WHOLE SCHOOL SPS: CRT Trend Data



SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Folsom Jr. High

[pic]

Gayle G. Sloan

Superintendent

Sharon S. Garrett, Principal

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:

7. Student academic performances on standardized achievement tests (both CRT, NRT) and performance/authentic assessment disaggregated by grade

vs. content vs. exceptionality

8. Demographic indicators of the community and school to include socioeconomic factors

9. School human and material resource summary, to include teacher demographic indicators and capital outlay factors

10. Interviews with stakeholders: principals, teachers, students, parents

11. Student and teacher focus groups

12. Questionnaires with stakeholders (principals, teachers, students, parents) measuring conceptual domains outlined in school effectiveness/reform research

13. 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

___________________________________ ________________________________

___________________________________ _________________________________

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 |SIGNATURE |

|Barnes, Mary |Counselor | |

|Barry, Cara |Teacher | |

|Bateman, Linda |Librarian | |

|Beatty, Phyllis |Teacher | |

|Brown, Marjorie |Teacher | |

|Bryant, Jerri Ann |Teacher | |

|Core, Ray |Teacher | |

|Daull, Sherri |Teacher | |

|Fortier, Muriel |Teacher | |

|Galloway, Rebecca |Teacher | |

|De la Garza, Jennifer |Teacher | |

|Hano, Leslie |Resource Helping Teacher | |

|Joiner, Linda |Teacher | |

|McNeil, June |Teacher | |

|Mathies, Irma |Teacher | |

|Nettles, Judith |Teacher | |

|Nordgren, Cynthia |Teacher | |

|Palmisano, Kim |Special Education Teacher | |

|Newman, Linda |Special Education Teacher | |

|Garrett, Sharon |Principal | |

|Wallsten, Karen |Teacher | |

|Perkins, Diedre |Teacher | |

|McClendon, Patricia |Teacher | |

|Pegues, Pamela |Teacher | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

BELIEFS STATEMENT

• All students can succeed in learning with a variety of instructional approaches to support their learning.

• Administrators, teachers, staff, parents, community members, and students share in the accountability for providing a supportive learning environment within our school.

• The curriculum and instructional strategies are designed with clear goals and high expectations with emphasis on student performance on test scores.

• Students learn in different ways and should be provided an appropriate learning environment within our school to enable students to succeed.

• A diverse selection of assessment tools should be utilized by teachers to evaluate student performance.

• Our school is committed to the continuous improvement of our students so that they may become lifelong learners.

VISION STATEMENT

Folsom Jr. High’s vision is to see our entire learning community reach its highest potential in all areas of life.

MISSION STATEMENT

Folsom Jr. High is committed to education as a life-long endeavor.

Reference appendices for stakeholder participants

SCHOOL DEMOGRAPHICS/CHARACTERISTICS

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

|A | | | | | |

|D | | | | | |

|M | | | | | |

| | |School |Title I |Total % in School |% Change from 2003 |

| | |Non-Title I | | | |

|T | | | | | |

|E | | | | | |

|A | | | | | |

|C | | | | | |

|H | | | | | |

|E | | | | | |

|R | | | | | |

|S | | | | | |

|* | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | |Schoolwide |Targeted Asst. | | |

| |

|Number of Related Service and Support Personnel and Areas (i.e., Speech Pathologist, Social Worker): Speech Therapist, Mental Health Provider, IEP Facilitator, Pupil Appraisal Representative |

|School Improvement Team Members/Position: Sharon Garrett, Principal; Leslie Hano, R.H.T; Rebecca Galloway, Title I; Cynthia Nordgren, Math; Judith Nettles, English; Cindy Nebe, Parent; Carolyn Brumfield, Community |

|Member |

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

|(if applicable): | |

|Parish Homeless Liaison: (Contact Parish Title I Supervisor to get further information) Ann Pressley |Parish Homeless Liaison’s Contact #: 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 Centers | | | |

|Big Buddy | | | |

|Career to Work | | | |

|DARE | | |X |

|Early Reading First | | | |

|HIPPY | | | |

|INTECH |X | | |

|INTECH 2 Science |X | | |

|INTECH Social Studies |X | | |

|K-3 Reading/Math Initiative | | | |

|La GEAR-UP | | | |

|Federal/State Instructional Programs and/or Initiatives |

|(Place a check in the status area for each program implemented at your school) |

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

|LaSIP | | | |

|LEAD TECH | | | |

|Learning Intensive Networking Communities for Success (LINCS) | | | |

|LINCS/High Schools That Work (HSTW) | | | |

|LINCS/Making Middle Grades Work (MMGW) | | | |

|Louisiana Virtual School | | | |

|Making Middle Grades Work | | | |

|SAGE | | | |

|School Tech | | | |

|School to Work | | | |

|School wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Support |X | | |

|The Louisiana Literacy Corps | | | |

|The Multisensory Structured Language Program |X | | |

|The Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) |X | | |

|Other: Accelerated Reader |X | | |

|List the Supplemental Educational Services provided for your students (Title I schools, if applicable): |

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

| |

|School Policies |

|Policies |Yes |No |

|Discipline Policy |X | |

|Security Procedures (Metal detectors, etc.) |X | |

|Safe and Drug-Free Prevention Activities |X | |

|Student Code of Conduct |X | |

|Crisis Management (Emergency/evacuation plan) |X | |

|School Partnerships: (Place the name of each partner in the space provided.) |

|University: |Southern University of New Orleans, Southeastern LA University |

|Technical Institute: | |

|Feeder School(s): |Folsom Elementary & Covington High |

|Community: | |

|Business/Industry: |Coca Cola Bottling Company |

|Private Grants: |Kelly Cooke, WST, Brown Foundation |

|Other: | |

|Student Information |

|List the number of students in each area: |

|Total at School |

|Subgroups by Ethnicity |

|American Indian |Asian/Pacific Islander |Black |Hispanic |White |

|0 |0 |60 |7 |180 |

|Poverty Profile |

|# of Free/Reduced Lunch Students: 124 |Percent of Free/Reduced Lunch Students: 50% |

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 SOURCE |

|1. Mathematics scores are continually improving. |Longitudinal Data Analysis; Content Standard Analysis |

|2. White, Black, and ED subgroups are continually improving. |Longitudinal Data Analysis; Content Standard Analysis; NCLB |

|3. Teachers carefully plan for instruction |Observations, Teacher snapshots, Interviews, Lesson plans |

|SUPPORTING EVIDENCE |DATA SOURCE |

|Strength 1. More students are scoring Basic and above on LEAP & 54.5% of students showed improvement in |LEAP test & Iowa test scores; Longitudinal Data Analysis; Content Standard Analysis |

|math on ITBS. | |

|Strength 2. White subgroup improved 52 pts. in math & 20 pts. in ELA; Black subgroup improved 8 pts. in |LEAP test & Iowa test scores; Longitudinal Data Analysis; Content Standard Analysis; NCLB |

|math & 1 pt. in ELA; ED subgroup improved 46 pts. in math & 40 pts. in ELA | |

|Strength 3. 100% of the teachers showed evidence of planning on lesson plans and in the classroom. |Teaching and Learning Snapshots, Lesson Plans, Observations |

|CHALLENGES |DATA SOURCE |

|1. Students lack proficiency in ELA Standard 1: read, comprehend, and respond to a range of materials. |LEAP & Iowa test scores from 03-04; Teacher Observations; Content Standard Analysis; Longitudinal Data |

| |Analysis |

|2. Students lack proficiency in Math Standard 1: Number and Number Relations |LEAP & Iowa test scores from 03-04; Longitudinal Data Analysis, Content Standard Analysis |

|3. Integration of technology needs to be improved. |Teaching and Learning Snapshots. |

|SUPPORTING EVIDENCE |DATA SOURCE |

|1. Vocabulary NPR – 5th grade (52), 6th grade (49), 7th grade (50); Average correct on Strand 1: 61.45 |Iowa test scores from 03-04; Content Standard Analysis; Longitudinal Analysis |

|2. Average percentage on Math Standard 1: 61 |Iowa test scores from 03-04; Content Standard Analysis; Longitudinal Analysis |

|3. 83% of Classroom teachers did not have evidence of technology. |Teaching and Learning Snapshots |

