whole school sps: crt trend data · web viewlee road junior high school. gayle g. sloan....

SCHOOL STRATEGIC PLAN

Lee Road Junior High School

Gayle G. SloanSuperintendent

Anna Bowie, PrincipalKalinda Fauntleroy, Assistant PrincipalJerry O. Mendow, Assistant PrincipalThe Road to Excellence in Education

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.

_______________________________________ _______________________________________Superintendent's signature Principal's signature

_______________________________________ _______________________________________District Assistance Team Leader Chair, School Improvement Team

___________________________________ ________________________________

St. Tammany Parish School Board 3 SY 2004-2005

___________________________________ _________________________________District Assistance Team Members

ASSURANCE OF FACULTY REVIEW OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

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

NAME TITLE/POSITION SIGNATURESheri Barton Teacher/6th & 7th Lang. ArtsJennifer Beason Teacher/5thAmy Blankenship Teacher/7th & 8th Lang. ArtsLesa Bodnar Teacher/2nd Melinda Breaux Guidance CounselorGina Britt Speech TherapistJanene Bulloch Teacher/1st Martha Cazaubon Teacher/3rd Rachel Champagne Teacher/4th WINGinger Corcoran Teacher/Pre-KMary Cousin Teacher/2nd Laura Credeur Teacher/7th & 8th Social StudiesPamela Cyprian Special Education TeacherAmy Danna Teacher/5th Karen Dirmann Teacher/KNancy Ernst Special Education TeacherSusan Flockton Teacher/GiftedJulie Fogarty PEI TeacherKathy Foxworth LibrarianEddie Frederick Teacher/6th & 7th ScienceVickie Fussell Teacher/2nd Emmie Grayson Teacher/Pre-KCarolyn Hays Teacher/1st Stacey Hoover Title 1 Computer Lab TeacherTheresa Hurston Teacher/6th Lang. ArtsJohnette Jacob Teacher/3rd Bobbie Keller Teacher/2nd Tresa Laird Teacher/6th Social Studies; 8th P.E.Cherie LaPlace Teacher/GiftedTrina LeBlanc Teacher/4th Jenee’ Lindsey Special Education TeacherMary Pratt Lobdell Teacher/8th Lang. ArtsAlan McCain Teacher/ 7th & 8th Science


Rebecca McLain Teacher/MusicDebbie Melancon Teacher/K

Robert Memleb 6th & 7 P.E.Barbara Moffett Special Education TeacherAngela Montgomery Teacher/3rd Melissa Odom Teacher/3rd Tammy Penton Gifted TeacherJane Pittman Physical EducationDeborah Poche’ Teacher/7th & 8th MathVicki Politte Special Education TeacherKaren Rayburn Teacher/4th Amy Savarese Teacher/1st Debi Schoen Teacher/KVivian Shoultz Teacher/5th Tom Seeger Special Education TeacherRebecca Sharp Resource Helping TeacherRobin Silvestri Teacher/4th Suzy Thomas Vocational AgBarbara Thompson Teacher/1st Shelia Thompson Teacher/8th Social Studies & P.E.Susie Tosso Teacher/T-1Misty Woesner Teacher/KTommy Wood Teacher/6th & 7th MathPatricia McGehee Teacher/Consumer Science & 7th

ScienceMax Welch Student/President of JNHSTerri DeSandro Parent/PTA PresidentSuzanne Jenkins ParentJeffery Brown Student/Pres. Of Student CouncilDr. Glen Spell Business


BELIEFS STATEMENT

Students are individuals with different learning styles. The curriculum is designed to meet the unique social, emotional, physical, and intellectual needs of all students. Maintaining a safe, healthy, and well-supervised environment promotes student learning. Teachers, parents, and the community are partners in the educational process and share the responsibility for support of the school

mission. Teachers act as facilitators to guide students toward the achievement of their fullest capabilities. Students develop self-confidence and a sense of responsibility when a positive relationship exists between staff and students. Students are to be technologically competent to compete in the twenty-first century.

VISION STATEMENT

To develop responsible, life-long learners who are able to achieve and excel in a global society of continuing academic advancement, Lee Road Junior High School will invest instate-of-the-art equipment and services, ensure teacher and staff development opportunities, and continuously maintain and upgrade these services.

MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of Lee Road Junior High School is to prepare ALL students to achieve academically.


SCHOOL DEMOGRAPHICS/CHARACTERISTICS

ADM

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

Principals 3 3 N/A 2

TEACHERS*

SchoolNon-Title I

Title I Total % in School % Change from 2003Schoolwide Targeted Asst.

HIGHLY QUALIFIED** GeneralEd

SpecialEd

GeneralEd

SpecialEd

GeneralEd

SpecialEd

GeneralEd

SpecialEd

General

Ed

SpecialEd

# Highly Qualified Core Academic Teachers (Subtotal) 44 9NOT HIGHLY QUALIFIED General

EdSpecial

EdGeneral

EdSpecial

EdGeneral

EdSpecial

EdGeneral

EdSpecial

EdGenera

lEd

SpecialEd

Non-Standard*** (TAT) (OFAT) (TEP) (EP)

1 1

Other 2 1

Subtotal Not Highly Qualified 3 2

TOTAL TEACHERS (Highly Qualified and Not Highly Qualified)

47 11100% 100%

PARAS

HIGHLY QUALIFIED** GeneralEd

SpecialEd

GeneralEd

SpecialEd

GeneralEd

SpecialEd

GeneralEd

SpecialEd

General

Ed

SpecialEd

# Highly Qualified Paras 6.5 4.5

NOT HIGHLY QUALIFIED GeneralEd

SpecialEd

GeneralEd

SpecialEd

GeneralEd

SpecialEd

GeneralEd

SpecialEd

General

Ed

SpecialEd

# Not Highly Qualified Paras

Total Paraprofessionals 6.5 4.5 * 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) St. Tammany Parish School Board 7 SY 2004-2005

School SupportNumber of Related Service and Support Personnel and Areas (i.e., Speech Pathologist, Social Worker):7School Improvement Team Members/Position: Anna Bowie/Principal, Kalinda Fauntleroy/Asst. Principal, Jerry Mendow/Asst. Principal, Rebecca Sharp/RHT, Rachel Champagne/Teacher, Jenee’ Lindsey/Teacher, Amy Blankenship/Teacher, Melissa Odom/Teacher, Deborah Poche’/Teacher, Lesa Bodnar/Teacher

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

Distinguished Educator and Contact # (if applicable):

Parish Homeless Liaison: (Contact Parish Title I Supervisor to get further information) Mrs. Ann Pressley

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:

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 CentersBig BuddyCareer to Work XDARE XEarly Reading FirstHIPPYINTECHINTECH 2 ScienceINTECH Social StudiesK-3 Reading/Math Initiative XLa 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 TECHLearning 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 The Louisiana Literacy CorpsThe Multisensory Structured Language ProgramThe Strategic Instruction Model (SIM)Other:List the Supplemental Educational Services provided for your students (Title I schools, if applicable):Title 1, Title IVList 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:Technical Institute:Feeder School(s):Community:Business/Industry:Private Grants:Other:

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

788 454 164 42 9 N/A 2 2 0Number of Households Served by School:

Subgroups by EthnicityAmerican Indian Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic White

0 0 0 0 788Poverty Profile

# of Free/Reduced Lunch Students:389

Percent of Free/Reduced Lunch Students:49%

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


DATA COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY 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. Teachers promote a positive learning climate. Instructional Staff Interview

Classroom Observation (40)Parental Surveys (37)Administrator Interviews (2 of 2)

2. Strong family ties to the school which include an active and supportive PTO.

Student Focus GroupInstructional Staff Interviews Teacher Focus GroupAdministrator Interviews (2 of 2)

3. School offers numerous extra-curricular activities for students in which the faculty and parents have an active interest and role. (ie. FFA, 4-H & other clubs, as well as sports)

Teacher Focus GroupsDAT Team Observations (2003-2004)Student Focus Group

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE DATA SOURCEStrength 1. The Pre-K to 8th school configuration within a close-knit community creates an environment where students, staff, administrators, and parents develop a long-term relationship.

Parent Questionnaires (37)Administrator Interviews (2 of 2)Instructional Staff Interviews

Strength 2. Lee Road Junior High is the hub of the community with strong parental support and involvement.

Instructional Staff InterviewsAdministrator Interviews (2 of 2)Student and Teacher Focus Groups

Strength 3.Students rated the school culture at Lee Road a 3.2 on a 4 point scale. The parents surveyed rated the culture at Lee Road a 3.4 on a 4 point scale.Ratings from SAM Student and Parent Questionnaires.

