SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
For Implementation in 2007-2008 		CCSD


ALAMO TONY
7455 EL CAMINO ROAD
Las Vegas, NV 89139

MEMBERS OF THE SCHOOL PLANNING TEAM
Name, Title Name, Title
Jackie Richardson, Assistant Principal Jennifer Bond, Kindergarten Teacher
Ann Popeck, First Grade Teacher Carrie Howren, Second Grade Teacher
Kelsie Nisperos, Third Grade Teacher Celia Bittleman, Fourth Grade Teacher
Michelle Dorson, Fifth Grade Teacher Daniela Sandoval, ELL Specialist
Jennifer Dean, Literacy Specialist Bonnie Murray, Math Specialist
Kim Guinn, Music Teacher Elizabeth Castoe, Counselor
Brandee Evarts, ECS Rod Kissinger, Principal
Region Reviewer:________________________________________________________

 


VISION FOR LEARNING
CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
DISTRICT GOAL 1

The District will demonstrate increased student achievement in English / Language Arts and Mathematics, a reduction in the achievement gap between subgroups, and a decrease in the number of high school dropouts, by institutionalizing research-based instructional systems.

Measurable Objective 1.a. CCSD students will demonstrate increased academic achievement in English/Language Arts as measured by Nevada AYP standards in June 2006 & June 2007, at such that there will be at least a 10% decrease in non-proficient students.
Measurable Objective 1.b. CCSD students will demonstrate increased academic achievement in Mathematics as measured by Nevada AYP standards in June 2006 & June 2007, at such that there will be at least a 10% decrease in non-proficient students.
Measurable Objective 1.c. The District will demonstrate a reduction in the achievement gap between AYP subgroups.
Measurable Objective 1.d. The District will demonstrate a decrease in the number of high school dropouts.

DISTRICT GOAL 2

The District will coordinate, design, deliver and evaluate ongoing professional development aligned to District instructional initiatives.

Measurable Objective 2: The District will realign professional development to meet District instructional initiatives and identified student needs.

DISTRICT GOAL 3

The District will improve and expand its ability to retain, support, and attract qualified staff including teachers, administrators, and support staff.

Measurable Objective 3.a. The District will improve and expand its ability to retain qualified teachers such that there will be a decrease in the attrition of teachers by 10%.
Measurable Objective 3.b. The District will attract qualified staff such that there will be a 10% decrease in unfilled teaching positions.
Measurable Objective 3.c. The District will increase its teacher retention rate through the creation of a new teacher academy designed to provide intensive professional development for staff assigned to at-risk schools.


VISION FOR LEARNING
District Vision or MIssion Statement

The District will demonstrate increased student achievement in English / Language Arts and Mathematics, a reduction in the achievement gap between subgroups, and a decrease in the number of high school dropouts, by institutionalizing research-based instructional systems.

Measurable Objective 1.a. CCSD students will demonstrate increased academic achievement in English/Language Arts as measured by Nevada AYP standards in June 2006 & June 2007, at such that there will be at least a 10% decrease in non-proficient students.
Measurable Objective 1.b. CCSD students will demonstrate increased academic achievement in Mathematics as measured by Nevada AYP standards in June 2006 & June 2007, at such that there will be at least a 10% decrease in non-proficient students.
Measurable Objective 1.c. The District will demonstrate a reduction in the achievement gap between AYP subgroups.
Measurable Objective 1.d. The District will demonstrate a decrease in the number of high school dropouts.

Region Vision or Mission Statement

The mission of the Southwest Region is to develop socially responsible students who will graduate with the skills and attitudes necessary in order to succeed in post-secondary education as well as in the work force.

School Vision or Mission Statement

The mission of Tony Alamo Elementary School is to provide for a safe and positive educational environment that promotes learning and achievement. Students, staff, families and the community will work together in a caring respectful manner in order to achieve academic and behavioral expectations. Tony Alamo Elementary School is committed to academic excellence. Dream, believe, achieve, be safe, be kind, be your best.

School Highlights

Our school is proud to highlight the following achievements:

• Received high achieving school desigation as defined by the state of NV and No Child Left Behind requirements.
• Implemented collaborative grade level planning through Learning Logs to raise achievement in critical skill/concept areas.
• Received most improved status for special education students in English Language Arts as defined by No Child Left Behind.
• Improved averages for daily attendance.
• Implemented Thinking Maps program to increase student critical thinking.
• Participated in CCSD Inclusive Schools Practices program to increase achievement of special education students.
• Honors choir conducted performances throughout the school year.
• Planned and implemented Family Literacy Nights.
• Held Multicultural Night for students and community.
• Implemented new teacher mentoring program to support new teachers with behavior management and instructional strategies.


