20132014 archive
8/26/2014
ACSIP
District Menu Page | Work On Your ACSIP | Reports | Federal/State Budgets | School Completion Status | FAQ | Feedback | Logout
20132014 ARCHIVE School Plan Print Version
TRUMANN INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL 56 Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Plan 20132014
Trumann Intermediate School will provide an equitable quality education for all students in a safe environment, which will assist students in the attainment of their ultimate potential and success in a technological society. Grade Span: 56
Title I: Title I Schoolwide
School Improvement:
Table of Contents Priority 1: MATHEMATICS Goal: In 5th grade, students will place an emphasis on measurement multiple choice and open response items and in 6th grade, students will place an emphasis on data analysis and probability multiple choice and open response items. Priority 2: LITERACY Goal: Students will improve in reading practical, literacy writing, and writing multiple choice. Priority 3: STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY AND WELLNESS Goal: Students will make responsible decisions, behave appropriately and attend school regularly. Students will make decisions to improve personal wellness. The District will provide support for students in making healthy lifestyle choices such as with the Healthy School Lunch Initiative to aid in decreasing the average BMI on routine annual student screening and increasing collaboration between all segments of the school community in support of positive lifestyle choices.
Priority 1:
Students will improve their mathematical skills in all strands with an emphasis on open response items.
1. CURRENT STATUS: Needs Improvement In 1011 the Economically Disadvantaged subpopulation did not meet AYP in math, resulting in Alert status. In 1112, students with disabilities, whites, and all students sub populations did not meet either growth or performance. However, the school is still considered on Achieving status. In 1213, 5th and 6th grades were placed on Needs Improvement status. 5th GRADE ARKANSAS BENCHMARK EXAM: 2013 # Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 129 Students: 56% of Combined Students 106 Students: 60%of Caucasian Students 104 Students: 53% of Econ Disadvantaged Students Less than 40: 32% of African American Students Less than 40: 57% of Hispanic Students Less than 40: 0% of LEP Students 2012# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 120 Students: 71% of Combined Students http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-2013/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip_district&username=5605001
1/25
8/26/2014
ACSIP
102Students: 72% of Caucasian Students 81 Students: 65% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students Less than 40: 70% of African American Students Less than 40: 51% of Hispanic Students Less than 40: 50% of LEP Students Less than 40: 16% of Students with Disabilities 2011# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 122 Students: 78% of Combined Students 108 Students: 83% of Caucasian Students 87 Students: 74% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students Less than 40: 33% of African American Students Less than 40: 100% of Hispanic Students Less than 40: 0% of LEP Students Less than 40: 30% of Students with Disabilities
Supporting Data:
2. 6th GRADE ARKANSAS BENCHMARK EXAM: 2013 # Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 115 Students: 60% of Combined Students 98 Students: 62%of Caucasian Students 88 Students: 58% of Econ Disadvantaged Students Less than 40: 60% of African American Students Less than 40: 43% of Hispanic Students Less than 40: 0% of LEP Students 2012 # Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 123 Students: 76% of Combined Students 106 Students: 79%of Caucasian Students 89 Students: 76% of Econ Disadvantaged Students Less than 40: 55% of African American Students Less than 40: 50% of Hispanic Students Less than 40: 0% of LEP Students Less than 40: 15% of Students with Disabilities 2011# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficent/Advanced 116 Students: 66% of Combined Students 100 Students: 66% of Caucasian Students 101 Students: 62% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students Less than 40: 55% of African American Students Less than 40: 72% of Hispanic Students Less than 40: 0% of LEP Students Less than 40: 25% of Students with Disabilities 3. NORM REFERENCED TEST: ITBS In 2013, the 5th grade's NPR in math was 46. The 6th grade's NPR in math was 28. In 2012, our 5th grade's NPR was 43 in Math. Our 6th grade's NPR in math was 57. 2011: In 5th grade, the student's NPR in math was 60. In 6th grade, the students' NPR in math was 50. In 2011, the norm referenced test changed from SAT10 to ITBS. SAT10 2010: In 5th grade math 71% of the general population scored at or above the 50th percentile. In 6th grade math 80% of the general population scored at or above the 50th percentile. 4. ATTENDANCE: 2012/13: Average Daily Attendance was 96% 2011/12: Average Daily Attendance was 95% 2010/11: Average Daily Attendance was 94% 5. TECHNOLOGY: Each classroom is equipped with an LCD projector, computer, and Smart board to assist teachers in integrating technology into the curriculum and promote the improvement of math skills. Students are equipped with MacBook Air Laptops to help with the technology inclusion. Teachers have access to Classroom Performance Systems, visual presenters (ELMO), virtual manipulatives, and Reflex, Gizmos, and BrainPop software configured to meet the needs of students in remediation and enrichment. 6. REMEDIATION Jedi and Skills Tutor were not used in 201213. Skills Tutor results for 2011/12: Intermediate Math Pretest 55%, Post test 72%; Math A Pretest 66%, Post test 76%; Math B Pretest 48%, Post test 55%; Math C Pretest 49%, Math C Post test results inconclusive. Skills Tutor results for 2010/11: Intermediate Math Pretest 34%/Posttest 62%; Math A Pretest 68%/Posttest 92%;
http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-2013/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip_district&username=5605001
2/25
8/26/2014
ACSIP
Math B Pretest 44%/Posttest 66%; Math C Pretest 31%/Posttest 46%. JEDI results for 2009/10: In order to pass the JEDI test, students must score at least 80%. On the math pretest, 49% of the 5th graders reached this mark and on the posttest, 52% reached this mark. The 6th grade had the same criteria of 80% to pass. On the pretest 55% passed and on the posttest 64% passed.
Goal
In 5th grade, students will place an emphasis on measurement multiple choice and open response items and in 6th grade, students will place an emphasis on data analysis and probability multiple choice and open response items.
5th GRADE: According to ESEA Accountability Report for 20122013, our current target groups will be students with disabilities, whites, and all students. These sub populations will meet either growth or Benchmark performance this year. 6th GRADE: According to ESEA Accountability Report for 20122013, our current target groups will be students with disabilities, whites, and all students. These sub populations will meet either growth or performance this year. Intervention: Align the mathematics curriculum to the Common Core State Standards and local assessments. Scientific Based Research: 1. Carter, Lisa. Five Big Ideas: Leading Total Instructional Alignment, Solution Tree, 2009. 2. Payne, Ruby K., A Framework for Understanding Poverty, aha!Process, Inc., 2003. 3. Jensen, Eric. BrainBased Learning, The Brain Store,Inc., 2003. 4. Jensen, Eric. Brain Compatible Strategies, The Brain Store, Inc., 2003 Actions
Person Responsible
Timeline
(5) Math teachers will monitor and B. Benson, evaluate their identified students' Principal progress through classroom performance assessments, TLI assessments, Gizmos, Reflex, etc., and modifications will be made as needed. Evaluation for 20132014: Teachers will analyze reports generated from Reflex, Gizmos, TLI, etc. and modify continuously throughout the year. Title I: Copier maintenance 1591/64320 $500; TLI Formative/Interim Assessments, 1591/63240, $2,788.75 Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Equity Action Type: Technology Inclusion Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
(3) Title I Component 3, RECRUITING D. Ballard, R. AND MAINTAINING HIGHLY QUALIFIED Byard TEACHERS. Math Specialist and Instructional Facilitator will MENTOR all math teachers and assist with curriculum alignment, formative and summative assessments, data collection/analysis, school improvement process, etc.
