Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
St. Helen Elementary School
                    Title I Schoolwide Program
       Kathy Rees, St. Helen Principal/District...
to become a school-wide building with a current free and reduced lunch eligibility of
66%. In St. Helen, the Title I progr...
A. Name of People Developing The Plan
  1.   Kathy Rees – Building Principal
  2.   Arlene Martin - Second Grade Teacher
 ...
C. Plans for Communicating to the School and Community About
   the Schoolwide Plan and Planning Process:
  1. June 8, 200...
(Roscommon Elementary) reviewed the Comprehensive Needs Assessment
     Process for each of the individual buildings and p...
will take place as to the implementation of best practice strategies to
             address the analysis of the Comprehen...
Section 3: Analyzing Needs & Deriving Schoolwide Program
Goals

A. The Comprehensive Needs Assessment identified the follo...
B. Schoolwide support for intensive and sustained professional
   development

Professional development is very key in uti...
continuous improvement. Professional development is planned with input from
       the stakeholders.
5.     EVALUATION of ...
Parent involvement is a cornerstone of a Title I school. In Gerrish-Higgins the guidance
counselor‟s function in this capa...
Title I schools are carefully monitored by both the Central Office through the work of the
aforementioned Title I Team, an...
assessed using a grade level determined prompt and scored with the MDE 6-point rubric.
It is understood that progress shou...
and mathematics development will be based on authentic, real-world learning
opportunities that engage students in hands-on...
LITERACY     students)                              students)                              Individual Literacy Profile for...
SCIENCE        Grade-level team developed            Grade-level team developed            Grade-level team developed
    ...
Oral Retelling                        Oral Retelling                        Oral Retelling
                    Written Ret...
community by:
      1. School Newsletter, Principal Letter Home to Parents, local
         media and website.

Section 8: ...
goal is to make meaningful choices for professional development,
       which reflects a comprehensive, coordinated approa...
a Title I Building. Title I funds follow the needs of the students and are distributed
according to the most needy buildin...
What is Title I?

In the 1960‟s, Lyndon Johnson created Title I as part of his „War on Poverty‟. The goal
was to provide s...
How are participating schools in the Gerrish-Higgins School District chosen?

In Gerrish-Higgins Title I is available in b...
groups. The Gerrish-Higgins School District Title I approach is to always on all four
Core Curricular proficiencies no mat...
fluency and comprehension will be assessed using leveled texts and writing will be
assessed using a grade level determined...
Everyday Mathematics program. The instructional design for both literacy development
and mathematics development will be b...
MLPP – Informal (Formal for new        MLPP – Informal (Formal for new        MLPP – Formal – Complete an
             stu...
Grade-level team developed            Grade-level team developed            Grade-level team developed
SCIENCE
           ...
Comprehension                         Comprehension                         Comprehension
                     Oral Retell...
improvement. Parents of these students are allowed to transfer to another school
providing there is room. This is called t...
plan provides an opportunity for both the needs of the individual and the needs of the
district to be met. It is recognize...
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
07 Ghsd Title I Plan
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

07 Ghsd Title I Plan

1,013

Published on

Published in: Education, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,013
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "07 Ghsd Title I Plan"

  1. 1. St. Helen Elementary School Title I Schoolwide Program Kathy Rees, St. Helen Principal/District Title I Director Gayla Mann, MDE, Field Consultant - MannG@mi.gov I) Gerrish-Higgins Title I Services Overview A) What is Title I? In the 1960‟s, Lyndon Johnson created Title I as part of his „War on Poverty‟. The goal was to provide supplemental services to schools to ensure that students from poverty could be successful in academic skills, with emphasis on language arts and mathematics. The goal of the program has remained the same. Every ten years Title I is reauthorized and the laws that accompany the money are reviewed and refined. This year, the year of reauthorization, the emphasis in the program will be on assessment, achievement, and plans for student and school improvement. While the program may become more flexible in how services may be delivered to children, the evaluation of program success will be more stringent. However, the goal of the program remains providing money for supplemental services that lead to student academic success. B) How are participating schools in the Gerrish-Higgins School District chosen? In Gerrish-Higgins Title I is available in both elementary schools and the middle school. Every year schools are chosen according to the percentage of students who are eligible for free and reduced lunch. This report, generated on October 31st, is used to fund programs for the following school year. The Title I Coordinator, and business office, ranks the schools from the highest percentage of students eligible for free and reduced lunch to the lowest using a comparability formula. Using this ranking, the money received from the federal government is given out to the schools until all the money is used or until the school with the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced lunch is at the county average. However, the district can choose to allot even more dollars to the school-wide building in order to improve services in the building where everyone in the building is technically viewed as eligible. This year the Title I schools are: St. Helen Elementary (School-wide), Roscommon Middle School (School-wide), Roscommon Elementary (School-wide). C) How are the Title I services delivered? There are two kinds of Title I schools, School-wide and Targeted Assistance Schools. School-wides are schools that have 50% or more of the students eligible for free and reduced lunch, or they are schools that have received a waiver to enable them to be a school-wide. For instance, St. Helen Elementary has gone through the yearlong process
