School Plan

ROOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1529 MISSION BLVD.,FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72701

Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Plan

2009-2010


Root Elementary School, a community of learners comprised of dedicated staff, parents, and students, will maintain high levels of achievement by challenging all students to attain their maximum learning potential in a safe, nurturing environment through innovative teaching strategies, open lines of communication, and community support.

Grade Span: K-5 Title I: Not Applicable School Improvement: A

Table of Contents

Priority 1: Improving Literacy
    Goal: All students will improve in reading comprehension and written expression with additional attention to literary and content reading passages, and style and content writing domains.
Priority 2: Improving Mathematics
    Goal: All students will improve in mathematic skills and respond to constructed response questions with additional attention to 'data analysis and probability' and 'measurement' mathematic strands.
Priority 3: Wellness Priority
    Goal: Provide support for students in making healthy lifestyle choices by implementing systems to aid in decreasing the average BMI on routine annual student screening and increasing collaboration between all segments of the school community in support of positive lifestyle choices.
Priority 4: Title III/ELL
    Goal: All ELL students will improve in reading comprehension, written expression, and mathematic skills and respond to constructed response questions with proficiency.
Priority 1: We will work to improve literacy.
Supporting Data: 
  1. Grade 3 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, 91 students were tested and 80%
scored proficient or advanced. In 2008, 79 students were tested and 80%
scored proficient or advanced. In 2007, 67 students were tested and 81%
scored proficient or advanced. 

The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in
the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified
areas are: practical passage (multiple choice) and content passages
(open-response). The trend analysis of the open response questions in the
five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified areas are:
content and style domains.  


  2. Grade 4 Benchmark Exam:  In 2009, 82 students were tested and 87%
scored proficient or advanced. In 2008, 68 students were tested and 82%
scored proficient or advanced. In 2007, 84 students were tested and 80%
scored proficient or advanced. 

The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in
the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified
areas are: practical(multiple choice) and literary (open-response)
passages. The trend analysis of the open response questions in the five
writing domains revealed that the lowest identified areas are:	content
and style domains.


  3. Grade 5 Benchmark Exam:  In 2009, 79 students were tested and 75%
scored proficient or advanced. In 2008, 84 students were tested and 89%
scored proficient or advanced. In 2007, 83 students were tested and 85%
scored proficient or advanced. 

 The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in
the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified
areas are: content and practical (multiple choice) and practical
(open-response) passages. The trend analysis of the open response
questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified
areas are:  content and style.


  4. Students with Disabilities (IEP):
Grade 3 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, 10 students were tested and 50% scored
proficient or advanced. In 2008, 14 students were tested and 57% scored
proficient or advanced. In 2007, 11 students were tested and 36% scored
proficient or advanced. In 2006, insufficient number of students were
tested. 

The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in
the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified
areas are: practical passage (multiple choice) and content passages
(open-response). The trend analysis of the open response questions in the
five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified areas are:
content and style domains.

Grade 4 Benchmark Exam:  In 2009, 14 students were tested and 57% scored
proficient or advanced. In 2007 and 2008 fewer than 10 students were
tested in Grade 4. 

The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in
the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified
areas are: practical(multiple choice) and literary (open-response)
passages. The trend analysis of the open response questions in the five
writing domains revealed that the lowest identified areas are:	content
and style domains.

Grade 5 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, fewer than 10 students were tested. In
2008, fewer than 10 students were tested. In 2007, 10 students were tested
and 10% scored proficient or advanced. In 2006, fewer than 10 students
were tested.  

  5. Limited English Proficient (LEP):  In 2007, 2008, and 2009 fewer
than 10 students were tested in Grades 3, 4, and 5. 

  6. SES:  

Grade 3 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, 17 students were tested and 65% scored
proficient or advanced. In 2008, 16 students were tested and 47% scored
proficient or advanced. In 2007, insufficient number of students were
tested. 

The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in
the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified
areas are: practical passage (multiple choice) and content passages
(open-response). The trend analysis of the open response questions in the
five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified areas are:
content and style domains.

Grade 4 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, 16 students were tested and 75% scored
proficient or advanced. In 2008, 12 students were tested and 83% scored
proficient or advanced. In 2007, 10 students were tested and 50% scored
proficient or advanced. In 2006, insufficient number of students were
tested. 

The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in
the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified
areas are: practical(multiple choice) and literary (open-response)
passages. The trend analysis of the open response questions in the five
writing domains revealed that the lowest identified areas are:	content
and style domains.  

Grade 5 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, 20 students were tested and 48% scored
proficient or advancedIn 2008, 10 students were tested and 70% scored
proficient or advanced.In 2007, insufficient number of students were
tested. In 2006, insufficient number of students were tested. 

The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in
the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified
areas are: content and pratical (multiple choice) and pratical
(open-response) passages. The trend analysis of the open response
questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified
areas are:  content and style.


  7. Caucasian:	
Grade 3 Benchmark Exam:  In 2009, 76 students were tested and 82% scored
proficient or advanced. In 2008, 73 students were tested and 82% scored
proficient or advanced.In 2007, 62 students were tested and 86% scored
proficient or advanced. 
 
The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in
the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified
areas are: practical passage (multiple choice) and content passages
(open-response). The trend analysis of the open response questions in the
five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified areas are:
content and style domains.

Grade 4 Benchmark Exam:  In 2009, 77 students were tested and 87% scored
proficient or advanced.In 2008, 65 students were tested and 83% scored
proficient or advanced.In 2007, 76 students were tested and 83% scored
proficient or advanced.  
 
The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in
the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified
areas are: practical(multiple choice) and literary (open-response)
passages. The trend analysis of the open response questions in the five
writing domains revealed that the lowest identified areas are:	content
and style domains.

Grade 5 Benchmark Exam:  In 2009, 75 students were tested and 77% scored
proficient or advanced.In 2008, 75 students were tested and 92% scored
proficient or advanced. In 2007, 78 students were tested and 83% scored
proficient or advanced. 
 
The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in
the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified
areas are: content and pratical (multiple choice) and pratical
(open-response) passages. The trend analysis of the open response
questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified
areas are:  content and style.


  8. African Americans:  In 2007, 2008, 2009 fewer than "10" students
were tested in Grades 3, 4 and 5.


  9. Hispanics, Native American and Asian/Pacific Islander:  In 2007,
2008, 2009 fewer than "10" students were tested in Grades 3, 4, and 5.



  10. Attendance Rate:  
In 2007, the attendance rate was 96%. In 2008, the attendance rate was
96%. In 2009, the attendance rate was 96%.

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

Combined Population: 87 Students were tested and 76% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed a weakness in
vocabulary.

Caucasian: 77 students were tested and 80% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the Reading subtests revealed weaknesses in
vocabulary.

F/R Students: 10 students were tested and 60% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the Reading subtests revealed weaknesses in
vocabulary.

Grade 1-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 85 Students were tested and 59% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed a weakness in
vocabulary.

Caucasian: 67 students were tested and 68% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the Reading subtests revealed weaknesses in
vocabulary.

F/R Students: 12 students were tested and 8% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the Reading subtests revealed weaknesses in
vocabulary.

Grade 2-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 82 Students were tested and 78% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed a weakness in
vocabulary.

Caucasian: 75 students were tested and 83% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the Reading subtests revealed weaknesses in
vocabulary.

Exceptional Student: 14 students were tested and 50% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the Reading subtests revealed weaknesses in
vocabulary.

F/R Students: 15 students were tested and 52% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the Reading subtests revealed weaknesses in
vocabulary.


Grade 3-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 68 Students were tested and 81% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed a weakness in
comprehension.

Caucasian: 63 students were tested and 86% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the Reading subtests revealed weaknesses in
comprehension.

Exceptional Students: 11 students were tested and 27% scored above the
50th percentile. The analysis of the Reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in comprehension.

Grade 4-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 85 Students were tested and 87% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed a weakness in
comprehension.

Caucasian: 77 students were tested and 90% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the Reading subtests revealed weaknesses in
Spelling.

F/R Students: 11 students were tested and 73% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the reading subtest revealed a weakness in
vocabulary and comprehension.

Grade 5-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population:  83 Students were tested and 86% scored above the
50th percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed a weakness
in comprehension.

Caucasian: 77 students were tested and 86% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the Reading subtests revealed weaknesses in
comprehension.

Exceptional Students: 10 students were tested and 40% scored above the
50th percentile. The analysis of the Reading subtests revealed weaknesses
in comprehension.


Few than 10 students were tested in the subpopulations of: African
American, Hispanic, Limited English proficient, economically disadvantaged
(SES).


  12. Grade K-Iowa SAT 10 2008:
We don't have this data due to the loss of materials by UPS truck. The
State Department will verify.

Grade 1-SAT 10:
Combined Population: 87 Students were tested and 49% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

Caucasian: 77 students were tested and 51% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

IEP Students: 10 students were tested and 10% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

SES: 13 students were tested and 30% scored above the 50th percentile. 

Grade 2-SAT 10 2008:
Combined Population: 82 Students were tested and 63% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

Caucasian: 67 students were tested and 66% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

SES: 14 students were tested and 36% scored above the 50th percentile. 

Grade 3-SAT 10 2008:
Combined Population: 79 Students were tested and 67% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

Caucasian: 73 students were tested and 70% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

SES: 16 students were tested and 44% scored above the 50th percentile. 

