school improvement plan - st. tammany parish ... · web viewst. tammany junior high school gayle g....

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

St. Tammany Junior High SchoolGayle G. SloanSuperintendent

Hannah D. Rucker

October, 2004

DISTRICT ASSURANCE

For schools in School Improvement, and for schools with CSRP models, I hereby certify that this plan was developed with the assistance of a District Assistance Team in collaboration with the School Improvement Team and/or School Support Team, as applicable.

I hereby certify that this plan was designed to improve student achievement, with input from all stakeholders. I assure that the school level personnel, including subgroup representatives responsible for implementation of this plan, have collaborated in the writing of the plan. I hereby certify that this plan has all of the following components as required in Bulletin 741: A statement of the school's beliefs, vision, and mission A comprehensive needs assessment, which includes the following quantitative and qualitative data:

Student academic performances on standardized achievement tests (both CRT, NRT) and performance/authentic assessment disaggregated by gradevs. content vs. exceptionality

Demographic indicators of the community and school to include socioeconomic factors School human and material resource summary, to include teacher demographic indicators and capital outlay factors Interviews with stakeholders: principals, teachers, students, parents Student and teacher focus groups Questionnaires with stakeholders (principals, teachers, students, parents) measuring conceptual domains outlined in school effectiveness/reform research Classroom observations

Measurable objectives and benchmarks Effective scientifically-based methods and strategies Parental and community involvement activities Professional development component aligned with assessed needs External technical support and assistance Evaluation strategies Coordination of resources and analysis of school budget (possible redirection of funds) Action plan with timelines and specific activities

I further certify that the information contained in this assurance is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.Hannah D. Rucker

_______________________________________ _______________________________________Superintendent's signature Principal's signature

_______________________________________ Rae Ann Normand and Carmen ButlerDistrict Assistance Team Leader Co-Chairs, School Improvement Team

___________________________________ ________________________________

___________________________________ _________________________________District Assistance Team Members

ASSURANCE OF FACULTY REVIEW OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANSt. Tammany Parish School Board 2 of 53 SY 2004-05

The following faculty members have reviewed the School Improvement Plan and have discussed their part in implementing it.

NAME TITLE/POSITION SIGNATURELydia Barclay Classroom teacher Kathy Blackburn Classroom teacher

Dawn Bourgeois Classroom teacherSusan Brown Classroom teacher Lynn Carmouche Classroom teacher Helen CLifton Classroom teacher Marguerite Comblin Classroom teacher Judy Coon Classroom teacher Ken Costilow Classroom teacher Patricia Coy Classroom teacher Linda Cropco Classroom teacher Jennifer Daniel Classroom teacher Jessica Davis Classroom teacher Michelle Day Classroom teacher Stephen Desandro Classroom teacher Francine Dunn Classroom teacher Rebecca Hayes Classroom teacher Beverly Hoffmann Classroom teacher Stanley Jones Classroom teacher Kay Koserog Classroom teacher Jamie Marks Classroom teacher Eugenie Martin Classroom teacher Frances Matthews Classroom teacher Donna McClue Classroom teacher Nancy McDermott Classroom teacher Stacy McGill Classroom teacher Sue McNeill Classroom teacher Alice Murchison Classroom teacher Ruth Navarre Classroom teacher Emiliano Ponce Classroom teacher Patricia Price Classroom teacher Valerie Roach Classroom teacher Janet Sublett Classroom teacher

St. Tammany Parish School Board 3 of 53 SY 2004-05

Emily Taylor Classroom teacher Deborah Touchet Classroom teacher Barbara Wade Classroom teacher Melanie Whitlock Classroom teacher Joann Yarborough Classroom teacher Kelley Ybos Classroom teacher Chris Yeager Classroom teacher TiffanyYokum Classroom teacher Patrick Woods Assistant PrincipalCarmen Butler GuidanceRae Ann Normand Resource Helping TeacherHannah D. Rucker PrincipalAlda Boster ParentLynette Burkette ParentKim Hollins ParentKim Holden Parent


BELIEFS STATEMENT

The school community of St. Tammany Junior High School believes that all children, as individuals, have unique needs, desires, and expectations, and that the school is a basic institution for the development of intellectual, physical, social, emotional, moral and motivational growth.

VISION STATEMENT

The vision of St. Tammany Junior High School is to prepare students for an ever-changing, global community by helping them to:*develop basic skills, higher order thinking skills, technology skills, communication skills, and life skills*develop personal interests and social awareness*develop self-discipline and self motivation

MISSION STATEMENT

Students, parents,Teachers, and administrators

Joining together to prepare all students forHigh academic standards to meet tomorrow’s challenges


Reference appendices for stakeholder participants

SCHOOL DEMOGRAPHICS/CHARACTERISTICS

ADM

Total # # Certified # Expected Vacancies # in LA Principal Internship/Induction Program for SY 04-05

Principals 2 2 0 2

TEACHERS*

SchoolNon-Title I

Title I Total % in School % Change from 2004Schoolwide Targeted Asst.

HIGHLY QUALIFIED** GeneralEd

SpecialEd

GeneralEd

SpecialEd

GeneralEd

SpecialEd

GeneralEd

SpecialEd

General

Ed

SpecialEd

# Highly Qualified Core Academic Teachers (Subtotal) 27 5 67.5% 12.5% 0% 0%NOT HIGHLY QUALIFIED General

EdSpecial

EdGeneral

EdSpecial

EdGeneral

EdSpecial

EdGeneral

EdSpecial

EdGenera

lEd

SpecialEd

Non-Standard*** (TAT) (OFAT) (TEP) (EP) 2 1 5% 2.5%Other 4 1 10% 2.5%Subtotal Not Highly Qualified 6 2 15% 5% 0 0

TOTAL TEACHERS (Highly Qualified and Not Highly Qualified) 100% 100%

PARAS

HIGHLY QUALIFIED** GeneralEd

SpecialEd

GeneralEd

SpecialEd

GeneralEd

SpecialEd

GeneralEd

SpecialEd

General

Ed

SpecialEd

# Highly Qualified Paras 5 62.5

NOT HIGHLY QUALIFIED GeneralEd

SpecialEd

GeneralEd

SpecialEd

GeneralEd

SpecialEd

GeneralEd

SpecialEd

General

Ed

SpecialEd


# Not Highly Qualified Paras 2 1 25% 12.5%Total Paraprofessionals 2 6 25 75 7% 12% * Teachers include all teaching in core academic courses (English/Reading/Language Arts; Math; Science; Civics/Government; Economics; Arts; History; Geography) ** Highly Qualified: Has met all requirements as specified by the LA Board of Elementary and Secondary Education’s definition of “Highly Qualified” under NCLB adopted June 19, 2003. *** Temporary Authority to Teach (TAT); Out-of-Field Authorization to Teach (OFAT); Temporary Employment Permit (TEP); Emergency Permit (EP)

School SupportNumber of Related Service and Support Personnel and Areas (i.e., Speech Pathologist, Social Worker): 2 speech pathologists; 2 social workers; 1 occupational therapist; 1 physical therapist; 1 adaptive PE; 1 visually impaired teacher; 1 assistive technology; 2 nurses; 1 instructional facilitator; strategic response team; educational psychologist (1); 2 mental health providers; homeless liaison; 1 ESL teacher

School Improvement Team Members/Position: Hannah Rucker, Principal; Rae Normand, RHT; Carmen Butler, Guidance; Teachers: Jan Sublett, Eugenie Martin, Stephen Desandro, Kay Koserog, Helen Clifton, Parents: Alda Boster, Kim Hollins; Students – Blaine Campbell, Shanice Phillips

District Assistance Team Leader and Contact # (if applicable):

Distinguished Educator and Contact # (if applicable):

Parish Homeless Liaison: (Contact Parish Title I Supervisor to get further information) Michael Webb

Parish Homeless Liaison’s Contact #:985-898-3360

Learning-Intensive Networking Communities for Success (LINCS) Information (if applicable)Regional LINCS Coordinator: Content Leader(s): Content Area of Focus for School:

High Schools That Work (HSTW) Site Coordinator and Contact #: Making Middle Grades Work (MMGW) Site Coordinator and Contact #:

