School Improvement Plan s6

School Improvement Plan Template for

D. C. Reeves Elementary

Division of Educational Improvement and Assistance Office Student and School Performance Louisiana Department of Education

Submission Date: June 2009 D. Reeves Elementary 3rd and 4th Grade 18026 Sisters Road Ponchatoula, LA 70454 May Stilley (985) 386-6433 [email protected] Check where applicable: Louisiana Approved School Charter School Alternative School School in School Improvement School with Comprehensive School Reform Program Title I School Schoolwide ___ __Targeted Assistance Member of Southern Association of Colleges and Schools LINCS Distinguished Educator Reading First School Grant Application Name of Grant: _ _ Contact Person: _Amanda Montalbano_ Phone: _(985)386-6433_ E-mail: [email protected]_

Principal’s Signature: ______Date: ______

Louisiana Department of Education 2 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 Superintendent’s Signature: ______Date: ______Directions on What to Submit to the LDE and How to Complete the SIP Template

 For schools in School Improvement, submit the plan with the state’s Rubric for the Evaluation of School Improvement Plans Summary Report on disk to the designated division of the LDE, if required.

 Mail the Cover Page, District Assurance, and Faculty Assurance.

 Use 11 point font.

 Insert page numbers in the Table of Contents.

 For SIPs that have been revised, indicate material that has changed on the Strategy Planning Worksheet with strikethroughs (lines inserted through the changes). Place revisions in bold after the strikethroughs.

 For any completed activity, write the word completed in parenthesis following the strikethroughs.

 If any item/activity is incomplete, explain in a brief note in parenthesis why the activity was not completed.

 For grant applications, place in bold Activities and Action Steps for targeted funding should the grant be awarded. Include the title of the grant as well as the name, email address, and phone number of the contact person on the Cover Page of the School Improvement Plan Template.

 For original signatures, USE BLUE INK.

 Principal’s Signature  Superintendent’s Signature  DAT Members’ Signatures, if assigned.  School Support Team Members’ Signatures  School Improvement Team Chair’s Signature

*Schools submit SIPs to the district for evaluation using the state’s rubric

Louisiana Department of Education 3 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DATA PORTFOLIO...... 5 DISTRICT ASSURANCE...... 6 ASSURANCE OF FACULTY REVIEW OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN...... 8 MISSION STATEMENT...... 13 FEDERAL/STATE INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS AND/OR INITIATIVES...... 14 SCHOOL POLICIES AND PARTNERSHIPS...... 15 DATA TRIANGULATION SHEETS...... 16 DATA COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: SUMMARY REPORT...... 23 SCHOOL PERFORMANCE SCORE CHART...... 25 STRATEGY PLANNING WORKSHEET...... 26 TOTAL SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR RESTRICTED AND DISCRETIONARY FUNDS...... 59 FEDERAL FUNDING...... 60

Louisiana Department of Education 4 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 DATA PORTFOLIO

The following items should make up the Data Portfolio (to be kept on file at the school):

o Subgroup Component Report and Principal’s Report Card for the last three years. o Summary of Findings of Survey Data and all source documents. (Teachers, Parents, Students, and Principal) May be completed online. If Parent sample size is inadequate, there must be Parent Focus Group(s). o Summary of Findings of Interview Data and all source documents. (Principal, Counselor, and Teachers) (Not Optional for Schools in School Improvement/CSRP) o Summary of Findings of Focus Group Data and all source documents. (Teachers, Students, and Parents) (Not Optional for Schools in School Improvement/CSRP) o Copy of the Data Triangulation Form o Comprehensive Needs Assessment: Final Report o DRA and DIBELS Reports o Data Analysis Template (Trend Data history, Discipline/Behavior history, etc.) o Data Notebook (for schools participating in School Analysis Model-SAM 2000 or LANA online) o Cognitive Summary Data (ITBS/ITED, ACT, PSAT, etc.) o Citation from monitoring of Federal Programs – if applicable (e.g., Special Education and corresponding Corrective Action Plans) o Scholastic Audit Next Steps, if applicable.

Louisiana Department of Education 5 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 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 and/or School Support Team, as applicable, in collaboration with the School Improvement Team.  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:  A statement of the school's mission  Evidence of the use of a comprehensive needs assessment, which should include the following data analysis information: Data Triangulation tables Data Comprehensive Needs Assessment Summary Report  Goals and measurable objectives  Scientifically based research methods, strategies, and activities that guide curriculum content, instruction, and assessment  Professional Development components aligned with assessed needs  Family and community involvement activities aligned with assessed needs  Evaluation strategies that include methods to measure progress of implementation  Coordination of fiscal resources and analysis of school budget (possible redirection of funds)  An action plan with timelines and specific activities for implementing the above criteria  I further certify that the information contained in this assurance is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

______Superintendent's signature (in blue ink) Principal's signature (in blue ink)

______District Assistance or School Support Team Leader (in blue ink) Chair, School Improvement Team (in blue ink)

______

______District Assistance or School Support Team Members (original signatures in blue ink)

Not Applicable (No District Assistance or School Support Team in place)

Louisiana Department of Education 6 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT TEAM