Student Questionnaires (39)Parent Questionnaires (37)Student Focus GroupTeacher Focus Group


CHALLENGES DATA SOURCE1. Students lack proficiency in reading, analyzing, and responding to literature across the curriculum.

Analysis of CRT and NRT DataParish CRT Content Standard Analysis

2. Students lack the ability to select, compare, estimate, convert, and use the appropriate standard units of measure, abbreviations, and tools to measure length and perimeter, area, capacity, weight and volume as appropriate per grade level expectation.

Analysis of CRT and NRT DataParish CRT Content Standard Analysis

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE DATA SOURCEChallenge 1.

1. Testing Dataa. NRT-2003-2004 Test Results from IOWA

i. Grade 7 students decreased from 55 NPR to 50 NPR in language and 57 NPR to 53 NPR in reading.

b. CRT-2003-2204 Test Results from LEAP 21 i. The number of students scoring in the non-proficient range in ELA

on the CRT showed very little increase. (25% in 2003 to 28% in 2004.)

2. Curriculum: a. 4th (48%) and 8th (45%) grade students on the ELA LEAP 21 scored lowest

average percent correct on the questions corresponding to skills needed to read, analyze and respond to literature.

3. Instruction-Lack of Instructional Strategies Utilizeda. Direct, whole group instruction was the predominant teaching method

observed. b. 26% of observed teachers did not demonstrate an effort to accommodate

individual differences.c. 24% of observed teachers need improvement in the area of stimulates and

encourages higher order thinking.d. 70% of observed teachers showed no use of technology, neither computer nor

non-computer, in the classroom. 4. Underlying Causes

a. Poor management of time and discipline infringe upon instructional time.i. 3 out of 3 contextual surveys reported frequent and excessive

student loitering on campus during the academic day.ii. Instructional time (bell schedule) integrity is not protected.

iii. There is inconsistent enforcement of school and discipline policies therefore no clear expectations for teachers or students.

1. Testing Data from 2003-2004 CRT and NRT scores and 2003-2004 CRT and NRT scores

2. Curriculum Data: Content Standard Analysis provided by St. Tammany Parish

3. Instructional DataTeaching and Learning Snapshots (2003-2004)

4. Data to Support Underlying Causes (2003-2004)a. Instructional Staff Interviewsb. Teacher Focus Groupsc. Student Focus Groupd. Contextual Observation Checklist

Challenge 2.1. Testing Data

a. 2003-2004 Test Results from LEAP 21 (CRT) i. Students in both fourth and eight grades scored low on the

Measurement strand on LEAP 21.2. Curriculum

a. 4th grade students on the Math LEAP 21 had an average percent correct of

1. Testing Data from 2003-2004 CRT and NRT scores and 2003-2004 CRT and NRT scores

2. Curriculum Data: Content Standard Analysis provided by St. Tammany Parish


55% in measurement. b. 8th grade students on the Math LEAP 21had an average percent correct of

55% in measurement. 3. Lack of instructional strategies utilized:

a. 26% of observed teachers (50) failed to address the area of accommodates individual differences.

b. 24% of observed teachers scored low in the area of stimulates and encourages higher order thinking.

c. 70% of observed teachers did not integrate the use of technology, neither computer nor non-computer.

d. Very little use of experiential hands-on learning was observed.4. Underlying Causes

1. Poor management of instructional time2. No school-wide discipline plan

i. 3 out of 3 contextual surveys reported frequent and excessive student loitering on campus during the academic day.

ii. Instructional time (bell schedule) integrity is not protected.iii. There is inconsistent enforcement of school and discipline policies;

therefore, no clear expectations for teachers or students exist.

3. Lack of Instructional Strategies utilized: Teaching and Learning Snapshots

4. Data to Support Underlying Causes (2003-2004)a. Student Focus Groupb. Self vs. External. vs. Administrator Analysisc. Instructional Staff Interviewsd. Teacher Focus Groupse. Contextual Observation Checklist

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 relat


STRATEGY PLANNING WORKSHEETGOAL 1: To improve student proficiency in reading, analyzing, and responding to literature) across the curriculum.

School SPS 2004: 97.2 School GT 2005: 99.5

OBJECTIVE 1:1. [LA Accountability] To increase, by no less than 10%, the percentage of students scoring mastery or higher as measured by the English-language arts component of the standards-based assessment (18.9% in 2004 to 20.8% by Spring 2005)2. [NCLB Accountability] To reduce by no less than 10% the percentage of students scoring non-proficient on the English-language arts component of the standards-based assessment (41.2% in 2004 to 37.08% by Spring 2005) – Whole School

Targeted SubgroupsWhite.: 40.7% to 36.63% Black <10 ED: 44.8% to 40.32% SWD: 87.5% to 52.6%

SCIENTIFICALLY BASED RESEARCH STRATEGY:

Differentiation of instruction according to student ability, need, and/or interest.


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 3Students will be able to use higher order thinking strategies in context, apply reasoning skills to life experience, evaluate points of view, and distinguish fact from opinion/probability, determine cause and effect, generate inquiry, and make real- life situations across the text.

Students will create products both as part of group activities and independently that reflect the use of thinking maps and instructional differentiation for the class, and also demonstrate the ability to use higher order thinking skills in context, apply reasoning skills to life experience, evaluate point of view, distinguish fact from opinion, determine cause and effect, generate inquiry, and relate to real life situations across a variety of texts.Emphasis will be placed on:ELA-6-M1 (comparing/contrasting and responding to United States and world literature that represents the experiences and traditions of diverse ethnic groups)ELA-6-M2 (identifying, comparing, and responding to a variety of classic and contemporary fiction and non-fiction literature from many genres: e.g., novels, drama)ELA-6-M3 (classifying and interpreting various genres according to their unique characteristics)During tutoring, students (individually and in small groups) will engage in activity- based learning designed to enrich (acceleration), clarify and support (intervention), and/or re-teach (remediation) analytical and problem-solving skills associated with the targeted strand. Student needs will be determined through collaboration by regular education teacher and tutor.

Principal – Anna Bowie

RHT – Rebecca Sharp

Certified Staff

TutorsKalinda

Fauntleroy, Asst. Principal

Mrs. Sharp (Tutoring

Coordinator)Mrs.

Blankenship (Teacher

Leader Junior High)

Nov. – March, 2005

IMP: Weekly review of lesson plans throughout year

EFF: October 14, 2004December 21, 2004, March 10, 2005, and during the end-of-year review May 25, 2005

“Green Students” (Acceleration)

Selected Students “Red” & “Blue” students

2 hours per week

IMP: Weekly review of tutoring attendance throughout year

EFF: October 14, 2004December 21, 2004, March 10, 2005, and during the end-of-year review May 25, 2005

General Fund

Title I

K-3 Initiative

Title IV

LEAP

100 $14,062

$12,443.25

Implementation-The principal and RHT will review a sample of lesson plans using a checklist to focus on DI and HOTS each week and provide written feedback to teachers.

Effectiveness-Teachers at all grade levels will review select student responses on pre-designed, grade-appropriate constructed responses bi-weekly in planning for future instruction. Each grade will report student progress to the principal each 9 weeks.

Implementation - The RHT, K-3 Selection Coordinator and the Junior High Teacher Leader will examine student standardized test data from the previous spring to determine student eligibility and placement in appropriate tutoring group. Coordinator will monitor and report attendance rates for selected students each week.

Effectiveness – Tutors and teachers will review student portfolios to identify student strengths and support needs to plan for future instruction no later than each 9 weeks.


Teachers will focus on differentiation of instruction and the use of higher order thinking strategies in context, apply reasoning skills to life experiences, evaluate points of view, and distinguish fact from opinion/probability, determine cause and effect, generate inquiry, and make connections with real-life situations across the texts.Emphasis will be placed on:ELA-6-M1 (comparing/contrasting and responding to United States and world literature that represents the experiences and traditions of diverse ethnic groups)ELA-6-M2 (identifying, comparing, and responding to a variety of classic and contemporary fiction and non-fiction literature from many genres: e.g., novels, drama)ELA-6-M3 (classifying and interpreting various genres according to their unique characteristics)

Teachers (and selected paraprofessionals) will present lessons designed to use thinking maps and differentiate instruction so as to address students at their level of ability, need, and/or interest. Information regarding student ability will be gleaned from prior and ongoing formal and informal assessment.Content: the aforementioned lessons will explicitly detail area and method of differentiation.Instruction: Instructional delivery will be differentiated so as to be developmentally appropriate for all members of a heterogeneous class, and focused on stimulating higher order thinking strategies at all levels of ability and interest by engaging students in activities requiring the application of knowledge in real-life situations.Assessment: Student learning will be evaluated through the use of informal teacher assessment, formal teacher assessment, and grade-level specific teacher developed rubrics.Motivation/Engagement: Student engagement in lessons will be maximized through differentiation of tasks.

