ACSIP

School Plan

OWL CREEK ELEMENTARY
375 N. Rupple Rd.

Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Plan

2009-2010

Owl Creek School is a child-focused community with high expectations for learning, achievement, and technology aimed toward the growth of the total person.

Grade Span: K-7

Title I: Title I Schoolwide

School Improvement: SI_1

Table of Contents

Priority 1: Mathematics
    Goal: All students will improve in mathematic skills and responding to constructed response questions with additional attention to Math procedures and Problem Solving mathematic strands.
Priority 2: Literacy
    Goal: All students will improve in reading comprehension and written expression with additional attention to Content and Practical reading passages, and Style and Content writing domains.
Priority 3: Wellness
    Goal: Owl Creek School recognizes each child as a unique individual. Our goal is to help every child and staff member develop the skills to become productive citizens by understanding the benefits of wellness by implementing proper nutrition and physical activity into their lives.
    Goal: Owl Creek School recognizes the need for a character education program to address the social and emotional needs of students as well as to give students appropriate strategies to address discipline and bullying issues.
Priority 4: Title III/ELL
    Goal: All LEP students will improve in reading comprehension, written expression, mathematic skills and responding to constructive response questions.

Priority 1:

All students will achieve proficiency in math more specifically in number sense , geometry, measurement, data analyse, statistics and probability, patterns, and algebra.

Supporting Data:

 2009-Grade Three Mathematics Benchmark Exam:        
67 Students:56.7% of Combined Students 
 
18 Students: 50% of African American Students 
 
14 Students: 42.8 of Hispanic
31 Students: 64.2% of Caucasian Students 
 
49 Students: 46.9% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
 
14 Students:50% of LEP Students 
 
10 Students: 20% of Students with Disabilities 
   
Combined Population: The lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in the Geometry and DAP Strands. The lowest identified
area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions),
in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Measurement and
DAP strands. 
     

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

Hispanic Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in	geometry and number operations. The lowest
identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice
questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in the
Measurement and DAP strand. 
       
Caucasian Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s) (based on the
trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics
strands, revealed weaknesses in  geometry and the DAP strand. The lowest
identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice
questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in DAP
and measurement. 
	    
Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in geometry and measurement DAPon
the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions), in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in DAP and measurement. 
	  


Limited English Proficient Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in  number operations 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  number operations and DAP.      

Students with Disabilities Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses Number operations and
measurement. The lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis
of the multiple choice questions), in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in 
Measurement and DAP strands.	    

2009-Grade Four Mathematics Benchmark Exam
71 Students: 73.2% of Combined Students 
		   
19 Students: 68.4% of African American Students 
	   
Less than 10 Students: Hispanic Students 
		    
41 Students: 78.1% of Caucasian Students 
		   
54 Students: 70.4% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
    
Less than 10 Students: LEP Students 
		    
12 Students: 41.7% of Students with Disabilities 
 

Combined Population: The lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in geometry and measurement. The lowest identified
area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions),
in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in geometry and DAP.

	   

African American Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s) (based on
the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics
strands, revealed weaknesses in geometry and measurement. The lowest
identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice
questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in
geometry and DAP. 
	     
Caucasian Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s) (based on the
trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics
strands, revealed weaknesses in geometry and DAP. The lowest identified
area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions),
in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in number operations
and measurement. 
	   
Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in geometry and measurement. The
lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple
choice questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in
geometry and measurement.
	     
Students with Disabilities Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in geometry and measurement. The
lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple
choice questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in
DAP and geometry.   
    
2009-Grade Five Mathematics Benchmark Exam
59 Students: 61% of Combined Students 
		 
14 Students: 64.3% of African American Students 
	   
 Less than 10 Hispanic Students 
		   
36 Students: 61.1% of Caucasian Students 
		   
44 Students: 56.8% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
    
Less than 10 LEP Students 
			  
10 Students: 20% of Students with Disabilities 
   
Combined Population: The lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in measurement and DAP. The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions), in the
five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Number Operations and
measurement.
       
African American Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s) (based on
the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics
strands, revealed weaknesses in measurement and DAP. The lowest identified
area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions),
in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in DAP and
measurement.
       
Hispanic Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in measurement and DAP. The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions), in the
five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in numbers and operation and
measurement. 
      
Caucasian Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s) (based on the
trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics
strands, revealed weaknesses in DAP and measurement. The lowest identified
area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions),
in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in measurement and
numbers and operations.  
	   
Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in measurement and DAP. The
lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple
choice questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in
numbers and operations and measurement.  
	   
Limited English Proficient Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in DAP 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
numbers and operations and measurement. 
	  
Students with Disabilities Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in DAP 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
numbers and operations and measurement. 
	  
2009-Grade Six Mathematics Benchmark Exam
136 Students: 74.3% of Combined Students 
		    
26 Students: 65.4% of African American Students 
	   
31 Students:  33.3% Hispanic Students 
		 
72 Students: 77.8% of Caucasian Students 
		   
98 Students: 67.4% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
    
26 students: 33.3% of LEP 
			  
26 Students: 38.5% of Students with Disabilities 
  
Combined Population: The lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in numbers and operations and DAP. The lowest
identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice
questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in
algebra and measurement.
	
African American Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s) (based on
the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics
strands, revealed weaknesses in measurement 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
numbers and operations and DAP.
	   
Caucasian Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s) (based on the
trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics
strands, revealed weaknesses in numbers and 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
numbers and operations and DAP.   
	   
Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in 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
numbers and operations and DAP.   
	   
Students with Disabilities Subpopulation: 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
numbers and operations and algebra.   
     

2009-Grade Seven Mathematics Benchmark Exam
102 Students: 81.4% of Combined Students 
		    
25 Students: 76% of African American Students 
	 
10 Students: 60% of Hispanic Students 
		 
59 Students: 84.8% of Caucasian Students 
		   
61 Students: 72.1% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
    
10 Students: 60% of LEP Students 
			 
12 Students: 16.7% of Students with Disabilities 
	   
Combined Population:The lowest identified area(s) (based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in numbers and operations and measurement. The lowest
identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice
questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in
geometry and measurement.   
     
African American Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s) (based on
the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics
strands, revealed weaknesses in geometry and numbers and operations. The
lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple
choice questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in
geometry and measurement.  
      
Hispanic Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in numbers and operations, measurement 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 and measurement. 
	
Caucasian Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s) (based on the
trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics
strands, revealed weaknesses in numbers and operations and measurement.
The lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the
multiple choice questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed
weaknesses in  geometry and measurement.   
   
Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in numbers and operations and
measurement. The lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis
of the multiple choice questions), in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in geometry and measurement.   
     
Limited English Proficient Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in numbers and operations 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 and measurement.	
	 
Students with Disabilities Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in numbers and operations and
measurements. The lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis
of the multiple choice questions), in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in algebra and measurement.   
	 

2009-Algebra End of Course Exam
11 Students: 100% of Combined Students were proficient
Less than 10 Students were tested of the Hispanic, African-American, Econ.
Disadvantaged, Caucasian, LEP and Students with Disabilities.
	   
 2008-Grade Three Mathematics Benchmark Exam:	      
61 Students:57.4% of Combined Students 
 
18 Students: 50% of African American Students 
 
Less than 10 Students were tested of the Hispanic
Students 

31 Students: 64.5% of Caucasian Students 
 
43 Students: 53.5% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
 
10 Students:60% of LEP Students 
 
11 Students: 36.4% of Students with Disabilities 
	
Combined Population: The lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in geometry and measurement. The lowest identified
area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions),
in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in geometry and
measurement. 
     

African American Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s) (based on
the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics
strands, revealed weaknesses in 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
geometry and measurement. 
	     

Hispanic Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in	geometry and measurement . The lowest identified
area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions),
in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in the DAP strand.

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

Limited English Proficient Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in  geometry and measurement and
DAP. The lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the
multiple choice questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed
weaknesses in  geometry and measurement.      

Students with Disabilities Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses algebra and DAP. The lowest
identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice
questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in 
Algebra and measurement.	

2008-Grade Four Mathematics Benchmark Exam
59 Students: 50.8% of Combined Students 
		   
17 Students: 47.1% of African American Students 
	   
Less than 10 Students: Hispanic Students 
		    
33 Students: 51.5% of Caucasian Students 
		   
43 Students: 39.5% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
    
Less than 10 Students: LEP Students 
		    
12 Students: 41.7% of Students with Disabilities 
 

Combined Population: The lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in geometry, measurement, and DAP. The lowest
identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice
questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in
geometry and measurement. 
	     

African American Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s) (based on
the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics
strands, revealed weaknesses in geometry and DAP. The lowest identified
area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions),
in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in algebra and
geometry. 
	     
Caucasian Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s) (based on the
trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics
strands, revealed weaknesses in geometry and DAP. The lowest identified
area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions),
in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in geometry. 
	  
 
Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in geometry, measurement, and
DAP. The lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the
multiple choice questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed
weaknesses in geometry and measurement.
	   
Students with Disabilities Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in geometry and DAP. The lowest
identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice
questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in
algebra and geometry.	
	
2008-Grade Five Mathematics Benchmark Exam
65 Students: 55.4% of Combined Students 
		   
21 Students: 33.3% of African American Students 
	   
17 Students: 58.8% of Hispanic Students 
		   
26 Students: 69.2% of Caucasian Students 
		   
40 Students: 50% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
	 
14 Students: 50% of LEP Students 
			 
13 Students: 23.1% of Students with Disabilities 
	
Combined Population: The lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in alegebra, measurement and DAP. The lowest
identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice
questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in
DAP.
       
African American Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s) (based on
the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics
strands, revealed weaknesses in algebra and DAP. The lowest identified
area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions),
in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in numbers and
operations and measurement.
       
Hispanic Subpopulation: 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 DAP. The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice questions), in the
five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in numbers and operation and
measurement. 
      
Caucasian Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s) (based on the
trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics
strands, revealed weaknesses in 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
measurement.  
	
Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in algebra and DAP. The lowest
identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple choice
questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in
geometry and measurement.  
      
Limited English Proficient Subpopulation: 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
numbers and operations and measurement. 
	  
Students with Disabilities Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in geometry and measurement. The
lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the multiple
choice questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in
 algebra and measurement. 
	    
2008-Grade Six Mathematics Benchmark Exam
93 Students: 73.1% of Combined Students 
		   
26 Students: 61.5% of African American Students 
	   
Less than 10 Students: Hispanic Students 
		    
56 Students: 80.4% of Caucasian Students 
		   
55 Students: 63.6% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
    
Less than 10 Students: LEP Students 
		    
17 Students: 29.4% of Students with Disabilities 
  
Combined Population: The lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in numbers and operations 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
numbers and operations.
    
African American Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s) (based on
the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics
strands, revealed weaknesses in numbers and operations 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
numbers and operations.
	   
Caucasian Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s) (based on the
trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics
strands, revealed weaknesses in numbers and operations 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
algrebra.   
     
Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in numbers and operations 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 numbers and operations and DAP.	
	 
Students with Disabilities Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in geometry and numbers and
operations. The lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis of
the multiple choice questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed
weaknesses in numbers and operations and DAP.	
	 

2008-Grade Seven Mathematics Benchmark Exam
101 Students: 67.3% of Combined Students 
		    
15 Students: 40% of African American Students 
	 
22 Students: 63.6% of Hispanic Students 
		   
57 Students: 75.4% of Caucasian Students 
		   
60 Students: 60% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
	 
20 Students: 65% of LEP Students 
			 
14 Students: 21.4% of Students with Disabilities 
	   
Combined Population:The lowest identified area(s) (based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in numbers and operations 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 and measurement.   
     
African American Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s) (based on
the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics
strands, revealed weaknesses in measurement and numbers and operations.
The lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the
multiple choice questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed
weaknesses in algebra and measurement.	
	  
Hispanic Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend
analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics strands,
revealed weaknesses in numbers and operations 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 and measurement. 
	  
Caucasian Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s) (based on the
trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five mathematics
strands, revealed weaknesses in numbers and operations 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 and measurement.   
	 
Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in numbers and operations 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 and measurement.   
	   
Limited English Proficient Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in numbers and operations 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 algrebra and measurement.  
	   
Students with Disabilities Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in numbers and operations and
DAP. The lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the
multiple choice questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed
weaknesses in numbers and operations and measurement.	
   

On the 2007 mathematics Benchmark Exam

2007 Grade Three Mathematics Benchmark Exam:
63 Students: 44.4% of Combined Students   
31 Students: 48.3% of Caucasian Students
22 Students: 36.3% of African American Students 
Less than 10 Students: Hispanic Students
Less than 10 Students: Limited English Proficient
47 Students: 40.4% of Economically Disadvantaged Students 
11 Students: 18.1% of Students with Disabilities Students		  
		
    

The lowest identified areas for the Combined Population students in the
analysis of the open response questions in the five math strands revealed
weaknesses in data analysis/probability and measurement. The lowest
identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the
five math strands, revealed weaknesses in data analysis/probability and
measurement. 

The lowest identified areas for the Caucasian students in the analysis of
the open response questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses
in data analysis/probability and measurement. The lowest identified area
in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the five math
strands, revealed weaknesses in data analysis/probability and measurement.


The lowest identified areas for the African American Population students
in the analysis of the open response questions in the five math strands
revealed weaknesses in data analysis/probability and algebra. The lowest
identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the
five math strands, revealed weaknesses in data analysis/probability and
geometry. 

The lowest identified areas for the Students with Disabilties Population
students in the analysis of the open response questions in the five math
strands revealed weaknesses in data analysis/probability and algebra. The
lowest identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions,
in the five math strands, revealed weaknesses in measurement and algebra. 


On the 2007 mathematics Benchmark Exam

2007 Grade Four Mathematics Benchmark Exam:
59 Students: 59.3% of Combined Students   
28 Students: 67.8% of Caucasian Students  
13 Students: 38.4% of African American Students 15 students: 53.3% of 
Hispanic students
14 Students: 57.1% of Limited English Proficent Students 
38 students: 50% of Economically Disadvantaged Students 
11 Students: 9% of Students with Disabilities Students			  
	     
    

The lowest identified areas for the Combined Population students in the
analysis of the open response questions in the five math strands revealed
weaknesses in data analysis/probability and measurement. The lowest
identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the
five math strands, revealed weaknesses in geometry and algebra. 

The lowest identified areas for the Caucasian students in the analysis of
the open response questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses
in data analysis/probability and measurement. The lowest identified area
in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the five math
strands, revealed weaknesses in algebra and geometry. 

The lowest identified areas for the African American Population students
in the analysis of the open response questions in the five math strands
revealed weaknesses in . The lowest identified data analysis/probability
and geometry area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the
five math strands, revealed weaknesses in geometry and measurement. 

The lowest identified areas for the Hispanic Population students in the
analysis of the open response questions in the five math strands revealed
weaknesses in data analysis/probability and measurement. The lowest
identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the
five math strands, revealed weaknesses in algebra and geometry.

The lowest identified areas for the Limited English proficient Population
students in the analysis of the open response questions in the five math
strands revealed weaknesses in data analysis/probability and measurement.
The lowest identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice
questions, in the five math strands, revealed weaknesses in algebra and
geometry. 

The lowest identified areas for the Students with Disabilties Population
students in the analysis of the open response questions in the five math
strands revealed weaknesses in geometry, data analysis/probability, and
measurement. The lowest identified area in the analysis of the multiple
choice questions, in the five math strands, revealed weaknesses in algebra
and geometry. 