INQUIRY PROCESS
Section A: Comprehenive Needs Assessment
This section of the plan is based on information from (student achievement and the five dimensions) Tier I (system-wide), Tier II (school-wide), and Tier III (qualitative) data that support student achievement. Tier I data includes state and district achievement information (AYP, school profile, accountability reports, interim assessments).  Tier II data focuses on school information related to student achievement (demographic data; school-wide exams and scoring rubrics; grades; results of instructional strategies, remediation programs, professional development; curriculum and programs).  Tier III data is the qualitative analysis of student achievement (learning environment, culture and student engagement, teacher and administrator observations, meeting logs and notes, parent involvement).  After analyzing all tiers, identify key strengths that have increased student achievement and will remain a part of the continuous cycle of school improvement.  Prioritize areas of concern in student performance, instructional/remediation strategies, program implementation and professional development that will require further analysis and will determine the revisions to be made in your school improvement plan.
Key Strengths

1. Increase in percentage of proficient students over district in reading, writing and math, 55% and 66% (reading), 52% and 62% (writing), and 56% and 71% (math).
2. Continuous rise in percent of third grade students proficient in reading and math over the past 3 years as measured by the state CRT, 55%, 60% and 63% (reading) 58%, 60% and 64% (math).
3. Reduction in percentage of non-proficient 3rd grade students in the Hispanic and IEP subgroups for literacy, 19.3% and IEP, 11.9%. Similar for 5th grade, 11.4% for Hispanic and 10%. This met goal 1 for previous year's plan.
4. Increase in math achievement for Hispanic and IEP subgroups as measured by the state CRT in 3rd, 4th and 5th grades, 13.2% (Hispanic, 3rd), 32.2% (Hispanic, 4th), and 47.4% (IEP, 4th) and 15.7% (IEP, 5th). The goal was not met for IEP 3rd and Hispanic 5th grade students.
5. Increase in teachers implementing the Marzano compare and contrast strategy and Thinking Maps as observed through CWT data, formal observations, and grade level learning log meetings.

Priority Concerns

1. CWT and formal observational data along with IDMS/CRT data revealed a lack of teaching strategies related to application level 3 (A3) and cognitive level 3 (C3) questions for Black, FRL, IEP and LEP subgroups.
2. CWT and formal observational data along with IDMS/CRT data revealed students are unable to answer comprehension and critical stance questions at the A3 and C3 levels due to lack of exposure to test question format for Black, FRL, IEP and LEP subgroups.
3. CWT and formal observational data along with IDMS/CRT data revealed a lack of ability of students to express themselves through the writing process and written responding by students to higher level questions during the balanced literacy components for reading and writing for Black, FRL, IEP and LEP subgroups.
4. Learning log data revealed a lack of teacher collaboration to identify high yield strategies for specific students at risk of failure and effective remediation plans for students in the Black, IEP, FRL and LEP subgroups.
5. CWT and formal obsrevational data along with IDMS/CRT data revealed a lack of implementation of math problem solving activities buiding student conceptual thinking from the concrete to abstract levels.


INQUIRY PROCESS
Section B: Root Cause Analysis
For each concern, identify the causes that impact or impede student achievement.  Causes should focus on the adult actions in the school and must be verified with supporting data.  Continue analyzing each cause until the root of the concern is reached.  Only by understanding the root cause of the concern, can effective solutions for increasing student achievement be determined.  After root causes have been identified, propose solutions grounded in research that clearly describe what instructional practices in the classroom/school (supported by professional development) will be implemented in the plan. 
Priority Concerns
 Root Causes Solutions

1. CWT and formal observational data along with IDMS/CRT data revealed a lack of teaching strategies related to application level 3 (A3) and cognitive level 3 (C3) questions for Black, FRL, IEP and LEP subgroups.

Teachers did not consistently scaffold in their instruction from lower level cognitive skills to higher levels.

Teachers did not differentiate instruction enough to build on the lack of prerequiste skills of LEP and IEP students

Provide staff development to train teachers on how to plan and deliver instruction to scaffold student learning from lower level to higher level thinking.

Establish Inclusive Schools Practices team (ISP) as vehicle for regular education teachers to collaborate with the LEP & literach specialist and resource room teachers.

