school improvement plan · directions on what to submit to the lde and how to complete the sip...

School Improvement Plan School Improvement Plan Template for Template for

Mangham High School Mangham High School

Division of Educational Improvement and Assistance Division of Educational Improvement and Assistance Office Student and School Performance Office Student and School Performance

Louisiana Department of Education Louisiana Department of Education

Submission Date: September 8, 2006 Submission Date: September 8, 2006

Mangham High School 9-12

Post Office Box 348 Mangham, LA 71259-0348

Principal Althan Smith Phone (318) 248-2485

[email protected]

Check where applicable: Louisiana Approved School Charter School Alternative School School in School Improvement School with Comprehensive School Reform Program Title I School Schoolwide ___ __Targeted Assistance Member of Southern Association of Colleges and Schools LINCS Distinguished Educator Reading First School Grant Application

Name of Grant: _Enter Name of the Grant_ Contact Person: _Enter Contact Person's Name_ Phone: _Enter Contact's Phone Number_ E-mail: _Enter Contact's Email Address_ Principal’s Signature: ________________________________________

Date: ______________

Superintendent’s Signature: ________________________________________

Date: ______________

2 School Improvement Plan Revised Spring 2006

Louisiana Department of Education

Directions on What to Submit to the LDE and How to Complete the SIP Template

For schools in School Improvement, submit the plan with the state’s Rubric for the Evaluation of School Improvement Plans Summary Report on

disk to the designated division of the LDE, if required.

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

Use 11 point font.

Insert page numbers in the Table of Contents.

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

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

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

For grant applications, place in bold Activities and Action Steps for targeted funding should the grant be awarded. Include the title of the grant as well

as the name, email address, and phone number of the contact person on the Cover Page of the School Improvement Plan Template.

For original signatures, USE BLUE INK.

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

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



TABLE OF CONTENTS <The page numbers for each component will change as information is added.>

DATA PORTFOLIO .......................................................................................................................................... 5

DISTRICT ASSURANCE.................................................................................................................................. 6

ASSURANCE OF FACULTY REVIEW OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN................................................. 8

MISSION STATEMENT.................................................................................................................................. 10

FEDERAL/STATE INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS AND/OR INITIATIVES .................................................. 11

SCHOOL POLICIES AND PARTNERSHIPS...................................................................................................12

DATA TRIANGULATION SHEETS..................................................................................................................13

DATA COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: SUMMARY REPORT .................................................. 17

SCHOOL PERFORMANCE SCORE CHART..................................................................................................19

STRATEGY PLANNING WORKSHEET..........................................................................................................20

TOTAL SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR RESTRICTED AND DISCRETIONARY FUNDS ............36

FEDERAL FUNDING.......................................................................................................................................31



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

o Subgroup Component Report and Principal’s Report Card for the last three years. o Summary of Findings of Survey Data and all source documents. (Teachers, Parents, Students, and Principal) May be completed online.

If Parent sample size is inadequate, there must be Parent Focus Group(s). o Summary of Findings of Interview Data and all source documents. (Principal, Counselor, and Teachers) (Not Optional for Schools in

School Improvement/CSRP) o Summary of Findings of Focus Group Data and all source documents. (Teachers, Students, and Parents) (Not Optional for Schools in

School Improvement/CSRP) o Copy of the Data Triangulation Form o Comprehensive Needs Assessment: Final Report o DRA and DIBELS Reports o Data Analysis Template (Trend Data history, Discipline/Behavior history, etc.) o Data Notebook (for schools participating in School Analysis Model-SAM 2000 or LANA online) o Cognitive Summary Data (ITBS/ITED, ACT, PSAT, etc.) o Citation from monitoring of Federal Programs – if applicable (e.g., Special Education and corresponding Corrective Action Plans) o Scholastic Audit Next Steps, if applicable.



DISTRICT ASSURANCE

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

I hereby certify that this plan was designed to improve student achievement with input from all stakeholders. I assure that the school-level personnel, including subgroup representatives responsible for implementation of this plan, have collaborated in the

writing of the plan. I hereby certify that this plan has all of the following components: • A statement of the school's mission • Evidence of the use of a comprehensive needs assessment, which should include the following data analysis information:

- Data Triangulation tables - Data Comprehensive Needs Assessment Summary Report

• Goals and measurable objectives • Scientifically based research methods, strategies, and activities that guide curriculum content, instruction, and assessment • Professional Development components aligned with assessed needs • Family and community involvement activities aligned with assessed needs • Evaluation strategies that include methods to measure progress of implementation • Coordination of fiscal resources and analysis of school budget (possible redirection of funds) • An action plan with timelines and specific activities for implementing the above criteria

I further certify that the information contained in this assurance is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. ___________________________________________________________ Superintendent's signature (in blue ink)

___________________________________________________________ Principal's signature (in blue ink)

___________________________________________________________ District Assistance or School Support Team Leader (in blue ink)

___________________________________________________________ Chair, School Improvement Team (in blue ink)

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

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



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

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT TEAM

School Improvement Team Members Position

Pam Shepherd Chairperson, Principal Intern

Tabatha Myers Science Teacher

Paul Shaw Special Education Teacher

Seema Warar Math Teacher

Desiree Hardman Student

John Piro Student

Evoria Nicols Support Personnel

Tracey Ausberry Parent

Frankie Johnston Parent



ASSURANCE OF FACULTY REVIEW OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Total Faculty in School: 18 Date: September 7, 2006 The following faculty members have reviewed the School Improvement Plan and have discussed their part in implementing it.

