learners.

Grade Span: K-5 Title I: Title I Schoolwide School Improvement: MS

Table of Contents

Priority 1: Math
    Goal: All students will improve in mathematic skills with additional attention to, Measurement, Number Sense/Properties & Operations, Geometry, and Algebra mathematic strands.
Priority 2: Literacy
    Goal: All students will improve in writing skills across the curriculum. Emphasis will be placed on content and style writing domains.
    Goal: All students will improve on Literacy skills across the curriculum. Emphasis will be placed on comprehension and fluency.
Priority 3: Wellness Priority
    Goal: Students participating in the BMI activity show a need to improve and maintain their physical activity and nutritional practices.
Priority 4: Priority 4: Title III/ELL
    Goal: Provide interventions for all ELL students working below grade level in literacy.
Priority 1: All students will improve in mathematic skills and responding to constructed response questions with additional attention to Data Analysis/Statistics & Probability, Measurement and Number Sense/Properties & Operations math strands.
Supporting Data:
  1. Grade K-2 SAT 10 2009: Data not available yet. Grade 3-SAT 10 2009:The Combined Population and each Subpop MET the 2009 AYP target of ___% scoring Proficient/Advanced. It is expected that each of these populations will meet, or exceed, the 2010 AYP Target of ___% scoring Proficient/Advanced, or make AYP through either the “Safe Harbor” or “Growth” models. Combined Population: 47 Students were tested and 81% scored above the 50th percentile. The analysis of the Concepts and Estimation subtest, Problem Solving and Data Interpretation subtests revealed weaknesses in Problems Solving & Data Interpretation. SAT 10: Grade 3 Economically Disadvantaged: In 2009, 30 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 74% had an NPR score of 50% or above. Caucasian (Total) Population: Grade 3: In 2009, 30 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 77% had an NPR score of 50% or above. Grade 4- SAT10 2009: Combined Population: 45 Students were tested and 59% scored above the 50th percentile. The analysis of the Concepts and Estimation subtest, Problem Solving and Data Interpretation subtests revealed weaknesses in Problems Solving & Data Interpretation. SAT 10: Grade 4: Caucasian (Total) Population: Grade 4: In 2009, 27 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 59% had an NPR score of 50% or above. Economically Disadvantage (Total) Population: Grade 4: In 2009, 32 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 56% had an NPR score of 50% or above. Hispanic (Total) Population: Grade 4: In 2009, 10 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 60% had an NPR score of 50% or above. Grade 5- SAT 10 2009: Combined Population: 43 Students were tested and 71% scored above the 50th percentile. The analysis of the Concepts and Estimation subtest, Problem Solving and Data Interpretation subtests revealed weaknesses in Problems Solving & Data Interpretation. SAT 10: Grade 4: Caucasian (Total) Population: Grade 4: In 2009, 27 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 59% had an NPR score of 50% or above. Economically Disadvantage (Total) Population: Grade 4: In 2009, 32 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 56% had an NPR score of 50% or above. Hispanic (Total) Population: Grade 4: In 2009, 10 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 60% had an NPR score of 50% or above. Grade 5- SAT 10 2009: Combined Population: 43 Students were tested and 71% scored above the 50th percentile. The analysis of the Concepts and Estimation subtest, Problem Solving and Data Interpretation subtests revealed weaknesses in Problems Solving & Data Interpretation. SAT 10: Grade 4: Caucasian (Total) Population: Grade 4: In 2009, 27 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 59% had an NPR score of 50% or above. Economically Disadvantage (Total) Population: Grade 4: In 2009, 32 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 56% had an NPR score of 50% or above. Hispanic (Total) Population: Grade 4: In 2009, 10 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 60% had an NPR score of 50% or above. Grade 5- SAT 10 2009: Combined Population: 43 Students were tested and 71% scored above the 50th percentile. The analysis of the Concepts and Estimation subtest, Problem Solving and Data Interpretation subtests revealed weaknesses in Problems Solving & Data Interpretation. SAT 10: Grade 5: Caucasian (Total) Population: In 2009, 27 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 78% had an NPR score of 50% or above. Economically Disadvantage (Total) Population: Grade 5: In 2009, 28 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 68% had an NPR score of 50% or above.
  2. NRT: Combined (Total) Population: Grade K: 2008, Not reporting due to incomplete data. SAT 10: Combined (Total) Population: Grade 1: In 2008, 60 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 48.3% had an NPR score of 50, or above. Caucasian (Total) Population: Grade 1: In 2008, 40 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 50% had an NPR score of 50, or above. Economically Disadvantage (Total) Population: Grade 1: In 2008, 37 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 32.4% had an NPR score of 50, or above. NRT: Combined (Total) Population: Grade 2: In 2008, 48 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 58.3% had an NPR score of 50, or above. Caucasian (Total) Population: Grade 2: In 2008, 33 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 54.5% had an NPR score of 50, or above. Economically Disadvantage (Total) Population: Grade 2: In 2008, 31 students were tested on the ITBS and 58.1% had an NPR score of 50, or above. NRT: Combined (Total) Population: Grade 3: In 2008, 47 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 59.6% had an NPR score of 50, or above. Caucasian (Total) Population: Grade 3: In 2008, 29 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 69% had an NPR score of 50, or above. Economically Disadvantage (Total) Population: Grade 3: In 2008, 37 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 51.4% had an NPR score of 50, or above. NRT: Combined (Total) Population: Grade 4: In 2008, 41 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 73.2% had an NPR score of 50, or above. Caucasian (Total) Population: Grade 2: In 2008, 27 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 77.8% had an NPR score of 50, or above. Economically Disadvantage (Total) Population: Grade 4: In 2008, 27 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 70.4% had an NPR score of 50, or above. NRT: Combined (Total) Population: Grade 5: In 2008, 42 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 66.7% had an NPR score of 50, or above. Caucasian (Total) Population: Grade 5: In 2008, 24 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 62.5% had an NPR score of 50, or above. Economically Disadvantage (Total) Population: Grade 5: In 2008, 26 students were tested on the SAT 10 and 57.7% had an NPR score of 50, or above. 
  3. Grade K-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:

Combined Population:  62 Students were tested and 58% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the Mathmematic Subtests revealed
weaknesses in Number porperties and operations and Measurment.

Caucasian: 39 students were tested and 60.5% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

Hispanic:  Less than 10 students were tested.

Economically Disadvantaged: 32 students were tested and 45.1% scored above
the 50th percentile. 

Limited English Proficiency:  12 students were tested and 41.6% scored
above the 50th percentile. 

Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulations of: African
American, and students with disabilities.


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

Combined Population:  43 Students were tested and 67.5% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the Concepts and Math Problems subtests
revealed weaknesses in Number Properties and Operations and Data
Interpretation.

Caucasian: 28 students were tested and 71.4% scored above the 50th
percentile. The subtests revealed a weakness in Math Concepts.

Hispanic:  Less than 10 students were tested.

Economically Disadvantaged: 27 students were tested and 55.5% scored above
the 50th percentile. The subtests revealed a weakness in Math Concepts.

Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulations of: African
American, ELL and students with disabilities.

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

Combined Population:  44 Students were tested and 63.6% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the Math Concepts subtest and Math
Problems subtests revealed weaknesses in Number Porperties and Operations,
Measurement, Problem Solving, and Data Interpretation.

Caucasian: 24 students were tested and 62.5% scored above the 50th
percentile. The subtests revealed a weakness in the area of Math Problem
Solving.

Hispanic:  11 students were tested and 63.7% scored above the 50th
percentile. The subtests revealed a weakness in the area of Math Concepts.


Economically Disadvantaged: 31 students were tested and 51.7% scored above
the 50th percentile. The subtests revealed a weakness in the area of Math
Concepts.

Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulations of: African
American, ELL and students with disabilities.


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

Combined Population:  37 Students were tested and 67.5% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the Concepts and Estimation subtest,
Problem Solving and Data Interpretation subtests and Computation subtests
revealed weaknesses in Probability and Statistics, Estimation, Problem
Solving, Data Interpretation and Subtracting Whole Numbers.

Caucasian: 24 students were tested and 70.8% scored above the 50th
percentile. The subtests revealed a weakness in the area of Data Analysis
and Probability.

Hispanic:  Less than 10 students were tested.

Economically Disadvantaged: 22 students were tested and 72.7% scored above
the 50th percentile. The subtests revealed a weakness in the area of Data
Analysis and Probaility.

Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulations of: African
American, ELL and students with disabilities.


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

Combined Population:  42 Students were tested and 64.3% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the Concepts and Estimation subtest,
Problem Solving and Data Interpretation subtests and Computation subtest
revealed weaknesses in Probability and Statistics, Problem Solving, Data
Interpretation, Subtracting Whole Numbers, and Multiplying Whole Numbers

African American: 11 students were tested and 54.6% scored above the 50th
percentile. The subtests revealed a weakness in the area of Data Analysis
and Probability.

Caucasian: 17 students were tested and 64.7% scored above the 50th
percentile. The subtests revealed a weakness in the areas of Data Analysis
and Probability and Computation.

Hispanic:  12 students were tested and 66.7% scored above the 50th
percentile. The subtests revealed a weakness in the area of Data Analysis
and Probsbility.

Economically Disadvantaged: 33 students were tested and 57.6% scored above
the 50th percentile. The subtests revealed a weakness in Data Anyalysis
and Probability.

English Language Learners: 13 students were tested and 84.6% scored above
the 50th percentile. The subtests revealed a weakness in the area of Data
Analysis and Probability.

Students with disabilities: 10 students were tested and 30% scored above
the 50th percentile. The subtests revealed a weakness in the area of
Computation.

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

Combined Population:  46 Students were tested and 58.7% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the Concepts and Estimation subtest,
Problem Solving and Data Interpretation subtests and Math Computation
subtest revealed weaknesses in Measurement, Problems Solving & Data
Interpretation, and Dividing with Whole Numbers.

Caucasian: 24 students were tested and 70.8% scored above the 50th
percentile. The subtests revealed a weakness in the area of Computation.