Students with Disabilities: 16 students were tested and 38% scored above
the 50th percentile.

Grade 4-SAT 10 2008:
Combined Population: 68 Students were tested and 81% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

Caucasian: 65 students were tested and 82% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

SES: 12 students were tested and 50% scored above the 50th percentile. 

Grade 5-SAT 10 2008:
Combined Population: 84 Students were tested and 88% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

Caucasian: 75 students were tested and 92% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

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

Students with Disabilities: 10 students were tested and 60% scored above
the 50th percentile. 


  13. Grade K-Iowa MAT -8 2009:
Combined Population: 85 Students were tested and 74% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

Caucasian: 77 students were tested and 79% scored above the 50th
percentile.

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

Grade 1-SAT 10:
Combined Population: 93 Students were tested and 40% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

Caucasian: 84 students were tested and 44% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

IEP Students: 15 students were tested and 8% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

SES: 19 students were tested and 26% scored above the 50th percentile. 

Grade 2-SAT 10 2009:
Combined Population: 90 Students were tested and 54% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

Caucasian: 78 students were tested and 56% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

SES: 16 students were tested and 44% scored above the 50th percentile. 

Grade 3-SAT 10 2009:
Combined Population: 91 Students were tested and 56% in Reading and 56% in
Language scored above the 50th percentile. 

Caucasian: 76 students were tested and 59% in reading and 61% in language
scored above the 50th percentile. 

SES: 17 students were tested and 12% in reading and 28% in language scored
above the 50th percentile. 

IEP: 10 students were tested and 31% in reading and 59% in langage scored
above the 50th percentile.

Grade 4-SAT 10 2009:
Combined Population: 82 Students were tested and 81% in reading and 56% in
language scored above the 50th percentile. 

Caucasian: 77 students were tested and 80% in reading and 56% in language
scored above the 50th percentile. 

IEP: 14 students were tested and 50% in reading and 37% in language scored
above the 50th percentile.

SES: 16 students were tested and 50% in reading and 25% in language scored
above the 50th percentile. 

Grade 5-SAT 10 2009:
Combined Population: 80 Students were tested and 81% in reading and 62% in
language scored above the 50th percentile. 

Caucasian: 69 students were tested and 84% in reading and 68% in language
scored above the 50th percentile. 