NAME TITLE/POSITION SIGNATURE (in blue ink) SIGNATURE DATE

1 Charles Amos Math Teacher

2 Mary Brunson Science Teacher

3 Janet Butler F & C Science Teacher

4 Toby Butler Librarian

5 Julian Floyd Art Teacher

6 Ronnie Gilley Math Teacher

7 Matt McDonald English Teacher

8 Tabatha Myers Science Teacher

9 Martha Rawls Guidance Counselor

10 Marge Roberts Business Teacher

11 Lenette Romero Health & P.E. Teacher

12 Paul Shaw Special Education Teacher

13 Pam Shepherd Teacher, Principal Intern

14 Althan Smith Principal

15 Jennifer Taylor English Teacher



16 Danny Walters Vocational Teacher

17 Seema Warar Math Teacher

18 Scott Wilcher Social Studies Teacher



MISSION STATEMENT Mangham High School will prepare all students for academic success. List the names and occupations of those persons who participated in developing the mission statement:

Name Title/Occupation

Charlie Amos Mathematics Teacher, Mangham High School

Tabatha Myers Science Teacher, Mangham High School

Pam Shepherd Teacher, Principal Intern

Evoria Nichols Support Personnel

Lauren Romero Student at Mangham High School

Patrick McDonald Student at Mangham High School

Althan Smith Principal



FEDERAL/STATE INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS AND/OR INITIATIVES (Place a check or X in the status area for each program implemented at your school)

Program List: (including during- and after-school programs)

Currently

Using

No. of Years

Proposed Program Deleted Program

Career to Work 0 Extended Day Program 0 HIPPY 0 INTECH 10 INTECH 2 Science 0 INTECH Social Studies 0 La GEAR-UP 0 LaSIP 6 LEAD TECH 8 Math/Science Partnership 0 Pre-School Program 0 School-to-Work 0 The Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) 0 Other: LINCS/High Schools That Work (HTSW) 4 Tech Prep 10

List Supplemental Educational Services provided for your students (Title I schools in SI 3 and above): •

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



SCHOOL POLICIES AND PARTNERSHIPS

Policy Policy #/Bulletin # Date revised Copy on file at school?

Discipline/Behavior Plan (Juvenile Justice Reform Act requirement) § 1301/741 and § 1127/741 05/18/06 Yes No Family Involvement Policy § 1903/741 and § 1118/Title I 05/18/06 Yes No Security Procedures (metal detectors, etc.) § 339/741 05/18/06 Yes No

Safe and Drug-Free Prevention Activities § 1127/741 and § 2305/741 05/18/06 Yes No

Student Code of Conduct § 1115/741 05/18/06 Yes No Crisis Management (emergency/evacuation plan) § 339/741 05/18/06 Yes No

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

University University of Louisiana at Monroe, Louisiana Tech University Technical Institute LTC, Winnsboro

Feeder School(s) Mangham Junior High

Community Richland Parish Sheriff’s Department, Dragon Support Club

Business/Industry

Private Grants

Other



Supporting Source #2

Instrument: Classroom Observations

Data Type: Behavioral

Findings: High use of Higher Order Thinking skills

DATA

TRIANGULATION

Contributing Factors to the Strength:

Supporting Source #1 Instrument: Test Data GEE 21

Data Type: Cognitive

Findings: 67% basic or above in science in 2003 Only 15% Unsatisfactory in 2003

Science

Domain: Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment

Subdomain: Instruction


Instrument: Parent Questionnaire

Data Type: Attitudinal

Findings: 86% of parents think this school does a good job of teaching science

Supporting Source #3 Instrument: Student Questionnaire


Findings: 67% of students believe they are good in science because of their teachers



DATA TRIANGULATION


Supporting Source #2 Instrument: Classroom Observations


Findings: Use of techniques to facilitate learning and use of good questioning strategies



Findings: Only 21% unsatisfactory in Social Studies in 2003

Social Studies on GEE 21




Instrument: Instructional Staff Questionnaire


Findings: Use of student discussion rated high

Supporting Source #3 Instrument: Parent Questionnaire


Findings: 76% of parents say this school does a good job of teaching Social Studies



DATA TRIANGULATION




Findings: Low use of technology



Findings: 28% of students scored at the unsatisfactory level in math in 2003

Math on GEE 21




Instrument: Student Questionnaire


Findings: 71% disagree with the statement "I am good in math because of my teachers"

Supporting Source #3 Instrument: Instructional Staff Questionnaire


Findings: 46 % disagree with the statement "This school does a good job teaching math"



