School Plan

WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
425 N. NIGHLAND AVE.,FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72701

Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Plan

2009-2010


Washington Elementary School, in cooperation with parents and the community, will provide a safe and nurturing environment where meaningful learning experiences supported by resources give all students the opportunity to become productive, lifelong learners with a vision for their future.

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

Table of Contents

Priority 1: Literacy
    Goal: All students will improve in reading comprehension and written expression. Because content and style writing domains are low, additional attention will be paid to these areas of written expression.
Priority 2: Math
    Goal: All students will improve in mathematic skills and responding to constructed response questions with additional attention to the Measurement, Data Analysis and Probability, and Number Sense/Operations 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: ELL
    Goal: Goal Utilize state ELL funding so that all ELL students will improve in literacy, mathematics, and the acquisition of the English language.
Priority 1: Improving Literacy
Supporting Data:
  1. ACSIP CRT DATA FOR WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
    Grade 3 Literacy

    Combined Population Grade 3 Augmented/Benchmark Exam:
    In 2009, 62% scored proficient or advanced.
    In 2008, 61% scored proficient or advanced.
    In 2007, 57.1% scored proficient or advanced.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: multiple choice content passages and open response practical passages.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: content and style.

    Students with Disbilities (IEP) Grade 3 Augmented/Benchmark Exam:
    In 2009, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    In 2008, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    In 2007, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: multiple choice and open response in the contents passages.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: content and style.

    English Language Leaners (ELL) Grade 3 Augmented/Benchmark Exam:
    In 2009, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    In 2008, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    In 2007, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: multiple choice and open response in the practical passages.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: content and style

    Economically Disadvantaged (ESD) Grade 3 Augmented/Benchmark Exam:
    In 2009, 39% scored proficient or advanced.
    In 2008, 50% scored proficient or advanced.
    In 2007, 52.9 % scored proficient or advanced.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: multiple choice and open response in the practical passages.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: content and style.

    Caucsian Grade 3 Augmented/Benchmark Exam:
    In 2009, 70% scored proficient or advanced.
    In 2008, 72.4% scored proficient or advanced.
    In 2007, 58.3% scored proficient or advanced.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: multiple choice in the practical passages and open response in the content passages.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: content and style.

    African American Grade 3 Augmented/Benchmark Exam:
    In 2009, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    In 2008, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    In 2007, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: multiple choice in the literacy passages and open response in the practical passages.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: content and style.

    Hispanic Grade 3 Augmented/Benchmark Exam:
    In 2009, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    In 2008, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    In 2007, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: multiple choice in the literary passages and open response in the content passages.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: content and style

  2. ACSIP CRT DATA FOR WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
    Grade 4 Literacy

    Combined Population Grade 4 Augmented/Benchmark Exam:
    In 2009, 59% scored proficient or advanced.
    In 2008, 67.4% scored proficient or advanced.
    In 2007, 68% scored proficient or advanced.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: multiple choice in the practical passages and open response in the literary passages.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: content and style.

    Students with Disbilities (IEP) Grade 4 Augmented/Benchmark Exam:
    In 2009, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    In 2008, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    In 2007, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: multiple choice in the practical passages and open response in the content passages.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: content and style.

    English Language Leaners (ELL) Grade 4 Augmented/Benchmark Exam:
    In 2009, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    In 2008, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    In 2007, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: multiple choice in the practical passages and open response in the literary passages.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: content and style.

    Economically Disadvantaged (ESD) Grade4 Augmented/Benchmark Exam:
    In 2009, 40% scored proficient or advanced.
    In 2008, 85.2% scored proficient or advanced.
    In 2007, 81.1% scored proficient or advanced.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: multiple choice in the practical passages and open response in the content passages.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: conent and style.

    Caucsian Grade 4 Augmented/Benchmark Exam:
    In 2009, 59% scored proficient or advanced.
    In 2008, 85.2% scored proficient or advanced.
    In 2007, 81.1% scored proficient or advanced.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: multiple choice in the practical passages and open response in the literary passages.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: content and style.

    African American Grade 4 Augmented/Benchmark Exam:
    In 2009, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    In 2008, 50% scored proficient or advanced.
    In 2007, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: multiple choice in the practical passages and open response in the literary passages.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: content and style. Hispanic Grade 4 Augmented/Benchmark Exam:
    In 2009, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    In 2008, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    In 2007, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: multiple choice in the practical passages and open response in the literary passages.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: content and style.

  3. ACSIP CRT DATA FOR WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
    Grade 5 Literacy

    Combined Population Grade 5 Augmented/Benchmark Exam:
    In 2009, 66% scored proficient or advanced.
    In 2008, 80.4% scored proficient or advanced.
    In 2007, 85.7% scored proficient or advanced.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: multiple choice and open response in the practical passages.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: content and style.

    Students with Disbilities (IEP) Grade 5 Augmented/Benchmark Exam:
    In 2009, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    In 2008, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    In 2007, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: multiple choice and open response in the practical passages.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: content and style.

    English Language Leaners (ELL) Grade 5 Augmented/Benchmark Exam:
    In 2009, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    In 2008, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    In 2007, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: multiple choice in the practical passages and open response in the content passages.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: content and style.

    Economically Disadvantaged (ESD) Grade 5 Augmented/Benchmark Exam:
    In 2009, 54% scored proficient or advanced.
    In 2008, 60% scored proficient or advanced.
    In 2007, 72,7% scored proficient or advanced.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: multiple choice and open response in the practical passages.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: content and style.

    Caucsian Grade 5 Augmented/Benchmark Exam:
    In 2009, 77% scored proficient or advanced.
    In 2008, 92.1% scored proficient or advanced.
    In 2007, 88.6% scored proficient or advanced.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: multiple choice and open response in the practical passages.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: content and style.

    African American Grade 5 Augmented/Benchmark Exam:
    In 2009, 59% scored proficient or advanced.
    In 2008, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    In 2007, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: multiple choice in the content passages and open response in the practical passages.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: content and style Hispanic Grade 5 Augmented/Benchmark Exam:
    In 2009, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    In 2008, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    In 2007, less than 10 students in this sub population were tested.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages, revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: multiple choice in the practical passages and open response in the content passages.
    The 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area (s) are: content and style

  4. Attendance:
    In 2009, the attendance rate for the school was 94.3%.
    In 2008, the attendance rate for the school was 93.9%.
    In 2007, the attendance rate for the school was 94.0%.

  5. NRT TEST DATA
    Grade Kindergarten
    ITBS: (07) SAT-10 (08-09): Combined (Total) Population: Reading Comprehension

    In 2009, 62.1% had an NPR score of 50, or above.
    Data for the 2008 administration of the SAT10 is not available for Kindergarten.
    In 2007, 52.6% had an NPR score of 50, or above.

    African American: Reading Comprehension
    In 2009, 64.3% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    Data for 2008 administration of SAT10 is not available.
    In 2007, 52.6% had an NPR score of 50 or above.

    Caucasian Population: Reading Comprehension
    In 2009, 64.3% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    Data for 2008 administration of SAT10 is not available.
    In 2007, 70% had an NPR score of 50 or above.

    Economically Disadvantaged Population: Reading Comprehension
    In 2009, 46.5% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    Data for 2008 administration of SAT10 is not available. In 2007, 50% had an NPR score of 50 or above. Less than ten students were tested in the following sub populations: Hispanic, Limited English Proficient, and Students with Disabilities.

  6. NRT TEST DATA
    First Grade
    ITBS: (07) SAT-10 (08-09): Combined (Total) Population: Reading Comprehension

    In 2009, 36.2% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2008, 21% had an NPR Score of 50 or above.
    In 2007, 67.1% had an NPR score of 50 or above.

    African American: Reading Comprehension
    In 2009, 28.6% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2008, 9.5% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2007, 25% had an NPR score of 50 or above.

    Caucasian Population: Reading Comprehension
    In 2009, 38.1% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2008, 28.6% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2007, 70.9% had an NPR score of 50 or above.

    Economically Disadvantaged Population: Reading Comprehension
    In 2009, 22.5% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2008, 14.3% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2007, 60% had an NPR score of 50 or above.

    Less than 10 students were tested each year in the following sub populations: Hispanic, Limited English Proficient, and Students with Disabilities.

  7. NRT TEST DATA
    Second Grade
    ITBS: (07) SAT-10 (08-09): Combined (Total) Population: Reading Comprehension

    In 2009, 40% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2008, 20.4% had an NPR Score of 50 or above.
    In 2007, 45.2% had an NPR score of 50 or above.

    African American: Reading Comprehension
    In 2009, 6.7% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2008, 0% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2007, 0% had an NPR score of 50 or above.

    Caucasian Population: Reading Comprehension
    In 2009, 53.1% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2008, 28.6% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2007, 54.8% had an NPR score of 50 or above.

    Economically Disadvantaged Population: Reading Comprehension
    In 2009, 27% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2008, 6.3% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2007, 20.8% had an NPR score of 50 or above.

    Less than 10 students were tested each year in the following sub populations: Hispanic, Limited English Proficient, and Students with Disabilities.

  8. NRT TEST DATA
    Third Grade
    ITBS: (07) SAT-10 (08-09): Combined (Total) Population: Reading Comprehension

    In 2009, 46.2% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2008, 40% had an NPR Score of 50 or above.
    In 2007, 48.7% had an NPR score of 50 or above.

    African American: Reading Comprehension
    In 2009, 14.3% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2008, 14.3% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2007, 33.3% had an NPR score of 50 or above.

    Caucasian Population: Reading Comprehension
    In 2009, 55.1% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2008, 51.6% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2007, 57.7% had an NPR score of 50 or above.

    Economically Disadvantaged Population: Reading Comprehension
    In 2009, 23.1% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2008, 16.7% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2007, 35.0% had an NPR score of 50 or above.

    Less than 10 students were tested each year in the following sub populations: Hispanic, Limited English Proficient, and Students with Disabilities.
  9. NRT TEST DATA
    Fourth Grade
    ITBS: (07) SAT-10 (08-09): Combined (Total) Population: Reading Comprehension

    In 2009, 53.3% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2008, 52.9% had an NPR Score of 50 or above.
    In 2007, 70.9% had an NPR score of 50 or above.

    African American: Reading Comprehension
    In 2009, 57.1% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2008, 23.5% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2007, 16.7% had an NPR score of 50 or above.

    Caucasian Population: Reading Comprehension
    In 2009, 58.6% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2008, 81.5% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2007, 87.2% had an NPR score of 50 or above.

    Economically Disadvantaged Population: Reading Comprehension
    In 2009, 46.4% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2008, 36.4% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2007, 47.6% had an NPR score of 50 or above.

    Less than 10 students were tested each year in the following sub populations: Hispanic, Limited English Proficient, and Students with Disabilities.
  10. NRT TEST DATA
    Fifth Grade
    ITBS: (07) SAT-10 (08-09): Combined (Total) Population: Reading Comprehension

    In 2009, 46.8% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2008, 69.1% had an NPR Score of 50 or above.
    In 2007, 83.3% had an NPR score of 50 or above.

    African American: Reading Comprehension
    In 2009, 33.3% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2008, 25% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2007, 57.1% had an NPR score of 50 or above.

    Caucasian Population: Reading Comprehension
    In 2009, 53.8% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2008, 82.9% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2007, 89.5% had an NPR score of 50 or above.

    Economically Disadvantaged Population: Reading Comprehension
    In 2009, 37.5% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2008, 39.1% had an NPR score of 50 or above.
    In 2007, 62.5% had an NPR score of 50 or above.

    Less than 10 students were tested each year in the following sub populations: Hispanic, Limited English Proficient, and Students with Disabilities.
Goal All students will improve in reading comprehension and written expression. Because content and style writing domains are low, additional attention will be paid to these areas of written expression.
Benchmark The Combined Population MET the 2009 AYP target of 64.0% scoring Proficient/Advanced.
According to current data, the Free and Reduced Lunch Population did NOT meet the 2009 AYP target of 64.0% scoring Proficient/Advanced. We are on ALERT for FRLP subpopulation. We have asked the State to examine our data more closely. The final decision will be reported when that decision is made.
It is expected that each of these populations will meet, or exceed, the 2010 AYP Target of 71.20% scoring Proficient/Advanced, or make AYP through either the “Safe Harbor” or “Growth” models.
Intervention: In compliance with ACT 83, 60 hours of Professional Development will be provided for each certified teacher. The require 60 hours will include 6 hours of technology, 2 hours of Arkansas History for teachers who teach Social Studies, 3 hours of parental involvement for administrators and 2 hours of parental involvement for teachers.
Scientific Based Research: National Staff Development Council Standards, 2001; Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development, Joellen Killion, 2002; www.nsdc.org "Assessing Impact of Professional Development on Teaching and Students", Seth Aldrich, PhD, 2004.
Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
In compliance with ACT 83, the following professional development will be provided: 6 hours of technology, 2 hours of Arkansas History for teachers who teach social studies, 3 hours of parent involvement for administrators and 2 hours of parent involvement for teachers.