Hispanic:  Less than 10 students were tested.

Economically Disadvantaged: 22 students were tested and 72.7% scored above
the 50th percentile. The subtests revealed a weakness in the area of Data
Analysis and Probability.

Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulations of: African
American, ELL and students with disabilities.


  4. Benchmark-3rd Grade Mathematics Exam 
				       
1. Combined Population
Grade 3 Benchmark Exam:  In 2009, 47 students were tested and 91% scored
proficient or advanced. In 2008, 47 students were tested and 81% scored
proficient or advanced. In 2007, 41 students were tested and 78% scored
proficient or advanced.  The lowest identified area(s) (based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Measurement. The lowest identified
area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions),
in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Geometry,
Measurement, Data Anaylsis and Probability.

2. Students with Disabilities (IEP):
Grade 3 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, less than 10 students with IEPs were
tested.In 2008,less than 10 students were tested. In 2007, less than 10
students with IEPs were tested.  

3. Limited English Proficient (LEP):
Grade 3 Benchmark Exam:  In 2009, less than ten students were tested. In
2008, less than 10 students were tested. In 2007,less than 10 students
were tested.   

4. Economically Disadvantaged (SES): 
Grade 4 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, 30 students were tested and 90% scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2008, 37 students were tested and 75% were
proficient and advanced.  In 2007, 26 students were tested and 73% scored
proficient or advanced. The lowest identified area(s) (based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in Geometry and Data Anaysis and Probability. The
lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple
choice questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in
Number Opperations and Measurement.
  
5. African American:
Grade 3 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, less than 10 students were tested. In
2008, less than ten students were tested.  In 2007, less than 10 students
were tested. 

6. Caucasian:
Grade 3 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, 30 students were tested and 90% scored
proficient or advanced. In 2008, 18 students were tested and 78% scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2007, 28 students were tested and 79% scored
proficient or advanced. The lowest identified area(s) (based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in Geometry, Algebra and Number Opperations. The
lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple
choice questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in
Geometry and Number Opperations.

7. Hispanic:
Grade 3 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, less than 10 students were tested. In
2008, less than 10 students were tested. In 2007, less than 10 students
were tested. 

  5. Benchmark-4th Grade Mathematics Exam 
				       
1. Combined Population
Grade 4 Benchmark Exam:  In 2009, 45 students were tested and 78% scored
proficient or advanced. In 2008, 40 students were tested and 80% were
proficient and advanced. In 2007, 43 students were tested and 63% scored
proficient or advanced. 
The lowest identified area(s) (based on the trend analysis of the open
response questions) in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses
in Measurement, Geometry, and Data Analysis. The lowest identified area
(s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions), in the
five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Geometry, Measurement.

2. Students with Disabilities (IEP):
Grade 4 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, less than 10 students were tested. In
2008,less than 10 students were tested. In 2007, less than 10 students
with IEPs were tested. 

3. Limited English Proficient (LEP):
Grade 4 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, less than 10 students were tested. In
2008,less than 10 students were tested. In 2007, less than 10  students
were tested. 

4. Economically Disadvantaged (SES): 
Grade 4 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, 32 students were tested and 72% scored
proficient or advanced. In 2008, 26 students were tested and 73% were
proficient and advanced. In 2007, 33 students were tested and 54% scored
proficient or advanced. The lowest identified area(s) (based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in Measurement and Data Anaysis and Probability. The
lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple
choice questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in
Data Anaysis and Probability, and Measurement.
  

5. African American:
Grade 4 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, less than 10 students were tested. In
2008, less than 10 students were tested.  In 2007, 11 students were tested
and 54% scored proficient or advanced. 
6. Caucasian:
Grade 4 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, 27 students were tested and 74% scored
proficient or advanced. In 2008, 27 students were tested and 89% were
proficient and advanced.  In 2007, 18 students were tested and 61% scored
proficient or advanced. The lowest identified area(s) (based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in Algebra and Measurement. The lowest identified area
(s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions), in the
five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Algebra, Geometry and
Measurement.

7. Hispanic:
Grade 4 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, 10 students were tested and 80% scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2008, less than 10 students were tested.  In
2007, 12 students were tested and 66% scored proficient or advanced.  

  6. Benchmark-5th Grade Mathematics Exam				  
	
1. Combined Population
Grade 5 Benchmark Exam:  In 2009, 43 students were tested and 77% scored
proficient or advanced. In 2008, 42 students were tested and 74% were
proficient and advanced.  In 2007, 46 students were tested and 54 % scored
proficient or advanced. The lowest identified area(s) (based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in Data Anaylsis, Algebra, and Measurement. The lowest
identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice
questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Data
Analysis/Probablity and Measurement.

2. Students with Disabilities (IEP):
Grade 5 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, less than 10 students with IEPs were
tested. 
In 2008, less than 10 students were tested.  In 2007,10 students were
tested and 30% scored proficient or advanced. 
3. Limited English Proficient (LEP):
Grade 5 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, less than 10  students were tested.  In
2008,less than 10 students were tested. In 2007, less than 10  students
were tested. 
4. Economically Disadvantaged (SES): 
Grade 5 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, 28 students were tested and 68% scored
proficient or advanced. In 2008, 26 students were tested and 69% were
proficient and advanced. In 2007, 28 students were tested and 36% scored
proficient or advanced.  The lowest identified area(s) (based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in Measurement and Alegebra. The lowest identified
area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions),
in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Geometry, Algebra
and Measurement.
  
5. African American:
Grade 5 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, less than 10 students were tested. In
2008, less than 10 students were tested.  In 2007, 10 students were tested
and 60% scored proficient or advanced. 
6. Caucasian:
Grade 5 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, 27 students were tested and 85% scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2008, 24 students were tested and 67% were
proficient and advanced.In 2007, 28 students were tested and 54% scored
proficient or advanced. The lowest identified area(s) (based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in Algebra and Geometry. The lowest identified area
(s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions), in the
five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Algebra, Geometry and
Measurement.

7. Hispanic:
Grade 5 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, less than 10 students were tested. In
2008,less than 10 students were tested. In 2007, less than 10 student were
tested. 