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

STRATEGY PLANNING WORKSHEET

|GOAL 1: To improve the proficiency of students among ELA Content Standard #1 – read, comprehend, and respond to a range of |School SPS 2004: 98.2 School GT 2005: 100.4 |

|materials. | |

|OBJECTIVE 1: 1a: (LA Accountability) To increase, by no less than 10%, the percentage of students scoring mastery or higher as |SCIENTIFICALLY BASED RESEARCH STRATEGY: |

|measured by the ELA component of the standards-based assessment (13% in 2004 to 23% in 2005). | |

|1b: (NCLB) To increase by no less than 10% the percentage of students scoring proficient on the ELA component of the |Stimulate higher order thinking skills at the appropriate grade level (HOTS) |

|standards-based assessment (63.8% in 2004 to 73.8% in 2005). | |

|Black 57.1 to 67.1%; White 64.8% to 74.9%; ED 61.8% to 71.8%; SWD 25% to 48.4%. | |

|ACTION PLAN |

| | | | |FUNDING SOURCES | |

|EXPECTED IMPACT |ACTIVITIES |PERSONS |TARGET AUDIENCE and |OBJECT CODE |IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS |

|(Observable Change) | |RESPONSIBLE |TIMELINE |COST |(Benchmarks) |

| | | | |1 |2 |3 | |

|Professional development (PD) |*Teachers will attend workshops on Thinking |Principal: |All content area |Title I |100 | $1,750 |Implementation: |

|and whole faculty study groups |Maps and Strategies Of Success during the |Sharon Garrett |teachers and study | | | |The principal will review monthly |

|will focus on strategies to |months of August, September, & October 2004. | |skills teachers will be | | | |teacher professional development |

|improve vocabulary and critical|(Literacy). |RHT: |trained in Thinking Maps| | | |portfolios to ensure attendance at |

|thinking skills across the | |Leslie Hano (facilitators)|and SIMS (18) | | | |workshops and whole faculty study |

|curriculum. |*Teachers will participate in Whole Faculty | |PD – Aug. 04, Sept. 04, | | | |groups. |

| |Study Group bimonthly to discuss and implement|All teachers: |Oct. 04 | | | | |

|Emphasis will be placed on: |ways to improve vocabulary instruction and |Sherri Daull |WFSG – twice monthly | | | |Effectiveness: |

|ELA-1-M1: using knowledge of |critical thinking skills. Teachers will |Linda Joiner |04-05 | | | |Using the TLS, the principal will |

|word meaning and developing |collaborate on the use of Bloom’s Taxonomy in |Judith Nettles | | | | |observe all teachers quarterly with |

|basic and technical vocabulary |order to improve questioning techniques. |Pamela Pegues |IMP checks via WFSG: | | | |emphasis on #4 & #5 |

|using various strategies. | |Betty Mathies |8/12/04, 9/1/04, | | | | |

|ELA-1-M2: Interpreting story | |Diedre Perkins |10/13/04, 10/27/04, | | | | |

|elements and literary devices | |Sissie Fortier |11/10/04, 12/01/04, | | | | |

|ELA-1-M3: Drawing conclusions | |Ray Core |12/15/04, 1/12/05, | | | | |

|and making inferences | |Rebecca Galloway |2/16/05 | | | | |

|ELA-1-M4: Interpreting ideas | |June McNeil | | | | | |

|and information | |Cynthia Nordgren |EFF checks week of: | | | | |

| | |Cara Barry |10/14/04, 12/20/04, | | | | |

| | |Marjorie Brown |3/10/05 | | | | |

| | |Phyllis Beatty | | | | | |

| | |Kim Palmisano | | | | | |

| | |Jerri Bryant | | | | | |

| | |Linda Newman | | | | | |

| | |Patricia McClendon | | | | | |

|Teachers will encourage |Teachers will present standards-based lessons |Principal: |All 6th, 7th, & 8th |General Fund |010 |$200 |Implementation: |

|students to use new vocabulary |designed to teach strategies on improving |Sharon Garrett |grade students beginning| | | |The principal will review lesson plans|

|words across the curriculum |vocabulary and critical thinking skills. | |August 2004 and ending | | | |and observe ELA classes once per nine |

| |Content will specifically focus on the |RHT: |May 2005. | | | |weeks to look for vocabulary bell |

|Teachers will encourage |standards being addressed, with emphasis on |Leslie Hano (facilitators)| | | | |ringers and HOTS questioning. |

|students to use critical |ELA-1-M1. Instruction will be developmentally| |IMP checks week of: | | | | |

|thinking skills to decode new |appropriate and focus on higher order thinking|All teachers |10/14/04, 12/20/04, | | | |Effectiveness: |

|vocabulary. |strategies that aid in the acquisition of new |Sherri Daull |3/10/05, 5/16/05 | | | |During bimonthly WFSG, the teachers |

| |vocabulary. |Linda Joiner | | | | |will review students’ responses |

|Emphasis will be placed on: |Assessment: Students will be evaluated |Judith Nettles |EFF checks via WFSG: | | | |pertaining to vocabulary and HOTS to |

|ELA-1-M1: using knowledge of |through the use of Thinking Maps and through |Pamela Pegues |8/12/04, 9/1/04, | | | |plan instruction and assess attainment|

|word meaning and developing |vocabulary tests. |Betty Mathies |10/13/04, 10/27/04, | | | |of targeted benchmarks. |

|basic and technical vocabulary |Motivation/Engagement: Student engagement will|Diedre Perkins |11/10/04, 12/01/04, | | | | |

|using various strategies. |be maximized through the use of bell-ringers |Sissie Fortier |12/15/04, 1/12/05, | | | | |

|ELA-1-M2: Interpreting story |at the beginning of their ELA classes. |Ray Core |2/16/05 | | | | |

|elements and literary devices | |Rebecca Galloway | | | | | |

|ELA-1-M3: Drawing conclusions |*Teachers will engage in collaborative |June McNeil | | | | | |

|and making inferences |planning of the English language arts |Cynthia Nordgren | | | | | |

|ELA-1-M4: Interpreting ideas |curriculum and time lines utilizing the GLE’s |Cara Barry | | | | | |