On the 2007 mathematics Benchmark Exam

2007 Grade Five Mathematics Benchmark Exam:
46 Students: 63% of Combined Students	
17 Students: 64.7% of Caucasian 
18 Students: 72.2% of African American Students  
Less than 10 students: Hispanic Students 
Less than 10 Students: Limited English Proficent Students 
38 Students: 57.8% of Economically Disadvantaged Students 
10 Students: 40% of Students with Disabilities Students 		  
	      
    
The lowest identified areas for the Combined Population students in the
analysis of the open response questions in the five math strands revealed
weaknesses in geometry and number operations. The lowest identified area
in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the five math
strands, revealed weaknesses in data analysis/probability and measurement.


The lowest identified areas for the Caucasian students in the analysis of
the open response questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses
in geometry and number operations. The lowest identified area in the
analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the five math strands,
revealed weaknesses in data analysis/probability, number operations, and
measurement. 

The lowest identified areas for the African American Population students
in the analysis of the open response questions in the five math strands
revealed weaknesses in geometry and number operations. The lowest
identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the
five math strands, revealed weaknesses in measurement and data
analysis/probability. 

The lowest identified areas for the Hispanic Population students in the
analysis of the open response questions in the five math strands revealed
weaknesses in number operations and geometry. The lowest identified area
in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the five math
strands, revealed weaknesses in measurement and data analysis/probability.


The lowest identified areas for the Limited English proficient Population
students in the analysis of the open response questions in the five math
strands revealed weaknesses in geometry and measurement. The lowest
identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the
five math strands, revealed weaknesses in measurement and data
analysis/probability. 

The lowest identified areas for the Students with Disabilties Population
students in the analysis of the open response questions in the five math
strands revealed weaknesses in number operations and geometry. The lowest
identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the
five math strands, revealed weaknesses in data analysis/probability and
measurement. 

On the 2007 mathematics Benchmark Exam

2007 Grade Six Mathematics Benchmark Exam:
101 Students: 67.3% of Combined Students   
54 Students: 75.9% of Caucasian Students
18 Students: 50% of African American Students  
23 Students: 56.5% of  Hispanic 
21 Students: 57.1% of Limited English Proficent Students 
65 Students: 58.4% of Economically Disadvantaged Students	  
16 Students: 31.2% of Students with Disabilities Students		  
		
    

The lowest identified areas for the Combined Population students in the
analysis of the open response questions in the five math strands revealed
weaknesses in number operations and geometry. The lowest identified area
in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the five math
strands, revealed weaknesses in data analysis/probability and geometry. 

The lowest identified areas for the Caucasian students in the analysis of
the open response questions in the five math strands revealed weaknesses
in geometry and data analysis/probability. The lowest identified area in
the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the five math strands,
revealed weaknesses in measurement and data analysis/probability. 

The lowest identified areas for the African American Population students
in the analysis of the open response questions in the five math strands
revealed weaknesses in number operations and geometry. The lowest
identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the
five math strands, revealed weaknesses in measurement and data
analysis/probability. 

The lowest identified areas for the Hispanic Population students in the
analysis of the open response questions in the five math strands revealed
weaknesses in geometry and measurement. The lowest identified area in the
analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the five math strands,
revealed weaknesses in geometry and data analysis/probability.

The lowest identified areas for the Limited English proficient Population
students in the analysis of the open response questions in the five math
strands revealed weaknesses in geometry and measurement. The lowest
identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the
five math strands, revealed weaknesses in data analysis/probability and
geometry.

The lowest identified areas for the Students with Disabilties Population
students in the analysis of the open response questions in the five math
strands revealed weaknesses in geometry and measurement. The lowest
identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the
five math strands, revealed weaknesses in measurement and data
analysis/probability.

2007 Grade Seven Mathematics Benchmark Exam:

GRADE 7 WAS NOT PRESENT IN BUILDING 

Grade K-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 

2007 :
Combined Population:  75 students were tested and 57.3%  scored at or
above the 50th percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in the Math Total.  

African American:  15 student were tested and 53% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in Math Total.	

Hispanic Population: 12 student were tested and 50% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in Math TOtal. 

Caucasian Population: 44 student were tested and 56% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in Math Total. 

Economically Disadvantaged Population: 50 student were tested and 56%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading
subtests revealed weaknesses in Math TOtal. 

Limited English Proficient : Less than 10 students Tested.

Students with Disabilities Population: Less than 10 students tested.

 2009: SAT-10: Combined Population: Total Math, Grade 1: In 2009,
67 students were tested and 46.3% had an NPR score of 50, or above. 
African American:  16 students were tested and 50% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  
Hispanic Population: 12 students were tested and 33.3% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Caucasian Population: 39 students were tested and 48.7% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Economically Disadvantaged Population: 48 students were tested and 45.8%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Limited English Proficient : Less than 10 students Tested.
Students with Disabilities Population: Less than 10 students tested.

 2008: SAT-10: Combined Population: Total Math, Grade 1: In 2008, 67
students were tested and 46.3% had an NPR score of 50, or above. 
African American:  16 students were tested and 50% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  
Hispanic Population: 12 students were tested and 33.3% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Caucasian Population: 39 students were tested and 48.7% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Economically Disadvantaged Population: 48 students were tested and 45.8%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Limited English Proficient : Less than 10 students Tested.
Students with Disabilities Population: Less than 10 students tested.


Grade 1-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 
2007 :
Combined Population:  76 students were tested and 42.1% (scored at or
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.

African American:  16 student were tested and 63% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in Math Concepts.  

Hispanic Population: 15 student were tested and 13% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in Math Concepts. 

Caucasian Population: 39 student were tested and 49% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in Problem Solving and Data Interpretation. 

Economically Disadvantaged Population: 53 student were tested and 40%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading
subtests revealed weaknesses in Problem Solving and Data Interpretation. 

Limited English Proficient : 12 student were tested and 17% scored at or
above the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in Math Concepts. 

Students with Disabilities Population: Less than 10 students were tested.

 2009: SAT-10: Combined Population: Total Math, Grade 2: In 2009,
64 students were tested and 26.6% had an NPR score of 50, or above. 
African American:  20 students were tested and 50% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  
Hispanic Population: 13 students were tested and 7.7% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Caucasian Population: 27 students were tested and 44.4% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Economically Disadvantaged Population: 46 students were tested and 26.1%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Limited English Proficient: 12 students were tested and 16.7% scored at or
above the 50th percentile. 
Students with Disabilities Population: 10 students were tested and 0%
scored at or above the 50th percentile. 

 2008: SAT-10: Combined Population: Total Math, Grade 2: In 2008, 64
students were tested and 26.6% had an NPR score of 50, or above. 
African American:  20 students were tested and 50% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  
Hispanic Population: 13 students were tested and 7.7% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Caucasian Population: 27 students were tested and 44.4% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Economically Disadvantaged Population: 46 students were tested and 26.1%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Limited English Proficient: 12 students were tested and 16.7% scored at or
above the 50th percentile. 
Students with Disabilities Population: 10 students were tested and 0%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  


Grade 2-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 

2007 :
Combined Population:  76 students were tested and 47.4% scored at or 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

African American:  19 student were tested and 37% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.  

Hispanic Population:  11 student were tested and 18% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in Problem Solving and Data Interpretation. 

Caucasian Population: 41 student were tested and 59% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in Math COncepts. 

Economically Disadvantaged Population: 54 student were tested and 41%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading
subtests revealed weaknesses in Math Concepts. 

Limited English Proficient : Less than 10 students were tested.

Students with Disabilities Population: Less than 10 students were tested.

 2009: SAT-10: Combined Population: Total Math, Grade 3: In 2009,
67 students were tested and 37.2% had an NPR score of 50, or above. 
African American: 18 students were tested and 27.8% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  
Hispanic Population: 14 students were tested and 28.6% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.
Caucasian Population: 31 students were tested and 45.2% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Economically Disadvantaged Population: 49 students were tested and 31.0%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Limited English Proficient: 14 students were tested and 27.9% scored at or
above the 50th percentile. 
Students with Disabilities Population: 10 students were tested and 9.3%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  

 2008: SAT-10: Combined Population: Total Math, Grade 3: In 2008, 67
students were tested and 46.3% had an NPR score of 50, or above. 
African American:  20 students were tested and 45% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  
Hispanic Population: Less than 10 students were tested. 
Caucasian Population: 34 students were tested and 52.9% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Economically Disadvantaged Population: 49 students were tested and 38.8%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Limited English Proficient: 11 students were tested and 36.4% scored at or
above the 50th percentile. 
Students with Disabilities Population: 11 students were tested and 18.2%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  


Grade 3-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Iowa Test of Basic Skills: 
2007:
Combined Population: Math, Grade 3: In 2007, 72 students were tested and
52.8%  had an NPR score of 50 or above. The analysis of the subtests,
revealed weaknesses in Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.

African American Population: Math, Grade 3: In 2007, 24 students were
tested and 37.5%  had an NPR score of 50 or above. The analysis of the
subtests revealed weaknesses in Math Concepts.

Hispanic Population: Math, Grade 3: Less than 10 students were tested.

Caucasian Population: Math, Grade 3: In 2007, 37 students were tested and
45.9%  had an NPR score of 50 or above. The analysis of the subtests
revealed weaknesses in Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.

Economically Disadvantaged Population: Math, Grade 3: In 2007, 52 students
were tested and 42.3%  had an NPR score of 50 or above. The analysis of
the subtests revealed weaknesses in Math COncepts.

Limited English Proficient Population: Math, Grade 3: Less than 10
students were tested.

IEP Population: Math, Grade 3: In 2007, 11 students were tested and 18% 
had an NPR score of 50 or above. The analysis of the subtests revealed
weaknesses in Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.

 2009: SAT-10: Combined Population: Total Math, Grade 4: In 2009,
71 students were tested and 58.9% had an NPR score of 50, or above. 
African American:  19 students were tested and 47.4% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Hispanic Population: Less than 10 students were tested. 
Caucasian Population: 41 students were tested and 63.4% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Economically Disadvantaged Population: 54 students were tested and 55.8%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Limited English Proficient: Less than 10 students were tested. 
Students with Disabilities Population: 12 students were tested and 49.6%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  

 2008: SAT-10: Combined Population: Total Math, Grade 4: In 2008, 63
students were tested and 42.9% had an NPR score of 50, or above. 
African American:  17 students were tested and 35.3% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Hispanic Population: Less than 10 students were tested. 
Caucasian Population: 36 students were tested and 44.4% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Economically Disadvantaged Population: 45 students were tested and 31.1%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Limited English Proficient: Less than 10 students were tested. 
Students with Disabilities Population: 13 students were tested and 23.1%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  


Grade 4-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS)
2007:
Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Combined Population: Math, Grade 4: In 2007, 71
students were tested and 62%  had an NPR score of 50 or above. 
The analysis of the subtests, revealed weaknesses in Problem Solving and
Data Interpretation.

African American Population: Math, Grade 4: In 2007, 15 students were
tested and 46.7%  had an NPR score of 50 or above. The analysis of the
subtests revealed weaknesses in Math Concepts.

Hispanic Population: Math, Grade 4:In 2007, 18 students were tested and
55.6%  had an NPR score of 50 or above. The analysis of the subtests
revealed weaknesses in Problem SOlving and Data Interpretation.

Caucasian Population: Math, Grade 4: In 2007, 35 students were tested and
68.6%  had an NPR score of 50 or above. The analysis of the subtests
revealed weaknesses in Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.

Economically Disadvantaged Population: Math, Grade 4: In 2007, 47 students
were tested and 51.1%  had an NPR score of 50 or above. The analysis of
the subtests revealed weaknesses in Problem Solving and Data
Interpretation.

Limited English Proficient Population: Math, Grade 4: In 2007, 15 students
were tested and 53.3%  had an NPR score of 50 or above. The analysis of
the subtests revealed weaknesses in Problem Solving and Data
Interpretation.


Students with Disabilities Population: Math, Grade 4: In 2007, 12 students
were tested and 16.7%  had an NPR score of 50 or above. The analysis of
the subtests revealed weaknesses in Problem Solving and Data
Interpretation.

 2009: SAT-10: Combined Population: Total Math, Grade 5: In 2009,
59 students were tested and 49.6% had an NPR score of 50, or above. 
African American:  14 students were tested and 50% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  
Hispanic Population: Less than 10 students were tested. 
Caucasian Population: 36 students were tested and 50% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Economically Disadvantaged Population: 44 students were tested and 43.4%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Limited English Proficient: Less than 10 students were tested.
Students with Disabilities Population: 10 students were tested and 18.6%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  


 2008: SAT-10: Combined Population: Total Math, Grade 5: In 2008, 70
students were tested and 60% had an NPR score of 50, or above. 
African American:  22 students were tested and 45.5% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Hispanic Population: 17 students were tested and 52.9% scored at or above
the 50th percentile. 
Caucasian Population: 30 students were tested and 73.3% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Economically Disadvantaged Population: 44 students were tested and 54.5%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Limited English Proficient: 14 students were tested and 50% scored at or
above the 50th percentile.  
Students with Disabilities Population: 14 students were tested and 28.6%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Grade 5-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 
2007:
Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Combined Population: Math, Grade 5: In 2007, 56
students were tested and 58.9%	had an NPR score of 50 or above. The
analysis of the Concepts and Estimation subtest, Problem Solving and Data
Interpretation subtests revealed weaknesses in Math Concepts.

African American Population: Math, Grade 5: In 2007, 18 students were
tested and 61%	had an NPR score of 50 or above. The analysis of the
subtests revealed weaknesses in Math Concepts.

Hispanic Population: Math, Grade 5:In 2007, 10 students were tested and
40%  had an NPR score of 50 or above. The analysis of the subtests
revealed weaknesses in Math Concepts.

Caucasian Population: Math, Grade 5: In 2007, 26 students were tested and
65%  had an NPR score of 50 or above. The analysis of the subtests
revealed weaknesses in Math Concepts.

Economically Disadvantaged Population: Math, Grade 5: In 2007, 44 students
were tested and 52%  had an NPR score of 50 or above. The analysis of the
subtests revealed weaknesses in Math Concepts.

Limited English Proficient Population: Math, Grade 5: Less than 10
students were tested.

Students with Disabilities Population: Math, Grade 5: In 2007, 14 students
were tested and 42%  had an NPR score of 50 or above. The analysis of the
subtests revealed weaknesses in Math Concepts.

 2009: SAT-10: Combined Population: Total Math, Grade 6: In 2009,
136 students were tested and 68.2% had an NPR score of 50, or above. 
African American:  26 students were tested and 65.4% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Hispanic Population: 31 students were tested and 64.5% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.
Caucasian Population: 72 students were tested and 69.4% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Economically Disadvantaged Population: 98 students were tested and 58.9%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Limited English Proficient: 26 students were tested and 65.4% scored at or
above the 50th percentile.  
Students with Disabilities Population: 26 students were tested and 31%
scored at or above the 50th percentile. 

 2008: SAT-10: Combined Population: Total Math, Grade 6: In 2008, 106
students were tested and 65.1% had an NPR score of 50, or above. 
African American:  29 students were tested and 55.2% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Hispanic Population: Less than 10 students were tested.  
Caucasian Population: 65 students were tested and 67.7% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Economically Disadvantaged Population: 44 students were tested and 54.5%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Limited English Proficient: Less than 10 students were tested. 
Students with Disabilities Population: 19 students were tested and 31.6%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  

 Grade 6-Iowa Test of Basic Skills
2007:

Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Combined Population: Math, Grade 6: In 2007,
108 students were tested and 59%  had an NPR score of 50 or above. 
The analysis of the subtests, revealed weaknesses in Problem Solving and
Data Interpretation.

African American Population: Math, Grade 6: In 2007, 20 students were
tested and 50%	had an NPR score of 50 or above. The analysis of the
subtests revealed weaknesses in Problem SOlving and Data Interpretation.

Hispanic Population: Math, Grade 6:In 2007, 23 students were tested and
52%  had an NPR score of 50 or above. The analysis of the subtests
revealed weaknesses in Problem SOlving and Data Interpretation.