2. CWT and formal observational data along with IDMS/CRT data revealed students are unable to answer comprehension and critical stance questions at the A3 and C3 levels due to lack of exposure to test question format for Black, FRL, IEP and LEP subgroups.

Teachers did not sufficiently collaborate as grade levels to develop frequent common assessments containing test questions in a state CRT format.

Teachers did not ask comprehension and critical stance questions in an oral or written format at a sufficent level

Implement weekly common grade level planning meetings to identify standards pertaining to comprehension and critical stance skills, develop common assessment in a CRT format, identify students non-proficient and develop and implement a remediation plan.

Increase oral and written questioning related to comprehension and taking a critical stance.

3. CWT and formal observational data along with IDMS/CRT data revealed a lack of ability of students to express themselves through the writing process and written responding by students to higher level questions during the balanced literacy components for reading and writing for Black, FRL, IEP and LEP subgroups.

There was no schoolwide comprehensive writing program addressing the instruction of the writing traits.

Teachers did not ask students to respond in writing to literature during shared and guided reading at an A3/C3 level.

Implement Lucy Calkin's writing program schoolwide.

Train teachers to pose A3/C3 questions with follow-up elaboration and feedback during shared and guided reading.

4. Learning log data revealed a lack of teacher collaboration to identify high yield strategies for specific students at risk of failure and effective remediation plans for students in the Black, IEP, FRL and LEP subgroups.

There was no schoolwide valid assessment to identify student levels at-risk of failure (IEP, LEP) or subsequent intervention.

Common grade level meetings during learning log developed did not provide enough collaboration on remediation strategies.

Identify at-risk students through common assessment developed through the weekly learning log meets, implement schoolwide Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), and implement Lexia reading program as a remediation intervention.

Provide common grade level collaboration time for the purpose of identifying remdiation strategies and monitoring student performance.

5. CWT and formal obsrevational data along with IDMS/CRT data revealed a lack of implementation of math problem solving activities buiding student conceptual thinking from the concrete to abstract levels.

Teachers did not implement math activities that addressed problem solving incorporating the use of manipulatives and higher level thinking at the A3 or C3 levels.

Teachers did not sufficiently implement the use of Marzano's non-linguistic strategy or Thinking Maps across the curriculum.

Train teachers in the use of Investigations in coordination the existing Scott Foresman program as part of grade level learning logs.

Train teachers in the implementation of non-linquistic organizers as defined by Marzano and implement Thinking Maps as a part of grade level learning logs.


SCHOOL GOALS AND MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES

Goals and Measurable Objectives:
Based on the results of the inquiry process, identify a maximum of three goals to focus the school improvement process.  Goals should address student achievement in content, cognitive (ability) levels, instructional strategies, or remediation.  A goal may address more than one content area if the results of the inquiry process indicate that identified subgroup(s) require instruction or remediation that includes similar action steps in multiple content areas, or that subgroup data is not significantly different and performance in ability levels decreases from A1 to A3.   For each goal, write a measurable objective that is specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and timely. 

EXAMPLE 1:  Goal:  Students in grades 3, 4 and 5 will increase achievement in reading and math as measured by the 2008 Nevada CRT. Specific improvement will be made in cognitive/ability level three (A3). 
Measurable Objective:  Between September 07 and April 08, student performance as measured by the P-Values on the Nevada CRT will increase across all subgroups from .41 to .54 in Demonstrating a Critical Stance, and .43 to .52 in Problem Solving.  Hispanic subgroups will demonstrate additional increases from .38 to .52 in Demonstrating a Critical Stance and .40 to .52 in Problem Solving.  IEP subgroups will demonstrate additional increases from .32 to .52 in Demonstrating a Critical Stance and .38 to .52 in Problem Solving.

EXAMPLE 2:  Goal: All students will increase achievement in reading as measured by the 2007 Nevada CRT.   Hispanic, FRL, and IEP subgroups will demonstrate additional increases in performance in Reading to Comprehend, Interpret and Evaluate Informational Text. 
Measurable Objective 1:  Between September 07 and April 08, student performance on the Nevada CRT for Reading will increase from 44% to 51% in grade 3, 46% to 52% in grade 4 and 48% to 54% in grade 5.  Hispanic subgroup scores will demonstrate additional increases from 38% to 48%, FRL subgroup scores will increase from 36% to 47%, and IEP subgroup scores will increase from 28% to 38% in Read to Comprehend, Interpret and Evaluate Informational Text.