  7. Attendance Rate: In 2009, the attendance rate for the building was
95.25%.In 2008, the attendance rate for the building was 94.38%.  In 2007,
the attendance rate for the bulding was 95.6%.
Goal All students will improve in mathematic skills with additional attention to, Measurement, Number Sense/Properties & Operations, Geometry, and Algebra mathematic strands.
Benchmark All sub populations met the AMO target of 62.5% Proficient or Advanced for Mathematics. It is expected that all sub populations will meet the 2010 target of 70% proficient or advanced for Mathematics.
Intervention: Act 83 of 2003. An act to provide teachers with quality professional development that will promote and enhance learning opportunities for students; and for other purposes.
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,all teachers will have the opportunity to participate in the school and district professional development plan. Teachers will use an instrument developed by the district professional development committee to evaluate the effectiveness of the professional development plan, the course offerings and the effectiveness of the knowledge gained. Annually, upon review of the formative and summative test data, the professional development committee, working under the guidelines of the district professional development plan, will develop a professional development plan for the school and individual teachers based on information obtained through data analysis. All new teachers (first 3 years) and teachers in need of assistance will be assigned a mentor to assist them in reaching their professional development goals and needs. All teachers will have the opportunity to have input on the district and building level professional development plan. The district will provide all teachers and administrators will no less than 60 hours of professional development including 6 hours of technology and 2 hours of parental involvement development (3 hours of Parental Involvement for Administrators) and for those who teach Arkansas History, 2 hours of training in that subject. Teachers will have the opportunity to evaluate the benefit of the professional development activities and provide feedback on needed changes.
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
 Cheryl Putnam, Principal Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • Teachers
  • Title Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
HIGHLY QUALIFIED: The school will continue to hire and maintain "highly qualified" teachers and support staff. All instruction will be given by "highly qualified" staff. Teachers will work closely with Title I staff to implement school wide reform strategies. Data will be used to continue to monitor progress and point-in- time remediation.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
 Cheryl Putnam, Principal Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Outside Consultants
  • Teachers
  • Title Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
NEEDS ASSESSMENT: NRT, CRT, local achievement assessments and other relevant indicators will be analyzed by the faculty at each grade level with consideration to the combined population as well as each subpopulation in order to determine student learning needs and achievement gaps within subpopulations. NRT & CRT data will be analyzed annually. Formative evaluations will be analyzed quarterly.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
 Cheryl Putnam, Principal Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Performance Assessments
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
Parent Engagement: An annual meeting will be held to inform parents of the right of parents to be involved in planning, review, and improvement of parent programs and a description and explanation of the curriculum used in the school, types of assessment and proficiency levels. In addition, parents will be involved in the annual planning of school improvement programs. Annual surveys will be evaluate the parent involvement activities. A parent training will be provided for parents to learn about specific things they can do to promote learning within the home and school. Booklets will be purchased for parents summarizing this information and to keep at home as a parental reference guide.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
 Cheryl Putnam, Principal Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
ACTION BUDGET: $
Program Evaluation:At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention/Program through: Professional development focus plans, Professional development records and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The following EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrate that this Intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning that are part of this program: Professional Development. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to use the following protocol in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program: 100% of teachers will be trained in Critical Thinking and Collaboration. We will use this data/information to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention/Program were achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results, in our 2010/2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program.
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Program Evaluation
 Cheryl Putnam Start: 06/30/2009
End: 07/01/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
Technology intergration professional development will be added to ensure our students are receiving the most current information furthering their math and literacy learning.
Action Type: Professional Development
 Cheryl Putnam Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Title Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
Total Budget: $0
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
Administrators, teachers and parents will develop a VOLUNTEER RESOURCE BOOK including: a parent interest survey, an option for parents to designate how frequently they would participate in the program, and include opportunities for parents to assist from home. These are accessible on the web.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
 Carol Raybon Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • School Library
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT MEETINGS will be held throughout the year to discuss what students will be expected to learn, how they will be assessed and how parents can assist to make a difference in his or her child's education. Literature, brochures, and printed materials will be provided to provide information to parents in responsible parenting.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
 Carol Raybon Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • Community Leaders
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
Administrators, teachers, and parents will develop a parental involvement plan addressing the diverse needs of the students and their parents to increase the school's ability to provide for the educational success of their children. The plan will be reviewed and updated annually. An alumni advisory committee will be formed.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Program Evaluation
 Carol Raybon Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
The district will designate two PARENT/TEACHER CONFERENCES each school year.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
 Carol Raybon Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
INFORMATIONAL PACKETS: The school will develop an information sheet that includes: the school's commitment to parental involvement, the PROCESS FOR RESOLVING PARENTAL CONCERNS, and tips for how parents can foster their child's success. These will be made available online.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
 Carol Raybon Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • Teachers
Title I - Materials & Supplies: $3045.00
ACTION BUDGET: $3045
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.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Professional Development
 Carol Raybon Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
ACTION BUDGET: $
PARENT ENGAGEMENT: "Informational Packets" for each family are developed and distributed. They include: *Parental Involvement Meetings *School Calendar *A School-Parent Compact *A system encouraging the home, school, and community connection.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
 Carol Raybon Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
Teachers and parents will receive training to enhance understanding of effective parental involvement strategies.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Professional Development
 Carol Raybon Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Community Leaders
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
The school will have a designated area to be used as the Parent Center. Parenting books, magazines and other informative material regarding responsible parenting will be purchased for parents to borrow for review in each building.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
 Carol Raybon Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
The building principal will designate one certified staff member to serve as a PARENT FACILITATOR to organize meaningful training for staff and parents and to undertake efforts to ensure that parental participation is recognized as an asset to the school. The district will ensure that parental participation is recognized as an asset to the school. The district will pay the parent facilitator a stipend for assuming duties as required by ACT 307. We will have two curriculum nights that will incorporate training parents on how to create developmentally appropriate learning activities to assist in their child's learning.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
 Cheryl Putnam, Principal Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/20/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
Literacy and Math materials will be provided to parents as homework in partnering with the learning process.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
 Megan Meggers Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Teachers
  • Teaching Aids
  • Title Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
A computer program will help document the amount of parental participation within the school, and identification of barriers that exist that hinder greater participation by parents.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Program Evaluation
 Cheryl Putnam, Principal Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
In order to take advantage of community resources our school will ENABLE THE FORMATION OF A PARENT TEACHER ASSOCIATION, or ORGINAZATION, that will foster parental and community involvement within the school.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
 Cheryl Putnam Start: 06/01/2009
End: 07/30/2010
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Program Evaluation:At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention/Program through: Parent participation by using sign in sheets and surveys and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The following EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrate that this Intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning that are part of this program: Parent Surveys and Parent sign in sheets. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to use the following protocol in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program: 80% of parents will attend Annual report night, parent/teacher conferences, and curriculum nights. We will use this data/information to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention/Program were achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results, in our 2010/2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program.
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 06/30/2009
    End: 07/01/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Total Budget: $3045
    Intervention: Everyday Mathematics (McGraw-Hill); A Research-Based Curriculum: The Research Foundations of the UCSMP Everyday Mathematics Curriculum, Andrew Isaacs, William Carroll and Max Bell; Mathematics Evaluation Report, Mathematics Evaluation Committee of Hopewell Valley Regional School District; The Impact of Two Standards-Based Mathematics Curricula on Student Achievement in Massachusetts, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (2001, Vol. 32, No. 4, 368-398); Student Achievement Studies, Everyday Learning
    Scientific Based Research: The Research Foundations of the UCSMP Everyday Mathematics Curriculum, Andrew Isaacs, William Carroll and Max Bell; Mathematics Evaluation Report, Mathematics Evaluation Committee of Hopewell Valley Regional School District; The Impact of Two Standards-Based Mathematics Curricula on Student Achievement in Massachusetts, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 2001, Vol. 32, No. 4, 368-398; Student Achievement Studies, Everyday Learning
    Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
    Trainings will be available to K-5 grade new teachers in the Everyday Math methodology.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Professional Development
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Katie Austin Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    SCHOOLWIDE REFORM STRATEGIES: We will evaluate the effectiveness of Everyday Math strategies using unit tests and/or grade level developed tests (fomative assessments). In additon, we will use the summative data from standardized testing and the Benchmark exam in Grades 3-5.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
    		 Melissa Armendariz Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    • Teaching Aids
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Collaborate with classroom teachers, special education teachers and other support staff to implement differentiated strategies for all students with Academic Improvement Plans or special education needs to improve information skills.
    Action Type: AIP/IRI
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Special Education
    		 Sharon Michaels Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    • Title Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Inform parents of Everyday Math curriculum and strategies through the use of unit parent letters and home/study links. The school social worker will collaborate with area Head Start organizations to inform and educate future Leverett parents who may be parents of migrant, English Language Learner, free and reduced lunch, highly mobile and homeless students.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Classroom, ESL, and Special Education teachers will work together with principal to support Everyday Math strategies. Art, PE, and music teachers will collaborate when applicable to curriculum.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 John Andrews Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Teachers
    • Teaching Aids
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Collaborate with parents to develop student AIP’s. Any student that scores below proficient on state mandated criterion referenced exams and any other student identified by classroom teachers will have an AIP.
    Action Type: AIP/IRI
    		 Cheryl Putnam, Principal Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    COORDINATION AND INTEGRATION OF PROGRAMS: A. Grades 1-5 will be evaluated using CBM and Mastering Math Facts to determine computation fluency and growth. Formative Quarterly Math Assessments and Spring Summative NRT and CRT Testing to determine learning gains for all students. B. Math Materials will be purchased and implemented to support student achievement.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    Action Type: Special Education
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
    		 Pam Dunn Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Computers
    • Outside Consultants
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Instructional paraprofessional 1 FTE will be hired to provide tutorial assistance under the direct supervision of a licensed, highly qulified teacher in math for students performing below grade level in math.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
    		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 01/07/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Computers
    • District Staff
    • Outside Consultants
    • Teachers
    Title I - Employee Salaries: $22315.00
    Title I - Employee Benefits: $5802.00
    ACTION BUDGET: $28117
    SCHOOL LEADERSHIP TEAM Closing the Achievement Gap (Math): 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 monitored…through the collection of Formative and Summative Data….so that those strategies, which prove ineffective, can be revised, or abandoned. Our ACSIP Plan will be revised each spring, and fall, in order to keep it timely and valid in our efforts to improve teaching and learning.
    Action Type: AIP/IRI
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Professional Development
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 06/30/2009
    End: 07/01/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Program Evaluation: At the conclusion of the 2008-09 school year we evaluated Everyday Math through: CBM, quarterly targeted assessments and Arkanasas Benchmark exam data and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. With a combination of Grades 3-5, 80% scored proficient or advanced on the Benchmark Exam. Therefore, we believe this evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. During the 2009-10 school year we plan to use CBM, quarterly targeted assessments, and Benchmark assessment data in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities, that make up the action descriptions within Everyday Math.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 06/30/2009
    End: 07/01/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Total Budget: $28117
    Intervention: A Handbook for Classroom Instruction that Works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. (Includes specific lesson designs using the nine research-based strategies.) Marzano, Robert J.; Pickering, Debra J.; and Pollock, Jane E. (2001). Classroom Instructions that Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. (Based on meta-analysis of hundreds of studies. Includes chapters on the nine most effective teaching strategies, plus chapters on implementation
    Scientific Based Research: Marzano, Robert J.; Norford, Jennifer S.; Paynter, Diane E.; Pickering, Debra J.; and Gaddy, Barbara B. (2001). A Handbook for Classroom Instruction that Works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Marzano, Robert J.; Pickering, Debra J.; and Pollock, Jane E. (2001). Classroom Instructions that Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
    Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
    A. Collaborative team planning time B. Training/continuing education/professional development will be provided to improve math and literacy.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Mary Crawford Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Writing strategies will be utilized to improve open-ended math responses.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Olivia Murphy Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Collaboration of classroom teachers, special education teachers and other support staff to implement differentiated strategies for all students with Academic Improvement Plans and or special needs to improve information skills. Formative and summative assessment data will be examined.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 Sharon Michaels Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Classroom, ESL and Special Education teachers will work together with principal to support appropriate writing strategies for answering open response math problems. The media specialist will collaborate when applicable to add materials to enhance the curriculum.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 Adrienne Johnson Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Program Evaluation: At the conclusion of the 2008-09 school year we evaluated Step Up To Writing by horizontally assessed writing prompts in the building, and assessed targeted assessment writing prompts using the Arkansas State Writing Rubric to determined that it was ineffective in support of our Curriculum Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. We believe the evidence shows that it is not valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement because less than 80% of 3-5 graders scored proficient or advanced in math constructed response on the benchmark exam. During the 2009-10 school year we plan to use horizontally assessed math constructed response in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities, that make up the action descriptions within the program.
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 06/30/2009
    End: 07/01/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Total Budget: $0
    Intervention: The curriculum will be mapped and aligned. Mapping the Big Picture: Integrating Curriculum and Assessment, K-12. Heidi Hayes Jacobs. ASCD, 1997.
    Scientific Based Research: Mapping the Big Picture: Integrating Curriculum and Assessment, K-12. Heidi Hayes Jacobs. ASCD (1997).
    Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
    All students' needs will be addressed through the application of the school's curriculum.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 Melissa Armendariz Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    • Title Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    There will be an annual review of data from summative norm referenced tests and Benchmark scores to analyze areas of weakness in order to address sub skills, content clusters, subtests and subgroups that may need to be addressed in the curriculum mapping process. An annual review and adjustment to the curriculum maps will be made according to gaps and/or duplications noted from the data analysis.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Olivia Murphy Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Teachers will participate in ongoing development of curriculum mapping, including horizontal and vertical alignment.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Lyndsey Runyan Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Ongoing learning teams will provide continual assessment to vertical and horizontal alignment of the math curriculum. The team will share effective teaching and assessment strategies and training for teachers.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 Pam Dunn Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Teachers will plan and coordinate Math, Science, Reading/Language Arts and/or Social Studies correlations for specific instructional units and times.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 Stephanie Harter Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Teachers will identify grade level correlations between Math, Science, Reading/Language Arts and/or Social Studies.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 Shirley Gorman Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Parents will be aware of and have access to the Fayetteville Schools Curriculum Map via the district web page.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    		 Cheryl Putnam, Principal Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Teachers will implement the correlated curriculum at grade levels for all students. Formative and summative assessment data will be examined.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 Melissa Armendariz Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Curriculum maps are an on going process of development as new frameworks are revised. As part of this process 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. Lesson plans are submitted to the principal through Curriculum Recorder.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    Action Type: Special Education
    		 Cheryl Putnam, Principal Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Teachers are provided with weekly instructional meeting time in order to plan for the implementation of best practices chosen to help improve student achievement at each student's readiness level. This planning time will be provided during the course of the day.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Cheryl Putnam, Principal Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Program Evaluation: At the conclusion of the 2008-09 school year we evaluated our curriculum alignment through the use of Curriculum Recorder, and determined that it was ineffective in support of our Curriculum Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. We beleive that it did not meet our expectations so we developed competencies for each grade level correlating with state and district standards. We believe the evidence shows that it is not a valuable tool in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. During the 2009-10 school year we plan to use the competencies developed to guide student acheivement.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 06/30/2009
    End: 07/01/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Total Budget: $0
    Priority 2: Improving Literacy
    Supporting Data:
    1. Grade K - 2 SAT 10: Data unavailable. Grade 3 SAT 10 2009 - Combined Population: 47 Students were tested and 62% scored above the 50th percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses in Vocabulary. Grade 3: Caucasian (Total) Population: Grade 3: In 2009, 30 students were tested on the SAT10 and 60% had an NPR score of 50%, or above. Economically Disadvantage (Total) Population: Grade 3: In 2009, 30 students were tested on the SAT10 and 50% had an NPR score of 50, or above. Grade 4-SAT10 2009: Combined Population: 45 Students were tested and 62% scored above the 50th percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses in Spelling. SAT10: Caucasian (Total) Population: Grade 4: In 2009, 27 students were tested on the ITBS and 67% had an NPR score of 50%, or above. Economically Disadvantage (Total) Population: Grade 4: In 2009, 32 students were tested on the SAT10 and 50% had an NPR score of 50%, or above. Grade 5-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2009: Combined Population: 43 Students were tested and 53% scored above the 50th percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses in Reading Comprehension. Caucasian (Total) Population: Grade 5: In 2009, 27 students were tested on the SAT10 and 59% had an NPR score of 59%, or above. Economically Disadvantage (Total) Population: Grade 5: In 2009, 28 students were tested on the SAT10 and 53% had an NPR score of 50%, or above.
    2. Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Combined (Total) Population: Grade K: 2008, Not reporting due to incomplete data Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Combined (Total) Population: Grade 1: In 2008, 60 students were tested on the ITBS and 43.3% had an NPR score of 50, or above. Caucasian (Total) Population: Grade 1: In 2008, 40 students were tested on the ITBS and 47.5% had an NPR score of 50, or above. Economically Disadvantage (Total) Population: Grade 1: In 2008, 37 students were tested on the ITBS and 24.3% had an NPR score of 50, or above. Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Combined (Total) Population: Grade 2: In 2008, 48 students were tested on the ITBS and 45.8% had an NPR score of 50, or above. Caucasian (Total) Population: Grade 2: In 2008, 33 students were tested on the ITBS and 48.5% had an NPR score of 50, or above. Economically Disadvantage (Total) Population: Grade 2: In 2008, 31 students were tested on the ITBS and 38.7% had an NPR score of 50, or above. Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Combined (Total) Population: Grade 3: In 2008, 47 students were tested on the ITBS and 34% had an NPR score of 50, or above. Caucasian (Total) Population: Grade 3: In 2008, 29 students were tested on the ITBS and 37.9% had an NPR score of 50, or above. Economically Disadvantage (Total) Population: Grade 3: In 2008, 37 students were tested on the ITBS and 27% had an NPR score of 50, or above. Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Combined (Total) Population: Grade 4: In 2008, 41 students were tested on the ITBS and 65.9% had an NPR score of 50, or above. Caucasian (Total) Population: Grade 4: In 2008, 27 students were tested on the ITBS and 74.1% had an NPR score of 50, or above. Economically Disadvantage (Total) Population: Grade 4: In 2008, 27 students were tested on the ITBS and 63% had an NPR score of 50, or above. Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Combined (Total) Population: Grade 5: In 2008, 42 students were tested on the ITBS and 69% had an NPR score of 50, or above. Caucasian (Total) Population: Grade 5: In 2008, 24 students were tested on the ITBS and 79.2% had an NPR score of 50, or above. Economically Disadvantage (Total) Population: Grade 5: In 2008, 26 students were tested on the ITBS and 50% had an NPR score of 50, or above. 
    3. Grade K-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:

Combined Population:   63 Students were tested and 67.1% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in Vocabulary.


Caucasian Population:  39 Students were tested and 68.4% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in Listening.

Limited English Proficient(ELL):  12 Students were tested and 50.0% scored
above the 50gh percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weakness in Vocabulary.

Economically Disadvantaged (SES): 32 Students were tested and 61.3% scored
above the 50th percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weakness in Vocabulary.

Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulations of: Students with
Disabilities, African American, and Hispanic. 

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

Combined Population:  43 Students were tested and 67.4% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in word analysis - vowel sounds and vocabulary. 

Caucasian Population:  28 Students were tested and 67.8% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in Vocabulary.

Limited English Proficient(ELL): less than 10 students were tested.

Economically Disadvantaged (SES): 27 Students were tested and 59.2% scored
above the 50th percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weakness in Vocabulary and Word Analysis.

Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulations of: Students with
Disabilities, African American, and Hispanic. 

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

Combined Population:  44 students were tested and 59.1% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in Vocabulary, Comprehension, Word Analysis and Listening.

Caucasian Population:  24 Students were tested and 62.5% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in Vocabulary, Listening and Comprehension.

Hispanic: 11 Students were tested and 45.5% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weakness in
Vocabulary and Word Analysis, Comprehension, and Listening.

Limited English Proficient(ELL): less than 10 students were tested.

Economically Disadvantaged (SES): 31 Students were tested and 48.4% scored
above the 50th percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weakness in Vocabulary and Word Analysis, Comprehension, and Listening.

Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulations of: Students with
Disabilities and African American. 

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

Combined Population:  37 Students were tested and 64.8% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in Comprehension, Listening, Word Analysis and Vocabulary.

Caucasian Population:  24 Students were tested and 70.8% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in Vocabulary, Listening and Comprehension.

Economically Disadvantaged (SES): 22 Students were tested and 63.7% scored
above the 50th percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weakness in Vocabulary and Word Analysis, Comprehension, and Listening.

Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulations of: Students with
Disabilities ELL, Hispanic and African American. 


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

Combined Population:  42 Students were tested and 47.6% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in Reading Comprehension and Vocabulary.

Caucasian Population:  17 Students were tested and 76.4% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weakness
in Vocabulary.

Hispanic: 12 Students were tested and 16.6% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weakness in
Vocabulary and Comprehension.

African American: 11 Students were tested and 27.3% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weakness in
Vocabulary and Comprehension.

Limited English Proficient(ELL): 13 Students were tested and 30.8% scored
above the 50th percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weakness in Vocabulary and Comprehension.

Economically Disadvantaged (SES): 33 Students were tested and 33.3% scored
above the 50th percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weakness in Vocabulary and Comprehension.

Students with Disabilities: 10 Students were tested and 40% scored above
the 50th percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weakness in Vocabulary and Comprehension.

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


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

Combined Population:  45 Students were tested and 55.6% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in Reading Comprehension and Vocabulary.

Economically Disadvantaged Population:	26 Students were tested and 40%
scored above the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests
revealed weaknesses in Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension.

Caucasian Population:  28 Students were tested and 60.7% scored above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension.

African American: 10 Students were tested and 50% scored above the 50th
percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses in
Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension.

Students with Disabilities:  10 Students were tested and 30% scored above
the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension.

Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulations of: LEP and
Hispanic



    4. Benchmark-3rd Grade Literacy Exam					  
     
	   
1. Combined Population
Grade 3 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, 47 students were tested and 97% scored
proficient or advanced.In 2008, 47 students were tested and 68% were
proficient and advanced. In 2007, 41 students were tested and 66% scored
proficient or advanced.  
The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in
the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified
area (s) are: Content and Literary. The trend analysis of the open
response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest
identified area (s) are: Content and Syle.
  
2. Students with Disabilities (IEP):
Grade 3 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, less than 10 students with IEPs were
tested. 
In 2008, Less than 10 students were tested. In 2007, less than 10 students
with IEPs were tested. 
3. Limited English Proficient (LEP):
Grade 3 Benchmark Exam: In 2009,less than 10 students were tested. 
In 2008, Less than 10 students were tested. In 2007, less than 10 students
were tested.   
4. Economically Disadvantaged (SES): 
Grade 3 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, 30 students were tested and 73% were
proficient and advancedIn 2008, 37 students were tested and 62% were
proficient and advanced.In 2007, 26  students were tested and 65% scored
proficient or advanced. The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified area is: Content. The trend analysis
of the open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that
the lowest identified area (s) are: Content and Style.
  

5. African American:
Grade 3 Benchmark Exam: In 2009,less than 10 students were tested. 
In 2008, less than 10 students were tested. In 2007, less than 10 students
were tested. 6. Caucasian:
Grade 3 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, 30 students were tested and 77% scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2008, 18 students were tested and 78% were
proficient and advanced.In 2007, 28 students were tested and 68% scored
proficient or advanced. The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified areas are: Content and literary. The
trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains
revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Content and Style.  