Action Type: Professional Development
 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Central Office
ACTION BUDGET: $
NEEDS ASSESSMENT:
NRT, CRT, local achievement assessments and other relevant indicators will be analyzed by the faculty at each grade level. NRT and CRT data will be analyzed annually. Local assessments will be analyzed quarterly. Combined student population and each sub population will be examined to determine student needs and to identify any existing achievement gaps within any sub populations.

Action Type: Collaboration
Action Type: Program Evaluation
Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
 ASHLEY GARCIA Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • Performance Assessments
  • Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
Washington Staff will be provided supplemental professional development opportunities to assist in meeting the ACSIP goals in Math and Literacy as identified in the SUMMATIVE data analysis of Benchmark and ITBS student achievement scores. These may include release days throughout the year for teachers to review student data, Arkansas Reading First Summer Institute, and Summer Technology Institutes.

Action Type: Professional Development
 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • District Staff
  • Outside Consultants
  • Teachers
  • Title Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
PROGRAM EVALUATION: "At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention/Program in the following ways:
Teachers analyzed NRT and CRT data in the fall to determine areas of professional concern and student deficits.
Professional Development needed in order to address concerns and deficits was determined. Teachers who needed more specific professional development than was offered through our district could approach the Building Professional Development Committee in order to secure needed funds for Outside Professional Development.
Teachers used local assessments to determine effectiveness of new technique implementation.
Administering a mid-year survey to determine which areas of state mandated professional development (including technology, parental involvement, and Arkansas history) needed to be addressed during the remainder of the school year. In this area, our goal was that no teacher would be deficit in the number hours as required by the state professional development deadline of May 31, 2008.

By doing these things, we determined that it was effective in supporting 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:
Surveys of professional development needs were completed mid-year and at third quarter during the 2008-2009 school year. Results of these surveys helped determine professional development offered at the building level for the remainder of the school year.
Our goal of having no teacher deficit in their required Professional Development hours was met

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:
Teachers will analyze NRT and CRT data in the fall to determine areas of professional concern and student deficits.
Professional Development needed in order to address concerns and deficits will be determined. Teachers who needed more specific professional development than is offered through our district may approach the Building Professional Development Committee in order to secure needed funds for Outside Professional Development.
Teachers will use local assessments to determine effectiveness of new technique implementation.
Administer a mid-year survey to determine which areas of state mandated professional development (including technology, parental involvement, and Arkansas history) need to be addressed during the remainder of the school year. In this area, our goal is that no teacher will be deficit in the number hours as required by the state professional development deadline of May 31, 2010.

We will use this data/information to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention/Program are achieved and whether it will be 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: Alignment
Action Type: Program Evaluation
 Ashley Garcia, Principal Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
  • District Staff
  • Performance Assessments
  • Teachers
  • Title Teachers
ACTION BUDGET: $
Closing the Achievement Gap—Literacy: Regular quarterly meeting of our Literacy ACSIP Leadership Committee will be held. These meeting 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-base, 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 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: Alignment
Action Type: Equity
Action Type: Professional Development
 Leona Prothero Start: 07/01/2009
End: 06/30/2010
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Total Budget: $0
    Intervention: Parental Engagement: The Washington school will comply with the Parental Engagement requirements as outlined in ACT 307, of 207, and Title I-A of No Child Left Behind. The Parental Involvement Plan will include the following activities:
    Scientific Based Research: National PTA Standards of 1998; “A new wave of evidence. The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement”, Henderson, A., & Mapp, K., 2002,National Center for Family & Community Connections with Schools, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, http://www.sedl.org/connections/
    Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
    The building principal will designate one certified staff member to serve as a parent facilitator to organize meaningful training for staff and parents and to undertake efforts to ensure that parental participation is recognized as an asset to the school. The district will pay the parent facilitator a stipend for assuming duties as required by Act 307 of 2003.

    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    Action Type: Professional Development
    		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    General Revenue: $300.00
    ACTION BUDGET: $300
    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. Monies will be used to supplement these materials and provide additional educational resources. Parent Center materials (which may include but are not limited to brochures, pamphlets, computers for use on site, or laptops to be checked out) will be designated in our building. Title I monies will be used to supplement these materials and provide additional educational resources.

    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    		 Tara Lechtenberger, Parent Facilitator Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    PARENT INVOLVEMENT: All parents will receive "Involvement Kits" that will include: 1) an outline of our Parental Involvement Plan, 2) a School Calendar, 3)information on a system encouraging the home and school connection, 4)a Washington School General Information Packet, and 5)a magnet with school information a Title I School Compact.
    Federal Money will be used to supplement copyingn, materials and provide additional resources to curent and new families.

    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
    		 Tara Stephenson, Parent Facilitator Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    Title I - Materials & Supplies: $500.00
    ACTION BUDGET: $500
    All parents will be invited to a Homework Helper Night (curriculum night) to welcome parents and students to our school and to share expectations for the school year. Parents will meet their child's teacher and learn about classroom procedures and guidelines. To supplement this program and make it possible for more families to attend, personnel will be hired for childcare.

    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
    		 Tara Lechtenberger, Parent Facilitator Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    Title I - Employee Salaries: $39.00
    Title I - Employee Benefits: $150.00
    ACTION BUDGET: $189
    Administrators, teachers and parents will develop a volunteer resource book that will include: 1) a parent interest survey, 2) an option for parents to designate how frequently they would participate in the program, and 3) include opportunities for parents to assist from home.

    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    Action Type: Program Evaluation
    		 Jodi Felkins, Parent Facilitator Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    "Parent Involvement Meetings" will be held throughout the year to discuss what students will be expected to learn, how they will be assessed, and how parents can assist to make a difference in their children's education. To supplement this program and make it possible for more families to attend, personnel will be hired for childcare. Educational items will be purchased to give away for families who participate.

    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    		 Tara Lechtenberger, Parent Facilitator Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Administrators, teachers, and parents will develop a parental involvement plan in order to address the diverse needs of students and their parents and to increase the school's ability to provide for the educational success of their children. The plan will be reviewed and updated annually.

    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    		 Jodi Felkins, Parent Facilitator Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    The district will designate two Parent/Teacher Conferences each school year. At the end of the school year, the school will publish a notice in the local newspaper thanking the parents as a group for attending the conferences.

    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    		 Jodi Felkins, Parent Facilitator Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    The school will develop cards that include the school's commitment to parental involvement, the process for resolving parental concerns, and tips for how parents can foster their child's success. School personnel will distribute the cards to the parents of all students in the building.

    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    		 Jodi Felkins, Parent Facilitator Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    Washington Elementary and the parents of the students participating in activities, services, and programs funded by Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (participating children), agree that this compact outlines how the parents, the entire school, staff, and the students will share the responsibility for improved student academic achievement and the means by which the school and parents will build and develop a partnership that will help children achieve the State’s high standards. This school-parent compact is in effect during school year .

    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
    		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Community Leaders
    • Teachers
    • Title Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    An alumni advisory committee will be formed to help evaluate academic progress, the amount of parental participation within the school and identification of barriers that exist that hinder greater participation by parents.

    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    		 Ashley Garcia- Principal Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    PARENT EXPLANATION: An annual meeting will be held to inform parents of their right to be involved in planning, review, and improvement of parent programs offered by Washington Elementary. A description and explanation will be given of the curriculum used in the school, types of assessments used and proficiency levels. In addition, parents will be involved in the annual planning of school improvement programs. Annual surveys will evaluate the parent involvement activities. To facilitate parental involvement in these meetings, funds will be used to provide childcare.

    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
    		 Ashley Garcia, Principal Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    In order to take advantage of community resources, our school will enable and support the formation of a Parent Teacher Organization which will foster parental and community involvement with the school.

    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Community Leaders
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    TRANSITION: (Pre-K) Kindergarten teachers will collaborate to incorporate research and best practices related to early childhood development so that there will be a seamless transition for students between preschool and kindergarten environments. The kindergarten curriculum includes instructional strategies, teaching methodologies, and assessment techniques based upon the theories of early childhood growth and development. Each kindergarten classroom will have a ½ or full-time instructional assistant to support this process. Entrance conferences will be held with all parents and students at the beginning of the school year and teachers will maintain contact with the parents on a regular basis and arrange for additional conferences with parents as needed.

    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Collaboration
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
    		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Administrative Staff
    • District Staff
    • Teachers
    • Teaching Aids
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    PROGRAM EVALUATION: "At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention/Program through:
    Administering a parent survey to determine the effectiveness of Homework Helper Night (curriculum night). This survey will determine the effectiveness of Homework Helper Night in supporting our curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development.
    Conducting Parental Involvement Committee meetings to generate ideas for increasing parental involvement.

    We 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:
    We determined from parent sign-in sheets that there was increased parental involvement in Homework Helper Night.
    Parental Involvement Committee helped to determine a change of date from the prior year. It was suggested that Homework Helper Night be scheduled after Labor Day to facilitate increased participation. Format was also changed to a “drop-in” style in order to accommodate working parents.

    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:
    Administering a parent survey to determine the effectiveness of Homework Helper Night (curriculum night). This survey will determine the effectiveness of Homework Helper Night in supporting our curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development.
    Conducting Parental Involvement Committee meetings to generate ideas for increasing parental involvement.

    We will use this data/information to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention/Program are achieved and whether it is 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.
    Note: Following the protocol as planned for this year, we scheduled our Homework Helper night on Thursday, September 10, 2009. However, attendance was not as high as expected using the same format as the 2008-09 school year. We will need to develop and administer a parent survey to determine the factors that will increase attendance and involvement in Curriculum night for the for the 2010-11 school year.

    Action Type: Equity
    Action Type: Parental Engagement
    		 Jodi Felkins, Parent Facilitator Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
    • Community Leaders
    • Teachers
    ACTION BUDGET: $
    SCHOOLWIDE REFORM STRATEGIES: We are continually working toward aligning our curriculum and assessment with the Arkansas Frameworks. We meet on a monthly basis to better align our instruction and curriculum, both horizontally and vertically. Content area teams are in place and meet daily, or weekly. We are looking for ways that our various software and other technology programs can compliment one another in order to provide a more seamless design for instruction.

    Action Type: Alignment
    Action Type: Technology Inclusion
    Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
    		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
    End: 06/30/2010
      ACTION BUDGET: $
      ANNUAL TITLE ONE MEETING: Our school will host an annual community meeting to discuss the Title I program. This meeting will be scheduled during the fall of each school year. A sign-in sheet will be kept to document attendance. An agenda will be provided that includes: Goals for the program, Rights of parents to be involved in the planning, review and revision of parent programs (including the school parental involvement policy) School accreditation, coordination of federal programs, the schools academic performance report, overview of the curriculum along with an explanation of the kinds of assessments used. There will be a time for dialogue with our parents and they will be encouraged to ask questions and offer suggestions as they relate to budgeting of all federal monies. Parents will be encouraged to form a partnership with the school. A committee will be formed for the purpose of, annually, revising our school parental involvement policy.

      Action Type: Equity
      Action Type: Parental Engagement
      Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
      		 Ashley Garcia, Principal Start: 07/01/2009
      End: 06/30/2009
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        TITLE ONE SCHOOL/PARENT COMPACT: There will be an Annual review and update of our Title I School/Parent Compact. The Compact will be distributed to each parent at the time a conference is held with them. There will be a meeting, in the fall, to encourage parents to have input into the Title I program. The school will develop and distribute, At Open House, this compact as a component of it’s written parental involvement policy. The compact is a written agreement between the school and the parents of children served in the (Title One Targeted Assistance Program) OR (Title One Schoolwide Program) that identifies the activities that the parents, the entire school staff and the students will undertake to share the responsibility for improving achievement so that students can meet the State’s high academic standards. Parents, teachers and students sign the contract and it is returned to school and kept in designated parent involvement student folders. For those parents who do not attend the Title One Open House Meeting, the Parent Compact is sent home during the first week of school and efforts are made to contact parents for the purpose of inviting them to the school and conferencing with our administration and staff.

        Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
        		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • District Staff
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        Total Budget: $989
        Intervention: Washington Elementary will participate in the Fayetteville District Literacy Initiative for Grades K-3.
        Scientific Based Research: Early Reading First Presentation, Dec. 2001, Means, B., & Olson, K. 1994. The link between technology and authentic learning.
        Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
        Schedule and implement a minimium of 90 min. uninterrupted time for Literature Block per day.

        Action Type: AIP/IRI
        Action Type: Alignment
        Action Type: Collaboration
        		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Administrative Staff
        • Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        Hire one Highly Qualified Instructional Assistant with Title I funds: 1.0 FTE. Schedule a minimum of one hour per day per classroom of Instructional Assistance during literacy block time. For the remaining of the day, this person will work with small groups of 1-5 students to provide additional reinforcement for Reading First classroom instruction and to support the development of grade-level literacy skills.