DATA TRIANGULATION

Contributing Factors to the Weakness:



Findings: Low accommodations for individual differences

Supporting Source #1 Instrument: Test Data GEE 21 Iowa Data Type: Cognitive

Findings: Student Standard Scale Score reading in 9th grade 246 57% below basic in the 10th grade ELA

English Language Arts



Supporting Source #4 Instrument: Instructional Staff Questionnaire

Data Type: Select type

Findings: 61% of sataff say they do little sustained writing

Supporting Source #3 Instrument: Student Questionnaire


Findings: 36% of students disagree with the statement "I am good at reading and writing because of my teachers"



DATA COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT: SUMMARY REPORT Part 1: For Title I Schools: ELA and Math by subgroups should be primary when considering weaknesses that will lead to the goals in the SIP. This data should reflect findings on step10 of the Trend Data Analysis worksheet. Rank-order the identified areas of strength (3-5) from the student performance and attendance and/or dropout data and indicate the supporting data sources:

STRENGTHS DATA SOURCE NRT, 2005, IOWA 1. Language, 9th Grade NRT, 2005, IOWA 2. Math, 9th Grade CRT, 2005, GEE 3. Science, 11th Grade 4. 5.

Rank-order the identified areas of weakness (3-5) from the student performance and attendance and/or dropout data and indicate the supporting data sources:

WEAKNESSES DATA SOURCE Subgroup proficient Data CRT, 2005, GEE 1. ELA, 10th Grade Bllack Subgroup NRT, 2005, IOWA 2. Reading, 9th, Grade CRT, 2005, GEE 3. Social Studies, 11th Grade Subgroup Proficient Data CRT, 2005, GEE 4. Math, 10th Grade Black Subgroup 5.

The identified weaknesses will lead to the goals.



Part 2: This data should reflect the findings from the needs assessment as reported on the Data Triangulation sheets. List the contributing factors from the attitudinal/perceptual, behavioral, and archival data of the previously identified strengths:

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO THE STRENGTHS DATA SOURCE Classroom Observation,DAT 1. Use of higher order thinking skills Student & Parent Questionnaire, DAT 2. Science Teachers Classroom Observation, DAT 3. Use of questioning strategies and monitoring Instructional Staff Questionnaire, DAT 4. Use of discussion rated high 5.

List the contributing factors from the attitudinal/perceptual, behavioral, and archival data of the previously identified weaknesses:

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO THE WEAKNESSES DATA SOURCE Classroom Observation, DAT 1. Low use of Technology in classrooms IInstructional Staff & Student Questionnaire, DAT, & Administrator Interview 2. Stability of Math Instruction Class Observation, DAT 3. Low accommodation of individual differences Instructional Staff Questionnaire, DAT 4. Little useof sustained writing 5.

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



SCHOOL PERFORMANCE SCORE CHART

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

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

School Baseline SPS 2003: 83.3 School Growth SPS 2003: 82.0 School GT 2003: 3.1



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



http://www.louisianaschools.net/lde/pair/1989.asp

STRATEGY PLANNING WORKSHEET

GOAL #1: To increase student achievement in mathematics.

OBJECTIVE(S) #1: To increase the math %proficient index scores of 10th grade black students from 33.0% to 39.7% by Spring 2007. #2: To increase the 10th grade CRT 82.4 to 86.6 by Spring 2007. SCIENTIFICALLY BASED RESEARCH STRATEGY: (Derived from the contributing factors) – Meaningful Engaged Learning – Model from the North Central Educational Laboratory (NCREL) http://www.ncrel.org

Bibliographic Notation: National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2005). Breakthrough high schools: Fenway High School. Retrieved June 7, 2005, from http://www.principals.org/s_nassp/sec.asp?CID=66&DID=47034 Sweet, J. R., Rasher, S. P., Abromitis, B. S., & Johnson, E. M. (2004). Case studies of high-performing, high-technology schools: Final research report on schools with predominantly low-income, African-American, or Latina student populations. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. Retrieved June 7, 2005, from http://www.ncrel.org/tech/hpht/hpht.pdf Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement & students at risk. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Brief Summary of Research:



http://www.ncrel.org/

http://www.principals.org/s_nassp/sec.asp?CID=66&DID=47034

http://www.ncrel.org/tech/hpht/hpht.pdf

Researchers at NCREL developed eight specific indicators of engaged learning. These indicators can inform instructional decisions by helping educators understand what MEL looks like in the classroom. The indicators are: 1. Vision of Engaged Learning – Students are responsible for and energized by learning. They are strategic and collaborative. 2. Tasks for Engaged Learning – Learning tasks are challenging, authentic, and integrative. 3. Assessment of Engaged Learning – Assessment tasks are performance-based, involve students in generating their own performance, and are aligned with curriculum and instruction. Equitable standards are employed to evaluate performance. 4. Instructional Models and Strategies for Engaged Learning – Instruction actively engages learners and encourages them to construct and produce knowledge in meaningful ways. 5. Learning Context for Engaged Learning – The classroom is a collaborative and empathetic learning community that resists fragmentation and competition. 6. Grouping for Engaged Learning – To ensure equitable access to learning for all students, heterogeneous groups are configured and reconfigured according to the purposes of instruction. 7. Teacher Roles for Engaged Learning – The role of the teacher in the classroom is that of facilitator, guide, and learner/investigator. 8. Student Roles for Engaged Learning – Students explore the physical world in order to discover concepts and apply skills. They observe and apply thinking processes used by practitioners. They are producers of knowledge as they integrate what they’ve learned. Describe how this strategy, in relation to the research, addresses the needs of the student population in your school. Was the research conducted in a similar school with similar populations and needs? According to the noted research, meaningful engaged learning will enable teachers to focus on strategies to assist with decreasing the amount of direct instruction. This will increase overall student achievement. The research was conducted in schools similar to Mangham high School. If this strategy addresses the needs of any of the subgroups, indicate which subgroup and describe how it will serve their needs: The African American subgroup will benefit from this strategy due to the high engagement focus. Mangham High School notes a significant gap between the African American subgroup and the rest of the students.

Procedures for Evaluating the Goal, Objective(s) and Strategy: Formative evaluations that include students’ end-of-unit assessments (each6 weeks), 6 weeks report cards, and classroom observations and evaluations will be analyzed by administrators and teachers to determine the effectiveness of the activities within the strategies. Summative evaluations that include Spring iLEAP, CRT, and Subgroup proficiency scores from 2004, 2005, and 2006, 2007, LINCS FSG logs and portfolios, IC meeting minutes, LINCS Implementation Rubric will be analyzed by administrators and teachers to determine the effectiveness of the activities within the strategies.



ACTION PLAN Activity(ies)

Include Persons Responsible, Timeline, and Target Audience Note: Activities indicated should address all children, including

subgroups.

Funding Sources

Object Code Cost

Indicator of Implementation

(Observable Change)

Procedures for Evaluating Indicators of Implementation

(How do you know the activity is working?)



* 1. On August 9, 2006, Pam Shepherd, LINCS Instructional Facilitator, Seema Warar, math teacher, and Paul Shaw, special education teacher will present CRT and NRT data, including trends over the past 3 years and subgroup analyses to the principal, instructional staff, and counselor. Everyone present will receive a data portfolio and a folder. This LINCS Decision-Making Cycle will be facilitated by Charlie Amos, math teacher. Charlie will record information on chart poster sheets. Based on student achievement data, teachers will identify student needs and will form faculty study groups to address those needs across the curriculum.

Sales Tax

600 $150 All teachers will select a specific area of academic weakness to be addressed in newly formed faculty study groups.

Faculty Study Groups will be formed. During each FSG meeting, one teacher will lead the meeting and another teacher will record what takes place. FSG logs will be reviewed after each round of meetings and Pam Shepherd, LINCS instructional facilitator will write comments and reflections on them which will enable teachers to adjust instructional strategies.

* 2. During the first two FSG meetings, September 12, 2006, and September 26, 2006, each group will develop an action plan identifying specific student needs to be addressed. On September 26, 2006, in their FSG, all teachers will complete a “Reading Strategies Survey” developed by Jennifer Taylor, English teacher. Martha Rawls, Counselor will be responsible for printing surveys, creating folders for each teacher, and giving them to each FSG. The leader of each FSG will return completed surveys to Mary Brunson, science teacher, who will compile and record the results. On September 25, 2006, parents who attend Parent Teacher Conference Day will complete a questionnaire pertaining to their attendance at school meetings. Questionnaires will be attached to the report cards and sent home with students whose parents did not attend the conference.

Sales Tax

600 $150 All teachers will identify reading strategies currently used in their classroom.

Pam Shepherd, LINCS Instructional Facilitator, and/or Althan Smith, principal, will review and evaluate action plans to insure that academic weaknesses are addressed. Teachers will be emailed comments regarding action plans. Responses to parent questionnaire will be evaluated and adjustments made for future meetings in order to involve more parents.



* *** 3. On October 3, 2006, the administrators, teachers, and counselor will attend a professional development redelivery of a tool for reading and responding based on "Reading Strategies for the Content Areas" by Sue Beers. This and subsequent meetings for the presentations of additional strategies will take place in the MHS library after the instructional day has ended. Mrs. Kathy Barker, math teacher at Mangham Junior High, will be the presenter, and MHS math teacher Mrs. Seema Warar will be the facilitator.

LINCS 100 $25 All teachers will incorporate the use of reading and responding strategies based on GLE's to meet the needs of all students.

Each six weeks the LINCS Instructional Facilitator and/or principal will use walk around observation forms to insure proposed strategies have been implemented. A checklist of observations will be filed with the principal and weaknesses in implementation of the strategies will be addressed in individual teacher conferences.