School Improvement Team Members Position May Stilley Principal Amanda Montalbano Assistant Principal Strader Cieutat Assistant Principal Stacy Perrone 4th grade teacher Tanya Glass 4th grade teacher Laurie Miller 3rd grade teacher Rosalie Kusion 3rd grade teacher Shannan Nette 3rd grade teacher Jessica St. Cyr Special Education teacher Ursula Guillary Parent

Louisiana Department of Education 7 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 ASSURANCE OF FACULTY REVIEW OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Total Faculty in School: Date: Click to Enter Date

The following faculty members have reviewed the School Improvement Plan and have discussed their part in implementing it. SIGNATURE NAME TITLE/POSITION SIGNATURE (in blue ink) DATE 1 Stacey Addison teacher 2 Akira Carter sped teacher 3 Karen Caves teacher 4 Strader Cieutat Assistant Principal 5 Tonia Conley Paraprofessional 6 Kasey Crawford teacher 7 Ashley Director Counselor 8 Victoria Derks teacher Shelly Ernst 9 teacher Michelle Fontenot Librarian 10 Sarah Garcia teacher 11 Denise Gautreaux teacher 12 Tanya Glass 13 teacher Janet Haydel teacher 14 Melissa Hebert teacher 15

Louisiana Department of Education 8 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 SIGNATURE NAME TITLE/POSITION SIGNATURE (in blue ink) DATE 16 Carrie Jones Speech 17 Tammy Joiner teacher 18 Angel King teacher 19 Cathie Kirby Interventionist 20 Diane LeBlanc teacher 21 Ashley Louviere teacher 22 Michele Mayberry teacher 23 Betty McGary Paraprofessional 24 Dawn Menona teacher 25 Laurie Miller teacher 26 Jamie Mixon teacher 27 Amanda Montalbano Assistant Principal 28 Kim Montgomery teacher 29 Dondi Munroe teacher 30 Shannan Nette teacher 31 Lisa O'Donnell teacher

Louisiana Department of Education 9 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 SIGNATURE NAME TITLE/POSITION SIGNATURE (in blue ink) DATE 32 Lisa Pace teacher 33 Pam Perkins teacher 34 Amber Perrin teacher 35 Stacy Perrone teacher 36 Terri Pieper teacher 37 Bria Richardson teacher 38 Rebecca Roberts Paraprofessional 39 April Slaven teacher 40 Juline Smith Paraprofessional 41 Jessica St.Cyr sped teacher 42 Pam Sullivan teacher 43 Annette Tullier Paraprofessional 44 Nancy Vega teacher 45 Shelly Walker Paraprofessional 46 Mechelle Wilson teacher 47 Sean WIlliams sped teacher

Louisiana Department of Education 10 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 SIGNATURE NAME TITLE/POSITION SIGNATURE (in blue ink) DATE 48 Kathy Ahrend Secretary 49 Denise Allen Secretary 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

Louisiana Department of Education 11 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 SIGNATURE NAME TITLE/POSITION SIGNATURE (in blue ink) DATE 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

Louisiana Department of Education 12 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 MISSION STATEMENT

D. C. Reeves is a place where all students have the opportunity to become lifelong learners and productive citizens.

List the names and occupations of those persons who participated in developing the mission statement:

Name Title/Occupation Danette Ragusa Principal (former) Michelle Fontenot Librarian Janet Haydel Teacher Donna Reno Parent (former) Amanda Montalbano Assistant Principal Stefanie Sorbet Teacher (former) Annette Tullier Computer Lab Manager Lauren Fendlason 4-H Vice President, Student (former) Ben Ray 4-H Vice President, Student (former) Cindy Newton Volunteer

Louisiana Department of Education 13 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 FEDERAL/STATE INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS AND/OR INITIATIVES (Place a check or X in the status area for each program implemented at your school)

Currently No. of Proposed Program List: (including during- and after-school programs) Deleted Program Using Years Program

Career to Work 0 Extended Day Program 0 HIPPY 0 INTECH 0 INTECH 2 Science 0 INTECH Social Studies 0 La GEAR-UP 0 LaSIP 0 LEAD TECH 0 Math/Science Partnership 0 Pre-School Program 0 School-to-Work 0 The Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) 0 Other: LEAP After School Program 11 0

List Supplemental Educational Services provided for your students (Title I schools in SI 3 and above): • Click Here to Enter List the Distance Learning (i.e., web-based, satellite) courses provided for your students: • Click Here to Enter

SCHOOL POLICIES AND PARTNERSHIPS

Louisiana Department of Education 14 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 Date Policy Policy #/Bulletin # Copy on file at school? revised Discipline/Behavior Plan (Juvenile Justice Reform Act requirement) § 1301/741 and § 1127/741 8/07 Yes No Family Involvement Policy § 1903/741 and § 1118/Title I 8/07 Yes No Security Procedures (metal detectors, etc.) § 339/741 8/07 Yes No Safe and Drug-Free Prevention Activities § 1127/741 and § 2305/741 8/07 Yes No Student Code of Conduct § 1115/741 8/07 Yes No Crisis Management (emergency/evacuation plan) § 339/741 8/07 Yes No

School Partnerships (Type the name of each partner in the space provided)