        Action Type: Alignment
        Action Type: Equity
        Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
        		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Central Office
        • District Staff
        • Teachers
        • Title Teachers
        Title I - Employee Salaries: $19820.00
        Title I - Employee Benefits: $5153.00
        ACTION BUDGET: $24973
        Identify focus students based upon current need or deficit in literacy. Hire .3 FTE Instructional Assistants who will give supplemental instruction to these focus students. Instructional Assistants' focus will include, but will not be limited to, English as a Second Language.
        Action Type: Alignment
        Action Type: Equity
        		 Judith Sapsford Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Computers
        • Teachers
        • Title Teachers
        Title I - Employee Salaries: $5518.00
        Title I - Employee Benefits: $1436.00
        ACTION BUDGET: $6954
        FORMATATIVE EVALUATION WILL BE USED FOR POINT IN TIME REMEDIATION: Writing Prompts and quarterly assessments will be given throughout the year to update assessment data and to drive instruction for students needing level 2 RTI.

        Action Type: Collaboration
        Action Type: Program Evaluation
        Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
        		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Central Office
        • Performance Assessments
        • Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        3rd, 4th, and 5th grade teachers will collaborate with parents to develop student AIPs for any student scoring below proficient on state mandated criterion referenced exams. AIPs may also be developed for other students should a need be determined by the classroom teachers.

        Action Type: AIP/IRI
        Action Type: Parental Engagement
        		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Performance Assessments
        • Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        Kindergarten students who score delayed in both written and oral communication on the Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI) and first and second grade students who score “below basic”, in reading on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) will be considered to have a substantial reading deficiency. These children will be provided Intensive Reading Instruction utilizing the Comprehensive Literacy Program (ELLA and ELF). The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) will be administered to all K-2 students who are shown to have a substantial reading deficiency. The DIBELS will be used as: 1) an evaluation instrument to determine which areas of reading the child is deficient, 2) a progress-monitoring instrument to document progress toward grade level proficiency, and 3) an assessment instrument used for discontinuing services. The DIBELS evaluation will be administered within thirty days after the beginning of the school year for applicable first and second grade students and within 30 days after receiving the QELI report for applicable kindergarten students.
        Intensive reading interventions will be comprehensive in nature and will be targeted to remediate the area of deficiency. For those affected students, school personnel will develop an Intensive Reading Improvement Plan (IRI) that will describe our intervention program. Intervention will be provided by a highly qualified teacher and/or highly qualified paraprofessional in the form of small group or individualized instruction in addition to core classroom instruction. These intervention strategies and methods will continue until each student has reached grade level proficiency in all essential areas of reading. Student achievement in each of the essential elements shall be monitored bi-weekly until proficiency occurs. Students who are not meeting current expectations shall be provided additional interventions. Each parent or guardian will be notified in writing should their child be identified with a substantial reading deficiency.

        Action Type: Collaboration
        Action Type: Parental Engagement
        Action Type: Program Evaluation
        		 Holly Smith Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Performance Assessments
        • Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        Materials and supplies (such as levelized books, dictionaries and thesaurus, games for centers to support reading instruction, notebooks, etc.) will be purchased for K-3 to support instruction.

        Action Type: Collaboration
        Action Type: Equity
        Action Type: Professional Development
        		 Holly Smith Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Outside Consultants
        • Teachers
        • Teaching Aids
        • Title Teachers
        Title I - Materials & Supplies: $5000.00
        ACTION BUDGET: $5000
        Summative evaluations will be used to determine the progress of this intervention. Primary Benchmark and NRT data will be analyzed to determine students' progress and to determine students who will receive level 2 RTI interventions to increase proficiency in literacy.

        Action Type: Equity
        Action Type: Program Evaluation
        		 Holly Smith Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • District Staff
        • Title Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention/Program through:
        Monitoring the status of students in grades K-3 who have an IRI/AIP through their participation in remediation programs.
        Tracking reading fluency and comprehension by regularly scheduled fluency probes (DIBELS).
        Analyzing student performance in both formative and summative assessment data.
        Comparing student performance on the CRT to local formative and summative assessments.
        We 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:
        After examining the results of the local assessments and the SAT 10/CRT for this age group in 2008-2009, we determined that the instructional strategies of Reading First was working to increase achievement for students with IRIs/AIPs.
        DIBELs fluency rates were kept on a wall chart. At the end of the year, less students were below the indicated grade level pr words per minute than at the beginning of the year.
        Based on this information, we decided to continue this program during the 2009-10 school year.

        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:
        Tracking reading fluency and comprehension by regularly scheduled fluency probes (DIBELS).
        Analyzing student performance in both formative and summative assessment data.
        Comparing student performance on the CRT to local formative and summative assessments.
        We will use this data/information to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention/Program are achieved and whether it is 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.
        PLEASE NOTE: the name of this intervention has changed due to a district decision that changed our school from a Reading First school to a Fayetteville Literacy Initiative school. Despite the name change, we will be using the same protocol to monitor the effectiveness of the program.

        Action Type: AIP/IRI
        Action Type: Alignment
        Action Type: Equity
        Action Type: Program Evaluation
        		 Leona Prothero Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Performance Assessments
        • Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        Total Budget: $36927
        Intervention: To assess proficiency in literacy skills, especially writing, classroom teachers will utilize uniform district writing prompts. Students who are not yet proficient in literacy will be identified and will receive a "Double Dose" of Literacy skills in Grades K-5.
        Scientific Based Research: Lanugage Connections: Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum, Auman, M.E.; Step Up to Writing: Basic, Practical, and Helpful Instruction for Writing Assignments, Assessments, and Everyday Writing Tasks. Sopris West. 1999; Atwel, N. In the Middle: Writing, Reading, and Learning with Adolescents. Boynton/Cook Publishers. 1987; Calkins, L. The Art of Teaching Writing. Heinemann. 1986.Allington, R. Classrooms that Work: Where All Children Read and Write. HarperCollins. 1996. 275 pages.
        Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
        Formative evaluation of scores available for all students (including, but not limited to, DIBELS, DRA , pre- and post- ELLA assessments, and specialized special education testing) will be used in order to identify needs and progress. Students with needs will be identified on an Academic Improvement Plan and interventions include small group tutoring, one on one instruction, computer software.

        Action Type: AIP/IRI
        Action Type: Alignment
        Action Type: Equity
        Action Type: Program Evaluation
        		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Community Leaders
        • Computers
        • Performance Assessments
        • Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        HIGHLY QUALIFIED: Washington Elementary will participate in the district's recruiting efforts to attract highly qualified teachers. Classroom teacher, Title I, and instructional assistants will continue to receive staff development training. Training will provide teachers with a method to instruct all student sub-populations, including the homeless and economically disadvantaged.

        Action Type: Equity
        Action Type: Professional Development
        Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
        		 Ashley Garcia- Principal Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • District Staff
        • Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        Summative evaluations will be used to determine the progess of this intervention. The Primary Benchmark and NRT data will be analyzed to see if benchmark has been made.

        Action Type: Collaboration
        Action Type: Program Evaluation
        Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
        		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        PROGRAM EVALUATION: During the 2008-2009 school year we will evaluate the effectiveness of double dose instruction through identification of a positive correlation between participation in double dose instruction and student performance on CRT, NRT, and formative evaluation scores to determine its effectiveness in support of our curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. During the 2008-2009 school year we plan to use the following protocol in evaluating and adjusting the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program:
        We will use this data/information to determine whether the objective(s) of this intervention/program was/were achieved and whether it has been successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. We will report the results in our 2009-2010 ACSIP plan and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program.

        PROGRAM EVALUTION RESULTS
        Data from student achievement for the 2009-2010 school year presents us with a question. That question is this? Why didn't double dose instruction work for our target population of Free and Reduced Lunch Students? All research on double dose instruction has shown that it works. Our experience in past years has shown that it works. However, we experienced a significant drop in achievement scores for the mentioned target group.
        This year we will continue double dose instruction as mandated by our school district. As a district, Fayetteville is focusing on increasing the achievement scores for the same target group. Our district mandates have established a 45 minute daily time for RTI. We will closely monitor this new initiative and report the success of this initiative our ACSIP plan next year.

        Action Type: Equity
        Action Type: Program Evaluation
        Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
        		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Performance Assessments
        • Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention/Program through:
        Analyzing data to determine if a positive correlation exists between student participation in double dose instruction and student performance on CRT, NRT, and formative evaluation scores.

        We 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:
        There was a positive correlation for all students EXCEPT the Free/Reduced lunch population.
        Data from 2008-09 presents us with a question. Why didn’t double dose instruction work for our target population? (Free/Reduced Lunch) All research on Double Dose instruction has shown that it works. Our experience in past years has shown that it works. However, we experienced a significant drop in achievement scores for the mentioned target group.


        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:
        Analyzing data to determine if a positive correlation exists between student participation in double dose instruction and student performance on CRT, NRT, and formative evaluation scores.
        This year we will continue double dose instruction as mandated by law for students with and AIP/IRI. However, double dose instruction time will be structured differently. As a district, Fayetteville is focusing on increasing the achievement scores for the same target group. Our district has mandated that a 45 minute time for RTI be established on a daily basis. We will closely monitor this new initiative and report the success of this initiative in our ACSIP plan next year.

        We will use this data/information to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention/Program are achieved and whether it is 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.

        		Angie Ellington Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Performance Assessments
        • Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        As a formative assessment, district writing prompts and performance assessments have determined for all grade levels. An administration timeline has also been determined. Writing prompt and performance assessments will be administered according to the specified timeline.

        		Christel Kirk Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Performance Assessments
        • Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        Total Budget: $0
        Intervention: To increase literacy skills in grades K-2, and in accordance with Arkansas Department of Education expectations, ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas) techniques will be implemented in K-2 classrooms to support the Fayetteville Reading Initiative.
        Scientific Based Research: Allington, R. Classrooms That Work: They Can All Read and Write. Longman. 1999. 284 pages; Calkins, L. The Art of Teaching. Heinemann. 1986; Clay, M. Becoming Literate: The Construction of Inner Control. Heinemann. 1991. 366 pages; Clay, M., An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement. Heinemann. 1991. 178 pages; Clay, M. Reading Recovery A Guidebook for Teachers in Training. Heinemann. 1993. 112 pages; Daniels, H. Literature Circles: Voice and Choice in the Student Centered Classroom. Stenhouse Publishers. 1994. 200 pages; Dorn, L., French, C., and Jones, T., Apprenticeship in Literacy: Transitions in Reading and Writing. Stenhouse Publishers. 1998. 177 pages; Dorn, L. and Soffos, C., Scaffolding Young Writers. Stenhouse Publishers. 2001. 99 pages; Fountas, I. and Pinnell, G.S. Guided Reading: Good First Teaching for All Children. Heinemann. 1996. 406 pages; Tompkins, G., Teaching Writing: Balancing Process with Product. Prentice-Hall, Inc. 2000. 400 pages.
        Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
        Coordination of Funds: Classroom teachers, special education teachers, and other support staff will collaborate in order to implement differentiated instructional strategies for students with Academic Improvement Plans and/or special needs in order to improve literacy skills. Strategies include, but are not limited to, the use of point-in-time remediation and extended time. Teachers will attend the Arkansas Reading Association Fall Meeting to bring back new reading strategies and research.

        Action Type: Collaboration
        Action Type: Equity
        Action Type: Professional Development
        Action Type: Special Education
        Action Type: Technology Inclusion
        Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
        		 Holly Smith Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Computers
        • District Staff
        • School Library
        • Teachers
        Title I - Purchased Services: $1500.00
        ACTION BUDGET: $1500
        ELLA Balanced-Literacy skills and strategies will be implemented as a part of the reading and writing curriculum. ELLA will be implemented in all K-2 classrooms.

        Action Type: Alignment
        Action Type: Equity
        Action Type: Special Education
        		 Shannon Lawson, Reading Recovery Specialist Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Administrative Staff
        • Computers
        • District Staff
        • Teachers
        • Title Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        Purchase well reviewed trade books for the Library to support implementation of ELLA strategies. Selection of trade books will be made utilizing levelized reading lists.

        Action Type: Collaboration
        		 Lory Hall, Media Specialist Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Central Office
        • Community Leaders
        • School Library
        • Teachers
        Title I - Materials & Supplies: $3800.00
        ACTION BUDGET: $3800
        Purchase Guided Reading books and other supplies to support implementation of ELLA and as an additional resource for struggling readers. Decisions on purchasing will be aided by using levelized reading lists. Books will be sent home weekly for parents to work with child on his/her reading instruction. A Barcode will be purchased to inventory the collection.

        Action Type: Equity
        Action Type: Parental Engagement
        Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
        		 Shannon Lawson, Reading Recovery Specialist Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • District Staff
        • Outside Consultants
        • School Library
        • Title Teachers
        Title I - Materials & Supplies: $3000.00
        ACTION BUDGET: $3000
        PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention/Program through:
        Collecting formative data on an ongoing basis for all students in grades K-3.
        Posting and maintaining current formative data on an assessment wall as it is gathered in order to track student progress toward proficiency.

        We 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:
        Formative assessments were compared to proficiency on the NRT/CRT and a positive correlation was determined.

        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:
        Collecting formative data on an ongoing basis for all students in grades K-3.
        Posting and maintaining current formative data on an assessment wall as it is gathered in order to track student progress toward proficiency.