Caucasian Population: Math, Grade 6: In 2007, 62 students were tested and
62%  had an NPR score of 50 or above. The analysis of the subtests
revealed weaknesses in Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.

Economically Disadvantaged Population: Math, Grade 6: In 2007, 71 students
were tested and 47%  had an NPR score of 50 or above. The analysis of the
subtests revealed weaknesses in Problem Solving and Data Interpretation.

Limited English Proficient Population: Math, Grade 6: In 2007, 21 students
were tested and 52%  had an NPR score of 50 or above. The analysis of the
subtests revealed weaknesses in Math Concepts.


Students with Disabilities Population: Math, Grade 6: In 2007, 16 students
were tested and 31%  had an NPR score of 50 or above. The analysis of the
subtests revealed weaknesses in Math Concepts.

 2009: SAT-10: Combined Population: Total Math, Grade 7: In 2009,
102 students were tested and 77.5% had an NPR score of 50, or above. 
African American:  25 students were tested and 80% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  
Hispanic Population: 10 students were tested and 60% scored at or above
the 50th percentile. 
Caucasian Population: 59 students were tested and 79.7% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Economically Disadvantaged Population: 61 students were tested and 68.2%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Limited English Proficient: 10 students were tested and 49.6% scored at or
above the 50th percentile. 
Students with Disabilities Population: 12 students were tested and 24.8%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  


 2008: SAT-10: Combined Population: Total Math, Grade 7: In 2008, 117
students were tested and 57.3% had an NPR score of 50, or above. 
African American:  16 students were tested and 50% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  
Hispanic Population: 23 students were tested and 65.2 scored at or above
the 50th percentile. 
Caucasian Population: 70 students were tested and 57.1% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Economically Disadvantaged Population: 76 students were tested and 52.6%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Limited English Proficient: 22 students were tested and 68.2% scored at or
above the 50th percentile. 
Students with Disabilities Population: 15 students were tested and 13.3%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  



2007: Grade 7 not located in building

 Attendance Rates.
 In 2008 the attendance rate was 93.3. In 2007 the attendance rate was
93.8. 

Attendance Info:  In 2009, the average daily membership was 667 students
for quarter 1 through quarter 3. The attendance rate exceeded the goal of
91.13% set by the ADE.

Goal

All students will improve in mathematic skills and responding to constructed response questions with additional attention to Math procedures and Problem Solving mathematic strands.

Benchmark

The following populations DID NOT meet the 2009 AYP target of 62.5.00% scoring Proficient/Advanced: STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES: 30.9%, HISPANIC POPULATION: 58.6%, LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY: 60.3% . It is expected that this population will meet, or exceed, the 2010 AYP Target of 70% scoring Proficient/Advanced, or will make the necessary gains to involve "Safe Harbor" or "Growth Models." The combined population did not meet the AMO target for Literacy, therefore Owl Creek School was designated as Whole School Improvement Year 1 for 2009.

Intervention: Implement Everyday Math, the district's standards-research-based math curriculum, as well as Prentice-Hall's Course II Mathematics for 7th grade and Prentice-Hall Algebra for 7th grade.

Scientific Based Research: Everyday Math (Bell, M., William, C., & Isaacs, A. (1998). The research foundation of the University of Chicago Math Project's Everyday Mathematics Curriculum: and other appropriate activities and strategies.

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

SCHOOLWIDE REFORM STRATEGIES: Implement Everyday Mathematics, Course II, and algebra curriculum and formative assessments according to district curriculum and identified needs of students in K-7 classrooms. Purchase supplemental materials to meet the needs of those students not achieving proficiency.
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Special Education
Action Type: Technology Inclusion
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Kristen Scanlon

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

Administrative Staff
Computers
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

New teachers will be trained in the use of Everyday Math, Course II, and other appropriate math strategies and/or activities which will be appropriate for all students.
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Kristen Scanlon

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

Administrative Staff
Computers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

COORDINATION AND INTEGRATION OF PROGRAMS: Collaborate with all certified and classified staff to implement differentiated strategies for students with Academic Improvement Plans and/or special needs to improve mathematics skills. Additional Everyday Math and Prentice Hall kits will be purchased for each grade level to allow special teachers and aides to assist with interventions. Purchase manipulative materials to aid with differentiation techniques.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Special Education
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Mandy Mobley

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

District Staff
Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$9065.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$9065

Monitor student progress in terms of end-of-unit exams, district quarterly assessments, and formative assessments. Analyze student summative performance on Benchmark/SAT-10/MAT-8 exams in terms of student mathematics achievement and progress.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

David McClure

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

Performance Assessments


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Participate in learning teams to review student work, share effective teaching and assessment strategies, and align instructional objectives to assist all students in achieving mathematics proficiency.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Diane Gann

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

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

David McClure

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through CBM, pre/post testing, formative assessments, CRT/NRT assessments, and local summative assessments and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The following EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrate that this intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning that are part of this program: Through classroom walk-throughs Owl Creek has a observed 100% participation in Everday Math, Prentice Hall Course II and Algebra and has shown improvement in quarterly math assessment scores. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program. In addition, we will analyze the data to determine the gaps within the grades and grade levels. 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 programs.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kristen Scanlon

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

Administrative Staff
Performance Assessments
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$9065

Intervention: Integrate Mathematics Problem-Solving Strategies

Scientific Based Research: Smart Step; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Principles and Standards for School Mathematics; Journal of Research in Mathematics Education (1996) Scientific Based Research: Problem Solving Techniques Based on Prompts;

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Collaborate with all certified staff to compile a bank of mathematics problem-solving resources for each grade level. Utilize district-level resources in this effort as well.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity

Mandy Mobley

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

Performance Assessments
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

All students will utilize Everyday Math computer programs as well as Waterford/SuccessMaker programs for problem-solving introductions, reviews, integrations , reinforcements, and practice.
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Dianne Gann

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

Computers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Use summative evaluations of performance assessments,evaluations of open-ended math prompts to determine effectiveness of problem-solving strategy instruction.
Action Type: AIP/IRI

Mandy Mobley

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

Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

In order to better teach a standards-based math curriculum we will create and adopt schoolwide problem solving techniques based on prompts and using rubric scoring congruent with the Benchmark exams.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration

Kristen Scanlon

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through CBM, pre/post testing, formative assessments, CRT/NRT assessments, and local summative assessments and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The following EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrate that this intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning that are part of this program: the application and creation of a bank of mathematical problem solving resources, improved scores on quarterly assessments, Waterford/Successmaker data and teacher evaluations of open-ended math prompts. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program. In addition, we will create a bank of constructed response questions with rubrics and use these assessments as an evaluation tool. 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 programs.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kristen Scanlon

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP: Regular meetings of our (Math) ACSIP leadership committee will continue to be held. These meetings will focus on building capacity within our school. Each meeting agenda will include the following core principles: A) The selection and continuous evaluation of research-based, scientifically validated interventions designed to improve our ability to improve student performance on the math portion of all assessments. B) The ongoing monitoring of student progreess 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 throught eh collection of formative and summative data so that those strategies that prove ineffective can be revised or abandoned. Our ACSIP plan will be revised each spring and fall in order to keep it timely and valid in our efforts to improve teaching and learning.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration

Mandy Mobley

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

District Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Intervention: Implement strategies for developing computational and procedural fluency

Scientific Based Research: Standards in Classroom Practice - USDE, McRel, OERI 2201, 2001.

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Integrate supplemental computational strategies and materials into the daily math program. Utilize district-level resources such as Mastering Math Facts for attaining math fact automaticity. Purchase materials to support student computational fluency (calculators, white boards, manipulatives,etc.).
Action Type: Collaboration

Dianne Gann

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

Community Leaders

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$10000.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$10000

Use summative evaluations such as performance assessments and formative evaluations such as quarterly assessments and CBM to determine effectiveness of supplemental computational strategies in improving overall mathematics achievement.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration

David McClure

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

District Staff
Performance Assessments
Teachers
Teaching Aids
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through pre/post testing, formative assessments, CRT/NRT assessments, and local summative assessments and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The following EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrate that this intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning that are part of this program: Teacher observation, the CBM data and the Waterford/Successmaker data showed a positive effect on student achievement through growth in computational and procedural fluency and therefore supported this intervention. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program. In addition, we will analyze CBM, math facts and other assessments to assist in evaluation of this intervention. 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 programs.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kristen Scanlon

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Evaluate effectiveness of basic math facts and operations training by examining Benchmark/SAT-10 exams as well as CBM results levels. Evaluation methods for basic math facts may need to be modified for students with special needs or for students with AIPs.
Action Type: Special Education

Dianne Gann

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

Performance Assessments
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Targeted students will utilize Waterford/Successmaker computer programs for computational and procedural fluency introductions, reviews, integrations, reinforcements, and practice.
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Tracy Bratton

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

Computers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$10000

Intervention: Strategies for responding to open-response problems

Scientific Based Research: Smart Start; Smart Step; NCSI-performance assessments; Reeves, Doug, McGill, Standards Work (1998).

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Review student performance on open-response problems as part of curriculum mapping and implementation of existing programs.
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kristen Scanlon

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

Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Evaluate teacher and student improvement gains in improving open-response performance, and determine effectiveness in reducing achievement gaps.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Program Evaluation

David McClure

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

Performance Assessments
Teachers
Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Implement open-response problem solving strategies at every grade level which are appropriate for all students.
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Special Education

Dianne Gann

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

Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT, YEAR 1: To address deficiencies and identified areas of weakness, teachers will work together to develop a TWO-YEAR plan to practice writing and responding to math prompts in accordance with the state Benchmark released items. A rubric system will be designed for grade level evaluations. Highly qualified teachers will provide additional instruction to students who struggle with mathematics skills and responding to constructed response items. Parents were notifed of Owl Creek's AYP status in a letter dated August 18, 2009, and they were invited to participate in a Provider Fair on September 8, 2009, to select SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATION SERVICES. Parents will be provided two thirty-day windows to enroll in SES, one in the fall and one in the spring, according to state quidelines. The required 20% of the district's Title I allocation has been set aside in district funds in order to provide SES services. Students will be enrolled based upon identified needs, and the school will collaborate with SES providers to monitor their progress.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Mandy Mobley

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Open response math prompts will be implemented in individual classrooms. These prompts will be scored using the rubrics designed for grade level evaluations.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity

Mandy Mobley

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through pre/post testing, formative assessments, CRT/NRT assessments, and local summative assessments and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The following EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrate that this intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning that are part of this program: Through quarterly assessment scores and teacher observations the strategies for open-response problems, which have been implemented at every grade level, have shown to have a positive impact on student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program. In addition, we will use a bank of constructed responses to identify gains and deficiencies in open-response performance. 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 programs.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kristen Scanlon

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: We formed ACSIP Leadership Teams and analyzed the test scores from the 2009 administration of the K-7 grade Augmented Benchmark and SAT 10 Exams. We examined the results from both the combined population and EACH subpopulation. We conducted data analysis to determine our main areas of weakness. In addition, we studied the three most recent years of attndance, disciplinary, formative and summative achievement data across grade levels within our building. We aggregated and disaggregated all the data for the purpose of establishing student learning and behavioral goals. We looked at our trend data in order to better identify the specific areas of need and help align classroom intruction with our curriculum, assessment and professional development. We examined our routines, customs, and norms in order to dig deeper for the root cause of our students not achieving to their full potential. Our 2009 Supporting Data Statements show the discrepancies in achievement, among our various populations. We are modifying our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development practices to better meet the needs of all our populations. Based on our Data Analysis we came to the conclusion that the following areas reflect our greatest need within the Math Priority: Align curriculum and instruction across grade levels, evaluate with common standards. We will implement the use of math protocols from the district and buiding. We will select interventions and coordinate our various state and federal funding sources to address these areas. In addition, we meet in grade level teams weekly in K-5 and daily in 6 and 7 and as an entire faculty weekly so that we can review formative, "real time" classroom performance data for the purpose of making decisions regarding the direction, and focus, of our classroom instruction. We chart our progress on our "assessment/intervention" wall.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Kristen Scanlon

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

Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Intervention: Conduct Math Family Involvement Activities

Scientific Based Research: Ruby K. Payne (1998), A Framework for Understanding Poverty; School of the 21st Century, Yale University (2001).

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

All parents and students will be given the opportunity to attend at least one grade level family meeting time with math activities. Skills being taught will be explained and parents will experience activities they can use to help with these skills at home. Materials and supplies will be purchased for the this activity.
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Dianne Gann

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

Administrative Staff
Performance Assessments
Teachers
Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Maintain frequent contact with stakeholders to convey expectations about the mathematics programs. Accomplish this through newsletters, homeroom teacher letters, web access to the curriculum, and through personal correspondence with parents.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kristen Scanlon

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

Teachers
Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

During the family night math activity, parents will be informed about and trained in the use of rubrics, problem-solving based prompts, how these are used in the classrooms for grading purposes. In addition, this information/training will take place at parent-teacher conference, at informal meeting times, and said information will be made available in the Owl Creek Parent Resource Center.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Dianne Gann

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through pre/post testing, formative assessments, CRT/NRT assessments, and local summative assessments and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The following EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrate that this intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning that are part of this program: Through teacher observation, utilization of the parent center, improved scores on quartley assessements and benchmark exams, family involvement in math activities was shown to have a positive impact on student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program. In addition, we will analyze data from a parent survey, conduct a curriculum night and continue to provide opportunities for parental involvement. 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 programs.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kristen Scanlon

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

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

Kristen Scanlon

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

District Staff
Outside Consultants


ACTION BUDGET:	$

SUPPLEMENTAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT will be provided to target specific areas for intervention among identified subpopulations as being at risk. Professional development will include intervention training, professional conferences, positive discipline training, Effective Schools conferences, and other trainings that focus on meeting individual student needs (subs will be provided for teachers, conference registrations, stipends, and training materials). Training materials are a mandatory part of the training. These materials will be used exclusively to support that training.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Special Education
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Kristen Scanlon

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

Administrative Staff
District Staff
Outside Consultants
Teachers
Title Teachers

Title II-A - Purchased Services:	$4486.00
Title II-A - Materials & Supplies:	$567.00
Title II-A - Employee Salaries:	$750.00
Title II-A - Employee Benefits:	$200.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$6003

PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through pre/post testing, formative assessments, CRT/NRT assessments, and local summative assessments and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The following EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrate that this intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning that are part of this program: Through 100% teacher participation in quality professional development, the implementation of targeted intervention strategies and the improvement in benchmark scores, this intervention has improved student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program. In addition, we will anaylze the level and quality of professional development and utilize learning walks as an evaluation tool. 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 programs.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kristen Scanlon

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

Performance Assessments
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$6003

Intervention: Use Waterford/SuccessMaker computer programs to supplement math problem-solving, computational, and procedural fluency.

Scientific Based Research: Donnelly, L.F., Year Two Results: Evaluation of the implementation and effectiveness of SuccessMaker during 2002-2003. Laub, C.M. & Wildasin, R.L. (2003), Student achievement and the use of computer based instruction. Laub, C.M. (1998), Computer integrated learning system and elementary student achievement: An evaluation study.