University Southeastern Louisiana University Technical Institute Feeder School(s) Tucker Elementary and Vinyard Elementary School Community PTA, Kiwanis, Rotary Club Business/Industry Smitty's Supply Inc. Private Grants Enter Partner name Other Enter Partner name

Louisiana Department of Education 15 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 Supporting Source #1 Supporting Source #2 DATA Instrument: Faculty Needs Assessment Instrument: Administrator Interview TRIANGULATION Data Type: Attitudinal Data Type: Attitudinal

Findings: School Culture: A compliation of Findings: Collaboration was ranked as a school positive response are indicated by the following: strength. 220 - Collaboration (n=12) 210 - Student Expectations (n=4) 230 - Communication

Contributing Factors to the Strength: Cohesiveness in attitudes, perceptions, and Behaviors among faculty members

Domain: School Climate

Subdomain: 220 Collaboration

Supporting Source #3 Supporting Source #4 Instrument: LANA Notebook: Instructional Staff Instrument: Enter Instrument Name Demographics Data Type: Archival Data Type: Select type Findings: A stable faculty contributes to the Findings: Enter Findings collaboration that exists among its members. Count % 6+ years of teaching experience 22 66.7

4+ years at current school 20 60.6 Highest level of degree 31 96.9

Louisiana Department of Education 16 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 Supporting Source #2 Instrument: Contextual Observations Supporting Source #1 DATA Instrument: Faculty Needs Assessment TRIANGULATION Data Type: Behavioral

Data Type: Attitudinal Findings: :Students are rewarded for displaying positive behavior. Findings: Discipline received the second highest -Arrival-Exchange-Departure (14 of 16) number of positive responses (n=22) -Building-Equipment-Grounds (13 of 16) -Cafeteria (8 of 16) -Library - Technology (10 of 16) -Office and Office Staff (13 of 16) -Students move to designated areas in an orderly fashion (15 of 16) -Students comply with directions of duty personnel (15 of 16) Contributing Factors -Students respond to end of recess without to the Strength: additional prompts (13 of 16) Students follow directions of librarian and Administration and faculty agree computer lab personnel (14 of 16) on positive behavior policies

Domain: School Climate

Subdomain: 120 Discipline

Louisiana Department of Education 17 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 Supporting Source #2 Instrument: Student Focus Group

Data Type: Attitudinal

Findings: 440 - Leadership - Communication: The administrators encourage students to do well in school (a mean score of 3.91 of 4.0)

Supporting Source #1 DATA Instrument: Faculty Needs Assessment TRIANGULATION

Data Type: Attitudinal

Findings: A compilation of positive responses are indicated as follows: 420 - Leadership: Support for Personnel (n=8) 430 - Leadership: Support for change/school improvement (n=4)Supporting Source #3 440 - Leadership: Communication (n=2) Instrument: District Composite Report 450 - Other Leadership (n=5) Supporting Source #4 Instrument: Data Type: Archival Data Type: Select type Findings: The school's efforts to keep students in school and in class are revealed as follows: Findings: The Suspended In-School Percentage has exceeded the Suspended Out-of-School Percentage for 6 consecutive years. 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 IN 16.8 11.3 16.6 20.2 22.4 24.8 OUT 6.5 7.6 9.4 10.7 9.5 13.0

Louisiana Department of Education 18 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 Supporting Source #2 Instrument: Instructional Staff Questionnaire

Data Type: Attitudinal

Contributing Factors to the Strength: Findings: "I believe that ALL my students will Support School Improvement do well in school."

Domain: Leadership Instructional Staff Rating A mean score of 2.89

Subdomain: 410 Decision Making

Supporting Source #3 Supporting Source #4 Instrument: Contextual Observations Instrument: Enter Instrument Name Data Type: Behavioral Supporting Source #1 DATA Data Type: Select type Instrument: Administrator Questionnaire Findings: Duty personnel are in place prior to Findings: Enter Findings students' arrival (15 of 16) and students' TRIANGULATION Data Type: Attitudinal departure (15 of 16 points). Duty personnel for hallways actively monitor students (16 of 16 points).Findings: "I believe that ALL my students will do Studentswell in school." are NOT seen loitering on campus during the academic day (15 of 16 points). Administrator Rating A mean score of 2.00

Louisiana Department of Education 19 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 Supporting Source #2 Instrument: 2007 LEAP Grade 4

Data Type: Cognitive

Contributing Factors to the Weakness: Findings: Constructed- Response Items in all Discrepancies in expectations of core subjects are lower than Multiple-Choice students' ability to learn Items. % correct % correct Domain: School Culture Constructed Multiple Choice ELA 55 62 Math 54 66 Subdomain: Equity/Access Science 54 68 Social Studies 59 64 Supporting Source #3 Instrument: Trend Data Calculator

Data Type: Cognitive

Findings: DIsparities in Math and ELA % Proficient among subgroups. Grade 4 Subgroup ELA MATH 2006 2007 2006 2007 Black 42 38 31 31 Supporting Source #4 White 64 79 59 77 Instrument: Classroom Observations ED 50 54 44 49 SWD 21 30 25 27 Data Type: Behavioral GradeSupporting 3 Source #1 DATA Subgroup ELA MATH Instrument: Parent Questionnaire Findings: Accommodates individual differences 2006 2007 2006 2007 received a mean score of 2.57. Black 32 50 40 41 TRIANGULATION Data Type: Attitudinal White 76 76 73 76 ED 48 60 51 56 SWDFindings:38 “Teachers38 33provide41 for my child’s individual needs by modifying instructions,” received a mean score of 2.88.