|and information |and benchmarks. |Marjorie Brown | | | | | |

| | |Phyllis Beatty | | | | | |

| | |Kim Palmisano | | | | | |

| |Teachers will utilize the Bloom’s Taxonomy |Jerri Bryant | | | | | |

| |flip charts when planning standards-based |Linda Newman | | | | | |

| |lessons on stimulating critical thinking |Patricia McClendon | | | | | |

| |skills and will model HOTS questioning | | | | | | |

| |techniques daily. | | | | | | |

|Students will be able to use |All 6th – 8th grade students will create |RHT (facilitator) |All 6th, 7th, and 8th |Instruc. |4180 |$500 |Implementation: |

|higher order thinking |thinking maps and other hands-on graphic |Leslie Hano |grade students will | | | |The RHT will e-mail all teachers the |

|strategies to understand |organizers as part of individual and group | |participate in using | | | |vocabulary word to be presented each |

|vocabulary across the |activities to help decode vocabulary words. |All teachers in all |thinking maps throughout| | | |day. The principal will review lesson|

|curriculum. | |subjects (18) |the 04-05 year. | | | |plans for use of thinking maps. |

| |Students will participate in a school-wide | |“Word-A-Day” will take | | | | |

|Students will learn and use new|“Word-A-Day” program which introduces new |Sherri Daull |place every school day | | | |Effectiveness: |

|vocabulary words across the |words into their curriculum on a daily basis. |Linda Joiner |in all 7 classes. | | | |Using the TLS, the principal will |

|curriculum. | |Judith Nettles | | | | |observe all teachers quarterly and |

| |Students will respond to HOTS questioning |Pamela Pegues |IMP: checks via student | | | |will note use of thinking maps in |

|Emphasis will be placed on: |verbally and in written form daily and on |Betty Mathies |agendas weekly from | | | |classes. |

|ELA-1-M1: using knowledge of |weekly tests. |Diedre Perkins |September 04-May 05 | | | | |

|word meaning and developing | |Sissie Fortier | | | | | |

|basic and technical vocabulary |Emphasis will be placed on: |Ray Core |EFF: checks via | | | | |

|using various strategies. |ELA-1-M1: using knowledge of word meaning and |Rebecca Galloway |observations made by | | | | |

|ELA-1-M2: Interpreting story |developing basic and technical vocabulary |June McNeil |principal week of: | | | | |

|elements and literary devices |using various strategies. |Cynthia Nordgren |10/14/04, 12/20/04, | | | | |

|ELA-1-M3: Drawing conclusions | |Cara Barry |3/10/05. | | | | |

|and making inferences | |Marjorie Brown | | | | | |

|ELA-1-M4: Interpreting ideas | |Phyllis Beatty | | | | | |

|and information | |Kim Palmisano | | | | | |

| | |Jerri Bryant | | | | | |

| | |Linda Newman | | | | | |

| | |Patricia McClendon | | | | | |

|Parent and community outreach |Monthly newsletters are mailed to all parents |Principal: |Newsletters (monthly |Title I | |$250 |Implementation: |

|activities will assist in the |detailing events at the school. |Sharon Garrett |from September 04 to May| | | |The principal will approve agendas and|

|focus of vocabulary acquisition| | |05) |LEAP | |$400 |handouts for the events to ensure the |

|and critical thinking skills. |The school’s website is updated weekly to |Title I Teacher: R. | | | | |inclusion of the targeted strand |

| |include teacher assignments and important |Galloway | | | | |ELA-1-M1. |

|Emphasis will be placed on: |information. |(facilitator) |Website (weekly) | | | | |

|ELA-1-M1: using knowledge of | | | | | | |Effectiveness: |

|word meaning and developing |**During such events as Family Learning Night,|RHT: |Family Learning | | | |The principal will use a sign-in sheet|

|basic and technical vocabulary |LEAP Super Saturday, and parent/teacher |Leslie Hano |(biannually) | | | |to monitor the number of parents and |

|using various strategies. |conferences, parents will be given activities | | | | | |community members attending events. |

|ELA-1-M2: Interpreting story |and resources that promote the acquisition of |Content Area Teachers |Community Members | | | |Teachers will assess participation by |

|elements and literary devices |new vocabulary words and critical thinking |listed above (12) |(November 04 | | | |reviewing practice sheets given during|

|ELA-1-M3: Drawing conclusions |skills. | |January 05) | | | |Family Math Nights and LEAP Super |

|and making inferences | | | | | | |Saturday to determine level of |

|ELA-1-M4: Interpreting ideas |Community outreach is promoted using the | |IMP: checks via | | | |parental involvement. |

|and information |following activities: Annual PTA dinner and | |responses to | | | | |

| |Social Studies/Science Fair. The dinner is | |invitations. | | | | |

| |open to all residents with many businesses | | | | | | |

| |donating products to ensure the school’s | |EFF: checks via | | | | |

| |success. During the Social Studies/Science | |attendance sign in | | | | |

| |Fair, community members are invited to judge | |sheets and practice | | | | |

| |the projects and choose the winners. These | |sheets at all family and| | | | |

| |events are posted on the school’s website. | |community events. | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

|Technology (Tech) for teachers |Teachers and students will create graphic |Principal |Teachers and Students |Title I |600 |$150 |Implementation: |

|and students will assist in |organizers across the curriculum using the |Sharon Garrett |throughout the 04-05 | | | |The teachers will review selected |

|the development of higher order|software “Inspirations.” Teachers and students|Title I Teacher |school year. | | | |student thinking maps and responses to|

|thinking skills and vocabulary |will also use internet resources to learn |R. Galloway | | | | |pre-designed test questions during |

|development |about new vocabulary words. Students will use| |IMP checks via WFSG: |Tech. |1104 |$8000 |WFSG. |

|Emphasis will be placed on: |websites such as “” to look up |Computer Teacher: |8/12/04, 9/1/04, | | | | |

|ELA-1-M1: using knowledge of |new vocabulary words and write down |Muriel Fortier |10/13/04, 10/27/04, | | | |Effectiveness: |

|word meaning and developing |definitions, language of origin, part of | |11/10/04, 12/01/04, | | | |The principal, using the TLS, will |

|basic and technical vocabulary |speech, etc. |Teachers trained in |12/15/04, 1/12/05, | | | |observe teachers using appropriate |

|using various strategies. | |Thinking Maps |2/16/05 | | | |software and internet resources. |

|ELA-1-M2: Interpreting story |Students will create their own vocabulary | | | | | | |

|elements and literary devices |lessons using “Power Point.” |Cara Barry |EFF checks week of: | | | | |

|ELA-1-M3: Drawing conclusions | |Diedre Perkins |10/14/04, 12/20/04, | | | | |

|and making inferences |Students will use technology tools for word |Judith Nettles |3/10/05, 5/23/05 | | | | |

|ELA-1-M4: Interpreting ideas |processing and writing, communication, and |June McNeil | | | | | |

|and information |publishing. | | | | | | |

|School Climate – The amount of |The School-Wide Positive Behavior Support |SWPBSG: |All teachers and |General |010 |$250 |Implementation: |

|instruction time will be |Program is still under development by the |S. Garrett |students throughout the |Fund | | |The Discipline Committee will present |

|maximized by ensuring that each|district. Our school has initiated the |B. Mathies |04-05 school year | | | |the policy to all teachers and |