  2. 2. to become a school-wide building with a current free and reduced lunch eligibility of 66%. In St. Helen, the Title I program is very flexible; the money given may be used to enhance the whole school‟s academic program. In schools that fall below 50% or do not have waivers, the Targeted Assistance money is directed to programs that enhance the academics of identified individual students who are struggling academically. These students are chosen based on the matrix score in language arts and mathematics. The school may choose the subject that is the focus of Title I and it may choose the grade levels that will receive the extra support. This is accomplished through the use of a needs assessment. As of last year, both Roscommon Middle School and Roscommon Elementary School have eligibility levels that qualify them for school-wide status. Therefore, during the 2003/04 school year they chose the North Central Accreditation (NCA) Association as their approved service provider and worked with this provider over the 2003-04 school year to also become school-wide buildings. Regardless of which program is in operation in a school, the goal is for all students to reach the county and state academic standard, and for those subgroups generally known to be at higher risk for academic success to reach the same high performance standards. The principal and the School Improvement Team through disaggregation of data, formulation of a school-wide plan, and monitoring of aggregated and disaggregated student success decide upon exactly how this will be accomplished. At Roscommon Elemetary, the principal with the SIT team decided to use team teachers to deliver the services. At St. Helen Elementary and Roscommon Middle School the principals and their SIT team decided to hire additional teachers in order to lower the teacher/student ratio. Each of the three programs use paraprofessionals to provide students with private tutorials or to work with small groups. The Gerrish-Higgins School District Title I approach is to always on all four Core Curricular proficiencies no matter which service delivery method is utilized. Every plan chosen by each of the three schools must be reviewed and approved by the Title I Team, a group of: parents, community members, teachers, paraprofessionals and administrative representatives, who meet frequently to monitor the success of the Title I programs. In addition to monitoring the instructional gains of Title I services, daily documentation needs to be kept by all Title I staff. Using the log in appendix A, all Title I staff need to maintain daily logs. These logs can be used to record the names of an entire group and describing an activity or with individual students. II) St. Helen Elementary Schoolwide Plan Section 1: Schoolwide Program Planning Team St. Helen Elementary School‟s Schoolwide program is developed with the involvement of the community we serve and the individuals who will carry out the plan. Our existing Building Leadership Team, which consists of teachers, paraprofessionals and the building administrator has assumed the planning responsibilities for the Schoolwide program, by also adding parent team members, the Title I Teacher and the Special Education when we plan our Title I Services. Because of the age level of our student there is no student representation. 2
  3. 3. A. Name of People Developing The Plan 1. Kathy Rees – Building Principal 2. Arlene Martin - Second Grade Teacher 3. Christina Wintersheimer – Title I Teacher/Coodinator 4. Cheri Hutek – Special Education Teacher 5. Jean Christiansen – Kindergarten Teacher 6. Mary Ward – 2 & 3 combination/music teacher 7. Michelle Young – Paraprofessional 8. Marci Howey – Preschool Teacher/Building PTCO Representative 9. Amy Hess – Parent B. Team Meeting Dates (Past & Future) 1. May 25, 2007 a. Full Building Meeting Regarding Staff Distribution As They Relate to Title I Services. - Summary – Consulted data to determine where the need was reflected in order to direct initial Title I Services. There appears to be a data driven need at second grade in the area of Reading/Writing. Second Grade Math scores indicate less of a need. We then decided that we needed to pair one of our Title I Teachers to the 2nd grade data identified need in the area of Reading/Writing. We decided to pair our other Title I teacher to both Kindergarten (reading and math) and 3rd grade (reading/writing). We decided to utilize Title I paraprofessionals in grades Kindergarten, First and Fourth where the data indicated need but far less need than grades, Second and third. We concluded that through more strategic Tier I interventions at 3rd grade we may be able to again adjust those Title services as early as in the first Trimester. We recognize that the data is indicating that we need to intensify Title I/Special Education services as much as possible at the second grade level in the area of reading and certainly writing. There appears to be far more kids in 2nd grade that are in Tiers II and even in Tier III. Therefore, interventions should be directed more universally at the all students in order to bump as many students that we can into the Universal Tier I level. Some Title I kids will require and benefit form Tier III interventions while other students who may be unsuccessful at Tier III, even with intensive Title I Services, may in fact be referred to Special Education if they do not already qualify for such services. 2. May 31, 2007 a. Title I Leadership Team Meeting Summary – Consulted data in order to evaluate our Title I Plan (updated/changed/revised). Developed Plan for communicating the Title I Plan. 3. June 8, 2007 a. Met with Parent Group Regarding Title I Plan – Reviewed data trends and the staff proposal for addressing the needs. Obtained positive feed back from parents regarding Title I services being more intensive at both 2nd and 3rd grade. 4. September 27 , 2007 – Reviewed Title I Plan at Welcome Back to School Night with all parents and staff. 3