GOAL 1 Students in grades 3, 4 and 5 will show increased achievement in reading in the Spring 2007-2008 Nevada CRT. Specific improvement will be made by 3rd, 4th and 5th grade students in the Black, IEP, LEP and FRL subgroups in the areas of comprehend, interpret and evaluate informaitonal text and demontrating a critical stance.
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVE 1 (for Goal 1): Students in grades 3, 4 and 5 will show an increase in reading as measured by the 2008 Nevada Criterion Referenced Test in reading (CRT). Third, fourth and fifth grade African American students will increase in proficiency from 42.9% to 52% (3rd), 50% to 52% (4th), 50% (5th) to 52%; IEP 16.7% to 52% (3rd), 53.8% to 54% (4th) and 10% to 52% (5th); FRL 50% 52% (3rd), 66.7% tp 67 (4th) 40% to 52%(5th); LEP 60.5% to 61%(4th), 40.5% to 52% (5th) in the specific areas of comprehend, interpret and evaluate informational text, developing an interpretation and demonstrate a critical stance at the A3 and C3 levels.
GOAL 2 Students in grades 3, 4 and 5 will show increased achievement in math in the Spring 2007-2008 Nevada CRT. Specific improvement will be mae by 3rd, 4th and 5th grade students in the Black, IEP, Hispanic and FRL subgroups in the areas of measurement and geometry and problem solving. Performance will increase at the application and cognitive three level as defined by the state of Nevada CRT.
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVE 1 (for Goal 2): Students in grades 3, 4 and 5 will show an increase in reading as measured by the 2008 Nevada Criterion Referenced Test in reading (CRT). Third, fourth and fifth grade African American students will increase in proficiency from 57.1% to 58% (3rd), 50% to 55% (4th), 55.6% to 56% (5th); IEP 25% to 55% (3rd), 53.8% to 55% (4th) and 30% to 55% (5th); FRL 52.2% to 55% (3rd), 42.9% to 55%(5th); 50% to 52% (5th), and Hispanic 54.5% to 55% (3rd), 38.2% to 55% (5th) in the specific areas of measurement and geometry and problem solving at the A3 and C3 levels.


MASTER PLAN DESIGN

Section A: Action Steps and Monitoring Plan
For each goal and measurable objective, list the action steps required to accomplish the goal. Each action step should implement a solution that supports the goal and objective and should therefore be student focused. Professional development required to support instruction may be identified as a resource to support the action step. Identify timelines, resources, data, and person(s) responsible for both implementation and monitoring Example: Students with IEPs will increase performance in critical thinking and problem solving by participating in the regular classroom setting.

Goal 1: Students in grades 3, 4 and 5 will show increased achievement in reading in the Spring 2007-2008 Nevada CRT. Specific improvement will be made by 3rd, 4th and 5th grade students in the Black, IEP, LEP and FRL subgroups in the areas of comprehend, interpret and evaluate informaitonal text and demontrating a critical stance.

Measurable Objective 1: Students in grades 3, 4 and 5 will show an increase in reading as measured by the 2008 Nevada Criterion Referenced Test in reading (CRT). Third, fourth and fifth grade African American students will increase in proficiency from 42.9% to 52% (3rd), 50% to 52% (4th), 50% (5th) to 52%; IEP 16.7% to 52% (3rd), 53.8% to 54% (4th) and 10% to 52% (5th); FRL 50% 52% (3rd), 66.7% tp 67 (4th) 40% to 52%(5th); LEP 60.5% to 61%(4th), 40.5% to 52% (5th) in the specific areas of comprehend, interpret and evaluate informational text, developing an interpretation and demonstrate a critical stance at the A3 and C3 levels.
Action & Monitoring Plan
Goal 1 		ACTION PLAN MONITORING PLAN
Action Step Resources Needed for Implementation Timeline for
Implementation		 Person(s)
Responsible		 Information (data) to Measure success Timeline for data Collection Perosn(s)
Responsible
Increase achievement of Black, FRL, IEP or LEP students through greater inclusion within the regular classroom where ISP team members will assist regular classroom teachers to scaffold concepts/skills and modify activties leading to greater achievement on A3/C3 questions. ISP team (ELL facilitator, Literacy Specialist, resource room teachers, affected regular classroom teachers). ISP grant "Classroom Instruction that Works for English Language Learners" Flynn, "Inclusion Strategies that Work" Karten; "How to Teach All Children in the Inclusive Classroom" Rief. Staff development using the following texts: "Reality Checks Teacheing Reading Comprehension with Nonfiction" Duke and "Nonfiction-Informational Texts Come Alive Pike ISP intervention team meets with affected regular classroom teachers every 2 weeks. The ISP committee will meet every 2 weeks (on the off week) to conduct book studies of inclusion strategies and develop a bank of lesson ideas for regular classroom teachers. Non-fiction-meet weekly to discuss ideas from books and results of students from implementation in classroom ISP Team (ELL specialist, resource room teachers) Common Assessments from grade level Learning Logs IDMS data CRT data (September through May) Every two weeks from common assessments connected to grade level learning logs. Grade level chairpersons. ISP team leaders Administration