Principal – Anna Bowie

Asst. Principal -Kalinda

Fauntleroy

Asst. Principal -Jerry Mendow

PreK-8 studentsInitial Training

October 15, 2004

Implementation and Monitoring on-going

IMP: October 14, 2004December 21, 2004, March 10, 2005, and during the end-of-year review May 25, 2005

Examination of student work as demonstrated by teacher-made assessment

Beginning in January 2005 through May 2005;

excluding March 2005

General Fund

Reference District Salary

Schedule

100Implementation-Using the TLS, the administrators will observe all ELA and social studies teachers along with selected tutors each quarterly period with emphasis on #2 and #5 and provide feedback.

Effectiveness-At grade level meetings, on a monthly basis, teachers will review selected student work pertaining to Thinking Maps and differentiated tasks to plan for future instruction and to assess student achievement. A sample of teacher-made assessments (with student responses) will be evaluated by the administration each month.


Professional development (PD) for teachers will focus on differentiation of instruction and the use of higher order thinking strategies in context, apply reasoning skills to life experiences, evaluate points of view, and distinguish fact from opinion/probability, determine cause and effect, generate inquiry, and make connections with real-life situations across the texts.Emphasis will be placed on:ELA-6-M1 (comparing/contrasting and responding to United States and world literature that represents the experiences and traditions of diverse ethnic groups)ELA-6-M2 (identifying, comparing, and responding to a variety of classic and contemporary fiction and non-fiction literature from many genres: e.g., novels, drama)ELA-6-M3 (classifying and interpreting various genres according to their unique characteristics)

Teachers (and selected paraprofessionals) will attend 3 hours of workshops on analyzing and interpreting test data in order to focus instruction on students who struggle in areas defined as classroom challenges in accordance with our School Improvement Plan. Teachers (and selected paraprofessionals) will attend at least three workshop hours on Thinking Maps or differentiating instruction in the classroom according to ability, need, and/or interest, and delivery of differentiated instruction at developmentally appropriate levels that focus on higher order thinking skills. Teachers will develop differentiated activities to address the skills of applying reasoning to life experience, evaluating points of view, distinguishing fact from opinion, determining cause and effect, generating inquiry, and relating to real life situations across text. Materials will be purchased for implementing the program, and follow up will occur at the school. Through weekly grade level collaboration, teachers will develop grade-based rubrics to use in assessing student progress and planning for differentiation.

Principal- Anna Bowie

Asst. Principal – Kalinda

FauntleroyAsst. Principal- Jerry Mendow

RHT-Rebecca Sharp

Grades PreK – 8 Instructional Staff for both sets of three

hour workshops: Oct. 15 and January, 2005

IMP: Monthly reviews beginning November 2004 until May 2005, excluding March 2005 due to testing

EFF: October 14, 2004December 21, 2004, March 10, 2005,

March 11, 2005

All Grade Level TeachersMonthlyJob-Embedded



8(g) grant

Plan for Student Success

Title 1

Parish Staff Development

100 $1,000.00

Implementation-The principal will review monthly teacher professional development portfolios to ensure attendance at inservices focusing on differentiation of instruction and HOTS.

Effectiveness- Using the TLS, the administrators will observe all teachers each quarterly period with emphasis on #2 and #5 and provide feedback.

Implementation-The principal will review monthly minutes and sign-in sheets from grade-level meetings focusing on differentiation of instruction and HOTS.Effectiveness- Using the TLS, the administrators will observe all teachers each quarterly period with emphasis on #2 and #5 and provide feedback.


Parental and Community outreach activities will assist in the monitoring of differentiation of instruction and higher order thinking strategies in context, applying reasoning skills to life experiences, evaluating points of view, and distinguishing fact from opinion/probability, determining cause and effect, generating inquiry, and making connections with real-life situations across the texts.Emphasis will be placed on:ELA-6-M1 (comparing/contrasting and responding to United States and world literature that represents the experiences and traditions of diverse ethnic groups)ELA-6-M2 (identifying, comparing, and responding to a variety of classic and contemporary fiction and non-fiction literature from many genres: e.g., novels, drama)ELA-6-M3 (classifying and interpreting various genres according to their unique characteristics)

Regular monthly newsletter from Principal to every parent with additional school wide notes home as necessary.Assignment planners will be issued to all students in grades 3-8 to facilitate homework completion and parent-teacher communication.Daily teacher monitored usage of assignment planners signed by parents every evening.

During such events as Family Literacy Night, Family LEAP Night, and parent/teacher conferences, parents will be given activities and resources that explain differentiation of instruction and promote student higher order thinking skills, such as Thinking Map templates.On Louisiana Day local businesses and speakers from the community will address students on a variety of topics of local interest, including ecology, cooking, wildlife, ranching, and geography to promote differentiation by interests, and activity based learning.

Home and Connection sheets will be sent home monthly. These sheets contain tips for helping students at home.

Mrs. Bowie

Kalinda Fauntleroy

Mrs. Bodnar

Mrs. LeBlancMrs. Blankenship

Mrs. Cazaubon

Stacey Hoover(Title 1)

ParentsQuarterly

General Fund

Title 1 100

600

$250

$100

Implementation – The principal will use sign-in sheets to track the number of parents attending activities that explain differentiation of instruction and promoting HOTS and activity based learning.

Effectiveness – The principal will approve agendas and hand-outs for night events, to ensure the inclusion of the targeted standard (ELA #6).


Technology (Tech) for teachers and students will assist in developing differentiation of instruction and the use of higher order thinking strategies in context, apply reasoning skills to life experiences, evaluate points of view ,and distinguish fact from opinion/probability, determine cause and effect, generate inquiry, and make connections with real-life situations across the texts.Emphasis will be placed on:ELA-6-M1 (comparing/contrasting and responding to United States and world literature that represents the experiences and traditions of diverse ethnic groups)ELA-6-M2 (identifying, comparing, and responding to a variety of classic and contemporary fiction and non-fiction literature from many genres: e.g., novels, drama)ELA-6-M3 (classifying and interpreting various genres according to their unique characteristics)

Teachers will plan collaboratively to use technology to promote HOTS and as a tool for differentiation of instruction, by the use of the Reading Counts program, Kidspiration and/or Inspiration, Webquest, collaborative planning with the computer teacher as regards weekly student computer classes and various internet resources to supplement and augment classroom instruction and to provide opportunities to connect student learning to real life situations.

The librarian will develop a list of programs currently in the school’s library focusing on targeted GLEs. This list will be developed for each grade-level to assist teachers in planning for technology-integrated lessons.

All certified teachers

Mrs. Sharp, RHTAnna Bowie,

PrincipalKalinda

Fauntleroy,Asst. PrincipalJerry Mendow, Asst. PrincipalStacey Hoover

Technology Liaison

Kathy Foxworth, Librarian

Students in PreK-8

Ongoing Oct - May

February 2005

Plan for Student SuccessTeacher Leader FundsTitle 1

Technology Fund

100 $20,000

Implementation Using the TLS, the administrators will observe all teachers each quarterly period with emphasis on #1 and provide feedback.

Effectiveness – Tech. liaison will keep a record of joint planning with grade levels, principal and RHT will monitor lesson plans, teachers will summit monthly agendas of grade level collaboration meetings.


School Climate –The amount of instructional time for students to engage in activities associated with reading, analyzing and responding to literature will be maximized.Three school-wide rules will be followed: 1. Walk 2. Keep your hands and feet to yourself. 3. If you can’t say anything kind, say nothing.These rules will be provided to all students, staff, and parents. Posters will be placed throughout the school conveying these rules.

A discipline committee will be established to create a school-wide positive discipline program to ensure smooth transitions between classrooms and maximize time on task. The positive discipline program will emphasize character education and citizenship skills.Three simple rules will be developed, implemented, and consistently enforced throughout grades PreK-8.