Leadership Team Members/Position at the School: Kathy Blackburn/Math teacher leader; Tiffany Yokum, SPED teacher leader; Stephen Desandro, ELA teacher leader; Helen Clifton, Title I Coordinator, Nancy McDermott, SPED Coordinator, Kelley Ybos, ELA chair; Donna McClue, Math chair; Marilyn Jordan, Social Studies chair; Judy Coon, PE chair, Monje Piron, Librarian; Kay Koserog, Science chair; Linda Cropco, 7th grade chair; Barbara Wade, 6th grade chair; Ken Costilow, Fine Arts chair; Melanie Whitlock, SPED chair; Carmen Butler, Guidance; Susan Brown, Technology chair; Patrick Woods, Asst.Principal; Kim Hollins, PTA president; Chris Holden, parent; Rebecca Washington, parent; Myra Brown, para-educator; Joann Yarborough, ESL teacher

Federal/State Instructional Programs and/or Initiatives (Place a check in the status area for each program implemented at your school)

Program List: (Include during and after school programs) Currently Using Proposed Program Deleted Program


21st Century Community Learning Centers xBig BuddyCareer to WorkDAREEarly Reading FirstHIPPYINTECH xINTECH 2 ScienceINTECH Social StudiesK-3 Reading/Math InitiativeLa GEAR-UP

Federal/State Instructional Programs and/or Initiatives (Place a check in the status area for each program implemented at your school)

Program List: (Include during and after school programs) Currently Using

Proposed Program Deleted Program

LaSIP LEAD TECH xLearning Intensive Networking Communities for Success (LINCS)LINCS/High Schools That Work (HSTW)LINCS/Making Middle Grades Work (MMGW)Louisiana Virtual SchoolMaking Middle Grades WorkSAGE School Tech School to WorkSchool wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Support xThe Louisiana Literacy CorpsThe Multisensory Structured Language Program xThe Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) xOther: Project Read, Reading Renaissance, Math Solutions x


List the Supplemental Educational Services provided for your students (Title I schools, if applicable): Title I Reading and Math (targeted assistance), YES Class, MAE class

List the Distance Learning (i.e., web-based, satellite, etc.) courses provided for your students:

School PoliciesPolicies Yes No

Discipline Policy XSecurity Procedures (Metal detectors, etc.) XSafe and Drug-Free Prevention Activities XStudent Code of Conduct XCrisis Management (Emergency/evacuation plan) X

School Partnerships: (Place the name of each partner in the space provided.) University: Southeastern Louisiana UniversityTechnical Institute: ITT Technical CollegeFeeder School(s): Brock elementary, Abney Elementary, Salmen High SchoolCommunity: Boys and Girls Club, Church League BasketballBusiness/Industry: Boeing Corp, Winn Dixie, Otis Corp, Office Depot, Domino’s Pizza, Papa

John’s Pizza, Private Grants: Boeing CorpOther:

Student InformationList the number of students in each area:

Total at School

# of grade 4 and above

Students w/ Disabilities

Gifted and Talented

504 Option III LEP Homeless Migrant

592 592 85 25 14 0 9 1 0Number of Households Served by School:

Subgroups by EthnicityAmerican Indian Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic White


2 12 272 13 293Poverty Profile

# of Free/Reduced Lunch Students:367

Percent of Free/Reduced Lunch Students: 61%

Note 1. Additional community demographics and capital outlay data are located in the appendices.


DATA COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENTSUMMARY REPORT

Strengths and challenges were rank-ordered by evaluating the magnitude of the evidence in conjunction with its association with student achievement. Exogenous factors were eliminated from these results; however, they were included during the analytical phase as a contextual reference.

STRENGTHS DATA SOURCE1.ELA with emphasis on writing competently (Strand One) Instructional staff questionnaire, LEAP 21 and ITBS testing data2.Math with emphasis on data analysis, probability, and discrete math (Strand Five)

Instructional staff questionnaire, LEAP 21 and ITBS testing data

3. School culture Faculty needs assessment, Instructional staff questionnaire, and Attendance and drop out data

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE DATA SOURCEStrength 1.Improved performance on writing assignments

Student writing samples and testing

Strength 2.Improved student performance across curriculum

LEAP and ITBS testing data

Strength 3. Caring and dedicated faculty, increased collaboration, and increased student attendance rate.

Administrator’s questionnaire, faculty needs assessment, Instructional staff questionnaire, Attendance and drop out data

CHALLENGES DATA SOURCE1.ELA with emphasis on reading, analyzing, and responding to literature (Strand Six)

LEAP 21 and ITBS testing data; Classroom observations, student questionnaire, administrative questionnaire, LEAP 21 and ITBS test data, TLS

2.Math with emphasis on number and number relations (Strand One) and Algebra (Strand Two)

LEAP 21 and ITBS testing data

3.Science with emphasis on science as inquiry ( strand one) TLS and formal/informal observations

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE DATA SOURCE1. Test scores in ELA SWD 86.7% and Black 56.8% were non-proficient on CRT; Increase from 42.2% in 2003 to 50.2% in 2004 of non-proficient “red” students: STRAND EVIDENCE: LEAP 2004 53% incorrect answers on stand six which is an average of all the students at STJH. This is the highest number of incorrect answers; of this SWD scored 67% of incorrect answers

Classroom observations, student questionnaire, administrative questionnaire, LEAP 21 and ITBS test data, TLS


2. Decrease in student achievement in sub-group populations in LEAP 21 in Math related to number and number relations SWD 70% and Black 62.2% non-proficient on CRT; increase from 45.5% in 2003 to 54.2% in 2004 of non-proficient “red” students. STRAND EVIDENCE: scored 46% incorrect answers in strand one (number and number relations); scored 57% incorrect answers in whole group and 68% for SWD on strand two (algebra).

LEAP 21 and ITBS data

3. Decrease in student achievement in sub-group populations in LEAP 21

in Science related to science as inquiry. 41% included in strand one

(science as inquiry) in whole group; 46% black and 54% SWD.

These are the numbers from 2004. We will work to improve from this baseline.

LEAP 21 and ITBS data

Underlying Cause: Primarily teacher-centered, whole group instruction that is not aligned with standards and benchmarks.

Classroom observations, student questionnaire, administrative questionnaire, LEAP 21 and ITBS test data, TLS

Note 1. Supporting evidence included both quantitative and qualitative data using a standardized triangulation method specifically designed for District Assistance Teams and School Improvement Teams. The supporting evidence does not imply causal relationships.


STRATEGY PLANNING WORKSHEETGOAL 1: To improve proficiency in applying reading comprehension skills to written response to text across content areas (strand 6)

School SPS 2003: 83.0 School GT 2004: 86.7

OBJECTIVE 1:1. (LA accountability) To increase by no less than 10% the percentage of

students scoring Mastery or higher as measured by the ELA component of

the standards based assessment – from 9.3% in 2004 to 10.2% in 2005.

2. (NCLB accountability): To increase by no less than 10% the percentage of students scoring proficient in the ELA component of the standards based assessment – from 53.4% in 2004 to 58.7% in 2005.

Targeted SubgroupsBlack: 43.2% to 47.4%; White: 60.9% to 67%; ED: 52.7% to 57.9 %; SWD:

13.3% to 47.4%

SCIENTIFICALLY BASED RESEARCH STRATEGY: SIM to stimulate higher order thinking

ACTION PLAN

EXPECTED IMPACT (Observable Change) ACTIVITIES

PERSONS RESPONSIBLE

TARGET AUDIENCE and

TIMELINE

1 FUNDING SOURCES2 OBJECT CODE3 COST

IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS

(Benchmarks)1 2 3


Students Students will utilize higher order thinking strategies following SIM model to determine cause and effect, and generate inquiry as they read, analyze, and respond in writing to text as a record of life experiences. (Strand six)

With emphasis on:ELA-6-M1 (analyze universal themes found in a variety of world and multicultural texts in oral and written responses)ELA-6-M2 (compare and contrast elements e.g plot, setting in multiple genres)ELA-2-M2 (develop grade appropriate compositions on student or teacher selected topics)

Students will use SIM strategies in ELA classes (general and special education) to stimulate and encourage critical thinking, responding, and writing skills. Student’s written responses will reflect the writing process and will be assessed using a rubric. SIM strategies will include Sentence Writing, Paragraph Writing, Paraphrasing, and Self-Questioning

H. Rucker(Principal)

P. Woods (Assistant Principal)

K. Ybos (ELA dept. chair)

S. Desandro (ELA teacher leader)

ELA teachersInstructional staff (general and SPED)

“Red and “Blue” students

IMPLEMENTATION-Lesson plans reviewed weekly and provide feedback minimally each quarter in Oct, Dec, March and May.