Tied to Solution: Please select a solution

Students will increase achievement in comprehension of informational text and taking a critical stance in A3/C3 questions from learning log development by grade levels, identify strategies, develop common assessment, identify non-proficient students and remediation. Grade level chairperson Learning Log template Planning time Every week beginning in August through July Grade level chairperson. Learning log templates that identify standard taught, strategies/activities, common assessment, list of students non-proficient and outcome to remediation (all on learning log template saved to server). IDMS and CRT data Every 10 instructional days (2 weeks) Administration

Tied to Solution: Implement weekly common grade level planning meetings to identify standards pertaining to comprehension and critical stance skills, develop common assessment in a CRT format, identify students non-proficient and develop and implement a remediation plan.

Student will increase achievement in the areas of comprehending informational text and taking a critical stance at an A3/C3 level during shared and guided reading through student written (to include thinking maps) and oral responses for black, IEP, FRL and LEP students. CRT testlettes (provides examples of comprehension questions at the A3/C3 levels) Examples of scaffolding questions and activities Examples of teacher delivery and student responding orally and in writing to A3/C3 questions. Thinkin Maps binders each teacher October Staff Development Day-Testlette training, questioning strategies invovling scaffolding September-Circle Map October-Bubble Map November-Tree Map January-Flow Map February-Multi-flow Map March-Bridge April-Brace May-Circle June-Bubble July-Tree Literacy Specialist CWT Formal observations Monthly student sample of Thinking Map posted on bulletin board for each grade level in hallway. IDMS CRT Every 2 weeks Administration Literacy specialist

Tied to Solution: Increase oral and written questioning related to comprehension and taking a critical stance.

Increase student achievement for black, IEP, ELL and FRL subgroups in the writing process through implementation of the Lucy Calkin's writing program units of study. Lucy Calkin's writing kits Thinking Maps September Primary: Workshop process Intermediate: Narrative writing October Primary: Narrative writing Intermediate: Expanding on narrative skills November Primary: Conventions and process Intermediate: Expository writing January Primary/Intermediate: Teacher directed unit to address standards not covered in Calkin's (test preparation) February Primary: Revision focus Intermediate: Writing fiction pieces March Primary: Author study Intermediate: Literary essays April Primary: Nonfiction Intermediate: Poetry May Primary: Nonfiction Intermediate: Research writing June Primary: Poetry Intermediate: Author's study July/August Primary/Intermediate: Memoir writing Literacy Specialist Monthly student sample posted by each teacher at each grade level pertaining to Calkin's unit being taught(celebrations) CWT data Formal observations Learning log comon assessment data NV writing proficiency results Every month Literacy specialist

Tied to Solution: Implement Lucy Calkin's writing program schoolwide.

Increase student achievement for black, IEP, ELL and FRL subgroups through implementation of the Development Reading Assessment (DRA) and Lexia reading program as a remediation intervention tool. DRA kits available to each grade level Lexia Learning Systems software Lexia hosting system (diagnostic reports and data Lexia consultant (2 trainings) September-initial training DRA and Lexia software November-Follow-up DRA and Lexia software training Assistant Principal Literacy Specialist Lexia diagnostic reports DRA results (beginning of year and end of each trimester) Lexia Quick Reading Assessment IDMS CRT DRA-Beginning of year End of each trimester (all students) Lexia-Every 4 weeks diagnostic reports generated. Administration Tutors

Tied to Solution: Identify at-risk students through common assessment developed through the weekly learning log meets, implement schoolwide Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), and implement Lexia reading program as a remediation intervention.