Louisiana Department of Education 20 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 Supporting Source #2 Instrument: Instructional Staff Questionnaire

Data Type: Attitudinal

Findings: This questionnaire indicated the Contributing Factors to the Weakness: following: A need to increase systematic 1.Staff members and parents work together to Individual Instruction improve the school ( a mean score of 3.13 of 4.0) 2.My school invites parents to participate in Domain: Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment important decisions about their children’s education ( mean score of 3.15 of 4.0) Subdomain: 510 Instructional Strategies

Supporting Source #3 Supporting Source #4 Instrument: Classroom Observations Instrument: Administrator Questionnaire

Data Type: Behavioral Data Type: Attitudinal Supporting Source #1 DATA Findings:Instrument: : Systematic Parent Questionnaire individual instruction Findings: “Teachers and parents are involved in (differential assignments geared to individual TRIANGULATION decision-making processes at my school,” needs)Data Type: was Attitudinallisted under the none and rarely received a mean score of 2.50. category at 82.5%. Findings: The questionnaire revealed the following: I know what my child’s school is doing to improve student learning ( a mean score of 2.78 of 4.0).

Louisiana Department of Education 21 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 Contributing Factors to the Weakness: Need for increased parental involvement

Domain: Family and Community Relationships

Subdomain: 320 School Involvement

Supporting Source #3 Supporting Source #4 Instrument: Principal's Report Card Instrument: Adminstrator Questionnaire

Data Type: Archival Data Type: Attitudinal

Findings: The attendance index has declined Findings: “Teachers and parents are involved in over a two year period. decision-making processes at my school,” received a mean score of 2.50 of 4.0.

Louisiana Department of Education 22 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 DATA COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: SUMMARY REPORT

Part 1:

For Title I Schools: ELA and Math by subgroups should be primary when considering weaknesses that will lead to the goals in the SIP. This data should reflect findings on step10 of the Trend Data Analysis worksheet. Rank-order the identified areas of strength (3-5) from the student performance and attendance and/or dropout data and indicate the supporting data sources: STRENGTHS DATA SOURCE 1. School ELA Index is higher than other core subjects Trend Data Calculator, Principal's Report Card 2. White subgroup % proficient surpasses the subgroups in all grade Trend Data Calculator, Principal's Report Card levels and all core subjects 3. SWD performance is improving in ELA Trend Data Calculator, Principal's Report Card 4. 5.

Rank-order the identified areas of weakness (3-5) from the student performance and attendance and/or dropout data and indicate the supporting data sources: WEAKNESSES DATA SOURCE 1. Subgroup Achievement Gaps Trend Data Calculator, Principal's Report Card 2. Declining performance of the Black Subgroup in 4th grade ELA Trend Data Calculator, Principal's Report Card 3. School Math Index is lower than the other core subjects Trend Data Calculator, Principal's Report Card 4. 5.

The identified weaknesses will lead to the goals.

Louisiana Department of Education 23 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 Part 2:

This data should reflect the findings from the needs assessment as reported on the Data Triangulation sheets. List the contributing factors from the attitudinal/perceptual, behavioral, and archival data of the previously identified strengths: CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO THE STRENGTHS DATA SOURCE 1. Cohesiveness in attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors among faculty Faculty Needs Assessment, Administrator Interview, Instructional Staff members Demographics (LANA Notebook) Faculty Needs Assessment, Contextual Observations, District 2. Administration and faculty agree on positive behavior policies Composite Report Faculty Needs Assessment, Student Focus Group, Contextual 3. Support for school improvement Observations 4. 5.

List the contributing factors from the attitudinal/perceptual, behavioral, and archival data of the previously identified weaknesses: CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO THE WEAKNESSES DATA SOURCE Administrator Questionnaire, Instructional Staff Questionnaire, 1. Discrepancies in expectations of students' ability to learn Classroom Observations, Trend Data Calculator Parent Questionnaire, LEAP, Classroom Observations, Administrator 2. A need to increase systematic individual instruction Questionnaire Parent Questionnaire, Instructional Staff Questionnaire, Principal's 3. Need for increased parental involvement Report Card, Administrator Questionnaire 4. 5.

The contributing factors of the weaknesses will lead to the strategies.

Louisiana Department of Education 24 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 SCHOOL PERFORMANCE SCORE CHART

Baseline SPS Growth SPS Growth Target (Select year and enter score.) (Select year and enter score.) (Select year and enter target.)

School Baseline SPS 2005: 97.1 School Growth SPS 2005: 2.6 School GT 2005: 2.4

School Baseline SPS 2006: 85.3 School Growth SPS 2006: -6.9 School GT 2006: 2.8

School Baseline SPS 2007: 87.3 School Growth SPS 2007: 4.0 School GT 2007: 4.6

Use Principal’s Report Card: www.louisianaschools.net/lde/pair/1989.asp

Louisiana Department of Education 25 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 STRATEGY PLANNING WORKSHEET

GOAL #1: BY 2013/2014 All students will reach high standards, attaining profiency or better in Math.