SES: 22 students were tested and 65% in reading and 31% in language scored
above the 50th percentile.
Goal All students will improve in reading comprehension and written expression with additional attention to literary and content reading passages, and style and content writing domains.
Benchmark The Combined Population and each Subpop MET the 2008 AYP target of 56.8% scoring Proficient/Advanced. It is expected that each of these populations will meet, or exceed, the 2009 AYP Target of 64% scoring Proficient/Advanced, or make AYP through either the “Safe Harbor” or “Growth” models. The Economically Disadvantaged sub population did NOT meet standards in Literacy and did NOT reach the AMO percentage Proficient or Advanced of 64.0%, therefore has a status of ALERT. It is expected that all sub populations will meet or exceed the 2010 AMO of 71.2% Proficient or Advanced in Literacy.
Intervention: Root School will comply with the Parental Engagement requirements as outlined in ACT 307 of 2007. The Parental Involvement Plan will include the following: parent/teacher conferences twice annually, a parent advisory committee, parent center, teacher/administrator training, informational packet and timely information as needed, parent involvement meetings, and a volunteer resource book.
Scientific Based Research: National Center for Family & Community Connections with Schools, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, (http://www.sedl.org/connections/), 2002, “A new wave of evidence. The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement.”, Henderson, A., & Mapp, K.
Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
We will continue to schedule two parent teacher conferences per school year. These conferences will be widely advertised and scheduled in such a manner that as many parents as possible may visit our campus and interact with their student’s faculty.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
 Karen Rosso Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • 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 material, 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
Action Type: Professional Development
 Melinda Jorn Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • School Library
ACTION BUDGET: $
Teachers will receive training to enhance understanding of effective parental involvement strategies.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Professional Development
 Shannon Nickell Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • Central Office
  • District Staff
  • Outside Consultants
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
Administrators will receive training to enhance understanding of effective parent involvement strategies and the importance of setting expectations and creating a climate conducive to parental participation.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Professional Development
 Rhonda Moore Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • Central Office
  • District Staff
  • Outside Consultants
ACTION BUDGET: $
In order to encourage communication with parents our school will prepare an INFORMATIONAL PACKET to be distributed annually to the parents of each child in the school. These packets will describe: The school’s parental involvement program; The recommended role of the parent, student, teacher and school; Ways for parents to become involved in the school and their child’s education; A survey for the parent regarding their interests concerning volunteering at the school; A schedule of activities planned throughout the school year to encourage parental involvement; and Procedures to allow the parents and teachers to communicate in a regular, two-way, and meaningful manner with the child’s teacher and principal.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
 Karen Rosso Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • District Staff
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
To help our parents in assisting their children our school shall: Schedule PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT MEETINGS at which parents are given a report on the state of the school and an overview of: A. What students will be learning. B. How students are assessed. C. What parents should expect for their child’s education and D. How a parent can assist and make a difference in their child’s education.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
 Marie Walden Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
In order to welcome parents our school shall compile a VOLUNTEER RESOURCE BOOK listing the interests and availability of volunteers so that school staff may determine how frequently a volunteer would like to participate; including options for those who are available to help at home and help match school needs with volunteer interests.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
 Karen Rosso Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • District Staff
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
PROGRAM EVALUATION: "At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention/Program through: surveys (both oral and written) as well as sign-in data from parental involvement activities 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 and staff reported back through parental engagement activities, they feel informed about all curricular matters in terms of frameworks/standards, expectations, how to support student learning, and how to access information about school. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to use the following protocol in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program: surveys (both oral and written) and sign-in data from parental engagement events. We will use this data/information to determine whether the objective (s) of this Intervention/Program was (were) achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results, in our 2010/2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program."
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Program Evaluation
 Karen Rosso Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
The Principal shall designate one certified staff member who is willing to serve as a PARENT FACILITATOR in order to help organize meaningful training for staff and parents; promote and encourage a welcoming atmosphere to foster parental involvement in the school and to undertake efforts to ensure that parental participation is recognized as an asset to the school.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Professional Development
 Rhonda Moore Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • District Staff
  • Outside Consultants
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
In order to encourage parents to participate as a full partner in the decisions that affect their child and family, our school will include in our district’s student handbook the SCHOOL’S 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
 Karen Rosso Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
Teachers are provided with weekly instructional meeting time in order to plan for the implementation of best practices chosen to help improve student achievement at each student's readiness level. This planning time will be provided during the course of the day. Administrators, teachers and parents of the identified students will complete the actual plan (IRI, AIP) for the child.
Action Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: Alignment
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Professional Development
 Cindy Ratcliff Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • Performance Assessments
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
An opportunity for giving formative feedback is offered to all parents through the Parent Advisory Council.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Technology Inclusion
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
 Rhonda Moore Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
Work with Root PTO members/leadership to continue the Watch D.O.G.S. program (Dads Of Great Students). Formative assessments are derived from the goal of having 1 Watch D.O.G. Dad per school day.
Action Type: Parental Engagement
 Karen Rosso Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
Collaborate with and support Root PTO Safety Committee and Parent Advisory Council.
Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Parental Engagement
 Karen Rosso Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Administrative Staff
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
Utilize volunteers as role models and classroom helpers in all classes. Summative evaluation will show an increase of volunteers.
 Karen Rosso Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Total Budget: $0
    Intervention: Standards-based Writing: Step Up to Writing; Literacy Lab, ELLA, Effective Literacy, and Harcourt Language Series
    Scientific Based Research: Mann, D., et. al, A Research Study, West Virginia Story: Achievement Gains from a Statewide Comprehensive Instructional Technology Program, 1999. Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. v. (1994) The handbook of research synthesis, New York: Russell Sage Foundation
    Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
    Summative evaluations include developing student AIP’s or IRI's for any student scoring below proficient on state mandated criterion referenced exams. Other students exhibiting at-risk performance will also have an AIP or an IRI developed by parents and teachers.
    Action Type: AIP/IRI
    		 Rhonda Moore Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Implement research-based writing strategies according to the district curriculum and the identified needs of all students.
    Action Type: Equity
    		 Delia Gorder Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Formative performance assessments and writing prompts with rubrics enable all students to assess and revise their own work and demonstrate proficiency in writing and responding in writing to literary, practical and content passages.
    Action Type: Equity
    		 Shirley Walker Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Participate in district level vertical and horizontal learning teams to review student work, share effective teaching and assessment strategies, and align instructional objectives to assist all students in obtaining writing proficiency in all content areas.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Lindsay Sloan Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Provide access to a rich collection of diverse writing and reading resources through the school library.
    Action Type: Equity
    		 Mindy Duell Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • School Library
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Provide opportunities for independent and group library research projects using various media resources that are integrated with classroom instruction and demonstrate an ability to communicate content knowledge through writing skills, as well as reading comprehension skills.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    		 Melinda Jorn Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Computers
    • School Library
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Use technology to access reference information, collect research data, and publish student work.
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    		 Shannon Nickell Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Computers
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Participate in ongoing professional development in literacy skills, including training in programs such as: Step Up to Writing, Effective Literacy, Literacy Lab, Dibels and Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Delia Gorder Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Collaborate with all certified and classified staff to implement differentiated writing strategies for all students - particularly those with Academic Improvement Plans and/or special needs to improve writing skills.
    Action Type: AIP/IRI
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Special Education
    		 Cindy Ratcliff Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school Year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through ACTAAP and the writing continuum on K-1 and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, process, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program while seeking a percentage gain across all populations. 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 these results in our 2009-2010 ACSIP plan, and will use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program. PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: A percentage gain was made across all populations with the exception of economically disadvantage which heretofore had not qualified as a subpopulation.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Delia Gorder Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    A PARENT TEACHER ORGINAZATION exists to foster parental and community involvement within the school.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    		 Rita Savage Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Community Leaders
    • Outside Consultants
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Total Budget: $0
    Intervention: Writing Across the Curriculum
    Scientific Based Research: Calkins, L., The Art of Teaching Writing; Gere, A. R. (ed.), Roots in the Sawdust: Writing to Learn Across the Disciplines; Martin, N. (ed.), Writing Across the Curriculum, 1986.
    Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
    Incorporate writing skills and strategies from the Arkansas Content Frameworks into the curriculum of all content areas and vertically align Fayetteville's curriculum K-5.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 Mindy Duell Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Computers
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Integrate writing instruction into all content areas with the help of technology.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    		 Lindsay Sloan Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Computers
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    A formative evaluation will require all students to write to demonstrate their learning in all content areas, using the Arkansas Writing Rubric for scoring, and emphasizing content in non-language arts curriculum.
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    		 Melinda Jorn Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Computers
    • District Staff
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    A summative evaluation for each student includes the 4 writing assessments.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 Shannon Nickell Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school Year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through Curriculum Recorder, EM open ended response items on unit tests, science and social studies practice books with open ended writing prompts, Kidspiration, and writing journals used in all subject areas and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, process, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program while seeking a percentage gain across all populations. 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 these results in our 2009-2010 ACSIP plan, and will use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program. PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: A percentage gain was made across all populations with the exception of economically disadvantage which heretofore had not qualified as a subpopulation.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    		 Delia Gorder Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Computers
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    We have been notified by the Arkansas Department of Education that our school has been placed on “Alert” because we failed to meet the expected Literacy performance level for the Economically Disadvantage subpopulation during the 08/09 school year.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 Rhonda Moore Start: 08/01/2009
    End: 07/31/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Central Office
    • District Staff
    • Outside Consultants
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: We formed ACSIP Leadership Teams and analyzed the test scores from the 2009 administration of the K-5 grades Augmented Benchmark, MAT 8 and SAT 10 Exams. We examined the results from both the combined population and EACH subpopulation. We conducted data analysis to determine our main areas of weakness. In addition, we studied the three most recent years of Attendance, Disciplinary, Formative and Summative Achievement Data across grade levels within our building. We aggregated and disaggregated all the data for the purpose of establishing student learning and behavioral goals. We looked at our trend data in order to better identify the specific areas of need and help align classroom instruction with our curriculum, assessment and professional development. We examined our routines, customs, and norms in order to dig deeper for the root cause why more of our students are not achieving to their full potential. Our 2009 Supporting Data Statements show the discrepancies in achievement, among our various populations. We are modifying our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development practices to better meet the needs of all our populations. Based on our Data Analysis we came to the conclusion that the following areas reflect our greatest need within the Literacy Priority: content and style within our writing and practical reading. 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, biweekly and as an entire faculty bimonthly 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.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Rhonda Moore Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • District Staff
    • Outside Consultants
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Total Budget: $0
    Intervention: Reading Fluency and Comprehension Strategies
    Scientific Based Research: Scott Foresman, Soar to Success; Center for Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, Put Reading First: The Research Building Blocks for Teaching Children to Read, 1999.
    Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
    Map reading instruction and collaborate to evaluate alignment with district curriculum and Arkansas Content Frameworks. Set training as needed for staff using this formative evaluation.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Julie Ogden Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Implement research-based reading strategies according to the district curriculum and the identified needs of students using student assessment folders.
    Action Type: Equity
    		 Bekah Murphy Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • District Staff
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Identify areas of weakness and gaps in the aligned reading curriculum by analyzing the summative evaluations of literacy scores on the CRT and NRT scores.
    Action Type: Alignment
    		 Rhonda Moore Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school Year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through Use performance assessments and open-ended (constructed) responses with rubric to enable students to demonstrate proficiency in responding to literature and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, process, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program while seeking a percentage gain across all populations. 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 these results in our 2009-2010 ACSIP plan, and will use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program. PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: A percentage gain was made across all populations with the exception of economically disadvantage which heretofore had not qualified as a subpopulation.
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Marjo Burk Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Computers
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Participate in grade-level learning teams, share effective teaching and assessment strategies, and align instruction to assist students in achieving reading proficiency in all content areas.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Susan O'Meara Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Collaborate with all certified and classified staff to implement differentiated reading strategies for students with Academic Improvement Plans and/or special needs to improve reading skills. Closing the Achievement Gap (Literacy): Regular biannual meetings of our (Literacy) ACSIP Leadership Committee will continue to be held. These meetings will focus on building capacity within our school. Each meeting agenda will include the following Core Principles: A. The selection, and continuous evaluation, of research-based, scientifically validated, Interventions designed to improve our ability to improve student performance on the Literacy portion of all Assessments. B. The ongoing monitoring of student progress in order to influence classroom instruction. C. The utilization of Formative and Summative Assessment Data to make decisions that impact: Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. D. Coordination of resources in order to better meet the needs of all students. Written minutes of each meeting, along with a sign-in sheet, will be kept and made available upon request. The intent is that each Intervention and Action, is carefully monitored through the collection of Formative and Summative Data so that those strategies that prove ineffective can be revised or abandoned. Our ACSIP Plan will be revised each spring and fall in order to keep it timely and valid in our efforts to improve teaching and learning.
    Action Type: AIP/IRI
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Special Education
    		 Diane Carpenter Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Use a variety of media to motivate students to read. Integrate technology, software, and visits to the school media center to give students access to varied selections of materials. Use flexible scheduling to allow children multiple weekly visits to the library and for library skills instruction.
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    		 Rita Savage Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Computers
    • School Library
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Communicate literacy and content area expectations and student progress to parents through classroom curriculum nights, assignment sheets, graded work with accompanying rubric, parent-teacher conferences, report cards, newsletters, Web access to the curriculum and SchoolCenter.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    		 Anne Garrett Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Computers
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Designated certified and classified personnel will be trained annually at both in district and out of district sites with the intended outcome of gaining differentiated and intervention strategies. Trainings will include literacy lab, ELLA, effective literacy, and response to intervention (RTI).
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Rhonda Moore Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Central Office
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Total Budget: $0
    Intervention: Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA), Effective Literacy, and Literacy Lab
    Scientific Based Research: Adams, M., Beginning to Read; Clay, M., Reading Recovery: A Guidebook for Teachers in Training; Dorn, L., French, C. and Jones, T., Apprenticeship in Literacy: Transitions in Reading and Writing, 1994. Cunningham, P. and Allington, R., Classrooms That Work: They Can All Read and Write; Fountas, I. and Pinnell, G.S., Guided Readers and Writers for Grades 3-6, 1999.
    Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
    Implement balanced-literacy skills and strategies according to the district curriculum and the identified needs of students.
    Action Type: Equity
    		 Julie Ogden Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    • Teaching Aids