Increase student achievement for the Black, IEP, ELL and FRL subgroups who were found non-proficient determined from grade level Learning Log goals particularly in comprehension of informational text and critical stance. Learning log templates from each grade level reflecting names of non-proficient students from grade level created common assessments linked with standards. Planning time Every 2 weeks a learning log is created focused on identified curriculum standards, strategies and activities developed with a common assessment incorporating A3/C3 questions` Grade level chairperson Learning Logs Grade level common assessments IDMS CRT Every month Administration

Tied to Solution: Please select a solution


MASTER PLAN DESIGN

Section A: Action Steps and Monitoring Plan
For each goal and measurable objective, list the action steps required to accomplish the goal. Each action step should implement a solution that supports the goal and objective and should therefore be student focused. Professional development required to support instruction may be identified as a resource to support the action step. Identify timelines, resources, data, and person(s) responsible for both implementation and monitoring Example: Students with IEPs will increase performance in critical thinking and problem solving by participating in the regular classroom setting.

Goal 2: Students in grades 3, 4 and 5 will show increased achievement in math in the Spring 2007-2008 Nevada CRT. Specific improvement will be mae by 3rd, 4th and 5th grade students in the Black, IEP, Hispanic and FRL subgroups in the areas of measurement and geometry and problem solving. Performance will increase at the application and cognitive three level as defined by the state of Nevada CRT.

Measurable Objective 1: Students in grades 3, 4 and 5 will show an increase in reading as measured by the 2008 Nevada Criterion Referenced Test in reading (CRT). Third, fourth and fifth grade African American students will increase in proficiency from 57.1% to 58% (3rd), 50% to 55% (4th), 55.6% to 56% (5th); IEP 25% to 55% (3rd), 53.8% to 55% (4th) and 30% to 55% (5th); FRL 52.2% to 55% (3rd), 42.9% to 55%(5th); 50% to 52% (5th), and Hispanic 54.5% to 55% (3rd), 38.2% to 55% (5th) in the specific areas of measurement and geometry and problem solving at the A3 and C3 levels.
Action & Monitoring Plan
Goal 1 		ACTION PLAN MONITORING PLAN
Action Step Resources Needed for Implementation Timeline for
Implementation		 Person(s)
Responsible		 Information (data) to Measure success Timeline for data Collection Perosn(s)
Responsible
Increase achievement of Black, FRL, IEP and Hispanic students through greater inclusion within the regular classroom where ISP team members will assist regular classroom teachers to scaffold concepts/skills and modify activties leading to greater achievement on A3/C3 questions. Investigations teacher's editions Manipulatives Scott Foresman Beginning in September, every 2 weeks one Investigations activity implemented linked with Learning Log math standards by grade level. Grade level chairpersons Learning logs Learning log common assessment IDMS CRT Monthly Administration

Tied to Solution: Establish Inclusive Schools Practices team (ISP) as vehicle for regular education teachers to collaborate with the LEP & literach specialist and resource room teachers.

Increase student achievement for black, IEP, FRL and Hispanic subgroups through increased use of problem solving activities. Investigations General education teachers Scott Foresman October 5th-Mathematical Thinking based on Investigations text at each grade level. November 13th-Investigations books focused on number sense. January 25th-Investigations books focused on operations April 14th-Investigations books focused on data analysis and statistics Bonnie Murray Mary Lambertz Dina Cosner Joshua Edie Learning log common assessments at each grade level. IDMS Monthly and each trimester (IDMS results) Administration

Tied to Solution: Train teachers in the use of Investigations in coordination the existing Scott Foresman program as part of grade level learning logs.

Increase student achievement for black, IEP, Hispanic and FRL subgroups in math vocabulary in order to further impact problem solving using non-linguistic organizers (Marzano) Schoolwide math vocabulary calendar Math word walls weekly beginning in September Bonnie Murray IDMS CRT Trimester and post-CRT administration Administration

Tied to Solution: Train teachers in the implementation of non-linquistic organizers as defined by Marzano and implement Thinking Maps as a part of grade level learning logs.

Increase student achievement for black, IEP, FRL and Hispanic subgroups through the use of math journals. Journal books Teacher mentoring Grade level collaboration Every two weeks beginning in September Grade level chairperson Learning log common assessment data IDMS CRT Monthly Administration

Tied to Solution: Implement weekly common grade level planning meetings to identify standards pert


MASTER PLAN DESIGN

Section B: Evaluating Plan Implementation
For each goal and measurable objective, identify the outcome data (evidence), measures of success, and person(s) responsible for evaluating the success of the goal. Outcome data should refer to identified assessment sources in the plan and should include results from Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III (the 5 dimensions) that support student achievement. Measures of success should identify the measures and strategies that will be used to analyze performance and compare actual outcomes with anticipated outcomes. Person(s) responsible will analyze data including evidence identified in the measures, determine the causes relative to achievement, and make connections to the solutions and action steps identified in the school improvement plan.