* ** 4. Beginning October 10, 2006 and continuing through April 24, 2007, the Principal Intern and LINCS Instructional Facilitator, Pam Shepherd and the MHS LINCS Coach, Tammy Duncan will meet with Faculty Study Groups twice a month. Leadership within the FSG will rotate, giving each member the opportunity to serve as the leader. At each meeting, the leader for the next meeting will identified. This teacher will invite two parents to attend the next FSG as their guests. Documentation of their attendance will be their signatures on the FSG log. During these job-embedded professional development activities, each member of the FSG, as well as the parents in attendance, will participate in a Lesson Study, planning a lesson implementing "Reading Strategies for the Content Areas." Teachers will provide Althan Smith, principal, with a copy of this lesson plan and will put a copy in a Lesson Study portfolio maintained by their FSG. Web resources used in planning the lesson will be noted, as well as how technology will used in the lesson presentation. Each lesson will include a take-home component at least twice each six-weeks, asking parents to assist students with a specific part of the assignment. Teachers and the counselor will make three calls to parents each week and will discuss these take-home assignments. Students’ knowledge of appropriate reading strategies can impact achievement in programs such as ALS, which is used by 75% of the student body. Teachers will reinforce these strategies when students are in the ALS lab.

General Fund

100 200

$2750 $750

All teachers will plan and teach a lesson implementing reading and responding strategies for all students. Newsletters will include a “Parents’ Corner” where comments from FSG meetings and responses to take-home activities will be published.

Each teacher will submit data from a predetermined data source, which can include teacher-made tests, including baseline, target, and actual scores of students. Copies of the data will be included in each FSG portfolio. Althan Smith, principal, or his designee will review lesson plans to determine level of implementation of reading strategies during each cycle of the Lesson Study. Toby Butler, librarian, will collect parents’ responses from FSG meetings, as well as responses to take-home activities, for publication in the MHS Newsletter, which will be published quarterly by the National Honor Society. Copies of the newsletter will be sent home with every student and will also be available in the school office and on the MHS web site. Martha Rawls, counselor, will submit an announcement to the Richland Beacon when newsletters are published.



* 5. When each member of the FSG presents the model lesson, the other group members will observe and critique the lesson. At the next FSG meeting, LINCS Coach Tammy Duncan will facilitate a discussion of the lesson that was taught and observed. Suggestions for improving the lesson will be offered by FSG members. The teacher responsible for teaching the lesson will present student work to the FSG using the "Wows and Wonders" protocol.

All teachers will participate in the lesson study, both in a teaching role and a coaching role.

After each teacher has had the opportunity to both present and coach a lesson, they will submit an anecdotal evaluation of the process, including data showing the impact of the lesson taught on student achievement. As students achieve the target score on selected data sources, new targets will be established. Lenette Romero, health and physical education teacher, will compile the action research and add it to each FSG portfolio.

* *** 6. The Lesson Study cycle will be repeated throughout the 2006 – 2007 School year. One new strategy from Sue Beers’ “Reading Strategies for the Content Area” will be presented at the after-school faculty meeting each month during November, December, and January. Sales Tax revenue will be used for materials and supplies as needed for after school professional development activities. The presenter for each session will be Kathy Barker, math teacher at Mangham Junior High; the facilitators will be Danny Walters, agri-science teacher, Scott Wilcher, social studies teacher, and Marge Roberts, business teacher, successively. As teachers participate in the Lesson Study and conduct Action Research, Joan Rhodes, MHS Instructional Facilitator will assist teachers in FSG in planning effective lessons which include the targeted reading strategy while addressing the appropriate GLE(s) in the Comprehensive Curriculum. The MHS LINCS Instructional Council, which meets quarterly, will provide follow-up to the Lesson Study. One teacher from each FSG will present the results of their group’s Action Research. Althan Smith, principal will facilitate the IC meeting.

Title II

LINCS

Sales Tax

100 200

Teacher use of reading strategies will increase. All teachers will present student-centered lessons resulting in increased student engagement and time on task.

100

600

$2750 $750 $75 $550

Teacher-selected data sources will show evidence of student achievement as targets are reached and new targets are set. Student work will be evaluated and growth percentages on reading strategies will be used to determine effectiveness of the action plan. Instructional Council minutes will reflect results of Lesson Study and Action Research. Althan Smith, principal, or his designee will review lesson plans weekly to insure that GLE’s from the Comprehensive Curriculum have been identified and are being addressed.



* 7. At the last regularly scheduled FSG meeting in April, 2007, all teachers will once again complete the “Reading Strategies Survey.” Tammy Duncan, LINCS coach, and Joan Rhodes, MHS Instructional Facilitator will collect surveys.

Sales Tax

600 $150 Teacher use of reading strategies will increase. Student achievement will reflect growth in all content areas.

The 2006-2007 LINCS Implementation Rubric will reflect growth in all areas as the MHS faculty develops as a professional learning community. Academic goals for math, language arts, and all subgroups will be met, as evidenced by CRT and NRT results for Spring, 2007. “Reading Strategies Survey” results will be compiled by Tabatha Myers, science teacher, and Matt McDonald, English teacher. Survey results will be reported at the 2006-2007 LINCS Celebration by Julian Floyd, art teacher, and Janet Butler, family and consumer science teacher.