|student has a learning |following activities to promote a positive |J. Nettles |beginning 08/13/04. | | | |students. |

|environment conducive to high |behavior support program. Our discipline |M. Barnes | | | | | |

|achievement. Information on |committee met and established a plan based |L. Hano |IMP: via faculty sign-in| | | |Effectiveness: |

|classroom rules are provided to|upon 5 general rules and appropriate | |for SWPBS plan | | | |The principal will examine the number |

|parents and students at the |consequences which apply to all students. | |development meeting | | | |of discipline referrals given during |

|beginning of the year. The |Teachers post the rules in their classrooms | | | | | |each grading period. |

|rules are posted in each |and refer to them daily. Reinforcement and | |EFF: week of 10/14/04, | | | | |

|classroom and are in compliance|reteaching occur throughout the day. Students| |12/20/04, 3/10/05, | | | | |

|with district rules. |are rewarded with a treat through a monthly | |5/23/05 | | | | |

| |Discipline Reward Party & through the “Hawk | | | | | | |

| |Hero” Reward. | | | | | | |

|Reducing the Performance Gap |A master schedule will be modified to ensure a|Principal: |Teachers and students |Title I |100 |1,750 |Implementation: |

|(SWD) – Special education and |Study Skills class as an elective for SWD |Sharon Garrett |throughout the 04-05 | | | |100% of all IEP’s will be in |

|regular education teachers will|whose IEP warrant such intervention. SWD will | |school year. | | | |compliance with IDEA. 85% of all |

|collaborate on modifications to|attend study skills classes as an elective to |Special Ed. Teachers: | | | | |lesson plans will address |

|help special education students|focus on areas of weakness as identified by |L. Newman |SIM Workshops: 8/24/04, | | | |accommodations and modifications. 25% |

|with content standard ELA-1-M1:|their standardized test scores. Staff teaching|K. Palmisano |9/29/04, 11/10/04, | | | |of targeted teachers will attend SIM |

|vocabulary and critical |self-contained students will use Direct |J. Bryant |12/15/04 | | | |training. |

|thinking skills. |Instruction program to address student reading|P. McClendon | | | | | |

| |deficiencies. This program will be aligned in | |IMP: Framing –adjusting | | | |Effectiveness: |

|Emphasis will be placed on: |scope and sequence to both the individual |All regular ed teachers |master schedule and | | | |The principal will monitor teachers’ |

|ELA-1-M1: using knowledge of |needs of each student and the ELA standards. |Sherri Daull |verifying IEP compliance| | | |use of modifications on lesson plans |

|word meaning and developing |Specific emphasis will be placed on |Linda Joiner | | | | |and tests. 100% of SIM trained |

|basic and technical vocabulary |ELA-1-M1. |Judith Nettles |EFF: week of 10/14/04, | | | |teachers will be observed using SIM |

|using various strategies. | |Pamela Pegues |12/20/04, 3/10/05, | | | |strategies each nine week period. |

|ELA-1-M2: Interpreting story |Teachers will collaborate in WFSG’s on |Betty Mathies |5/23/05 | | | | |

|elements and literary devices |modifications to help students. Special and |Diedre Perkins | | | | | |

|ELA-1-M3: Drawing conclusions |regular education teachers will coordinate |Sissie Fortier | | | | | |

|and making inferences |lessons and unit planning to address the |Ray Core | | | | | |

|ELA-1-M4: Interpreting ideas |unique SWD needs in non-special education |Rebecca Galloway | | | | | |

|and information |settings. Study Skills and regular education |June McNeil | | | | | |

| |teacher will attend workshops on SIM |Cynthia Nordgren | | | | | |

| |strategies, specifically word identification |Cara Barry | | | | | |

| |and paraphrasing. |Marjorie Brown | | | | | |

| | |Phyllis Beatty | | | | | |

| |Special education students will attend study | | | | | | |

| |skills classes as an elective to focus on |IEP Facilitator: | | | | | |

| |weaknesses as identified by their standardized|Sandy O’Bryant | | | | | |

| |test scores. Specific emphasis will be placed| | | | | | |

| |on ELA-1-M1. | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| |Teachers will collaborate in WFSG’s on | | | | | | |

| |modifications to help students. Special | | | | | | |

| |Education teachers will provide folders for | | | | | | |

| |all reg. ed. teachers detailing modifications | | | | | | |

| |and accomodations. | | | | | | |

|Articulation Focus – The |The administrative staff will participate in |Principal: |Principal: | | | |Implementation: |

|Covington Learning Community |the Annual Administrator’s Retreat as a |Sharon Garrett |Administrator’s Retreat | | | |Members of the Learning Community will|

|will be focused on reviewing |Learning Community. Representatives of the | |(7/28/05) | | | |attend all scheduled activities so |

|student data, implementing the |school (administrator, SIP chair, and teacher |SIP Chair: | | | | |that the school is represented at all |

|GLE’s in lesson plans, |leaders) will attend a one-day data retreat at|Leslie Hano |Data Retreat: Principal,| | | |activities. |

|preparing for the Guaranteed |the Instructional Technology Center. This | |SIP Chair, Teacher | | | | |

|Curriculum, exchanging |activity is designed to (a) improve |Teacher Leaders: |Leaders | | | |Effectiveness: |

|instructional “best practices” |communication, (b) examine student data, and |Cynthia Nordgren |(8/25/04 & 9/22/04) | | | |100% of the schools in the Learning |

|and developing teacher-made |(c) plan improvement activities within the |Cara Barry | | | | |Community will have an approved |

|(and department made) |school and community. Each month, the |Kim Palmisano |Learning Community | | | |improvement plan that addresses those |

|performance assessments that |principal will attend a monthly meeting with | |Meetings: Principal | | | |aspects outlined in the “Expected |

|focus on application of |the Superintendent and other central office |Learning Community | | | | |Impact.” 98% of all discussion threads|

|knowledge at higher levels. |staff to discuss aspects outlined in the |Supervisor: |9/01/04 | | | |on Blackboard will be responded to by |

|Focus will also be upon other |“Expected Impact” column. Principals within | |10/06/04 | | | |each school’s principal. Discussion |

|leadership aspects associated |the learning community will have time to |Denise Barnes |11/3/04 | | | |threads will focus on the GLE’s, UbD, |

|with implementing the |collaborate on improvement efforts underway at| |12/01/04 | | | |and performance assessment. |

|district’s Strategic Plan and |their schools and future initiatives within | |1/05/05 | | | | |

|the Superintendent’s vision of |the community. Between scheduled meetings, | |2/2/05 | | | | |

|“Good to Great.” |principals will post and collaborate | |3/2/05 | | | | |

| |information associated with “Expected Impact” | |4/6/05 | | | | |

| |using Blackboard. | |5/4/05 | | | | |

|PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING THE OBJECTIVE AND STRATEGY |

|Student performance data will be used to evaluate each selected objective and overall (aggregate) impact of the targeted strategy. The evaluative methods will comply with those criteria outlined by the Joint |

|Committee for Educational Evaluation (Reference – ). |

* 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 WORKSHEET

|GOAL 2: To improve the proficiency of students among Math Content Standard #1 – Number and Number Relations. |School SPS 2004: 98.2 School GT 2005: 100.4 |