Goal 1: Students in grades 3, 4 and 5 will show increased achievement in reading in the Spring 2007-2008 Nevada CRT. Specific improvement will be made by 3rd, 4th and 5th grade students in the Black, IEP, LEP and FRL subgroups in the areas of comprehend, interpret and evaluate informaitonal text and demontrating a critical stance.

Measurable Objective 1: Students in grades 3, 4 and 5 will show an increase in reading as measured by the 2008 Nevada Criterion Referenced Test in reading (CRT). Third, fourth and fifth grade African American students will increase in proficiency from 42.9% to 52% (3rd), 50% to 52% (4th), 50% (5th) to 52%; IEP 16.7% to 52% (3rd), 53.8% to 54% (4th) and 10% to 52% (5th); FRL 50% 52% (3rd), 66.7% tp 67 (4th) 40% to 52%(5th); LEP 60.5% to 61%(4th), 40.5% to 52% (5th) in the specific areas of comprehend, interpret and evaluate informational text, developing an interpretation and demonstrate a critical stance at the A3 and C3 levels.
Evaluation Plan For Goal 1 - Measurable Objective 1
Outcome Data
Assessment tools used to measure success
at the end of the SIP 		Resources Needed for Implementation
Analysis of anticipated outcomes to be
shared with the stakeholders 		Person(s) Responsible
Person(s) to analyze the data, provide evidence of progress,
and connect solutions and action steps to success
1. Grade level Learning Log common assessment data focus Black, IEP, FRL, LEP subgroups(reading)plus Hispanic and no LEP for math. Identify students by subgroup that did/did not achieve 80% mastery and compare with student performance from Learning Log to Learning Log Grade level chairperson A+ Committee (Literacy specialist, LEP facilitator, Special ed. teachers) Administration ISP Teacher LEP Facilitator Literacy Specialist Classroom Teacher
2. Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) Compare DRA levels when administered at the beginning of year and end of each trimester. Classroom teachers Administration A+ Committee
3. CWT data related to scaffolding questioning to A3/C3 levels Collate CWT data for levels of critical thinking (Bloom's), written and oral responding during shared and guided reading. Administration A+ Committee
4. NV Writing Proficiency Examination Compare student results from previous year, analyzed by each trait, number of proficient students. 5th grade teachers A+ Committee Administration
5. Writing Wall (monthly writing prompt related to Calkin's) Scored on writing traits based on monthly writing prompts. Grade level chairperson Classroom teacher
6. IDMS Analyze IDMS results for subgroup performance on A3/C3 questions relative to SIP goal 1. Grade level chairperson Regular classroom teacher A+ Committee Administration
7. IEP and ISP student anecdotal notes of progress. Review IEP/ISP notes for evidence of student progress in relationship to implemented strategies. ISP Team LEP facilitator Special education teachers Administration
8. CRT Analyze CRT results for subgroup performance on A3/C3 questions relative to SIP goal 1. Grade level chairperson Regular classroom teacher A+ Committee Administration
9. Lexia student diagnostic reports Compare individual student diagnostic reports every 4 weeks for students participating in remediation/intervention program. Tutoring teachers SIP Team Literacy Specialist Administration

MASTER PLAN DESIGN

Section B: Evaluating Plan Implementation
For each goal and measurable objective, identify the outcome data (evidence), measures of success, and person(s) responsible for evaluating the success of the goal. Outcome data should refer to identified assessment sources in the plan and should include results from Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III (the 5 dimensions) that support student achievement. Measures of success should identify the measures and strategies that will be used to analyze performance and compare actual outcomes with anticipated outcomes. Person(s) responsible will analyze data including evidence identified in the measures, determine the causes relative to achievement, and make connections to the solutions and action steps identified in the school improvement plan.

Goal 2: Students in grades 3, 4 and 5 will show increased achievement in math in the Spring 2007-2008 Nevada CRT. Specific improvement will be mae by 3rd, 4th and 5th grade students in the Black, IEP, Hispanic and FRL subgroups in the areas of measurement and geometry and problem solving. Performance will increase at the application and cognitive three level as defined by the state of Nevada CRT.