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
Resources
Source of Funds
Title I Computers Purchased $3288.75 Performance Services: Assessments ACTION BUDGET:
None
$3288.75
ACTION BUDGET:
$
ACTION BUDGET:
$
Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Professional Development Action Type: Program Evaluation Action Type: Title I Schoolwide (6) Teachers will meet to evaluate the effectiveness of programs, products, procedures, and/or objectives. They will participate in discussions about student performance on TLI, Springboard, state assessments, etc. Classroom instruction will be adjusted
B. Benson, R. Byard
http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-2013/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip_district&username=5605001
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
3/25
8/26/2014
ACSIP
based on the needs of students identified through data analysis. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Program Evaluation (9) EVALUATION: The Technology R. Byard Instructional Facilitator will use TLI and other resources to monitor horizontal and vertical curriculum alignment. Program Evaluation 20132014:The Tech/Instructional Facilitator will monitor individual teachers' lesson plans each week to ensure that all standards are being taught. Title I: Instructional Facilitator, Raven Byard (.25 FTE) salary 2294/61110 $11,194.95; benefits 2294/62110 $2,854.71 Action Type: Program Evaluation
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
(8)Teachers will work with students in B. Benson Enrichment activities to reinforce the Common Core State Standards. Teachers will use BrainPop and other sites to incorporate standards. Audio/visual materials, worksheets, books, and manipulatives will be incorporated to meet all learning styles. Title I: purchase supplies for Enrichment activities in math, 1591/66100, $1300; Resources and materials for Stepping Stones, 1591/66100 $2400; BrainPop license, 1591/66500, $375.00. NSLA: Math and Science supplies 2281/66100, $500. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
Title 1 and NSLA Funds will be David available to purchase materials Rutledge, Asst. (books, software, classroom Superintendent magazines), supplies,(postit notes, bookshelves, teacher's guides, reading baskets, etc...) and equipment, including technology (calculators, probes, multimedia projectors, computers) to be used in math, literacy, and science tools to improve instruction and student learning in collaboration with other actions described in the ACSIP plan. This budget will be used to purchase replacement or additional technology and supplies as needed. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Equity Action Type: Technology Inclusion
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
After a successful pilot of The Learning Institute's data services, each campus will utilize TLI's database and assessments (formative and summative) to guide instruction, construct meaningful teaching practices and track the academic growth of every student. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Technology Inclusion
Raven Byard, Deanna Ballard, Jennifer Cooper
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
In order to effectively transition to teaching CCSS, teachers will use the
Deanna Ballard, Math
Start: 07/01/2013
http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-2013/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip_district&username=5605001
Computers
Title I Employee $11194.95 Salaries: Title I Employee Benefits:
$2854.71
ACTION $14049.66 BUDGET:
Teachers
Title I Materials & $4075.00 Supplies: NSLA (State 281) Materials & Supplies:
District Staff Teaching Aids
$500.00
ACTION BUDGET:
$4575
Title I Materials & Supplies:
$9628.45
NSLA (State 281) Materials & Supplies:
$2500.00
ACTION $12128.45 BUDGET:
Teachers
Computers Teachers
ACTION BUDGET:
$
ACTION BUDGET:
$ 4/25
8/26/2014
ACSIP
College Board's SpringBoard Specialist instructional system to engage students. This system uses rigor and relevance to engage students in higher order thinking and problem solving skills. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Technology Inclusion
End: 06/30/2014
After a successful pilot of The Learning Institute's data services, each campus will utilize TLI's database and assessment (formative and summative) to guide instruction, construct meaningful teaching practices and track the academic growth of every student. TLI Services: Supplies for Instructional Facilitator office $575 Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Technology Inclusion Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Technology Inclusion
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
Raven Byard, Deanna Ballard, Jennifer Cooper
Computers Teachers
NSLA (State281) Materials $575.00 & Supplies:
ACTION BUDGET:
Total Budget:
$575
$34616.86
Intervention: Continue standardsbased math programs Stepping Stones Math and Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) in grade 5 and CCCS standardsbased program Springboard Math in grade 6. Scientific Based Research: 1. EdThoughts: McRel, edited by John Sutton and Alice Krueger, What We Know About Teaching Mathematics, Teaching and Learning. p. 6171, Aurora, CO, 2002. 2. Rothman, Robert., A Common Core of Readiness. Educational Leadership. April 2012. Volume 69. Number 7 3) Fuson, K. C., Carroll, W., & Drueck, J. 2000). Achievement results for second and third graders using the Standardsbased curriculum Everyday Mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(3), 277–295. 4) Waite, R. D. (2000). A study of the effects of Everyday Mathematics on student achievement of third, fourth , and fifthgrade students in a large North Texas Urban School District. Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI. Actions
Person Timeline Responsible
(3A) Title I Component 3, INSTRUCTION FROM B. Benson HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS: All students, including special education students and economically disadvantaged students, will participate in student learning experiences and assessments in the standardsbased math programs (CGI and Springboard). Teachers will use resources such as Classroom Performance System, Springboard, CGI and/or other instructional resources. Implementation will be monitored by the leadership team through focus walks and classroom walkthroughs.Title I: Books for Springboard, 1591/66100; $2500; Springboard supplies,1591/66100, $1000.00; CGI Training, 2210/63310, $3750; CGI Subs, $472.50 2210/63310 Action Type: Equity Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
(4B) Student achievement of standards will be Bobby measured with classroom assessments and the Benson, Augmented Benchmark Exam. These assessments, Principal based on pacing guides/curriculum maps, are aligned with standards taught during the unit. Teachers will use TLI to develop assessments and to disaggregate data. Results will be used to develop individual learning plans and small group instruction with an emphasis on: 5th grade measurement multiple choice and open response and 6th grade data analysis multiple choice and open response.
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-2013/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip_district&username=5605001
Resources Source of Funds Title I Purchased $4222.50 Services: Title I Materials $3500.00 & Supplies: ACTION BUDGET:
$7722.5
Title I Purchased $1350.00 Services: Title I Materials $1100.00 & Supplies: Title I Employee $2500.00 Salaries: 5/25
8/26/2014
ACSIP
The results of the Augmented Benchmark Exam will be used to determine the number of students proficient in math. TIS will conduct Camp Wildcat after school tutoring to extend learning time. Activities will focus on math and literacy tutoring. All students will be invited to participate; however, the target group will be students who are not proficient. Activities will take place four hours a week for six weeks. Employees working beyond their contracted hours will be paid at a standardized district rate of $25.00 per hour plus benefits. Title I: salary for staff 1511/61110 $2500; benefits for after school staff 1511/62110 $550.00; supplies for after school activities 1511/66100 $1100.00; Transportation 2790/68999 $1350. Program Evaluation (Act 807) The percent of students participating in Camp Wildcat who score proficient/advanced on the benchmark exam will be reported in the 20132014 plan. Camp Wildcat students who were proficient/advanced 2013: 68% Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Professional Development Action Type: Technology Inclusion Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
Title I Employee Benefits: ACTION BUDGET:
$550.00
$5500
(5B) Title I Component 10, COORDINATION OF D. Carl, FUNDS: Use reflection/assignment logs/character Counselor education journals to keep parents and school connected. Calendar will be distributed to parents at the beginning of the year. Special events including holidays, testing, P/T Conferences will be highlighted. Title I: Purchase take home folders 2170/66100, $239.25. Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
(2A) Title I Components 2/3/4, SCHOOLWIDE REFORM, INSTRUCTION FROM HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS, PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: All teachers will be highly qualified and will continue conceptual, standardsbased math curriculum (Stepping Stones and Springboard). All teachers, including special education teachers, will participate in workshops to learn how to use standardsbased math programs. They will collaborate with the math lead teacher and math specialist to ensure rituals and routines are established in each classroom. The workshop model for math block will be followed using an opening, work time and closing. Classroom walk throughs and focus walks will be used to monitor implementation.