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Instruct students in their "Zone of Proximal Development" through formative evaluations of Word Journeys, Dibels program, and Phoenetics Connections.
    Action Type: Equity
    		 Susan O'Meara Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Central Office
    • Computers
    • Performance Assessments
    • School Library
    • Teachers
    • Teaching Aids
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school Year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through Summative evaluations such as performance assessments, SAT 10 standardized tests, CRT benchmark assessments, observation surveys, and developmental reading assessments, are used to evaluate student progress in literacy learning skills and formative assessments such as progress monitoring in Dibels and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, process, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program while seeking a percentage gain across all populations. 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 these results in our 2009-2010 ACSIP plan, and will use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program. PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: A percentage gain was made across all populations with the exception of economically disadvantage which heretofore had not qualified as a subpopulation.
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Marjo Burk Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Computers
    • District Staff
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Participate in grade-level learning teams to share effective teaching and assessment strategies, and align instructional objectives to assist all students in achieving literacy learning skills and proficiency.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Elizabeth Mitchell Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Computers
    • District Staff
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    • Teaching Aids
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Collaborate with all certified and classified staff to support balanced literacy strategies, and implement differentiated strategies for students with Academic Improvement Plans and/or special needs to improve literacy learning skills.
    Action Type: AIP/IRI
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Special Education
    		 Diane Carpenter Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Use the district selection policy to purchase guided reading books, and other materials, to support literacy skills and strategies.
    Action Type: Alignment
    		 Rita Savage Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Central Office
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    • Teaching Aids
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Use the district selection policy to purchase well-reviewed trade books, and other materials, for the library to support literacy skills and strategies.
    Action Type: Alignment
    		 Diane Carpenter Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Central Office
    • Computers
    • District Staff
    • School Library
    • Teachers
    • Teaching Aids
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Use technology such as MS Office, Heartsoft, Websites, BURST, Mecc, etc. to support literacy skills and strategies, and to publish student work from the parent volunteer publishing center.
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    		 Anne Garrett Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Central Office
    • Computers
    • District Staff
    • School Library
    • Teachers
    • Teaching Aids
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Kindergarten students, who score delayed in both written and oral communication on the Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI), and first and second grade students, who score "below basic" in reading on the SAT 10, will be considered to have a substantial reading deficiency. These children will be provided intensive reading instruction utilizing Phonetics Connection, a scientifically-based reading program. The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) will be administered to all K-5 students and those who are shown to have a substantial reading deficiency will be progressed monitored. 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 thirty days after receiving the QELI report, for applicable Kindergarten students. Intensive reading interventions will be comprehensive in nature and will be targeted to remediate the area of deficiency. For those affected students, school personnel will develop an Intensive Reading Improvement Plan (IRI) that will describe our intervention program. Intervention will be provided in the form of additional teacher instruction time. 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: Program Evaluation
    		 Anne Garrett Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • District Staff
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Instruct students in their "Zone of Proximal Development" through formative evaluations of guided reading groups.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    		 Julie Ogden Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Performance Assessments
    • Title Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Collaborate with all certified and classified staff to support Effective Literacy and Literacy Lab strategies and implement differentiated strategies for students with Academic Improvement Plans and/or special needs to improve literacy skills
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    		 Bekah Murphy Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Total Budget: $0
    Intervention: Library Media Program
    Scientific Based Research: Clyde, L. A. (ed.). Sustaining the Vision: A Collection of Articles and Papers on Research in School Librarianship; McQuillan, J. and Au, J., The Effect of Print Access on Reading Frequency; Lance, K., The Impact of School Library Media Centers on Academic Achievement, 1981.
    Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
    Teach the ethical use of information to all students through technology instruction and library media skills.
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    		 Susan O'Meara Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Computers
    • Performance Assessments
    • School Library
    • Teachers
    • Teaching Aids
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Develop lessons that integrate classroom learning with information so that students can access, evaluate and use information in any subject area.
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    		 Elizabeth Mitchell Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Computers
    • School Library
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Collaborate with special and classroom teachers to develop lessons that integrate classroom instructional units with research-based information literacy strategies according to the district curriculum and the identified needs of students.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    		 Rita Savage Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • School Library
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Collaborate with teachers to analyze summative assessments of student performance on the Benchmark Exam and SAT 10 in terms of information skills performance.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 Rhonda Moore Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • School Library
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Collaborate with teachers to use performance assessments and open-ended (constructed) responses with rubrics to enable students to demonstrate proficiency in responding to practical, content, and literary passages.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Julie Ogden Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Performance Assessments
    • School Library
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Formative evaluations include: participation in grade level meetings to share effective teaching and assessment strategies, and alignment of instructional objectives to assist all students in achieving informational literacy proficiency.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Bekah Murphy Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • School Library
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Collaborate with all certified and classified staff to implement differentiated reading strategies for students with Academic Improvement Plans and/or special needs to improve information literacy skills.
    Action Type: AIP/IRI
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Special Education
    		 Susan O'Meara Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • School Library
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Provide all students the opportunity for a variety of reading experiences like library instructional units, story times, shared reading experiences, reading motivation programs, reading contests, and sustained silent reading.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    		 Diane Carpenter Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • School Library
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Use the district selection policy to purchase and maintain audio visual equipment that supports reading instruction.
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    		 Elizabeth Mitchell Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Computers
    • School Library
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Maintain open times in the library schedule so to provide opportunities for independent and group library research projects that are integrated with classroom instruction and that result in student work that shows skill and knowledge in reading comprehension, written expression, content knowledge, and information literacy.
    Action Type: Equity
    		 Rita Savage Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • School Library
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Participate in ongoing professional development in information skills and library services.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Rhonda Moore Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • School Library
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Provide professional development and assistance to teachers in information access and use.
    Action Type: Professional Development
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    		 Anne Garrett Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Computers
    • School Library
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Communicate information literacy expectations to parents through special programs, newsletters, and Web access to the curriculum.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    		 Julie Ogden Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Community Leaders
    • Computers
    • District Staff
    • Outside Consultants
    • Performance Assessments
    • School Library
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school Year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through the integration of library skills taught collaboratively with classroom teachers and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, process, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program while seeking a percentage gain across all populations. 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 these results in our 2009-2010 ACSIP plan, and will use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program. PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: A percentage gain was made across all populations with the exception of economically disadvantage which heretofore had not qualified as a subpopulation.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Marjo Burk Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • School Library
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Total Budget: $0
    Intervention: Professional Development
    Scientific Based Research: National Staff Development Council, Standards for Staff Development; NSDC, Learning Teams; Nave, B., National School Reform Faculty Program Evaluation, 1990.
    Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
    PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school Year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through Conducting an individualized needs assessment with certified staff to enable them to identify classroom curriculum needs in relation to student achievement and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, process, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program while seeking a percentage gain across all populations. 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 these results in our 2009-2010 ACSIP plan, and will use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program. PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: A percentage gain was made across all populations with the exception of economically disadvantage which heretofore had not qualified as a subpopulation.
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Professional Development
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Marjo Burk Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Develop faculty-wide consensus on areas of focus for building-level professional development. Summative evaluations would designing and offering courses based on data.
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Professional Development
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Rhonda Moore Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Computers
    • District Staff
    • Performance Assessments
    • School Library
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Maintain a professional development committee that offers broad representation of teachers throughout the school.
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Anne Garrett Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • School Library
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Use student Academic Improvement Plans, and identified special needs of students, to assess professional development needs of certified and classified staff.
    Action Type: AIP/IRI
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Professional Development
    Action Type: Special Education
    		 Julie Ogden Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    • Performance Assessments
    • School Library
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Support the formation and ongoing work of Learning Teams as they collaborate share effective teaching and assessment strategies, and align instructional objectives to assist students in achieving reading proficiency.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Professional Development
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Bekah Murphy Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Computers
    • District Staff
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Coordinate building-level professional development with the district professional development steering committee (PDSC), and collaborate to build connections among schools.
    Action Type: AIP/IRI
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Susan O'Meara Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Computers
    • District Staff
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Use community resources and outside consultants to provide additional expertise in meeting the professional development needs of certified staff. Training will take place throughout the school year at Root Elementary. The grade levels involved are K-5. The approximate number of teachers will be 31 with 2 administrators attending as well. The K-3 teachers are attending the arkansas reading association conference. 2-4 teachers are going to attend the Positive Lit Support Training in Kansas City. The 4-5 teachers will attend the young authors conference series and the administrators will attend the Effective Schools Conference in February.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Diane Carpenter Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Community Leaders
    • Computers
    • District Staff
    • Outside Consultants
    • Public Library
    • Teachers
    Title II-A - Purchased Services: $9756.00
    ACTION BUDGET: $9756
    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 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 formative feedback on needed changes.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Professional Development
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Rhonda Moore Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • District Staff
    • Outside Consultants
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Total Budget: $9756
    Intervention: Comprehensive System of Professional Development for Special Education Needs
    Scientific Based Research: Caldwell, S. Staff Development: A Handbook of Effective Practices, National Staff Development Council, 1989.
    Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
    Assess professional development needs in the targeted areas of pre-referral interventions, positive behavioral supports, integrating students with disabilities into general education classrooms (general curriculum content, modifications, differentiated instruction, multiple intelligences, and co-teaching), conflict resolution and negotiation skills, assistive technology, and learning disabilities.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Professional Development
    Action Type: Special Education
    		 Anne Garrett Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school Year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through Conducting an individualized needs assessment with teachers to enable them to identify their own needs in relation to the targeted special education areas and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, process, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program while seeking a percentage gain across all populations. 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 these results in our 2009-2010 ACSIP plan, and will use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program. PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: A percentage gain was made across all populations with the exception of economically disadvantage which heretofore had not qualified as a subpopulation.
    Action Type: AIP/IRI
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Professional Development
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    Action Type: Special Education
    		 Marjo Burk Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Central Office
    • Outside Consultants
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Use professional development needs assessment information and special education targeted areas to plan, design, and implement building-level professional development activities.
    Action Type: AIP/IRI
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Professional Development
    Action Type: Special Education
    		 Anne Garrett Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Central Office
    • Computers
    • Outside Consultants
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Use varied instructional methodologies, techniques, and resources in the classroom to address the needs of all students, including those with disabilities.
    Action Type: AIP/IRI
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Professional Development
    Action Type: Special Education
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    		 Julie Ogden Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Computers
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Formative evaluations include the delivery of instruction to meet the special learning needs of students with disabilities based on weekly special education staffing meetings.
    Action Type: AIP/IRI
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    Action Type: Special Education
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    		 Elizabeth Mitchell Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Central Office
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Evaluate the implementation of the professional development plan by assessing its involvement of teachers and its focus on teacher and student needs and outcomes.
    Action Type: AIP/IRI
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Professional Development
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    Action Type: Special Education
    		 Bekah Murphy Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Central Office
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Summative evaluations include the designing of annual professional development for all faculty.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Professional Development
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    Action Type: Special Education
    		 Rita Savage Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • District Staff
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Total Budget: $0
    Intervention: School Wide Positive Behavior Support Plan
    Scientific Based Research: Irvin, L.K., Horner, R.H., Ingram, K., Todd, A.W., Sugai, G., Sampson, N., & Boland, J. (2006). Using office discipline referral data for decision-making about student behavior in elementary and middle schools: An empirical investigation of validity. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8(1), 10-23.
    Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
    Develop and implement universal School Wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) expectations, protocols, and interventions.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Elizabeth Mitchell Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • District Staff
    • Outside Consultants
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Provide professional development in the SWPBS Model.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Mindy Duell Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Outside Consultants
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Collaborate with all stakeholders to evaluate, support and provide interventions for social competency.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Elizabeth Mitchell Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Community Leaders
    • District Staff
    • Outside Consultants
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Develop ongoing instruction for program expectations.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Professional Development
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    		 Julie Ogden Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Computers
    • District Staff
    • Outside Consultants
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    PROGRAM EVALUATION: YEAR 1 “During the 2009-2010 school year we will evaluate School Wide Positive Behavior Support through: Office Discipline Referral Data, Criterion-Referenced and Norm-Referenced Test Data, and the Parental Involvement Survey to determine its effectiveness in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. During the 2009-1010 school year we plan to use the following protocol in evaluating, and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program: Decision making through the Behavior Intervention Team based on data collected through the Automated Discipline Data Review Evaluation Software System (ADDRESS) We will use this data/information to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention/Program were achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results in our 2010-2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program. PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: This is year 1 for the intervention. We will report the results in next year’s plan.
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    		 Elizabeth Mitchell Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Computers
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Total Budget: $0
    Priority 2: We will work to improve mathematics.
    Supporting Data: 
    1. Grade 3 Benchmark Exam:  In 2009, 91 students were tested and 93%
scored proficient or advanced. In 2008, 79 students were tested and 87%
scored proficient or advanced. In 2007, 67 students were tested and 87%
scored proficient or advanced. 