EFFECTIVENESS-Administration reviews summary notes monthly from the ELA dept. meeting which are held on the second Thursday each month.

IMPLEMENTATION:Administration will review weekly lesson plans using a checklist and will provide feedback to the teachers, minimally once each nine weeks

EFFECTIVENESS: Sample student responses to pre-designed, grade appropriate constructed response activities using a standardized rubric will be reviewed monthly by ELA teachers. This information will be used to revise and plan for future instruction.

Summary notes reflecting the changes that they need to make to increase SIM with students will be submitted to administrators monthly.


Teachers will utilize higher order thinking strategies following SIM model to determine cause and effect, and generate inquiry as they read, analyze, and respond in writing to text as a record of life experiences.

With emphasis on:ELA-6-M1 (analyze universal themes found in a variety of world and multicultural texts in oral and written responses)ELA-6-M2 (compare and contrast elements e.g. plot, setting in multiple genres)ELA-2-M2 (develop grade appropriate compositions on student or teacher selected topics)

Content:ELA teachers will instruct students in higher order thinking, listening, and responding to literature both orally and in writing with emphasis on GLE (ELA-6-M1, ELA-6-M2, ELA-2-M2)

Instruction: Teachers will include in their instruction Strategic Instruction Model Strategies (SIM) such as Sentence Writing, Paragraph Writing, Paraphrasing, Self-Questioning and Content Enhancement Routines such as Concept Comparison and Framing.

Assessment: Student learning will be evaluated through a variety of assessments including writing rubrics.

Engagement: Student engagement will be maximized by connecting learning to real-life performance tasks.

H. Rucker (Principal)

P. Woods (Asst. Principal)

ELA teachers

T. Yokum (SPED teacher leader)


K. Ybos (ELA chair)

“Red” and “Blue” students

IMP:Administration observes with TLS each teacher quarterly.

Lesson plans reviewed weekly and provide feedback minimally each quarter in Oct, Dec, March and May.

EFF: Weekly review of student performance

IMPLEMENTATIONUsing the TLS (with emphasis on numbers one and four) the administrators will observe all ELA teachers (general and SPED) each quarter and provide constructive feedback.

Administration reviews lesson plans weekly to ensure inclusion higher order thinking SIM strategies and provides feedback to teachers.

EFFECTIVENESSELA grade level teachers will review select student responses on pre-designed, grade appropriate constructed response each week for revising and planning for future instruction.

Teachers will monitor weekly student work for progress of each strategy by using the strategy checklist and adjust instruction accordingly.


Professional Development (PD) for teachers will focus on the use of higher order thinking strategies following SIM model to determine cause and effect, and generate inquiry as they read, analyze, and respond in writing to text as a record of life experiences.


ELA teachers will participate in professional development by being instructed in the Strategic Instructional Model Learning Strategies and Content Enhancement Routines (SIM) as relates to strand 6 and GLE implementation.

Teachers will be trained in srategies (SIM) such as Sentence Writing, Paragraph Writing Paraphrasing, Self-Questioning and Content Enhancement Routines such as Concept Comparison and Framing.

Ms. RuckerPrincipal

Mr. WoodsAsst. Principal

Monica Roark (SIM trainer)

ELA Instructional staff – general and SPED

S. Desandro, ELA teacher leader

K. Ybos, ELA chair

T. Yokum, SPED teacher leader

ELA teachers/ instructional staff, both general and SPED

Observe each teacher every quarter.

SIM training and follow up session quarterly

Monthly grade and department meetings

IMPLEMENTATIONUsing TLS (with emphasis on numbers four and five) the administrators will observe ELA teachers, general and special educators, each quarter.

EFFECTIVENESSAt monthly grade level and department meetings, ELA teachers will review select student performance pertaining to Strand 6 and GLEs to plan for future instruction.

Teachers will attend quarterly training and follow up sessions.

Teachers will show evidence of applied strategies through weekly lesson plans and administrative observations.


Parent and Community OutreachInvolvement will incorporate suggestions to assist students in utilizing higher order thinking strategies following SIM model to determine cause and effect, and generate inquiry as they read, analyze, and respond in writing to text as a record of life experiences.


Teachers will use Strategic Instructional Model (SIM) to provide monthly “family” homework assignments.

Other outreach activities that will include higher order thinking strategies are:LEAP ExpoFamily NightCalendar for parentsELA nightMath/science nightWeb pageNewsletter

Ms. RuckerPrincipal


StudentsParentsM. Piron, librarianR. Normand, RHTC. Butler, guidanceT. Yokum, SPED teacher leaderS. Desandro, ELA teacher leaderK. Ybos, ELA dept. chairH. Rucker, principalP. Woods, asst. prin.

“Red” and “Blue” students and their parents

IMP: Beginning fall 2004;LEAP Expo – Oct. 27, 2004; Math/science night – Dec. 1; ELA Night – Nov 10, 2004Newsletters/calendars sent Monthly family homework assignments

EFF: monthly family homework assignments

monthly grade level and department meetings

IMPLEMENTATION: Parents will attend Open House (Sept. 2004), LEAP Expo (Oct 27); Math and ELA night (Nov 10); math/science night (December 2004), to learn how to assist their children with homework – to read, analyze and respond to literature as a record of life experiences, and apply knowledge across the curriculum (standard six). Parents will receivenewsletters, calendar for parents. Monthly, teachers will give “family” homework problems. Community can access STJH Web page.

EFFECTIVENESS: Students will discuss these assignments with their parents, and parents will sign their children’s homework assignment to indicate assistance with homework.Teachers will discuss with students how their family involvement is helping with completing assignments. Teachers will report their summaries at monthly grade level meetings.


Technology (TECH) for teachers and students will assist in developing SIM learning strategies and routines to apply higher order thinking strategies in context, determine cause and effect, generate inquiry, and make connections with real life situations as they read, analyze, and respond to literature as a record of life experiences (standard six)With emphasis on:ELA-6-M1 (analyze universal themes found in a variety of world and multicultural texts in oral and written responses)ELA-6-M2 (compare and contrast elements e.g. plot, setting in multiple genres)ELA-2-M2 (develop grade appropriate compositions on student or teacher selected topics.

Students will use the computer lab and Brain Child to enrich and support critical thinking skills in ELA and apply information across the curriculum. Information learned from the Strategic Instructional Model Learning Strategies and Content Enhancement Routines (SIM) will be utilized.

Students will create a composition, following the writing process and accessing available technology (e.g. word processing, spell check, thesaurus, etc.,)

K. Ybos, ELA chairS. Desandro, ELA teacher leaderS. Brown, tech chairM. Piron, librarianH. Rucker, principalP. Woods, asst. prin. ELA teachers – Instructional staff, general and SPED

Red and blue students

IMP: Lessons plans reviewed weekly and provide feedback minimally each quarter in October, December, March and May)

EFF:Administration reviews summary notes monthly from ELA department meetings which are held second Thursday of each month

IMPLEMENTATION:The administrators will use sign in sheets for lab and check out sheets for brain child as well as lesson plans to document the use of computer lab by ELA teachers. Administratorswill use the TLS (with emphasis on numbers four and five) to observe students’ use of the lab during instructional times.ELA grade level teachers will review select student responses on pre-designed, grade appropriate constructed response each quarter for revision and planning for future instruction in the lab.EFFECTIVENESS:Teachers will show integration of technology in curriculum as evidenced through weekly lesson plans and samples in student portfolios.