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
ACTION BUDGET: $
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
ACTION BUDGET: $
D. Ballard
Title I Materials & $239.25 Supplies:
ACTION BUDGET:
$239.25
Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Professional Development Action Type: Title I Schoolwide (2B) Title I Component 2/5, SCHOOLWIDE REFORM D. Ballard, STRATEGIES AND RECRUITING AND MAINTAINING R. Byard HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS: Math specialist will MENTOR math teachers, discuss the use of manipulatives, model instruction of math concepts, etc. Teachers will learn how to integrate technology into the curriculum. Laptops and virtual manipulatives will be used for instruction in geometry. Smart boards, LCD projectors and document cameras will also be used. The math team will meet to collaborate, confirm and continue the implementation of best practices. Members will discuss best practices for instruction, pacing, student work, progress toward proficiency,TLI tests, etc. and http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-2013/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip_district&username=5605001
6/25
8/26/2014
ACSIP
review and analyze student work to monitor math progress. An instructional emphasis will be placed on: 5th grade measurement open measurement response and multiple choice items; 6th grade data analysis and probability multiple choice and open response items. Core assignments may be used for specific skill interventions. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Professional Development Action Type: Title I Schoolwide (6) EVALUATION OF PROGRAM (ACT 807) An R. Byard, evaluation of the overall plan will be conducted each ACSIP year to ensure the plan is effective in improving the performance of students on the Benchmark exam. Results of the evaluation will be used to develop/revise the plan for the upcoming year. The math team will meet to discuss the actions contained in their priority. The faculty will then meet to discuss the team's recommendations and participate in a schoolwide evaluation. ACSIP plans will be reviewed by nonfaculty members (parents/community members) as well. The plan is posted on the school website for review by all stakeholders. Input will be included from these individuals. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Program Evaluation
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
Total Budget:
ACTION BUDGET: $
$13461.75
Intervention: Integrate technology into the mathematics curriculum. Scientific Based Research: EdThoughts: What we Know about Mathematics Teaching and Learning, p. 6171, McRel, edited by John Sutton and Alice Krueger, Aurora, CO 2002. Strangman, N., & Hall, T.,(2003). Text transformations. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Patton & Jeremy Roschelle. Why the Best Math Curriculum Won’t Be a Textbook. Education Week, September 2012. Almekhlafi, A., & Almeqdadi, F. (2010). Teachers' Perceptions of Technology Integration in the United Arab Emirates School Classrooms. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 165175. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Chen, C. (2008). Why Do Teachers Not Practice What They Believe Regarding Technology Integration?. Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 6575. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Convery, A. (2009). The pedagogy of the impressed: how teachers become victims of technological vision. Teachers & Teaching, 15(1), 2541. doi:10.1080/13540600802661303. Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher Pedagogical Beliefs: The Final Frontier in Our Quest for Technology Integration?. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(4), 2539. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Glazer, E., Hannafin, M., Polly, D., & Rich, P. (2009). Factors and Interactions Influencing Technology Integration During Situated Professional Development in an Elementary School. Computers in the Schools, 26(1), 2139. doi:10.1080/07380560802688257. Gray, L., Thomas, N., and Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ Use of Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools: 2009 (NCES 2010040). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Hixon, E., & Buckenmeyer, J. (2009). Revisiting Technology Integration in Schools: Implications for Professional Development. Computers in the Schools, 26(2), 130146. doi:10.1080/07380560902906070. Koksal, M., & Yaman, S. (2009). AN Analysis of Turkish Prospective Teachers' s Perceptions about T echnology in Eeducation. RELIEVE – eJournal of Educational Research, Assessment and Evaluation, 15(2), 19. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Kumar, N., Rose, R., & D'Silva, J. (2008). Teachers' Readiness to Use Technology in the Classroom: An Empirical Study. European Journal of Scientific Research, 21(4), 603616. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Liu, Y., & Szabo, Z. (2009). Teachers' attitudes toward technology integration in schools: a fouryear study. Teachers & Teaching, 15(1), 523. doi:10.1080/13540600802661295. Niederhauser, D., & Perkmen, S. (2008). Validation of the Intrapersonal Technology Integration Scale: Assessing the Influence of Intrapersonal Factors that Influence Technology Integration. Computers in the Schools, 25(1/2), 98111. doi:10.1080/07380560802157956. Palak, D., & Walls, R. (2009). Teachers' Beliefs and Technology Practices: A Mixedmethods Approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 417441. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Ruiling, L., & Overbaugh, R. (2009). School Environment and Technology Implementation in K12 Classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 26(2), 89106. doi:10.1080/07380560902906096. Wood, E., Mueller, J., Willoughby, T., Specht, J., & Deyoung, T. (2005). Teachers' Perceptions: barriers and supports to using technology in the classroom. Education, Communication & Information, 5(2), 183206. doi:10.1080/14636310500186214. http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-2013/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip_district&username=5605001
7/25
8/26/2014
ACSIP
Actions
Person Timeline Responsible
(1) Use technology (laptops, iPads, Bobby computers, virtual manipulatives, LCD Benson, projectors, ELMOS, Smart boards, Principal wireless slates, Gizmo/Reflex programs, etc.) to improve students' skills in mathematics. Technology will be used for instruction, student learning activities, and assessment. Reflex software is individualized to specific student skill levels. Technology allows immediate feedback for selfmonitoring as students use problem solving skills. Gizmo site license $1680 1591/67350; Reflex site license 1591/67350 $997.50. Action Type: Equity Action Type: Technology Inclusion
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
(2) Staff participated in PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT to integrate technology across the curriculum and will continue (laptops, iPads, CPS, Smart boards, Reflex, ELMOS, Gizmo software) professional development in 201314. Students will use calculators in math and science to meet Common Core State Standards. Action Type: Equity Action Type: Professional Development Action Type: Technology Inclusion
Bobby Benson, Principal
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
(4)EVALUATION: An EVALUATION of the Bobby overall plan will be conducted each year Benson, to ensure we are working effectively to Principal improve the performance of students in math on the Augmented Benchmark Exam. Student achievement of standards will be measured through classroom assessments, TLI assessments and the Benchmark Exam. Results of these assessments will be used to determine student proficiency in meeting standards and to develop individual learning plans and small group instruction with an emphasis on measurement multiple choice and open response questions in 5th grade, and data analysis and probability multiple choice items and open response items in 6th. New technology programs were used in 2012 2013 (Gizmo/Reflex). Students enrolled in Reflex showed a schoolwide average gain of 2.5 facts per week. Reflex and Gizmos will continue to be used in the 20132014 school year. Classroom walk throughs will be used to determine implementation of these programs.
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
Resources Computers Teachers
Source of Funds Title I Purchased $2677.50 Services: ACTION BUDGET:
Computers Teachers
$2677.5
ACTION BUDGET: $
ACTION BUDGET: $
Action Type: Program Evaluation The Trumann School District will support David technology integration in the classrooms Rutledge, by purchasing supplemental instructional Asst Supt software and technology for 21st Century Learning/New Tech Training/CCSS/ and Project and Problembased Learning activities. In an effort to increase the instructional day for students, Trumann School District will support mobile computing technologies that will allow
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-2013/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip_district&username=5605001
Administrative Staff Computers Teachers
NSLA (State 281) Capital Outlay:
$4936.17
NSLA (State 281) $80035.00 Materials 8/25
8/26/2014
ACSIP
students to have access to computer based instructional activities and will provide mobile computing devices to our students with the goal of reaching a one to one computer ratio with ubiquitous computing across our district. Mobile computing devices and peripherals provide an integral tool for student learning. Funds may be used to purchase teacher computers, classroom computers and technology, software, classroom response systems, projection equipment, smart boards, and other peripheral devices to improve classroom teaching, instruction, and technology integration. NSLA: 1130/66105, $55,000; materials and supplies, 1130/66100, $25,035; Technology Peripherals, 1130/67340, $4,936.17. Action Type: Equity Action Type: Technology Inclusion
& Supplies: ACTION $84971.17 BUDGET:
Professional development in the use of David computer aided instructional technology; Rutledge, use of computeraided software Asst Supt programs, instructional technology, and technology integration will be provided to facilitate effective integration into the curriculum. Differentiated levels of professional development will be provided to teachers to ensure teachers receive relevant technology integration training at their appropriate level of technological proficiency. Training will include support of the use of technology within project/problembased learning, Web 2.0 tools, and how to develop lesson plans using technological tools to improve student engagement and learning. Action Type: Professional Development Action Type: Technology Inclusion
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
Administrative ACTION BUDGET: $ Staff Computers Teachers
Total Budget:
$87648.67
Intervention: Continue developed plan for implementing Common Core State Standards. Scientific Based Research: 1.King, Jacqueline E. (2011) American Council on Education. Implementing the Common Core State Standards: An Action Agenda for Higher Education. 2.Hess, Karin K. (2010) Learning Progressions Frameworks Designed for Use with the Common Core State Standards. 3.National Research Council (2009) Mathematics Learning in Early Childhood. Actions
Person Responsible
Timeline
(1)PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: All teachers B. Benson, at TIS will attend professional development Principal meetings during and after school to be updated on the implementation of the common core state standards. Math and Literacy teachers will attend summer workshops to prepare for CCSS.
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
(2)EVALUATION: Administrators will monitor the full implementation of CCSS in the 2013 2014 school year through classroom walk throughs and teacher lesson plans in 2013 2014.