OBJECTIVE(S) #1: To increase mathematics CRT Index Scores in 3rd grade from 93.2 to 98.6 by 2010

SCIENTIFICALLY BASED RESEARCH STRATEGY: (Derived from the contributing factors) – Job-Embedded Professional Development

Bibliographic Notation: Easton,L.B. (2002,March). How the Tuning Protocol Works. Educational Leadership, 59(6),28-30.

Elliott,Dr. Cynthia B. (1998). The Early Literacy Initiative Project: Job-Embedded Professional Development Opportunities. Southeastern Louisiana University Early Literacy Initiative. Department of Education, Hammond, LA.

Galloway, Holly. (1995). Job-embedded Professional Development. Journal of Staff Development, volume 16.

Guskey,T. (1996, June). Staff Development and the Process of Teacher Change. Educational Researcher, 15(5)5-12.

Learning First Alliance. (2000). Every Child Reading: A Professional Development Guide. Washington, D.C.: Author. www.learningfirst.org/readingguide.html

National Education Goals Panel. (2000,Dec.). Bringing All Students to High Standards. NEGP Monthly. www.megp.gov/issues/issu/monthly/1200.pdf

Nolan, K. (2000). Looking at Student Work: Improving Practice by Closing in. Providence, R.I; Annenburg Institute for School Reform.

Schmoker, M. (1996). Results: The Key to Continuous School Improvement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Sparks, D. Designing Powerful Professional Development for Teachers and Principals. NSDC, 2002. http://www.nsdc.org/library/book/sparksbook.pdf Sparks,D. (1999,Spring). Assessment Without Victims: An Interview with Rick Stiggins. Journal of Staff Development. 20(2), 54-56.

Louisiana Department of Education 26 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 www.mscd.org/library/jsd/stiggins203.html

Sparks, D. (1999,Summer). Try on Strategies to Get a Good Fit: An Interview with Susan Loucks-Horsley. Journal of Staff Development. 20(3),56-60. www.nscd.org/lobrary/jsd/loucks-horsley203.html

Teacher-Led Staff Development: A Research Project. Dover Pub.,Inc. St. Minola, NY 11501

Teacher Quality: Professional Development. (2006). ECS Education Policy Issue Site. Denver, CO.

WestEd. (2000). Teachers Who Learn, Kids Who Achieve: A Look at Schools with Model Professional Development. San Francisco: Author. Web/WestEd.org/online_pubs/modelPD/welcome.shtml

What staff development and support are necessary. Data-Based Decision Making: Resources for Educators. (2001-2002). DBDM,AEL, and CCSSO.

Louisiana Department of Education 27 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 progress of designing staff development. Leaders must ask themselves which strategies "make sense to use at what particular time with that particular set of teachers for a particular set of outcomes." There are pitfalls, of course. Michael Fullan (2001) defines perhaps the most common of all--fragmentation/coherence. Powerful professional development must pursue only one of two student learning goals, and there must be alignment between those goals and teacher training. Goals also provide a meaningful purpose for teamwork and goal-oriented units, says Schmoker (1996). Moreover, teachers find it difficult to sustain a sense of passion for their time and effort if they are unable to see real growth. This will not occur, explains Tom Guskey, if focus is diffused (1986). Bringing All Students to High Standards, the 2000 report of the National Education Goals Panel, links sustained professional development directly to student achievement. So too does How Teaching Matters: Bringing the Classroom Back into Discussions of Teacher Quality (Wellington, 2000).

Describe how this strategy, in relation to the research, addresses the needs of the student population in your school. Was the research conducted in a similar school with similar populations and needs? Job-Embedded Professional Development, according to recent research, should be integrated into the established teaching schedule in order to be truly effective. D.C. Reeves has established a monthly ½ day in-service for each teacher in order to develop common assessments, evaluate data from the previous school year as well as the current year, align long range plans, and discussion of pacing in regards to their units. Teachers are grouped according to Math or English/Language Arts and spend the time with their grade level and the principal. Each teacher has the opportunity to voice concerns they may have in relation to student needs. These concerns are addressed and given suggestions for improvement.

If this strategy addresses the needs of any of the subgroups, indicate which subgroup and describe how it will serve their needs: This strategy addresses the needs of all subgroups. Students benefit from whole grade level involvement in determining how to improve the learning process.

Procedures for Evaluating the Goal, Objective(s) and Strategy: Standardized test scores, unit test scores, samples of student work, teacher collaboration

Louisiana Department of Education 28 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 ACTION PLAN Activity(ies) Indicator of Procedures for Evaluating Include Persons Responsible, Timeline, and Target Object Implementation Indicators of Implementation Audience Funding Sources Cost Code (Observable (How do you know the activity is Note: Activities indicated should address all children, Change) working?) including subgroups.