School Climate/Discipline Ensuring each student has a learning environment conducive to high levels of achievement through effective discipline and classroom management procedures. Information on classroom rules that are: a) provided to each student and parent; b) focused on student attendance, arriving on time, and completing homework assignments; and c) comply with school, dress code and classroom rules.

School Wide Positive Behavior Support is being piloted at STJH. A SWPBS team will design a discipline plan that is followed by all teachers. School Expectations are posted throughout the classes and halls. SWPBS team will develop positive strategies to teach alternative behavior choices. FISH philosophy will be used as students demonstrate appropriate behaviors, choices, and attitudes while working cooperatively in large or small groups.

H. Rucker, principal

P. Woods, asst. prin.

Jamie Marks, chair of School-wide discipline committee

K. Matherne, MHP

J. Ormond, MHP

C. Butler, guidance

Classroom teachers

All students

IMP:Lesson plans reviewed weekly and provide feedback minimally each quarter in October, December, March and May

Monthly TLS with all teachers

Monthly SWPBS team and grade level meetings

EFFAdministration reviews summary notes monthly from grade level department meetings which are held each month.

Administration reviews referrals to the office, conference with teachers, and discuss results at Positive School wide discipline committee meeting second Monday of each month

IMPLEMENTATION: Using the TLS with emphasis on numbers one through five, the administrators will observe all ELA teachers, general and SPED, each quarter.

Monthly SWPBS team meetings will review SWIS data. This information will be presented at monthly grade level meetings to determine instructional changes that need to be made.

EFFECTIVENESS: Administrators will review monthly SWIS data for reduction in numbers of referrals to office for classroom disruption; referrals that result in out of school suspension; reduction in absences due to out of school suspension.


Reducing the Performance GapTeachers will provide instruction to stimulate higher order thinking strategies following SIM model to determine cause and effect, and generate inquiry as they read, analyze, and respond in writing to text as a record of life experiences.

With emphasis on:ELA-6-M1 (analyze universal themes found in a variety of world and multicultural texts in oral and written responses)ELA-6-M2 (compare and contrast elements e.g plot, setting in multiple genres)ELA-2-M2 (develop grade appropriate compositions on student or teacher selected topics)

The instructional program for SWD will be aligned in scope and sequence to both the individual needs of each student and the ELA standards, with emphasis on selected GLEs. SPED and regular education teachers will coordinate lesson and unit planning to address the unique SWD needs in non-SPED settings. SWD needs will be partially addressed through those modifications and accommodations, along with differentiating instructions. SIM strategies of a) word identification; b) paraphrasing, and c) visual imagery will be used by all content area teachers throughout the school year. Extra tutoring opportunities will be made available to SWD during the school day as well as after school.

Professional development opportunities for teachers will be made available through Office of Professional Development.


P. Woods, AP

Carmen Butler, guidance

Rae Ann Normand, RHT


Nancy McDermott, SPED coordinator

K. Ybos, ELA chair


All regular and special education staff teaching ELA,

IMP:9/1 – Framingadjusting master schedule, verifying IEP compliance9/14/04 – SIMS training – word ID; GLE training 9/29/04; DATA for direction – 10/26,/04

EFF:9/16/04 interims;10/14/04 – grading period 1

11/11/04 interims; 12/21/04 grading period 2; 02/03/04 interims; 03/10/05 grading period 304/14/05 interims; 05/25/05 grading period 4

Implementation: The principal and assistant principal will review weekly lesson plans; TLS with emphasis on numbers four and five quarterly

Effectiveness: SPED tracking record reviewed weekly; student achievement monitored weekly by principal/designee using SPED tracking reports; lesson plans adjusted accordingly

.


Articulation Salmen Learning Community will be focused on reviewing student performance data, implementing the GLEs in lesson planning, preparing for the guaranteed curriculum, exchanging “best practices” and developing teacher made performance assessments that focus on the application of knowledge at higher levels. Sharing other leadership aspects associated with implementing the Strategic Plan and the parish’s goal of “Good to Great”

The administrative staff will participate in the annual administrator’s retreat as a learning center. Representatives of the school (administrator, SIP chair, and teacher leaders) will attend a one-day data retreat at the Instructional Technology Center. This activity is designed to a) improve communication, b) examine student data, and c) plan improvement activities within the school and community.Each first Wednesday, the principal will attend the monthly Principal’s meeting with the superintendent and other central office staff to discuss aspects outlined in the Expected Impact column. Principals within the learning community will have time to collaborate on improvement efforts underway at their schools and future initiatives within the community. Between scheduled meetings, principals will post and collaborate the information associated with expected impact using Blackboard.

H. Rucker, principalP. Woods, AP

Rae Normand and Carmen Butler, SIP co-chairs

Teacher leaders – S. Desandro, T. Yokum, K. Blackburn

Data team member, Donna McClue

Students, parents, teachers, administrators

IMP:Principal and Assistant Principal;Administrator’s retreat 7/28/05

DATA retreat:Principal, SIP co-chairs, DATA team member (9/14/04)

EFF: Learning community meetings:Principal9/1/0410/06/0411/03/0412/01/041/05/052/02/053/02/054/06/055/04/05

Implementation:Members of the Salmen Learning Community will attend all scheduled activities so that the school is represented at all activities.

Effectiveness:100% of the schools in the Learning Community will have an approved improvement plan that addresses those aspects outlined in the “Expected Impact”; 98% of all discussion threads on Blackboard will be responded to by each school’s principal.Discussion threads will focus on the GLE’s, Ubd, and performance.

* Indicates Professional Development Learning ** Indicates Family Involvement Activities *** Indicates Safe and Drug-Free Activities Note 1. See appendices for additional information on the NSDC Standards for Staff Development (Context, Content & Process)


STRATEGY PLANNING WORKSHEETGOAL 2: To improve student proficiency in addressing math skills in number and number relationships (Strand 1) and algebra (strand 2) across the curriculum

School SPS 2003: 83 School GT 2004: 86

OBJECTIVE 2:(LA accountability): to increase by no less than 10% the percentage of students scoring Mastery or higher as measured by the math component of the standards based assessment – from 8.7% in 2004 to 9.5% in 2005.(NCLB accountability): To increase by no less than 10% the percentage of students scoring proficient on the math component of the standards-based assessment – from 58.6% in 2004 to 64.4% in 2005.

Targeted subgroupsBlack: 37.8% to 41.8%; White: 70.9% to 78%; ED: 50.5% to 55.5%; SWD: 30.0% to 41.8%

SCIENTIFICALLY BASED RESEARCH STRATEGY: Instruction focused on Contextual Learning (CL) .


ACTION PLAN


PERSONS RESPONSIBLE

TARGET AUDIENCE and

TIMELINE



(Benchmarks)1 2 3Students will engage in contextual learning (CL) activities to improve understanding of mathematical concepts, with emphasis on number and number relationships and using appropriate arithmetic/algebraic operations in real-life situations Standards 1 (A-1-M) and Standard 5( A-5-M)

Contextual Learning activities (CL) such as Connected Math, Math Solutions, manipulatives will be used in math classes, general and special education, to aid in student understanding of number and number relations and algebra.

H. Rucker, principalP. Woods, asst. prin.Math teachers/instructional staff general and SPEDK. Blackburn, math teacher leaderD. McClue, math chairT. Yokum, SPED teacher leader


Weekly use on CL lessons

Monthly teacher training

Quarterly review

IMPLEMENTATION: The principal and assistant principal will review weekly lesson plans where teachers have documented CL activities using a checklist and provide constructive feedback to teachers.

EFFECTIVENESS:Students will demonstrate a conceptual understanding of the meaning of the basic arithmetic and algebraic operations in their real-life situations. Students will respond to pre-designed, grade appropriate, constructed response activities on an on-going basis


TeachersTeachers will stimulate and encourage CL to improve understanding of mathematical concepts, with emphasis on number and number relations and using appropriate arithmetic/algebraic operations in real-life situations.