7. Hispanic:
Grade 5 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, less than 10 students were tested. In
2008, less than 10 students were tested. In 2007, less than 10 student
were tested. 

    5. Benchmark-4th Grade Literacy Exam					  
     
1. Combined Population
Grade 4 Benchmark Exam:  In 2009, 45 students were tested and 64% scored
proficient or advanced. 
In 2008, 40 students were tested and 63% were proficient and advanced.In
2007, 43 students were tested and 49% scored proficient or advanced. The
trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in the
three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified area
(s) are: Content and Literary. The trend analysis of the open response
questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified
area (s) are: Content and Syle.
  
2. Students with Disabilities (IEP):
Grade 4 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, less than 10 students with IEPs were
tested. In 2008, Less than 10 students were tested. In 2007, less than 10
students with IEPs were tested. 

3. Limited English Proficient (LEP):
Grade 4 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, less than 10 students were tested.In
2008, less than 10 students were tested. In 2007, 13 students were tested
and 53% scored proficient or advanced.	 The trend analysis of the open
response and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading
passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Content and
Literary. The trend analysis of the open response questions in the five
writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Content
and Syle.
  
4. Economically Disadvantaged (SES): 
Grade 5 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, 32 students were tested and 56% scored
proficient or advanced.In 2008, 26 students were tested and 58% were
proficient and advanced.In 2007, 33 students were tested and 36% scored
proficient or advanced.   The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified area is: Content. The trend analysis
of the open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that
the lowest identified area (s) are: Content and Style.
  

5. African American:
Grade 4 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, less than 10 students were tested.In
2008, less than 10 students were tested. In 2007, 11 students were tested
and 45% scored proficient or advanced.	 The trend analysis of the open
response and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading
passages, revealed that the lowest identified area is: Content. The trend
analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains
revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Content and Style  

6. Caucasian:
Grade 4 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, 27 students were tested and 63% scored
proficient or advanced. In 2008, 27 students were tested and 74% were
proficient and advanced.In 2007, 18 students were tested and 55% scored
proficient or advanced.  The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified areas are: Content and literary.The
trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains
revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Content and Style.  

7. Hispanic:
Grade 5 Benchmark Exam:  In 2009 10 students were tested and 80% scored
proficient or advanced. In 2008, less than 10 students were tested.  In
2007, 12 students were tested and 33% scored proficient or advanced. 

    6. Benchmark-5th Grade Literacy Exam					  
     
	   
1. Combined Population
Grade 5 Benchmark Exam:  In 2009, 43 students were tested and 67% scored
proficient or advanced. 
In 2008, 46 students were tested and 41 % scored proficient or advanced.
In 2007, 39 students were tested and 51.1% scored proficient or advanced.
The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in
the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified
area (s) are: Content and Practical. The trend analysis of the open
response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest
identified area (s) are: Content and Syle.
  
2. Students with Disabilities (IEP):
Grade 5 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, less than 10 students with IEPs were
tested.In 2008, 10 students were tested and 20% scored proficient or
advanced. In 2007, less than 10 students with IEPs were tested.  The trend
analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in the three
types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s)
are: Content Passages. The trend analysis of the open response questions
in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s)
are: Content and Style.  

3. Limited English Proficient (LEP):
Grade 5 Benchmark Exam: In 2009,less than 10 students were tested. In
2008, less than 10  students were tested. In 2007, less than 10  students
were tested.

4. Economically Disadvantaged (SES): 
Grade 5 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, 28 students were tested and 61% scored
proficient or advanced.In 2008, 28 students were tested and 18% scored
proficient or advanced. In 2007, 26 students were tested and 61.2% scored
proficient or advanced.  The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Content and Style. The
trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains
revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Content and Style.
  

5. African American:
Grade 5 Benchmark Exam: In 2009,less than 10 students were tested.In 2008,
10 students were tested and 40% scored proficient or advanced. In 2007,
less than 10 students were tested.  The trend analysis of the open
response and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading
passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Content. The
trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains
revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Content and Style  

6. Caucasian:
Grade 5 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, 27 students were tested and 74% scored
proficient or advanced. In 2008, 28 students were tested and 43% scored
proficient or advanced. In 2007, 33 students were tested and 78.7% scored
proficient or advanced. The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Content.…The trend
analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains
revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Content and Style.  

7. Hispanic:
Grade 5 Benchmark Exam: In 2009,less than 10 students were tested. In
2008, less than 10 student were tested. In 2007, less than 10 students
were tested. 