  4. 4. C. Plans for Communicating to the School and Community About the Schoolwide Plan and Planning Process: 1. June 8, 2007 – Met with a Parent Group regarding the Title I Plan 2. June 27, 2007 – Addressed the School Baord and community about the Title I Plan and Planning Process D. Technical Assistance – Team Members 1. Gayla Mann Field Support Services a. April 26, 2007 = Consolidated Application Workshop b. May 9, 2007 = Gayla Mann corresponding through email that our district could use Title I Schoolwide funds to purchase the professional development for our teachers in order to focus in on target groups of needy students. c. May 11, 2007 = Schoolwide Schools Toolkit Workshop 2. Shay Anderson – Gerrish-Higgins Business Manager a. May 7, 2007 – Meeting Regarding the possibility of using Title I funds to purchase NWEA software/professional development. b. May 10, 2007 – Finance Meeting Regarding Title I possible funding cuts and reexamining how we are currently utilizing Title I funds. This information will be taken back to the Title I/School Improvement Committee to review how funds are being utilized by this grant and to consider any alternatives that would work best for needy students. 3. Joyce Zeneberg – Saginaw Valley Instructor a. May 9, 2007 – Finance Meeting Regarding Title I possible funding cuts and reexamining how we are currently utilizing Title I funds. This information will be taken back to the Title I/School Improvement Committee to review how funds are being utilized by this grant and to consider any alternatives that would work best for needy students. 4. District Finance Task Force (Score) a. March 28, 2007 Reviewed district comprehensive current financial status including all grant monies and brainstormed recommendations to these bugets. b. April 25, 2007 – Reviewed district comprehensive current financial status including all grant monies and compiled all former and new recommendations to these bugets. 5. Gerrish-Higgins School Board Meeting – June 27, 2007 a. Publicly addressed the School Board regarding Title I Plan for next Year. Kathy Rees Gerrish-Higgins Title I Director, Christina Wintersheimer Title I Coordinator (St. Helen Elementary), Jane Carol (Roscommon Elementary) reviewed the Comprehensive Needs Assessment Process for each of the individual buildings and presented the results of our data to the Board. We reviewed the final Title I Plan recommendations with the School Board and responded to Public comment regarding these recommendations. 4
  5. 5. (Roscommon Elementary) reviewed the Comprehensive Needs Assessment Process for each of the individual buildings and presented the results of our data to the Board. We reviewed the final Title I Plan recommendations with the School Board and responded to Public comment regarding these recommendations. Section 2: School Profile and Comprehensive Needs Assessment A. Profile – Key Features of the School and Its Community 1) See attached School and Community Profiles B. Inclusive Comprehensive Needs Assessment – Including all of the members of the School Community with a Particular Focus on all Educationally Disadvantaged Children. 1) Over the last 3 years Title I Services have been completely restructured. Christina Wintersheimer is now our full time Title I service provider. Special Education services were also greatly restructured to address this sub population. Together, Title I and Special Education services has become a service delivery unit. Personnel distributions from both programs were considered when planning for services to raise achievement levels of both groups of students. The services of both Educationally Disadvantaged and Special Education students were considered first in our planning strategies for the 2007-08 School Year. Title I and Special Education services were planned first and Specials such as Music, PE, Library and Computer Lab were then planned around the service delivery unit services. In summary, more than ever Title I has been brought right up front in our planning efforts as the number one driving force for instructional practices that are student achievement driven. Monitoring of Disaggregation of Student Achievement A) Disaggregation of student achievement data will be widely driven by the decision of the St. Helen Elementary Staff to completely restructure the Title I service delivery system. Christina Wintersheimer will now devote all of her time to Title I and Anne Obermeyer will continue to provide services for half of the day. In June 2007, Mrs. Wintersheimer (SHES) worked with Jane Carroll (RES), and Building Principal, Kathy Rees on disaggregation and analysis of student achievement data. Mrs. Wintersheimer, Ms. Carroll and Mrs. Rees will compile this data into a Comprehensive Needs Assessment Grid which will be downloaded into NWEA. 1) Information on this grid will be also plotted out onto large chart paper and reviewed with staff the first week of the 2007-08 school year. Discussion 5