Standard 1 (A-1-M) and Standard 5(A-5-M)

Content:Math teachers will instruct students CL activities with emphasis on Standard 1(A-1-M) and Standard 5 (A-5-M)

Instruction: Teachers will include CL activities such as Connected math, math Solutions, hands-on and math manipulatives



H. Rucker, principalP. Woods, asst. prin.Math teachersInstructional staff – general and SPEDD. McClue, math chairK.Blackburn, math teacher leaderT. Yokum, SPED teacher leader


IMP:Administration observes with TLS each teacher quarterly.



IMPLEMENTATIONUsing the TLS (with emphasis on numbers one and four) the administrators will observe all math teachers (general and SPED) each quarter and provide constructive feedback.

Administration reviews lesson plans weekly to ensure inclusion of CL strategies and provide feedback to teachers.

EFFECTIVENESSMath grade level teachers will review select student responses on pre-designed, grade appropriate constructed response each week for revising and planning for future instruction.



Professional Development (PD) for teachers will focus on CL concepts such as comparison and framingto improve student understanding of mathematical concepts, with emphasis on number and number relations and using appropriate arithmetic operations in real life situations Standard 1 (A-1-M) and Standard 5 (A-5-M)

Math teachers will participate in professional development by being instructed in contextual learning as relates to Standard 1 (A-1-M) and Standard 5 (A-5-M)

Teachers will be trained in strategies CL concepts such as Connected Math, Math Solutions, hand-on experiences and math manipulatives.

Ms. RuckerPrincipal



Science Instructional staff – general and SPED


K. Koserog, science chair


Science teachers/ instructional staff, both general and SPED

IMP: Observe each teacher every quarter.

CL training and follow up session quarterly

EFF: At monthly grade and department meetings, teachers will share information gained at PD training.

IMPLEMENTATIONUsing TLS (with emphasis on numbers four and five) the administrators will observe math teachers, general and special educators, each quarter.

At monthly grade level and department meetings, math teachers will review select student performance pertaining to Strand 1 and 5 and GLEs to plan for future instruction.


EFFECTIVENESS: Teachers will show evidence of applied strategies through weekly lesson plans and administrative observations.


information, and explanations)s))Parent and Community OutreachInvolvement will incorporate suggestions to assist students in utilizing CL to determine understanding of mathematical concepts with emphasis on number and number relations and using appropriate arithmetic/algebraic operations in real life situations. Standard 1 (A-1-M) and Standard 5 (A-5-M)

Teachers will use CL to provide monthly “family” homework assignments. CL will be included in:LEAP Expo, newsletter, calendar for parents, Web page, ELA night; math/science night, Web page.Monthly, teachers will give “family” homework problems.

Ms. RuckerPrincipal


StudentsParentsM. Piron, librarianR. Normand, RHTC. Butler, guidanceT. Yokum, SPED teacher leaderS. Desandro, ELA teacher leaderK. Ybos, ELA dept. chair.

“Red” and “Blue” students and their parents

IMP: Beginning fall 2004; LEAP Expo – Oct. 27, 2004; Math/science night – December 1 ELA Night – Nov. 10, 2004

EFF: monthly family homework assignments

IMPLEMENTATION: Parents will attend Open House, Sept. 2004 and math night in December 2004 to learn how to assist their children with homework –emphasize number and number relations and algebra

EFFECTIVENESS: Students will discuss these assignments with their parents, and parents will sign their children’s homework assignment to indicate assistance with homework.Students will begin to discuss family interaction with teachers and peers about how assignments were completed. Teachers will report their summaries at monthly grade level meetings.


Technology (Tech)for teachers and students will reinforce CL concepts associated with improved understanding of mathematical concepts, with emphasis on number and number relationships and using appropriate arithmetic/ algebraic operations in real life situations Standard 1 (A-1-M) and Standard 5 (A-5-M)

Teachers will use contextual learning to provide students with an opportunity to organize material and practice the use of numbers and number relationships by using a variety of technological methods – computers in lab, calculators, brain child

S. Brown, tech chairK. Koserog, tech committee and science chair,D. McClue, math chairK. Blackburn, math teacher leaderMath teachers – instructional staff, general and SPEDT. Yokum,SPED teacher leader


IMP: Lessons plans reviewed weekly and provide feedback minimally each quarter in October, December, March and May)

EFF:Administration reviews summary notes monthly from math department meetings which are held second Wednesday of each month

IMPLEMENTATIONUsing the TLS the administrators will observe math teachers, general and SPED, each quarterMath grade-level teachers will review select student responses on pre-designed, grade appropriate constructed response each quarter revising and planning for future instruction.

EFFECTIVENESS:Teachers will show integration of technology in curriculum as evidenced through weekly lesson plans and observations.


Reducing the Performance GapTeachers will stimulate and encourage CL to improve understanding of mathematical concepts, with emphasis on number and number relations and using appropriate arithmetic/algebraic operations in real-life situations.

Standard 1 (A-1-M) and Standard 5(A-5-M)

The instructional program for SWD will be aligned in scope and sequence to both the individual needs of each student and the math standards, with emphasis on selected GLEs. SPED and regular education teachers will coordinate lesson and unit planning to address the unique SWD needs in non-SPED settings. SWD needs will be partially addressed through those modifications and accommodations, along with differentiating instructions. SWD classes will utilize Framing, LEAP remediation curriculum, CL, SIM strategies of a) word identification; b) paraphrasing, and c) visual imagery will be used by all content area teachers throughout the school year. Professional development opportunities will be made available through Office of Professional Development. Extra tutoring opportunities will be made available to SWD during the school day as well as after school.


P. Woods, AP





M. Whitlock, SPED chair

All regular and SPED teachers

All regular and special education staff teaching IMP:9/1 – Framingadjusting master schedule, verifying IEP compliance9/14/04 – SIMS training – word ID; GLE training 9/29/04; DATA for direction – 10/26,/04

EFF: 9/16/04 interims;10/14/04 – grading period 111/11/04 interims; 12/21/04 grading period 2; 02/03/04 interims; 03/10/05 grading period 304/14/05 interims; 05/25/05 grading period 4

Implementation: The principal and assistant principal will review weekly lesson plans; TLS with emphasis on four and five quarterly


.


PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING THE OBJECTIVE AND STRATEGYUtilizing various testing instruments, teachers will assess students’ progress.

* Indicates Professional Development Learning ** Indicates Family Involvement Activities *** Indicates Safe and Drug-Free Activities Note 1. See appendices for additional information on the NSDC Standards for Staff Development (Context, Content, & Process)


STRATEGY PLANNING WORKSHEETGOAL 3: To improve students’ science inquiry by engaging in partial and full inquiries that are within their developmental capabilities.

School SPS 2003: 83.0 School GT 2004: 86

Objective 3:1. (LA accountability) To increase by no less than 10% the percentage of

students scoring Mastery or higher as measured by the science component of the standards based assessment – from 8.6% to 9.5 %

2. (NCLB accountability): To increase by no less than 10% the percentage of students scoring proficient in the science component of the standards based assessment – from 57% to 62.7%

Targeted SubgroupsBlack: 39% to 43%; White: 68% to 74.8%; ED: NA; SWD: 31% to 34%

SCIENTIFICALLY BASED RESEARCH STRATEGY:SIM to stimulate higher order thinking


ACTION PLAN


PERSONS RESPONSIBLE

TARGET AUDIENCE and

TIMELINE



(Benchmarks)1 2 3Students Students will utilize higher order thinking strategies following SIM model to design, predict outcomes, and conduct experiments to answer guiding questions. .

With emphasis on:SI-M-A2 (science as inquiry)SI-M-A4 (developing descriptions, explanations, and graphs using data)SI-M-A7 (communicating scientific procedures, information, and explanations)

Students will use HOTS and SIM strategies in science classes (general and special education) to stimulate and encourage critical thinking, predict outcomes, and conduct (age appropriate) experiments to answer guiding questions that identify independent variables, dependent variables, and variables that should be controlled in designing an experiment. Student’s written responses will reflect the scientific process. SIM strategies will include Sentence Writing, Paragraph Writing, Paraphrasing, and Self-Questioning

H. Rucker(Principal)

P. Woods (Assistant Principal)

K. Koserog. chair)


Science teachers(Instructional staff)

“Red and “Blue” students

IMP-Lesson plans reviewed weekly and provide feedback minimally each quarter in Oct, Dec, March and May.