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
B. Benson, Principal
Title 1 Funds will be made available to suppoort David http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-2013/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip_district&username=5605001
Resources
Source of Funds ACTION $ BUDGET:
ACTION $ BUDGET:
Start: 9/25
8/26/2014
ACSIP
districtwide professional development Rutledge, Asst. 07/01/2013 Superintendent End: activities. The district will purchase staff 06/30/2014 development through Crowley's Ridge Educational Cooperative and other competent professional development providers with Title 1 and state professional development funds. Funds will be put aside to help defer the cost connected with ensuring that all staff meet the state definition of highly qualified. Action Type: Professional Development
Administrative ACTION $ Staff BUDGET: District Staff Teachers
Total Budget:
Priority 2:
$0
201314 Target areas for 5th and 6th grade in Literacy are Reading Content Passage and Practical Passages and Writing Multiple Choice, Content and Style Domain. 1. 5th Grade Benchmark Exam: 2013# Tested & Percent of Students scoring Proficient/Advanced: 129 Students: 67% of Combined Students 106 Students: 68% of Caucasian Students 104 Students: 67% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students Less than 40: 62% of African American Students Less than 40: 72% of Hispanic Students Less than 40: 67% of LEP Students Less than 40: 33% of Students with Disabilities 2012# Tested & Percent of Students scoring Proficient/Advanced: 120 Students: 77% of Combined Students 102 Students: 80% of Caucasian Students 99 Students: 71% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students Less than 40: 60% of African American Students Less than 40: 75% of Hispanic Students Less than 40: 50% of LEP Students Less than 40: 12% of Students with Disabilities 2011# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 122 Students: 73% of Combined Students 108 Students: 76% of Caucasian Students 87 Students: 65% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students Less than 40: 33% of African American Students Less than 40: 67% of Hispanic Students Less than 40: 0% of LEP Students Less than 40: 18% of Students with Disabilities 2. 6th GRADE BENCHMARK EXAM: 2013# Tested & Percent of Students scoring Proficient/Advanced: 115 Students: 61% of Combined Students 98 Students: 66% of Caucasian Students 88 Students: 55% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students Less than 40: 30% of African American Students Less than 40: 29% of Hispanic Students Less than 40: 0% of LEP Students Less than 40: 0% of Students with Disabilities 2012 # Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 123 Students: 68% of Combined Students 106 Students: 77% of Caucasian Students 89 Students: 63% of Econ Disadvantaged Students Less than 40: 22% of African American Students Less than 40:503% of Hispanic Students Less than 40: 0% of LEP Students Less than 40: 14% of Students with Disabilities 2011# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 116 Students: 57% of Combined Students 100 Students: 59% of Caucasian Students
http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-2013/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip_district&username=5605001
10/25
8/26/2014
ACSIP
Supporting Data:
101 Students: 54% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students Less than 40: 44% of African American Students Less than 40: 43% of Hispanic Students Less than 40: 0% of LEP Students Less than 40: 15% of Students with Disabilities 3. NORM REFERENCED TESTS: ITBS: 2013: The NPR for 5th grade students in reading was 32 and 51 in language. The NPR for teh 6th grade students in reading was 34 and 54 in language. 2012: The NPR for 5th grade students in reading was 35 and 35 in language. The NPR for the 6th grade students in reading was 42 and 43 in language. 2011: In 5th grade, the NPR was 38 in reading and 50 in language. In 6th grade, the NPR was 39 n reading and 44 in language. In 2011, the SAT10 was replaced by the ITBS. SAT10: 2010: In 5th grade, 61% of the general population scored at/above the 50th percentile in reading comprehension and 43% scored at/above the 50th percentile in language. In 6th grade, 52% of the general population scored at/above the 50th percentile in reading comprehension and 45% scored at/above the 50th percentile in language. 4. ATTENDANCE: 2012/2013: Average Daily Attendance was 96%. 2011/2012: Average Daily Attendance was 95%. 2010/2011: Average Daily Attendance was 94% 5. LIBRARY MEDIA CENTER: 20122013: The library contained 8968 books with an average copyright of 1996. Of those 3,101 were nonfiction and 5,867 were fiction. 20112012: The library contained 8625 books with an average copyright of 1998. Of those, 2927 were nonfiction and 4794 were fiction. Since 2010, the library media center has had 12 computers to assist students and faculty in locating books and in research. A sympodium housing a computer and LCD projector to accomodate meetings, classes, and parent involvement activities. The LMC is a valuable resource for literacy and technology and will continue to be updated to serve students, faculty, and the community as an avenue to be successful in a technologically developed society. 20102011: The library contained 7338 books with an average copyright of 1995. Of those, 2877 are nonfiction and 4461 are fiction with an average copyright of 1995. 6. STAR READER: Star Reader will not be utilized during the 20122013 school year. 2011/12 STAR Reader testing indicated 5th grade students improved from 3.8 to 4.8 GE and 6th grade students improved from 5.6 to 6.0 GE. 2010/11 STAR Reader testing indicated 5th grade students improved from 4.3 to 5.3 GE and 6th grade students improved from 5.4 to 5.8 GE. 2009/10 STAR Reader testing indicated 5th grade students improved from 4.8 to 5.6 GE and 6th grade students improved from 5.8 to 6.2 GE. 7. REMEDIATION: Skills Tutor was not utilized during the 20122013 school year. Skills Tutor results for 2011 2012: Language Arts Pretest 52%/Post test 62%, Reading Comprehension Pretest 47%/Post test 64%. JEDI (Skills Tutor) results for 201011: Language Arts Pretest 60%/Posttest 77%, Reading Comprehension Pretest 41%/Posttest 49%. JEDI results for 200910: Reading pretest: 5th grade 46% and 6th grade 46%. Reading posttest: 5th grade 52% and 6th grade 54%. Language Arts pretest: 5th grade 40% and 6th grade 46%. Language Arts posttest: 5th grade 49% and 6th grade 52%.
Goal
Students will improve in reading practical, literacy writing, and writing multiple choice.
In 2013, according to the ESEA Accountability Report, no sub populations in 5th and 6th grade met Benchmark performance: AfricanAmerican sub pop made growth. Target groups will all sub populations to meet growth and performance. Intervention: Align Language Arts Curriculum to the Common Core State Standards, local standards and state and local assessments. Scientific Based Research: 1. Carter, Lisa. Five Big Ideas: Leading Total Instructional Alignment, Solution Tree, 2009. 2. Carter, L., Total Instructional Alignment. Solution Tree Press, 2007. 3.Adams, M. J. (2009). The challenge of advanced texts: The interdependence of reading and learning. In E. H. Hiebert(Ed.), Reading more, reading better: Are American students reading enough of the right stuff? (pp. 163– 189). New York, NY: Guilford. http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-2013/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip_district&username=5605001
11/25
8/26/2014
ACSIP
Actions (2) Title I Component 3, RECRUITING AND MAINTAINING HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS: New teachers will participate in an orientation to learn how to maintain an individual curriculum map and use the edmodo website to submit lesson plans each week. Technology Instructional facilitator will mentor all teachers.
Person Timeline Responsible
Resources
Source of Funds
B. Benson, R. Byard
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
ACTION BUDGET:
$
(3) Each teacher will maintain an accurate B. Benson, lesson plans for each subject taught. Plans Principal will be updated weekly to reflect content, skills and assessments including open response items and CCSS. An emphasis will be placed on content and style writing domains. Lessons will be submitted through the edmodo website. Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Technology Inclusion Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
Computers ACTION BUDGET: Teachers
$
Action Type: Professional Development Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
(7) Library Media Specialist will collaborate with teachers to integrate technology and Language Arts across the curriculum. LMS will attend librarymedia workshops and local workshops.Library Media Specialist workshops: mileage/registration/lodging, etc. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Professional Development
C. Hamilton Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
(5) Title I Component 3, RECRUITING AND J. Cooper, MAINTAINING HIGHLY QUALIFIED R. Byard TEACHERS: Instructional facilitator and Literacy Specialist will MENTOR literacy teachers and assist with curriculum alignment, formative and summative assessment, etc. Evaluation 201314: Individual meetings will take place with teachers, literacy specialist and instructional facilitator, to discuss ways to use various assessments to guide instruction and to make sure plans are aligned and updated.
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
None
ACTION BUDGET:
$
ACTION BUDGET:
$
Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Program Evaluation Action Type: Title I Schoolwide (11) Use Destiny library automation system and NetTrekker academic search engine as a teaching resource. This technology will be used by students for instruction, research, reports, etc., to enhance literacy instruction. Destiny 2220/66510, $668.51 2220/66100. Library supplies, 2220/66100 $450. Action Type: Technology Inclusion
C. Hamilton, Library Media Specialist
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
Title I Computers Materials & $1118.51 School Supplies: Library Teachers ACTION $1118.51 BUDGET:
9) EVALUATION: The Technology/Instructional Facilitator will use TLI data and maps as well as Springboard curriculum resources to identify missing standards, both horizontally and vertically. Individual grade maps will contain the
B. Benson, Principal
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
Title I Computers Purchased $2788.75 District Services: Staff Title I Teachers Employee $11194.95
http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-2013/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip_district&username=5605001
12/25
8/26/2014
ACSIP
horizontal alignment and grade level master maps will show the vertical alignment. Program Evaluation 201314:The Tech/Instructional Facilitator will monitor individual teachers' lesson plans each week to ensure that all standards were being taught. Title I: Instructional Facilitator, Raven Byard (.25 FTE) salary 2294/61110 $11,194.95; benefits 2294/62110 $2,854.71; TLI Formative/Interim Assessments, 1591/63240, $2,788.75 Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Technology Inclusion In order to effectively transition to teaching CCSS, teachers will use the College Board's SpringBoard instructional system and other resources to engage students. These systems use rigor and relevance to engage students in higher order thinking and problem solving skills. Classroom walkthroughs will be preformed to monitor CCSS implementation. Title I: Springboard and other Supplies, 1591/66100, $2786.30 Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Technology Inclusion
Salaries: Title I Employee Benefits: ACTION BUDGET:
Jennifer Cooper, Literacy Specialist
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
$2854.71
$16838.41
Title I Computers Materials & $2786.30 Teachers Supplies: ACTION BUDGET:
$2786.3
Total Budget: $20743.22
Intervention: Teachers will continue to implement The Arkansas Comprehensive Literacy Approach in accordance with the CCSS to enhance instruction with emphasis on monitoring (1)comprehension, (2)writing, (3)word study/spelling, (4)fluency and (5)vocabulary while integrating technology into the classroom. Scientific Based Research: City, E., Elmore, R., Fiarman, S., & Teitel, L. Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improve teaching and learning. Boston: Harvard. 2002. SpringBoard Curriculum Audit. Phi Kappa Delta Presentation, August 30, 2010. 9. Dorn, L., and Scoffos
ACSIP
District Menu Page | Work On Your ACSIP | Reports | Federal/State Budgets | School Completion Status | FAQ | Feedback | Logout
20132014 ARCHIVE School Plan Print Version
TRUMANN INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL 56 Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Plan 20132014
Trumann Intermediate School will provide an equitable quality education for all students in a safe environment, which will assist students in the attainment of their ultimate potential and success in a technological society. Grade Span: 56
Title I: Title I Schoolwide
School Improvement:
Table of Contents Priority 1: MATHEMATICS Goal: In 5th grade, students will place an emphasis on measurement multiple choice and open response items and in 6th grade, students will place an emphasis on data analysis and probability multiple choice and open response items. Priority 2: LITERACY Goal: Students will improve in reading practical, literacy writing, and writing multiple choice. Priority 3: STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY AND WELLNESS Goal: Students will make responsible decisions, behave appropriately and attend school regularly. Students will make decisions to improve personal wellness. The District will provide support for students in making healthy lifestyle choices such as with the Healthy School Lunch Initiative to aid in decreasing the average BMI on routine annual student screening and increasing collaboration between all segments of the school community in support of positive lifestyle choices.