  6. 6. will take place as to the implementation of best practice strategies to address the analysis of the Comprehensive Needs Assessment as they relate to the defined disaggregated subgroups. The results of this discussion will also be complied and given to NCA Chairs. The NCA teams will revisit and possibly revise current goals and strategies which will specifically state how Title I services will be utilized as a strategy for improving student achievement in all four core curricular areas: Math, Language Arts, Science and Social Studies, as they relate all sub groups. These revisions will be reviewed by the Steering Committee/Leadership Team at their first Leadership Team Meeting, which will be held in September of 2007 so that the strategies can be implemented at the beginning of the 2007-08 School Year. Reporting of Disaggregation of Student Achievement A) St. Helen Elementary will prepare and publicly disseminate the reporting of the disaggregation in our Annual Report in the beginning of 2007-08 school year to all staff, all parents, and all students for the following: 1) Aggregate student achievement at each proficiency level on state assessments. 2) Student achievement at each proficiency level will be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, migrant status, English proficiency, and status as economically disadvantaged, provided that these subgroups are more than 30 students in our building per grade level tested. 3) Percentage of students not tested, disaggregated by each group (if statistically sound). 4) Most recent 2-year trend in achievement in each subject area and for each grade level. B) Results of locally administered student competency tests (QRI, Dibels, MLPP & Everyday Math and/or nationally normed achievement tests (MEAP). This data from these assessments will be collected for students in grades 1-5 as required by section 1280b of the School Code (PA 25). C) In regards to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Data St. Helen Elementary will also report: 1) Aggregate information on other indicators (student attendance) used to determine AYP. 2) AYP information, including number, names, and percentage of Title I schools identified for school improvement in our district, and how long identified. 3) Comparison between actual achievement of each group (excluding gender and migrant) and state‟s annual measurable objectives. 4) Comparison of building, district and state achievement data on state assessments and other indicators of AYP, such as attendance rates. 6
  7. 7. Section 3: Analyzing Needs & Deriving Schoolwide Program Goals A. The Comprehensive Needs Assessment identified the following current strengths and weaknesses of the educational program. 1. The Comprehensive Needs Assessment identified for us that our students tend to do better in 3rd grade and then we experience a dip across the board in 4th grade. Reading is a strength in our building, followed by math. However, all grade level are struggling in the area of writing. B. The following priority focus areas (maximum 3) for achieving the outcomes of the proposed Schoolwide program 1. Improving Math Skills 2. Improving Oral Reading Fluency 3. Improving Writing Skills C. Goals of the Schoolwide Program: 1. Students throughout the district will increase the percentage of students at grade level in math to reach 75% in each classroom. 2. Students throughout the district will increase oral reading fluency from the beginning of the year to the end of the year. 3. Students throughout the district will increase the percentage of students at grade level in writing to reach 75% in each classroom. Section 4: Instructional Program A. The following specific changes in the instructional program and procedures were utilized to implement the goals of the Schoolwide program. 1. Title I and Special Education has become a Special Services Delivery System. As a building we lay our the title I Comprehensive Needs Assessment and we identify the students in Tier I , Tier II and Tier III. Tier I involves universal instruction to all students. Tier II is our title I students who are given supplemental support in the areas identified by the needs assessment, as are title III kids but who tend to be the Special Education students. Through our MiBLSI Training we intend to develop strategies and intervention kits to be utilized with students who are either Tier II or Tier III. Section 5: Professional Development A. Professional Qualifications of the Professional Staff 1. All teachers (Pre-12) within the Gerrish-Higgins School District meet the Federal Standards for Highly Qualified. 7
  8. 8. B. Schoolwide support for intensive and sustained professional development Professional development is very key in utilizing the Title I program as a vehicle for change. We recognize that there is not one mold that answers the professional development needs of every educator. It is essential that the professional development plan provides an opportunity for both the needs of the individual and the needs of the district to be met. It is recognized that professional development, to be effective, must be ongoing, and sustained, providing both training and opportunities to apply the new learning. Implementation of learning communities are encouraged at both building and district levels. To this end, the expectation for professional development at Gerrish- Higgins is aligned to the National Staff Development Council‟s Standards for Staff Development 2001: Our professional development plan incorporates learning strategies appropriate for the intended goal and is aligned with our district curriculum and instructional practices and our district mission. We base professional development opportunities on educator‟s content knowledge, we provide them with research-based instructional strategies to assist students in meeting rigorous academic standards, and prepare them to use various types of classroom assessments appropriately. We believe that Standards for Teaching and Learning from Michigan Curriculum Frameworks are foundational in professional development (Higher Order Thinking, Substantive Conversation, Deep Knowledge, Real-World Application). We use disaggregated data from a variety of sources (MEAP, Terra Nova, MLPP, Dibels, Everyday Math, NCA instruments, grade-level and department created assessment data) to determine adult learning priorities, monitor progress, and help sustain continuos improvement. Context Standards: 1. LEARNING COMMUNITIES will be encouraged as a means to provide ongoing support to adults working to improve student learning. 2. LEADERSHIP to guide continuous instructional improvement is an essential component for improving student learning and will be developed and supported. 3. RESOURCES to support adult learning and collaboration will be sought through a variety of means: grants, in-kind resources, release time when possible, and necessary materials to support adult learning Process Standards: 4. DATA DRIVEN: Disaggregated data from a variety of sources (MEAP, Terra Nova, MLPP, Everyday Math, NCA common matrix and context bound instruments, grade-level and department created assessment data) will be utilized to determine adult learning priorities, monitor progress, and help sustain 8