        We will use this data/information to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention/Program are achieved and whether it is successful in attaining the anticipated participant outcome objectives. HOWEVER it is important to note that Washington is now participating in the Fayetteville Literacy Initiative, a district program. This program will incorporate ELLA instructional theories. It is also important to note that though many districts nationwide did not show growth using the Reading First techniques, Washington Elementary did have significant growth during the years we participated in the Reading First program.

        We will report the results, in our 2010/2011 ACSIP Plan, and use those evaluation results in making decisions that impact our future instructional program.

        Action Type: Program Evaluation
        		 Holly Smith, Literacy Coach Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Performance Assessments
        • Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        Summative evaluations will be used to determine the progess of this intervention. The Primary Benchmark and NRT data will be analyzed to see if benchmark has been made.

        Action Type: Collaboration
        Action Type: Program Evaluation
        		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Teachers
        • Title Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        HIGHLY QUALIFIED: The school will continue to hire and maintain "highly qualified" teachers and support staff. All instruction will be given by "highly qualified" staff. Teachers will work closely with Title I staff to implement school wide reform strategies. Data will be used to continue to monitor progress and point-in- time remediation.

        Action Type: Collaboration
        Action Type: Professional Development
        Action Type: Program Evaluation
        Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
        		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Administrative Staff
        • District Staff
        • Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        Total Budget: $8300
        Intervention: To increase literacy skills in grades 2-5, and in accordance with Arkansas Department of Education expectations, Effective Literacy techniques will be adopted in 2-5 classrooms.
        Scientific Based Research: : Atwell, N. In the Middle: Writing, Reading, and Learning with Adolescents. Boynton/Cook Publishers. 1987; Calkins, L. The Art of Teaching Writing. Heinemann. 1986; Daniels, H., Literature Circles: Voice and Choice in he Student Centered Classroom. Stenhouse Publishers. 1994. 200 pages; Fountas, I. and Pinnell, G.S., Guiding Readers and Writers for Grades 3-6: Teaching Comprehension, Genre, and Content Literacy. Heinemann. 1999. 648 pages; Fletcher, R. and Portalupi, J. Craft Lessons: Teaching Writing K-8. Stenhouse Publishers. 1998. 139 pages; Tompkins, G., Teaching Writing: Balancing Process and Product. Prentice-Hall, Inc. 2000. 400 pages.
        Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
        Classroom teachers in grades 2-5 will use Formataive assessments associated with Effective Literacy (including, but not limited to, DRA, Rigby, state writing rubrics, and others) to evaluate student progress in reading and writing. Results will be recorded 1) at the beginning of the school year as a pretest of reading and writing ability, 2) throughout the academic year, and 3) at the end of the school year as a post test. Results will be provided to the students' next year teacher.
        Action Type: Alignment
        Action Type: Program Evaluation
        		 Holly Smith Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Computers
        • District Staff
        • Performance Assessments
        • Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        Literacy Teams will be established to meet monthly. Teams will consist of Classroom Teachers, Special Education Teachers, and other support staff. Teams will collaborate in order to implement differentiated strategies for students with Academic Improvement Plans and/or special needs to improve literacy skills.
        Action Type: AIP/IRI
        Action Type: Collaboration
        Action Type: Equity
        Action Type: Special Education
        Action Type: Technology Inclusion
        		 Holly Smith Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Administrative Staff
        • Computers
        • District Staff
        • Performance Assessments
        • School Library
        • Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention/Program through:
        Analyzing summative assessment data (including, but not limited to, CRT and NRT test data) to determine student progress.
        Target student instruction to students’ area(s) of weakness as determined by the summative data.
        Administer DIBELs fluency assessments to determine students who are at risk in fluency.
        Administer regular DIBELs fluency probes to progress monitor students who are at risk or at some risk in fluency.
        Administer and analyze student writing prompts quarterly. Analysis will determine areas of writing for focus instruction.
        Create an AIP for each student who is not proficient or advanced in Literacy AND for students who might be proficient on the CRT and/or NRT, but whose local assessments indicate a possible weakness.
        Initiate double dose instruction for students with an AIP that incorporates Effective Literacy techniques.

        We 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:
        When examining the CRT data for the last two years, there is a trend toward an increased number of students who score proficient or above in grades 4 and 5 as compared to grade 3. We will continue with this intervention for the 2009-10 school year. HOWEVER, our data analysis did show that our increase was not as great as in the past. With our changing student population, we will need to more fully address the needs of our target population (Free/Reduced Lunch students) by utilizing Effective Literacy techniques during the district mandated Double Dose time.

        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:
        Analyzing summative assessment data (including, but not limited to, CRT and NRT test data) to determine student progress.
        Target student instruction to students’ area(s) of weakness as determined by the summative data.
        Administer DIBELs fluency assessments to determine students who are at risk in fluency.
        Administer regular DIBELs fluency probes to progress monitor students who are at risk or at some risk in fluency.
        Administer and analyze student writing prompts quarterly. Analysis will determine areas of writing for focus instruction.
        Create an AIP for each student who is not proficient or advanced in Literacy AND for students who might be proficient on the CRT and/or NRT, but whose local assessments indicate a possible weakness.
        Initiate double dose instruction for students with an AIP that incorporates Effective Literacy techniques.

        We will use this data/information to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention/Program are achieved and whether it is 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: AIP/IRI
        Action Type: Equity
        Action Type: Program Evaluation
        		 Leona Prothero, 5th grade Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Performance Assessments
        • Teachers
        • Teaching Aids
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        Grade 2-5 Classroom Teachers, Special Education Teachers, and other support staff will collaborate to implement differentiated strategies for students with Academic Improvement Plans and/or special needs to improve literacy skills. Calking Writing Program, Reward Intervention for Tier II for upper grades, Reading Power
        Action Type: Collaboration
        Action Type: Special Education
        		 Amber Brown, Special Education Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Computers
        • District Staff
        • School Library
        • Teachers
        Title I - Materials & Supplies: $5000.00
        ACTION BUDGET: $5000
        Leveled Novels and books will be purchased to supplement existing materials which support Eff. Literacy curriculum. They will be available for usage in grades 3-5.

        Action Type: Collaboration
        Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
        		 Shannon Lawson Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Central Office
        • Teachers
        Title I - Materials & Supplies: $3000.00
        ACTION BUDGET: $3000
        Total Budget: $8000
        Intervention: In order to improve literacy, basic and below basic students in grades 1-2 will be identified and will participate in Reading Recovery and/or Early Literacy Groups.
        Scientific Based Research: Clay, M. M. Reading Recovery: A Guidebook for Teachers in Training. Heinemann. 1993. 112 pages; Clay, M. M. By Different Paths to Common Outcomes. Stenhouse Publishers. 1998. 278 pages; Clay, M. M. Becoming Literate: The Construction of Inner Control. Heinemann. 1991. 366 pages; Clay, M. M. An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement. Heinemann. 2002. 178 pages.
        Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
        Hire .80 FTE certified teacher to implement The Reading Recovery program for the primary grades. The reading recovery teacher and a classroom teacher will attend the annual conference in Little Rock in November.

        Action Type: Alignment
        Action Type: Professional Development
        		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Outside Consultants
        • Performance Assessments
        • Title Teachers
        Title I - Purchased Services: $1000.00
        Title I - Employee Salaries: $44472.00
        Title I - Employee Benefits: $11563.00
        ACTION BUDGET: $57035
        Formative assessments by using the Pre-test and post-test participants using the Observation Survey (Clay, 1993a). Parent and teacher evaluations completed and submitted to teacher leader. Results reported in Reading Recovery Site Report which is submitted to building principal.

        Action Type: Program Evaluation
        		 Shannon Lawson, Reading Recovery Specialist Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Central Office
        • Outside Consultants
        • Title Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention/Program through:
        Collecting and analyzing pre-, interim, and post- summative evaluations on each participating student.
        Tracking achievement data for each participating student.
        Comparing achievement data for each participating student to established benchmarks for each grade level.
        Tracking the number of children who have received Reading Recovery services and no longer need service in subsequent years.

        We 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:
        Reading Recovery teacher will present collected data, as described above, to the Literacy Committee. Decision to continue with this program will be based upon presented data.
        Our collected data shows that we have no students who need to reenter this program.

        During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to use the following protocol in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program:
        Collecting and analyzing pre-, interim, and post- summative evaluations on each participating student.
        Tracking achievement data for each participating student.
        Comparing achievement data for each participating student to established benchmarks for each grade level.
        Tracking the number of children who have received Reading Recovery services and no longer need service in subsequent years.

        We will use this data/information to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention/Program are achieved and whether it is 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: Program Evaluation
        		 Shannon Lawson Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Teachers
        • Title Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        Reading Recovery teacher will organize and implement family involvement activities. The duties will include contact individual parents on reading activities and whole school activities. The teacher will also provide parent involvement professional development to staff on involving reading in the home.

        Action Type: Parental Engagement
        Action Type: Professional Development
        Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
        		 S. Lawson Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • School Library
        • Teachers
        • Teaching Aids
        • Title Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        Total Budget: $57035
        Intervention: In order to increase performance in literacy, a Literacy Coach will be hired to support teachers in grades K-3 by providing intensive on site professional development through Reading First.
        Scientific Based Research: Early Reading First Presentation, Dec. 2001, Means, B., & Olson, K. 1994. The link between technology and authentic learning. Educational Leadership, 51(7), 15-18; Louis, K.S., Marks, H.M., & Bruse, S. 1996. Teachers' professional community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 757-798.; Lyons, C.A.,& Pinnell, G.S. (2001). Systems for change in literacy education: A guide to professional development; Dorn, L. & Soffos, C. (2001). Shaping Literate Minds
        Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
        Hire a full time 1.0 FTE Literacy Coach to be trained using the AR Reading Literacy Coach model and Smart Start Literacy Lab Model. Participate in the Literacy Academy in April 2009 with a literacy team.

        Action Type: Equity
        Action Type: Professional Development
        		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Administrative Staff
        • Outside Consultants
        Title I - Employee Salaries: $35636.00
        Title I - Employee Benefits: $9265.00
        ACTION BUDGET: $44901
        COLLABORATION:Literacy Coach will collaborate with K-1 teachers in order to increase literacy and writing scores. Collaboration will include teaching strategies to students and the teacher. Literacy Coach will also coordinate an assessment wall to track reading and writing progress of all students.

        Action Type: Equity
        Action Type: Professional Development
        Action Type: Special Education
        Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
        		 Holly Smith, Literacy Coach Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Performance Assessments
        • Teachers
        • Title Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        Formative assessments, including the collection data from Criterion referenced, norm referenced, DIBELs, and DRA, will be used to determine student progress. A survey will also be given to content teachers to determine program effectiveness. The principal will monitor teacher participation in development model.
        Action Type: Collaboration
        Action Type: Professional Development
        Action Type: Program Evaluation
        		 Ashley Garica Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • Administrative Staff
        • Performance Assessments
        • Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        Summative evaluations will be used to determine the progress of this intervention. The Primary Benchmark and NRT data will be analyzed to see if benchmark has been made.

        Action Type: Collaboration
        Action Type: Professional Development
        Action Type: Program Evaluation
        		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
        • District Staff
        • Title Teachers
        ACTION BUDGET: $
        PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention/Program through:
        Collecting and analyzing summative and local assessments to determine students who have a deficit in literacy.
        Collecting data from ongoing assessments administered by classroom teachers in order to determine the effectiveness of the instructions that is given and to track student progress.
        Compare collected data to summative assessments in order to determine if the support given to teachers by the Literacy Coach has been effective.
        At the building level, the Literacy Coach will provide Professional Development in the latest instructional techniques in Literacy.
        Literacy Coach will act as a liaison between teachers and the TIAA department of our administration.
        Administering a survey of teachers at the end of the year to determine effectiveness of the Literacy Coach.
        Data will be presented to the Literacy Committee to determine if this intervention will be continued.

        We 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:
        In comparing summative assessments to student achievement data, it was determined that this intervention is successful. There was an upward trend in SAT 10 scores for grades K-3.

        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:
        Collecting and analyzing summative and local assessments to determine students who have a deficit in literacy.
        Collecting data from ongoing assessments administered by classroom teachers in order to determine the effectiveness of the instructions that is given and to track student progress.
        Compare collected data to summative assessments in order to determine if the support given to teachers by the Literacy Coach has been effective.
        At the building level, the Literacy Coach will provide Professional Development in the latest instructional techniques in Literacy.
        Literacy Coach will act as a liaison between teachers and the TIAA department of our administration.
        Administering a survey of teachers at the end of the year to determine effectiveness of the Literacy Coach.

        We will use this data/information to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention/Program are achieved and whether it is 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: Equity
        Action Type: Program Evaluation
        		 Shannon Lawson Start: 07/01/2009
        End: 06/30/2010
          ACTION BUDGET: $
          COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: We formed ACSIP Leadership Teams and analyzed the test scores from the 2009 administration of the 3-5 grade Augmented Benchmark and SAT 10 Exams. We examined the results from both the combined population and EACH subpopulation. We conducted data analysis to determine our main areas of weakness.