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Discuss program implementation and progress during grade level meetings.
Action Type: Collaboration

Kristen Scanlon

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

Administrative Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Provide training to help teachers disaggregate formative Waterford/SuccessMaker data in order to be able to individualize instruction for students. These programs support standards-based mathematics instruction and will provide additional support for classroom comprehensive mathematics instruction.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Professional Development

Kristen Scanlon

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

District Staff
Outside Consultants


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Analyze summatiave data using CRT and NRT (SAT-10/Benchmark) and compare to Waterford/SuccessMaker data. Data will be used in the development of academic improvement plans.
Action Type: AIP/IRI

David McClure

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

COLLABORATION: Teachers are provided with weekly instructional meeting time in order to plan for the implementation of best practices chosen to help improve student achievement. Waterford/SuccessMaker data will be included in this decision making process.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration

Kristen Scanlon

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

Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Staff a fully equipped computer lab with a trained aide (1.0 FTE) to monitor Waterford/SuccessMaker and to provide student interventions throughout the school day for all students not performing at grade level. All work of the aide is to be supervised by highly qualified certified staff.
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Technology Inclusion
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Kristen Scanlon

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

Administrative Staff
Computers
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through pre/post testing, formative assessments, CRT/NRT assessments, and local summative assessments and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The following EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrate that this intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning that are part of this program: The utilization of the Waterford/Successmaker lab, its data and the improvement of quarterly assessment and benchmark scores have shown to improve student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program. In addition, we will analyze data from the Waterford/Successmaker program. 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 programs.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kristen Scanlon

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Priority 2:

All students will improve literacy scores.

Supporting Data:

 2009- Grade 3-Literacy Benchmark Exam:      
67 Students: 41.8% of Combined Students 
		   
18 Students: 38.9% of African American Students 
	   
14 Students: 35.7% of Hispanic Students 
		   
31 Students: 48.4% of Caucasian Students 
		   
48 Students: 34.7% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
    
14 Students: 35.7% of LEP Students 
 		   
10 Students: % of Students with Disabilities 
 
Combined Population: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified area (s) is content passages. The trend
analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains
revealed that the lowest identified areas (s) are content and style.

African American Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response
and multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified area (s) is the Practical Passage. 
The trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing
domains revealed that the lowest identified areas (s) Content and
Style.
					  Hispanic Subpopulation:
The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice question, 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 areas (s)
are: Content and Style.
	
Caucasian Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified area (s) is Content Passages. The trend
analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains
revealed that the lowest identified areas (s) are: Content and Style. 


Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open
response and multiple-choice question, 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.  

Limited English Proficient: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified area (s) are: Practical 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.

Students with Disabilities: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, 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.  
 
					    Grade Four:
71 Students: 67.6% of Combined Students 
		   
19 Students: 57.9% of African American Students 
	   
Less than 10 Students: Hispanic Students 
		    
41 Students: 73.2 of Caucasian Students 
		  
54 Students: 59.3% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
    
Less than 10 Students: LEP Students 
		    
12 Students: 25% of Students with Disabilities 
	 
  
Combined Population: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified areas (s) are: Literacy Passages. The trend
analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains
revealed that the lowest identified areas (s) are: Content and Style.

African American Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response
and multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Literacy Passages.  The
trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains
revealed that the lowest identified areas (s) are: Content and Style. 


Caucasian Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified areas (s) are: Literacy Passages.  The trend
analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains
revealed that the lowest identified areas (s) are: Content and Style. 

    
Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open
response and multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading
passages, revealed that the lowest identified areas (s) are: Literacy
Passages.  The trend analysis of the open response questions in the five
writing domains revealed that the lowest identified areas (s) are: Content
and Style.

			       
Students with Disabilities: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified areas (s) are: Literacy Passages.  The trend
analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains
revealed that the lowest identified areas (s) are: Content and Style.	

		   

2009 Grade 5-Literacy Benchmark Exam:	  
58 Students: 56.9% of Combined Students 
		   
14 Students: 64.3% of African American Students 
	   
Less than 10 Hispanic Students 
		  
36 Students: 55.6% of Caucasian Students 
		   
43 Students: 53.5% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
    
Less than 10 of LEP Students 
		     
10 Students: 20% of Students with Disabilities 
	 
Combined Population: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified area (s) are: Practical 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.

African American Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response
and multiple-choice question, 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.  

					       
Hispanic Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, 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.  

     
Caucasian Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified area (s) are: Practical 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. 
 
    
Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open
response and multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading
passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Practical
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.

Limited English Proficient: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, 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.

Students with Disabilities: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified area (s) are: Practical 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. 

2009 Grade 6-Literacy Benchmark Exam:
136 Students: 60.3% of Combined Population 
 	      
26 Students: 53.9% of African American Students 
	   
31 Students: 54.8% of Hispanic Students 
		   
72 Students: 66.7% of Caucasian Students 
		   
98 Students: 51% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
	 
26 Students: 46.2% of LEP Students 
 		   
26 Students:	    26.9% of Students with Disabilities 
 

Combined Population: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, 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.

African American Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response
and multiple-choice question, 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.  

						 
Hispanic Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, 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.  

	 
Caucasian Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, 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.  

	 
Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open
response and multiple-choice question, 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.  
			
Limited English Proficient: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, 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.  


Students with Disabilities: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified area (s) are: Literacy 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.   

						 2009 Grade 7-Literacy
Benchmark Exam 

100 Students: 66% of Combined Students 
		  
25 Students: 60% of African American Students 
	 
10 Students: 50% of Hispanic Students 
		 
59 Students: 71.2% of Caucasian Students 
		   
60 Students: 51.7% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
    
Less than 10 LEP Students 
			  
12 Students:	    16.7% of Students with Disabilities 
	  
  Combined Population: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, 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. 

African American Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response
and multiple-choice question, 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.	

			
Hispanic Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, 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.  

	 
Caucasian Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified area (s) are: Practical 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.	

  
Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open
response and multiple-choice question, 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. 

Limited English Proficient: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, 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. 

Students with Disabilities: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified area (s) are: Practical 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.  




 2008- Grade 3-Literacy Benchmark Exam:      
61 Students: 49.2% of Combined Students 
		   
18 Students: 44.4% of African American Students 
	   
Less than 10 Students Tested: 25% of Hispanic Students 
		  

31 Students: 54.8% of Caucasian Students 
		   
43 Students: 41.9% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
    
10 Students: 50% of LEP Students 
			 
11 Students: 27.3% of Students with Disabilities 
 
Combined Population: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified area (s) is content passages. The trend
analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains
revealed that the lowest identified areas (s) are content and style.

African American Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response
and multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified area (s) is the Content Passage.  The
trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains
revealed that the lowest identified areas (s) Content and Style.
	  
				 Hispanic Subpopulation: The trend
analysis of the open response and multiple-choice question, in the three
types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s)
are: Literary, Content, and Practical. The trend analysis of the open
response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest
identified areas (s) are: Content and Style and Sentence Formation.
   
 
Caucasian Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified area (s) is Content Passages. The trend
analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains
revealed that the lowest identified areas (s) are: Content and Style. 


Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open
response and multiple-choice question, 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.  

Limited English Proficient: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified area (s) are: Literary and 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.

Students with Disabilities: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, 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.  
 
					    Grade Four:
59 Students: 45.8% of Combined Students 
		   
17 Students: 35.3% of African American Students 
	   
Less than 10 Students: Hispanic Students 
		    
33 Students: 48.5% of Caucasian Students 
		   
43 Students: 37.2% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
    
Less than 10 Students: LEP Students 
		    
12 Students: 16.7% of Students with Disabilities 
	   
  
Combined Population: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified areas (s) are: Content Passages. The trend
analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains
revealed that the lowest identified areas (s) are: Content and Style.

African American Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response
and multiple-choice question, 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 areas (s) are: Content and Style. 


Caucasian Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified areas (s) are: Content Passages.  The trend
analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains
revealed that the lowest identified areas (s) are: Content and Style. 

    
Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open
response and multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading
passages, revealed that the lowest identified areas (s) are: Content.  The
trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains
revealed that the lowest identified areas (s) are: Content and Style.

			       
Students with Disabilities: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified areas (s) are: Content Passages.  The trend
analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains
revealed that the lowest identified areas (s) are: Content and Style.	

		   

2008 Grade 5-Literacy Benchmark Exam:	  
65 Students: 58.5% of Combined Students 
		   
21 Students: 42.9% of African American Students 
	   
17 Students: 47.1% of Hispanic Students 
		   
26 Students: 76.9% of Caucasian Students 
		   
40 Students: 45% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
	 
14 Students: 35.7% of LEP Students 
 		   
13 Students: 23.1% of Students with Disabilities 
	   
Combined Population: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, 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.

African American Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response
and multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Literary and 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.   
					    
Hispanic Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, 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.  

     
Caucasian Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, 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. 
      
Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open
response and multiple-choice question, 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.

Limited English Proficient: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, 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.

Students with Disabilities: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified area (s) are: ALL 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. 

2008 Grade 6-Literacy Benchmark Exam:
93 Students: 65.6% of Combined Students 
		   
26 Students: 57.7% of African American Students 
	   
Less than Students Tested: Hispanic Students 
		
56 Students: 75% of Caucasian Students 
		 
55 Students: 47.3% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
    
Less than 10 Students Tested: LEP Students 
 		   
17 Students:	    11.8% of Students with Disabilities 
 

Combined Population: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, 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.

African American Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response
and multiple-choice question, 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.  

						 
Hispanic Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, 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.   
     
Caucasian Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, 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.   
     
Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open
response and multiple-choice question, 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.  

		       
Limited English Proficient: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified area (s) are: Content and Practical 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.	

Students with Disabilities: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, 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.    
		  
			    2008 Grade 7-Literacy Benchmark Exam 

101 Students: 62.4% of Combined Students 
		    
15 Students: 40% of African American Students 
	 
22 Students: 59.1% of Hispanic Students 
		   
57 Students: 71.9% of Caucasian Students 
		   
60 Students: 53.3% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
    
20 Students:  60% of LEP Students 
			  
14 Students:	    21.4% of Students with Disabilities 
	  
  Combined Population: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified area (s) are: Practical 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. 

African American Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response
and multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Practical 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.	

			
Hispanic Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified area (s) are: Practical 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.  

	 
Caucasian Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified area (s) are: Practical 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.	

  
Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation: The trend analysis of the open
response and multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading
passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: Practical
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. 

Limited English Proficient: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified area (s) are: Practical 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. 

Students with Disabilities: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified area (s) are: Practical 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.  




 Grade 3- Benchmark Literacy Exam				  

2007:	  
63 Students: 31.7% of Combined Students 
			  
22 Students: 27.2% of African American Students 
		  
Less than  10 Students: Hispanic Students 
			    
31 Students: 32.2% of Caucasian Students 
			  
47 Students: 27.6% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students 
 	  
Less than 10 Students: LEP Students 
			   
11 Students: 18.1% of Students with Disabilities 
		  
The lowest identified areas for the combined population were Content and
Style in the writing domains and practical reading. 
	 
The lowest identified areas for African Americans were Content and Style
in the writing domains and the practical reading passage. 
	     
The lowest identified areas for Hispanic were Content and Style in the
writing domains and the content reading passage.  
		       
The lowest identified areas for Caucasian were Content and Style in the
writing domain and the content reading passage.
		     
The lowest identified areas for Econ. Disadvantaged students were Content
and Style in the writing domains and the content reading passage.
    
The lowest identified areas for LEP students were Content and Style in the
writing domains and the practical reading passage.		      

    

2007 Grade 4- Literacy Benchmark Exam:

 44.9% (22 students) of the Combined Population Students scored at, or
above, Proficient;
 42.2% (19 students) of the Economically Disadvantaged (SES) students
scored, at or above, Proficient;
Less then 10 students tested of LEP
Less than 10 students tested of Students with Disabilities (IEP) 
Less than 10 students tested of African American Students 
Less then 10 students who are Hispanic tested.
60% (15 students)of the Caucasian Students scored at, or above,
Proficient.
The lowest identified areas for the Combined Population Students in the
five writing domains are Content (62) and Style (62.2). The lowest
identified areas in the analysis of the three types of passages in
multiple choice is Literary (51.6) and the open response question is
Practical (50.2)

The lowest identified areas for the Economically Disadvantaged Students in
the five writing domains are Content (60) and Style (60.2). The lowest
identified areas in the analysis of the three types of passages in
multiple choice is Literary(48.6) and the open response question is
Content (48.6)
The lowest identified areas for Students with Disabilities in the five
writing domains are Content (53.2) and Style (53.2). The lowest identified
areas in the analysis of the three types of passages in multiple choice is
Practical (45) and the open response question is Literary (32.6)
The lowest identified areas for the African American Students in the five
writing domains are Content (62.8) and Style (62.8). The lowest identified
areas in the analysis of the three types of passages in multiple choice is
Practical (47) and the open response question is Practical (39.8)
The lowest identified areas for the White Students in the five writing
domains are Content (63) and Style (63.4). The lowest identified areas in
the analysis of the three types of passages in multiple choice is Literary
(54.4) and the open response question is Content (52.2)


2007 5th grade- Literacy Benchmark Exam: 

38% of the Combined Population Students scored at, or above, Proficient;
27% of the Economically Disadvantaged (SES) students scored, at or above,
Proficient;
Less than 10 students tested of the Limited English Proficient 
8% of the Students with Disabilities (IEP) scored at or above profient
55% of the African American Students scored at, or above, Proficient;

40% of the Caucasian students scored at or above proficient

Combined Population: In 2007, 55 students were tested and 38% scored
proficient or advanced. Student consistently scored weaker on literary,
content, and practical reading passages on the multiple choice and open
responses portions of the test. In writing students scored weaker on
content and style. 

Students with Disabilities Population: In 2007, 13 students were tested
and 8% were proficient or advanced. Students demonstrated weaknesses in
literary, content, and practical reading passages on multiple choice and
open response. In writing students scored weaker on content and style. 

LEP Population: Less than 10 students tested  

SES Subpopulation: In 2007, 44 students were tested and 27% scored
proficient or advanced. Students scored weaker on content and style. 

Hispanic Subpopulation: In 2007, 10 students were tested and 0% scored
proficient or advanced. Students consistently scored weaker on content and
style. 

African American Subpopulation: In 2007, 18 students were tested and 55%
scored proficient or advanced. Students consistently scored weaker on
content and style. 

Caucasian Subpopulation: In 2007, 25 students were tested and 40% scored
proficient or advanced. Students consistently scored weaker on content and
style. 




IEP subpopulation in 2007 17 students were tested and 12% were proficient
or advanced. Students scored weaker on literary and contents. On the open
response portion students demonstrated weaknesses in literary, content,
and practical reading passages. In writing students scored weaker in
content and style. . 

LEP subpopulation 22 students were tested and 64% scored proficient or
advanced. Students scored weaker on literary and content reading passages.
On the open response portion students scored weaker on the literary and
practical reading passages and in content and style on the writing
portion. 

SES Subpopulation: In 2007, 72 students were tested and 50% scored
proficient or advanced. Students scored weaker on literary and practical
reading passages. 

Hispanic Subpopulation: In 2007, 25 students were tested and 48% scored
proficient or advanced. Students consistently scored weaker on content and
style and literary passages. 

African American Subpopulation: In 2007, 21 students were tested and 47%
scored proficient or advanced. Students consistently scored weaker on
literary and practical reading passages. 

Caucasian Subpopulation: In 2007, 59 students were tested and 68% scored
proficient or advanced. Students consistently scored weaker on Literary
and Practical reading passages. 


2007: SEVENTH GRADE NOT LOCATED IN BUILDING

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

Combined Population:  75 Students were tested and 52 % scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in word analysis (26.1%) 

African American: 15 student were tested and 53% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in Word Analysis.  

Hispanic Population: 12 student were tested and 25% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in vocabulary. 

Caucasian Population: 44 student were tested and 61% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in vocabulary. 

Economically Disadvantaged Population: 50 student were tested and 46%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading
subtests revealed weaknesses in WOrd Analysis. 

Limited English Proficient : Less than 10 students were tested.

Students with Disabilities Population: Less than 10 students were tested.

 2008: SAT-10: Combined Population: Reading Comprehension, Grade
1: In 2008, 67 students were tested and 32.8% had an NPR score of 50, or
above. 
African American:  16 students were tested and 31.3% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Hispanic Population: 12 students were tested and 25% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Caucasian Population: 39 students were tested and 35.9% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Economically Disadvantaged Population: 48 students were tested and 29.2%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Limited English Proficient: Less than 10 students Tested.
Students with Disabilities Population: Less than 10 students tested.