Anna Bowie, PrincipalKalinda


Jerry Mendow, Asst. PrincipalDebi Schoen

Discipline Committee Chair

All staff members

All teachers and students

Oct. - May, 2005

All students

No Cost Implementation – The principal will use quarterly snapshots to ensure that time on task is maximized; assistant principals will monitor transitions between classrooms.Effectiveness – Once the school-wide discipline plan is in place, the discipline committee will meet every other month to evaluate the school- wide plan and make necessary changes in order to ensure maximal use of instructional time. Meeting minutes to be turned into the Principal.

.


Articulation – Covington Learning Community will be focused on reviewing student performance data, implementing the GLEs in lesson planning, preparing for the Guaranteed Curriculum, exchanging instructional “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 Superintendent’s idea of “Good to Great”.

The administrative staff will participate in the Annual Administrators’ 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 month, the principal will attend a monthly 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 the “Expected Impact” using Blackboard.

PrincipalAnna Bowie

Kalinda Fauntleroy, Asst.

PrincipalJerry Mendow, Asst. Principal

SIP ChairRebecca Sharp

Teacher LeadersAimee

BlankenshipLesa Bodnar

Melissa OdomDebbie Poche’

Principal:Administrators’ Retreat

7/28/05

Data Retreat:Principal, SIP Chair, Teacher

Leaders(8/25/04 & 9/22/04)

Learning Community Meetings:Principal

9/01/0410/06/0411/03/0412/01/041/05/052/02/053/02/054/06/055/04/05

No CostImplementation: Members of the 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.


Reducing the Performance Gap – SWD All teachers and paraprofessional providing instruction to SWD will stimulate and encourage the use of higher order thinking strategies in context (including applying reasoning skills to life experience, evaluate points of view, and distinguish fact from opinion/probability, determine cause and effect, generate inquiry, and make real- life situations across the text. Emphasis will be placed on:ELA-6-M1 (comparing/contrasting and responding to United States and world literature that represents the experiences and traditions of diverse ethnic groups)ELA-6-M2 (identifying, comparing, and responding to a variety of classic and contemporary fiction and non-fiction literature from many genres: e.g., novels, drama)ELA-6-M3 (classifying and interpreting various genres according to their unique characteristics)

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. Special and regular education teachers will coordinate lesson and unit planning to address the unique SWD needs in non-special education settings. Unique SWD needs will be partially addressed through those modifications and accommodations, along with differentiating instruction. [ The Strategic Instructional Model (SIM) strategies of: (a) Word Identification, (b) Paraphrasing, and (c) Visual Imagery will be used by all teachers throughout the school year. ] Professional development opportunities will be made available through the Special Education office.Extra tutoring opportunities will be made available to SWD during the school day.

Anna Bowie(Principal)

Jerry Mendow(Asst. Principal)

Pam CyprianNancy ErnstJenee’ LindseyBarbie MoffettVicki PolitteTom SeegerSp. Ed. Staff

Rebecca Sharp(Resource teacher)

All regular and special education staff teaching ELA, inclusive of Reading

8/04 – FRAMING – adjusting master schedule, verifying IEP compliance

09/16/2004 interims; 10/14 grading period 1;

11/01/04 – SIMs workshop- Word Identification

11/11/04 interims; 12/21/2004 grading period 2; 02/03/2005 interims; 03/10/05 grading period 3; 04/14/2005 interims; 05/25/2005 grading period 4

Implementation: The principal will review monthly minutes and sign-in sheets from grade-level meetings focusing on differentiation of instruction and HOTS. Effectiveness:90% of all targeted students will not receive an interim or grade below “C” in either ELA or Reading. GLE monthly maps will be developed and shared by regular ed and special ed teachers.October 30, 2004

PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING THE OBJECTIVE AND STRATEGYStudent performance data will be used to evaluate each selected objective and the overall (aggregate) impact of the targeted strategy. The evaluative methods will comply with those criteria outlined by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (Reference-http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/jc).

* 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 & ProcessSt. Tammany Parish School Board 22 SY 2004-2005

STRATEGY PLANNING WORKSHEETGOAL 2:To improve student proficiency in the ability to compare, estimate, convert, apply, and use the appropriate standard units of measure, abbreviations, and tools to measure length and perimeter, capacity, weight, volume, and density.


OBJECTIVE 2:1. [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 (13.9% in 2004 to 15.29% by Spring 2005)2. [NCLB Accountability] to reduce, by no less than 10%, the percentage of students scoring non-proficient on the math component of the standards-based assessment (26.3% in 2004 to 23.67% % by Spring 2005)

Targeted Subgroups White: 26.3% to 23.67% Black <10 ED: 40.7% to 36.63% SWD: 58.8% to 52.92%


Activity/Problem-based learning connected learning to real-life situations


ACTION PLAN

EXPECTED IMPACT (Observable Change) ACTIVITIES

PERSONS RESPONSIBLE

TARGET AUDIENCE and

TIMELINE



(Benchmarks)1 2 3Students will apply measurement skills to other strands and real-life situations.Emphasis will be placed on:M-1-M (applying the concept of length, area, surface area, volume, capacity, weight, mass, money, time, temperature, and rate to real-world experiences);M-6-M (demonstrating the connection of measurement to the other strands and to real-life situations)

Students will engage in hands-on activities that incorporate and review applying the concept of length, area, surface area, volume, capacity, weight, mass, money, time, temperature, and rate to real-world experiences and demonstrating the connection of measurement to the other strands and to real-life situations.Emphasis will be placed on:M-1-M (applying the concept of length, area, surface area, volume, capacity, weight, mass, money, time, temperature, and rate to real-world experiences);M-6-M (demonstrating the connection of measurement to the other strands and to real-life situations)

During tutoring, students (individually and in small groups) will engage in activity- based learning designed to enrich (acceleration), clarify and support (intervention), and/or re-teach (remediation) applying measurement skills to real-life situations.

PrincipalGrades K-8 Instructional

Staff

TutorsKalinda


Mrs. Sharp (Tutoring

Coordinator)Mrs. Poche’

(Teacher Leader Junior

High)

All Students

Targeted Students

IMP: October 14, 2004December 21, 2004, March 10, 2005, and during the end-of-year review May 25, 2005

EFF: Each month beginning in December 2004 until May 2005. March report will be excluded due to testing.

IMP: Weekly review of tutoring attendance throughout year

EFF: October 14, 2004December 21, 2004, March 10, 2005, and during the end-of-year review May 25,

“Green Students” (Acceleration)

Selected Students “Red” & “Blue”

students

2 hours per week

General Fund

K-3 Initiative

Title 1

LEAP

100 $14,062

$12,443.25

Implementation – Using the TLS, the administrators will observe all teachers each quarterly period with emphasis on #8 and #9 and provide feedback to teachers.

Effectiveness–Student achievement in measurement skills will be monitored weekly in grade level collaboration meetings. A sample of teacher-made assessments (and results) will be reviewed each week to verify changes in the Expected Impact. A summary report will be provided to the administration each month on the effectiveness of the targeted activity.

Implementation - The RHT and Asst. Principal will examine student standardized test data from the previous spring to determine student eligibility and placement in appropriate tutoring group. Coordinator will monitor and report attendance rates for selected students each week.

Effectiveness – Tutors will keep and review students’ progress sheets with the regular classroom teacher to identify strengths and support needs to plan for future instruction no later than each 9 weeks.


Teachers will emphasize correct use of measurement skills through activity-based learning with connections to real life situations.Emphasis will be placed on:M-1-M (applying the concept of length, area, surface area, volume, capacity, weight, mass, money, time, temperature, and rate to real-world experiences);M-6-M (demonstrating the connection of measurement to the other strands and to real-life situations)

Teachers will incorporate activity-based learning methodology from Math Solutions, INTECH, and DI workshops, into math, science, and social studies lesson plans to teach the correct use of measurement skills in real-life situations such as the “Butterfly Garden” and “KinderGarden” in Grades PreK-3, cooking and sewing in Consumer Science classes in Grades 6-8 and the animal shows in Grades 4-8. Content: The aforementioned lessons will explicitly detail those content strands being addressed, with emphasis to those benchmarks outlined in the Expected Outcome.Instruction: Instructional delivery will be developmentally appropriate and focused on use of measurement skills through activity-based learning with connections to real-life situations.Assessment: Student learning will be assessed through student activities and products whose outcomes depend on correct application of measurement skills to real-life situations.Motivation/Engagement: Student engagement in selected activities will be maximized by connecting more material learning to real-life performance tasks.