          In addition, we studied the three most recent years of Attendance, Disciplinary, Formative and Summative Achievement Data across grade levels within our building. We aggregated and disaggregated all the data for the purpose of establishing student learning and behavioral goals. We looked at our trend data in order to better identify the specific areas of need and help align classroom instruction with our curriculum, assessment and professional development.

          We examined our routines, customs, and norms in order to dig deeper for the root cause why more of our students are not achieving to their full potential. Our 2009 Supporting Data Statements show the discrepancies in achievement, among our various populations. We are modifying our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development practices to better meet 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: Writing for content and style, responding to reading passages in writing (open response), and responding practical literature in both multiple choice and writing. We will select Interventions and coordinate our various state and federal funding sources to address these areas.

          IN addition, we meet in grade level teams, weekly and as an entire faculty monthly so that we can review formative, “real time” classroom performance data for the purpose of making decisions regarding the direction, and focus, of our Classroom Instruction. We chart progress on our “Assessment/Intervention” wall.

          Action Type: Equity
          Action Type: Program Evaluation
          Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
          		 Ashley Garcia, Principal Start: 07/01/2009
          End: 06/30/2010
          • District Staff
          • Teachers
          ACTION BUDGET: $
          Total Budget: $44901
          Intervention: Washington School will utilize the Phonemic Awareness Program for phonological and phonemic awareness instruction.
          Scientific Based Research: Word Journeys, Kathy Ganske Guided Readers and Writers National Reading Panel Report (2000); Put Reading First (2001)
          Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
          The instructional leader will monitor the level of implementation in classrooms according to the observation protocol and/or Classroom Walk-Thru. The instructional leader will confer with the teacher to discuss the level of implementation.
          All students will participate in explicit and systematic phonemic awareness instruction. This includes teacher explanation and modeling of all phonemic awareness skills, followed by guided practice and independent practice.

          Action Type: Alignment
          Action Type: Collaboration
          Action Type: Equity
          		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
          End: 06/30/2010
          • Administrative Staff
          • District Staff
          • Outside Consultants
          • Teachers
          ACTION BUDGET: $
          PROGRAM EVALUATION:
          During the 2008-2009 school year, we will evaluate Formative Assessments will be used by The DIBELS Phonemic Segmentation Fluency (PSF) to determine its effectiveness in support of our curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. This task will be administered to all kindergarten students at mid-year and end-of-year and first grade students three times a year to identify those students who are on track for reading success as well as those who may be at risk for reading difficulties. Additional diagnostic assessments will be administered to those students shown to be at risk of reading failure. Progress will be monitored using the DIBELS PSF task bi-weekly until the student reaches expected levels of performance.
          We will analyze the local assessments to determine the effectiveness of this intervention. Results of this analysis will be presented to the Literacy Committee in the spring of 2009. We will use the result data to determine if this intervention will continue in 2009-2010. We will report the results in our 2009-2010 ACSIP plan.
          Action Type: Alignment
          Action Type: Program Evaluation
          		 Holly Smith, Literacy Coach Start: 07/01/2009
          End: 06/30/2010
          • Teachers
          • Title Teachers
          ACTION BUDGET: $
          Summative evaluations will be used to determine the progress of this intervention. The Primary Benchmark and NRT data will be analyzed to see if benchmark has been made.

          Action Type: Professional Development
          Action Type: Program Evaluation
          		 Holly Smith Start: 07/01/2009
          End: 06/30/2010
          • Teachers
          • Title Teachers
          ACTION BUDGET: $
          Total Budget: $0
          Intervention: Washington School will utilize a comprehensive literacy approach to word study/spelling in grades 3-5 as students progress through the within-word stage, syllable juncture stage and derivational constancy stage as noted in Word Journeys (2000).
          Scientific Based Research: National Reading Panel Report (2000); Word Journeys (2000).
          Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
          Word study/spelling is aligned with the ELLA Framework Standard 11. A pacing guide is in place to identify benchmarks at each nine weeks of grades 3-5. Each grade level will provide approximately 15 minutes each day of explicit instruction in word study/spelling according to the pacing guide. Paper will be purchased to assist in the copying.

          Action Type: Alignment
          Action Type: Collaboration
          Action Type: Equity
          		 Holly Smith Start: 07/01/2009
          End: 06/30/2010
          • Teachers
          • Teaching Aids
          Title I - Materials & Supplies: $1000.00
          ACTION BUDGET: $1000
          As a formative assessment, the instructional leader will monitor the level of implementation in classrooms according to the observation protocol and/or Classroom Walk-Thru. The instructional leader will confer with the teacher to discuss the level of implementation. Students will be screened with the Developmental Spelling Analysis (DSA) for placement of instruction and the DSA will be used as an end-of-year outcome assessment. Word study/spelling will be progress monitored with a weekly spelling assessment.

          Action Type: Alignment
          Action Type: Collaboration
          Action Type: Program Evaluation
          		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
          End: 06/30/2010
          • Administrative Staff
          • Teachers
          • Teaching Aids
          • Title Teachers
          ACTION BUDGET: $
          Summative evaluations will be used to determine the progress of this intervention. The Primary Benchmark and NRT data will be analyzed to see if benchmark has been made.

          Action Type: Professional Development
          Action Type: Program Evaluation
          		 Leona Prothero Start: 07/01/2009
          End: 06/30/2010
            ACTION BUDGET: $
            Materials and Supplies will be purchased to equalizing classrooms and teaching materials for the classroom. Items include, but are not limited to, Aussie Pockets, Rugs, White Boards, and Easels.

            Action Type: Collaboration
            Action Type: Equity
            Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
            		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
            End: 06/30/2010
            • Title Teachers
            Title I - Materials & Supplies: $2000.00
            ACTION BUDGET: $2000
            Administering and evaluating formative assessments from the DIBELs Phoenemic Segmentation Fluency (PSF) in order to determine effectiveness. This assessment will be given to all Kindergarten students twice (mid-year and end of year) and to First Grade students three times (beginning of year, mid-year, and end of year.) This will assist in identifying students who are either on track for reading success or at risk for reading difficulties.
            Additional diagnostic assessments will be administered to those students shown to be at risk of reading failure.
            Progress will be monitored using the DIBELs PSF task on a bi-weekly basis until the student reaches expected levels of performance.
            Local assessments will also be used to determine the effectiveness of this intervention.

            Action Type: Alignment
            Action Type: Program Evaluation
            		 Holly Smith Start: 07/01/2009
            End: 06/30/2009
              ACTION BUDGET: $
              Total Budget: $3000
              Intervention: Intervention: Parental Involvement: The District will ensure that each school will implement an effective means of outreach to parents of ELL students to involve parents in assisting their children to learn English, achieve at high levels in core academic subjects, and meet the same challenging State academic standards as all other children are expected to meet.
              Scientific Based Research: Scientific Based Research: Echevarria, Jana; Vogt, Mary Ellen; Short, Deborah. Pearson. New Edition (2007). Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners: The SIOP Model Echevarria, Jana; Vogt, Mary Ellen. Pearson. (2007). 99 Ideas and Activities for Teaching English Learners with the SIOP Model
              Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
              The District will provide professional development to district staff to substantially increase the knowledge and understanding, related to the needs of ELL students, and to enhance teaching skills of classroom teachers, principals, administrators, and other school personnel.

              Action Type: Equity
              Action Type: Professional Development
              		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
              • Administrative Staff
              • Central Office
              • District Staff
              • Teachers
              ACTION BUDGET: $
              Schools will hold meetings with teachers and ELL parents at the beginning of each school year, to interpret language assessment scores and to determine the educational plan for each student.

              Action Type: Alignment
              Action Type: Equity
              Action Type: Parental Engagement
              		 Judith Sapsford Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
              • Administrative Staff
              • District Staff
              • Teachers
              ACTION BUDGET: $
              Interpreters will be available, as needed, to provide translations for Parent/Teacher Conferences, registrations, and meetings to assist parents in helping their children improve their academic achievement and becoming active participants in the education of their children.

              Action Type: Alignment
              Action Type: Equity
              Action Type: Parental Engagement
              		 Judith Sapsford Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
              • Administrative Staff
              • Central Office
              • District Staff
              • Outside Consultants
              • Teachers
              ACTION BUDGET: $
              PROGRAM EVALUATION: This is a new intervention. At the conclusion of the 2009-2010 school year parent involvement actions will be evaluated by each school, analyzing the participation rate of ELL parents by school and grade level in parent teacher conferences. We expect to see a 25% increase in participation this school year. We will report the results in our 2010/2011 Plan and use the results to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention were reached and to set a standard for future expectations. The evaluation results will be used to impact the decisions we make that affect our future instructional program.

              Action Type: Alignment
              Action Type: Equity
              Action Type: Parental Engagement
              		 Judith Sapsford Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
              • Administrative Staff
              • Community Leaders
              • District Staff
              • Teachers
              ACTION BUDGET: $
              PROGRAM EVALUATION: This is a new intervention. At the conclusion of the 2009-2010 school year parent involvement actions will be evaluated by each school, analyzing the participation rate of ELL parents by school and grade level in parent teacher conferences. We expect to see a 25% increase in participation this school year. We will report the results in our 2010/2011 Plan and use the results to determine whether the objectives of this Intervention were reached and to set a standard for future expectations. The evaluation results will be used to impact the decisions we make that affect our future instructional program.