  9. 9. continuous improvement. Professional development is planned with input from the stakeholders. 5. EVALUATION of professional development will be ongoing, utilizing multiple sources of information to guide improvement and determine the impact of professional development on student learning. 6. RESEARCH-BASED decision-making is an expected outcome for all professional development … preparing educators to apply research and best practices to instructional decision-making. 7. DESIGN of professional development incorporates learning strategies appropriate for the intended goal and is aligned with district curriculum and instructional practices and the district mission. 8. LEARNING: Effective professional development applies knowledge about human learning and change, relating directly to the teaching and learning process. 9. COLLABORATION is a process that is modeled and taught so that adult learners can learn how to and apply a collaborative process within their learning communities and within their classrooms. Professional development is aligned with the school improvement plan at both the district and building levels. Content Standards: 10. EQUITY: Professional development prepares educators to understand and appreciate all students, create safe, orderly and supportive learning environments, and hold high expectations for their academic achievement. 11. QUALITY TEACHING: Professional development depends on educator‟s content knowledge, provides them with research-based instructional strategies to assist students in meeting rigorous academic standards, and prepares them to use various types of classroom assessments appropriately. The Standards for Teaching and Learning from Michigan Curriculum Frameworks are foundational in professional development (Higher Order Thinking, Substantive Conversation, Deep Knowledge, Real-World Application). 12. PARENT INVOLVEMENT: Professional development provides educators with knowledge and skills to involve families and other stakeholders appropriately. Section 6: Parent Involvement This section of St. Helen‟s Schoolwide Plan is devoted to the parent involvement activities of our school. One of the advantages of the Schoolwide program is the opportunity to use ESEA resources to support activities that our parents value. Our parents actively participate in designing, implementing, and evaluating these activities. A. Parents will be involved in all phases of the Schoolwide program in the following ways: 9
  10. 10. Parent involvement is a cornerstone of a Title I school. In Gerrish-Higgins the guidance counselor‟s function in this capacity in our Title I school. These staff members act as the „bridge‟ between home and school. There is a Title I orientation held in each school twice a year (fall and spring). There are parent/teacher/student compacts, parent meetings, and special Title I parent outreach programs and services are offered. At St. Helen Elementary, there is a parent involvement plan which represents six aspects of parent involvement.. In June of 2006, a parent group consisting of 6 members revised the Three-Year Plan themselves, as well as the Parent Compact. On the Parent Compact they added a few things in the narrative plus they added a section for Parent to devise a goal that they would work on to support the elements of the Parent Compacts. The Compacts were reviewed and signed at the Fall Parent Teacher Conferences. Copies of the new plans were given to both the teacher and the parents and will be reviewed once again in the spring conferences. B. The following Parent Education Activities will be offered: 1. Title I Family Nights – Language Arts, Math, Behavior Intervention, Brain Gym, Basic Food Groups C. The quality of Parent Activities will be Monitoring through the following method: 1. Parent Survey 2. Informal Conversation D. Linkages to comprehensive family, health and social services will be established through: 1. School Links Awareness Programs – Asthma, dangers of food allergies, childhood diabetes, community Mental Health Serivices and childhood obesity Section 7: Accountability The Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) provides the foundation for our program evaluation. This assessment provides evaluation data for reading and mathematics which is disaggregated by gender, major ethnic or racial groups, limited English proficient status, migrant students, and children with disabilities as compared to other students and by economically disadvantaged students as compared to students who are not economically disadvantaged A. The following procedures for measuring and reporting adequate student progress will be utilized on an annual basis: 10