* Indicates Professional Development Learning ** Indicates Family Involvement Activities *** Indicates Curriculum Activities (if applicable)

# Indicates Safe and Drug-Free Activities (if applicable) ## Indicates Discipline Support Activities (if applicable) ### Indicates PK –12 Literacy Activities (if applicable)



STRATEGY PLANNING WORKSHEET

GOAL #2: To increase student achievement in English/Language Arts.

OBJECTIVE(S) #1: To increase the 10th grade CRT ELA index scores from 86.1 to 89.9 by Spring 2007. #2: To increase the 9th grade NRT reading index scores from 82.9 to 87.o by Spring 2007.

SCIENTIFICALLY BASED RESEARCH STRATEGY: (Derived from the contributing factors) Meaningful Engaged Learning

Bibliographic Notation: Wigfield, A. (2004). Motivation for reading during the early adolescent and adolescent years. In D. S. Strickland & D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Bridging the literacy achievement gap, grades 4-12. (pp. 56-69). New York: Teachers College Press. Northbrook School District 28. (1999). Engaged learning resources. [Online]. Available: http://www.greenbriar.district28.k12.il.us/Engaged/engaged.htm Blachowicz, C., & Ogle, D. (2001). Reading comprehension: Strategies for independent learners. New York: Guilford Press. Brief Summary of Research: Current research supports the role of engaged learning as important to student achievement. Students learn when they are highly involved in meaningful tasks. Student motivation is one aspect of MEL; however, motivation is more than a quality within students. Motivation is a quality that can be profoundly affected by the attitudes and actions of educators. The three models discussed below provide an overview of meaningful, engaged learning. Phillip Schlechty advocates meaningful, engaged learning within a larger framework of school reform, which is based on theories of change and of engagement. The Theory of Engagement focuses on student motivation and strategies needed to incorporate engaging tasks into instruction. The Theory of Engagement is the basis of the Working on the Work framework espoused by Dr. Schlechty. Schlechty views the likelihood that students will learn as linked directly to the level of student engagement. Teachers must focus on designing learning tasks that increase engagement and must continuously assess the level of engagement in their classrooms. Schlechty states that the “core business of schools is to provide students with high content engaging school work: work that is challenging to students, work with which students persist when they experience difficulty, and work from which students gain a sense of satisfaction.” To this end, qualities of highly engaging tasks address: • Product focus • Clear and compelling product standards • Protection from adverse consequences for initial failures • Affirmation of the significance of performance • Affiliation

Describe how this strategy, in relation to the research, addresses the needs of the student population in your school. Was the research conducted in a similar school with similar populations and needs? According to the noted research, meaningful engaged learning will enable teachers to focus on strategies to assist with decreasing the amount of direct instruction. This will increase overall student achievement. The research was conducted in schools similar to Mangham high School. If this strategy addresses the needs of any of the subgroups, indicate which subgroup and describe how it will serve their needs: The African American subgroup will benefit from this strategy due to the high engagement focus. Mangham High School notes a significant gap between the Arican American subgroup and the rest of the students.

Procedures for Evaluating the Goal, Objective(s) and Strategy: Formative evaluations that include students’ end-of-unit assessments (each6 weeks), 6 weeks report cards, and classroom observations and evaluations will be analyzed by administrators and teachers to determine the effectiveness of the activities within the strategies. Summative evaluations that include Spring iLEAP, CRT, and Subgroup proficiency scores from 2004, 2005, and 2006, 2007, LINCS FSG logs and portfolios, IC meeting minutes, LINCS Implementation Rubric will be analyzed by administrators and teachers to determine the effectiveness of the activities within the strategies.



ACTION PLAN Activity(ies)

Include Persons Responsible, Timeline, and Target Audience Note: Activities indicated should address all children, including

subgroups.

Funding Sources

Object Code Cost

Indicator of Implementation

(Observable Change)

Procedures for Evaluating Indicators of Implementation

(How do you know the activity is working?)



* 1. On August 9, 2006, Pam Shepherd, LINCS Instructional Facilitator, Seema Warar, math teacher, and Paul Shaw, special education teacher will present CRT and NRT data, including trends over the past 3 years and subgroup analyses to the principal, instructional staff, and counselor. Everyone present will receive a data portfolio and a folder. This LINCS Decision-Making Cycle will be facilitated by Charlie Amos, math teacher. Charlie will record information on chart poster sheets. Based on student achievement data, teachers will identify student needs and will form faculty study groups to address those needs across the curriculum.

Sales Tax

600 $150 All teachers will select a specific area of academic weakness to be addressed in newly formed faculty study groups.

Faculty Study Groups will be formed. During each FSG meeting, one teacher will lead the meeting and another teacher will record what takes place. FSG logs will be reviewed after each round of meetings and Pam Shepherd, LINCS instructional facilitator will write comments and reflections on them which will enable teachers to adjust instructional strategies.