 The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions
revealed that the lowest identified areas are: measurement and data
analysis and probability (multiple choice) and geometry (open-response). 


    2. Grade 4 Benchmark Exam:  In 2009, 82 students were tested and 93%
scored proficient or advanced.In 2008, 68 students were tested and 85%
scored proficient or advanced.In 2007, 84 students were tested and 80%
scored proficient or advanced. 
 
 The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions
revealed that the lowest identified areas are: data analysis and
probability (multiple choice) and geometry (open-response).

    3. Grade 5 Benchmark Exam:  In 2009, 79 students were tested and 81%
scored proficient or advanced. In 2008, 84 students were tested and 90%
scored proficient or advanced. In 2007, 83 students were tested and 85%
scored proficient or advanced. 

 The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions
revealed that the lowest identified areas are: measurement (multiple
choice and open-response)and data analysis and probability
(open-response). 


    4. IEP Students: Grade 3 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, 10 students were
tested and 100% scored proficient or advanced. In 2008, 14 students were
tested and 57% scored proficient or advanced. In 2007, 11 students were
tested and 36% scored proficient or advaced. 

  The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions
revealed that the lowest identified areas are: measurement and data
analysis and probablity (multiple choice) and geometry (open-response). 

IEP Students: Grade 4 Benchmark Exam: In 2007 and 2008 fewer than "10"
students were tested on the Grade 4 Benchmark Exam. In 2009, 14 students
were tested and 79% scored proficient or advanced.
 
The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions
revealed that the lowest identified areas are: data analysis and
probabilty (multiple choice) and geometry (open-response).

IEP Students: Grade 5 Benchmark Exam: In 2007, 10 students were tested and
30% scored proficient or advaced. In 2008 and 2009 fewer than 10 students
were tested.

    5. LEP Students: In 2007, 2008, and 2009 fewer than "10" students
were tested in Grades 3, 4, and 5.

    6. SES:  

Grade 3 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, 17 students were tested and 88% were
proficient or advanced.In 2008, 16 students were tested and 57% were
proficient or advanced. In 2007, fewer than "10" students were tested. 

 The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions
revealed that the lowest identified areas are: measurement and data
analysis and probablity (multiple choice) and geometry (open-response). 

Grade 4 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, 16 students were tested and 69% were
proficient or advanced. In 2008, 12 students were tested and 83% were
proficient or advanced. In 2007, 10 students were tested and 50% scored
proficient or advanced. 

 The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions
revealed that the lowest identified areas are: data analysis and
probabilty (multiple choice) and geometry (open-response).

Grade 5 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, 20 students were tested and 64% were
proficient or advanced. In 2008, 10 students were tested and 70% were
proficient or advanced. In 2007, 10 students were tested and 50% scored
proficient or advanced. 

The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions
revealed that the lowest identified areas are: measurement (multiple
choice and open-response)and data analysis and probabilty (open-response). 

    7. Caucasian:  Grade 3 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, 76 students were
tested and 92% scored proficient or advanced. In 2008, 73 students were
tested and 90% scored proficient or advanced. In 2007, 62 students were
tested and 90% scored proficient or advanced. 

 The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions
revealed that the lowest identified areas are: measurement and data
analysis and probablity (multiple choice) and geometry (open-response). 


    8. Caucasian: Grade 4 Benchmark Exam:  In 2009, 77 students were
tested and 95% scored proficient or advanced.In 2008, 75 students were
tested and 86% scored proficient or advanced.In 2007, 76 students were
tested and 89% scored proficient or advanced. 

 The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions
revealed that the lowest identified areas are: data analysis and
probabilty (multiple choice) and geometry (open-response).

    9. Caucasian: Grade 5 Benchmark Exam:  In 2009, 69 students were
tested and 87% scored proficient or advanced.In 2008, 75 students were
tested and 84% scored proficient or advanced. In 2007, 78 students were
tested and 86% scored proficient or advanced. 

 The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions
revealed that the lowest identified areas are: measurement (multiple
choice and open-response)and data analysis and probabilty (open-response). 

    10. Hispanic, Asian/Pcific Islander, African American, and Native
American fewer than "10" students were tested in 2007, 2008, and 2009.

    11. Attendance Rate:  
In 2007, the attendance rate was 96%. In 2008, the attendance rate was
96%. In 2009, the attendance rate was 96%.

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

Combined Population: 87 Students were tested and 81% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the math subtests revealed a weakness in
problem solving.

Caucasian: 77 students were tested and 73% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the Concepts and Estimation subtest, Problem
Solving and Data Interpretation subtests revealed weaknesses in problem
solving.

F/R Students: 10 students were tested and 60% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the Concepts and Estimation subtest, Problem
Solving and Data Interpretation subtests revealed weaknesses in problem
solving.


Grade 1-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 85 Students were tested and 71% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the math subtests revealed a weakness in math
problems.

Caucasian: 67 students were tested and 82% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the Concepts and Estimation subtest, Problem
Solving and Data Interpretation subtests revealed weaknesses in problem
solving.

F/R Students: 12 students were tested and 41% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the Concepts and Estimation subtest, Problem
Solving and Data Interpretation subtests revealed weaknesses in math
problems.

Grade 2-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 82 Students were tested and 77% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the math subtests revealed a weakness in
problem solving.

Caucasian: 75 students were tested and 83% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the Concepts and Estimation subtest, Problem
Solving and Data Interpretation subtests revealed weaknesses in problem
solving.

Exceptional Students: 14 students were tested and 64% scored above the
50th percentile. The analysis of the Concepts and Estimation subtest,
Problem Solving and Data Interpretation subtests revealed weaknesses in
problem solving.

F/R Students: 15 students were tested and 46% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the Concepts and Estimation subtest, Problem
Solving and Data Interpretation subtests revealed weaknesses in math
problems.


Grade 3-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 67 Students were tested and 74% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the math subtests revealed a weakness in math
computation.

Caucasian: 63 students were tested and 76% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the Concepts and Estimation subtest, Problem
Solving and Data Interpretation subtests revealed weaknesses in Concepts
and Estimation.

Exceptional Students: 11 students were tested and 27% scored above the
50th percentile. The analysis of the Concepts and Estimation subtest,
Problem Solving and Data Interpretation subtests revealed weaknesses in
computation.

Grade 4-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 85 Students were tested and 84% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the math subtests revealed a weakness in math
computation.

Caucasian: 77 students were tested and 80% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the Concepts and Estimation subtest, Problem
Solving and Data Interpretation subtests revealed weaknesses in math
computation.

F/R Students: 11 students were tested and 55% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the Concepts and Estimation subtest, Problem
Solving and Data Interpretation subtests revealed weaknesses in Concepts
and Estimation, problem solving and data interpretation, and computation.

Grade 5-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 83 Students were tested and 88% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the math subtests revealed a weakness in
Problem Solving and Data Interpretation and math computation.

Caucasian: 77 students were tested and 93% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the Concepts and Estimation subtest, Problem
Solving and Data Interpretation subtests revealed weaknesses in math
computation.

Exceptional Students: 10 students were tested and 70% scored above the
50th percentile. The analysis of the Concepts and Estimation subtest,
Problem Solving and Data Interpretation subtests revealed weaknesses in
Concepts and Estimation.

Fewer than 10 students were tested in the subpopulations of: African
American, Hispanic, Limited English proficient, economically disadvantaged
(SES).


    13. Grade K-Iowa SAT 10 2008:

We don't have this data due to the loss of materials by UPS truck. The
State Department will verify.


Grade 1-SAT 10:
Combined Population: 87 Students were tested and 74% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

Caucasian: 77 students were tested and 77% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

IEP Students: 10 students were tested and 30% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

SES: 13 students were tested and 54% scored above the 50th percentile. 