  11. 11. Title I schools are carefully monitored by both the Central Office through the work of the aforementioned Title I Team, and the Michigan State Department of Education. The measure of success is the Michigan Education Assessment program (MEAP) that is used to determine Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Each year the Title I coordinator receives information from the state about the trend seen in MSPAP performance, be it positive or negative. Schools that show a negative trend based on the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), are given a warning. Schools that show a negative trend for two years are put in improvement. Parents of these students are allowed to transfer to another school providing there is room. This is called the student transfer option. In addition, the Central Office works with the school to ensure that extra assistance is available. The staff from the state Title I office visits and monitors the school to offer any appropriate assistance. Gerrish-Higgins had an on-site review last year. Once a school is in the second year of a downward trend, it must show a positive trend for two consecutive years in order to be dismissed from school improvement. During this time the central office and, eventually the Michigan State Department of Education, may become active in the school in order to turn around achievement. The plans for improvement vary widely and may include adding specific staff development, removing some site-based decision making, changing key staff, and reviewing curricular programs used. Regardless of the road taken, the goal of improvement is to increase achievement, especially for students who are at-risk for academic success. In accordance with the legislative mandate to provide documentation that all students in Kindergarten through 8th grade are making continuous progress, the Gerrish-Higgins School District is committed to assuring that all students are making positive continuous growth – academic, social, physical, emotional. There is strong evidence that assessment, especially for early elementary years, must be ongoing, developmental and directly aligned with instruction. Gerrish-Higgins School District will utilize Michigan Literacy Progress Profile (MLPP) for charting continuous progress for all children in literacy development grades Kindergarten through 3. Beginning with the 2003-2004 school year, MLPP for upper grades will be used with students in grades 3 – 6.We will utilize teacher- developed grade level assessments aligned with Everyday Mathematics for charting continuous progress for all students in mathematics in grades K – 6. In addition, teacher- developed assessments aligned with Michigan Content Standards and Benchmarks will be utilized to measure student progress in all content areas K-12. It is essential that assessment be ongoing, aligned with and connected to instruction. It is not intended that a special “time” be set aside for assessment – but rather be incorporated into the day-to-day instruction. It is important that teachers utilize information obtained from students to reflect upon and design further instruction. LITERACY DEVELOPMENT: The Michigan Literacy Progress Profile (MLPP) is the assessment tool that will be used for charting continuous progress in literacy development for students in pre-school through grade 3. Beginning in the 2003-2004 school year, MLPP for upper grades were used for grade 3-6. At grades 3 & 4, MEAP is administered. At grade 5, oral reading fluency and comprehension will be assessed using leveled texts and writing will be 11
  12. 12. assessed using a grade level determined prompt and scored with the MDE 6-point rubric. It is understood that progress should be charted on a regular basis (2 to 3 times per year) for each student using the MILESTONE tools of the MLPP .The ENABLING tools will be used as needed on a student-by-student basis to “dig deeper”. Each teacher will provide a progress report to the building principal with a copy to the Curriculum Director at least twice per year. Grades 7 and 8 teams will also agree on the assessments that will be utilized for each unit and will report student progress to their building principal, with with a copy to the Curriculum Director at least quarterly. The English Language Arts department will align assessment with content standards and benchmarks for each course and will report student progress to their building principal, with a copy to the Curriculum Director at least quarterly. MATHEMATICS: Grades K – 6 grade level teams will reach consensus on the format and items from the Everyday Mathematics program to be used by every teacher within the grade level to assess progress at least every 9 to 12 weeks. The target areas will be those objectives that are designated as “Secure” (Proficient) in the Towards a Balanced Assessment for Everyday Mathematics document. Progress for each student will be reported to the building principal with a copy to the Curriculum Director according to the time schedule determined by the grade level team - with a minimum of three reporting periods per year. Grades 7 and 8 teams will also agree on the assessments that will be utilized for each unit and will report student progress to their building principal, with copies going to the Curriculum Director at least quarterly. The mathematics department will align assessment with content standards and benchmarks for each course and will report student progress to their building principal, with copies to the Curriculum Director, at least quarterly. SCIENCE Grade level and department teams will also agree on the assessments that will be utilized for each unit and will report student progress to their building principal, with copies to the Curriculum Director at least quarterly. SOCIAL STUDIES Grade level and department teams will also agree on the assessments that will be utilized for each unit and will report student progress to their building principal, with copies to the Curriculum Director at least quarterly. SUMMER SCHOOL At the elementary level, a comprehensive summer school program will be offered, as a minimum to all students who have not demonstrated desired progress over time, with priority given to students in 3rd grade who are most at-risk. The program will be a “Jump Start” program that will take place two weeks before the first day of school. The instructional format used for this summer program will follow a balanced literacy format and will utilize the MLPP tools as the basis for assessment and instruction in literacy. Mathematics development in the summer program will be based on the structure of the Everyday Mathematics program. The instructional design for both literacy development 12