* 2. During the first two FSG meetings, September 12, 2006, and September 26, 2006, each group will develop an action plan identifying specific student needs to be addressed. On September 26, 2006, in their FSG, all teachers will complete a “Reading Strategies Survey” developed by Jennifer Taylor, English teacher. Martha Rawls, Counselor will be responsible for printing surveys, creating folders for each teacher, and giving them to each FSG. The leader of each FSG will return completed surveys to Mary Brunson, science teacher, who will compile and record the results. On September 25, 2006, parents who attend Parent Teacher Conference Day will complete a questionnaire pertaining to their attendance at school meetings. Questionnaires will be attached to the report cards and sent home with students whose parents did not attend the conference.

Sales Tax

600 $150 All teachers will identify reading strategies currently used in their classroom.

Pam Shepherd, LINCS Instructional Facilitator, and/or Althan Smith, principal, will review and evaluate action plans to insure that academic weaknesses are addressed. Teachers will be emailed comments regarding action plans. Responses to parent questionnaire will be evaluated and adjustments made for future meetings in order to involve more parents.



* *** 3. On October 3, 2006, the administrators, teachers, and counselor will attend a professional development redelivery of a tool for reading and responding based on "Reading Strategies for the Content Areas" by Sue Beers. This and subsequent meetings for the presentations of additional strategies will take place in the MHS library after the instructional day has ended. Mrs. Kathy Barker, math teacher at Mangham Junior High, will be the presenter, and MHS math teacher Mrs. Seema Warar will be the facilitator.

LINCS 100 $25 All teachers will incorporate the use of reading and responding strategies based on GLE's to meet the needs of all students.

Each six weeks the LINCS Instructional Facilitator and/or principal will use walk around observation forms to insure proposed strategies have been implemented. A checklist of observations will be filed with the principal and weaknesses in implementation of the strategies will be addressed in individual teacher conferences.



* ** 4. Beginning October 10, 2006 and continuing through April 24, 2007, the Principal Intern and LINCS Instructional Facilitator, Pam Shepherd and the MHS LINCS Coach, Tammy Duncan will meet with Faculty Study Groups twice a month. Leadership within the FSG will rotate, giving each member the opportunity to serve as the leader. At each meeting, the leader for the next meeting will identified. This teacher will invite two parents to attend the next FSG as their guests. Documentation of their attendance will be their signatures on the FSG log. During these job-embedded professional development activities, each member of the FSG, as well as the parents in attendance, will participate in a Lesson Study, planning a lesson implementing "Reading Strategies for the Content Areas." Teachers will provide Althan Smith, principal, with a copy of this lesson plan and will put a copy in a Lesson Study portfolio maintained by their FSG. Web resources used in planning the lesson will be noted, as well as how technology will used in the lesson presentation. Each lesson will include a take-home component at least twice each six-weeks, asking parents to assist students with a specific part of the assignment. Teachers and the counselor will make three calls to parents each week and will discuss these take-home assignments. Students’ knowledge of appropriate reading strategies can impact achievement in programs such as ALS, which is used by 75% of the student body. Teachers will reinforce these strategies when students are in the ALS lab.

General Fund

100 200

$2750 $750

All teachers will plan and teach a lesson implementing reading and responding strategies for all students. Newsletters will include a “Parents’ Corner” where comments from FSG meetings and responses to take-home activities will be published.

Each teacher will submit data from a predetermined data source, which can include teacher-made tests, including baseline, target, and actual scores of students. Copies of the data will be included in each FSG portfolio. Althan Smith, principal, or his designee will review lesson plans to determine level of implementation of reading strategies during each cycle of the Lesson Study. Toby Butler, librarian, will collect parents’ responses from FSG meetings, as well as responses to take-home activities, for publication in the MHS Newsletter, which will be published quarterly by the National Honor Society. Copies of the newsletter will be sent home with every student and will also be available in the school office and on the MHS web site. Martha Rawls, counselor, will submit an announcement to the Richland Beacon when newsletters are published.



* 5. When each member of the FSG presents the model lesson, the other group members will observe and critique the lesson. At the next FSG meeting, LINCS Coach Tammy Duncan will facilitate a discussion of the lesson that was taught and observed. Suggestions for improving the lesson will be offered by FSG members. The teacher responsible for teaching the lesson will present student work to the FSG using the "Wows and Wonders" protocol.

All teachers will participate in the lesson study, both in a teaching role and a coaching role.

After each teacher has had the opportunity to both present and coach a lesson, they will submit an anecdotal evaluation, which will be discussed in FSG meetings, of the process, including data showing the impact of the lesson taught on student achievement. As students achieve the target score on selected data sources, new targets will be established. Lenette Romero, health and physical education teacher, will compile the action research and add it to each FSG portfolio.