    7. Attendance Rate: In 2009, the attendance rate for the building was
92.25%.   In 2008, the attendance rate fo rthe building was 94.38%.  In
2007, the attendance rate for the bulding was 95.6%.
    Goal All students will improve in writing skills across the curriculum. Emphasis will be placed on content and style writing domains.
    Benchmark “The Combined Population and each Sub population MET the 2008 AYP target of 56.8% scoring Proficient/Advanced. Each sub population also met the 2009 AMO target of 64% Proficient or Advanced. It is expected that each of these populations will meet, or exceed, the 2010 AYP Target of 71.2% scoring Proficient/Advanced, or make AYP through either the “Safe Harbor” or “Growth” models.
    Intervention: Comprehensive Literacy Model; Adams, M. (1996), Beginning to Read; Allington, R.(1994), Classrooms That Work: They Can All Read and Write; Calkins, L. (1991), The Art of Teaching; Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, Put Reading First; Clay, M. (1993), Becoming Literate; Clay, M. (1993), An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement; Clay, M.(1993), Reading Recovery: A Guidebook for Teachers in Training; Dorn, L., French, C. and Jones, T. (1998), Apprenticeship in Literacy: Transitions in Reading and Writing; Fountas, I. and Pinnell, G.S. (1996), Guided Reading: Good First Teaching for All Children
    Scientific Based Research: Adams, M. (1996), Beginning to Read; Allington, R.(1994), Classrooms That Work: They Can All Read and Write; Calkins, L. (1991), The Art of Teaching; Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, Put Reading First; Clay, M. (1993), Becoming Literate; Clay, M. (1993), An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement; Clay, M.(1993), Reading Recovery: A Guidebook for Teachers in Training; Dorn, L., French, C. and Jones, T. (1998), Apprenticeship in Literacy: Transitions in Reading and Writing; Fountas, I. and Pinnell, G.S. (1996), Guided Reading: Good First Teaching for All Children
    Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
    Social work program will work with families of educationally disadvantaged students to address family and student issues relevant to improving academic achievement.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    		 Cheryl Putnam, Principal Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    K-3 teachers will be trained in Comprehensive Literacy Model. Professional Develoment for staff members will be ongoing and provided by the literacy coach. Substitutes will be hired.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Professional Development
    Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
    		 Penny Ezell Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Teachers will participate in data analysis using comparative data from beginning of year and end of year measures.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 Gayle Bowman, 3rd Grade Teacher Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Kindergarten through 5th grade will have a weekly newsletter sent home. Parent nights will be implemented throughout the school year.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    		 Marianne Baxter Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Kindergarten-5, ESL, resource,and instructional aides will work together with principal to support Comprehensive Literacy strategies. Materials will be purchased to support these strategies.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 Penny Ezell Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Title Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    ESL instructional assistant will provide interventions for ESL students and other students with similar needs toward improvement in reading achievement.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 Cheryl Putnam, Principal Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teaching Aids
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Ongoing tracking of staff training in literacy learning recorded by district reading specialist.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 Shannon Carlton, 4th Grade Teacher Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • District Staff
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    K-5 students will be given a pre and post writing prompt. The DSA (Developmental Spelling Assessment) will be given as a pre test in grades 1-5 for placement. DRA will be given to all new students without previous data for reading level placement and small group instruction.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Jackie Curington, 1st Grade Teacher Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    The resource teacher will use Comprehensive Literacy strategies with grades K - 5.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Special Education
    		 Stephanie Wood, Kindergarten teacher Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    TRANSITION: Action: (Pre-K) Kindergarten teachers will collaborate to incorporate research/best practices related to early childhood development so that there will be a seamless transition for students between preschool and kindergarten environments. The kindergarten curriculum includes instructional strategies, teaching methodologies, and assessment techniques based upon the theories of early childhood growth and development. Each kindergarten classroom will have an instructional assistant to support this process, depending on needs of students and state requirements. Entrance conferences will be held with all parents and students at the beginning of the school year and teachers will maintain contact with the parents on a regular basis and arrange for additional conferences with parents as needed.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
    		 Stephanie Wood Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Program Evaluation: At the conclusion of the 2008-09 school year we evaluated the Comprehensive Literacy Model through formative assessments: DIBELS assessments, DSA and DRA levels and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development(combined population grades 3-5, 70% scored proficient or advanced in Literacy). In addition, summative CRT data was used. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. During the 2009-10 school year we plan to use DIBELS, DRA, and DSA in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities, that make up the action descriptions within Comprehensive Literacy Model
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Penny Ezzell Start: 06/30/2009
    End: 07/01/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    A .67 FTE certified licensed, highly qualified reading teacher will be hired to remediate students below grade level.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 01/08/2008
    End: 06/30/2009
    • Administrative Staff
    • Teachers
    • Title Teachers
    Title I - Employee Salaries: $35195.00
    Title I - Employee Benefits: $9151.00
    ACTION BUDGET: $44346
    One (.50 FTE) para pro will be hired to work under the direct supervision of a licensed, highly qualified teacher to help students reading below grade level.
    Action Type: Title I Target Assistance
    		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 06/30/2009
    End: 07/01/2010
    • Teachers
    • Title Teachers
    Title I - Employee Salaries: $10916.00
    Title I - Employee Benefits: $2838.00
    ACTION BUDGET: $13754
    One .5 FTE certified teacher will be hired to remediate students reading below grade level.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
    		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Teachers
    • Title Teachers
    Title I - Employee Salaries: $12103.00
    Title I - Employee Benefits: $3146.00
    ACTION BUDGET: $15249
    A .1 FTE certified teacher will be hired to remediate students reading below grade level.
    Action Type: Equity
    		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    • Title Teachers
    Title I - Employee Salaries: $6072.00
    Title I - Employee Benefits: $1579.00
    ACTION BUDGET: $7651
    Total Budget: $81000
    Intervention: Step Up to Writing: Marzano, Robert J.; Norford, Jennifer S.; Paynter, Diane E.; Pickering, Debra J.; and Gaddy, Barbara B. (2001). A Handbook for Classroom Instruction that Works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD (Includes specific lesson designs using the nine research-based strategies.) Marzano, Robert J.; Pickering, Debra J.; and Pollack, Jane E. (2001). Classroom Instruction that Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. (Based on a meta-analysis of hundreds of studies. Includes chapters on the nine most effective teaching strategies, plus chapters on implementation
    Scientific Based Research: Marzano, Robert J.; Norford, Jennifer S.; Paynter, Diane E.; Pickering, Debra J.; and Gaddy, Barbara B. (2001). A Handbook for Classroom Instruction that Works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD (Includes specific lesson designs using the nine research-based strategies.) Marzano, Robert J.; Pickering, Debra J.; and Pollack, Jane E. (2001). Classroom Instruction that Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. (Based on a meta-analysis of hundreds of studies. Includes chapters on the nine most effective teaching strategies, plus chapters on implementation
    Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
    COLLABORATION: Resource, GT, ESL, K-5 teachers and media specialist will work together to implement and integrate Step Up to Writing strategies taught in the classroom. The school social worker will work with local Head Start organizations to educate and inform future Leverett parents who may be parents of homeless, English Language Learner, migrant, free and reduced lunch and highly mobile students. The school social worker will also collaborate with local organizations to assist homeless families.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Special Education
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
    		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Computers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    District writing prompts, classroom writing prompts, district K-1 writing continuum, and Arkansas writing rubrics will be used to assess student progress in writing. Formative and summative data will be examined.
    Action Type: AIP/IRI
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Lacey Bingaman Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Teachers will share writing prompts within grade levels and/or across grade levels on a quarterly basis.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Penny Ezell Start: 06/30/2009
    End: 07/01/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Program Evaluation: At the conclusion of the 2008-09 school year we evaluated vertically assessed writing prompts in the building, assessed district writing prompts using the Arkansas State Writing Rubric, and used Arkansas Benchmark writing prompts to 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 (combined population grades 3-5, 70% scored proficient or advanced in Literacy). During the 2009-10 school year we plan to use these assessments in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities, that make up the action descriptions within the program. Our goal is that 80% or more students in grades 3-5 will score proficient or advanced on the writing portion of the benchmark.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 06/30/2009
    End: 07/01/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Total Budget: $0
    Intervention: The curriculum will be mapped and aligned. Mapping the Big Picture: Integrating Curriculum and Assessment, K-12. Heidi Hayes Jacobs. ASCD, (1997).
    Scientific Based Research: Mapping the Big Picture: Integrating Curriculum and Assessment, K-12. Heidi Hayes Jacobs. ASCD, (1997).
    Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
    Teachers will receive training on curriculum mapping, including horizontal and vertical alignment.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Teachers will plan and coordinate math, science, reading/language arts and/or social studies correlations for specific instructional units.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 John Andrews, Music Teacher Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Teachers will identify grade level correlations between Math, Science, Reading/Language Arts and/or Social Studies.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 Jackie Curington Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Parents will be aware of and have access to the Fayetteville Schools Curriculum Bank via the district web page.
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Computers
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Teachers will implement the correlated curriculum at grade levels for all students.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 Lacey Bingaman Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Curriculum maps are on going process of development as new frameworks are revised. As part of this process 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. Lesson plans are submitted to the building share drive on a weekly basis.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Cheryl Putnam, Principal Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    All students' needs will be addressed through the application of the school's curriculum.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Program Evaluation: At the conclusion of the 2008-09 school year we evaluated our curriculum alignment through the use of Curriculum Recorder, and determined that it was ineffective in support of our Curriculum Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. We beleive that it did not meet our expectations so we developed competencies for each grade level correlating with state and district standards. We believe the evidence shows that it is not a valuable tool in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. During the 2009-10 school year we plan to use the competencies developed to guide student acheivement.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 06/30/2009
    End: 07/01/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Total Budget: $0
    Goal All students will improve on Literacy skills across the curriculum. Emphasis will be placed on comprehension and fluency.
    Benchmark The combined population and each subgroup MET the 2008 AYP target. It is expected that each of these populations will meet, or exceed, the 2009 AYP Target.
    Intervention: Comprehensive Literacy Model; Adams, M. (1996), Beginning to Read; Allington, R.(1994), Classrooms That Work: They Can All Read and Write; Calkins, L. (1991), The Art of Teaching; Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, Put Reading First; Clay, M. (1993), Becoming Literate; Clay, M. (1993), An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement; Clay, M.(1993), Reading Recovery: A Guidebook for Teachers in Training; Dorn, L., French, C. and Jones, T. (1998), Apprenticeship in Literacy: Transitions in Reading and Writing; Fountas, I. and Pinnell, G.S. (1996), Guided Reading: Good First Teaching for All Children
    Scientific Based Research: Adams, M. (1996), Beginning to Read; Allington, R.(1994), Classrooms That Work: They Can All Read and Write; Calkins, L. (1991), The Art of Teaching; Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, Put Reading First; Clay, M. (1993), Becoming Literate; Clay, M. (1993), An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement; Clay, M.(1993), Reading Recovery: A Guidebook for Teachers in Training; Dorn, L., French, C. and Jones, T. (1998), Apprenticeship in Literacy: Transitions in Reading and Writing; Fountas, I. and Pinnell, G.S. (1996), Guided Reading: Good First Teaching for All Children
    Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
    The resource teacher will use Comprehensive Literacy strategies with grades 2-5.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Special Education
    		 Sharon Michaels Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Kindergarten through 5th grade will have a weekly newsletter sent home. Parent nights will be implemented throughout the school year. Materials will be sent home for parents to work with students to further their learning.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    		 Gayle Bowman Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    K-5 grade students will be given a pre and post writing prompt. The DSA (Developemental Spelling Assessment)will be given as a pretest for placement. Formative and summative assessment data will be examined.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Jackie Curington, 1st Grade Teacher Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Kindergarten through 5th grade, ESL, resource, instructional aides and certified reading interventionist will work together with principal to support Comprehensive Literacy strategies.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 Penny Ezell Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    • Teaching Aids
    • Title Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    The media specialist will continue to build book resources in a variety of languages within the library. Library resources will be communicated to parents via beginning of school newsletter to support the learning of our ESL students and families.
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Stephanie Sawyer and Carol Raybon Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    K-5 teachers will be trained in Comprehensive Literacy Model. This includes new teachers to the building.
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Jackie Curington Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Ongoing tracking of staff training in literacy learning recorded by district reading specialist.
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Shannon Carlton Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    K-5 teachers will develop and maintain reading libraries, provide explicit instruction in reading strategies and develop meaningful writing curriculum.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Lacey Bingaman Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Kindergarten students, who score delayed in both written and oral communication, on the Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI), and first and second grade students who score “below basic”, in reading, will be considered to have a substantial reading deficiency. These children will be provided Intensive Reading Instruction utilizing Phonetics Connection, TPRI, "I've DIBELed Now What?", Florida Center for Reading Research Interventions, and Quick Reads - scientifically based reading programs. The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) will be administered to all students who are shown to have a substantial reading deficiency. The DIBELS will be used as: A. The evaluation instrument to determine which areas of reading the child is deficient. B. The progress-monitoring instrument to document progress toward grade level proficiency, and C. The assessment instrument used for discontinuing services. The DIBELS evaluation will be administered within thirty days after the beginning of the school year, and within 30 days after receiving the QELI report, for applicable kindergarten students. Intensive reading interventions will be comprehensive in nature and will be targeted to remediate the area of deficiency. For those affected students, school personnel will develop an Intensive Reading Improvement Plan (IRI) that will describe our intervention program. Intervention will be provided in the form of small group instruction and tutorial services. These intervention strategies and methods will continue until each student has reached grade level proficiency in all essential areas of reading. Student achievement in each of the essential elements shall be monitored bi-weekly until proficiency occurs. Students who are not meeting current expectations shall be provided additional interventions. Each parent, or guardian, will be notified in writing when their child has been identified with a substantial reading deficiency.
    Action Type: AIP/IRI
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 Marianne Baxter and Penny Ezell Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    • Teaching Aids
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    POINT IN TIME REMEDIATION: Progress will be monitored using classroom running records, quarterly assessment and the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, SAT-10 and Benchmark Exams to provide sufficient information on which to base effective assistance for children scoring below proficiency.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
    		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Central Office
    • Outside Consultants
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Program Evaluation: At the conclusion of the 2008-09 school year we evaluated the Comprehensive Literacy Model through: DIBELS assessments, Guided Reading levels and student progress on the Phonics continuum, 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(combined population grades 3-5, 70% scored proficient or advanced in Literacy). During the 2009-10 school year we plan to use DIBELS, Guided Reading levels, and student progress on Phonics continuum in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities, that make up the action descriptions within Comprehensive Literacy Model.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 06/30/2009
    End: 07/01/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Total Budget: $0
    Intervention: Step Up to Writing; Marzano, Robert J.; Norford, Jennifer S.; Paynter, Diane E.; Pickering, Debra J.; and Gaddy, Barbara B. (2001). A Handbook for Classroom Instruction that Works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD (Includes specific lesson designs using the nine research-based strategies.) Marzano, Robert J.; Pickering, Debra J.; and Pollack, Jane E. (2001). Classroom Instruction that Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. (Based on a meta-analysis of hundreds of studies. Includes chapters on the nine most effective teaching strategies, plus chapters on implementation
    Scientific Based Research: Marzano, Robert J.; Norford, Jennifer S.; Paynter, Diane E.; Pickering, Debra J.; and Gaddy, Barbara B. (2001). Alexandria, VA: ASCD (Includes specific lesson designs using the nine research-based strategies.) Marzano, Robert J.; Pickering, Debra J.; and Pollack, Jane E. (2001). Alexandria, VA: ASCD. (Based on a meta-analysis of hundreds of studies. Includes chapters on the nine most effective teaching strategies, plus chapters on implementation
    Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
    Resource, GT, ESL, K-5 teachers and media specialist will work together to implement and integrate strategies taught in the classroom.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 Stephaine Sawyer Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Computers
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    District writing prompts, classroom writing prompts and Arkansas writing rubrics will be used to assess student progress in writing. formative and summative assessment data will be examined.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 Karie Sutton Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Benchmark writing scores will be examined annually and scores compared.