Priority 1:
Students will improve their mathematical skills in all strands with an emphasis on open response items.
1. CURRENT STATUS: Needs Improvement In 1011 the Economically Disadvantaged subpopulation did not meet AYP in math, resulting in Alert status. In 1112, students with disabilities, whites, and all students sub populations did not meet either growth or performance. However, the school is still considered on Achieving status. In 1213, 5th and 6th grades were placed on Needs Improvement status. 5th GRADE ARKANSAS BENCHMARK EXAM: 2013 # Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 129 Students: 56% of Combined Students 106 Students: 60%of Caucasian Students 104 Students: 53% of Econ Disadvantaged Students Less than 40: 32% of African American Students Less than 40: 57% of Hispanic Students Less than 40: 0% of LEP Students 2012# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 120 Students: 71% of Combined Students http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-2013/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip_district&username=5605001
1/25
8/26/2014
ACSIP
102Students: 72% of Caucasian Students 81 Students: 65% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students Less than 40: 70% of African American Students Less than 40: 51% of Hispanic Students Less than 40: 50% of LEP Students Less than 40: 16% of Students with Disabilities 2011# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 122 Students: 78% of Combined Students 108 Students: 83% of Caucasian Students 87 Students: 74% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students Less than 40: 33% of African American Students Less than 40: 100% of Hispanic Students Less than 40: 0% of LEP Students Less than 40: 30% of Students with Disabilities
Supporting Data:
2. 6th GRADE ARKANSAS BENCHMARK EXAM: 2013 # Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 115 Students: 60% of Combined Students 98 Students: 62%of Caucasian Students 88 Students: 58% of Econ Disadvantaged Students Less than 40: 60% of African American Students Less than 40: 43% of Hispanic Students Less than 40: 0% of LEP Students 2012 # Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 123 Students: 76% of Combined Students 106 Students: 79%of Caucasian Students 89 Students: 76% of Econ Disadvantaged Students Less than 40: 55% of African American Students Less than 40: 50% of Hispanic Students Less than 40: 0% of LEP Students Less than 40: 15% of Students with Disabilities 2011# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficent/Advanced 116 Students: 66% of Combined Students 100 Students: 66% of Caucasian Students 101 Students: 62% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students Less than 40: 55% of African American Students Less than 40: 72% of Hispanic Students Less than 40: 0% of LEP Students Less than 40: 25% of Students with Disabilities 3. NORM REFERENCED TEST: ITBS In 2013, the 5th grade's NPR in math was 46. The 6th grade's NPR in math was 28. In 2012, our 5th grade's NPR was 43 in Math. Our 6th grade's NPR in math was 57. 2011: In 5th grade, the student's NPR in math was 60. In 6th grade, the students' NPR in math was 50. In 2011, the norm referenced test changed from SAT10 to ITBS. SAT10 2010: In 5th grade math 71% of the general population scored at or above the 50th percentile. In 6th grade math 80% of the general population scored at or above the 50th percentile. 4. ATTENDANCE: 2012/13: Average Daily Attendance was 96% 2011/12: Average Daily Attendance was 95% 2010/11: Average Daily Attendance was 94% 5. TECHNOLOGY: Each classroom is equipped with an LCD projector, computer, and Smart board to assist teachers in integrating technology into the curriculum and promote the improvement of math skills. Students are equipped with MacBook Air Laptops to help with the technology inclusion. Teachers have access to Classroom Performance Systems, visual presenters (ELMO), virtual manipulatives, and Reflex, Gizmos, and BrainPop software configured to meet the needs of students in remediation and enrichment. 6. REMEDIATION Jedi and Skills Tutor were not used in 201213. Skills Tutor results for 2011/12: Intermediate Math Pretest 55%, Post test 72%; Math A Pretest 66%, Post test 76%; Math B Pretest 48%, Post test 55%; Math C Pretest 49%, Math C Post test results inconclusive. Skills Tutor results for 2010/11: Intermediate Math Pretest 34%/Posttest 62%; Math A Pretest 68%/Posttest 92%;
http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-2013/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip_district&username=5605001
2/25
8/26/2014
ACSIP
Math B Pretest 44%/Posttest 66%; Math C Pretest 31%/Posttest 46%. JEDI results for 2009/10: In order to pass the JEDI test, students must score at least 80%. On the math pretest, 49% of the 5th graders reached this mark and on the posttest, 52% reached this mark. The 6th grade had the same criteria of 80% to pass. On the pretest 55% passed and on the posttest 64% passed.
Goal
In 5th grade, students will place an emphasis on measurement multiple choice and open response items and in 6th grade, students will place an emphasis on data analysis and probability multiple choice and open response items.
5th GRADE: According to ESEA Accountability Report for 20122013, our current target groups will be students with disabilities, whites, and all students. These sub populations will meet either growth or Benchmark performance this year. 6th GRADE: According to ESEA Accountability Report for 20122013, our current target groups will be students with disabilities, whites, and all students. These sub populations will meet either growth or performance this year. Intervention: Align the mathematics curriculum to the Common Core State Standards and local assessments. Scientific Based Research: 1. Carter, Lisa. Five Big Ideas: Leading Total Instructional Alignment, Solution Tree, 2009. 2. Payne, Ruby K., A Framework for Understanding Poverty, aha!Process, Inc., 2003. 3. Jensen, Eric. BrainBased Learning, The Brain Store,Inc., 2003. 4. Jensen, Eric. Brain Compatible Strategies, The Brain Store, Inc., 2003 Actions
Person Responsible
Timeline
(5) Math teachers will monitor and B. Benson, evaluate their identified students' Principal progress through classroom performance assessments, TLI assessments, Gizmos, Reflex, etc., and modifications will be made as needed. Evaluation for 20132014: Teachers will analyze reports generated from Reflex, Gizmos, TLI, etc. and modify continuously throughout the year. Title I: Copier maintenance 1591/64320 $500; TLI Formative/Interim Assessments, 1591/63240, $2,788.75 Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Equity Action Type: Technology Inclusion Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
(3) Title I Component 3, RECRUITING D. Ballard, R. AND MAINTAINING HIGHLY QUALIFIED Byard TEACHERS. Math Specialist and Instructional Facilitator will MENTOR all math teachers and assist with curriculum alignment, formative and summative assessments, data collection/analysis, school improvement process, etc.