EFF-Administration reviews summary notes monthly from the Science dept. meeting which are held on monthly

IMPLEMENTATION:Administration will review weekly lesson plans using a checklist and will provide feedback to the teachers, minimally once each nine weeks

EFFECTIVENESS: Sample student responses to pre-designed, grade appropriate constructed response activities using a standardized rubric will be reviewed monthly by science teachers. This information will be used to revise and plan for future instruction.

Summary notes reflecting the changes that they need to make to increase SIMwith students will be submitted to administrators monthly.


Teachers will utilize higher order thinking strategies following SIM model to design and conduct scientific investigation; design, predict outcomes, and conduct experiments to answer guiding questions; identify independent variables, dependent variables, and variables that should be controlled in designing an experiment. .

With emphasis on:SI-M-A2 (science as inquiry)SI-M-A4 (developing descriptions, explanations, and graphs using data)SI-M-A7 (communicating scientific procedures, information, and explanations)

Content:Science teachers will instruct students in predicting outcomes, conducting experiments to answer guiding questions; to identify independent variables, dependent variables, and variables that should be controlled in designing an experiment.

Instruction: Teachers will include in their instruction Strategic Instruction Model Strategies (SIM) such as Sentence Writing, Paragraph Writing, Paraphrasing, Self-Questioning and Content Enhancement Routines such as Concept Comparison and Framing.



H. Rucker (Principal)

P. Woods (Asst. Principal)

science teachers

T. Yokum (SPED teacher leader)




IMP: Administration observes with TLS each teacher quarterly.



IMPLEMENTATIONUsing the TLS (with emphasis on numbers one and four) the administrators will observe all science teachers (general and SPED) each quarter and provide constructive feedback.

Administration reviews lesson plans weekly to ensure inclusion higher order thinking strategies and provides feedback to teachers.

EFFECTIVENESSscience grade level teachers will review select student responses on pre-designed, grade appropriate constructed response each week for revising and planning for future instruction.



Professional Development (PD) for teachers will focus on the use of higher order thinking strategies following SIM model to design and conduct scientific investigation; design , predict outcomes, and conduct experiments to answer guiding questions; identify independent variables, dependent variables, and variables that should be controlled in designing an experiment With emphasis on:SI-M-A2 (science as inquiry);SI-M-A4 (developing descriptions, explanations, and graphs using data);SI-M-A7 (communicating scientific procedures, information, and explanations

Science teachers will participate in professional development by being instructed in the Strategic Instructional Model Learning Strategies and Content Enhancement Routines (SIM) as relates to Standard 1 and GLE implementation.

Teachers will be trained in srategies (SIM) such as Sentence Writing, Paragraph Writing, Paraphrasing, Self-Questioning and Content Enhancement Routines such as Concept Comparison and Framing.

Ms. RuckerPrincipal



Science Instructional staff – general and SPED




Science teachers/ instructional staff, both general and SPED

IMP: Observe each teacher every quarter.

SIM training and follow up session quarterly

EFF: Monthly grade and department meetings

IMPLEMENTATIONUsing TLS (with emphasis on numbers four and five) the administrators will observe science teachers, general and special educators, each quarter.

At monthly grade level and department meetings, science teachers will review select student performance pertaining to Strand 1 and GLEs to plan for future instruction.


EFFECTIVENESS: Teachers will show evidence of applied strategies through weekly lesson plans and administrative observations.


information, and explanations)s))


Technology Utilizing various technological instruments, students will utilize SIM Learning strategies and routines to report scientific investigation designed to communicate scientific procedure, information and explanation. SI-M-A2 (science as inquiry)SI-M-A4 (developing descriptions, explanations, and graphs using data)SI-M-A7 (communicating scientific procedures, information, and explanations)

Students will use the computer lab and science lab to enrich and support critical thinking skills in science and apply information across the curriculum. Information learned from the Strategic Instructional Model Learning Strategies and Content Enhancement Routines (SIM) will be utilized.

Students will use the writing process to design and write the results of scientific investigation; design, predict outcomes, and conduct experiments to answer guiding questions; identify independent variables, dependent variables, and variables that should be controlled in designing an experiment.

S. Brown, technology chairK. Koserog, science chair, K. Ybos, ELA chairD. McClue, math chairS. Desandro, ELA teacher leaderM. Piron, librarianH. Rucker, principalP. Woods, asst. prin. Instructional staff, general and SPED


IMP: Lesson plans reviewed weekly and provided feedback minimally each quarter, in October, December, March and May

EFF: Administration reviews summary notes monthly from science department meeting which are held on third Tuesday of each month

IMPLEMENTATION: Administration will review weekly lesson plans using a checklist and will provide feedback to teachers minimally once per nine weeks.

The administrators will use sign in sheets for lab and check out sheets for brain child as well as lesson plans to document the use of computer lab and science lab.

EFFECTIVENESS: Teachers will show integration of technology in curriculum as evidenced through weekly lesson plans and samples in portfolios.


Reducing the Performance GapTeachers will provide instruction to stimulate higher order thinking strategies following SIM model to determine cause and effect, and generate inquiry as they read, analyze, and respond in writing to text as a record of life experiences.

With emphasis on:SI-M-A2 (science as inquiry)SI-M-A4 (developing descriptions, explanations, and graphs using data)SI-M-A7 (communicating scientific procedures, information, and explanations

The instructional program for SWD will be aligned in scope and sequence to both the individual needs of each student and the science standards, with emphasis on selected GLEs. SPED and regular education teachers will coordinate lesson and unit planning to address the unique SWD needs in non-SPED settings. SWD needs will be partially addressed through those modifications and accommodations, along with differentiating instructions. SIM strategies of a) word identification; b) paraphrasing, and c) visual imagery will be used by all content area teachers throughout the school year. Extra tutoring opportunities will be made available to SWD during the school day as well as after school.

Professional development opportunities for teachers will be made available through Office of Professional Development.


P. Woods, AP







All regular and special education staff teaching science.

IMP: 9/1 – Framingadjusting master schedule, verifying IEP compliance9/14/04 – SIMS training – word ID; GLE training 9/29/04; DATA for direction – 10/26,/04

EFF: 9/16/04 interims;10/14/04 – grading period 111/11/04 interims; 12/21/04 grading period 2; 02/03/04 interims; 03/10/05 grading period 304/14/05 interims; 05/25/05 grading period 4

Implementation: The principal will review weekly lesson plans; TLS quarterly


.


PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING THE OBJECTIVE AND STRATEGYUtilizing various testing instruments, teachers will assess students’ progress.

* Indicates Professional Development Learning ** Indicates Family Involvement Activities *** Indicates Safe and Drug-Free Activities Note 1. See appendices for additional information on the NSDC Standards for Staff Development (Context, Content, & Process)


FOR RESTRICTED AND DISCRETIONARY FUNDSFUNDING SOURCES*

TITLE I TITLE V

LEAP INTERVEN

TION

PLAN FOR STUDENT SUCCESS

TEACHER LEADER

TOTAL

SALARIES (100) $169,062.00 $17,800.00 $1472.00 $800.00 $189,134

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS (200)

44,029.54 1,744.00 45,773.54

PURCHASED PROFESSIONAL and TECHNICAL SERVICES (300)PURCHASED PROPERTY SERVICES (400)

OTHER PURCHASES SERVICES (500)

SUPPLIES (600) 32,556.34 2187.65 10,844.00 45,587.99

INDIRECT COSTS (If applicable)

10,614.65 10,614.65

PROPERTY (700)

OTHER OBJECTS (800)

OTHER USES OF FUNDS (900)

900.00 900.00

TOTAL $257,162.53 $2187.65

$30,388.00 $1472.00 $800.00 $292,010.18

*Funding Sources: Title I - Part A, Part B (Even Start), Part C (Migrant), Part D (N &D), Part F (CSRP); Title II – Part A (Professional Development), Part D (Technology); Title III –English Language Proficient; Title V – Parental Choice and Innovative Programs; Title VII – Part A (Indian Education), Part B (Native Hawaiian Education), Part C (Alaska Native Education); Learn and Serve America; Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act; State Funding; 8(g); LaSIP; Foreign Languages; IDEA; K-3 Initiatives; Early Reading First; MSL; Education Excellence Act; School Choice; miscellaneous funding sources; foundations/grants, etc.