  13. 13. and mathematics development will be based on authentic, real-world learning opportunities that engage students in hands-on, interactive opportunities. Worksheets, workbooks and “skill and drill” paper pencil activities will be avoided and used ONLY if such a structure is the best way in which to promote student learning. Comprehensive Assessment Plan Kindergarten Beginning Middle End Informal MLPP – Informal MLPP – Formal MLPP –Complete Individual LITERACY Oral Language Oral Language Literacy Profile for each student Concepts of Print Concepts of Print Oral Language Comprehension – Storytelling Comprehension – Storytelling Concepts of Print using Sulzby using Sulzby Comprehension – Storytelling Letter / Sound ID Letter / Sound ID using Sulzby and retelling Writing – score with rubric Writing – score with rubric rubric Letter / Sound ID Writing – score with rubric MATH Baseline Assessment Mid-Year Assessment Late-in-Year-Assessment SCIENCE Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with SOC. ST. content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks 1st Grade Beginning Middle End Informal MLPP – (Formal for new Informal MLPP – (Formal for new MLPP – students.) students.) Oral Language LITERACY Oral Language Oral Language Phonemic Awareness Phonemic Awareness Phonemic Awareness Oral Running Record Oral Running Record Oral Running Record DRA DRA DRA Comprehension Comprehension Comprehension Storytelling Storytelling Storytelling Oral Retelling Oral Retelling Oral Retelling Writing Writing Writing Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Enabling tools as needed: Enabling tools as needed: Enabling tools as needed:  Hearing and Recording  Hearing and Recording  Hearing and Recording Sounds Sounds Sounds  Sight Words /Decodable  Sight Words /Decodable  Sight Words /Decodable Words Words Words  Letter / Sound ID  Letter / Sound ID  Letter / Sound ID  Known Words  Known Words  Known Words  Concepts of Print  Concepts of Print  Concepts of Print Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes MATH Units 1 and 2 (Early Nov.) Units 3 – 5 (mid Feb) Units 9 – 12 (by end of year) Units 6 – 8 (mid April) SCIENCE Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed SOC. ST. assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks N/A 2nd Grade Beginning Middle End MLPP – Informal (Formal for new MLPP – Informal (Formal for new MLPP – Formal – Complete an 13
  14. 14. LITERACY students) students) Individual Literacy Profile for each student Oral Language Oral Language Oral Language Phonemic Awareness Phonemic Awareness Phonemic Awareness Oral Running Record Oral Running Record Oral Running Record DRA DRA DRA Comprehension Comprehension Comprehension Storytelling Storytelling Storytelling Oral Retelling Oral Retelling Oral Retelling Writing Writing Writing Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Enabling tools as needed: Enabling tools as needed: Enabling tools as needed:  Hearing and Recording  Hearing and Recording  Hearing and Recording Sounds Sounds Sounds  Sight Words /Decodable  Sight Words /Decodable  Sight Words /Decodable Words Words Words  Letter / Sound ID  Letter / Sound ID  Letter / Sound ID  Known Words  Known Words  Known Words  Concepts of Print  Concepts of Print  Concepts of Print Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Units 1 -3 (Early Nov.) Units 4 – 6 (February) Units 10 – 12 (End of Year) MATH Units 7 – 9 (April) Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed SCIENCE assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks SOC. ST. 3rd Grade Beginning Middle End MLPP – Informal (Formal for new MLPP – Informal (Formal for new MLPP – Formal – Complete an students) students Individual Literacy Profile for each LITERACY student Oral Language Oral Language Oral Language Oral Running Record –using Oral Running Record –using Oral Running Record classroom designated materials classroom designated materials DRA (Rigby for DRA levels 30 DRA for new students DRA for new students and higher) Comprehension Comprehension Comprehension [Storytelling (Sulzby)] [Storytelling (Sulzby)] [Storytelling (Sulzby)] Oral Retelling (Scoring Rubric) Oral Retelling (Scoring Rubric) Oral Retelling (Scoring Rubric) Written Retelling (Scoring Written Retelling (Scoring Written Retelling (Scoring Rubric) Rubric) Rubric Writing (4-Point Rubric) Writing (4-Point Rubric) Writing (6-Point Rubric) Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Enabling tools as needed: Enabling tools as needed: Enabling tools as needed:  Hearing and Recording  Hearing and Recording  Hearing and Recording Sounds Sounds Sounds  Sight Words /Decodable  Sight Words /Decodable  Sight Words /Decodable Words Words Words  Letter / Sound ID  Letter / Sound ID  Letter / Sound ID  Known Words  Known Words  Known Words  Concepts of Print  Concepts of Print  Concepts of Print  Phonemic Awareness  Phonemic Awareness  Phonemic Awareness Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes MATH Units 1 -3 (Early Nov.) Units 4 – 6 (February) Units 10 – 11 (End of Year) Units 7 – 9 (April) 14
  15. 15. SCIENCE Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with SOC. ST. content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks TECH 4th Grade Beginning Middle End Oral Running Record Oral Running Record Oral Running Record LITERACY Comprehension Comprehension Comprehension Oral Retelling Oral Retelling Oral Retelling Written Retelling Written Retelling Written Retelling Profundity Scale Profundity Scale Profundity Scale Known Words Known Words Known Words Writing (6-Point Rubric) Writing (6-Point Rubric) Writing (6-Point Rubric) Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes MATH Units 1 -3 (Early Nov.) Units 4 – 6 (February) Units 11 – 13 (End of Year) Units 7 – 10 (April) SCIENCE Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed SOC. ST. assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks 5th Grade Beginning Middle End Oral Running Record Oral Running Record Oral Running Record LITERACY Comprehension Comprehension Comprehension