Louisiana Department of Education 29 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 Improve student achievement in the area of problem solving: utilizing daily math review. Target audience is the Unit Tests, Student work samples; lesson students who complete this activity daily from iLEAP scores plans 8/2009 - 5/2010. The persons responsible for this activity are the 3rd grade teachers; May Stilley, principal; Shannan Nette, 3rd grade level chairperson. Title 1 Increase Lesson plans; observations utilizing software based on level of skill in the iLEAP scores from principal; student projects computer lab. One software will be FASTTMATH. Target audience is the students who will complete this activity from 8/2009 - 5/2010. The persons responsible for this activity are the 3rd teachers; Annette Tullier, lab manager; May Stilley, principal; Shannan Nette, 3rd grade level Title 1 Increase in chairperson. SPED subgroup for participation in a full inclusion setting. Target iLEAP audience is the special education and regular education students who will attend inclusion classes from 8/2009 - 5/2010 with reduction of overall class size. Persons responsible are May Stilley, principal; Faculty member. Title 1 $5,000 100 Increase in DATA binder utilizing DATA Driven Instruction; giving pre/post Sub Pay scores assessments to determine students who are on, above, or below grade level. Students working below proficiency level will receive research based interventions to meet proficiency. Target audience is the students who will complete this assessment from 8/2009 - 5/2010. Persons responsible are May Stilley, principal; 3rd grade math teachers. Title 1 Track JPAMS Sign-In Book discipline increase student participation through focusing reports upon classroom management made possible with the hire of Paraprofessional.

Louisiana Department of Education 30 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 Improve student achievement in the area of problem solving: Title 1 100 $5,000 through job embedded staff development Sub Pay Increase in Agenda; feedback from activities reinforcing cooperative grouping SPS teachers through Kagan Structures. The target audience is the 3rd grade teachers who will participate in in-services 9/2009 - 5/2010 made possible with classroom release time. through participation in grade level meetings to Math units create new math units implementing differentiated instruction and cooperative grouping to vary the methods of presentation. Target audience is the teachers who will participate in monthly meetings from 9/2009 - 5/2010. Persons responsible include May Stilley, principal; Amanda Montalbano, assisstnat principal; Shannan Nette, 3rd grade level chairperson. SLU Professors Increase in through teacher participation in Project I-MAST an SPS Lesson Plans increase in teacher content knowledge integrating math,science, and technology will increase student achievement, Persons responsible are teachers attending training during summer 09; Shannon Nette, 3rd grade level chairperson; May Stilley, principal

Louisiana Department of Education 31 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 Improve student achievement in the area of problem solving: through active parental involvement during Title 1 Increase in Letters sent home; Sign-in Family Math Night, Open House, and SPS, PTA sheets, Resource Packets for Communication Pads. Target audience is the supplies for $300.00 membership Home Use students and parents who will participate in Open game stations 600 House 8/2009 and Math Night 10/2009. The automated phone service will be utilized for Door prize $50.00 invitations to both events. The persons basket of Math responsible for these activities are 3rd grade Supplies teachers; parents and students; May Stilley, principal; Stacy Perrone and Karen Caves, Math Night coordinators; Kathy Ahrend, secretary.

through active parental involvement utilizing Communication Pads for homework, notes home, Communication $2,380.00 Parent signatures in daily behavior if needed, upcoming events, and Pads communication pads the Reeves Handbook as reference.

* Indicates Professional Development Learning # Indicates Safe and Drug-Free Activities (if applicable) ** Indicates Family Involvement Activities ## Indicates Discipline Support Activities (if applicable) *** Indicates Curriculum Activities (if applicable) ### Indicates PK –12 Literacy Activities (if applicable)

Louisiana Department of Education 32 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 STRATEGY PLANNING WORKSHEET

GOAL #2: By 2013/2014 All students to reach high standards, attaining proficiency or better, in English/Language Arts

OBJECTIVE(S) #1: To increase ELA CRT Index Scores in 3rd grade from 88.7 to 95.0 by 2010.

SCIENTIFICALLY BASED RESEARCH STRATEGY: (Derived from the contributing factors) – Deep Curriculum Alignment

Bibliographic Notation: Empirical Research:

"Getting Acquainted with the Performance Indicators." Educational Policy Group. Michigan State University, 2002. Ingham Intermediate School District, 2005.

Gorin, J., & Blanchard, J. (2004). The effect of curriculum alignment on elementary mathematics and reading achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.

Comparitive Study:

Barth,P., K. Haycock, H. Jackson, K. Mora, P. Ruiz, S. Robinson, and A. Wilkins, eds, 1999. Dispelling the Myth: High-Poverty Schools exceeding Expectations. Washington, DC: Education Trust in cooperation with the Council of Chief State School Officers.

Liebling, C.R. (1997). Achieving standards-based curriculum alignment through mindful teaching. New York, NY: The New York Technical Assistance Center and Region III Comprehensive Center, Arlington, VA.

Mitchell, F. (1998). The effects of curriculum alignment on the mathematics achievement of third-grade students as measured by the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills: Implications for educational administrators. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Clark Atlanta University.

Johnson, J.F. & Asera, R. (1999). Hope for urban education: A study of nine high-performing, high-poverty, urban elementary schools. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

Zellmer, M (1997), Effect on reading test scores when teachers are provided information that relates local curriculum documents to the test. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59-02A,412.

Books: English, F.W. (1992). Deciding what to teach and test: Developing, aligning, and auditing the curriculum. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin

Louisiana Department of Education 33 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 Press, Inc.

Drake, Susan M., and Burns, Rebecca C. Meeting standards through integrated curriculum.