* *** 6. The Lesson Study cycle will be repeated throughout the 2006 – 2007 School year. One new strategy from Sue Beers’ “Reading Strategies for the Content Area” will be presented at the after-school faculty meeting each month during November, December, and January. Sales Tax revenue will be used for materials and supplies as needed for after school professional development activities. The presenter for each session will be Kathy Barker, math teacher at Mangham Junior High; the facilitators will be Danny Walters, agri-science teacher, Scott Wilcher, social studies teacher, and Marge Roberts, business teacher, successively. As teachers participate in the Lesson Study and conduct Action Research, Joan Rhodes, MHS Instructional Facilitator will assist teachers in FSG in planning effective lessons which include the targeted reading strategy while addressing the appropriate GLE(s) in the Comprehensive Curriculum. The MHS LINCS Instructional Council, which meets quarterly, will provide follow-up to the Lesson Study. One teacher from each FSG will present the results of their group’s Action Research. Althan Smith, principal will facilitate the IC meeting.

Title II

LINCS

Sales Tax

100 200

Teacher use of reading strategies will increase. All teachers will present student-centered lessons resulting in increased student engagement and time on task.

100

600

$2750 $750 $75 $550

Teacher-selected data sources will show evidence of student achievement as targets are reached and new targets are set. Student work will be evaluated and growth percentages on reading strategies will be used to determine effectiveness of the action plan. Instructional Council minutes will reflect results of Lesson Study and Action Research. Althan Smith, principal, or his designee will review lesson plans weekly to insure that GLE’s from the Comprehensive Curriculum have been identified and are being addressed.



* 7. At the last regularly scheduled FSG meeting in April, 2007, all teachers will once again complete the “Reading Strategies Survey.” Tammy Duncan, LINCS coach, and Joan Rhodes, MHS Instructional Facilitator will collect surveys.

Sales Tax

600 $150 Teacher use of reading strategies will increase. Student achievement will reflect growth in all content areas.

The 2006-2007 LINCS Implementation Rubric will reflect growth in all areas as the MHS faculty develops as a professional learning community. Academic goals for math, language arts, and all subgroups will be met, as evidenced by CRT and NRT results for Spring, 2007. “Reading Strategies Survey” results will be compiled by Tabatha Myers, science teacher, and Matt McDonald, English teacher. Survey results will be reported at the 2006-2007 LINCS Celebration by Julian Floyd, art teacher, and Janet Butler, family and consumer science teacher.

* Indicates Professional Development Learning ** Indicates Family Involvement Activities *** Indicates Curriculum Activities (if applicable)

# Indicates Safe and Drug-Free Activities (if applicable) ## Indicates Discipline Support Activities (if applicable) ### Indicates PK –12 Literacy Activities (if applicable)



TOTAL SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR RESTRICTED AND DISCRETIONARY FUNDS

FUNDING SOURCES* Sales Tax LINCS Title II GF TOTAL

SALARIES (100) 200 5500 5500 $11,200.00

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS (200) 1500 1500 $3,000.00

PURCHASED PROFESSIONAL and TECHNICAL SERVICES (300) $0.00

PURCHASED PROPERTY SERVICES (400) $0.00

OTHER PURCHASES SERVICES (500) $0.00

SUPPLIES (600) 2000 $2,000.00

INDIRECT COSTS (If applicable) $0.00

PROPERTY (700) $0.00

OTHER OBJECTS (800) $0.00

OTHER USES OF FUNDS (900) $0.00

TOTAL $2,000.00 $200.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $16,200*Funding Sources: Title I – Part A (Improving Basic Programs, NCLB School Improvement Funds), Part B (Reading First, Early Reading First, Even Start), Part C (Migrant), Part D (N & D), Part F (CSRP); Title II – Part A (Professional Development), Part D (Technology); Title III – English Language Proficient; Title V – Parental Choice and Innovative Programs; Title VII – Part A (Indian Education), Part B (Native Hawaiian Education), Part C (Alaska Native Education); Learn and Serve America; Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act; State Funding; 8(g); LaSIP; IDEA; K-3 Initiatives; MSL; Education Excellence Fund; State School Improvement Funds; miscellaneous funding sources; foundations/grants, etc.



FEDERAL FUNDING

SIP Expenditures * SIP Expenditures *

§ Instructional Facilitator $7,000.00§ § § § § § § § § §

TOTAL Other Title I Expenditures $0.00 TOTAL Title II Expenditures $7,000.00


§ § § § § § § § § § § §

TOTAL Title IV Expenditures $0.00 TOTAL Title V Expenditures $0.00

Projected Expenditures Projected Expenditures

Projected Expenditures TITLE IV EXPENDITURES

OTHER TITLE I EXPENDITURES TITLE II EXPENDITURES

Non SIP Expenditures (list) Non SIP Expenditures (list)

TITLE V EXPENDITURES

Non SIP Expenditures (list) Non SIP Expenditures (list)

Projected Expenditures

37 School Improvement Plan

Revised Spring 2006 Louisiana Department of Education

FEDERAL FUNDING


§ Sales Tax $2,000.00§ LINCS $200.00§ General Fund $7,000.00§ § § § § §

TOTAL K-3 Initiative Expenditures $0.00 § § §

TOTAL Other Funds $9,200.00

Non SIP Expenditures (list) Non SIP Expenditures (Indicate Source and Expense)

Projected Expenditures Projected ExpendituresK-3 Initiative Expenditures OTHER FUNDS



school improvement plan · directions on what to submit to the lde and how to complete the sip...

Documents