              Action Type: Alignment
              Action Type: Equity
              Action Type: Parental Engagement
              		 Judith Sapsford Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
              • Administrative Staff
              • Community Leaders
              • District Staff
              • Teachers
              ACTION BUDGET: $
              Total Budget: $0
              Priority 2: Improving Math
              Supporting Data:
              1. Grade 3 Augmented Benchmark Exam Combined Population: In 2009, 68 % scored proficient or advanced. In 2008, 64 % scored proficient or advanced. In 2007, 66 % scored proficient or advanced. The lowest identified areas, based on the 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Numbers and Operations, Geometry, and Data Analysis and Probability. The lowest identified area, based on the 3 year trend analysis of the multiple choice questions in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Data Analysis and Probability. Students with Disabilities (IEP): Fewer than 10 students with disabilities were tested. English Language Learners (ELL): Fewer than 10 ELL students were tested. Economically Disadvantaged (ESD): In 2009, 51 % scored proficient or advanced. In 2008, 60 % scored proficient or advanced. In 2007, 53 % scored proficient or advanced. The lowest identified areas, based on the 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Numbers and Operations, Geometry, Measurement, and Data Analysis and Probability. The lowest identified areas, based on the 3 year trend analysis of the multiple choice questions in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Numbers and Operations, Measurement, and Data Analysis and Probability. Caucasian: In 2009, 76 % scored proficient or advanced. In 2008, 72 % scored proficient or advanced. In 2007, 79 % scored proficient or advanced. The lowest identified areas, based on the 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Numbers and Operations, Geometry, and Data Analysis and Probability. The lowest identified areas, based on the 3 year trend analysis of the multiple choice questions in the five mathematics strands, revealed significant weaknesses in no areas. A slight weakness was noted in Data Analysis and Probability with a score of 62%. African-American: Fewer than 10 African-American students were tested. Hispanic: Fewer than 10 Hispanic students were tested.
              2. Grade 4 Augmented Benchmark Exam Combined Popultion: In 2009, 67 % scored proficient or advanced. In 2008, 61 % scored proficient or advanced. In 2007, 66 % scored proficient or advanced. The lowest identified areas, based on the 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Numbers and Operations, and Measurement. There were no significant weaknesses noted in the five strands for multiple choice responses. Slight weaknesses were noted in Measurement and Data Analysis and Probability with scores of 63% and 64%. Students with Disabilities (IEP): Fewer than 10 students with disabilities were tested. English Language Learners (ELL): Fewer than 10 ELL students were tested. Economically Disadvantaged (ESD): In 2009, 60 % scored proficient or advanced. In 2008, 48 % scored proficient or advanced. In 2007, 31 % scored proficient or advanced. The lowest identified areas, based on the 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Numbers and Operations, Geometry, Measurement, and Algebra. The lowest identified areas, based on the 3 year trend analysis of the multiple choice questions in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Measurement and Data Analysis and Probability. Caucasian: In 2009, 72 % scored proficient or advanced. In 2008, 74 % scored proficient or advanced. In 2007, 76 % scored proficient or advanced. The lowest identified areas, based on the 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Numbers and Operations, and Measurement. The lowest identified areas, based on the 3 year trend analysis of the multiple choice questions in the five mathematics strands, revealed significant weaknesses in no areas. Slight weaknesses were noted in Data Analysis and Probability with a score of 66% and Measurement with a score of 66% African-American: Fewer than 10 African-American students were tested. Hispanic: Fewer than 10 Hispanic students were tested.
              3. Grade 5 Augmented Benchmark Exam Combined Population: In 2009, 66 % scored proficient or advanced. In 2008, 69 % scored proficient or advanced. In 2007, 79 % scored proficient or advanced. The lowest identified areas, based on the 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Numbers and Operations, Algebra, Geometry, Measurement, and Data Analysis and Probability. The lowest identified areas, based on the 3 year trend analysis of the multiple choice questions in the five mathematics strands, revealed a weakness in Measurement. Students with Disabilities (IEP): Fewer than 10 students with disabilities were tested. English Language Learners (ELL): Fewer than 10 ELL students were tested. Economically Disadvantaged (ESD): In 2009, 56 % scored proficient or advanced. In 2008, 45 % scored proficient or advanced. In 2007, 82 % scored proficient or advanced. The lowest identified areas, based on the 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Numbers and Operations, Geometry, Measurement, Algebra, and Data Analysis and Probability. The lowest identified areas, based on the 3 year trend analysis of the multiple choice questions in the five mathematics strands, revealed a weakness in Measurement. Caucasian: In 2009, 69 % scored proficient or advanced. In 2008, 79 % scored proficient or advanced. In 2007, 77 % scored proficient or advanced. The lowest identified areas, based on the 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Numbers and Operations, Measurement, Geometry, and Data Analysis and Probability. The lowest identified areas, based on the 3 year trend analysis of the multiple choice questions in the five mathematics strands, revealed a weakness in measurement. African-American: In 2009, 50 % scored proficient or advanced. In 2008, 29 % scored proficient or advanced. In 2007, 75 % scored proficient or advanced. The lowest identified areas, based on the 3 year trend analysis of the open response questions in the five mathematics strands, revealed weaknesses in Numbers and Operations, Measurement, Geometry, Algebra, and Data Analysis and Probability. The lowest identified areas, based on the 3 year trend analysis of the multiple choice questions in the five mathematics strands, revealed a weakness in measurement. Hispanic: Fewer than 10 Hispanic students were tested.
              4. Attendance: In 2009 the attendance rate was 94.3%.In 2008, the attendance rate was 93.9%. In 2007, the attendance rate was 94%.
              5. ITBS: (07) SAT-10 (08-09): Combined Population: Math Problem Solving: Grade 0: In 2009, 37.9 % had an NPR score of 50, or above. In 2008, NA % had an NPR score of 50, or above. In 2007, 56 % had an NPR score of 50, or above. ITBS: (07) SAT-10 (08-09): Combined Population: Math Problem Solving: Grade 1: In 2009, 29 % had an NPR score of 50, or above. In 2008, 42 % had an NPR score of 50, or above. In 2007, 64 % had an NPR score of 50, or above. ITBS: (07) SAT-10 (08-09): Combined Population: Math Problem Solving: Grade 2: In 2009, 62% had an NPR score of 50, or above. In 2008, 31 % had an NPR score of 50, or above. In 2007, 38 % had an NPR score of 50, or above ITBS: (07) SAT-10 (08-09): Combined Population: Total math: Grade 3: In 2009, 67 % had an NPR score of 50, or above. In 2008, 42 % had an NPR score of 50, or above. In 2007, 69 % had an NPR score of 50, or above ITBS: (07) SAT-10 (08-09): Combined Population: Total math: Grade 4: In 2009, 73 % had an NPR score of 50, or above. In 2008, 53 % had an NPR score of 50, or above. In 2007, 71 % had an NPR score of 50, or above. ITBS: (07) SAT-10 (08-09): Combined Population: Total math: Grade 5: In 2009, 59 % had an NPR score of 50, or above. In 2008, 69 % had an NPR score of 50, or above. In 2007, 79 % had an NPR score of 50, or above
              6. COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: We formed ACSIP Leadership Teams and analyzed the test scores from the 2009 administration of the third, fourth, and fifth grade Augmented Benchmark and SAT 10 Exams. We examined the results from both the combined population and each subpopulation. We conducted data analysis to determine our main areas of weakness. In addition, we studied the three most recent years of Attendance, Disciplinary, Formative and Summative Achievement Data across grade levels within our building. We aggregated and disaggregated all the data for the purpose of establishing student learning and behavioral goals. We looked at our trend data in order to better identify the specific areas of need and help align classroom instruction with our curriculum, assessment and professional development. We examined our routines, customs, and norms in order to dig deeper for the root cause why more of our students are not achieving to their full potential. Our 2009 Supporting Data Statements show the discrepancies in achievement, among our various populations. We are modifying our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development practices to better meet 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. In multiple choice: Data Analysis and Probability, and Measurement. In Open Response: Significant weaknesses were noted in all five strands. We will select Interventions and coordinate our various state and federal funding sources to address these areas. In addition, we meet in grade level teams, weekly and as an entire faculty bi-monthly so that we can review formative, “real time” classroom performance data for the purpose of making decisions regarding the direction, and focus, of our classroom instruction. We chart progress on our “Assessment/Intervention” wall.
              Goal All students will improve in mathematic skills and responding to constructed response questions with additional attention to the Measurement, Data Analysis and Probability, and Number Sense/Operations strands.
              Benchmark “The Combined Population met the 2009 AYP target of 67.0% scoring Proficient/Advanced. We are on alert for FRLP in Math. It is expected that each of these populations will meet, or exceed, the 2010 AYP Target of 70% scoring Proficient/Advanced, or make AYP through either the “Safe Harbor” or “Growth” models.
              Intervention: We will improve computational skills through use of the Everyday Mathematics Curriculum, supplementation, and technology.
              Scientific Based Research: Everyday Mathematics ( McGraw-Hill); a Research -Based Curriculum: Bell, Max; William, Carol; and Isaacs, Andrew. The Research Foundation of the University of Chicago Math Project's Everyday Math Curriculum: Becker, J., Kottkamp, R.,Mann, D., and Shakeshaft, Carol ; "West Virginia Story: Achievement Gains from a Statewide Comprehensive Instructional Technology Program." The West Virginia Department of Education, in conjunction with the Milken Family Foundation. 1999: Schwarz, Justine C.; Vocabulary and Its Effects on Mathematics Instruction. Xavier University, 1999.
              Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
              Teachers at each grade level will analyze math terms and vocabulary used in the released items for the SAT 10 and ACTAAP. Teachers will construct a word wall in each classroom to correlate various math terms used in testing items with the vocabulary used in Everyday Mathematics . Substitutes will be hired for release time.
              Action Type: Alignment
              Action Type: Equity
              		 Melissa Wick Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
              • Performance Assessments
              • Teachers
              • Title Teachers
              ACTION BUDGET: $
              Alignment:As part of the formative evaluation, The ACSIP math committee will meet one-half day per semester to assess the vertical alignment of the mathematics curriculum, review student work, and to share effective teaching and assessment strategies to assist all students to achieve proficiency in mathematics with an emphasis on mathematics procedures. Substitute teachers will be employed so that teachers can collaborate and train during the school day.
              Action Type: Alignment
              Action Type: Collaboration
              Action Type: Professional Development
              Action Type: Program Evaluation
              Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
              		 Melissa Wick Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
              • Administrative Staff
              • Teachers
              Title I - Employee Benefits: $370.00
              Title I - Employee Salaries: $1425.00
              ACTION BUDGET: $1795
              Teachers will implement the Everyday Mathematics curriculum and activities in all kindergarten through fifth grade classrooms. Curriculum and instructional adaptations will be made for ESL and special education students participating in the Everyday Mathematics program. The principal will purchase Everyday Math materials to support the Everyday Math program. Inservice training will provided for and be attended by new teachers implementing the curriculum. Everyday Math is a standards-based curriculum.
              Action Type: Alignment
              Action Type: Equity
              Action Type: Professional Development
              		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
              • Teachers
              General Revenue: $5600.00
              ACTION BUDGET: $5600
              Teachers will implement use of Mastering Math Facts or Everyday Math mixed review math problems in each classroom to maintain and reinforce computational skills and basic math facts..
              Action Type: Alignment
              Action Type: Equity
              		 Angie Ellington Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
              • Teachers
              • Teaching Aids
              ACTION BUDGET: $
              In coordination with the Center for Mathematics and Science Education and the Arkansas NASA Educator Resource Center located on the University of Arkansas campus, a family math night will be held each spring to provide supplementary materials and techniques for parents to use during the summer months to aid in retention of basic math skills.
              Action Type: Collaboration
              Action Type: Equity
              Action Type: Parental Engagement
              Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
              		 Melissa Wick Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
              • Outside Consultants
              • Teachers
              • Teaching Aids
              Title I - Materials & Supplies: $1000.00
              ACTION BUDGET: $1000
              Targeted math assessments for the Everyday Math program will be administered to each student in grades 1-5 and analyzed to chart individual student progress in the adopted math curriculum.
              Action Type: Alignment
              Action Type: Collaboration
              		 Jake Beers Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
              • District Staff
              • Performance Assessments
              ACTION BUDGET: $
              The district math coach will be utilized as a teacher resource to implement new strategies and materials in Everday Math and to guide alignment of the math curriculum.
              Action Type: Alignment
              Action Type: Collaboration
              Action Type: Professional Development
              Action Type: Program Evaluation
              		 Dianne Gann Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
              • District Staff
              • Teachers
              ACTION BUDGET: $
              Formative evaluations will be administered to each student a minimum of three times per year using the AIMSWEB math materials. This survey level assessment will be used to determine student need and progress in basic computation skills.
              Action Type: AIP/IRI
              Action Type: Alignment
              Action Type: Program Evaluation
              		 Lester Long Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
              • District Staff
              • Performance Assessments
              • Teachers
              ACTION BUDGET: $
              Summative evaluations will be used to determine the progress of this intervention. The primary benchmark and NRT data will be analyzed to determine the effectiveness of this intervention toward achieving the established benchmark.
              Action Type: AIP/IRI
              Action Type: Alignment
              Action Type: Program Evaluation
              Action Type: Title I Target Assistance
              		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
              • Outside Consultants
              • Performance Assessments
              • Teachers
              ACTION BUDGET: $
              Students will have access to the online math games of Everyday Mathematics from both home and school in order to reinforce skills taught within the curriculum and to practice and enhance computational skills.
              Action Type: Alignment
              Action Type: Parental Engagement
              Action Type: Technology Inclusion
              		 Melissa Wick Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
              • Computers
              • Teachers
              ACTION BUDGET: $
              PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention/Program through: District quarterly assessments, Everyday Math unit assessments, and CBM data 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: Student profiles of progress, student performance on the CBM assessments, and student scores on the district TIAA indicated adequate student growth in mathematics within the Everyday Math curriculum. In addition, benchmark test data for the 2008-2009 school year indicated that our combined population met or exceeded our target goal of 62.5% proficiency in math. However, our economically disadvantaged population continues to be below our targeted range. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to use the following protocol in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program: We will continue to use the Everyday Math student profiles and CBM data to chart individual and class performance and growth within our math curriculum. The district quarterly math assessments are being revised and realigned to match our Everyday Math curriculum. These revised assessments will be used to evaluate the success of this intervention. We will continue to use benchmark test data to further evaluate the success of this intervention. 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: Equity
              		 Melissa Wick Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
              • Computers
              • District Staff
              • Performance Assessments
              • Teachers
              • Teaching Aids
              ACTION BUDGET: $
              Materials and Supplies will be purchased to support the Everyday Math and Math curriculum in the classroom. Updated Calculators, etc.
              Action Type: Alignment
              Action Type: Equity
              Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
              		 Melissa Wick Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
              • District Staff
              • Outside Consultants
              • Teachers
              • Teaching Aids
              Title I - Materials & Supplies: $4675.00
              ACTION BUDGET: $4675
              Total Budget: $13070
              Intervention: Use of Title I Instructional Assistants for math instruction:
              Scientific Based Research: Case, Elizabeth J. and Barbara J. Johnson, 1996. Albuquerque: P.L. 94-142 C-Level Aide Program, 1985-86 evaluation report, Albuquerque Public Schools, Planning, Research, and Accounting.
              Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
              As part of the formative evaluation, a needs assessment survey will be given during the Spring to assess the effectiveness of the schedule. A Fall meeting will also be conducted to give response to program effectiveness.
              Action Type: Collaboration
              Action Type: Equity
              Action Type: Parental Engagement
              Action Type: Program Evaluation
              		 Shannon Lawson and Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
              • Teachers
              • Title Teachers
              ACTION BUDGET: $
              HIGHLY QUALIFIED: The school will continue to hire and maintain "highly qualified" teachers and support staff. All instruction will be given by "highly qualified" staff. Teachers will work closely with Title I staff to implement school wide reform strategies. Data will be used to continue to monitor progress and point-in- time remediation. A .5 FTE instructional asistant will work with classroom teachers to intervene with students at-risk for not meeting grade-level benchmarks in math.
              Action Type: Collaboration
              Action Type: Professional Development
              Action Type: Program Evaluation
              		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
              • Central Office
              • Outside Consultants
              • Teachers
              • Title Teachers
              Title I - Employee Salaries: $11014.00
              Title I - Employee Benefits: $2864.00
              ACTION BUDGET: $13878
              Summative evaluations will be used to determine the progess of this intervention. The Primary Benchmark and NRT data will be analyzed to see if benchmark has been made. Interventions will be analyzed to see if they are addressing the benchmark.
              Action Type: Professional Development
              Action Type: Program Evaluation
              Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
              		 Melissa Wick Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
              • District Staff
              • Teachers
              • Title Teachers
              ACTION BUDGET: $
              PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention/Program through: Title I surveys, student intervention logs, student performance within the Everyday Math curriculum, and CBM data 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: Student achievement for those receiving services from the Title I aides increased both within the classroom and as evidenced by increased benchmark scores. While our economically disadvantaged subpopulation did not meet our target rate for proficiency, evidence still supports growth in mathematics for these students through use of Title I support and services. During the 2009-2010 school year, we plan to use the following protocol in evaluating, and adjusting, the programs, processes, and activities that make up the action descriptions within this intervention/program: We will continue to use surveys, test data, student feedback, CBM data, and individual student learning logs to evaluate the success of our Title I interventionists. Progress will be charted and entered on individual student AIP’s. 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: AIP/IRI
              Action Type: Collaboration
              Action Type: Program Evaluation
              Action Type: Technology Inclusion
              		 Beth Cardwell Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
              • Computers
              • Performance Assessments
              • Teachers
              • Teaching Aids
              • Title Teachers
              ACTION BUDGET: $
              Total Budget: $13878
              Intervention: Professional Development for staff and teachers at Washington Elementary
              Scientific Based Research: Standards Based Mathematics Training Everyday Math 2007.
              Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
              PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: All teachers will have the opportunity to participate in the school and district professional development plan. Teachers will use an instrument developed by the district professional development committee to evaluate the effectiveness of the professional development plan, the course offerings and the effectiveness of the knowledge gained. Annually, upon review of the test data, the professional development committee, working under the guidelines of the district professional development plan, will develop a professional development plan for the school and individual teachers based on information obtained through data analysis. All new teachers (first 3 years) and teachers in need of assistance will be assigned a mentor to assist them in reaching their professional development goals and needs. All teachers will have the opportunity to have input to the district and building level professional development plan. The district will provide all teachers and administrators with no less than 60 hours of professional development including 6 hours of technology and 2 hours of parental involvement development (3 hours of Parental Involvement for Administrators) and for those who teach Arkansas History, 2 hours of training in that subject. Teachers will have the opportunity to evaluate the benefit of the professional development activities and provide feedback on needed changes. The building will provide additional professional development specific to building needs for our teachers.
              Action Type: Alignment
              Action Type: Collaboration
              Action Type: Professional Development
              Action Type: Program Evaluation
              Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
              		 Tara Lechtenberger Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
              • Central Office
              • District Staff
              • Outside Consultants
              • Teachers
              • Title Teachers
              ACTION BUDGET: $
              All math teachers will attend inservice training in the implementation and use of the Everyday Math curriculum and CBM assessments. Purchase PD. for differentiated instruction materials for teachers.
              Action Type: Alignment
              Action Type: Collaboration
              Action Type: Professional Development
              Action Type: Special Education
              		 Lester Long Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
              • District Staff
              • Outside Consultants
              • Teachers
              ACTION BUDGET: $
              Summative evaluations will be given as peer reviews and conferences to integrate the PD into the building curriculum and activities.
              Action Type: Collaboration
              Action Type: Professional Development
              Action Type: Program Evaluation
              		 Holly Smith Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
              • Teachers
              • Title Teachers
              ACTION BUDGET: $
              Closing the Achievement Gap—Math: Regular quarterly meeting of our Math ACSIP Leadership Committee will be held. These meeting 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-base, 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 resource 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: Alignment