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

Combined Population: 76 Students were tested and  30.3% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in Vocabulary (13.2%)

African American:  16 student were tested and 6% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in Reading Comprehension.  

Hispanic Population: 15 student were tested and 13% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in Reading Comprehension. 

Caucasian Population: 39 student were tested and 28% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in vocabulary. 

Economically Disadvantaged Population: 53 student were tested and 17%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading
subtests revealed weaknesses in vocabulary. 

Limited English Proficient : 12 student were tested and 25% scored at or
above the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in vocabulary. 

Students with Disabilities Population: Less than 10 students were tested.

 2008: SAT-10: Combined Population: Reading Comprehension, Grade
2: In 2008, 64 students were tested and 14.1% had an NPR score of 50, or
above. 
African American:  20 students were tested and 5% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  
Hispanic Population: 13 students were tested and 7.7% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Caucasian Population: 27 students were tested and 23.1% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Economically Disadvantaged Population: 46 students were tested and 10.9%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Limited English Proficient: 12 students were tested and 25% scored at or
above the 50th percentile. 
Students with Disabilities Population: 10 students were tested and 0%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  


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

Combined Population:  76 Students were tested and 55.3% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in Vocabulary (51.3%) 

African American:  19 student were tested and 47% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in vocabulary.	

Hispanic Population: 11 student were tested and 36% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in vocabulary. 

Caucasian Population: 41 student were tested and 63% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in vocabulary. 

Economically Disadvantaged Population: 54 student were tested and 43%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading
subtests revealed weaknesses in vocabulary. 

Limited English Proficient : Less than 10 students were tested.

Students with Disabilities Population: Less than 10 students were tested.

 2009: SAT-10: Combined Population: Reading Comprehension, Grade
3: In 2009, 67 students were tested and 31% had an NPR score of 50, or
above. 
African American:  18 students were tested and 16.7% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Hispanic Population: Less than 10 students were tested. 
Caucasian Population: 31 students were tested and 38.7% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Economically Disadvantaged Population: 49 students were tested and 27.9%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Limited English Proficient: 14 students were tested and 27.9% scored at or
above the 50th percentile. 
Students with Disabilities Population: 10 students were tested and 0%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.

 2008: SAT-10: Combined Population: Reading Comprehension, Grade 3:
In 2008, 67 students were tested and 35.8% had an NPR score of 50, or
above. 
African American:  20 students were tested and 25% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  
Hispanic Population: Less than 10 students were tested. 
Caucasian Population: 34 students were tested and 47.1% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Economically Disadvantaged Population: 49 students were tested and 24.5%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Limited English Proficient: 11 students were tested and 27.3% scored at or
above the 50th percentile. 
Students with Disabilities Population: 11 students were tested and 27.3%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  

Grade 3-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 
2007
Combined Population: In 2007, 72 students were tested and 44%  had a NPR
score of 50 or above. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in Vocabulary.  

African American: 24 student were tested and 38% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in vocabulary.	

Hispanic Population: Less than 10 students tested

Caucasian Population: 37 student were tested and 46% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in vocabulary. 

Economically Disadvantaged Population: 52 student were tested and 42%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading
subtests revealed weaknesses in vocabulary.  

Limited English Proficient : Less than 10 students were tested.

Students with Disabilities Population: 11 student were tested and 9%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading
subtests revealed weaknesses in vocabulary. 

 2009: SAT-10: Combined Population: Reading Comprehension, Grade
4: In 2009, 71 students were tested and 62% had an NPR score of 50, or
above. 
African American:  19 students were tested and 57.8% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Hispanic Population: Less than 10 students were tested. 
Caucasian Population: 41 students were tested and 70.7% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Economically Disadvantaged Population: 54 students were tested and 52.7%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Limited English Proficient: Less than 10 students were tested. 
Students with Disabilities Population: 12 students were tested and 24.8%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  

 2008: SAT-10: Combined Population: Reading Comprehension, Grade 4:
In 2008, 63 students were tested and 55.6% had an NPR score of 50, or
above. 
African American:  17 students were tested and 52.9% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Hispanic Population: Less than 10 students were tested. 
Caucasian Population: 36 students were tested and 55.6% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Economically Disadvantaged Population: 45 students were tested and 46.7%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Limited English Proficient: Less than 10 students were tested. 
Students with Disabilities Population: 13 students were tested and 30.8%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  

 Grade 4 -Iowa Test of Basic Skills: 
Combined Population: In 2007, 71 students were tested and 51%  had a NPR
score of 50 or above. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in Vocabulary.  

African American: 15 student were tested and 33% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in vocabulary.	

Hispanic Population: In 2007, 18 students were tested and 39%  had a NPR
score of 50 or above. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in Vocabulary.  

Caucasian Population: 35 student were tested and 60% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in vocabulary. 

Economically Disadvantaged Population: 47 student were tested and 40%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading
subtests revealed weaknesses in vocabulary.  

Limited English Proficient : 15 students were tested and 33% scored at or
above the 50th percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed a
weakness in the area of vocabulary.

Students with Disabilities Population: 12 student were tested and 17%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading
subtests revealed weaknesses in vocabulary. 

 2009: SAT-10: Combined Population: Reading Comprehension, Grade
5: In 2009, 59 students were tested and 49.6% had an NPR score of 50, or
above. 
African American:  14 students were tested and 57.14% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Hispanic Population: Less than 10
Caucasian Population: 36 students were tested and 47.2% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Economically Disadvantaged Population: 44 students were tested and 46.5%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Limited English Proficient: Less than 10
Students with Disabilities Population: 10 students were tested and 18.6%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  

 2008: SAT-10: Combined Population: Reading Comprehension, Grade 5:
In 2008, 70 students were tested and 65.7 % had an NPR score of 50, or
above. 
African American:  22 students were tested and 50% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  
Hispanic Population: 17 students were tested and 58.8% scored at or above
the 50th percentile. 
Caucasian Population: 30 students were tested and 80% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Economically Disadvantaged Population: 44 students were tested and 56.8%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Limited English Proficient: 14 students were tested and 50% scored at or
above the 50th percentile.  
Students with Disabilities Population: 14 students were tested and 14.3%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  





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

Combined Population: In 2007, 56 students were tested and 48%  had a NPR
score of 50 or above. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in Vocabulary.  

African American: 18 student were tested and 56% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in reading comprehension.  

Hispanic Population: In 2007, 10 students were tested and 20%  had a NPR
score of 50 or above. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in Vocabulary.  

Caucasian Population: 26 student were tested and 54% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in vocabulary. 

Economically Disadvantaged Population: 44 student were tested and 39%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading
subtests revealed weaknesses in vocabulary.  

Limited English Proficient : Less than 10 students were tested.

Students with Disabilities Population: 14 student were tested and 29%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading
subtests revealed weaknesses in vocabulary. 

2009: SAT-10: Combined Population: Reading Comprehension, Grade 6: In
2009, 136 students were tested and 52.7% had an NPR score of 50, or above.

African American:  26 students were tested and 42.3% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Hispanic Population: 31 students were tested and 38.7% scored at or above
the 50th percentile. 
Caucasian Population: 72 students were tested and 62.5% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Economically Disadvantaged Population: 98 students were tested and 40.3%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Limited English Proficient: 26 students were tested and 43.4% scored at or
above the 50th percentile.  
Students with Disabilities Population: 26 students were tested and 15.5%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  

2008: SAT-10: Combined Population: Reading Comprehension, Grade 6: In
2008, 106 students were tested and 50% had an NPR score of 50, or above. 
African American:  29 students were tested and 37.9% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Hispanic Population: Less than 10 students were tested.  
Caucasian Population: 65 students were tested and 55.4% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Economically Disadvantaged Population: 44 students were tested and 33.3%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Limited English Proficient: Less than 10 students were tested. 
Students with Disabilities Population: 19 students were tested and 15.8%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  


Grade 6-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 
2007
 
 Combined Population: In 2007, 108 students were tested and 46%  had a NPR
score of 50 or above. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in Vocabulary.  
African American: 20 student were tested and 35% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in vocabulary.	

Hispanic Population: In 2007, 23 students were tested and 26%  had a NPR
score of 50 or above. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in Vocabulary.  

Caucasian Population: 59 student were tested and 59% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in reading comprehension. 

Economically Disadvantaged Population: 71 student were tested and 32%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading
subtests revealed weaknesses in vocabulary.  

Limited English Proficient : 21 student were tested and % scored at or
above the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading subtests revealed
weaknesses in reading comprehension. 

Students with Disabilities Population: 16 student were tested and 29%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  The analysis of the reading
subtests revealed weaknesses in reading comprehension. 

2009: SAT-10: Combined Population: Reading Comprehension, Grade 7: In
2009, 102 students were tested and 58.9% had an NPR score of 50, or above.

African American:  25 students were tested and 48% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  
Hispanic Population: 10 students were tested and 40% scored at or above
the 50th percentile. 
Caucasian Population: 59 students were tested and 64.4% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Economically Disadvantaged Population: 61 students were tested and 43.4%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Limited English Proficient: 10 students were tested and 31% scored at or
above the 50th percentile. 
Students with Disabilities Population: 12 students were tested and 9.3%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.

2008: SAT-10: Combined Population: Reading Comprehension, Grade 7: In
2008, 117 students were tested and 57.3% had an NPR score of 50, or above.

African American:  16 students were tested and 50% scored at or above the
50th percentile.  
Hispanic Population: 23 students were tested and 47.8% scored at or above
the 50th percentile. 
Caucasian Population: 70 students were tested and 62.9% scored at or above
the 50th percentile.  
Economically Disadvantaged Population: 76 students were tested and 50%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  
Limited English Proficient: 22 students were tested and 45.5% scored at or
above the 50th percentile. 
Students with Disabilities Population: 15 students were tested and 33.3%
scored at or above the 50th percentile.  

2007,  SEVENTH GRADE NOT LOCATED IN BUILDING
Attendance Rate: In 2008 the attendance rate was 93.3. In 2007 the
attendance rate was 93.8. 
Attendance Info:  In 2009, the average daily membership was 667 students
for quarter 1 through quarter 3. The attendance rate exceeded the goal of
91.13% set by the ADE.

Goal

All students will improve in reading comprehension and written expression with additional attention to Content and Practical reading passages, and Style and Content writing domains.

Benchmark

The following population(s) DID NOT meet the 2009 AYP target of 64% scoring Proficient/Advanced. COMBINED POPULATION: 60.8 AFRICAN-AMERICAN 52.6% ;HISPANIC POPULATION: 45.6% ;ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED POPULATION: 50.4%; LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY POPULATION: 45.6%; STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES: 20.6 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 the "Safe Harbor" or "Growth" models. Since the combined population did not meet the AMO target of 71.2% Proficient or Advanced in Literacy, Owl Creek School is designated as Whole School Improvement Year 1 Status.

Benchmark

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.

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: All teachers will have the opportunity to participate in the school and district professional development plan. Teachers will use an instrument developed by the district professional development committee to evaluate the effectiveness of the professional development plan, the course offerings and the effectiveness of the knowledge gained. Annually, upon review of the test data, the professional development committee, working under the guidelines of the district professional development plan, will develop a professional development plan for the school and individual teachers based on information obtained through data analysis. All new teachers (first 3 years) and teachers in need of assistance will be assigned a mentor to assist them in reaching their professional development goals and needs. All teachers will have the opportunity to have input on the district and building level professional development plan. The district will provide all teachers and administrators with additional, supplemental professional development opportunities, over and above the state requirement of hours in all areas. Teachers will have the opportunity to evaluate the benefit of the professional development activities and provide feedback on needed changes. The $900 in material and supplies will be used to purchase three professional texts in literacy for each certified teacher.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Tracy Bratton

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

District Staff
Outside Consultants

Title I - Purchased Services:	$3900.00
Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$900.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$4800

SCHOOLWIDE REFORM STRATEGIES: SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT YEAR 1: Owl Creek teachers will participate in local, state, and national PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT opportunities in literacy. In addition, Title II-A funds will be budgeted in order to provide ongoing professional trainings which include but are not limited to: Smart Step Literacy Lab Project, Northwest Arkansas Educational Services Cooperative, International Reading Association Conference, Northwest Arkansas Writing Project (Fall and Spring Mini-Conferences), the Open Summer Institute, So Many Books - So Little Time, Young Authors Series at Harding University, Reading in the Content Areas, READ180 National Summer Conference, University of Arkansas Literacy Symposium, Northwest Arkansas Middle Level Conference, and the NMSA National Conference in Denver. Substitute will be provided during release time for teachers to attend said trainings/conferences.SUPPLEMENTAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT will be provided to target specific areas for intervention among identified subpopulations as being at risk. Professional development will include intervention trainings, conferences, positive discipline training, Effective Schools conferences,and other trainings that focus on meeting individual student needs. Subs will be provided for teachers to attend; conference registrations; stipends; and necessary teacher training materials. Administrators will utilize Learning Walks (CWTs) daily to monitor instruction and ensure the use of high-yield strategies.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Special Education
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Tracy Bratton

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

Administrative Staff
District Staff
Outside Consultants
Teachers
Title Teachers

Title II-A - Purchased Services:	$4434.00
Title II-A - Materials & Supplies:	$429.00
Title II-A - Employee Salaries:	$900.00
Title II-A - Employee Benefits:	$240.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$6003

PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through Developmental Reading Assessments and DIBELS 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: Administrative Learning Walks have provided evidence of high-yield strategies being utilized in literacy instruction and entire staff participation in literacy directed professional development have improved student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program. 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 programs.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kristen Scanlon

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

Administrative Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Two full-time (2.0 FTE) Literacy Coaches will teach and model all components of balanced literacy for teachers and provide job embedded professional development in all literacy components. These coaches will provide supplemental professional development in addition to the state-required 60 hours of PD. Because Owl Creek is Schoolwide Title I, 10% of the building's Title I allocation will be set aside and used to hire literacy coaches to provide professional development for teachers and administrators in regard to the School Improvement status area of Literacy specific to the identified populations. In addition, the literacy coaches will provide MENTORING activites for teachers, in addition to Pathwise, that are connected to the professional development and include a quality coaching model to provide assistance to the teachers. This comprehensive literacy model includes job-embedded, ongoing professional development with classroom protocols and conferences with teachers before and after observations with teachers. The reasons for the alert status for 2009 AYP are literacy subpopulations of african american, economic disadvantaged, students with disabilities, LEP, Hispanic and combined.
Action Type: Professional Development

Kristen Scanlon

Start: 06/30/2009
End: 07/31/2010

Teachers
Teaching Aids

Title I - Employee Salaries:	$63000.00
Title I - Employee Benefits:	$16500.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$79500

Total Budget:

$90303

Intervention: Parent Involvement Plan ACT 307 National PTA Standards 1998.