Grade 2-SAT 10 2008:
Combined Population: 82 Students were tested and 85% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

Caucasian: 67 students were tested and 87% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

SES: 14 students were tested and 64% scored above the 50th percentile. 

Grade 3-SAT 10 2008:
Combined Population: 79 Students were tested and 71% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

Caucasian: 73 students were tested and 73% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

SES: 16 students were tested and 31% scored above the 50th percentile. 

Students with Disabilities: 16 students were tested and 38% scored above
the 50th percentile.

Grade 4-SAT 10 2008:
Combined Population: 68 Students were tested and 84% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

Caucasian: 65 students were tested and 85% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

SES: 12 students were tested and 67% scored above the 50th percentile. 

Grade 5-SAT 10 2008:
Combined Population: 884 Students were tested and 82% scored above the
50th percentile. 

Caucasian: 75 students were tested and 87% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

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

Students with Disabilities: 10 students were tested and 60% scored above
the 50th percentile. 


    14. Grade K-Iowa MAT -8 2009:
Combined Population: 87 Students were tested and 74% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

Caucasian: 78 students were tested and 76% scored above the 50th
percentile.

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

Grade 1-SAT 10 2009:
Combined Population: 93 Students were tested and 67% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

Caucasian: 84 students were tested and 73% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

IEP Students: 15 students were tested and 40% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

SES: 19 students were tested and 32% scored above the 50th percentile. 

Grade 2-SAT 10 2009:
Combined Population: 90 Students were tested and 69% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

Caucasian: 78 students were tested and 72% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

SES: 16 students were tested and 38% scored above the 50th percentile. 

Grade 3-SAT 10 2009:
Combined Population: 91 Students were tested and 78% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

Caucasian: 76 students were tested and 79% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

SES: 17 students were tested and 65% scored above the 50th percentile. 

IEP: 10 students were tested and 81% scored above the 50th percentile.

Grade 4-SAT 10 2009:
Combined Population: 82 Students were tested and 81% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

Caucasian: 77 students were tested and 84% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

IEP: 14 students were tested and 56% scored above the 50th percentile.

SES: 16 students were tested and 47% scored above the 50th percentile. 

Grade 5-SAT 10 2009:
Combined Population: 80 Students were tested and 72% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

Caucasian: 69 students were tested and 77% scored above the 50th
percentile. 

SES: 22 students were tested and 47% scored above the 50th percentile.
    Goal All students will improve in mathematic skills and respond to constructed response questions with additional attention to 'data analysis and probability' and 'measurement' mathematic strands.
    Benchmark “The Combined Population and each Subpop MET the 2009 AYP target. It is expected that each of these populations will meet, or exceed, the 2010 AYP Target, or make AYP through either the “Safe Harbor” or “Growth” models.
    Intervention: Everyday Mathematics (McGraw-Hill)
    Scientific Based Research: Isaacs, A., Carroll, W., and Bell, M., A Research-Based Curriculum: The Research Foundations of the UCSMP Everyday Mathematics Curriculum; Mann, D., et. al, A Research Study, West Virginia Story: Achievement Gains from a Statewide Comprehensive Instructional Technology Program, 1998.
    Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
    Implement Everyday Mathematics lessons and formative assessments according to district curriculum and identified needs of students in K-5 classrooms.
    Action Type: AIP/IRI
    Action Type: Equity
    		 Nicky Anderson Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Participate in learning teams to share effective teaching and assessment strategies, and align instructional objectives to assist all students in achieving mathematics proficiency.
    Action Type: Professional Development
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Brittany Scism Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    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. Closing the Achievement Gap (Math): Regular biannual meetings of our (Math) ACSIP Leadership Committee will continue to be held. These meetings will focus on building capacity within our school. Each meeting agenda will include the following Core Principles: A. The selection, and continuous evaluation, of research-based, scientifically validated, Interventions designed to improve our ability to improve student performance on the Math portion of all Assessments. B. The ongoing monitoring of student progress in order to influence classroom instruction. C. The utilization of Formative and Summative Assessment Data to make decisions that impact: Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. D. Coordination of resources in order to better meet the needs of all students. Written minutes of each meeting, along with a sign-in sheet, will be kept and made available upon request. The intent is that each Intervention, and Action, is carefully monitored through the collection of Formative and Summative Data.so that those strategies, which prove ineffective, can be revised, or abandoned. Our ACSIP Plan will be revised each spring, and fall, in order to keep it timely and valid in our efforts to improve teaching and learning.
    Action Type: AIP/IRI
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Special Education
    		 Patty Poore Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Analyze student summative performance on the Benchmark and SAT 10 exams in terms of student mathematics achievement and progress.
    Action Type: AIP/IRI
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Brittany Scism Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    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: Collaboration
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    		 Rhonda Moore Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Computers
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school Year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through ACTAAP, SAT 10, EM unit tests and formatively through EM games and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, process, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program while seeking a percentage gain across all populations. 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 these results in our 2009-2010 ACSIP plan, and will use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program. PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: A percentage gain was made across all populations.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    		 Rusty Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Computers
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: We formed ACSIP Leadership Teams and analyzed the test scores from the 2009 administration of the K-5 grades Augmented Benchmark, MAT 8 and SAT 10 Exams. We examined the results from both the combined population and EACH subpopulation. We conducted data analysis to determine our main areas of weakness. In addition, we studied the three most recent years of Attendance, Disciplinary, Formative and Summative Achievement Data across grade levels within our building. We aggregated and disaggregated all the data for the purpose of establishing student learning and behavioral goals. We looked at our trend data in order to better identify the specific areas of need and help align classroom instruction with our curriculum, assessment and professional development. We examined our routines, customs, and norms in order to dig deeper for the root cause why more of our students are not achieving to their full potential. Our 2009 Supporting Data Statements show the discrepancies in achievement, among our various populations. We are modifying our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development practices to better meet the needs of all our populations. Based on our Data Analysis we came to the conclusion that the following areas reflect our greatest need within the Math Priority: data analysis and probability and measurement. 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, biweekly and as an entire faculty bimonthly 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.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Rhonda Moore Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • District Staff
    • Outside Consultants
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Total Budget: $0
    Intervention: Computation 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.
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    		 Elizabeth Hatfield Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school Year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through Using summative evaluations of performance assessments and quarterly assessments to determine effectiveness of supplemental computation strategies in improving overall mathematics achievement and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, process, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program while seeking a percentage gain across all populations. 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 these results in our 2009-2010 ACSIP plan, and will use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program. PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: A percentage gain was made across all populations.
    Action Type: AIP/IRI
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    		 Rusty Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Computers
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Designated certified personnel will be trained annually at both in district and out of district sites with the intented outcome of gaining differiented and intervention strategies. Trainings will include Everyday Math, Mastery Math Facts, CBM and Response to Intervention (RTI).
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Rhonda Moore Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Central Office
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Total Budget: $0
    Intervention: Open-Response Problem Strategies
    Scientific Based Research: Smart Start; Smart Step; NCSI-performance assessments; Reeves, Doug. Making Standards Work, 1998
    Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
    Train certified staff on the use of formative and summative performance assessments, scoring guides (rubrics), and Benchmark open-response scoring.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Susie Parham Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • District Staff
    • Outside Consultants
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Review student performance on open-response problems as part of curriculum mapping and implementation of existing programs.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Professional Development
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Gayle O'Donnell Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Evaluate teacher and student achievement gains in improving open-response performance, and determine effectiveness in reducing achievement gaps.
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    		 Rhonda Moore Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school Year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through Summative evaluations such as performance assessments, SAT 10 standardized tests, CRT benchmark assessments and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, process, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program while seeking a percentage gain across all populations. 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 these results in our 2009-2010 ACSIP plan, and will use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program. PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: A percentage gain was made across all populations.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Professional Development
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Rusty Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Total Budget: $0
    Intervention: Math Curriculum Mapping and Alignment
    Scientific Based Research: Heide Hayes Jacobs-"Mapping the Big Picture" NSCI, 1997.
    Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
    Participate in weekly grade level meetings to compare current curriculum map to students' areas of strengths and weaknesses. Formative evaluations include adjusting pacing and changing focus as a result of this collaboration.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Patty Poore Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Computers
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Do professional development, curriculum alignment, and test data analysis.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Rhonda Moore Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Computers
    • District Staff
    • Performance Assessments
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school Year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through Mapping classroom and grade level curriculum for comparison to District Math Curriculum and identify areas of weakness in summative assessments of SAT 10 and Benchmark Exam scores and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, process, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program while seeking a percentage gain across all populations. 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 these results in our 2009-2010 ACSIP plan, and will use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program. PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: A percentage gain was made across all populations.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Professional Development
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Rusty Folsom Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Request professional development opportunities that address areas of concern determined in the curriculum mapping process.
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 John Griesse Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Total Budget: $0
    Intervention: School Wide Positive Behavior Support Plan
    Scientific Based Research: Irvin, L.K., Horner, R.H., Ingram, K., Todd, A.W., Sugai, G., Sampson, N., & Boland, J. (2006). Using office discipline referral data for decision-making about student behavior in elementary and middle schools: An empirical investigation of validity. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8(1), 10-23.
    Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
    Develop and implement universal School Wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) expectations, protocols, and interventions.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Elizabeth Mitchell Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • District Staff
    • Outside Consultants
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Provide professional development in the SWPBS Model.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Mindy Duell Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Outside Consultants
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Collaborate with all stakeholders to evaluate, support and provide interventions for social competency.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Elizabeth Mitchell Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Community Leaders
    • District Staff
    • Outside Consultants
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Develop ongoing instruction for program expectations.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Professional Development
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    		 Julie Ogden Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Computers
    • District Staff
    • Outside Consultants
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    PROGRAM EVALUATION: YEAR 1 “During the 2009-2010 school year we will evaluate School Wide Positive Behavior Support through: Office Discipline Referral Data, Criterion-Referenced and Norm-Referenced Test Data, and the Parental Involvement Survey to determine its effectiveness in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. During the 2009-1010 school year we plan to use the following protocol in evaluating, and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program: Decision making through the Behavior Intervention Team based on data collected through the Automated Discipline Data Review Evaluation Software System (ADDRESS) We will use this data/information to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention/Program were achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results in our 2010-2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program. PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: This is year 1 for the intervention. We will report the results in next year’s plan.
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    		 Elizabeth Mitchell Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Computers
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Total Budget: $0
    Priority 3: To increase student awareness and knowledge of the effects of good nutrition and physical activity.
    Supporting Data:
    1. Body Mass Index Data 2006-2007: of the 395 student population assessed, the following represents the percent of students at risk of overweight and overweight: Grade K: Males 15.6%, 31.4%Females Grade 1: Males 24.3%, 24.3%Females Grade 2: Males 34.4%, 36.0% Females Grade 3: Males 25.0%, NA Females Grade 4: Males 17.1%, 24.3% Females Grade 5: Males NA, 28.3%Females
    2. Body Mass Index Data 2007-2008: of the 217 student population assessed, the following represents the percent of students at risk of overweight and overweight: Grade K: Males 26.0%, 32.6%Females Grade 1: NA Grade 2: Males 22.2%, 31.7% Females Grade 3: NA Grade 4: Males 30.6%, 29.2% Females Grade 5: NA
    3. Body Mass Index Data 2008-2009: of the 277 student population assessed, the following represents the percent of students at risk of overweight and overweight: Grade K: Males 35.0%, 26%Females Grade 1: NA Grade 2: Males 26%, 30% Females Grade 3: NA Grade 4: Males 35%, 32% Females Grade 5: NA 
    4.  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.