Principal

RHT

Grades Pre-K-8Instructional

Staff

Karen Dirmann,Barbara

Thompson,Mary Cousin,

Johnette Jacob, Karen Rayburn,

Amy Danna

Pre-K students

8/12/04

IMP: Weekly review of lesson plans. Summative evaluation provided to staff NLT Jan 7, 25, 2005 and May 30, 2005

Weekly in collaboration

meetings

EFF: Direct observation conducted each 9 weeks: October 14, December 21, 2004, March 10, 2005.

Summative evaluation provided to staff NLT Jan 7, 25, 2005 and May 30, 2005

General Fund

Reference District Salary

Schedule

100

Implementation – The principal will review lesson plans each week and provide written feedback to the teachers. This will ensure teachers are addressing the four pillars of teaching. A summary reported will be provided to the faculty twice a year

Effectiveness – Grade-level teachers will discuss, share, review projects in weekly collaboration meetings. These meeting will address issues associated with those activities outlined in this plan. Using the TLS, administrators observe all teachers each 9 weeks. Changes in teacher practices will be discussed during two specified faculty meeting.


Professional Development (PD) for teachers will focus on activity-based learning to teach the ability to improve student proficiency in the ability to compare, estimate, convert, apply, and use the appropriate standard units of measure, abbreviations, and tools to measure length and perimeter, capacity, weight, volume, and density.Emphasis will be placed on:M-1-M (applying the concept of length, area, surface area, volume, capacity, weight, mass, money, time, temperature, and rate to real-world experiences);M-6-M (demonstrating the connection of measurement to the other strands and to real-life situations)

Teachers will attend Math Solutions, DI, INTECH and Brainchild workshops to learn methods focusing instruction on activity-based learning to improve student knowledge and use of measurement skills.Science and Social Studies teachers will embed measurement skills in activity-based content instruction.Weekly grade level collaboration will address activity-based instruction to further measurement skills.

Grade-level collaboration groups will meet monthly to examine student work resulting from activity-based learning.

Anna Bowie, Principal

Mrs. Sharp(RHT)

All classroom teachers

Mrs. Poche’(Teacher Leader)

Mrs.. Bodnar(Teacher Leader)

Teachers Grades Pre-K-8

Instructional Personnel 2004-2005School year



Weekly

Monthly




8(g) Grant

Title 1


100 $1,000

Implementation – Using GSMU, the principal will monitor (monthly) attendance at in-services focusing on activity-based learning.

Effectiveness – Using the TLS, the administrators will observe all teachers each quarterly period with emphasis on #8 and #9 and provide feedback.

Implementation-The principal will review monthly agendas and sign in sheets from grade level meetings focusing on activity-based learning. Summary report will be provided to teachers each semester.

Effectiveness – Grade-level teachers will review student progress and products on constructed responses monthly in planning for future instruction.


Parental and Community outreach activities will incorporate suggestions for self-directed use of measurement skills.Emphasis will be placed on:M-1-M (applying the concept of length, area, surface area, volume, capacity, weight, mass, money, time, temperature, and rate to real-world experiences);M-6-M (demonstrating the connection of measurement to the other strands and to real-life situations)

During such events as Family Literacy/Math Night, Family LEAP Night, and parent/teacher conferences, parents will be given activities and resources that promote awareness of measurement skills in real-life situations.On Louisiana Day local businesses and speakers from the community will address students on a variety of topics of local interest, including ecology, cooking, wildlife, ranching, and geography.Assignment planners will be issued to all students in grades 3-8 to facilitate homework completion and parent-teacher communication. Home and Connection sheets will be sent home monthly. These sheets contain tips for helping students at home.

Mrs. Bowie, Principal

Mrs. Schoen(Kindergarten)

Mrs. Keller(Second)

Mrs. Cazaubon (Third)

Mrs. LeBlanc(Fourth)

Ms. Thomas(Jr. High)Parents

All PreK-8 teachers

Stacy Hoover (Computer Lab)

PreK-8th grade students and their families

Various evenings during the year

Home and Connection sheets monthly

Title 1

Quarterly

100600

$250$100

Implementation – The principal will use sign-in sheets to track the number of parents attending activities promoting measurement skills in real-life situations.

Effectiveness – The principal will approve agendas and hand-outs for night events, to ensure the inclusion of the targeted standard.

Technology activities for teachers and students will incorporate the use of measurement skills and how they relate to the real world.Emphasis will be placed on:M-1-M (applying the concept of length, area, surface area, volume, capacity, weight, mass, money, time, temperature, and rate to real-world experiences);M-6-M (demonstrating the connection of measurement to the other strands and to real-life situations)

Teachers will attend technology related in-services, including La. Tech, to expand the use of software programs in their instructional program related to math (such as Microsoft Excel).The technology liaison will offer workshops in the use of internet resources to supplement classroom instruction and to provide opportunities to real life learning to classroom situations.The librarian will develop a list of programs currently in the school’s library focusing on targeted GLEs. This list will be developed for each grade-level to assist teachers in planning for technology-integrated lessons,

Stacey HooverTechnology

Liaison

Mrs. Danna(Elementary)

Mrs. Poche(Junior High)

Mrs. Blankenship(Web Master)

Mrs. Foxworth (Librarian)

All studentsOn-going

Interested grade-level teachers

On-going

October 27,2004


Teacher Leader Funds

Technology Funds

Title 1 100 $20,000

Implementation Using the TLS, the administrators will observe all teachers each quarterly period with emphasis on #1 and provide feedback.

Effectiveness – Teachers will use monthly grade level meetings to share student work resulting from lesson plans incorporating technology. Comment and suggestions will be used to plan future instruction.


School Climate – Discipline. The amount of instructional time for students to engage in activities associated with the use of measurement skills to real-life situations will be maximized. Three school-wide rules will be followed: 1. Walk 2. Keep your hands and feet to yourself. 3. If you can’t say anything kind, say nothing.These rules will be provided to all students, staff, and parents. Posters will be placed throughout the school conveying these rules.

A discipline committee will be established to create a POSITIVE school-wide discipline plan to ensure smooth transitions between classrooms to maximize instructional time.

Three simple rules will be developed, implemented, and consistently enforced throughout grades PreK-8.

Anna Bowie, PrincipalKalinda


Jerry Mendow, Asst. Principal Debi Schoen

Discipline Committee

ChairAll staff members

All teachers and students

Spring, 2005

All students

No Cost Implementation – The principal will use quarterly snapshots to ensure that time on task is maximized; asst. principals will monitor transitions between classrooms.

Effectiveness – Once the positive school-wide discipline plan is in place, the discipline committee will meet every other month to evaluate the school- wide plan and make necessary changes in order to ensure maximal use of instructional time. Meeting minutes to be submitted to the Principal.


Articulation – Covington Learning Community will be focused on reviewing student performance data, implementing the GLEs in lesson planning, preparing for the Guaranteed Curriculum, exchanging instructional “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 Superintendent’s idea of “Good to Great”.

The administrative staff will participate in the Annual Administrators’ 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 month, the principal will attend a monthly 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 the

“Expected Impact” using Blackboard.

PrincipalAnna Bowie

Kalinda Fauntleroy, Asst.

PrincipalJerry Mendow, Asst. Principal

SIP ChairRebecca Sharp

Teacher LeadersAmmie

BlankenshipLesa Bodnar

Melissa OdomDebbie Poche’

Principal:Administrators’ Retreat

7/28/05

Data Retreat:Principal, SIP Chair,

Teacher Leaders(8/25/04 & 9/22/04)

Learning Community Meetings:Principal

9/01/0410/06/0411/03/0412/01/041/05/052/02/053/02/054/06/055/04/05

Implementation: Members of the 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.


Reducing the Performance Gap – SWD All teachers and paraprofessional providing instruction to SWD will focus on activity-based learning to improve student proficiency in the ability to compare, estimate, convert, apply, and use the appropriate standard units of measure, abbreviations, and tools to measure length and perimeter, capacity, weight, volume, and density.Emphasis will be placed on:M-1-M (applying the concept of length, area, surface area, volume, capacity, weight, mass, money, time, temperature, and rate to real-world experiences);M-6-M (demonstrating the connection of measurement to the other strands and to real-life situations)

The instructional program for SWD will be aligned in scope and sequence to both the individual needs of each student and theMath standards, with emphasis on selected GLEs. Special and regular education teachers will coordinate lesson and unit planning to address the unique SWD needs in non-special education settings. Unique SWD needs will be partially addressed through those modifications and accommodations, along with differentiating instruction. [ The Strategic Instructional Model (SIM) strategies of: (a) Word Identification, (b) Paraphrasing, and (c) Visual Imagery will be used by all teachers throughout the school year. ] Professional development opportunities will be made available through the Special Education office.Extra tutoring opportunities will be made available to SWD during the school day.