Scientific Based Research: Henderson, A., & Mapp, K., A new wave of evidence. The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement.,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

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

Tonya Essex

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

District Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Implementation of the Watchdog Program to actively engage fathers, grandfathers, uncles, community members, or significant persons to provide positive male role models for students. Emphasis will be placed on building school/home relationships which positively impact student achievement. Materials will be purchased to support the program.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Kristen Scanlon

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

District Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PARENT INVOLVEMENT MEETINGS: All parents will receive informational packets that include: *Parental Involvement Plan *School Calendar *A system encouraging the home and school connection
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Tonya Essex

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

District Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

All parents will be invited to an Open House Night to welcome parents and students to our school and to share expectations for the school year. The school's process for resolving parental concerns will be discussed at this meeting.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Kristen Scanlon

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

District Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT MEETINGS (curriculum nights) 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. To supplement the involvement of all parents, dinner will be provided for families. Early intervention materials will also be purchased for kindergarten families and food will be provided at early intervention meetings.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Tonya Essex

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

District Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT: 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. The plan will include a variety of ways for parents to become involved in their child's education, including Breakfast with the Principals, home visits by the social worker, and provide materials that may be taken home to support instruction.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Tracy Bratton

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

District Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

The district will designate two PARENT/TEACHER CONFERENCES each school year.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Kristen Scanlon

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

District Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

The school will develop cards that include: the school's commitment to parental involvement, the process for resolving parental concerns, and tips for how parents can foster their child's success. School personnel will distribute the cards to the parents of all students in the building.
Action Type: Parental Engagement

John L Colbert

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

District Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Teachers will receive training to enhance understanding of effective parental involvement strategies.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Professional Development

Tracy Bratton

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

District Staff
Outside Consultants
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 available for parents to borrow for review in each building. Parent Center materials, which may include, but not limited to brochures, pamphlets, computers for use on site, or laptops to be checked out will be designated by each building.
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Tonya Essex

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

District Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Parent Facilitator will attend the State's Parent Involvement Conference.
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Kristen Scanlon

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

Administrative Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

School Parent Compact Statement: Parents and highly qualified teachers collaborate to develop and distribute "Family Kits" for each family that include: *Parental Involvement Plan *School Calendar *A School-Parent Compact *A system encouraging the home, school, and community connection
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Tonya Essex

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

Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

HIGHLY QUALIFIED: The school will continue to RECRUIT, 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

Kristen Scanlon

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

Administrative Staff
Central Office
Outside Consultants
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

An alumni advisory committee will be formed to help evaluate academic progress, the amount of parental participation within the school and identification of barriers that exist that hinder greater participation by parents.
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Kristen Scanlon

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

Administrative Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

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

Tonya Essex

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

Administrative Staff
District Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PARENT EXPLANATION: An annual meeting will be held to inform parents of the right of parents to be involved in planning, review, and improvement of parent programs and a description and explanation will be given of the curriculum used in the school, types of assessment and proficiency levels. In addition, parents will be involved in the annual planning of school improvement programs. Annual surveys will evaluate the parent involvement activities.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Kristen Scanlon

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

Administrative Staff


ACTION BUDGET:	$

In order to encourage parents to participate as a full partner in the decisions that affect their child and family, Owl Creek will include in our schools student handbook the SCHOOLS PROCESS FOR RESOLVING PARENTAL CONCERNS, including how to define a problem, who to approach first and how to develop solutions.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Tracy Bratton

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

Administrative Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

In order to take advantage of community resources Owl Creek will ENABLE THE FORMATION OF A PARENT TEACHER ORGANiZATION, that will foster parental and community involvement within the school.

Kristen Scanlon

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through the level of parental involvement and CRT scores 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: Parents' active participation in school events, such as Parent Teacher Organization, school music programs, Watchdog Dads, curriculum nights, parent/teacher conferences and the utilization of the Owl Creek Parent Center have all indicted positive parental involvement which has had a direct effect on student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program. In addition, we expect to increase the number of opportunites for parental involvement. 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 programs.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kristen Scanlon

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

Administrative Staff
Community Leaders
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Students will receive support from the Social Worker (.75 FTE) and other personnel to ensure that basic needs of clothing, shelter, and food are met (Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs) so that all students, particularly those who may come from homeless situations, are ready to learn in the classroom. This social worker is assigned only to Owl Creek school because of our high level of free and reduced lunch population. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is predetermined in order of importance.[5] It is often depicted as a pyramid consisting of five levels: the lowest level is associated with physiological needs, while the uppermost level is associated with self-actualization needs, particularly those related to identity and purpose. The higher needs in this hierarchy only come into focus when the lower needs in the pyramid are met. Once an individual has moved upwards to the next level, needs in the lower level will no longer be prioritized. If a lower set of needs is no longer being met (food, clothing and shelter), the individual will temporarily re-prioritize those needs by focusing attention on the unfulfilled needs, but will not permanently regress to the lower level. For the most part, physiological needs are obvious - they are the literal requirements for human survival. If these requirements are not met, the human body simply cannot continue to function or learn.
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Kristen Scanlon

Start: 06/01/2009
End: 07/31/2010

Title I - Employee Salaries:	$9170.00
Title I - Employee Benefits:	$2384.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$11554

These items are in place to ensure BUILDING PARENTAL CAPACITY FOR INVOLVEMENT: The Owl Creek School will (A) Provide assistance to parents in understanding content how to monitor a child's progress; standards, academic assessments, and (B) Provide materials and training to help parents work with their children to improve academic achievement; (C) Educate teachers, principals, and other staff in the importance of effective communication, value and utility of contributions of parents; (D) Coordinate and integrate parent involvement programs and activities; (E) Ensure that information related to school and parent programs is sent to parents to the extent practical in a language parents can understand; (F) Provide other reasonable support for parental involvement activities as parents may request. A PARENT COMPACT will be distributed to all parents to outline how the parents, the entire school staff, and the students will share the responsiblity for improved student academic achievement and the means by which the school and parents will build and develop a partnership that will help children achieve the State's high standards.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Professional Development

Kristen Scanlon

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

Community Leaders
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$11554

Intervention: Use Waterford/Successmaker computer programs to supplement reading comprehension, fluency, and vocabulary development and instruction for all students.

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Discuss program implementation and progress during grade level meetings.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration

Jo-Anne Pearcey and Angelia Arguello

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

Administrative Staff
Performance Assessments
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Provide training to help teachers disaggregate Waterford/Successmaker formative data in order to be able to individualize instruction for students. These programs support standards-based literacy instruction and will provide additional support for classroom comprehensive literacy instruction.
Action Type: Professional Development

David McClure

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

Computers
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Analyze summative data using CRT and NRT (SAT-10, Benchmark and MAT-8) and compare to Waterford/SuccessMaker data. Data will be used as a consideration in the development of student Academic Improvement Plans.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Program Evaluation

David McClure

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

District Staff
Performance Assessments
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

COLLABORATION: Teachers are provided with weekly instructional meeting time in order to plan for the implementation of best practices chosen to help improve student achievement.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Jo-Anne Pearcey and Angelia Arguello

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

Administrative Staff
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, we evaluated Waterford/Successmaker intervention programs through Developmental Reading Assessment and DIBELS 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: Elementary students scoring at Benchmark levels on DIBELS screening increased by 17%, which shows an increase in student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program. In addition, we will implement Target Assessments aligned with state standards and developed by the NWAESC. We will 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 programs.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kristen Scanlon

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

Administrative Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Staff a fully equipped computer lab with trained aide (1 FTE) to monitor Waterford/Successmaker and provide targeted interventions based on student need. The Waterford lab will assess student needs in math and literacy and develop individualized instruction to help reinforce those areas of deficiency. All work of the aide will be supervised by highly qualified certified staff.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Special Education
Action Type: Technology Inclusion
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Kristen Scanlon

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

Computers

Title I - Employee Salaries:	$23000.00
Title I - Employee Benefits:	$5980.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$28980

Total Budget:

$28980

Intervention: Conduct Family Literacy Involvement activities

Scientific Based Research: Ruby K Payne (1998), Framework for Understanding Poverty; School of the 21st Century, Yale University (2001).

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Plan one literacy event per year for families. Other additional events will be coordinated by grade levels. Dinner and other supplies will be provided at each event. This will supplement the parent nights being held to comply with Act 307. Parents will be provided instruction on how to incorporate learning acitivities into the home environment, and they will participate in activities that they can take home to help them assist their children with literacy skills.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Jo-Anne Pearcey

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

Administrative Staff
Community Leaders
Computers
Performance Assessments
School Library
Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Conduct Parent involvement activities with Pre-K (4 Year olds) and English as a Second Language. Refreshments, books for students, child care, and copies of handouts will be used at these events.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Special Education

Kathleen Hale and Lucy Arnold

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

Administrative Staff
Community Leaders
Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Inform parents and conduct needs assessment meetings concerning various programs that are federally and grant funded.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kristen Scanlon

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

Administrative Staff


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, evaluated this Intervention/Program through formative pre/post testing, CRT/NRT assessments, and local summative assessments and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The following EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrate that this intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning that are part of this program: This intervention was evaluated through 100% participation in the weekly reading logs, reading is fundamental, the scholastic book fair and the Book Hog programs. Each of these had a positive effect on student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program. In addition, we will conduct a parent survey to better understand the needs of our parents. 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 programs.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kristen Scanlon

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Intervention: We will implement the Fayetteville Public Schools Comprehensive Literacy.

Scientific Based Research: Effective Literacy; Atwell, N., In the Middle; Calkins, L., The Art of Teaching Writing; Cunningham, P. and Allington, R., Classrooms that Work: They Can All Read and Write; Daniels, H., Craft Lessons: Teaching Writing K-8; Fletcher, R. and Portalupi, J.A., Writing Workshop; The Essential Guide; Freeman, M.S., Nonfiction Matters; Harvey, S., Strategies That Work; Teaching Comprehension to Enhance Understanding; Report of the National Reading Panel, Teaching Children to Read; Routman, R., Conversations; Routman, R., Invitations; Tompkins, G., Literacy for the 21st Century; Tompkins, G., Teaching Writing; Balancing Process and Product. Strategies that Work (2000)

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

All teachers will be trained to prepare and implement effective literacy instruction.
Action Type: Professional Development

Sandra Taylor

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

District Staff
Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Evaluate implementation of Comprehension Strategies by analyzing student progress using standardized formative data.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Tracy Bratton

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

Administrative Staff
District Staff
School Library


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Each teacher in K-7 will use explicit teaching, whole group and small group instruction for comprehension instruction in literacy and core curriculum classes.
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Professional Development

Jo-Anne Pearcey and Angelia Arguello

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

District Staff
Performance Assessments
School Library
Teachers
Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

To create an environment conducive to learning and in alignment with Literacy Lab instructional teachings, the building will purchase additional organizational systems to store additional classroom books and literature sets to provide a print-rich classroom environment.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Equity

Kristen Scanlon

Start: 07/01/2009
End: 10/05/2008

Administrative Staff
Teachers
Title Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$25080.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$25080

The instructional leader will monitor the level of implementation in classrooms using short classroom walk through observations and giving teachers feedback as to level of implementation individually and in groups during grade level meetings.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kristen Scanlon

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

Administrative Staff
School Library
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

POINT IN TIME REMEDIATION: Students identified as not meeting the expectation for success will receive additional comprehension strategy instruction in small flexible groups. Students needing enrichment will also receive additional instruction in small groups. Progress will be monitored to determine individual student needs and to regroup students based on those needs. Purchase supplemental materials for point in time services.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Special Education
Action Type: Technology Inclusion
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Kristen Scanlon

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

Administrative Staff
Computers
School Library
Teachers
Teaching Aids
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Highly Qualified literacy paraprofessionals (4 full-time) will assist implementation of comprehension instruction by working with small groups and faciliting instruction in whole groups. Interventions will be planned and supervised by highly qualified classroom teachers. Salaries and benefits for paraprofessionals.
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Professional Development

Kristen Scanlon

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

Administrative Staff
Teachers
Title Teachers

Title I - Employee Benefits:	$9010.00
Title I - Employee Salaries:	$34654.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$43664

Purchase guided reading books, instructional support materials, and library materials that will support balanced literacy instruction.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Special Education

Jo-Anne Pearcey

Start: 09/01/2009
End: 03/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Performance Assessments
School Library
Teachers
Title Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$6272.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$6272

All teachers will collaborate to examine all students' progress and make appropriate adjustments to instruction and flexible groupings. A response to intervention team will be used to recommend implementation strategies, modifications and accomodations, and will recommend students to be referred for testing for special services. SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT: Students identified as being "at-risk" according to the spring administration of the DIBELS assessment, were invited to attend the district's summer program for K-2 students, which provided explicit reading instruction, small groups, and strategies for parents.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Special Education
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Jo-Anne Pearcey and Angelia Arguello

Start: 09/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010

Administrative Staff
Computers
Performance Assessments
School Library
Teachers
Teaching Aids
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: We formed ACSIP Leadership Teams and analyzed the test scores from the 2009 administration of the K-7 grade Augmented Benchmark and SAT 10 Exams. We examined the results from both the combined population and EACH subpopulation. We conducted data analysis to determine our main areas of weakness. In addition, we studied the three most recent years of attndance, disciplinary, formative and summative achievement data across grade levels within our building. We aggregated and disaggregated all the data for the purpose of establishing student learning and behavioral goals. We looked at our trend data in order to better identify the specific areas of need and help align classroom intruction with our curriculum, assessment and professional development. We examined our routines, customs, and norms in order to dig deeper for the root cause of our students not achieving to their full potential. Our 2009 Supporting Data Statements show the discrepancies in achievement, among our various populations. We are modifying our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development practices to better meet the needs of all our populations. Based on our Data Analysis we came to the conclusion that the following areas reflect our greatest need within the Literacy Priority: Researched based intructional strategies and literacy block schedule. We will implement the use of literacy protocols from the district and building. We will select interventions and coordinate our various state and federal funding sources to address these areas. In addition, we meet in grade level teams weekly in K-5 and daily in 6 and 7 and as an entire faculty weekly so that we can review formative, "real time" classroom performance data for the purpose of making decisions regarding the direction, and focus, of our classroom instruction. We chart our progress on our "assessment/intervention" wall.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Kristen Scanlon

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

Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Teachers will be trained to use Phonetic Connections and Word Journeys. Special teachers and ESL teachers will also receive training, and additional materials to develop literacy skills.
Action Type: Professional Development

Angelia Aguello

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

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$2175.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$2175

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT YEAR 1: Owl Creek has been placed on whole school improvement for the following subpopulations: African American, Economic Disadvantaged, IEP, LEP, Hispanic and combined. Targeted professional development in these areas will be provided for teachers and administrative staff. The school leadership team along with central office staff is developing a comprehensive plan TWO-YEAR plan that will include evaluations and designated resources and allocation of resources to address the needs of these subpopulations. Parents were notifed of Owl Creek's AYP status in a letter dated August 18, 2009, and they were invited to participate in a Provider Fair on September 8, 2009, to select SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATION SERVICES. The letter has been translated into Spanish and will be translated into other languages as requested by parents. The letter explained what our AYP designation means and the reason Owl Creek has been identified for improvment. In addition, it described how Owl Creek compares to other schools in the region and state, what Owl Creek is doing to address the low achievement of students, what the district is doing to support the school, & how parents can become involved in the school-improvement efforts. SES was also explained in the letter, including availability of services, identification of approved providers, and a brief description of the services provided. Parents will be provided two thirty-day windows to enroll in SES, one in the fall and one in the spring, according to state quidelines. The required 20% of the district's Title I allocation has been set aside in district funds in order to provide SES services. Students will be enrolled based upon identified needs, and the school will collaborate with SES providers to monitor their progress.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Kristen Scanlon

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

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, evaluated this Intervention/Program through formative pre/post testing, CRT/NRT assessments, and local summative assessments 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: The number of proficient scores by the combined population in each grade increased in literacy on average by 2%, which showed a positive result in student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program. In addition, we will analyze literacy protocols and develop an intervention wall. 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 programs.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kristen Scanlon

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP: Regular 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. SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT: Owl Creek will participate in an annual peer review coordinated by the district in order to improve our ACSIP and School Improvement Plans.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration

Jo-Anne Pearcey

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

District Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Owl Creek has been placed on Whole School Improvement in Literacy. Data analysis using DIBELS and SAT 10 data has revealed that only 42% of 2nd graders are reading on grade level. Research in literacy instruction shows that students must be reading on grade-level by 3rd grade or they are likely to never read on grade level. To address the wide-spread reading deficits of these students and provide services to all children as part of the Schoolwide Initiative, Owl Creek will increase support for student achievement in Literacy through increasing staff that is highly qualified in Literacy. Therefore a highly-qualifed 2nd grade teacher (1.0 FTE) will be hired to provide instruction and student progress will be monitored using DIBELS, DRA, DSA, and DAR.
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Kristen Scanlon

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

Performance Assessments
Teachers
Teaching Aids
Title Teachers

Title I - Employee Salaries:	$63000.00
Title I - Employee Benefits:	$16500.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$79500

Total Budget:

$156691

Intervention: Implement a Literacy Coach Model in Kindergarten through Seventh Grade.