    5. Free/Reduced Rate (SES): In 2008 the percentage of free and reduced
lunch was 17%. In 2007 the percentage of free and reduced lunch was 17%.
In 2006 the percentage of free and reduced lunch was 13%. 

    6. The 2006-2007 School Health Index Survey indicates that Module 2
Health Education and Module 8 Family and Community Involvement are the two
areas of concern.

    7. The 2007-2008 School Health Index Survey indicates that Module 2
Health Education and Module 8 Family and Community Involvement are the two
areas of concern.

    8. The 2008-2009 School Health Index Survey indicates that Module 7
Health Promotion for Staff and Module 8 Family and Community Involvement
are the two areas of concern.
    Goal Provide support for students in making healthy lifestyle choices by implementing systems to aid in decreasing the average BMI on routine annual student screening and increasing collaboration between all segments of the school community in support of positive lifestyle choices.
    Benchmark To decrease the number of students at risk of overweight and students overweight by 1/2% annually.
    Intervention: Increase awareness and knowledge of the benefits of physical activity for lifelong health and wellness.
    Scientific Based Research: George, MA.,and Sellers, W. (Eds). (1993) The Michigan model for comprehensive school health education. Central Michigan Univeristy.
    Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
    Within a 6 day rotation cycle our students are participate in 3 60 minute Physical Education classes. Our teachers also will provide a 15 minutes of physical activity per day.
    Action Type: Wellness
    		 Bright Bullard Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Students BMI assessments will be analyzed annually to determine the percentage of students decreasing in the categories of at risk of overweight or overweight. Interventions will be evaluated for their effectiveness based on this data.
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    Action Type: Wellness
    		 Sharon Hanby Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    • Outside Consultants
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Implement and encourage participation in physical education program taught by a highly qualified teacher that supports phsyical activity.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    Action Type: Wellness
    		 Cheri Murphy Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Promote reduction of time children spend engaged in sedentary activities such as watching television and playing video games by sending home informational packages that include tips for parents/caregivers.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    Action Type: Wellness
    		 Ashley Parette Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Encourage participation in family oriented, community-based physical activity program.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    Action Type: Wellness
    		 Janet Cooper Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school Year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through a student and parent survey and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, process, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program while seeking a percentage gain across all populations. 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 these results in our 2009-2010 ACSIP plan, and will use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program. PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: A percentage gain was made across all populations.
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    Action Type: Wellness
    		 Tony Bishop Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: We formed ACSIP Wellness Leadership Team and analyzed 2009 BMI data and health index surveys from families, students, faculty and staff. We examined the results from both the combined population for grades K, 2 and 4 (BMI data) and male/female subpopulation. We conducted data analysis to determine our main areas of weakness. We examined our routines, customs, and norms in order to dig deeper for the root cause why more of our students are not achieving to their full potential. Based on our Data Analysis we came to the conclusion that the following areas reflect our greatest need within the Wellness Priority: Module 7 (Health Promotion for staff) and Module 8 (Family and Community Involvement). We will select Interventions and coordinate our various state and federal funding sources to address these areas.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Rhonda Moore Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • District Staff
    • Outside Consultants
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Total Budget: $0
    Intervention: Increase awareness and knowledge of the benefits of sound nutritional practices for lifelong health and wellness.
    Scientific Based Research: George, MA.,and Sellers, W. (Eds). (1993) The Michigan model for comprehensive school health education. Central Michigan Univeristy.
    Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
    Implement Kids for Health, Farm to School, offering nutritional choices to students daily on the lunch line, and overall emphasis on good nutrition to parents and students.
    Action Type: Wellness
    		 Cathy VonHatten Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • District Staff
    • Outside Consultants
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Student BMI assessments will be analyzed annually to determine the percentage of students decreasing in the categories of at risk of overweight or overweight. Interventions will be evaluated for their effectiveness based on this data.
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    Action Type: Wellness
    		 Sudie Henderson Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Community Leaders
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school Year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through a student and parent survey and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, process, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program while seeking a percentage gain across all populations. 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 these results in our 2009-2010 ACSIP plan, and will use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program. PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: A percentage gain was made across all populations.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Tony Bishop Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Community Leaders
    • District Staff
    • Outside Consultants
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Total Budget: $0
    Priority 4: We will work to improve our scores within our ELL population.
    Supporting Data: 
    1. Grade 3 Benchmark Exam: In 2009, 91 students were tested and 80%
scored proficient or advanced. In 2008, 79 students were tested and 80%
scored proficient or advanced. In 2007, 67 students were tested and 81%
scored proficient or advanced. 

The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in
the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified
areas are: practical passage (multiple choice) and content passages
(open-response). The trend analysis of the open response questions in the
five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified areas are:
content and style domains.  


    2. Grade 4 Benchmark Exam:  In 2009, 82 students were tested and 87%
scored proficient or advanced. In 2008, 68 students were tested and 82%
scored proficient or advanced. In 2007, 84 students were tested and 80%
scored proficient or advanced. 

The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in
the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified
areas are: practical(multiple choice) and literary (open-response)
passages. The trend analysis of the open response questions in the five
writing domains revealed that the lowest identified areas are:	content
and style domains.


    3. Grade 5 Benchmark Exam:  In 2009, 79 students were tested and 75%
scored proficient or advanced. In 2008, 84 students were tested and 89%
scored proficient or advanced. In 2007, 83 students were tested and 85%
scored proficient or advanced. 

 The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in
the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified
areas are: content and practical (multiple choice) and practical
(open-response) passages. The trend analysis of the open response
questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified
areas are:  content and style.


    4. Grade 3 Benchmark Exam:  In 2009, 91 students were tested and 93%
scored proficient or advanced. In 2008, 79 students were tested and 87%
scored proficient or advanced. In 2007, 67 students were tested and 87%
scored proficient or advanced. 

 The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions
revealed that the lowest identified areas are: measurement and data
analysis and probability (multiple choice) and geometry (open-response).


    5. Grade 4 Benchmark Exam:  In 2009, 82 students were tested and 93%
scored proficient or advanced. In 2008, 68 students were tested and 85%
scored proficient or advanced. In 2007, 84 students were tested and 80%
scored proficient or advanced. 
 
 The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions
revealed that the lowest identified areas are: data analysis and
probability (multiple choice) and geometry (open-response).


    6. Grade 5 Benchmark Exam:  In 2009, 79 students were tested and 81%
scored proficient or advanced. In 2008, 84 students were tested and 90%
scored proficient or advanced. In 2007, 83 students were tested and 85%
scored proficient or advanced. 

 The trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions
revealed that the lowest identified areas are: measurement (multiple
choice and open-response)and data analysis and probability
(open-response).


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

Combined Population: 87 Students were tested and 76% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed a weakness in
vocabulary.

Grade 1-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 85 Students were tested and 59% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed a weakness in
vocabulary.

Grade 2-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 82 Students were tested and 78% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed a weakness in
vocabulary.

Grade 3-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 68 Students were tested and 81% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed a weakness in
comprehension.

Grade 4-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 85 Students were tested and 87% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed a weakness in
comprehension.

Grade 5-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population:  83 Students were tested and 86% scored above the
50th percentile. The analysis of the reading subtests revealed a weakness
in comprehension.