English,F.W., Steffy, B.E. (2001). Deep curriculum alignment: Creating a level playing field for all children on high-stakes tests of educational accountability. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Glatthorn, A.A. (1994). Developing a quality curriculum. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Steffy, B.E. (1995). Authentic assessment and curriculum alignment: Meeting the challenge of national standards. Rockport, MS: Pro- Active.

Internet Resources:

Http://osi.fsu.edu/waveseries/htm/versions/waves9.htm Aligning Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment. Florida Department of Education, Office of School Improvement, "Ride the Wave" to Success in the Classroom (Wave Series #9). http:www.asbj.com/achievement/aa/aa4.htm "Helping Students Learn"… An online anthology on student achievement from asbj. "Teaching to the Test" by Kevin Bushweller. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal? nfpb=true&ERICxtSearch SearchValue 0=curriculum+alignment http:www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/ http:www.louisianaschools.net http:www.nwrel.org/nwedu http://www.districtadministration.com/page.cfm/p=825 "The Benefits of Curriculum Alignment." http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/template.chapter/menuitem.b71d101a217c208cdeb3ffdb62108a0c/ http://www.ccsso.org/Publications/Download.cfm?Filename=criteria.pdf

Journals:

Allen,Rick. "Collaborative Curriculum Planning: Districts Break Down Barriers to Better Lessons." Education Update. Vol. 44.3 (May 2002). http://www.ascd.org/affiliates/articles/eu200205 allen.html Allen, Rick. "Keeping Kids in School." Education Update. Vol. 44.8 (Dec. 2002). http//www.asce.org/affiliates/articles/eu200212 allen.

Louisiana Department of Education 34 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 html

Brown, K. and Capp, R. (November/December 2003). "Better Data for Better Learning." Leadership 33,2: 18-19,39.

Bruner, D.Y., and Greenlee, B.J. (January 2002). "Bring Standards from the State House to the Schoolhouse." Principal 81, 3:23-25

"Curriculum Mapping: A Process for Continuous Quality Improvement." Notes and Reflections: For Professional Developers from Professional Developers. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Issue 4: Spring 2003.

Downey, Carolyn. "District Leaders: Step to the Plate." Leadership Magazine. (Sept. 2001): 2005 http://www.acsa/org/publications/pub detail.cfm?leadershipPubID=1025

Fox, D. (November/December). "Guiding Instruction Through Assessment: What Principals Need to Know." Principal 33, 2:14-17.

Levine, D. and Stark, J. (December 1982). "Instructional and Organizational Arrangements that Improve Achievement in Inner-City Schools." Educational Leadership 40,3:41-46.

"Mapping a Curriculum That Works for All Learners." Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. 2005. http://www.nwrel.org/nwreport/2005-03/5-curriculum.html

Rice-Crenshaw, M. and Howard, W.C. (Fall 2003). "Curriculum Alignment and Assessment: An Adaptable Model." Rural Educator 25, 1:36-39.

Schmoker, M. (2002). "The Real Causes of Higher Achievement."SEDLetter 14,2.

Sherman, L. (Fall 2001). "Taking a Second Look at Standards." Northwest Education 7, 1:2-11.

Sparks, D. (2001). Conversations That Matter: Ideas about Education I Can't Wait to Share. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.

Strong, R.W., Silver, H.F., and Perini, M.J. (November 2001). "Making Students as Important as Standards." Educational Leadership 59,2:56-61.

Webb, Norman, "Criteria for Alignment of Expectations and Assessment in Mathematics and Science Education." Council of Chief State School Offices. Washington, D.C. Research Monograph No.8.

Louisiana Department of Education 35 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 Brief Summary of Research: English (1992) considers curriculum alignment a process that improves the agreement between the written, the taught, and the tested curriculum. Many researchers support the idea that alignment of instruction and assessment is crucial to success in improving instruction (Gorin & Blanchard, 2004; LIebling, 1997; Johnson & Asera, 1999; Mitchell, 1998). Most states, including Louisiana, have mandated standards-based and high stakes tests. Therefore, the question is not "Should we align curriculum, instruction, and assessment?" Rather the question is "How can we make the alignment process teacher-directed and teacher-friendly?" (Glatthorn, 1999). In a 1999 comparative study commissioned by the United States Department of Education of nine high-performing-high-poverty urban elementary schools, curriculum alignment was among the strategies used to improve student academic achievement (Johnson et al. 1999). Teachers and administrators worked together to understand precisely what students were expected to know and be able to do. Then, they planned instruction to ensure that students would have an excellent chance to learn what was expected of them. Likewise, a 1999 study by the Education Trust found that hundreds of poor and minority schools are succeeding with exceptional numbers of students by teaching to assessed standards and by continuously learning and refining better ways to teach to these standards. At the majority of these schools, teachers meet with colleagues regularly to discuss standards and how to teach them (Barth, et al. 1999). A two-year longitudinal study of mathematics and reading achievement scores was conducted by Gorin (1999) to analyze the effectiveness of curriculum alignment. Based on reports of standardized tests in both reading and math, students exposed to curriculum alignment showed improvement in their scores between the 3rd and 5th grade. Rightly or wrongly, the No Child Left Behind law has accelerated the importance of curriculum alignment. The large number of descriptive and comparative studies and the long term studies underway tend to favor alignment as a positive influence on achievement.