|OBJECTIVE 2: 1a: (LA Accountability) To increase, by no less than 10% the percentage of students scoring mastery or higher as |SCIENTIFICALLY BASED RESEARCH STRATEGY: |

|measured by the math portion of the standards-based assessment (11.6% in 2004 to 12.6% in 2005) | |

|1b: (NCLB) To increase by no less than 10% the percentage of students scoring proficient on the mathematics component of the |Stimulate higher order thinking skills at the appropriate grade level (HOTS) |

|standards-based assessment (81.2% in 2004 to 91.2 in 2005). | |

|Black 57.1% to 67.1%; White 87% to 97%; ED 70.6% to 80.6%; SWD 50% to 60%. | |

|ACTION PLAN |

| | | | |FUNDING SOURCES | |

|EXPECTED IMPACT |ACTIVITIES |PERSONS |TARGET AUDIENCE and TIMELINE |OBJECT CODE |IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS |

|(Observable Change) | |RESPONSIBLE | |COST |(Benchmarks) |

| | | | |1 |2 |3 | |

| Professional Dev. through |Teachers will attend bimonthly WFSG and plan |Principal: Sharon |All math teachers will |Title I |100 |$1,750 |Implementation: |

|whole faculty study groups will|hands-on activities with manipulatives that |Garrett |participate in whole faculty | | | |The principal will review monthly |

|focus on Math Standard 1 – |address Math Content Standard 1 – Number and | |study groups bimonthly from | | | |teacher professional development |

|Number and Number Relations |Number Relations. |RHT: |September 04 to May 05. | | | |portfolios to ensure attendance at |

| | |Leslie Hano | | | | |workshops and whole faculty study |

|Emphasis will be placed on |Teachers will also plan strategies for |(facilitators) |Graphing Calculator Workshop | | | |groups. |

|N-1-M Comparing rational |teaching number and number. | |Sept.04 | | | | |

|numbers using symbols; | |6 math teachers: | | | | |Effectiveness: |

|N-2-M/N-6-M Estimating the |Teachers will develop grade-level appropriate |S.Daull | | | | |Using the TLS, the principal will |

|answer to an operation |bell-ringers focused on Math Content Standard |C. Nordgren |6 math teachers: | | | |observe all teachers quarterly with |

|involving rational numbers; |1 – Number and Number Relations. |R. Galloway |S.Daull | | | |emphasis on #1 & #4. |

|N-3-M Read and write numbers in| |K. Palmisano |C. Nordgren | | | | |

|scientific notation with |Teachers will attend parish level workshops |J. McNeil |R. Galloway | | | | |

|positive exponents; N-4-M |on mathematics. |P. McClendon |K. Palmisano | | | | |

|Simplifying expressions; | | |J. McNeil | | | | |

|N-5-M/N-8-M Identifying missing| | |P. McClendon | | | | |

|information or suggesting a | | | | | | | |

|strategy for solving real-life,| | |IMP checks via WFSG: 8/12/04, | | | | |

|rational-number problems | | |9/1/04, 10/13/04, 10/27/04, | | | | |

| | | |11/10/04, 12/01/04, 12/15/04, | | | | |

| | | |1/12/05, 2/16/05 | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | |EFF: week of 10/14/04, | | | | |

| | | |12/20/04, 3/10/05, | | | | |

| | | |5/23/05 | | | | |

|Teachers will encourage |Teachers (and selected paraprofessionals) will|Principal: Sharon |All 6th, 7th, & 8th grade |Title I |100 |$400 |Implementation: |

|students to use critical |present standards-based lessons designed to |Garrett |students beginning August 2004| | | |The principal will review lesson plans|

|thinking strategies to solve |teach students strategies to improve their | |and ending May 2005. | | | |and WFSG logs to check for |

|problems involving numbers and |understanding of numbers and number relations.|RHT: | | | | |implementation of strategies to |

|number relations. | |Leslie Hano |IMP checks via WFSG: 8/12/04, | | | |improve number and number relations. |

| |Content will specifically focus on Math |(facilitators) |9/1/04, 10/13/04, 10/27/04, | | | | |

|Emphasis will be placed on |standard 1 – Number and Number Relations. | |11/10/04, 12/01/04, 12/15/04, | | | |Effectiveness: |

|N-1-M Comparing rational | |6 math teachers: |1/12/05, 2/16/05 | | | |Using a predesigned, grade appropriate|

|numbers using symbols; |Instruction will be developmentally |S.Daull | | | | |constructed response, all math |

|N-2-M/N-6-M Estimating the |appropriate and focus on stimulating higher |C. Nordgren |EFF checks: week of 10/14/04, | | | |teachers will evaluate responses |

|answer to an operation |order thinking strategies that require the |R. Galloway |12/20/04, 3/10/05, | | | |involving Content Standard 1 in order |

|involving rational numbers; |application of knowledge in real-life |K. Palmisano |5/23/05 | | | |to plan instruction during WFSG. |

|N-3-M Read and write numbers in|situations. |J. McNeil | | | | | |

|scientific notation with | |P. McClendon | | | | | |

|positive exponents; N-4-M |Assessment: Student learning will be evaluated| | | | | | |

|Simplifying expressions; |using school-based rubrics with emphasis on | | | | | | |

|N-5-M/N-8-M Identifying missing|Math Standard 1. | | | | | | |

|information or suggesting a | | | | | | | |

|strategy for solving real-life,|Motivation/Engagement: | | | | | | |

|rational-number problems |Student engagement on selected activities will| | | | | | |

| |be maximized by having initiating bell-ringers| | | | | | |

| |and a daily problem of the day in their math | | | | | | |

| |classes. | | | | | | |

|The Students will be able to |The students will use various manipulatives |Principal: |All students in grades 6, 7, &|Title I |600 |$1,750 |Implementation: |

|use manipulatives to solve |during math class to solve complex math |Sharon Garrett |8 beginning August 2004 and | | | |Using the TLS, the principal will |

|complex math problems |problems associated with Math Content Standard| |ending May 2005 | | | |observe all math teachers each nine |

|associated with Content |1 – Number and Number Relations. |6 Math Teachers: | | | | |week period to observe the use of |

|Standard 1 - Numbers and Number| | |IMP: by 10/14/04, 12/20/04, | | | |cooperative groups and manipulatives |

|Relations. |The students will work in cooperative groups |S. Daull |3/10/05, | | | |in the classroom. |

| |in math class on various assignments related |C. Nordgren |5/23/05 | | | | |

|Emphasis will be placed on |to Math Content Standard #1 – Number and |S. Galloway | | | | |Effectiveness: |

|N-1-M Comparing rational |Number Relations. |K. Palmisano |EFF: 8/12/04, 9/1/04, | | | |Using a predesigned, grade appropriate|

|numbers using symbols; | |J. McNeil |10/13/04, 10/27/04, 11/10/04, | | | |constructed response, all math |

|N-2-M/N-6-M Estimating the |The students will participate in a problem of |P. McClendon |12/01/04, 12/15/04, 1/12/05, | | | |teachers will evaluate responses in |

|answer to an operation |the day assignment focusing on higher order | |2/16/05 | | | |order to plan instruction during WFSG.|

|involving rational numbers; |thinking skills as related to Content Standard| | | | | | |