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Cheryl Putnam, Principal Start: 06/30/2009
    End: 07/01/2010
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      Program Evaluation: At the conclusion of the 2008-09 school year we evaluated writing by: vertically assessed writing prompts in the building, assessed district writing prompts using the Arkansas State Writing Rubric, and Arkansas Benchmark writing prompts to determine 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(combined population grades 3-5, 70% scored proficient or advanced in Literacy). During the 2009-10 school year we plan to use these assessments in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities, that make up the action descriptions within the program.
      Action Type: Alignment
      Action Type: Program Evaluation
      		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 06/30/2009
      End: 07/01/2010
      • Administrative Staff
      • Teachers
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      Total Budget: $0
      Intervention: The curriculum will be mapped and aligned. Mapping the Big Picture: Integrating Curriculum and Assessment, K-12. Heidi Hayes Jacobs. ASCD, (1997).
      Scientific Based Research: Mapping the Big Picture: Integrating Curriculum and Assessment, K-12. Heidi Hayes Jacobs. ASCD, (1997).
      Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
      All students' needs will be addressed through the application of the school's curriculum.
      Action Type: Collaboration
      		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • Teachers
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      There will be an annual review of data from norm referenced tests and Benchmark scores to analyze areas of weakness in order to address sub skills, content clusters, subtests and subgroups that may need to be addressed in the curriculum mapping process. An annual review and adjustment to the curriculum maps will be made according to gaps and/or duplications noted from the data analysis.
      Action Type: Alignment
      		 Karie Sutton Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • Teachers
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      Teachers will receive training on curriculum mapping, including horizontal and vertical alignment.
      Action Type: Alignment
      Action Type: Professional Development
      		 Beth Lewis Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • Teachers
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      Ongoing learning team work will provide continual assessment to vertical and horizontal alignment of the reading curriculum. The team will share effective teaching and assessment strategies and training for teachers.
      Action Type: Alignment
      Action Type: Professional Development
      		 Stephanie Wood, Kindergarten Teacher Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • Teachers
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      Teachers will plan and coordinate Math, Science, Reading/Language Arts and/or Social Studies correlations for specific instructional units and times. Literacy materials that correlate with the curriculum will be purchased.
      Action Type: Alignment
      Action Type: Collaboration
      		 John Andrews Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • Teachers
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      Teachers will meet quarterly to identify grade level correlations between Math, Science, Reading/Language Arts and/or Social Studies. Teachers will review formative and summative data from norm referenced tests and Benchmark scores to analyze areas of weakness in order to address sub skills, content clusters, subtests and subgroups that may need to be addressed in the curriculum mapping process. A review and adjustment to the curriculum maps will be made according to gaps and/or duplications noted from the data analysis. Substitutes will be used to provide this time.
      Action Type: Alignment
      Action Type: Collaboration
      Action Type: Program Evaluation
      		 Jackie Curington, 1st Grade Teacher Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • Teachers
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      Parents will be aware of and have access to the Fayetteville Schools Curriculum Bank via the district web page.
      Action Type: Professional Development
      		 Cheryl Putnam, Principal Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • Computers
      • Teachers
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      Teachers will implement the correlated curriculum at grade levels for all students.
      Action Type: Collaboration
      		 Jackie Curington, 1st Grade Teacher Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • Teachers
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      After 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. Lesson plans will be submitted to the principal on Curriculum Recorder.
      Action Type: Alignment
      Action Type: Collaboration
      Action Type: Program Evaluation
      		 Cheryl Putnam, Principal Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • Teachers
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      Program Evaluation: At the conclusion of the 2008-09 school year we evaluated writing by: vertically assessed writing prompts in the building, assessed district writing prompts using the Arkansas State Writing Rubric, and Arkansas Benchmark writing prompts to determine 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(combined population grades 3-5, 70% scored proficient or advanced in Literacy). During the 2009-10 school year we plan to use these assessments in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities, that make up the action descriptions within the program.
      Action Type: Equity
      Action Type: Program Evaluation
      		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 06/30/2009
      End: 07/01/2010
      • Administrative Staff
      • Teachers
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      Total Budget: $0
      Intervention: Comprehensive Literacy initiative is implemented to support a comprehensive reading program utilizing the essential elements: comprehension, fluency, phonemic awareness, phonics, and vocabulary.
      Scientific Based Research: Report of the National Reading Panel (2000): Teaching Children to Read, Put Reading First; National Institute for Literacy, National INstitute of Child Health and Human Development; The U.S. Department of Education, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children; National Research Council, Beginning to Read, Marily J. Adams.
      Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
      A certified 1.0 Literacy Coach will be hired to support comprehensive literacy program.
      Action Type: Alignment
      Action Type: Collaboration
      Action Type: Professional Development
      		 Cheryl Putnam, Principal Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • District Staff
      • Teachers
      • Teaching Aids
      • Title Teachers
      Title I - Employee Salaries: $37676.00
      Title I - Employee Benefits: $9796.00
      ACTION BUDGET: $47472
      Teachers, administrators and Literacy Coach will attend professional development and training with the district to promote the learning of teachers within grade levels. Teachers will spend time out of the classrooms, so substitutes will be paid for the time needed at the current rate of 70-95.00/sub each day. This will all include teachers K-5 and other certified teachers in the building. The goal of the trainings will be to promote best practices in all classrooms and integrate all content ares allowing for more collaboration between students. This is the same type of trainings teachers have been involved in the past three years as we have been a Reading First School, and want to continue to use that model in our literacy instruction.
      Action Type: Alignment
      Action Type: Collaboration
      		 Karie Sutton Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • Administrative Staff
      • Central Office
      • Performance Assessments
      • Title Teachers
      Title II-A - Purchased Services: $5000.00
      ACTION BUDGET: $5000
      Reading First comprehensive literacy implementation will be supported through the purchase of necessary learning materials and supplies.
      Action Type: Alignment
      Action Type: Collaboration
      		 Penny Ezell Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2010
      • Teachers
      Title I - Materials & Supplies: $16239.00
      ACTION BUDGET: $16239
      DIBELs Assessment will be examined to monitor growth and progress. formative and summative assessment data will be examined. All assessment information will be sent home to parents informing them of their student's progress every 4.5 weeks.
      Action Type: Program Evaluation
      		 Cheryl Putnam, Principal Start: 06/30/2009
      End: 07/01/2010
        Title I - Materials & Supplies: $1777.00
        ACTION BUDGET: $1777
        HIGHLY QUALIFIED: Strategies will be developed in conjunction with the central office staff for attracting highly qualified teachers to the Fayetteville school district.
        Action Type: Collaboration
        Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
        		 Cheryl Putnam, Principal Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Administrative Staff
        • District Staff
        • Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        SCHOOL LEADERSHIP TEAM Closing the Achievement Gap (Literacy): Regular quarterly meetings of our (Literacy) ACSIP Leadership Committee will continue to be held. These meetings will focus on building capacity within our school. Each meeting agenda will include the following Core Principles: A. The selection, and continuous evaluation, of research-based, scientifically validated, Interventions designed to improve our ability to improve student performance on the Literacy portion of all Assessments. B. The ongoing monitoring of student progress in order to influence classroom instruction. C. The utilization of Formative and Summative Assessment Data to make decisions that impact: Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. D. Coordination of resources in order to better meet the needs of all students. Written minutes of each meeting, along with a sign-in sheet, will be kept and made available upon request. The intent is that each Intervention, and Action, is carefully monitored…through the collection of Formative and Summative Data….so that those strategies 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: AIP/IRI
        Action Type: Alignment
        Action Type: Collaboration
        Action Type: Equity
        Action Type: Professional Development
        Action Type: Program Evaluation
        		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 06/30/2009
        End: 07/01/2010
        • Administrative Staff
        • Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        Program Evaluation: At the conclusion of the 2008-09 school year we evaluated Comprehensive Literacy Model through: DIBELS assessments, DRA levels, Guided Reading Levels, and placement on the Phonics continuum 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(combined population grades 3-5, 70% scored proficient or advanced in Literacy). During the 2009-10 school year we plan to use DIBELS, DRA, Guided Reading level, and Phonics continuum in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities, that make up the action descriptions within the program.
        Action Type: AIP/IRI
        Action Type: Alignment
        Action Type: Program Evaluation
        		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 06/30/2009
        End: 07/01/2010
        • Administrative Staff
        • Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        Total Budget: $70488
        Priority 3: Students will improve and maintain their wellness through physical activity and nutrition.
        Supporting Data:
        1. Body Mass Index Data 2008-2009: of the 338 student population, 144 students were assessed. Of the students assessed, the following represents the percent of students at risk of being overweight or are overweight: Grade K: Males N/a, N/A Females Grade 2: Males 22.7%, N/A Females Grade 4: Males 30%, 47.6% Females Approximately 11% of all children measured were overweight, and 10% of all children measured were identified as obese.
        2. Body Mass Index Data 2007-2008: of the 328 student population, 141 students were assessed. Of the students assessed, the following represents the percent of students at risk of being overweight or are overweight: Grade K: Males 25%, N/A Females Grade 2: Males 40.9%, 23.8% Females Grade 4: Males 36.8%, 23.8% Females Approximately 12.8% of all children measured were at risk of being overweight, and 14.2% of all children measured were identified as overwieght.
        3. Body Mass Index Data 2006-2007: of the 309 student population, 236 students were assessed. Of the students assessed, the following represents the percent of students at risk of overweight and overweight: Grade 1: Males 36.8%, 37.5% Females Grade 2: Males 22.7%, N/A Females Grade 3: Males 35.7%, 25% Females Grade 4: Males 42.9%, N/A Females Grade 5: Males 33.3%, 31.8%Females
        4. Free/Reduced Rate:In 2008 the percentage of free and reduced lunch was 65 %.In 2007, the percentage of free and reduced lunch was 66%. In 2006, the percentage of free and reduced lunch was 64%.
        5. The School Health Index Survey for 2008 indicates a need in the areas of Module 2: Health Education.
        Goal Students participating in the BMI activity show a need to improve and maintain their physical activity and nutritional practices.
        Benchmark Healthier BMI results will be evident by June 30, 2010. There will be a 1/2% difference in the 2009-10 BMI results indicating healthier lifestyles are being practiced.
        Intervention: Leverett Elementary School will implement strategies and activities to promote increased physical activity.
        Scientific Based Research: Let's Get Physical-Promotion and Education Strategies by Dr. Hal Wechsler http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/menu/NNEC/Files/2003/LetsGetPhysical.pdf
        Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
        Inform students and parents of extracurricular programs that support physical activity, i.e. walking, softball, baseball, soccer
        Action Type: Collaboration
        Action Type: Parental Engagement
        		 Kevin Thomas Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        Through implementation of "Kids For Health Program", teaching and learning will occur regarding reduction of time children spend engaged in sedentary activities such as watching television and playing video games.
        Action Type: Parental Engagement
        		 Kevin Thomas Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Administrative Staff
        • Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        Implementation throughout the physical education schedule of state standards and frameworks that address physcial activity. Certified personnel will assure implementation.
        Action Type: Collaboration
        Action Type: Wellness
        		 Kevin Thomas Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        BMI Assessments will be examined for growth.
        Action Type: Program Evaluation
        		 Kevin Thomas Start: 06/30/2009
        End: 07/01/2010
          ACTION BUDGET: $
          Implement and encourage participation in physical education program taught by a highly qualified teacher that supports phsyical activity.
          Action Type: Collaboration
          Action Type: Parental Engagement
          Action Type: Program Evaluation
          Action Type: Wellness
          		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 07/01/2009
          End: 06/30/2010
            ACTION BUDGET: $
            Encourage participation in family oriented, community-based physical activity program.
            Action Type: Collaboration
            Action Type: Parental Engagement
            Action Type: Program Evaluation
            Action Type: Wellness
            		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 07/01/2009
            End: 06/30/2010
            • Administrative Staff
            • Teachers
            ACTION BUDGET: $
            To assess Leverett Elementary School's physical education program, parents, students, and fuculty members will be invited to participate in a survey.
            Action Type: Collaboration
            Action Type: Parental Engagement
            Action Type: Program Evaluation
            Action Type: Wellness
            		 Cheryl Putnam 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 BMI, School Health Index,and Farm to School 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 2009-10 school year we plan to continue to use these measures in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities, that make up the action descriptions within the program.
            Action Type: Program Evaluation
            		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 07/01/2009
            End: 06/30/2010
            • Outside Consultants
            • Teachers
            ACTION BUDGET: $
            Total Budget: $0
            Intervention: Leverett Elementary School will implement strategies and activities to promote improved nutritional practices.
            Scientific Based Research: Eat Well and Keep Moving by Lilian Cheung, Sc.D., R.D., Eat Well & Keep Moving, Harvard School of Public Health, Department of Nutrition (1999). http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/EWKM.html. Accessed (2008).
            Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
            Leverett Elementary School will participate in the Farm to School Program, which provides fresh fruits and vegetables locally grown for school lunch.
            Action Type: Collaboration
            Action Type: Wellness
            		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 07/01/2009
            End: 06/30/2010
            • Teachers
            ACTION BUDGET: $
            Kids For Health Program will inform and educate students and families in regards to improvement in nutritional practices.
            Action Type: Collaboration
            Action Type: Wellness
            		 Kevin Thomas Start: 07/01/2009
            End: 06/30/2010
            • Teachers
            ACTION BUDGET: $
            BMI Assessments will be examined for growth.
            Action Type: Program Evaluation
            		 Kevin Thomas Start: 06/30/2009
            End: 07/01/2010
              ACTION BUDGET: $
              PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-09 school year we evaluated BMI, School Health Index,and Farm to School 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 2009-10 school year we plan to continue to use these measures in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities, that make up the action descriptions within the program.
              		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
                ACTION BUDGET: $
                Total Budget: $0
                Priority 4: Goal: All LEP students will improve in reading comprehension and flunecy, written expression and constructive response.
                Supporting Data:
                  Goal Provide interventions for all ELL students working below grade level in literacy.
                  Benchmark “The Combined Population and each Subpop MET the 2009 AYP target of 62.9% scoring Proficient/Advanced. It is expected that each of these populations will meet, or exceed, the 2010 AYP Target scoring Proficient/Advanced, or make AYP through either the “Safe Harbor” or “Growth” models.
                  Intervention: Parental Involvement: The District will ensure that each school will implement an effective means of outreach to parents of ELL students to involve parents in assisting their children to learn English, achieve at high levels in core academic subjects, and meet the same challenging State academic standards as all other children are expected to meet.
                  Scientific Based Research: Scientific Based Research: Echevarria, Jana; Vogt, Mary Ellen; Short, Deborah. Pearson. New Edition (2007). Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners: The SIOP Model Echevarria, Jana; Vogt, Mary Ellen. Pearson. (2007). 99 Ideas and Activities for Teaching English Learners with the SIOP Model
                  Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
                  Interpreters will be available, as needed, to provide translations for Parent/Teacher Conferences, registrations, and meetings to assist parents in helping their children improve their academic achievement and becoming active participants in the education of their children.
                  Action Type: Alignment
                  Action Type: Equity
                  Action Type: Parental Engagement
                  		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 07/01/2009
                  End: 06/30/2010
                  • Teachers
                  ACTION BUDGET: $
                  Schools will hold meetings with teachers and ELL parents at the beginning of each school year, to interpret language assessment scores and to determine the educational plan for each student.
                  Action Type: Alignment
                  Action Type: Equity
                  Action Type: Parental Engagement
                  		 Cheryl Putnam Start: 07/01/2009
                  End: 06/30/2010
                  • Teachers
                  ACTION BUDGET: $
                  The District will provide professional development to district staff to substantially increase the knowledge and understanding, related to the needs of ELL students, and to enhance teaching skills of classroom teachers, principals, administrators, and other school personnel.
                  Action Type: Equity
                  Action Type: Professional Development
                  		 Stephanie Sawyer Start: 07/01/2009
                  End: 06/30/2010
                  • Administrative Staff
                  • Teachers
                  ACTION BUDGET: $
                  PROGRAM EVALUATION: This is a new intervention. At the conclusion of the 2009-2010 school year parent involvement actions will be evaluated by each school, analyzing the participation rate of ELL parents by school and grade level in parent teacher conferences. We expect to see a 25% increase in participation this school year. We will report the results in our 2010/2011 Plan and use the results to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention were reached and to set a standard for future expectations. The evaluation results will be used to impact the decisions we make that affect our future instructional program.
                  Action Type: Alignment
                  Action Type: Equity
                  Action Type: Parental Engagement
                  		 Stephanie Sawyer Start: 07/01/2009
                  End: 06/30/2010
                    ACTION BUDGET: $
                    Total Budget: $0
                  • Planning Team