budget WORKsheet by achievement goal and funding sourceFUNDING SOURCES*

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FAMILY INVOLVEMENT OTHER

Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Total Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Total Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Total

1. TITLE I $1023.00 $1024.00 $2047.00 $2047.00

2. Plan for student success

$490.66 $490.66 $490.68 $1472.00 $1472.00

3. Teacher Leader

$266.66 $266.66 $266.68 $800.00 $800.00

4. LEAP Intervention

5. Technology $4000.00 $4000.00 $4000.00 $12000.00

6. Career Tech Lab

$1633.33 $1633.33 $1633.34 $4900.00

TOTALS

$756.66 $756.66 $756.70 $2272.00 $1023.00 $1024.00 $2047.00 $5633.33 $5633.33 $5633.34 $21,219.00

*Funding Sources: Title I - Part A, Part B (Even Start), Part C (Migrant), Part D (N &D), Part F (CSRP); Title II – Part A (Professional Development), Part D (Technology); Title III –English Language Proficient; Title V – Parental Choice and Innovative Programs; Title VII – Part A (Indian Education), Part B (Native Hawaiian Education), Part C (Alaska Native Education); Learn and Serve America; Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act; State Funding; 8(g); LaSIP; Foreign Languages; IDEA; K-3 Initiatives; Early Reading First; MSL; Education Excellence Act; School Choice; miscellaneous funding sources; foundations/grants, etc.


Appendix AStakeholder Participants (Beliefs, Vision & Mission Statement

BELIEFS STATEMENT

The school community of St. Tammany Junior High School believes that all children, as individuals, have unique needs, desires, and expectations, and that the school is a basic institution for the development of intellectual, physical, social, emotional, moral and motivational growth.

VISION STATEMENT

The vision of St. Tammany Junior High School is to prepare students for an ever-changing, global community by helping them to:*develop basic skills, higher order thinking skills, technology skills, communication skills, and life skills*develop personal interests and social awareness*develop self-discipline and self motivation

MISSION STATEMENT

Students, parentsTeachers, and administrators

Joining together to prepare all students forHigh academic standards to meet tomorrow’s challenges


Appendix BGeopolitical, Demographic and Economic Data

St. Tammany Parish

Geopolitical Data

St. Tammany Parish, located on the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain has easy access to New Orleans via the Causeway or the I-10 Twin span. Interstates 12, 10, 55 and 59, U.S.190 and a vast array of state highways conveniently tie us to the entire country. New Orleans International Airport is less than an hour away. Our population is 144508 people in 57993 households. The land area is 854.4 square miles (546845 acres); the water area is 269.7 square miles (172583 acres). St. Tammany Parish is located at latitude 30.40 degrees North, longitude 89.96 degrees West. The fastest growing region in Louisiana, with an influx of approximately 500 people per month, St. Tammany's present population is estimated at 170,000. Named after Delaware Indian Chief Tamenand, the parish was first explored in 1699 by French-Canadian Pierre Le Moyne Iberville, the first European to sight Lake Pontchartrain in what is now Louisiana. It wasn't until 1785, that families from Georgia and the Carolinas began to settle the territory. Claims were staked along the Tchefuncte, Bogue Falaya and other rivers and bayous, and in time villages became cities, while much of the pristine rural areas of St. Tammany Parish have been kept intact.

Demographic Data

Urban & rural (2000) St. Tammany

Parish LouisianaUnitedStates

Total population 191,268 4,468,976 281,421,906

Urban 74.8% 72.6% 79.0%

Rural (farm) 0.3% 0.7% 1.1%

Rural (not a farm) 24.9% 26.7% 19.9%

Source Citation: U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Sample Characteristics (SF3). From a compilation by the GNO Community Data Center. <http://www.gnocdc.org>

Long-term residents & newcomers (2000) St. Tammany


Total population 5 years and over living in the Greater New Orleans (GNO) area in 2000 177,826 3,132,804 210,418,424

Lived in same house in 1995 54.7% 58.1% 53.0%

Lived in different house in the GNO area in 1995 30.8% - -

Lived outside the GNO area in 1995 14.5% - -



Total Numbers (2000) St. Tammany


Population 191,268 4,468,976 281,421,906Total households 69,253 1,656,053 105,480,101

Family households 52,727 1,156,438 71,787,347Source Citation: U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Full-count Characteristics (SF1). From a compilation by the GNO Community Data Center. http://www.gnocdc.org

Gender (2000) St. Tammany


Female 51.0% 51.6% 50.9%Male 49.0% 48.4% 49.1%

Age (2000) St. Tammany


5 years old and under 8.6% 8.5% 8.2%6-11 years old 9.7% 9.2% 8.9%12-17 years old 10.1% 9.5% 8.6%18-34 years old 19.4% 24.3% 23.8%35-49 years old 26.3% 22.5% 23.2%50-64 years old 15.9% 14.5% 14.9%65-74 years old 5.7% 6.3% 6.5%75-84 years old 3.3% 3.9% 4.4%85 years old and older 1.0% 1.3% 1.5%

Source Citation: U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Full-count Characteristics (SF1). From a compilation by the GNO Community Data Center. http://www.gnocdc.org

Racial & ethnic diversity (2000) St. Tammany


Black or African American 9.8% 32.3% 12.1% White 85.3% 62.6% 69.2%Asian 0.7% 1.2% 3.6%American Indian 0.4% 0.5% 0.7%


http://www.gnocdc.org/

http://www.gnocdc.org/

Other 0.2% 0.1% 0.3%2 race categories 1.1% 0.9% 1.6%Hispanic (any race) 2.5% 2.4% 12.5%

Source Citation: U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Full-count Characteristics (SF1). From a compilation by the GNO Community Data Center. <http://www.gnocdc.org>

Marital status (2000) St. Tammany


Total population 15 years and older 146,499 3,466,380 221,148,671 Never married 21.0% 28.6% 27.1% Married 61.2% 51.2% 54.4% Separated 1.7% 2.6% 2.2% Widowed 6.0% 7.4% 6.6% Divorced 10.1% 10.2% 9.7%


Households by type (2000) St. Tammany


Total households 69,253 1,656,053 105,480,101Female householder (no husband present) with children under 18 7.7% 11.9% 8.4%Male householder (no wife present) with children under 18 2.5% 2.6% 2.4%Married-couple family, with children under 18 32.1% 24.3% 24.9%Nonfamily households, with children under 18 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%Households with no people under 18 years 57.3% 60.8% 63.9%

Children in households (2000) St. Tammany


Population under 18 years in households 54,211 1,214,204 71,970,901 Children living as head of household 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Children living with mother only 14.2% 24.6% 18.5% Children living with father only 4.2% 4.8% 4.9% Children living with married parents 73.1% 57.0% 66.2%


Children living with grandparents 5.7% 9.7% 6.3% Children living with other relatives 1.3% 2.2% 2.1% Children living with non-relatives 1.4% 1.6% 1.9%

Elderly in households (2000) St. Tammany


Elderly in households 18,176 485,182 32,998,132 Living alone 25.5% 30.7% 29.5% Living in family households 72.3% 67.2% 68.0% Living in non-family households 2.2% 2.1% 2.5%

Source Citation: U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Full-count Characteristics (SF1). From a compilation by the GNO Community Data Center. <http://www.gnocdc.org>

Children in foster care (1998) St. Tammany

Parish Louisiana United

StatesChildren in foster care 323 5,911 na Children in foster care rate per 100,000 555.6 440.3 na

Source Citation: Agenda for Children. 1999 Kids Count Data Book on Louisiana's Children.