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
Resources
Source of Funds
Title I Computers Purchased $3288.75 Performance Services: Assessments ACTION BUDGET:
None
$3288.75
ACTION BUDGET:
$
ACTION BUDGET:
$
Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Professional Development Action Type: Program Evaluation Action Type: Title I Schoolwide (6) Teachers will meet to evaluate the effectiveness of programs, products, procedures, and/or objectives. They will participate in discussions about student performance on TLI, Springboard, state assessments, etc. Classroom instruction will be adjusted
B. Benson, R. Byard
http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-2013/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip_district&username=5605001
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
3/25
8/26/2014
ACSIP
based on the needs of students identified through data analysis. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Program Evaluation (9) EVALUATION: The Technology R. Byard Instructional Facilitator will use TLI and other resources to monitor horizontal and vertical curriculum alignment. Program Evaluation 20132014:The Tech/Instructional Facilitator will monitor individual teachers' lesson plans each week to ensure that all standards are being taught. Title I: Instructional Facilitator, Raven Byard (.25 FTE) salary 2294/61110 $11,194.95; benefits 2294/62110 $2,854.71 Action Type: Program Evaluation
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
(8)Teachers will work with students in B. Benson Enrichment activities to reinforce the Common Core State Standards. Teachers will use BrainPop and other sites to incorporate standards. Audio/visual materials, worksheets, books, and manipulatives will be incorporated to meet all learning styles. Title I: purchase supplies for Enrichment activities in math, 1591/66100, $1300; Resources and materials for Stepping Stones, 1591/66100 $2400; BrainPop license, 1591/66500, $375.00. NSLA: Math and Science supplies 2281/66100, $500. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
Title 1 and NSLA Funds will be David available to purchase materials Rutledge, Asst. (books, software, classroom Superintendent magazines), supplies,(postit notes, bookshelves, teacher's guides, reading baskets, etc...) and equipment, including technology (calculators, probes, multimedia projectors, computers) to be used in math, literacy, and science tools to improve instruction and student learning in collaboration with other actions described in the ACSIP plan. This budget will be used to purchase replacement or additional technology and supplies as needed. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Equity Action Type: Technology Inclusion
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
After a successful pilot of The Learning Institute's data services, each campus will utilize TLI's database and assessments (formative and summative) to guide instruction, construct meaningful teaching practices and track the academic growth of every student. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Technology Inclusion
Raven Byard, Deanna Ballard, Jennifer Cooper
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
In order to effectively transition to teaching CCSS, teachers will use the
Deanna Ballard, Math
Start: 07/01/2013
http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-2013/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip_district&username=5605001
Computers
Title I Employee $11194.95 Salaries: Title I Employee Benefits:
$2854.71
ACTION $14049.66 BUDGET:
Teachers
Title I Materials & $4075.00 Supplies: NSLA (State 281) Materials & Supplies:
District Staff Teaching Aids
$500.00
ACTION BUDGET:
$4575
Title I Materials & Supplies:
$9628.45
NSLA (State 281) Materials & Supplies:
$2500.00
ACTION $12128.45 BUDGET:
Teachers
Computers Teachers
ACTION BUDGET:
$
ACTION BUDGET:
$ 4/25
8/26/2014
ACSIP
College Board's SpringBoard Specialist instructional system to engage students. This system uses rigor and relevance to engage students in higher order thinking and problem solving skills. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Technology Inclusion
End: 06/30/2014
After a successful pilot of The Learning Institute's data services, each campus will utilize TLI's database and assessment (formative and summative) to guide instruction, construct meaningful teaching practices and track the academic growth of every student. TLI Services: Supplies for Instructional Facilitator office $575 Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Technology Inclusion Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Technology Inclusion
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
Raven Byard, Deanna Ballard, Jennifer Cooper
Computers Teachers
NSLA (State281) Materials $575.00 & Supplies:
ACTION BUDGET:
Total Budget:
$575
$34616.86
Intervention: Continue standardsbased math programs Stepping Stones Math and Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) in grade 5 and CCCS standardsbased program Springboard Math in grade 6. Scientific Based Research: 1. EdThoughts: McRel, edited by John Sutton and Alice Krueger, What We Know About Teaching Mathematics, Teaching and Learning. p. 6171, Aurora, CO, 2002. 2. Rothman, Robert., A Common Core of Readiness. Educational Leadership. April 2012. Volume 69. Number 7 3) Fuson, K. C., Carroll, W., & Drueck, J. 2000). Achievement results for second and third graders using the Standardsbased curriculum Everyday Mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(3), 277–295. 4) Waite, R. D. (2000). A study of the effects of Everyday Mathematics on student achievement of third, fourth , and fifthgrade students in a large North Texas Urban School District. Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI. Actions
Person Timeline Responsible
(3A) Title I Component 3, INSTRUCTION FROM B. Benson HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS: All students, including special education students and economically disadvantaged students, will participate in student learning experiences and assessments in the standardsbased math programs (CGI and Springboard). Teachers will use resources such as Classroom Performance System, Springboard, CGI and/or other instructional resources. Implementation will be monitored by the leadership team through focus walks and classroom walkthroughs.Title I: Books for Springboard, 1591/66100; $2500; Springboard supplies,1591/66100, $1000.00; CGI Training, 2210/63310, $3750; CGI Subs, $472.50 2210/63310 Action Type: Equity Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
(4B) Student achievement of standards will be Bobby measured with classroom assessments and the Benson, Augmented Benchmark Exam. These assessments, Principal based on pacing guides/curriculum maps, are aligned with standards taught during the unit. Teachers will use TLI to develop assessments and to disaggregate data. Results will be used to develop individual learning plans and small group instruction with an emphasis on: 5th grade measurement multiple choice and open response and 6th grade data analysis multiple choice and open response.
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-2013/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip_district&username=5605001
Resources Source of Funds Title I Purchased $4222.50 Services: Title I Materials $3500.00 & Supplies: ACTION BUDGET:
$7722.5
Title I Purchased $1350.00 Services: Title I Materials $1100.00 & Supplies: Title I Employee $2500.00 Salaries: 5/25
8/26/2014
ACSIP
The results of the Augmented Benchmark Exam will be used to determine the number of students proficient in math. TIS will conduct Camp Wildcat after school tutoring to extend learning time. Activities will focus on math and literacy tutoring. All students will be invited to participate; however, the target group will be students who are not proficient. Activities will take place four hours a week for six weeks. Employees working beyond their contracted hours will be paid at a standardized district rate of $25.00 per hour plus benefits. Title I: salary for staff 1511/61110 $2500; benefits for after school staff 1511/62110 $550.00; supplies for after school activities 1511/66100 $1100.00; Transportation 2790/68999 $1350. Program Evaluation (Act 807) The percent of students participating in Camp Wildcat who score proficient/advanced on the benchmark exam will be reported in the 20132014 plan. Camp Wildcat students who were proficient/advanced 2013: 68% Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Professional Development Action Type: Technology Inclusion Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
Title I Employee Benefits: ACTION BUDGET:
$550.00
$5500
(5B) Title I Component 10, COORDINATION OF D. Carl, FUNDS: Use reflection/assignment logs/character Counselor education journals to keep parents and school connected. Calendar will be distributed to parents at the beginning of the year. Special events including holidays, testing, P/T Conferences will be highlighted. Title I: Purchase take home folders 2170/66100, $239.25. Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
(2A) Title I Components 2/3/4, SCHOOLWIDE REFORM, INSTRUCTION FROM HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS, PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: All teachers will be highly qualified and will continue conceptual, standardsbased math curriculum (Stepping Stones and Springboard). All teachers, including special education teachers, will participate in workshops to learn how to use standardsbased math programs. They will collaborate with the math lead teacher and math specialist to ensure rituals and routines are established in each classroom. The workshop model for math block will be followed using an opening, work time and closing. Classroom walk throughs and focus walks will be used to monitor implementation.