|N-3-M Read and write numbers in|#1 – Number and Number Relations. | | | | | | |

|scientific notation with | | | | | | | |

|positive exponents; N-4-M | | | | | | | |

|Simplifying expressions; | | | | | | | |

|N-5-M/N-8-M Identifying missing| | | | | | | |

|information or suggesting a | | | | | | | |

|strategy for solving real-life,| | | | | | | |

|rational-number problems | | | | | | | |

|Parental and Community outreach|Monthly newsletters are mailed to all parents |Principal: |Newsletters (monthly from |Title I |600 |$250 |Implementation: |

|will assist in working with |detailing events at the school. |Sharon Garrett |September 04 to May 05) | | | |The principal will approve agendas and|

|students on math skills related| | | |LEAP |100 |$400 |handouts for the events to ensure the |

|to numbers and number |The school’s website is updated weekly to |Title I Teacher: |Website (weekly from August 04| | | |inclusion of the targeted strand (Math|

|relations. |include teacher assignments and important |R. Galloway |to May 05) | | | |Standard 1). |

| |information. | | | | | | |

|Emphasis will be placed on | |Math Teachers: |Family Learning November 04 | | | |Effectiveness: |

|N-1-M Comparing rational |**During such events as Family Math Night, |C. Nordgren |January 05 | | | |The principal will use a sign-in sheet|

|numbers using symbols; |LEAP Super Saturday, and parent/teacher |S. Daull |February 05 | | | |to monitor the number of parents |

|N-2-M/N-6-M Estimating the |conferences, parents will be given activities |K. Palmisano | | | | |attending events. Teachers will assess|

|answer to an operation |and resources that promote the use of |J. McNeil |Community Members (November 04| | | |participation by reviewing practice |

|involving rational numbers; |manipulatives to solve complex math problems. |P. McClendon |January 05) | | | |sheets given during Family Math Nights|

|N-3-M Read and write numbers in| | | | | | |and LEAP Super Saturday to determine |

|scientific notation with |Community outreach is promoted using the | |IMP: checks via responses to | | | |level of parental involvement. |

|positive exponents; N-4-M |following activities: Annual PTA dinner and |RHT: |invitations. | | | | |

|Simplifying expressions; |Social Studies/Science Fair. The dinner is |Leslie Hano | | | | | |

|N-5-M/N-8-M Identifying missing|open to all residents with many businesses | |EFF: checks via attendance | | | | |

|information or suggesting a |donating products to ensure the school’s | |sign in sheets and practice | | | | |

|strategy for solving real-life,|success. During the Social Studies/Science | |sheets at all family and | | | | |

|rational-number problems |Fair, community members are invited to judge | |community events. | | | | |

| |the projects and choose the winners. These | | | | | | |

| |events are posted on the school’s website. | | | | | | |

|Community Outreach programs | | | | | | | |

|will provide students with | | | | | | | |

|opportunities to work with | | | | | | | |

|members of our community. | | | | | | | |

|Technology for teachers and |Teachers and students will use internet |Principal |Teachers and Students |Title I |600 |$150 |Implementation: |

|students will assist in |resources and math software to supplement |Sharon Garrett |throughout the 04-05 school | | | |The teachers will review selected |

|developing Content Standard 1 -|standards-based lessons and connect the | |year. | | | |student responses to pre-designed test|

|Number and Number Relations. |lessons with real life situations. As they use|Title I Teacher | | | | |questions during bimonthly WFSG |

| |these, emphasis will be placed on Math |R. Galloway |IMP: 8/12/04, 9/1/04, | | | |meetings. |

|Emphasis will be placed on |Standard -1 Number and Number relation. | |10/13/04, 10/27/04, 11/10/04, |Tech. |1104 |$8000 |. |

|N-1-M Comparing rational |Software to be used: “Math for the Real |Computer Teacher: |12/01/04, 12/15/04, 1/12/05, | | | |Effectiveness: |

|numbers using symbols; |World,” “Word Problem Square Off,” and “Math |Muriel Fortier |2/16/05 | | | |The principal, using the TLS, will |

|N-2-M/N-6-M Estimating the |Blaster.” | | | | | |observe teachers using appropriate |

|answer to an operation | |Math Teachers |EFF: by 10/14/04, 12/20/04, | | | |software and internet resources. |

|involving rational numbers; |Technology team will provide web sources that |C. Nordgren |3/10/05, | | | | |

|N-3-M Read and write numbers in|address Math Standard -1 Number and Number |K. Palmisano |5/23/05 | | | | |

|scientific notation with |Relations. |S. Daull | | | | | |

|positive exponents; N-4-M | |J. McNeil | | | | | |

|Simplifying expressions; | |P. McClendon | | | | | |

|N-5-M/N-8-M Identifying missing| | | | | | | |

|information or suggesting a | | | | | | | |

|strategy for solving real-life,| | | | | | | |

|rational-number problems | | | | | | | |

|School Climate – The amount of |The School-Wide Positive Behavior Support |SWPBSG: |All teachers and students |GF |010 |$250 |Implementation: |

|instruction time will be |Program is still under development by the |S. Garrett |throughout the 04-05 school | | | |The Discipline Committee will present |

|maximized by ensuring that each|district. Our school has initiated the |B. Mathies |year beginning 8/13/04. | | | |the policy to all teachers and |

|student has a learning |following activities to promote a positive |J. Nettles | | | | |students. |

|environment conducive to high |behavior support program. Our discipline |M. Barnes |IMP: via faculty sign-in for | | | | |

|achievement. Information on |committee met and established a plan based |L. Hano |SWPBS plan development meeting| | | |Effectiveness: |

|classroom rules are provided to|upon 5 general rules and appropriate | | | | | |The principal will examine the number |

|parents and students at the |consequences which apply to all students. | |EFF: week of 10/14/04, | | | |of discipline referrals given each |

|beginning of the year. The |Teachers post the rules in their classrooms | |12/20/04, 3/10/05, | | | |month. |

|rules are posted in each |and refer to them daily. Reinforcement and | |5/23/05 | | | | |

|classroom and are in compliance|reteaching occur throughout the day. | | | | | | |

|with district rules. | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

|Reducing the Performance Gap |A master schedule will be modified to ensure a|Principal: |Teachers and students |GF |010 |$100 |Implementation: |

|(SWD) – Special education and |Study Skills class as an elective for SWD |Sharon Garrett |throughout the 04-05 school | | | |100% of all IEP’s will be in |

|regular education teachers will|whose IEP warrant such intervention. SWD will | |year. | | | |compliance with IDEA. 85% of all |

|collaborate on modifications to|attend study skills classes as an elective to |Special Ed. Teachers: | | | | |lesson plans will address |

|help special education students|focus on areas of weakness as identified by |L. Newman |IMP: Framing –adjusting master| | | |accomodations and modifications. 25% |

|with Math Content Standard 1- |their standardized test scores. |K. Palmisano |schedule and verifying IEP | | | |of targeted teachers will attend SIM |

|Number and Number relations. |Staff teaching self-contained students will |J. Bryant |compliance | | | |training. |

| |use Direct Instruction program to address |P. McClendon | | | | | |

|Emphasis will be placed on |student math deficiencies. This program will | |EFF: week of report cards: | | | |Effectiveness: |