Measurable Objective 1: Students in grades 3, 4 and 5 will show an increase in reading as measured by the 2008 Nevada Criterion Referenced Test in reading (CRT). Third, fourth and fifth grade African American students will increase in proficiency from 57.1% to 58% (3rd), 50% to 55% (4th), 55.6% to 56% (5th); IEP 25% to 55% (3rd), 53.8% to 55% (4th) and 30% to 55% (5th); FRL 52.2% to 55% (3rd), 42.9% to 55%(5th); 50% to 52% (5th), and Hispanic 54.5% to 55% (3rd), 38.2% to 55% (5th) in the specific areas of measurement and geometry and problem solving at the A3 and C3 levels.
Evaluation Plan For Goal 2 - Measurable Objective 1
Outcome Data
Assessment tools used to measure success
at the end of the SIP 		Resources Needed for Implementation
Analysis of anticipated outcomes to be
shared with the stakeholders 		Person(s) Responsible
Person(s) to analyze the data, provide evidence of progress,
and connect solutions and action steps to success
1. Log common assessment data focus Black, IEP, FRL, LEP subgroups(reading)plus Hispanic and no LEP for math. Identify students by subgroup that did/did not achieve 80% mastery and compare with student performance from Learning Log to Learning Log Grade level chairperson Classroom teachers Administration
2. CWT data related to scaffolding questioning to A3/C3 levels Collate CWT data for levels of critical thinking (Bloom's), written and oral responding during Scott Foresman and Investigations lessons. Classroom teachers A+ Committee Administration
3. IEP and ISP student anecdotal notes of progress. Review IEP/ISP notes for evidence of student progress in relationship to implemented strategies. ISP team LEP Facilitator Special Education teachers
4. CRT Analyze CRT results for subgroup performance on A3/C3 questions relative to SIP goal 2. Grade level chairperson Regular classroom teacher A+ Committee Administration
IDMS Analyze IDMS results for subgroup performance on A3/C3 questions relative to SIP goal 2. Grade level chairperson Regular classroom teacher A+ Committee Administration

COMPLETING THE SIP PLAN

Section A:  Required Elements for ALL Schools
All schools MUST complete the following questions.

1. What are the policies and practices in place that promote proficiency of each subgroup in the core academic subjects?
 
2. List and briefly describe, as appropriate, how the school has incorporated activities of remedial instruction or tutoring before school, after school, during the summer, and during any extension of the school year.
 
3. Describe the resources available to the school to carry out the plan.
 
4. Summarize the effectiveness of any appropriations for the school made by the Legislature to improve student academic achievement.
 
5. Discuss how the school will utilize Educational Involvement Accords for Parents including the Honor Code and meet all the requirements of the law.
 
6. If applicable, describe how the school will make its Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objective (AMAO) targets in English language proficiency (reading, writing, listening, and speaking comprehension).
 

COMPLETING THE SIP PLAN

Section B: Required Elements for Title 1 schools identified as “Needs Improvement” or “Needs Improvement Hold”

1. Describe the required services the school provided based on the number of years the school has been in need of improvement, (e.g., schools in Year 2 of “Needs Improvement” must identify Year 1 and Year 2 services, and so on).
Year 1
School Choice		 Year 2
Supplemental Services 		Year 3
Corrective Action 		Year 4
Restructuring Yr 1 Planning 		Year 5
Restructuring Yr 2 Implementation
 
2. Provide an assurance that the school will not spend less than 10% of its annual Title I allocation for quality professional development.
 
3. Describe how the school will provide written notice to parents on the school’s "Needs Improvement" status.
 
4. Specify how Title I funds will be used to remove school from "Needs Improvement" status.
 
5. Describe the school's teacher mentoring program and how it relates to achieving the school's annual goals and objectives.
 
6. Describe the school's strategies to attract high quality highly qualified teachers to your school.
 
7. Describe the school's strategies to increase parent involvement in accordance with Section 1118 of NCLB, such as family literacy services.
 
8. Describe the school's plans for assisting preschool children in the transition from early childhood programs, such as Head Start, Even Start, Early Reading First, or a state-run preschool program, to local elementary school programs.
 

COMPLETING THE SIP PLAN

Section C: Required Elements for Non-Title 1 schools identified as “Needs Improvement” or “Needs Improvement Hold”

1. Describe how and when the school will provide written notice to parents on the school’s “Needs Improvement” status.
 
2. Describe the school’s teacher mentoring program and how it relates to achieving the school’s annual goals and objectives.