Anna Bowie(Principal)

Jerry Mendow(Asst. Principal)

Pam CyprianNancy ErnstJenee’ LindseyBarbie MoffettVicki PolitteTom SeegerSp. Ed. Staff

Rebecca Sharp(Resource teacher)

All regular and special education staff teaching ELA, inclusive of Reading

8/04 – FRAMING – adjusting master schedule, verifying IEP compliance

09/16/2004 interims; 10/14 grading period 1;

11/01/04 – SIMs workshop- Word Identification

11/11/04 interims; 12/21/2004 grading period 2; 02/03/2005 interims; 03/10/05 grading period 3; 04/14/2005 interims; 05/25/2005 grading period 4

Implementation: The principal will review monthly minutes and sign-in sheets from grade-level meetings focusing on activity-based learning, problem based learning and connecting learning to real-life situations. Effectiveness:90% of all targeted students will not receive an interim or grade below “C” in Math.GLE monthly maps will be developed and shared by regular ed and special ed teachers grade level teachers. October 30, 2004

PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING THE OBJECTIVE AND STRATEGYStudent performance data will be used to evaluate each selected objective and the overall (aggregate) impact of the targeted strategy. The evaluative methods will comply with those criteria outlined by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (Reference – http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/jc).

* 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 1: To improve student proficiency in applying problem solving skills by designing and conducting a scientific investigation. (SI-MA2)


OBJECTIVE 1:1a. (La Accountability) To increase by no less than 10%, the percentage of students scoring mastery or higher as measured by the Science component on the norm-referenced test. (15.6% in 2004 to 17.16% in 2005) 1b. (NCLB Accountability) To increase by no less than 10% the average percent correct score in scientific inquiry, on the science component of the standards based assessment. ( 62% in 2004 to 68.2% in 2005)


Stimulate problem solving skills used in scientific investigation at appropriate grade levels


http://10.81.0.2/sip_template_sy0304.doc#SBRS%23SBRS

ACTION PLAN

EXPECTED IMPACT (Observable Change) ACTIVITIES

PERSONS RESPONSIBLE

TARGET AUDIENCE and

TIMELINE



(Benchmarks)1 2 3Students will be able to communicate scientific procedures, information and explanations through activity-based learning with connections to real-life situations.Students will develop an understanding of scientific inquiry through research and experiments. The information learned will be in collaborative group assignments and projects Students will be able to select and utilize appropriate equipment and technology using different units of measurements to collect and record data through activity based learning with application to real life situations.

Students will design and conduct a scientific investigation based on activity based learning experience. Students will learn the steps of formulating a hypothesis, designing a valid experiment, testing the hypothesis, and drawing conclusions and then apply knowledge in conducting their own scientific investigations. Topics of the investigations will relate to real life experiences (which brand of popcorn pops the most kernels, which diaper holds the most liquid, etc.). Students will apply mathematics and appropriate tools and techniques to gather, analyze and interpret data, and will communicate procedures used, information and explanations through classroom displays and presentations. Emphasis will be placed on: SI-M-A2: design and conducting a scientific investigation.SI-M-A3: using mathematics and appropriate tools and techniques to gather analyze, and interpret data.SI-M-A7: communicating scientific procedures, information, and explanations.

K-8Classroom Teachers

Junior High Math, Science,

Consumer Science and Agri-Science Teachers

Articulation groups within grade levels

Mrs. Thomas Agri-Science

Teacher(FFA Sponsor)

Mrs. LeblancMr. McCain

(4-H Sponsors)

Parents

Community 4-H officials

K-5 StudentsOct. 04-May 05Weekly

All Students in grades 6th-8th Weekly and Quarterly

Vocational Budget

Classroom Supply Budget

Parent Financial Support

Field Trips

Implementation: Classroom teachers will teach, model and display examples of projects completed using the steps of scientific inquiry, and provide opportunities for students to complete scientific investigations of their own. Effectiveness: Student projects will be assessed through the use of teacher-made rubrics that focus on evaluating the use of scientific inquiry and data analysis.


Teachers: teachers will use activity based learning in teaching the steps of inquiry. Grade level appropriate mathematical and technological skills will be used as tools fro data analysis.Emphasis will be placed on:SI-M-A2: design and conducting a scientific investigation.SI-M-A3: using mathematics and appropriate tools and techniques to gather analyze, and interpret data.SI-M-A7: communicating scientific procedures, information, and explanations.

Teachers will design and present lessons that teach the steps of scientific inquiry through activity based learning.Content: Science as Inquiry : design and conducting scientific investigations, using mathematics and appropriate tools and techniques to gather analyze, and interpret data, and communicating scientific procedures, information, and explanations. Instruction: Instructional delivery will be developmentally appropriate and focus on teaching the steps of scientific inquiry by engaging students in activity based learning situations that include the designing of a hypothesis, testing of the hypothesis, and analysis of resulting data.Assessment: Student learning will be evaluated through the use of projects, presentations and experiments.

Mrs. BowiePrincipal

Mr. Mendow Assistant Principal

Mrs. Fauntleroy Assistant Principal

Classroom Teachers Pre-K through 8th

Grades

OngoingWeekly and Quarterly

Instructional Budget

Classroom Fees

Implementation: Using quarterly snapshot observations the administration will observe all classroom teachers and review weekly lesson plans and provide feedback to teachers.Effectiveness: In weekly grade level collaboration meetings, teachers will design a rubric for use in assessing student projects and presentations focusing on scientific inquiry.

Professional development for teachers will focus on the use of activity based learning to teach the skills of scientific inquiry.

Teachers will attend district staff development in-services on scientific inquiry, use of technology in instruction, and activity based learning. Teachers will use the internet to research the teaching of scientific inquiry, and share with each other the sites and information found during collaboration meetings. Additional professional development opportunities will be available to assist teachers with emphasis on the following GLEs:SI-M-A2: design and conducting a scientific investigation.SI-M-A3: using mathematics and appropriate tools and techniques to gather analyze, and interpret data.SI-M-A7: communicating scientific procedures, information, and explanations.

Mrs. Bowie Principal

Mr. Mendow Asst. Principal

Mrs. FauntleroyAsst. Principal

Mrs. Sharp RHT

Science Curriculum Specialist

Articulation groups within grade levels

All Classroom Teachers Oct. 04 May 05

WorkshopsScience as Inquiry

Thinking Maps training

Weekly grade level articulation meetings


Plan for student success


Implementation: The principal will review monthly teacher professional development portfolios to monitor attendance at inservices and workshops focusing on activity based learning, use of technology in instruction, and scientific inquiry. The principal will monitor collaboration meeting agendas for discussion of research and planning for the teaching of scientific inquiry skills through activity based learning. Effectiveness: Teachers will devise and use grade level rubrics to assess student projects and presentations.


Parent and Community Outreach activities will include assistance in providing real life activities to which students can apply skills of scientific inquiry.

Parents will assist by providing students with necessary supplies and supervision in conducting investigations at home. Community members such as agricultural scientists, medical professionals, etc. will serve as guest speakers in science classrooms where they will address students on the use of scientific inquiry in their daily work.Emphasis will be placed on the following:SI-M-A2: design and conducting a scientific investigation.SI-M-A3: using mathematics and appropriate tools and techniques to gather analyze, and interpret data.SI-M-A7: communicating scientific procedures, information, and explanations.

Mrs. Thomas Agri-Science

Teacher(FFA Sponsor)

Mrs. LeblancMr. McCain

(4-H Sponsors)

Parents

Community 4-H officials

Junior High Math, Science,

Consumer Science and Agri-Science Teachers

Parents of students at all grade levels

All Students in grades K-8th

Dr. Spell

4-H Extension Office

Aqua Van



Community partners

4-H and FFA club dues and

activities

Implementation: The principal will monitor lesson plans to insure that at least one application of scientific inquiry to real life activity takes place in part as a homework assignment requiring parental assistance. The principal will communicate with teachers that it is her expectation that parents and involved community members be invited to view projects and presentations dealing with scientific inquiry. Effectiveness: Parent and volunteer sign in sheets will be used to track the number of guest speakers and parents attending school activities that relate to science.