Describe how this strategy, in relation to the research, addresses the needs of the student population in your school. Was the research conducted in a similar school with similar populations and needs? Many researchers support the idea that alignment of instruction and assessment is crucial to success in improving instruction (Gorin & Blanchard,2004; Liebling, 1997; Johnson & Asera, 1999; Mitchell, 1998). During our monthly Job-Embedded Professional Development teachers have the opportunity to discuss pacing issues and develop common assessments based upon instruction. The goal is to insure authentic assessments that have meaning for the students. The strategy of deep curriculum alignment will address the needs of all students in improving test scores.

If this strategy addresses the needs of any of the subgroups, indicate which subgroup and describe how it will serve their needs:

Louisiana Department of Education 36 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 This strategy will address all subgroups in improving instruction and their individual test scores.

Procedures for Evaluating the Goal, Objective(s) and Strategy: Standardized test scores, unit tests, sample student work.

ACTION PLAN Activity(ies) Indicator of Procedures for Evaluating Include Persons Responsible, Timeline, and Target Object Implementation Indicators of Implementation Audience Funding Sources Cost Code (Observable (How do you know the activity is Note: Activities indicated should address all children, Change) working?) including subgroups.

Louisiana Department of Education 37 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 Improve student achievement in reading comprehension through: Increase in TOP reports; class summary utilizing Accelerated Reader comprehension tests AR chains and 600 $600 SPS; iLEAP sheets from A.R. program; pairing higher ability and lower ability readers tags lesson plans completed from 8/2009 - 5/2010. The persons responsible for this activity is 3rd grade teachers; May Stilley, principal; Annette Tullier, lab manager. Letter home to parents; order forms attend and participate in Scholastic Book Fair as well as Scholastic book orders. Target audience is the students who will participate 9/2009 and 2/2010. The persons responsible for this activity is Michelle Fontenot, librarian; May Stilley, principal. utilize Harcourt Leveled readers from 8/2009 - Lesson plans, random 5/2010. Target audience is the students. Persons observations by administration; responsible are 3rd grade teachers; May Stilley, Accelerated Reader quizzes principal; Stacey Addison, 3rd grade chairperson. use of Language Arts computer software in the Title 1 100 $31,639 Increase in Student portfolios; lesson plans; computer lab such as Skills Tutor, Harcourt Paraprofessional SPS; iLEAP random observations from Reading, Brain Pop. Target audience is the Copy paper, ink, 600 principal students who will access these programs from and popcorn 8/2009 - 5/2010. Persons responsible for this activity are Annette Tullier, lab manager; May Stilley, principal; 3rd grade teachers; Stacey Addison, 3rd grade chairperson. take part in Book It program. Target audience is Increased in Letter home to parents; Pizzas students who will particpate monthly beginning SPS; iLEAP earned; recognigtion of books 10/09 - 5/2010. Persons responsible for this read activity are May Stilley, principal; Stacey Perrone, chairperson.

Louisiana Department of Education 38 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 utilizing DATA Driven Instruction; giving pre/post assessments to determine students who are on, above, or below grade level. Students working below proficiency level will receive research Title 1 100 $5000 Increase in Agendas; Sign-In sheets; based interventions to meet proficiency. Target Sub Pay SPS DATA Binder; audience is the students who will complete this Pre and Post tests for students; assessment from 8/2009 - 5/2010. Persons lesson plans responsible are May Stilley, principal; 3rd grade ELA teachers. participation in Project Read. Target audience is End of Year Report students identified with deficits who will attend class daily from 9/2009-5/2010. Person responsible for this activity are Terri Pieper, Project Read teacher; 3rd grade teachers. participation in Tier 3 fo the Reading Series. Pre and Post tests for students; Target audience will be students identified with lesson plans deficits; they will attend classes as needed from 9/2009-5/2010. Persons responsible are Terri Pieper, Project Read teacher; 3rd grade teachers

Louisiana Department of Education 39 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 Improve student achievement in the area of reading comprehension achievement: through active parental involvement during Family Title 1 Increase in Letters sent home; Sign-In Literacy Night. Target audience is the students Supplies for 600 $300 SPS, PTA sheet; Resource Packet and parents who will participate in Literacy Night, reading centers, membership Spring of 2010. The automated phone service will Door Prize $50 be utilized for invitations to this event. The basket of persons responsible for this activitiy are 3rd grade reading teachers; parents and students; May Stilley, materials, principal; Dondi Soza, lead teacher; Kathy Ahrend, Refreshments, $200 secretary. Resource Packets through active parental involvement during Art Night 4/2010. Target audience is the students and Title 1 600 $700 Letters home, sign-in sheet, art parents who will participate in Art Night. The Student Art displays, newspaper article persons responsible for this activity are teachers; displays, Bria Richardson, Art teacher; May Stilley, principal supplies for displays, art supplies to create displays, refreshments

STRATEGY PLANNING WORKSHEET

GOAL #1: By 2013/2014 All students will reach high standards, attaining proficiency or better, in Math.

Louisiana Department of Education 40 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006 OBJECTIVE(S) #1: To increase mathematics CRT Index Scores in 4th grade from 85.8 to 92.6 by 2010.