Supervision of children (2000) St. Tammany


Total children under 6 in families and subfamilies 15,498 353,949 21,833,613

Children under 6 in families where both parents or the single parent works 57.2% 59.1% 58.6%

Children under 6 in families where at least one parent does not work 42.8% 40.9% 41.4%

Total children 6-17 in families and subfamilies 36,294 772,612 46,049,013

Children 6-17 in families where both parents or the single parent works 63.9% 64.9% 67.4%

Children 6-17 in families where at least one parent does not work 36.1% 35.1% 32.6%



Grandparents as caregivers (2000) St. Tammany


Total grandparents living in households with grandchildren under 18 3,536 122,240 5,771,671

Grandparent responsible for grandchildren under 18 47.1% 54.9% 42.0%

Grandparent not responsible for own grandchildren under 18 52.9% 45.1% 58.0%


http://www.gnocdc.org/st_tammany/people.html

Economic Data

Household income type (2000) St. Tammany


Total households 69,281 1,657,107 105,539,122

Wage or salary income 79.7% 75.4% 77.7%

Self-employment income 13.6% 9.8% 11.9%

Social Security income 22.8% 25.2% 25.7%

Supplemental security income 3.5% 6.1% 4.4%

Public assistance income 1.9% 3.3% 3.4%


Median household income (2000) St. Tammany


Median household income $47,883 $32,566 $41,994

Average household income (2000) St. Tammany


Average household income $61,565 $44,833 $56,644

Average household income for households reporting less than $200,000 $54,421 $40,183 $49,239

Average household income for households reporting more than $200,000 $310,485 $367,701 $361,490


http://www.gnocdc.org/st_tammany/people.html


Income distribution (2000) St. Tammany


Total households 69,281 1,657,107 105,539,122

Less than $10,000 8.1% 15.7% 9.5%

$10,000-14,999 5.4% 8.6% 6.3%

$15,000-19,999 5.6% 7.6% 6.3%

$20,000-24,999 5.8% 7.4% 6.6%

$25,000-29,999 5.8% 7.0% 6.4%

$30,000-34,999 5.5% 6.5% 6.4%

$35,000-39,999 5.5% 5.9% 5.9%

$40,000-44,999 5.5% 5.3% 5.7%

$45,000-49,999 4.7% 4.5% 5.0%

$50,000-59,999 9.3% 7.9% 9.0%

$60,000-74,999 10.9% 8.6% 10.4%

$75,000-99,999 12.3% 7.6% 10.2%

$100,000-124,999 6.8% 3.4% 5.2%

$125,000-149,999 3.1% 1.4% 2.5%

$150,000-199,999 2.9% 1.2% 2.2%

$200,000 or more 2.8% 1.4% 2.4%


Population in poverty (2000) St. Tammany


Total population for whom poverty status is determined 188,661 4,334,094 273,882,232

People living in poverty 9.7% 19.6% 12.4%

People living at or above poverty 90.3% 80.4% 87.6%Poverty status by age (2000) St. Tammany Louisiana United


Parish StatesTotal population 0-5 for whom poverty status is determined 16,024 375,393 22,636,650

Children 0-5 living in poverty 13.1% 29.0% 18.1%

Children 0-5 living at or above poverty 86.9% 71.0% 81.9%Total population 6-11 for whom poverty status is determined 18,249 403,616 24,587,815


Children 6-11 living at or above poverty 89.0% 73.2% 83.1%Total population 12-17 for whom poverty status is determined 19,297 421,352 23,700,796


Children 12-17 living at or above poverty 87.1% 75.6% 85.2%Total population 18-64 for whom poverty status is determined 116,956 2,644,159 169,610,423

Adults 18-64 living in poverty 8.5% 17.0% 11.1%

Adults 18-64 living at or above poverty 91.5% 83.0% 88.9%Total population 65 and older for whom poverty status is determined 18,135 489,574 33,346,548

Adults 65 and older living in poverty (%) 10.1% 16.7% 9.9%

Adults 65 and older living at or above poverty (%) 89.9% 83.3% 90.1%


Families in poverty (2000) St. Tammany


Total families below poverty level 4,041 183,448 6,620,945

Female householder (no husband present) with own children under 18 44.6% 52.2% 44.4%

Male householder (no wife present) with own children under 18 8.4% 5.9% 6.8%

Married-couple family with children under 18 24.0% 19.9% 26.7%

Families with no children under 18 23.0% 22.0% 22.1%Source Citation: U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Sample Characteristics (SF3). From a compilation by the GNO Community Data Center. <http://www.gnocdc.org>


http://www.gnocdc.org/st_tammany/income.html

Moredata

NAICScode Description

Estab-lish-

ments

Sales, receipts

or shipments($1,000)

Annualpayroll

($1,000)

Paidemployees

21 Mining (not published for counties) N N N N 22 Utilities (not published for counties) N N N N 23 Construction (not published for counties) N N N N 31-33 Manufacturing 127 373,742 61,296 2,699

42 Wholesale trade 252 6,604,024 75,263 2,070

44-45 Retail trade 749 1,511,469 135,300 9,479 48-49 Transportation & warehousing (not published for counties) N N N N 51 Information (total not published for counties) N N N N 52 Finance & insurance (not published for counties) N N N N 53 Real estate & rental & leasing 156 86,428 14,541 739

54 Professional, scientific, & technical services 401 125,379 45,528 1,789 55 Management of companies & enterprises (not published for counties) N N N N 56 Administrative & support & waste management &remediation services 184 97,185 34,288 1,938

61 Educational services 32 7,857 2,175 153

62 Health care & social assistance 444 345,032 141,407 5,248

71 Arts, entertainment, & recreation 55 35,940 10,085 869

72 Accommodation & foodservices 345 170,691 44,825 5,415

81 Other services (except public administration) 239 81,375 21,609 1,263http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97/la/LA103.HTM


http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97/la/LA103.HTM

http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97/def/81.HTM











http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97/def/48-49.HTM







http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97brdg/def/EMP.HTM

http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97brdg/def/EMP.HTM

http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97brdg/def/PAY.HTM



http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97brdg/def/ECVALUE.HTM



http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97brdg/def/ESTAB.HTM



http://www.gnocdc.org/st_tammany/income.html

http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97/la/LA103_31.HTM












Appendix CNSDC Standards for Staff Development

Context Standards

Staff development that improves the learning of all students: • Organizes adults into learning communities whose goals are aligned with those of the school and district. (Learning Communities) • Requires skillful school and district leaders who guide continuous instructional improvement. (Leadership) • Requires resources to support adult learning and collaboration. (Resources)

Process Standards

Staff development that improves the learning of all students:

•Uses disaggregated student data to determine adult learning priorities, monitor progress, and help sustain continuous improvement. (Data-Driven)

• Uses multiple sources of information to guide improvement and demonstrate its impact. (Evaluation) • Prepares educators to apply research to decision making. (Research-Based) • Uses learning strategies appropriate to the intended goal. (Design) • Applies knowledge about human learning and change. (Learning) • Provides educators with the knowledge and skills to collaborate. (Collaboration)

Content Standards

Staff development that improves the learning of all students:

• Prepares educators to understand and appreciate all students, create safe, orderly and supportive learning environments, and hold high expectations for their academic achievement. (Equity)

• Deepens educators’ content knowledge, provides them with research-based instructional strategies to assist students in meeting rigorous academic standards, and prepares them to use various types of classroom assessments appropriately. (Quality Teaching)

• Provides educators with knowledge and skills to involve families and other stakeholders appropriately. (Family Involvement)

http://www.nsdc.org/


http://www.nsdc.org/

Appendix DScientifically-based Research Strategies

Readinghttp://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/publications/k-3.html

Mathhttp://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SASA/ms/index.html


http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SASA/ms/index.html

http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/publications/k-3.html

Appendix EExternal Technical Support and Assistance

Dr. J. P. Beaudoin, Supervisor of DATA analysis and managementDr. Jeannie Bernard, Supervisor of SPEDKim Woods, DATA based instructional specialistSam Jenkins, Phyllis Morgan, Supervisor of Instruction


Appendix FComprehensive Needs Assessment


Appendix GHighly Qualified-School Demographics

The numbers shown in 2004-05 accurately represents both 2003-04 and 2004-05 school years. Therefore, there was no change from 2003 to 2004 with regard to teachers.


school improvement plan - st. tammany parish ... · web viewst. tammany junior high school gayle g....

Documents