    8. Grade K-Iowa SAT 10 2008:
We don't have this data due to the loss of materials by UPS truck. The
State Department will verify.

Grade 1-SAT 10:
Combined Population: 87 Students were tested and 49% scored above the 50th
percentile.

Grade 2-SAT 10 2008:
Combined Population: 82 Students were tested and 63% scored above the 50th
percentile.

Grade 3-SAT 10 2008:
Combined Population: 79 Students were tested and 67% scored above the 50th
percentile.

Grade 4-SAT 10 2008:
Combined Population: 68 Students were tested and 81% scored above the 50th
percentile.

Grade 5-SAT 10 2008:
Combined Population: 84 Students were tested and 88% scored above the 50th
percentile.


    9. Grade K-Iowa MAT -8 2009:
Combined Population: 85 Students were tested and 74% scored above the 50th
percentile.

Grade 1-SAT 10:
Combined Population: 93 Students were tested and 40% scored above the 50th
percentile.

Grade 2-SAT 10 2009:
Combined Population: 90 Students were tested and 54% scored above the 50th
percentile.

Grade 3-SAT 10 2009:
Combined Population: 91 Students were tested and 56% in Reading and 56% in
Language scored above the 50th percentile.

Grade 4-SAT 10 2009:
Combined Population: 82 Students were tested and 81% in reading and 56% in
language scored above the 50th percentile.

Grade 5-SAT 10 2009:
Combined Population: 80 Students were tested and 81% in reading and 62% in
language scored above the 50th percentile.


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

Combined Population: 87 Students were tested and 81% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the math subtests revealed a weakness in
problem solving.

Grade 1-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 85 Students were tested and 71% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the math subtests revealed a weakness in math
problems.

Grade 2-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 82 Students were tested and 77% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the math subtests revealed a weakness in
problem solving.

Grade 3-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 67 Students were tested and 74% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the math subtests revealed a weakness in math
computation.

Grade 4-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 85 Students were tested and 84% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the math subtests revealed a weakness in math
computation.

Grade 5-Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) 2007:
Combined Population: 83 Students were tested and 88% scored above the 50th
percentile. The analysis of the math subtests revealed a weakness in
Problem Solving and Data Interpretation and math computation.


    11. Grade K-Iowa SAT 10 2008:

We don't have this data due to the loss of materials by UPS truck. The
State Department will verify.

Grade 1-SAT 10:
Combined Population: 87 Students were tested and 74% scored above the 50th
percentile.

Grade 2-SAT 10 2008:
Combined Population: 82 Students were tested and 85% scored above the 50th
percentile.

Grade 3-SAT 10 2008:
Combined Population: 79 Students were tested and 71% scored above the 50th
percentile.

Grade 4-SAT 10 2008:
Combined Population: 68 Students were tested and 84% scored above the 50th
percentile.

Grade 5-SAT 10 2008:
Combined Population: 884 Students were tested and 82% scored above the
50th percentile.


    12. Grade K-Iowa MAT -8 2009:
Combined Population: 87 Students were tested and 74% scored above the 50th
percentile.

Grade 1-SAT 10 2009:
Combined Population: 93 Students were tested and 67% scored above the 50th
percentile.

Grade 2-SAT 10 2009:
Combined Population: 90 Students were tested and 69% scored above the 50th
percentile.

Grade 3-SAT 10 2009:
Combined Population: 91 Students were tested and 78% scored above the 50th
percentile.

Grade 4-SAT 10 2009:
Combined Population: 82 Students were tested and 81% scored above the 50th
percentile.

Grade 5-SAT 10 2009:
Combined Population: 80 Students were tested and 72% scored above the 50th
percentile.
    Goal All ELL students will improve in reading comprehension, written expression, and mathematic skills and respond to constructed response questions with proficiency.
    Benchmark The non-reported subpopulation of ELL met the 2009 AYP target of 64% in literacy and 62.5% in math scoring proficient/advanced. It is expected thatt this subpopulation will meet, or exceed, the 2010 AYP target of 71.2% in literacy and 70% in math scoring proficient/advanced, or make AYP through either the "Safe Harbor" or "Growth" models.
    Intervention: We will employ Highly Qualified Instructors.
    Scientific Based Research:
    Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
    We will employ a highly qualified ELL teacher (.50 FTE) to provide instruction and intervention for those sudents identified by ELDA for service.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    		 Rhonda Moore Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, we evaluated this Intervention/Program through CRT, NRT and ELDA assessments and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. We believe the evidence shows that it is valuable in terms of supporting our efforts to increase student achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to follow the same protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program while seeking a percentage gain across all populations. PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS: a percentage gain was made across this subpopulation.
    Action Type: AIP/IRI
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Elizabeth Mitchell Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: We formed ACSIP Leadership Teams and analyzed the test scores from the 2009 administration of the K-5 grades Augmented Benchmark, MAT 8 and SAT 10 Exams. We examined the results from both the combined population and EACH subpopulation. We conducted data analysis to determine our main areas of weakness. In addition, we studied the three most recent years of Attendance, Disciplinary, Formative and Summative Achievement Data across grade levels within our building. We aggregated and disaggregated all the data for the purpose of establishing student learning and behavioral goals. We looked at our trend data in order to better identify the specific areas of need and help align classroom instruction with our curriculum, assessment and professional development. We examined our routines, customs, and norms in order to dig deeper for the root cause why more of our students are not achieving to their full potential. Our 2009 Supporting Data Statements show the discrepancies in achievement, among our various populations. We are modifying our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development practices to better meet the needs of all our populations. Based on our Data Analysis we came to the conclusion that the following areas reflect our greatest need within the Literacy Priority: content and style within our writing and practical reading. In the Math Priority: data analysis and probability and measurement. 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, biweekly and as an entire faculty bimonthly 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.
    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Rhonda Moore Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • District Staff
    • Outside Consultants
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Total Budget: $0
  • Planning Team

    Classification Name Position Committee
    Classroom Teacher Anne Garrett Grade K Literacy - Reading
    Classroom Teacher Ashley Parette Grade 3 Wellness
    Classroom Teacher Bekah Murphy Grade 4 Literacy - Reading
    Classroom Teacher Bright Bullard Grade 1 Wellness
    Classroom Teacher Brittany Scism Grade 2 Mathematics
    Classroom Teacher Cathy VonHatten Art Wellness
    Classroom Teacher Cheri Murphy PAC - 4 Wellness
    Classroom Teacher Crissa Mitchell Grade 3 Mathematics/ACSIP Chair
    Classroom Teacher Delia Gorder Grade 1 Title V, Literacy - Writing Chair
    Classroom Teacher Gayle O'Donnell Gifted and Talented Mathematics
    Classroom Teacher Janet Cooper Special Education Wellness
    Classroom Teacher John Griesse Grade 3 Mathematics
    Classroom Teacher Julie Ogden Grade 1 Literacy - Reading
    Classroom Teacher Karen Rosso Grade 1and 2 Literacy - Reading
    Classroom Teacher Lindsay Sloan Grade 2 Literacy - Writing
    Classroom Teacher Marie Walden Grade K Literacy - Writing
    Classroom Teacher Marjo Burk Grade 5 Literacy - Reading Chair
    Classroom Teacher Melinda Jorn Grade 3 Literacy - Writing
    Classroom Teacher Nicky Anderson Grade K Mathematics
    Classroom Teacher Patty Poore Grade 5 Mathematics
    Classroom Teacher Rita Savage Music Literacy - Reading
    Classroom Teacher Rusty Folsom Grade 1 Mathematics - Chair
    Classroom Teacher Shannon Nickell Grade 4 Literacy - Writing
    Classroom Teacher Sharon Hanby Grade 2 Wellness
    Classroom Teacher Shirley Walker Grade 5 Literacy - Writing
    Classroom Teacher Sudie Henderson Gifted and Talented Wellness
    Classroom Teacher Susan O'Meara Grade 4 Literacy - Reading
    Classroom Teacher Tony Bishop PE Wellness-Chair
    District-Level Professional Christie Jay Federal Programs Coordinator Literacy
    District-Level Professional Lester Long Mathematics Specialist Mathematics
    District-Level Professional Linda Auman Supt. Administrative Assistant Mathematics,Literacy
    Non-Classroom Professional Staff Cindy Ratcliff Resource Literacy - Writing
    Non-Classroom Professional Staff D.J. Rush Curriculum Technology Specialist Mathematics
    Non-Classroom Professional Staff Diane Carpenter Librarian Literacy - Reading
    Non-Classroom Professional Staff Elizabeth Hatfield Speech Pathologist Mathematics
    Non-Classroom Professional Staff Elizabeth Mitchell ESL Literacy - Reading
    Non-Classroom Professional Staff Mindy Duell Special Education Literacy - Writing
    Non-Classroom Professional Staff Susie Parham Counselor Mathematics
    Parent Anne Kathrine Jouett PAC Literacy - Reading
    Parent Cheryl Wiebe Parent Advisory Council Mathematics
    Parent Elizabeth Powell Parent Advisory Council Literacy-Writing
    Parent Laura Lindsey PAC - K Wellness
    Parent Paul Wilson-Scott PAC - 1 Mathematics
    Parent Trey Lee PAC Literacy - Reading
    Principal Rhonda Moore Principal ACSIP Leadership