                    Classification Name Position Committee
                    Classroom Teacher Adrienne Johnson 2nd grade teacher Math
                    Classroom Teacher Amanda Winn Pre-Kindergarten Literacy
                    Classroom Teacher Beth Lewis Art Teacher Literacy
                    Classroom Teacher Gayle Bowman 3rd Grade Teacher Literacy
                    Classroom Teacher Jackie Curington 1st grade teacher Literacy
                    Classroom Teacher John Andrews Music Teacher Literacy
                    Classroom Teacher Karie Sutton Second grade Teacher Literacy
                    Classroom Teacher Katie Austin 1st Grade Teacher Literacy
                    Classroom Teacher Lacey Bingaman 5th grade teacher Literacy
                    Classroom Teacher Lorenzio Robinson Physical Education TEacher Wellness
                    Classroom Teacher Lyndsey Runyan Speech Literacy
                    Classroom Teacher Mary Crawford Kindergarten Math
                    Classroom Teacher Megan Meggers Pre-Kindergarten Math
                    Classroom Teacher Melissa Armendariz 5th grade teacher Math
                    Classroom Teacher Olivia Murphy 4th Grade Math
                    Classroom Teacher Pam Dunn 1st grade teacher Math
                    Classroom Teacher Rachelle Simpson Kindergarten Teacher Literacy
                    Classroom Teacher Rick Sullins 4th grade teacher Math
                    Classroom Teacher Shannon Carlton 4th grade teacher Literacy
                    Classroom Teacher Sharon Michaels Resource Teacher, PDSC Math
                    Classroom Teacher Shirley Gorman Gifted and Talented Teacher Math
                    Classroom Teacher Stephanie Harter 3rd Grade teacher Math
                    Classroom Teacher Stephanie Sawyer ESL Teacher Literacy
                    Classroom Teacher Stephanie Wood Kindergarten Teacher Literacy
                    District-Level Professional Christie Jay Federal Programs Coordinator Math/Literacy
                    Non-Classroom Professional Staff Annie Langston Tech-Curriculum Specialist Math
                    Non-Classroom Professional Staff Carol Raybon Library Specialist Literacy
                    Non-Classroom Professional Staff Karen Bley Counselor Math
                    Non-Classroom Professional Staff Marianne Baxter Reading Recovery Teacher Literacy/Title I
                    Non-Classroom Professional Staff Penny Ezell Literacy Coach Literacy
                    Non-Classroom Professional Staff Sara Chamberlain Social Worker Literacy/Math
                    Parent Chris Epperson Parent Wellness
                    Parent Terri Chaddick Parent Literacy/Math
                    Principal Cheryl Putnam Principal ACSIP Leadership/Title I/Title V