Scientific Based Research: Early Reading First Presentation, Dec. 2001, Means, B., & Olson, K. 1994. The link between technology and authentic learning. Educational Leadership, 51(7), 15-18; Louis, K.S., Marks, H.M., & Bruse, S. 1996. Teachers' professional community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 757-798.; Lyons, C.A.,& Pinnell, G.S. (2001). Systems for change in literacy education: A guide to professional development; Dorn, L. & Soffos, C. (2001). Shaping Literate Minds

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Literacy Coaches will use technology to gather and disaggregate data from varied assessments.
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Jo-Anne Pearcey and Angelia Arguello

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

Administrative Staff
Outside Consultants
Performance Assessments


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Team meetings between Literacy Coach and individual grade level, and across grade levels. Provide professional development books, copies of materials.
Action Type: Collaboration

Jo-Anne Pearcey and Angelia Arguello

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

Administrative Staff
School Library
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, evaluated this Intervention/Program through formative pre/post testing, CRT/NRT assessments, and local summative assessments 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: Through the regular collaboration of literacy coaches and grade level teams, the implementation of appropriate research based, literacy directed professional development and an increase in students meeting Benchmark levels on DIBELS screening by 17%, this intervention has led to an increase in student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program. In addition, we will utilize literacy protocols as an evaluative tool for Literacy Coaches. 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 programs.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kristen Scanlon

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Intervention: Reading Across the Curriculum

Scientific Based Research: Addison-Wesley, 1999; Allington, R., Classrooms that Work, 1999; Anderson R.C. Pearson, P.D. 1984. A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading; Guthrie, J.T., Et al., 1996. Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and strategies during concept-oriented reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly 31: 306-332

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Implement Waterford/Successmaker programs for Pre-K through seventh grade. Use technology to access information for content learning, develop reading skills, and publish student work.
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Tracy Bratton

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

Computers
District Staff
Public Library
School Library
Teachers
Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Integrate instruction in reading comprehension strategies into every content area.
Action Type: Special Education

Jo-Anne Pearcey and Angelia Arguello

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

Performance Assessments
School Library
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Provide opportunities for independent and group library research projects that are integrated with classroom instruction and that result in demonstrations that show reading comprehension skills as well as content knowledge.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Special Education

Morton Hardaway

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

Central Office
Computers
District Staff
Performance Assessments
Public Library
School Library
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Provide access to a rich collection of diverse resources on curriculum topics through the school library. Funds will be used to purchase a variety of books to boost library and classroom collections.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Equity

Morton Hardaway

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

Central Office
School Library
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Use formative assessments and open-ended (constructed) responses with rubrics to enable students to demonstrate proficiency in responding to practical and content passages by finding the main idea, interpreting, analyzing, drawing conclusions, and providing examples and evidence.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

David McClure

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

Central Office
District Staff
Performance Assessments
School Library
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

To provide students a hands-on experience through field trips or author visits to assist students in developing the appropriate schema to appreciate and understand literature. All said experiences will be directly linked to instruction to allow students to make connections to literature, e.g., students would travel to a local community museum to view an exhibit on the lives of local pioneer families after a novel study on pioneer times or students would travel to a local dairy/poultry farm after an author study involving the role of farms in our daily existence or authors will visit the school to work with students.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Equity

Kristen Scanlon

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, evaluated this Intervention/Program through formative pre/post testing, CRT/NRT assessments, and local summative assessments 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: Through gains in pre- and post- testing in the Waterford/Successmaker computer lab and classroom participation in author visits this intervention has shown to have a positive effect on student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program. In addition, we will perform an analysis of open ended response rubrics. 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 programs.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kristen Scanlon

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Intervention: Early Intervention: Four-Year-Old Program

Scientific Based Research: Campbell, F.A., & Ramey, C.T. 1995. Cognitive and social outcomes for high-risk African-American students at middle adolescence: Positive effects of early intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 32 743-772; Dickinson, K.K., & Smith M.K. 1994. Long-term effects of preschool teachers' book readings on low-income children's vocabulary & story comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 105-120

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Maintain and evaluate (using pre-and post data)existing Four-Year-Old program.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kathleen Hale

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

Administrative Staff
Teachers
Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Provide professional development opportunities and site visits to other Pre-K programs.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Professional Development

Kathleen Hale

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

Administrative Staff
Outside Consultants


ACTION BUDGET:	$

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

Kathleen Hale

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

Administrative Staff
Computers
District Staff


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, evaluated this Intervention/Program through formative pre/post testing, CRT/NRT assessments, and local summative assessments 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: Through kindergarten teacher observation, students are entering kindergarten with a higher level of readiness and pre-K teachers receiving appropriate researched based professional development, supports student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program. 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 programs.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kristen Scanlon

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Intervention: Students will write using Comprehensive literacy approach and they will write across the curriculum

Scientific Based Research: Tompkins, G. 1997. Literacy for the 21st Century: A Balanced Approach. New York: Prentice-Hall.; Chall,J.S., and V.A. Jacobs. 1995. The Reading, Writing, and Language Connection

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

SCHOOLWIDE REFORM STRATEGIES: Incorporate writing skills and strategies from the Arkansas Frameworks into the curriculum of every content area and align vertically writing expectations and skills from Kindergarten through Seventh Grade.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Jo-Anne Pearcey and Angelia Arguello

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

Computers
Performance Assessments
Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Students in will have instruction in Step Up To Writing and Writer's Workshop strategies. Materials will be purchased to facilitate the writing process.
Action Type: Equity

Tracy Bratton

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

Teachers

Title I - Materials & Supplies:	$754.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$754

Students in Kindergarten and First will participate in small group interactive writing sessions.
Action Type: Equity

Jo-Anne Pearcey and Angelia Arguello

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

Computers
Teachers
Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Grades k-7 will participate in Writer's Workshop as part of the Writing Program as teachers are trained. Materials will be purchased to facilitate the writing process.
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Jo-Anne Pearcey and Angelia Arguello

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

Computers
Performance Assessments
Teachers
Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Classroom teachers, special education teachers, and other support staff will collaborate to implement differentiated strategies for students at risk and/or special needs students to improve writing skills.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Special Education

Lynn Konz

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

Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Teachers will meet at grade level meetings to share and evaluate writing prompts with all evaluations based upon the Arkansas Writing Rubric.
Action Type: Collaboration

Jo-Anne Pearcey and Angelia Arguello

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

Administrative Staff
Performance Assessments
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Use performance formative assessments and open-ended (constructed) responses with grade level appropriate rubrics (Using a variety of Writing Rubrics including Arkansas Writing Rubrics) to enable students to demonstrate proficiency in responding in writing to literary, practical, and content passages.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Jo-Anne Pearcey and Angelia Arguello

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

Performance Assessments
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Communicate writing expectations and student progress in writing along content-area expectations to parents through sharing of graded work with the accompanying rubric, parent-teacher conferences, and Web access to the curriculum.
Action Type: Parental Engagement

Heather Smith

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

Computers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, evaluated this Intervention/Program through formative pre/post testing, CRT/NRT assessments, and local summative assessments 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: Through quarterly writing assessments and teacher participation in Step Up to Writing professional development this intervention has led to an improvement in student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program. In addition, we will analyze district quarterly writing prompts. 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 programs.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kristen Scanlon

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Teachers will collaborate to work in vertical and horizontal teams to ensure all students needs will be addressed through the alignment of district curriculum.
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration

Jo-Anne Pearcey and Angelia Arguello

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

Administrative Staff
District Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$754

Intervention: Use the Comprehensive Literacy Approach to help students progress through the use of spelling strategies and word studies and to increase the use and proficiency for vocabulary.

Scientific Based Research: Classrooms That Work, Cunningham, P.M. and R.L. Allington. Soar To Success. Word Jouneys, Ganskey (2000), National Panel Report (2000. Bringing Words to Life (2002).

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Staff will have the opportunity for training in Word Journey's instruction.
Action Type: Professional Development

Jo-Anne Pearcey and Angelia Arguello

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

District Staff
Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Students in 2-5 will receive small group instruction based on their development along with Word Journey's instruction. Teachers will use explicit teaching procedure for vocabulary instruction. A Highly Qualified teacher (0.80 FTE) will be hired to provide focused literacy interventions based upon students' needs. Students' progress will be measured throughout the year by DIBELS, DRA, DSA, and DAR.
Action Type: Alignment

JoAnne Pearcey and Angelia Arguello

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

Teaching Aids
Title Teachers

Title I - Employee Salaries:	$60000.00
Title I - Employee Benefits:	$16000.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$76000

All students will have access to appropriate computer programs that have programs to develop vocabulary and spelling skills. The district will hire 1 FTE computer aide at owl creek school who will work in conjunction with certified classroom teachers to implement literacy curriculum in the lab such as, read 180 and other proven programs to support classroom literacy, vocabulary and spelling instruction.
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Teresa Stewart and Mary Hale

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

Computers
Teachers
Title Teachers

Title I - Employee Salaries:	$19346.00
Title I - Employee Benefits:	$4510.00

ACTION BUDGET:	$23856

Teachers in 2-5 will assess and monitor student progress of spelling strategies through the use of the Developmental Spelling Analysis (DSA), or formative assessments. The SAT-10 assessments will be analyzed to view overall school progress and individual student progress.
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Jo-Anne Pearcey and Angelia Arguello

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

Administrative Staff
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Instructional Leader will monitor the level of implementation in the classrooms by brief classroom walk-throughs and feedback will be given to individuals as well as groups of teachers.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kristen Scanlon

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

Administrative Staff
School Library
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, evaluated this Intervention/Program through formative pre/post testing, CRT/NRT assessments, and local summative assessments 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: Through the use of flexible grouping and Word Journeys it was observed that student achievement was positively effected. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program. In addition, we will utilize pre/post Developmental Spelling Analysis and the analysis of writing prompts for spelling strategy use and improved vocabulary use. 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 programs.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kristen Scanlon

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$99856

Intervention: Students will use the Comprehensive Literacy Approach for fluency instruction.

Scientific Based Research: National Reading Panel Repport (2000). The Fluent Reader (2003), Assessing Reading Fluency.

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Grades 1-5 will provide explicit instruction in fluency as a part of the core reading program.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Special Education

Angelia Aguello and Jo-Anne Pearcey

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

Administrative Staff
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

The DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) task will be administered to first through fifth grade students to determine their level of fluency. Those students not meeting fluency expectations will receive instructional interventions and will be fluency monitored at short intervals.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Special Education
Action Type: Technology Inclusion

Angelia Aguello and Jo-Anne Pearcey

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

Administrative Staff
Computers
Outside Consultants
Performance Assessments
Teachers
Title Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

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

Tracy Bratton

Start: 08/19/2009
End: 06/10/2010

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, evaluated this Intervention/Program through formative pre/post testing, CRT/NRT assessments, and local summative assessments 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: Through the use of grade level passages from Reading A-Z teachers observed students' reading at a more fluent level, which has had a positive effect on student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program. In addition we will utilize DIBELS and Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) Screening three times a year for all students in grades 1-5. 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 programs.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kristen Scanlon

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Intervention: Kindergarten students will be provided intensive reading intervention instruction.

Scientific Based Research: Phonetic Connections, National Reading Panel, and Guiding Young Readers and Writers, Fountas & Pinnell, 2000.

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

All students will improve in reading comprehension and written expression with additional attention to Content and Practical reading passages, and Style and Content writing domains. Intervention: 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 the 50th percentile in reading, on the SAT-10 will be considered to have a substantial reading deficiency. These children will be provided Intensive Reading Instruction utilizing small group instruction using Phonetic Connections and Guided Reading instruction, scientifically based reading programs. The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) will be administered to all K-2 students who are shown to have a substantial reading deficiency. The DIBELS will be used as: A. The evaluation instrument to determine which areas of reading the child is deficient. B. The progress-monitoring instrument to document progress toward grade level proficiency, and C. The assessment instrument used for discontinuing services. The DIBELS evaluation will be administered within thirty days after the beginning of the school year, for applicable first and second grade students, and within 30 days after receiving the QELI report, for applicable kindergarten students. Intensive reading interventions will be comprehensive in nature and will be targeted to remediate the area of deficiency. For those affected students, school personnel will develop an Intensive Reading Improvement Plan (IRI) that will describe our intervention program. Interventions will be provided in the form of small group and individual instruction. These intervention strategies and methods will continue until each student has reached grade level proficiency in all essential areas of reading. Student achievement in each of the essential elements shall be monitored bi-weekly until proficiency occurs. Students who are not meeting current expectations shall be provided additional interventions. Each parent, or guardian, will be notified in writing when their child has been identified with a substantial reading deficiency.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Parental Engagement

JoAnne Pearcey and Angelia Arguello

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

Teachers
Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, evaluated this Intervention/Program through formative pre/post testing, CRT/NRT assessments, and local summative assessments 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: Through teacher observaton and comparative trend data, kindergarten students are performing at higher levels than previous years and through an increased participation in Phonetic Connections there has been shown an improvement in student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program. In addition, we will anaylize DIBELS and trend data on the benchmark assessment for students K-5. 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 programs.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kristen Scanlon

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Priority 3:

Owl Creek School recognizes each child as a unique individual. Our goal is to help every child develop the skills to become responsible citizens.

Supporting Data:

2008-2009 BMI report: In K 34.8% Males and 23.3% females were at risk for overweight or overweight In 2nd 32.1% Males and 25.7% females were at risk for overweight or overweight. In 4th 57.1% Males and 47.1% females were at risk for overweight or overweight. In 6th, 46.4% Males and 29.5% females were at risk for overweight or overweight. The two lowest areas on our health index report were health promotion for staff and Family and community involvement in educating parents about health, safety, and nutrition issues.
2007-2008 BMI report: In K 38.1% Males and 58.3% females were at risk for overweight or overweight In 2nd 37% Males and 40.7% females were at risk for overweight or overweight. In 4th 41.4% Males and 54.5% females were at risk for overweight or overweight. In 6th, 30.2% Males and 41.7% females were at risk for overweight or overweight. The two lowest areas on our health index report were health promotion for staff and Family and community involvement in educating parents about health, safety, and nutrition issues.
2006-2007 BMI report: In K 34.4% Males and 41.4% females were at risk for overweight or overweight In 1st 34.3% Males and 25% females were at risk for overweight or overweight. In 2nd 38.2% Males and 53.1% females were at risk for overweight or overweight. In 3rd 55.2% Males and 42.9% females were at risk for overweight or overweight. In 4th 37.8% Males and 37% females were at risk for overweight or overweight. In 5th 50% Males and 34.8% females were at risk for overweight or overweight. In 6th, 42.1% Males and 48% females were at risk for overweight or overweight.
The two lowest areas on our health index report were health promotion for staff and Family and community involvement in educating parents about health, safety, and nutrition issues.

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

 

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

 

The number of students who watched television on an average school day for
three or more hours per day has significantly decreased (5.6%) since 1999.
Free/Reduced Rate: In 2008 the percentage of free and reduced lunch
was 71%. In 2007 the percentage of free and reduced lunch was 69%.

Goal

Owl Creek School recognizes each child as a unique individual. Our goal is to help every child and staff member develop the skills to become productive citizens by understanding the benefits of wellness by implementing proper nutrition and physical activity into their lives.

Benchmark

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

Intervention: K-7th grade students will learn about developing a nutritional lifestyle.