Up to date Technology for teachers and students will assist in collecting and interpreting data required for classroom research and experiments. Teachers will communicate with parents and colleagues through E-Mail information needed to promote the following GLE’sSI-M-A2: design and conducting a scientific investigation.SI-M-A3: using mathematics and appropriate tools and techniques to gather analyze, and interpret data.SI-M-A7: communicating scientific procedures, information, and explanations.

Teachers and students will select and use appropriate equipment needed for

research and experiments. Students will use a variety of computer activities such as Thinking Maps software, Inspiration, Spreadsheets, and Internet Resources to supplement classroom instruction and

correlate it to real life situations

Classroom Teachers in Pre-

K-8th Grades

Technology Committee

Mrs. Bowie Principal

Mr. Mendow Asst. Principal

Mrs. Fauntleroy Asst. Principal

Mrs. Sharp RHT

All Teachers and Students in Pre-K-8th

GradesOct.04Through May 05




Technology Budget

Implementation: Using quarterly snapshot observations the administration will make note of the integration of technology in classroom instruction. Teachers will improve communication with parents and colleagues through E-Mail.Effectiveness: Each classroom teacher will review and assess student use of technology and plan for future use in their classrooms. Selected instructional equipment pertaining to length, volume and weight measurements will be used in instruction.

PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING THE OBJECTIVE AND STRATEGYStudent performance data will be used to evaluate each selected objective and the overall impact of the targeted strategy. The evaluative methods will comply with those criteria outlined by Louisiana Science Grade Level Expectations Handbook


* 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)

TOTAL SCHOOL BUDGET FOR RESTRICTED AND DISCRETIONARY FUNDSFUNDING SOURCES*

TITLE 1 TOTAL


SALARIES (100) $129,777.75 $129,777.75

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS (200)

$ 45,042.73 $ 45,042.73

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

OTHER PURCHASES SERVICES (500)

$ 500.00$ 500.00

SUPPLIES (600) $ 37,149.23 $ 37,149.23

INDIRECT COSTS (If applicable)

$ 11,136.18 $ 11,136.18

PROPERTY (700)

OTHER OBJECTS (800)

OTHER USES OF FUNDS (900)

TOTAL $223,605.89 $223,606.89

*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 $1000.00 $1000.00 $2,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $34,062.00 $34,062.00 $68,124.00

2. TITLE II

TOTALS

$1,0000.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $34,062.00 $34,062.00 $68,124.00

*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 Statements)

The faculty, staff, president of Junior National Honor Society, president of Student Council, and several parents were requested to submit ideas for the school’s mission statement, beliefs, and vision. The School Improvement Team combined the ideas and presented them to all stakeholders for review. The stakeholders then voted on the final version. It was then presented to the stakeholders for clarification and acceptance.

School Improvement Team

Name TitleAnna Bowie PrincipalKalinda Fauntleroy Asst. PrincipalJerry Mendow Assistant PrincipalRebecca Sharp Resource Helping TeacherRachel Champagne Fourth Grade WIN TeacherJenee’ Lindsey MAE Teacher, Special Ed Teacher LeaderAmiee Blankenship 7th & 8th & Reading Teacher LeaderMelissa Odom 3rd & Reading Teacher LeaderDeborah Poche’ 7th & 8th Math TeacherLesa Bodnar 2nd & Math Teacher LeaderEddie Frederick 6th & 7th Science TeacherSandy O’Bryant IEP FacilitatorRobin Silvestri 4th Science TeacherMelinda Breaux 504 Coordinator & CounselorTerri DeSandro PTO PresidentLucy Fitzgerald ParentSuzanne Jenkins ParentMax Welch 8th Grade Student & JNHS PresidentJeffery Brown 8th Grade Student & Student Council

PresidentDr. Glen Spell Business

Appendix BSt. Tammany Parish School Board 38 SY 2004-2005

Geopolitical, Demographic and Economic DataSt. 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%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%


http://www.gnocdc.org/

http://www.gnocdc.org/

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 Louisiana United


Parish StatesElderly 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


Total 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


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


http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97/def/72.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.census.gov/epcd/ec97/la/LA103_31.HTM











81 Other services (except public administration) 239 81,375 21,609 1,263

Appendix C

NSDC Standards for Staff Development

Context Standards

Staff development that improves the learning of all students has been incorporated into learning communities whose goals are aligned with those of the school district. Lee Road has organized committees in the areas of instruction, technology, discipline, and parent/community involvement. These communities utilize skillful school and district leaders to guide continuous instructional improvement. Administration has monitored implementation and provided follow-up support. A variety of resources are required to support these improvements. Lee Road has strategically utilized available resources to fund these collaborative efforts.

Process Standards

Lee Road utilizes disaggregated student data to drive their staff development priorities, monitoring, and improvements. SACS self-study data, SAM model data, and further information was used to guide staff development that improves and demonstrates impact on student learning. Research has been conducted in the areas of higher order thinking skills, differentiated learning, and hands-on activities. Results were used to develop appropriate strategies that will help to attain our goal – staff development that improves learning for all children. Staff development utilizes learning processes and staff collaboration as key components that can improve student learning.




Content Standards

Through staff development and collaboration, staff members develop an understanding and appreciation for all students. Lee Road Junior High School is dedicated to providing a safe, orderly, and supportive learning environment that holds high expectations for academic achievement. Staff development efforts deepen 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. Staff development involves several modalities to include family and stakeholders in aspirations of our common goal – to improve student learning.

Appendix DScientifically-based Research Strategies

GOAL 1 Strategy: Increased focus on differentiation of instruction according to ability, need, and/or interest. Summary of Research: Carol Ann Tomlinson (1999)found ample evidence that students are more successful in school and find it more satisfying if they are taught in ways that are responsive to their readiness levels (e.g.,Vygotsky, 1986), interests (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, 1997) and learning profiles (e.g., Sternberg, Torff, and Grigorenko,1998). Further research found that expert teachers are attentive to students’ varied learning needs (Danielson, 1996); teachers who differentiate instruction, then, become more competent, creative and professional as educators.

Citations: Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding Flow: The Psychology of Engagement with Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books.

Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. ED 403 245.

Sternberg, R.J., Torff, B. and Grigorenko, E.L. (1998). “Teaching triarchically improves student achievement.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 374-384. EJ 576 492

Tomlinson, C. The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. ED 429 944

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGOAL 2 Strategy: Pedagogy associated with activity-based learning

Summary of Research: Experiential learning can assist students with the development of problem solving skills.


McDavitt’s (1994) research indicated that experiential hands-on learning produced higher achievement at all levels of thought for learners of all ability levels. A study conducted by Slack and St. John(1998) showed that standardized math scores were more likely to improve when students were provided with math manipulatives. In Chester (1991) third grade students who used manipulatives scored higher in mathematics achievement on the posttest scores than the control group. Carpenter’s study (1988) found that students who used problem solving techniques exceeded control students in number fact knowledge, problem solving, reported understanding and reported confidence in problem solving.

Citations:Carpenter, Thomas P. Using Knowledge of Children's Mathematics Thinking in Classroom Teaching: An Experimental Study. American Educational

Research Association. Annual Meeting. New Orleans, Louisiana. 5 Apr. 1988. 17 Mar. 2003 <http://www.askeric.org/plweb-cgi/fastweb?getdoc+ericdb-adv+ericdb+930757+3+wAAA+%...>.

Math Manipulatives Use and Math Achievement of Third-Grade Students. Comp. Jayne Chester. 1991. 24 Mar. 2003 <http://www.askeric.org/plweb-cgi/fastweb?getdoc+ericdb-adv+aricdb+987666+16+wAAA...>.

Slack, Jill . A Model for Measuring Math Achievement Test Performance: A Longitudinal Analysis of Non-Transient Learners Engaged in a Restructuring Effort. American Educational Research Association. Annual Meeting . San Diego, California. 13 Apr. 1998. 24 Mar. 2003 <http://www.askeric.org/plweb-cgi/fastweb?getdoc+ericdb-adv+ericdb+140072+24+wAAA...>.

Appendix EExternal Technical Support and Assistance

Denise Barnes, Secondary Supervisor

Kathy Bweisel -504 Coordinator

Sandy O’Bryant -IEP Facilitator


Appendix FComprehensive Needs Assessment

Process of Data Collection:In the fall of 2002, a District Task Team conducted a school-wide visit using the SAM model to collect data. In the fall of 2003, the current

District Assistance Team participated in an on-site visit to follow up from the previous year. Data collected during these two visits can be found in Appendix A. This report will utilize information from both years to determine the direction for Lee Road Junior High.