|N-1-M Comparing rational |be aligned in scope and sequence to both the |All regular ed |10/14/04, 12/20/04, 3/10/05, | | | |The principal will monitor teachers’ |

|numbers using symbols; |individual needs of each student and the Math |teachers |5/23/05 and during interims | | | |use of modifications on lesson plans |

|N-2-M/N-6-M Estimating the |standards. Specific emphasis will be placed on| | | | | |and tests. 80% of the targeted |

|answer to an operation |Math Content Standard 1- Number and Number |Sherri Daull | | | | |students will not receive an interim |

|involving rational numbers; |relations. |Linda Joiner | | | | |or quarterly grade below a “C” in |

|N-3-M Read and write numbers in| |Judith Nettles | | | | |math. |

|scientific notation with |Teachers will collaborate in WFSG’s on |Pamela Pegues | | | | | |

|positive exponents; N-4-M |modifications to help SWD. Special and |Betty Mathies | | | | | |

|Simplifying expressions; |regular education teachers will coordinate |Diedre Perkins | | | | | |

|N-5-M/N-8-M Identifying missing|standards-based lessons and unit planning to |Sissie Fortier | | | | | |

|information or suggesting a |address the unique SWD needs in non-special |Ray Core | | | | | |

|strategy for solving real-life,|education settings. Study Skills and regular |Rebecca Galloway | | | | | |

|rational-number problems |education teacher will attend workshops |June McNeil | | | | | |

| |focusing on higher order thinking skills as |Cynthia Nordgren | | | | | |

| |related to Math Content Standard 1- Number and|Cara Barry | | | | | |

| |Number relations. |Marjorie Brown | | | | | |

| |Special education students will attend study |Phyllis Beatty | | | | | |

| |skills classes as an elective to focus on | | | | | | |

| |areas of weakness as identified by their |IEP Facilitator: | | | | | |

| |standardized test scores. Specific emphasis | | | | | | |

| |will be placed on Math Content Standard 1. |Sandy O’Bryant | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| |Teachers will collaborate in WFSG’s on | | | | | | |

| |modifications to help students. Special | | | | | | |

| |education teachers will provide folders for | | | | | | |

| |all regular ed. teachers detailing | | | | | | |

| |modifications and accommodations. | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

|Articulation Focus – The |The administrative staff will participate in |Principal: |Principal: Administrator’s | | | |Implementation: |

|Covington Learning Community |the Annual Administrator’s Retreat as a |Sharon Garrett |Retreat (7/28/05) | | | |Members of the Learning Community will|

|will be focused on reviewing |Learning Community. Representatives of the | | | | | |attend all scheduled activities so |

|student data, implementing the |school (administrator, SIP chair, and teacher |SIP Chair: |Data Retreat: Principal, SIP | | | |that the school is represented at all |

|GLE’s in lesson plans, |leaders) will attend a one-day data retreat at|Leslie Hano |Chair, Teacher Leaders | | | |activities. |

|preparing for the Guaranteed |the Instructional Technology Center. This | |(8/25/04 & 9/22/04) | | | | |

|Curriculum, exchanging |activity is designed to (a) improve |Teacher Leaders: | | | | |Effectiveness: |

|instructional “best practices” |communication, (b) examine student data, and |Cynthia Nordgren |Learning Community Meetings: | | | |100% of the schools in the Learning |

|and developing teacher-made |(c) plan improvement activities within the |Cara Barry |Principal | | | |Community will have an approved |

|(and department made) |school and community. Each month, the |Kim Palmisano | | | | |improvement plan that addresses those |

|performance assessments that |principal will attend a monthly meeting with | |9/01/04 | | | |aspects outlined in the “Expected |

|focus on application of |the Superintendent and other central office |Learning Community |10/06/04 | | | |Impact.” 98% of all discussion threads|

|knowledge at higher levels. |staff to discuss aspects outlined in the |Supervisor: |11/3/04 | | | |on Blackboard will be responded to by |

|Focus will also be upon other |“Expected Impact” column. Principals within |Denise Barnes |12/01/04 | | | |each school’s principal. Discussion |

|leadership aspects associated |the learning community will have time to | |1/05/05 | | | |threads will focus on the GLE’s, UbD, |

|with implementing the |collaborate on improvement efforts underway at| |2/2/05 | | | |and performance assessment. |

|district’s Strategic Plan and |their schools and future initiatives within | |3/2/05 | | | | |

|the Superintendent’s vision of |the community. Between scheduled meetings, | |4/6/05 | | | | |

|“Good to Great.” |principals will post and collaborate | |5/4/05 | | | | |

| |information associated with “Expected Impact” | | | | | | |

| |using | | | | | | |

|PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING THE OBJECTIVE AND STRATEGY |

|Student performance data will be used to evaluate each selected objective and overall (aggregate) impact of the targeted strategy. The evaluative methods will comply with those criteria outlined by the Joint |

|Committee for Educational Evaluation (Reference – ). |

* 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 WORKSHEET

|GOAL 3: To improve the proficiency of students among the Physical Science Standard. |School SPS 2004: 98.2 School GT 2005: 100.4 |

|OBJECTIVE 3: 1a: (LA Accountability) To increase, by no less than 10%, the percentage of students scoring mastery or higher on |SCIENTIFICALLY BASED RESEARCH STRATEGY: |

|the Physical Science component of the standards-based assessment (17%in 2004 to 27% in 2005) | |

|1b: (NCLB) To increase by no less than 10% the percent of students scoring proficient on the Physical Science component of the |Higher Order Thinking Skills/Thinking Maps |

|standards-based assessment (33% in 2004 to 43% in 2005) | |

|ACTION PLAN |

| | | | |FUNDING SOURCES | |

|EXPECTED IMPACT |ACTIVITIES |PERSONS |TARGET AUDIENCE and TIMELINE |OBJECT CODE |IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS |

|(Observable Change) | |RESPONSIBLE | |COST |(Benchmarks) |

| | | | |1 |2 |3 | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

|PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING THE OBJECTIVE AND STRATEGY |

| |

| |

* 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 FUNDS

|FUNDING SOURCES* | | | |

| |Goal 1 |

|Urban & rural (2000) | | St. Tammany Parish |Louisiana |United |

| | | | |States |

|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. |

|Long-term residents & newcomers (2000) | | St. Tammany Parish |Louisiana |United |

| | | | |States |

|Total population 5 years and over living in the Greater | |177,826 |3,132,804 |210,418,424 |

|New Orleans (GNO) area in 2000 | | | | |

|  |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% |- |- |

| | | | | | |

|Source Citation: U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Sample Characteristics (SF3). From a compilation by the GNO Community |

|Data Center. |

| | |

|Total Numbers (2000) | | St. Tammany Parish |Louisiana |United |

| | | | |States |

|Population | |  191,268 |  4,468,976 |  281,421,906 |

|Total households | |69,253 |1,656,053 |105,480,101 |

| |Family households | |52,727 |1,156,438 |71,787,347 |

|Source Citation: U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Full-count Characteristics (SF1). From a compilation by the GNO |