              Action Type: Equity
              Action Type: Professional Development
              		 Melissa Wick Start: 07/01/2009
              End: 06/30/2010
                ACTION BUDGET: $
                PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention/Program through teacher surveys , analysis of student CRT and NRT data, and examination of professional development records and determined that it was effective in support of our Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development. The following EVALUATION RESULTS demonstrate that this Intervention is valid in support of the teaching and learning that are part of this program: Within our current professional development program, teachers are receiving instruction that is increasing student performance in math for our combined population as evidenced by meeting our targeted proficiency rate. All teachers completed or exceeded the required number of professional development hours. 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: Our subpopulation of economically disadvantaged students continues to be an area of concern. Additional professional development in meeting the needs of these students has been scheduled throughout the school year at the building and district level. We will monitor student progress and survey teachers mid-year to determine any additional professional development needed in the Spring to better meet the needs of our targeted subpopulation. 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: Alignment
                Action Type: Collaboration
                Action Type: Professional Development
                Action Type: Program Evaluation
                		 Dianne Gann Start: 07/01/2009
                End: 06/30/2010
                • Performance Assessments
                • Teachers
                • Teaching Aids
                ACTION BUDGET: $
                Total Budget: $0
                Intervention: The implementation of standards based mathematics.
                Scientific Based Research: Everyday Mathematics ( McGraw-Hill); a Research -Based Curriculum: Bell, Max; William, Carol; and Isaacs, Andrew. The Research Foundation of the University of Chicago Math Project's Everyday Math Curriculum: Becker, J., Kottkamp, R.,Mann, D., and Shakeshaft, Carol ; "West Virginia Story: Achievement Gains from a Statewide Comprehensive Instructional Technology Program." The West Virginia Department of Education, in conjunction with the Milken Family Foundation. 1999: Schwarz, Justine C.; Vocabulary and Its Effects on Mathematics Instruction. Xavier University, 1999.
                Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
                All teachers work together to map aligned curriculum for instructional and assessment purposes on a quarterly basis. A release day will be scheduled for K-5 teachers to map curriculum for the next school year.
                Action Type: Alignment
                Action Type: Collaboration
                Action Type: Equity
                Action Type: Professional Development
                Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
                		 Melissa Wick Start: 07/01/2009
                End: 06/30/2010
                • Central Office
                • Outside Consultants
                • Performance Assessments
                ACTION BUDGET: $
                Quarterly math assessments for the Everyday Math program will be administered to each student in grades 1-5 and analyzed to chart individual student progress in the curriculum.
                Action Type: AIP/IRI
                Action Type: Program Evaluation
                		 A. Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
                End: 06/30/2010
                • Computers
                • Teachers
                ACTION BUDGET: $
                AIP's will be developed for students who did not show proficiency on the SAT 10 (1-2 grades)and SAT 10 (3-5 grades) The AIP's will be signed by parent, teacher, and principal at the beginning of the school year. An intervention log will be kept to show frequency and kind of application of the intervention. They will be revised or dismissed according to the summative data in the Spring. The new AIP's will be in place by September 30 of the new school year.
                Action Type: AIP/IRI
                Action Type: Collaboration
                Action Type: Special Education
                		 A. Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
                End: 06/30/2010
                • Central Office
                • Performance Assessments
                • Teachers
                ACTION BUDGET: $
                Interventions will be written by the classroom teacher to address the areas of concern in math shown by the summative and formative assessments. For students in remediation programs, achievement improvement will be assessed through quarterly assessments, end of chapter tests, and formative assessments in the classroom.
                Action Type: AIP/IRI
                Action Type: Professional Development
                Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
                		 Melissa Wick Start: 07/01/2009
                End: 06/30/2010
                • Computers
                • Outside Consultants
                • Teachers
                • Teaching Aids
                • Title Teachers
                ACTION BUDGET: $
                PROGRAM EVALUATION: At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year we evaluated this Intervention/Program through: administration of district targeted math assessments and analysis of student Everyday Math profiles 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: While CRT and NRT data and individual student profiles supported student growth in mathematics using a standards based mathematics program, teacher surveys and student performance on the district interim assessments indicated a need to revise our assessments to be more in line with our Everyday Math curriculum. It was determined that better formative assessments should be developed and used to guide instruction and improve student performance. 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: Teachers will continue to monitor students’ progress within the Everyday Math curriculum using unit assessments . District and building summative and formative assessments will be revised and developed to better assess student performance within our standards based curriculum. 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: Alignment
                Action Type: Program Evaluation
                		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
                End: 06/30/2010
                • Central Office
                • Computers
                • District Staff
                • Performance Assessments
                • Teachers
                • Title Teachers
                ACTION BUDGET: $
                Students requiring Tier 2 instruction will participate in a structured forty-five minute intervention time each day. Students will be progress monitored on a regular basis to determine grouping for Tier 2 and/or Tier 3 interventions. Individual student needs and test results will be used to determine the most effective strategies and grouping.Classroom schedules will be aligned at each grade level to allow for planning and implementing this additional 45 minute daily intervention time
                Action Type: AIP/IRI
                Action Type: Equity
                Action Type: Program Evaluation
                Action Type: Title I Target Assistance
                		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
                End: 06/30/2009
                • Teachers
                • Title 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 2005-2006: of the 339 student population, 295 students were assessed. Of the students assessed, the following represents the percent of students at risk of overweight and overweight:
                  Grade 1: Males 33.4%, Females 36.4%
                  Grade 2: Males 37.5%, Females 31.8%
                  Grade 3: Males 33.3%, Females 34.7%
                  Grade 4: Males 28.0%, Females 24.0%
                  Grade 5: Males 46.5%, Females 50.0%
                2. Body Mass Index Data 2006-2007: of the 339 student population, 295 students were assessed. Of the students assessed, the following represents the percent of students at risk of overweight and overweight:
                  Grade 1: Males 18.5%, Females 15.6%
                  Grade 2: Males 40.0%, Females 34.8%
                  Grade 3: Males 33.3%, Females 42.1%
                  Grade 4: Males 40.6%, Females 30.0%
                3. Body Mass Index Data 2007-2008: of the 347student population, 172students were assessed. Of the students assessed, the following represents the percent of students at risk of overweight and overweight:
                  Grade K: Males 37.5%, Females 28.6%
                  Grade 2: Males 19.4%, Females 23.7%
                  Grade 4: Males 25.0%, Females 39.1%
                  Total assessed population: Males 27.7%, Females 29.2%
                4. Free/Reduced Rate: In 2005, the percentage of free and reduced lunch was 43%.
                  In 2006, the percentage of free and reduced lunch was 48%.
                  In 2007, the percentage of free and reduced lunch was 55%.
                5. The two lowest percentages from the School Health Index are Nurition Services and Health Education. 
                6.  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.
                Goal Provide support for students in making healthy lifestyle choices by implementing systems to aid in decreasing the average BMI on routine annual student screening and increasing collaboration between all segments of the school community in support of positive lifestyle choices.
                Benchmark The number of students being considered overweight or at risk of overweight, according to their BMI, will decrease by 1/2% during the 2009-2010 school year when compared with the 2009-2010 school year.
                Intervention: Students will be offered fresh fruits and vegetables from local farmers. (Farm to School Program)
                Scientific Based Research: www.farmtoschool.org
                Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
                Washington Elementary is participating the the Farm to School Program. Each Wednesday students are offered fresh, locally grown produce. Farm to School program is being analyzed as a possible nutrition education supplement to the academic curriculum and was implemented School year 2005.
                Action Type: Equity
                Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
                Action Type: Wellness
                		 Linda Sorenson Start: 07/01/2009
                End: 06/30/2010
                • District Staff
                • Outside Consultants
                ACTION BUDGET: $
                Members of the Farmers' Market Food Cooperative will visit classrooms once a quarter to talk about healthy eating habits. They will visit Third, Fourth, and Fifth Grade.
                Action Type: Collaboration
                Action Type: Wellness
                		 Kevin Thomas Start: 07/01/2009
                End: 06/30/2010
                • Community Leaders
                • District Staff
                • Teachers
                • Teaching Aids
                ACTION BUDGET: $
                Kids For Health Curriculum will be taught and implemented in Grades K-5. PE instructors will attend workshops to help support this curriculum.
                Action Type: Professional Development
                Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
                Action Type: Wellness
                		 Kevin Thomas Start: 07/01/2009
                End: 06/30/2010
                • Community Leaders
                • School Library
                • Teachers
                • Teaching Aids
                ACTION BUDGET: $
                BMI exam will be administered for students attending Washington Elementary. A letter will be sent home to report the results. The wellness committee will meet to analyze the results.
                Action Type: Alignment
                Action Type: Collaboration
                Action Type: Parental Engagement
                Action Type: Program Evaluation
                Action Type: Wellness
                		 Lisa Henderson Start: 07/01/2009
                End: 06/30/2010
                • District Staff
                • Outside Consultants
                • Teachers
                ACTION BUDGET: $
                Implement a 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
                		 Ashley Garcia 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 Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
                End: 06/30/2010
                • Administrative Staff
                • Teachers
                ACTION BUDGET: $
                Encourage participation in family oriented, community-based physical activity programs.
                Action Type: Collaboration
                Action Type: Parental Engagement
                Action Type: Program Evaluation
                Action Type: Wellness
                		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
                End: 06/30/2010
                • Administrative Staff
                • Teachers
                ACTION BUDGET: $
                To assess Washington Elementary School's physical education program, parents, students, and faculty members will be invited to participate in a survey.
                Action Type: Collaboration
                Action Type: Parental Engagement
                Action Type: Program Evaluation
                Action Type: Wellness
                		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
                End: 06/30/2010
                • Administrative Staff
                • Teachers
                ACTION BUDGET: $
                PROGRAM EVALUATION: During the 2008-2009 school year we will evaluate our Farm to School program by administering a survey to students to determine if students chose and ate the fresh vegetables that were offered. In evaluating and adjusting this program, the cafeteria staff will monitor amounts of fresh vegetables offered versus the amounts of fresh vegetables that are chosen by students and by informal interviews with students that address their participation in the Farm to School Program. This information will be used to determine if this program is successful in encouraging students to include more vegetables in their diet.
                Action Type: Wellness
                		 Linda Sorenson Start: 07/01/2009
                End: 06/30/2010
                • District Staff
                ACTION BUDGET: $
                The Wellness Committee will maintain a bullentin board outside the cafeteria to communicate to parents and students information regarding healthy food choices. Also, the committee will help plan and supplement food choices during PTO events.
                Action Type: Wellness
                		 Allison Khene Start: 07/01/2009
                End: 06/30/2010
                • Community Leaders
                • Outside Consultants
                • Teachers
                • Teaching Aids
                ACTION BUDGET: $
                Total Budget: $0
                Intervention: Increase awareness and knowledge of the benefits of physical activity for lifelong health and wellness.
                Scientific Based Research: Kids For Health, 2005
                Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
                Students participate in 150 minutes of Physical Activity weekly. Teachers will intergrate skills learned during P.E. into the classroom physical activity period.
                Action Type: Collaboration
                Action Type: Program Evaluation
                Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
                		 Kevin Thomas Start: 07/01/2009
                End: 06/30/2010
                • District Staff
                • Outside Consultants
                • Performance Assessments
                • Teachers
                ACTION BUDGET: $
                A "Walking/ Run" Club will be formed. Students will be offered an opportunity to run with other students. Skills and information will be taught for safe walking and running techniques. Student participation will be voluntary.
                Action Type: Collaboration
                Action Type: Parental Engagement
                Action Type: Wellness
                		 Kevin Thomas Start: 07/01/2009
                End: 06/30/2010
                • Outside Consultants
                • Teachers
                • Teaching Aids
                ACTION BUDGET: $
                The B.M.I. exam will be given before March 2010. The results will assess the program.
                Action Type: Parental Engagement
                Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
                Action Type: Wellness
                		 Lisa Henderson Start: 07/01/2009
                End: 06/30/2010
                • Community Leaders
                • Outside Consultants
                ACTION BUDGET: $
                A pre and post test in physical ability will be administered to evaluate each student's physical condition.
                Action Type: Wellness
                		 Kevin Thomas Start: 07/01/2009
                End: 06/30/2010
                • None
                ACTION BUDGET: $
                PROGRAM EVALUATION: During the 2009-2010 school year we will evaluate student's awareness and knowledge of the benefits of physical activity by administering a student survey that addresses changes in their lifestyle due to participation in the physical education program. Physical Education instructors will analyze these surveys to determine if changes to the program should be made and to determine which elements of the program should be maintained. The results of this survey will be reported in the 2010-2011 ACSIP plan.
                Action Type: Program Evaluation
                Action Type: Wellness
                		 Kevin Thomas Start: 07/01/2009
                End: 06/30/2010
                • District Staff
                • Teachers
                ACTION BUDGET: $
                Total Budget: $0
                Priority 4: 1. NEEDS ASSESSMENT; Our ACSIP Leadership Teams analyzed at each grade level the test scores from 2009 administration of the SAT 10, MAT 8, and the Augmented Benchmark(EOC). We examined the results from both the combined population and the ELL subpopulation, and conducted data analysis to determine our main areas of need. In addition, we studied the three most recent years of Attendance, (Graduation Rate), Disciplinary, Formative, and Summative Achievement Data across grade levels within our building, and compared combined population data with that from the ELL subpopulation for the purpose of identifying learning and behavior needs of this special subpopulation of students. We looked at trend data in order to better identify the specific areas of need and to help modify classroom instruction, curriculum, assessment, and professional development to meet the needs of ELL students and families. We examined our routines, customs, and expectations in order to identify areas for improvement. We continually evaluated and modify 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 ELL Priority: Instructional tutoring, Verbal and written translations for students and parents, On-going monitoring of these special services. We will select Interventions and coordinate our local funds with state ELL funding to address these area.
                Supporting Data:
                  Goal Goal Utilize state ELL funding so that all ELL students will improve in literacy, mathematics, and the acquisition of the English language.
                  Benchmark Benchmark The ELL population met 2008-09 AYP targets in Literacy and Math. It is expected that each of our ELL populations will meet, or exceed, the 2010 AYP target(s) of 70% (LITERACY) and 71.20% (MATH) scoring Proficient/Advanced or make AYP through either the “Safe Harbor” or “Growth” models.
                  Intervention: Intervention: We will fully participate in the district's plan to provide a comprehensive K-12 alternative language program based on scientifically based research on teaching ELL children. The program is designed to enable ELL children to speak, read, write, and comprehend the English language and meet challenging State Academic content and student academic achievement standards.
                  Scientific Based Research: Scientific Based Research: Echevarria, Jana; Vogt, Mary Ellen; Short, Deborah. Pearson. New Edition (2007). Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners: The SIOP Model Echevarria, Jana; Vogt, Mary Ellen. Pearson. (2007). 99 Ideas and Activities for Teaching English Learners with the SIOP Model
                  Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
                  Hire a teacher to instruct students who are in the ELL program. The ELL Teacher will conduct conferences to communicate results of the MAC assessment and level services. Materials and supplies to support the program will be paid by the building.
                  Action Type: Alignment
                  Action Type: Equity
                  Action Type: Parental Engagement
                  		 Ashley Garcia Start: 07/01/2009
                  End: 06/30/2010
                  • District Staff
                  • Teaching Aids
                  ACTION BUDGET: $
                  Our Primary will ensure that our school assess all new language minority students within the first 30 days of school beginning, and within 20 days of enrollment for students who enroll later in the school year.
                  Action Type: Collaboration
                  		 Judith Sapsford Start: 07/01/2009
                  End: 06/30/2010
                  • Administrative Staff
                  • Central Office
                  • Teachers
                  ACTION BUDGET: $
                  Our school will use local funds provided for the purchase of supplemental specialized language instructional material, as needed, to assist in ELL instruction in grades K-5.
                  Action Type: Alignment
                  Action Type: Collaboration
                  Action Type: Equity
                  		 Judith Sapsford Start: 07/01/2009
                  End: 06/30/2010
                  • Administrative Staff
                  • District Staff
                  • Teaching Aids
                  Local Revenue: $5000.00
                  ACTION BUDGET: $5000
                  This is a new intervention. During the 2009-2010 school year, we will evaluate this intervention through the analysis of language proficiency test scores and Benchmark scores. We will expect that students served by the program will see a 10% increase in test scores from the spring of 09 to the spring of 10. Action Type: Program Evaluation
                  Action Type: Equity
                  Action Type: Program Evaluation
                  		 Judith Sapsford Start: 07/01/2009
                  End: 06/30/2010
                  • Administrative Staff
                  • District Staff
                  • Performance Assessments
                  ACTION BUDGET: $
                  Total Budget: $5000
                  Intervention: Intervention: Parental Involvement: We will implement an effective means of outreach to parents of ELL students to involve parents in assisting their children to learn English, achieve at high levels in core academic subjects, and meet the same challenging State Academic standars as all other children are expected to meet.
                  Scientific Based Research: Scientific Based Research: Echevarria, Jana; Vogt, Mary Ellen; Short, Deborah. Pearson. New Edition (2007). Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners: The SIOP Model Echevarria, Jana; Vogt, Mary Ellen. Pearson. (2007). 99 Ideas and Activities for Teaching English Learners with the SIOP Model
                  Actions Person Responsible Timeline Resources Source of Funds
                  PROGRAM EVALUATION: This is a new intervention. At the conclusion of the 2009-2010 school year parent involvement actions will be evaluated, analyzing the participation rate of ELL parents by grade level in parent teach conferences. 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. Our target is to see a 10% increase in parental participation. 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: Equity
                  Action Type: Parental Engagement
                  Action Type: Program Evaluation
                  		 Tara Lechtenberger Start: 07/01/2009
                  End: 06/30/2010
                  • Administrative Staff
                  • Computers
                  • District Staff
                  • Outside Consultants
                  ACTION BUDGET: $
                  The ELL teacher will supervise and conduct meeting with parents and teachers at the beginning of each school year, to interpret language assessment scores and to determine the educational plan for each student. A family night will be organized off campus in the neighborhood where most of the families live. Literacy resources such as the Fayetteville Public Library will be represented there.
                  Action Type: Collaboration
                  Action Type: Equity
                  Action Type: Parental Engagement
                  		 Judith Sapsford Start: 07/01/2009
                  End: 06/30/2010
                  • Administrative Staff
                  • Community Leaders
                  • School Library
                  • Teachers
                  • Teaching Aids
                  ACTION BUDGET: $
                  The ELL paraprofessional and other interpreters will be available to provide, as needed, translations for Parent/Teacher Conferences, registrations, and meetings to improve their academic achievement and becoming active participants in the education of their children. Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement
                  Action Type: Collaboration
                  Action Type: Equity
                  Action Type: Parental Engagement
                  		 Judith Sapsford Start: 07/01/2009
                  End: 06/30/2010
                  • District Staff
                  • Outside Consultants
                  • Teachers
                  ACTION BUDGET: $
                  Professional development will be provided to our staff to substantially increase the knowledge and understanding, related to the needs of ELL students, and to enhance teaching skills of classroom teachers, principals, administrator, and other school personnel. Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Professional Development
                  Action Type: Collaboration
                  Action Type: Equity
                  Action Type: Professional Development
                  		 Judith Sapsford Start: 07/01/2009
                  End: 06/30/2010
                  • District Staff
                  • Outside Consultants
                  • Teachers
                  ACTION BUDGET: $
                  Total Budget: $0
                1. Planning Team