Area of Strengths:

Competent Writing Number and Number Relations (4th grade) Algebra (8th grade) Patterns, Relations and Functions (4th and 8th grade) Parent and School Relations School Culture


Data Sources:

Instructional Staff Questionnaires Teacher Focus Groups Student Focus Group Parent Questionnaires (37 respondents) Direct Observations – {20 teachers observed twice each} Testing Data Analysis Student Questionnaires (39 respondents)


Area of Focus #1

Students will demonstrate the ability to read, analyze, and respond to literature using a variety of resources.

Instruction

Data Source: Data from Classroom Observation Summary –A total of 6 observers, observed 20 teachers engaged in math/ELA instruction in grades 3, 4, 7 and 8, twice for a total of 40 observations, SAM Self vs. External. vs. Administrator Analysis, Instructional Staff Questionnaire, and Student Focus Group

72.5% of observed teachers (40) rated unsatisfactory /needs improvement in the area accommodates individual differences 65% of observed teachers rated unsatisfactory/needs improvement in the area stimulates and encourages higher order thinking. Increase the use of technology both computer and non-computer. (87.5% of observers reported none) 82.5% of observers reported no experiential hands-on learning.

Assessment

Data Source: 2001-2003 Test Results from LEAP 21 (CRT) and 2001-2003 Test Results from IOWA (NRT) The number of students scoring in the non-proficient range in ELA on the CRT increased from 25% in 2002 to 28% in 2003. Grade 6 students decreased from 54 NPR to 51 NPR in Language

Curriculum

Data Source: Content Standard Analysis provided by St. Tammany Parish 4th and 8th grade students scoring non-proficient on the ELA LEAP 21 correctly answered only an average of 26.4% of the questions

corresponding to skills needs to read, analyze and respond to literature.


Area of Focus #2To improve student proficiency in measurement skills..

Instruction

Data Source: Data from Classroom Observation Summary Form A total of 6 observers, observed 20 teachers engaged in math/ELA instruction in grades 3, 4, 7 and 8, twice for a total of 40 observations, SAM Self vs. External. vs. Administrator Analysis, Instructional Staff Questionnaire, and Student Focus Group

72.5% of observed teachers (40) rated unsatisfactory /needs improvement in the area accommodates individual differences 65% of observed teachers rated unsatisfactory/needs improvement in the area stimulates and encourages higher order thinking. 87,5% of observers reported no use of either computer or non-computer technology. 82.5% of observers reported no experiential hands-on learning.

Assessment

Data Source: 2001-2003 Test Results from LEAP 21 (CRT) The number of students scoring in the non-proficient range in Math on the CRT increased from 34% in 2002 to 39% in 2003

Curriculum

Data Source: Content Standard Analysis provided by St. Tammany Parish 4th grade students scoring non-proficient on the Math LEAP 21 correctly answered an average of 41.2% of the questions targeting data

analysis, probability, and discrete math. 8th grade students scoring non-proficient on the Math LEAP 21 correctly answered an average of 48% of the questions targeting data

analysis, probability, and discrete math.


Instruction

Parent/Community InvolvementStaff Development

School CultureSchool Climate

Leadership

Resources

Assessment

Curriculum

Area of Focus

To improve student proficiency among those content standards (with

emphasis on Standard #6-read analyze and respond to

literature) associated with English-language arts.

ChallengesChallenges--ELAELA

2001-2003 Test Results from LEAP 21 (CRT)

The number of students scoring in the non-proficient range in ELA on the CRT increased from 25% in 2002 to 28% in 2003.

2001-2003 Test Results from IOWA (NRT)

Grade 6 students decreased from 54 NPR to 51 NPR in Language

Grade 7 students decreased from 57 NPR to 55 NPR in language and 58 NPR to 57 NPR in reading.

1. 14 negative comments from the Teacher Focus Groups focused on lack of technology, human and material resources.

2. 7 out of 8 Instructional Staff Interviews noted shortages in computer and human resources.

1. 30.6% of parents report on the parent questionnaire that they are not involved in school supported activities.

2. 37.5% of the instructional staff on the questionnaire disagree that most parents are involved in school-supported activities.

Instructional Staff Questionnaire1. 47.9% of respondents disagree that school’s staff

development program is evaluated regularly by the faculty.

2. From the 8 Instructional Staff Interviews, 12 negative comments about lack of staff development focus for the year were noted.

1. 54.2% of respondents disagree or strongly disagree that administrators emphasize faculty participation in decision making activities at the school.2. The integrity of classroom instructional time is not protected. (DAT Team observation)

1. There is inconsistent enforcement of school policies therefore no clear expectations for students or teachers. (Student and Teacher Focus groups and Instructional Staff Interviews)

2. There is a lack collaboration/ communication among staff members. (Teacher Focus Groups and Teacher Interviews)

Data Source: Content Standard Analysis provided by St. Tammany Parish

1. 4th and 8th grade students scoring non-proficient on the ELA LEAP 21 correctly answered an average of 26.4% of the questions corresponding to skills needs to read, analyze and respond to literature.

1. 3 out of 3 Contextual Surveys reported that it can be observed frequently or excessively that students can be seen loitering on campus during the academic day.

2. There is no school-wide discipline policy. (Reported in all Instructional Staff Interviews and Teacher Focus Groups.)

3. 75% of Contextual Surveys very rarely observed duty personnel actively monitoring students.

Data from Classroom Observation Summary Form, SAM Self vs. External. vs. Administrator Analysis, Instructional Staff Questionnaire, and Student Focus Group

1. 72.5% of observed teachers (40) rated unsatisfactory /needs improvement in the area accommodates individual differences

2. 65% of observed teachers rated unsatisfactory/needs improvement in the area stimulates and encourages higher order thinking.

3. Increase the use of technology both computer and non-computer. (87.5% of observers reported none)

4. 82,5% of observers reported no experiential hands-on learning.


Instruction

Parent/Community InvolvementStaff Development

School CultureSchool Climate

Leadership

Resources

Assessment

Curriculum

Area of Focus

To improve student proficiency in data

analysis, probability, and discrete math.

ChallengesChallenges--MathMath

2001-2003 Test Results from LEAP 21 (CRT)

The number of students scoring in the non-proficient range in Math on the CRT increased from 34% in 2002

to 39% in 2003

Data Source: Content Standard Analysis provided by St. Tammany Parish

1. 4th grade students scoring non-proficient on the Math LEAP 21 correctly answered an average of 41.2% of the questions targeting data analysis, probability, and discrete math.

2. 8th grade students scoring non-proficient on the Math LEAP 21 correctly answered an average of 48% of the questions targeting data analysis, probability, and discrete math.

1. 54.2% of respondents disagree or strongly disagree that administrators emphasize faculty participation in decision making activities at the school.2. The integrity of classroom instructional time is not protected. (DAT Team observation)

1. 3 out of 3 Contextual Surveys reported that it can be observed frequently or excessively that students can be seen loitering on campus during the academic day.

2. There is no school-wide discipline policy. (Reported in all Instructional Staff Interviews and Teacher Focus Groups.)

3. 75% of Contextual Surveys very rarely observed duty personnel actively monitoring students.

Instructional Staff Questionnaire1. 47.9% of respondents disagree that school’s staff

development program is evaluated regularly by the faculty.

2. From the 8 Instructional Staff Interviews, 12 negative comments about lack of staff development focus for the year were noted.

1. 14 negative comments from the Teacher Focus Groups focused on lack of technology, human and material resources.

2. 7 out of 8 Instructional Staff Interviews noted shortages in computer and human resources.

1. 30.6% of parents report on the parent questionnaire that they are not involved in school supported activities.

2. 37.5% of the instructional staff on the questionnaire disagree that most parents are involved in school-supported activities.

Data from Classroom Observation Summary Form, SAM Self vs. External. vs. Administrator Analysis, Instructional Staff Questionnaire, and Student Focus Group

1. 72.5% of observed teachers (40) rated unsatisfactory /needs improvement in the area accommodates individual differences

2. 65% of observed teachers rated unsatisfactory/needs improvement in the area stimulates and encourages higher order thinking.

3. Increase the use of technology both computer and non-computer. (87.5% of observers reported none)

4. 82,5% of observers reported no experiential hands-on learning.

1. There is inconsistent enforcement of school policies therefore no clear expectations for students or teachers. (Student and Teacher Focus groups and Instructional Staff Interviews)

2. There is a lack collaboration/ communication among staff members. (Teacher Focus Groups and Teacher Interviews)


whole school sps: crt trend data · web viewlee road junior high school. gayle g. sloan....

Documents