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
ACTION BUDGET: $
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
ACTION BUDGET: $
D. Ballard
Title I Materials & $239.25 Supplies:
ACTION BUDGET:
$239.25
Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Professional Development Action Type: Title I Schoolwide (2B) Title I Component 2/5, SCHOOLWIDE REFORM D. Ballard, STRATEGIES AND RECRUITING AND MAINTAINING R. Byard HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS: Math specialist will MENTOR math teachers, discuss the use of manipulatives, model instruction of math concepts, etc. Teachers will learn how to integrate technology into the curriculum. Laptops and virtual manipulatives will be used for instruction in geometry. Smart boards, LCD projectors and document cameras will also be used. The math team will meet to collaborate, confirm and continue the implementation of best practices. Members will discuss best practices for instruction, pacing, student work, progress toward proficiency,TLI tests, etc. and http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-2013/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip_district&username=5605001
6/25
8/26/2014
ACSIP
review and analyze student work to monitor math progress. An instructional emphasis will be placed on: 5th grade measurement open measurement response and multiple choice items; 6th grade data analysis and probability multiple choice and open response items. Core assignments may be used for specific skill interventions. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Professional Development Action Type: Title I Schoolwide (6) EVALUATION OF PROGRAM (ACT 807) An R. Byard, evaluation of the overall plan will be conducted each ACSIP year to ensure the plan is effective in improving the performance of students on the Benchmark exam. Results of the evaluation will be used to develop/revise the plan for the upcoming year. The math team will meet to discuss the actions contained in their priority. The faculty will then meet to discuss the team's recommendations and participate in a schoolwide evaluation. ACSIP plans will be reviewed by nonfaculty members (parents/community members) as well. The plan is posted on the school website for review by all stakeholders. Input will be included from these individuals. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Program Evaluation
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
Total Budget:
ACTION BUDGET: $
$13461.75
Intervention: Integrate technology into the mathematics curriculum. Scientific Based Research: EdThoughts: What we Know about Mathematics Teaching and Learning, p. 6171, McRel, edited by John Sutton and Alice Krueger, Aurora, CO 2002. Strangman, N., & Hall, T.,(2003). Text transformations. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Patton & Jeremy Roschelle. Why the Best Math Curriculum Won’t Be a Textbook. Education Week, September 2012. Almekhlafi, A., & Almeqdadi, F. (2010). Teachers' Perceptions of Technology Integration in the United Arab Emirates School Classrooms. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 165175. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Chen, C. (2008). Why Do Teachers Not Practice What They Believe Regarding Technology Integration?. Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 6575. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Convery, A. (2009). The pedagogy of the impressed: how teachers become victims of technological vision. Teachers & Teaching, 15(1), 2541. doi:10.1080/13540600802661303. Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher Pedagogical Beliefs: The Final Frontier in Our Quest for Technology Integration?. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(4), 2539. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Glazer, E., Hannafin, M., Polly, D., & Rich, P. (2009). Factors and Interactions Influencing Technology Integration During Situated Professional Development in an Elementary School. Computers in the Schools, 26(1), 2139. doi:10.1080/07380560802688257. Gray, L., Thomas, N., and Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ Use of Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools: 2009 (NCES 2010040). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Hixon, E., & Buckenmeyer, J. (2009). Revisiting Technology Integration in Schools: Implications for Professional Development. Computers in the Schools, 26(2), 130146. doi:10.1080/07380560902906070. Koksal, M., & Yaman, S. (2009). AN Analysis of Turkish Prospective Teachers' s Perceptions about T echnology in Eeducation. RELIEVE – eJournal of Educational Research, Assessment and Evaluation, 15(2), 19. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Kumar, N., Rose, R., & D'Silva, J. (2008). Teachers' Readiness to Use Technology in the Classroom: An Empirical Study. European Journal of Scientific Research, 21(4), 603616. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Liu, Y., & Szabo, Z. (2009). Teachers' attitudes toward technology integration in schools: a fouryear study. Teachers & Teaching, 15(1), 523. doi:10.1080/13540600802661295. Niederhauser, D., & Perkmen, S. (2008). Validation of the Intrapersonal Technology Integration Scale: Assessing the Influence of Intrapersonal Factors that Influence Technology Integration. Computers in the Schools, 25(1/2), 98111. doi:10.1080/07380560802157956. Palak, D., & Walls, R. (2009). Teachers' Beliefs and Technology Practices: A Mixedmethods Approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 417441. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Ruiling, L., & Overbaugh, R. (2009). School Environment and Technology Implementation in K12 Classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 26(2), 89106. doi:10.1080/07380560902906096. Wood, E., Mueller, J., Willoughby, T., Specht, J., & Deyoung, T. (2005). Teachers' Perceptions: barriers and supports to using technology in the classroom. Education, Communication & Information, 5(2), 183206. doi:10.1080/14636310500186214. http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-2013/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip_district&username=5605001
7/25
8/26/2014
ACSIP
Actions
Person Timeline Responsible
(1) Use technology (laptops, iPads, Bobby computers, virtual manipulatives, LCD Benson, projectors, ELMOS, Smart boards, Principal wireless slates, Gizmo/Reflex programs, etc.) to improve students' skills in mathematics. Technology will be used for instruction, student learning activities, and assessment. Reflex software is individualized to specific student skill levels. Technology allows immediate feedback for selfmonitoring as students use problem solving skills. Gizmo site license $1680 1591/67350; Reflex site license 1591/67350 $997.50. Action Type: Equity Action Type: Technology Inclusion
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
(2) Staff participated in PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT to integrate technology across the curriculum and will continue (laptops, iPads, CPS, Smart boards, Reflex, ELMOS, Gizmo software) professional development in 201314. Students will use calculators in math and science to meet Common Core State Standards. Action Type: Equity Action Type: Professional Development Action Type: Technology Inclusion
Bobby Benson, Principal
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
(4)EVALUATION: An EVALUATION of the Bobby overall plan will be conducted each year Benson, to ensure we are working effectively to Principal improve the performance of students in math on the Augmented Benchmark Exam. Student achievement of standards will be measured through classroom assessments, TLI assessments and the Benchmark Exam. Results of these assessments will be used to determine student proficiency in meeting standards and to develop individual learning plans and small group instruction with an emphasis on measurement multiple choice and open response questions in 5th grade, and data analysis and probability multiple choice items and open response items in 6th. New technology programs were used in 2012 2013 (Gizmo/Reflex). Students enrolled in Reflex showed a schoolwide average gain of 2.5 facts per week. Reflex and Gizmos will continue to be used in the 20132014 school year. Classroom walk throughs will be used to determine implementation of these programs.
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
Resources Computers Teachers
Source of Funds Title I Purchased $2677.50 Services: ACTION BUDGET:
Computers Teachers
$2677.5
ACTION BUDGET: $
ACTION BUDGET: $
Action Type: Program Evaluation The Trumann School District will support David technology integration in the classrooms Rutledge, by purchasing supplemental instructional Asst Supt software and technology for 21st Century Learning/New Tech Training/CCSS/ and Project and Problembased Learning activities. In an effort to increase the instructional day for students, Trumann School District will support mobile computing technologies that will allow
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-2013/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip_district&username=5605001
Administrative Staff Computers Teachers
NSLA (State 281) Capital Outlay:
$4936.17
NSLA (State 281) $80035.00 Materials 8/25
8/26/2014
ACSIP
students to have access to computer based instructional activities and will provide mobile computing devices to our students with the goal of reaching a one to one computer ratio with ubiquitous computing across our district. Mobile computing devices and peripherals provide an integral tool for student learning. Funds may be used to purchase teacher computers, classroom computers and technology, software, classroom response systems, projection equipment, smart boards, and other peripheral devices to improve classroom teaching, instruction, and technology integration. NSLA: 1130/66105, $55,000; materials and supplies, 1130/66100, $25,035; Technology Peripherals, 1130/67340, $4,936.17. Action Type: Equity Action Type: Technology Inclusion
& Supplies: ACTION $84971.17 BUDGET:
Professional development in the use of David computer aided instructional technology; Rutledge, use of computeraided software Asst Supt programs, instructional technology, and technology integration will be provided to facilitate effective integration into the curriculum. Differentiated levels of professional development will be provided to teachers to ensure teachers receive relevant technology integration training at their appropriate level of technological proficiency. Training will include support of the use of technology within project/problembased learning, Web 2.0 tools, and how to develop lesson plans using technological tools to improve student engagement and learning. Action Type: Professional Development Action Type: Technology Inclusion
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
Administrative ACTION BUDGET: $ Staff Computers Teachers
Total Budget:
$87648.67
Intervention: Continue developed plan for implementing Common Core State Standards. Scientific Based Research: 1.King, Jacqueline E. (2011) American Council on Education. Implementing the Common Core State Standards: An Action Agenda for Higher Education. 2.Hess, Karin K. (2010) Learning Progressions Frameworks Designed for Use with the Common Core State Standards. 3.National Research Council (2009) Mathematics Learning in Early Childhood. Actions
Person Responsible
Timeline
(1)PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: All teachers B. Benson, at TIS will attend professional development Principal meetings during and after school to be updated on the implementation of the common core state standards. Math and Literacy teachers will attend summer workshops to prepare for CCSS.
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
(2)EVALUATION: Administrators will monitor the full implementation of CCSS in the 2013 2014 school year through classroom walk throughs and teacher lesson plans in 2013 2014.