|Community Data Center. |

|Gender (2000) | | St. Tammany Parish |Louisiana |United |

| | | | |States |

|Female | |51.0% |51.6% |50.9% |

|Male | |49.0% |48.4% |49.1% |

|Age (2000) | | St. Tammany Parish |Louisiana |United |

| | | | |States |

|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. |

|Racial & ethnic diversity (2000) | | St. Tammany Parish |Louisiana |United |

| | | | |States |

|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% |

| |

|Source Citation: U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Full-count Characteristics (SF1). From a compilation by the GNO |

|Community Data Center. |

|Marital status (2000) | | St. Tammany Parish |Louisiana |United |

| | | | |States |

|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% |

| | | | | | |

|Source Citation: U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Sample Characteristics (SF3). From a compilation by the GNO Community |

|Data Center. |

|Households by type (2000) | | St. Tammany Parish |Louisiana |United |

| | | | |States |

|Total households | |69,253 |1,656,053 |105,480,101 |

|Female householder (no husband present) with children | |7.7% |11.9% |8.4% |

|under 18 | | | | |

|Male householder (no wife present) with children under| |2.5% |2.6% |2.4% |

|18 | | | | |

|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 Parish |Louisiana |United |

| | | | |States |

|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 Parish |Louisiana |United |

| | | | |States |

|Elderly in households | |18,176 |485,182 |32,998,132 |

| |Living alone | |25.5% |30.7% |29.5% |

| |Living in family households | |72.3% |67.2% |68.0% |

| |Living in non-family households | |2.2% |2.1% |2.5% |

| | | | | | |

|Source Citation: U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Full-count Characteristics (SF1). From a compilation by the GNO |

|Community Data Center. |

|Children in foster care (1998) | | St. Tammany Parish |  Louisiana |  United |

| | | | |States |

|Children 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 Parish |Louisiana |United |

| | | | |States |

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

| |Children under 6 in families where both parents or | |57.2% |59.1% |58.6% |

| |the single parent works | | | | |

| |Children under 6 in families where at least one | |42.8% |40.9% |41.4% |

| |parent does not work | | | | |

|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 | |63.9% |64.9% |67.4% |

| |single parent works | | | | |

| |Children 6-17 in families where at least one parent | |36.1% |35.1% |32.6% |

| |does not work | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|Source Citation: U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Sample Characteristics (SF3). From a compilation by the GNO Community |

|Data Center. |

|Grandparents as caregivers (2000) | | St. Tammany Parish |Louisiana |United |

| | | | |States |

|Total grandparents living in households with | |3,536 |122,240 |5,771,671 |

|grandchildren under 18 | | | | |

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

| |Grandparent not responsible for own grandchildren | |52.9% |45.1% |58.0% |

| |under 18 | | | | |

|Source Citation: U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Sample Characteristics (SF3). From a compilation by the GNO Community |

|Data Center. |



Economic Data

| | |

|Household income type (2000) | | St. Tammany Parish |Louisiana |United |

| | | | |States |

|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% |

| | | | | |

|Source Citation: U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Sample Characteristics (SF3). From a compilation by the GNO Community |

|Data Center. |

|Median household income (2000) | | St. Tammany Parish |Louisiana |United |

| | | | |States |

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

|Average household income (2000) | | St. Tammany Parish |Louisiana |United |

| | | | |States |

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

| |Average household income for households reporting | |$54,421 |$40,183 |$49,239 |

| |less than $200,000 | | | | |

| |Average household income for households reporting | |$310,485 |$367,701 |$361,490 |

| |more than $200,000 | | | | |

|Source Citation: U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Sample Characteristics (SF3). From a compilation by the GNO Community |

|Data Center. |

|Income distribution (2000) | | St. Tammany Parish |Louisiana |United |

| | | | |States |

|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% |

|Source Citation: U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Sample Characteristics (SF3). From a compilation by the GNO Community |

|Data Center. |

| |

|Population in poverty (2000) | | St. Tammany Parish |Louisiana |United |

| | | | |States |

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

|determined | | | | |

| |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 Parish |Louisiana |United |

| | | | |States |

|Total population 0-5 for whom poverty status is | |16,024 |375,393 |22,636,650 |

|determined | | | | |

| |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 | |18,249 |403,616 |24,587,815 |

|determined | | | | |

| |Children 6-11 living in poverty | |11.0% |26.8% |16.9% |

| |Children 6-11 living at or above poverty | |89.0% |73.2% |83.1% |

|Total population 12-17 for whom poverty status is | |19,297 |421,352 |23,700,796 |

|determined | | | | |

| |Children 12-17 living in poverty | |12.9% |24.4% |14.8% |

| |Children 12-17 living at or above poverty | |87.1% |75.6% |85.2% |

|Total population 18-64 for whom poverty status is | |116,956 |2,644,159 |169,610,423 |

|determined | | | | |

| |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| |18,135 |489,574 |33,346,548 |

|is determined | | | | |

| |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% |

|Source Citation: U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Sample Characteristics (SF3). From a compilation by the GNO Community |

|Data Center. |

|Families in poverty (2000) | | St. Tammany Parish |Louisiana |United |

| | | | |States |

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

| |Female householder (no husband present) with own | |44.6% |52.2% |44.4% |

| |children under 18 | | | | |

| |Male householder (no wife present) with own | |8.4% |5.9% |6.8% |

| |children under 18 | | | | |

| |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. |



More

data |NAICS

code |Description |Estab-

lish-

ments |Sales, receipts

or shipments

($1,000) |Annual

payroll

($1,000) |Paid

employees | | |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 | |[pic] |31-33 |Manufacturing |127 |373,742 |61,296 |2,699 | |[pic] |42 |Wholesale trade |252 |6,604,024 |75,263 |2,070 | |[pic] |44-45 |Retail trade |749 |1,511,469 |135,300 |9,479 | | |48-49 |Transportation & warehousing (not published for counties) |N |N |N |N | |[pic] |51 |Information (total not published for counties) |N |N |N |N | | |52 |Finance & insurance (not published for counties) |N |N |N |N | |[pic] |53 |Real estate & rental & leasing |156 |86,428 |14,541 |739 | |[pic] |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 | |[pic] |56 |Administrative & support & waste management &remediation services |184 |97,185 |34,288 |1,938 | |[pic] |61 |Educational services |32 |7,857 |2,175 |153 | |[pic] |62 |Health care & social assistance |444 |345,032 |141,407 |5,248 | |[pic] |71 |Arts, entertainment, & recreation |55 |35,940 |10,085 |869 | |[pic] |72 |Accommodation & foodservices |345 |170,691 |44,825 |5,415 | |[pic] |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:

• • Organizes adults into learning communities whose goals are aligned with those of the school and district. (Learning Communities)

• • Requires skillful school and district leaders who guide continuous instructional improvement. (Leadership)

• • Requires resources to support adult learning and collaboration. (Resources)

Process Standards

Staff development that improves the learning of all students:

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

• • Uses multiple sources of information to guide improvement and demonstrate its impact. (Evaluation)

• • Prepares educators to apply research to decision making. (Research-Based)

• • Uses learning strategies appropriate to the intended goal. (Design)

• • Applies knowledge about human learning and change. (Learning)

• • Provides educators with the knowledge and skills to collaborate. (Collaboration)

 Content Standards

Staff development that improves the learning of all students:

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

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

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



Appendix D

Scientifically-based Research Strategies

Reading



Math



Appendix E

External Technical Support and Assistance

Appendix F

Comprehensive Needs Assessment

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download