Scientific Based Research: Lilian Cheung, Sc.D., R.D., Eat Well & Keep Moving, Harvard School of Public Health, Department of Nutrition, 665 Huntington Avenue, 2-253a, Boston, MA 02115, (617) 432-1086, lcheung@sph.harvard.edu

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Teachers will utilize Kids for Health materials, Harcourt and Prentice-Hall science nutrition units to help students learn how to make healthy lifestyle choices.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
Action Type: Wellness

Delona Williams

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

Outside Consultants
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Staff will review data from nutritional surveys for students, parents, and staff at the end of the year.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Wellness

Richard Armendariz

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

Administrative Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

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

Richard Armendariz

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

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

Tonya Essex

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

Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

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

Delona Williams

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

Administrative Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, evaluated this Intervention/Program through BMI data, School Health Index factors, recommendations, school policies and practices related to student health and safety and an implemented physical education program taught by a highly qualified teacher that supports physical activity 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: The results of the BMI testing revealed that the number of children who were at risk for overweight or overweight was lower in 2008-2009 than in the previous year. In addition, Owl Creek offered a physical education curriculum that promoted physical activity, nutrition and wellness. Those results confirm that the intervention made a positive result in student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program. 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 programs.
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Wellness

Richard Armendariz

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: We formed ACSIP Leadership Teams and analyzed the test scores from the 2009 administration of the K-7 grade Augmented Benchmark, SAT 10 Exams, BMI Scores and the School Health Index Reports. We examined the results from both the combined population and EACH subpopulation. We conducted data analysis to determine our main areas of weakness. In addition, we studied the three most recent years of attndance, disciplinary, formative and summative achievement data across grade levels within our building. We aggregated and disaggregated all the data for the purpose of establishing student learning and behavioral goals. We looked at our trend data in order to better identify the specific areas of need and help align classroom intruction with our curriculum, assessment and professional development. We examined our routines, customs, and norms in order to dig deeper for the root cause of our students not achieving to their full potential. Our 2009 Supporting Data Statements show the discrepancies in achievement, among our various populations. We are modifying our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development practices to better meet the needs of all our populations. Based on our Data Analysis we came to the conclusion that the following areas reflect our greatest need within the Wellness Priority: an increased urgency to promote physical activity, nutrition and wellness across the curriculum. Also we will utilize the wellness protocols from the district. We will select interventions and coordinate our various state and federal funding sources to address these areas. In addition, we meet in grade level teams weekly in K-5 and daily in 6 and 7 and as an entire faculty weekly so that we can review formative, "real time" classroom performance data for the purpose of making decisions regarding the direction, and focus, of our classroom instruction. We chart our progress on our "assessment/intervention" wall.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
Action Type: Wellness

David McClure

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

Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Intervention: Staff will employ strategies and activities that encourage a non-sedentary and healthy lifestyle.

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Meetings and staff gatherings will have options for healthy snacks for teachers.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Wellness

Tracy Bratton

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

Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Training in stress management and organization.
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Wellness

Kristen Scanlon

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

Computers
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

A committee will evaluate the effectiveness of staff wellness via survey.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Wellness

Kristen Scanlon

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

Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Richard Armendariz

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Goal

Owl Creek School recognizes the need for a character education program to address the social and emotional needs of students as well as to give students appropriate strategies to address discipline and bullying issues.

Benchmark

The number of student discipline referrals will be decreased by 10% during the 2009-2010 school year. The administration will recognize a difference in the language students use to reason and address behavioral issues.

Intervention: Monthly character education studies based upon a megaskill which students need to be successful.

Scientific Based Research: Rich, D. (2008). Megaskills: Building Our Children's Character and Achievement for School and Life, Arlington VA. Lickona, T. (1998). Character Education: Restoring Respect and Responsibility in Our Schools, National Professional Resources, Inc., Arlington, VA.

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Owl Creek staff will be involved in developing assemblies in which examples of each character word are demonstrated for students.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Wellness

Kristen Scanlon

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Students will be exposed to a character rich environment through printed reminders in hallways and classrooms as well as daily announcements.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Wellness

Kristen Scanlon

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, evaluated this Intervention/Program through BMI data, School Health Index factors, recommendations, school policies and practices related to student health and safety and an implemented physical education program taught by a highly qualified teacher that supports physical activity 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: Character education was emphasized across the curriculum and regular school assemblies highlighted character traits. Each of these had a positive impact on student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program. In addition, we have implemented a student choices plan to be administered to all students with a discipline referral and have made character development a regular part of our morning meetings with all students. 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 programs.
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Wellness

David McClure

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


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Priority 4:

Supporting Data:

 2009- Grade 3-Literacy Benchmark Exam:      
14 Students: 35.7% of LEP Students 
 		   
Limited English Proficient: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified area (s) are: Practical 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.


						  Grade Four:
Less than 10 Students: LEP Students		  

2009 Grade 5-Literacy Benchmark Exam:	  
Less than 10 of LEP Students 

2009 Grade 6-Literacy Benchmark Exam:
26 Students: 46.2% of LEP Students 
  
			     
Limited English Proficient: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, 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.  



	      
				   
2009 Grade 7-Literacy Benchmark Exam 
   
Less than 10 LEP Students 
			  




 2009-Grade Three Mathematics Benchmark Exam:	  
14 Students:50% of LEP Students 
 
      

Limited English Proficient Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in  number operations 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  number operations and DAP.	     

2009-Grade Four Mathematics Benchmark Exam
Less than 10 Students: Hispanic Students 
 
    
2009-Grade Five Mathematics Benchmark Exam	
Less than 10 LEP Students 
			  
    
2009-Grade Six Mathematics Benchmark Exam
26 students: 33.3% of LEP 
			   
Limited English Proficient Subpopulation: 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
numbers and operations and DAP.   
	   

2009-Grade Seven Mathematics Benchmark Exam

		  
10 Students: 60% of LEP Students      
Limited English Proficient Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in numbers and operations 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 and measurement.	
	 

 2008- Grade 3-Literacy Benchmark Exam:      
10 Students: 50% of LEP Students 
Limited English Proficient: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified area (s) are: Literary and 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.

				 
Grade Four:  
Less than 10 Students: LEP Students		  

2008 Grade 5-Literacy Benchmark Exam:	  
14 Students: 35.7% of LEP Students 
Limited English Proficient: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, 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.


2008 Grade 6-Literacy Benchmark Exam:
   
Less than 10 Students Tested: LEP Students 
 		   
   
 					    2008 Grade 7-Literacy
Benchmark Exam 

20 Students:  60% of LEP Students 

Limited English Proficient: The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice question, in the three types of reading passages, revealed
that the lowest identified area (s) are: Practical 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. 



 2008-Grade Three Mathematics Benchmark Exam:	  
10 Students:60% of LEP Students 
	   

Limited English Proficient Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in  geometry and measurement and
DAP. The lowest identified area (s) (based on the trend analysis of the
multiple choice questions), in the five mathematics strands, revealed
weaknesses in  geometry and measurement.      
       

2008-Grade Four Mathematics Benchmark Exam   
Less than 10 Students: LEP Students 
		    
    
2008-Grade Five Mathematics Benchmark Exam
  
14 Students: 50% of LEP Students 
	    
Limited English Proficient Subpopulation: 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
numbers and operations and measurement. 
 

2008-Grade Six Mathematics Benchmark Exam
Less than 10 Students: LEP Students 

2008-Grade Seven Mathematics Benchmark Exam
 
20 Students: 65% of LEP Students 
    
Limited English Proficient Subpopulation: The lowest identified area (s)
(based on the trend analysis of the open response questions) in the five
mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in numbers and operations 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 algrebra and measurement.  
	   

 Grade 3- Benchmark Literacy Exam				  

2007:		  
Less than 10 Students: LEP Students 
				  
	   

2007 Grade 4- Literacy Benchmark Exam:

Less then 10 students tested of LEP


2007 5th grade- Literacy Benchmark Exam: 

Less than 10 students tested of the Limited English Proficient 
 
2007 6th grade
22 students: 64% of the LEP subpopulation scored proficient or advanced. 

Students scored weaker on literary and content reading passages. On the
open response portion students scored weaker on the literary and practical
reading passages and in content and style on the writing portion. 

2007: SEVENTH GRADE NOT LOCATED IN BUILDING


On the 2007 mathematics Benchmark Exam

2007 Grade Three Mathematics Benchmark Exam:
Less than 10 Students: Limited English Proficient


2007 Grade Four Mathematics Benchmark Exam:
14 Students: 57.1% of Limited English Proficent Students 

The lowest identified areas for the Limited English proficient Population
students in the analysis of the open response questions in the five math
strands revealed weaknesses in data analysis/probability and measurement.
The lowest identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice
questions, in the five math strands, revealed weaknesses in algebra and
geometry. 


2007 Grade Five Mathematics Benchmark Exam:
Less than 10 Students: Limited English Proficent Students 

2007 Grade Six Mathematics Benchmark Exam:
21 Students: 57.1% of Limited English Proficent Students 

The lowest identified areas for the Limited English proficient Population
students in the analysis of the open response questions in the five math
strands revealed weaknesses in geometry and measurement. The lowest
identified area in the analysis of the multiple choice questions, in the
five math strands, revealed weaknesses in data analysis/probability and
geometry.

GRADE 7 WAS NOT PRESENT IN BUILDING

Goal

All LEP students will improve in reading comprehension, written expression, mathematic skills and responding to constructive response questions.

Benchmark

The following population(s) DID NOT meet the 2009 AYP target of 64% scoring Proficient/Advanced for Literacy. LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY POPULATION: 45.6%; 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 the "Safe Harbor" or "Growth" models. The following population(s) DID NOT meet the 2009 AYP target of 62.5% scoring Proficient/Advanced for Mathematics. LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY POPULATION: 60.3%; It is expected that each of these populations will meet, or exceed, the 2010 AYP Target of 70% scoring Proficient/Advanced, or make AYP through the "Safe Harbor" or "Growth" models.

Intervention: Implement a 45-minute enrichment time daily during which students receive supplemental ESL instruction.

Scientific Based Research: Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., Short, D., "Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners," Pearson(2004).

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: We formed ACSIP Leadership Teams and analyzed the test scores from the 2009 administration of the K-7 grade Augmented Benchmark and SAT 10 Exams. We examined the results from both the combined population and EACH subpopulation. We conducted data analysis to determine our main areas of weakness. In addition, we studied the three most recent years of attndance, disciplinary, formative and summative achievement data across grade levels within our building. We aggregated and disaggregated all the data for the purpose of establishing student learning and behavioral goals. We looked at our trend data in order to better identify the specific areas of need and help align classroom intruction with our curriculum, assessment and professional development. We examined our routines, customs, and norms in order to dig deeper for the root cause of our students not achieving to their full potential. Our 2009 Supporting Data Statements show the discrepancies in achievement, among our various populations. We are modifying our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development practices to better meet the needs of all our populations. Based on our Data Analysis we came to the conclusion that the following areas reflect our greatest need within the Title III: additional time for intervention with students and supplemental materials. We will select interventions and coordinate our various state and federal funding sources to address these areas. In addition, we meet in grade level teams weekly in K-5 and daily in 6 and 7 and as an entire faculty weekly so that we can review formative, "real time" classroom performance data for the purpose of making decisions regarding the direction, and focus, of our classroom instruction. We chart our progress on our "assessment/intervention" wall.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Professional Development
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Kristen Scanlon

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

Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, evaluated this Intervention/Program through formative pre/post testing, CRT/NRT assessments, and local summative assessments and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The following EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrate that this intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning that are part of this program: English Language Learners are scoring at comparable levels with the combined population on the literacy and math sections of the Benchmark exam. These results support this intervention and show improved student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program. In addition, we will implement Target Assessments aligned with state standards and developed by the NWAESC and provide an enrichment time for each ELL student. 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 programs.
Action Type: Program Evaluation

Kristen Scanlon

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

Administrative Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

The school will purchase reading and math supplemental materials to be used by the ESL instructor to provide targeted instruction in language acquisition and vocabulary to support core classroom instruction.
Action Type: Equity

Tracy Bratton

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

Teachers
Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PARENT INVOLVEMENT MEETINGS: All parents will receive informational packets that include: *Parental Involvement Plan *School Calendar *A system encouraging the home and school connection These materials are available in both English and Spanish.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Tonya Essex

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

District Staff
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

PARENT EXPLANATION: An annual meeting will be held to inform parents of the right of parents to be involved in planning, review, and improvement of parent programs and a description and explanation will be given of the curriculum used in the school, types of assessment and proficiency levels. In addition, parents will be involved in the annual planning of school improvement programs. Annual surveys will evaluate the parent involvement activities and will be distributed in both Spanish and English.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide

Kristen Scanlon

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

Administrative Staff


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Planning Team

Classification	Name	Position	Committee
Classroom Teacher	Amelia Allison	Sixth Grade	Writing
Classroom Teacher	Brent Smith	Sixth Grade	Math
Classroom Teacher	Brooks Hunter	Sixth/Seventh Grade	Math
Classroom Teacher	Carol Lisle	Fourth Grade	Math
Classroom Teacher	Carri Finley	Fifth Grade Teacher	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Cheryl Gordon-Pike	Music	Math
Classroom Teacher	Chris Drake	Third Grade	Math
Classroom Teacher	Debbie Bell	Science Teacher	Math
Classroom Teacher	Deena Brown	Second Grade	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Deidre Leonard	PreK	Math
Classroom Teacher	Don Cumbie	Kindergarten	Math
Classroom Teacher	Heather Smith	Third Grade	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Kelly Wright	Social Studies	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Kim Shivers	Sixth Grade	Math
Classroom Teacher	Kristen Foshee	7th Grade Teacher	Math
Classroom Teacher	Laurie Gavrilova	Third Grade	Math
Classroom Teacher	Linda Davis	Resource Teacher	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Lisa Richardson	Seventh Grade	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Lucy Arnold	ESL Teacher	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Lynn Konz	Special Education Designee	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Mandy Mobley	Seventh Grade	Math Chair
Classroom Teacher	Mary Beth Terry	Fifth Grade	Math
Classroom Teacher	Matt Parker	Art	Math
Classroom Teacher	Melissa Anderson	First Grade	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Meredy Dockery	Second Grade	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Michelle O'Mara	Kindergarten	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Nanda Brummer	First Grade	Math
Classroom Teacher	Rebecca Green	Fourth Grade	Math
Classroom Teacher	Rene' Ellis	Kindergarten	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Richard Armendariz	PE Teacher	Wellness
Classroom Teacher	Sandra Bice	Fifth Grade	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Sarah Jaber	Special Education	Math
Classroom Teacher	Shannon Price	Fourth Grade	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Shannon Simpson	Second Grade Teacher	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Stephanie Cowan	Second Grade Teacher	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Stephanie Gillihan	First Grade	Literacy
Classroom Teacher	Susan Davis	First Grade	Math
Classroom Teacher	Tamara Ridout	Pre-School Teacher
Classroom Teacher	Vicki Brewer	Special Education	Literacy
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Amber Paul	Special Education	Math
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Elizabeth Bainbridge	Speech Pathologist	Math
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Gayle O'Donnell	GT	Math
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Jackie Flanigan	Resource	Writing
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Jennifer Dunn	counselor	Wellness
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Jo-Anne Pearcey (Chair)	Literacy Coach	Literacy
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Karla Bradley	ESL	Writing
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Mary Martin	counselor	Parental Involvement
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Morton Hardaway	Library Media Specialist	Literacy
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Rebecca Payne	Speech Pathologist	Literacy
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Teresa Stewart	Technology Curriculum Specialist	Math, Literacy
Non-Classroom Professional Staff	Tonya Essex	Hearing Impaired	Literacy
Parent	Sherry Bernstein		Parental Involvement
Parent	Tonya Essex		Parental Involvement
Principal	David McClure	Assistant Principal	ACSIP Chair
Principal	Kristen Scanlon	Principal	Chair
Principal	Tracy Bratton	Assistant Principal	chair