                  Classification Name Position Committee
                  Classroom Teacher Amber Brown Spec. Ed. Literacy
                  Classroom Teacher Angie Ellington second grade Literacy
                  Classroom Teacher Beth Cardwell Kindergarten Math
                  Classroom Teacher Brooke Wing Second Grade Math
                  Classroom Teacher Chad Lechtenberger Third Grade Math
                  Classroom Teacher Christel Kirk Second Literacy
                  Classroom Teacher Heather Bowen First Grade Literacy
                  Classroom Teacher Jake Beers Fourth Grade Math
                  Classroom Teacher Jennifer Neumeyer Fourth Grade Literacy
                  Classroom Teacher Jodi Felkins Kindergarten Literacy
                  Classroom Teacher Keri Kelso First Math
                  Classroom Teacher Leona Prothero Cochair ACSIP Literacy Committee
                  Classroom Teacher Leona Prothero Fifth Grade ACSIP Leadership Co-Chair
                  Classroom Teacher Lindsey Gearhart Classroom Teacher Math
                  Classroom Teacher Melissa Wick Chairperson Math
                  Classroom Teacher Melissa Wick Fifth Grade ACSIP Leadership Co-Chair
                  Classroom Teacher Mignonne Scarbrough Gifted and Talented Literacy
                  Classroom Teacher Sue Conlee Kindergarten Math
                  Classroom Teacher Suzi Robinson Third Grade Literacy
                  Community Representative Terra Stephenson Walton Art Center Parent Involvement
                  Community Representative Warren Rothern Ozark COOP School Nutrition and Physical Activity Advisory Committee
                  District-Level Professional Christie Jay Title I Coordinator Title I
                  District-Level Professional Kay Magness Literacy Specialist Title I
                  District-Level Professional Linda Auman Title I Coordinator Title I
                  District-Level Professional Lisa Jenkins Director of Food Services School Nutrition and Physical Activity Advisory Committee
                  District-Level Professional Tom Triplett Coordinator Title II A
                  Non-Classroom Professional Staff Beth Lewis Art Parent/ Alumni
                  Non-Classroom Professional Staff Holly Smith Literacy Coach Title I
                  Non-Classroom Professional Staff Holly Smith Literacy Coach Literacy
                  Non-Classroom Professional Staff John Andrews Music Math
                  Non-Classroom Professional Staff Judith Sapsford ESL Literacy
                  Non-Classroom Professional Staff Laura Osborn Speech/ Language Literacy
                  Non-Classroom Professional Staff Lisa Henderson School Nurse School Nutrition and Physical Activity Advisory Committee
                  Non-Classroom Professional Staff Lory Hall Media Specialist Title I
                  Non-Classroom Professional Staff Shannon Lawson Reading Recovery Literacy
                  Non-Classroom Professional Staff Shannon Lawson Reading Recovery Title I
                  Non-Classroom Professional Staff Susan Armstrong Special Ed. Math
                  Non-Classroom Professional Staff Tara Lechtenberger Counselor Math
                  Non-Classroom Professional Staff Tara Lechtenberger Counselor Parent Involvement Building Coordinator
                  Parent Allison Khene Member Wellness
                  Parent Laura Osborn Parent Alumni Advisory Team
                  Parent Sarah Wheat Member Wellness
                  Principal Ashley Garcia Principal ACSIP Leadership