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
B. Benson, Principal
Title 1 Funds will be made available to suppoort David http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-2013/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip_district&username=5605001
Resources
Source of Funds ACTION $ BUDGET:
ACTION $ BUDGET:
Start: 9/25
8/26/2014
ACSIP
districtwide professional development Rutledge, Asst. 07/01/2013 Superintendent End: activities. The district will purchase staff 06/30/2014 development through Crowley's Ridge Educational Cooperative and other competent professional development providers with Title 1 and state professional development funds. Funds will be put aside to help defer the cost connected with ensuring that all staff meet the state definition of highly qualified. Action Type: Professional Development
Administrative ACTION $ Staff BUDGET: District Staff Teachers
Total Budget:
Priority 2:
$0
201314 Target areas for 5th and 6th grade in Literacy are Reading Content Passage and Practical Passages and Writing Multiple Choice, Content and Style Domain. 1. 5th Grade Benchmark Exam: 2013# Tested & Percent of Students scoring Proficient/Advanced: 129 Students: 67% of Combined Students 106 Students: 68% of Caucasian Students 104 Students: 67% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students Less than 40: 62% of African American Students Less than 40: 72% of Hispanic Students Less than 40: 67% of LEP Students Less than 40: 33% of Students with Disabilities 2012# Tested & Percent of Students scoring Proficient/Advanced: 120 Students: 77% of Combined Students 102 Students: 80% of Caucasian Students 99 Students: 71% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students Less than 40: 60% of African American Students Less than 40: 75% of Hispanic Students Less than 40: 50% of LEP Students Less than 40: 12% of Students with Disabilities 2011# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 122 Students: 73% of Combined Students 108 Students: 76% of Caucasian Students 87 Students: 65% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students Less than 40: 33% of African American Students Less than 40: 67% of Hispanic Students Less than 40: 0% of LEP Students Less than 40: 18% of Students with Disabilities 2. 6th GRADE BENCHMARK EXAM: 2013# Tested & Percent of Students scoring Proficient/Advanced: 115 Students: 61% of Combined Students 98 Students: 66% of Caucasian Students 88 Students: 55% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students Less than 40: 30% of African American Students Less than 40: 29% of Hispanic Students Less than 40: 0% of LEP Students Less than 40: 0% of Students with Disabilities 2012 # Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 123 Students: 68% of Combined Students 106 Students: 77% of Caucasian Students 89 Students: 63% of Econ Disadvantaged Students Less than 40: 22% of African American Students Less than 40:503% of Hispanic Students Less than 40: 0% of LEP Students Less than 40: 14% of Students with Disabilities 2011# Tested & Percent of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: 116 Students: 57% of Combined Students 100 Students: 59% of Caucasian Students
http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-2013/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip_district&username=5605001
10/25
8/26/2014
ACSIP
Supporting Data:
101 Students: 54% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students Less than 40: 44% of African American Students Less than 40: 43% of Hispanic Students Less than 40: 0% of LEP Students Less than 40: 15% of Students with Disabilities 3. NORM REFERENCED TESTS: ITBS: 2013: The NPR for 5th grade students in reading was 32 and 51 in language. The NPR for teh 6th grade students in reading was 34 and 54 in language. 2012: The NPR for 5th grade students in reading was 35 and 35 in language. The NPR for the 6th grade students in reading was 42 and 43 in language. 2011: In 5th grade, the NPR was 38 in reading and 50 in language. In 6th grade, the NPR was 39 n reading and 44 in language. In 2011, the SAT10 was replaced by the ITBS. SAT10: 2010: In 5th grade, 61% of the general population scored at/above the 50th percentile in reading comprehension and 43% scored at/above the 50th percentile in language. In 6th grade, 52% of the general population scored at/above the 50th percentile in reading comprehension and 45% scored at/above the 50th percentile in language. 4. ATTENDANCE: 2012/2013: Average Daily Attendance was 96%. 2011/2012: Average Daily Attendance was 95%. 2010/2011: Average Daily Attendance was 94% 5. LIBRARY MEDIA CENTER: 20122013: The library contained 8968 books with an average copyright of 1996. Of those 3,101 were nonfiction and 5,867 were fiction. 20112012: The library contained 8625 books with an average copyright of 1998. Of those, 2927 were nonfiction and 4794 were fiction. Since 2010, the library media center has had 12 computers to assist students and faculty in locating books and in research. A sympodium housing a computer and LCD projector to accomodate meetings, classes, and parent involvement activities. The LMC is a valuable resource for literacy and technology and will continue to be updated to serve students, faculty, and the community as an avenue to be successful in a technologically developed society. 20102011: The library contained 7338 books with an average copyright of 1995. Of those, 2877 are nonfiction and 4461 are fiction with an average copyright of 1995. 6. STAR READER: Star Reader will not be utilized during the 20122013 school year. 2011/12 STAR Reader testing indicated 5th grade students improved from 3.8 to 4.8 GE and 6th grade students improved from 5.6 to 6.0 GE. 2010/11 STAR Reader testing indicated 5th grade students improved from 4.3 to 5.3 GE and 6th grade students improved from 5.4 to 5.8 GE. 2009/10 STAR Reader testing indicated 5th grade students improved from 4.8 to 5.6 GE and 6th grade students improved from 5.8 to 6.2 GE. 7. REMEDIATION: Skills Tutor was not utilized during the 20122013 school year. Skills Tutor results for 2011 2012: Language Arts Pretest 52%/Post test 62%, Reading Comprehension Pretest 47%/Post test 64%. JEDI (Skills Tutor) results for 201011: Language Arts Pretest 60%/Posttest 77%, Reading Comprehension Pretest 41%/Posttest 49%. JEDI results for 200910: Reading pretest: 5th grade 46% and 6th grade 46%. Reading posttest: 5th grade 52% and 6th grade 54%. Language Arts pretest: 5th grade 40% and 6th grade 46%. Language Arts posttest: 5th grade 49% and 6th grade 52%.
Goal
Students will improve in reading practical, literacy writing, and writing multiple choice.
In 2013, according to the ESEA Accountability Report, no sub populations in 5th and 6th grade met Benchmark performance: AfricanAmerican sub pop made growth. Target groups will all sub populations to meet growth and performance. Intervention: Align Language Arts Curriculum to the Common Core State Standards, local standards and state and local assessments. Scientific Based Research: 1. Carter, Lisa. Five Big Ideas: Leading Total Instructional Alignment, Solution Tree, 2009. 2. Carter, L., Total Instructional Alignment. Solution Tree Press, 2007. 3.Adams, M. J. (2009). The challenge of advanced texts: The interdependence of reading and learning. In E. H. Hiebert(Ed.), Reading more, reading better: Are American students reading enough of the right stuff? (pp. 163– 189). New York, NY: Guilford. http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-2013/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip_district&username=5605001
11/25
8/26/2014
ACSIP
Actions (2) Title I Component 3, RECRUITING AND MAINTAINING HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS: New teachers will participate in an orientation to learn how to maintain an individual curriculum map and use the edmodo website to submit lesson plans each week. Technology Instructional facilitator will mentor all teachers.
Person Timeline Responsible
Resources
Source of Funds
B. Benson, R. Byard
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
ACTION BUDGET:
$
(3) Each teacher will maintain an accurate B. Benson, lesson plans for each subject taught. Plans Principal will be updated weekly to reflect content, skills and assessments including open response items and CCSS. An emphasis will be placed on content and style writing domains. Lessons will be submitted through the edmodo website. Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Technology Inclusion Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
Computers ACTION BUDGET: Teachers
$
Action Type: Professional Development Action Type: Title I Schoolwide
(7) Library Media Specialist will collaborate with teachers to integrate technology and Language Arts across the curriculum. LMS will attend librarymedia workshops and local workshops.Library Media Specialist workshops: mileage/registration/lodging, etc. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Professional Development
C. Hamilton Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
(5) Title I Component 3, RECRUITING AND J. Cooper, MAINTAINING HIGHLY QUALIFIED R. Byard TEACHERS: Instructional facilitator and Literacy Specialist will MENTOR literacy teachers and assist with curriculum alignment, formative and summative assessment, etc. Evaluation 201314: Individual meetings will take place with teachers, literacy specialist and instructional facilitator, to discuss ways to use various assessments to guide instruction and to make sure plans are aligned and updated.
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
None
ACTION BUDGET:
$
ACTION BUDGET:
$
Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Program Evaluation Action Type: Title I Schoolwide (11) Use Destiny library automation system and NetTrekker academic search engine as a teaching resource. This technology will be used by students for instruction, research, reports, etc., to enhance literacy instruction. Destiny 2220/66510, $668.51 2220/66100. Library supplies, 2220/66100 $450. Action Type: Technology Inclusion
C. Hamilton, Library Media Specialist
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
Title I Computers Materials & $1118.51 School Supplies: Library Teachers ACTION $1118.51 BUDGET:
9) EVALUATION: The Technology/Instructional Facilitator will use TLI data and maps as well as Springboard curriculum resources to identify missing standards, both horizontally and vertically. Individual grade maps will contain the
B. Benson, Principal
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
Title I Computers Purchased $2788.75 District Services: Staff Title I Teachers Employee $11194.95
http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-2013/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip_district&username=5605001
12/25
8/26/2014
ACSIP
horizontal alignment and grade level master maps will show the vertical alignment. Program Evaluation 201314:The Tech/Instructional Facilitator will monitor individual teachers' lesson plans each week to ensure that all standards were being taught. Title I: Instructional Facilitator, Raven Byard (.25 FTE) salary 2294/61110 $11,194.95; benefits 2294/62110 $2,854.71; TLI Formative/Interim Assessments, 1591/63240, $2,788.75 Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Technology Inclusion In order to effectively transition to teaching CCSS, teachers will use the College Board's SpringBoard instructional system and other resources to engage students. These systems use rigor and relevance to engage students in higher order thinking and problem solving skills. Classroom walkthroughs will be preformed to monitor CCSS implementation. Title I: Springboard and other Supplies, 1591/66100, $2786.30 Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Technology Inclusion
Salaries: Title I Employee Benefits: ACTION BUDGET:
Jennifer Cooper, Literacy Specialist
Start: 07/01/2013 End: 06/30/2014
$2854.71
$16838.41
Title I Computers Materials & $2786.30 Teachers Supplies: ACTION BUDGET:
$2786.3
Total Budget: $20743.22
Intervention: Teachers will continue to implement The Arkansas Comprehensive Literacy Approach in accordance with the CCSS to enhance instruction with emphasis on monitoring (1)comprehension, (2)writing, (3)word study/spelling, (4)fluency and (5)vocabulary while integrating technology into the classroom. Scientific Based Research: City, E., Elmore, R., Fiarman, S., & Teitel, L. Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improve teaching and learning. Boston: Harvard. 2002. SpringBoard Curriculum Audit. Phi Kappa Delta Presentation, August 30, 2010. 9. Dorn, L., and Scoffos