Oral Retelling Oral Retelling Oral Retelling Written Retelling Written Retelling Written Retelling Profundity Scale Profundity Scale Profundity Scale Known Words Known Words Known Words Writing (6-Point Rubric) Writing (6-Point Rubric) Writing (6-Point Rubric) Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes MATH Units 1 -3 (First Quarter) Units 4 – 6 (Second Quarter) Units 10 - 12 (Fourth Quarter) Units 7 – 9 (Third Quarter) Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed SCIENCE assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with SOC. ST. content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks TECH Using Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader Technology Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Classworks Classworks Classworks Standardized MEAP Science MEAP Social Studies 6th Beginning Middle End LITERACY Oral Running Record Oral Running Record Oral Running Record Comprehension Comprehension Comprehension 15
  16. 16. Oral Retelling Oral Retelling Oral Retelling Written Retelling Written Retelling Written Retelling Profundity Scale Profundity Scale Profundity Scale Known Words Known Words Known Words Writing (6-Point Rubric) Writing (6-Point Rubric) Writing (6-Point Rubric) Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes MATH Units 1- 3 (First Quarter) Units 4 – 5 (Second Quarter) Units 8 – 10 (Fourth Quarter) Units 6 – 7 (Third Quarter) SCIENCE SOC. ST. Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with TECH. content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks Using Technology Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Classworks Classworks Classworks STANDARDIZED TerraNova during MEAP window 7th Grade Beginning Middle End LITERACY MATH Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with SCIENCE content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks SOCIAL STUDIES TECHNOLOGY Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader USING Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) TECHNOLOGY Classworks Classworks Classworks MOIS MOIS MOIS STANDARDIZED MEAP – ELA 8th Grade Beginning Middle End LITERACY MATH Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with SCIENCE content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks SOCIAL STUDIES TECHNOLOGY AS APPROPRIATE: AS APPROPRIATE: AS APPROPRIATE: USING Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader TECHNOLOGY Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Classworks Classworks Classworks MOIS MOIS MOIS STANDARDIZED MEAP: Math, Science, Social Studies B. The following methods will be utilized for including teachers in decisions to use assessments that supplement the state assessment system: 1. The building Leadership Team will be untilized to revise the local assessment plan and to obtain staff input in the development of the new assessment plan C. Results of assessments will be reported to parents and 16
  17. 17. community by: 1. School Newsletter, Principal Letter Home to Parents, local media and website. Section 8: Coordination and Ongoing Program Development A. The Schoolwide Program will coordinate with other programs and agencies through the following ways: . 1. Federal, state and local services and programs are effectively coordinated through the district consolidated application process to support our school-wide plan. In fact, Gerrish-Higgins is involved in a number of grants that the Business Manager, Shay Anderson; Superintendent and Director of 31a, Dr.Millie Park Mellgren; and Title I Director, Kathy Rees, have written through the consolidated application process. They have worked very hard to coordinate the following grants. Title I, Part A/D Title II, Part A Title II, Part D Title V 31a State At-Risk ECE Kathy Rees is responsible for the Title I and Early Childhood grants. Dr. Park Mellgren, Superintendent, coordinates services for students formally identified to receive at-risk services. Mrs. Anderson coordinates Title II, Parts A & D and Title V. Mrs. Anderson, Dr. Park Mellgren , and Mrs. Rees have coordinated their efforts to efficiently supply materials, professional development activities, teacher stipends, release time and other support to the entire school district. The district professional development request form has been very helpful to coordinate those types of opportunities. On the forms, staff members are first and foremost requested to identify the connection of the professional development activity to NCA/School Improvement Goals. They are also required to obtain the approval of the project director if funding from one of the above grants is required. Mrs. Anderson, Dr. Park Mellgren, and Mrs. Rees adjust the source of the funding, with the purpose of coordinating all of the grants. For example, staff members who request to attend professional development activities need to complete a plan of how they intend to share and use the information themselves, upon their return. Their 17
  18. 18. goal is to make meaningful choices for professional development, which reflects a comprehensive, coordinated approach for educational reform. At the intermediate school district level, Mrs. Mcnitt, Roscommon Elementary Principal is a member of the COOR Intermediate Coordinating Committee for Professional Development (CCCPD). The CCCPD have coordinated grant efforts and have offered extensive training sessions that are ongoing throughout the year. At the community level, the Title I programs coordinate services with 25 different agencies within the Gerrish-Higgins community to provide services to students in Roscommon. Action plans are written to identify the agency providing the services, action to be taken, target date, agency person responsible, technology needs, and even has a section for review status. Parent involvement will be expanded and enhanced through the efforts of a Parent Involvement Committee. A three-year Parent Involvement Plan, based on the six identified parent involvement standards by Dr. Joyce Epstein will be written. Regularly scheduled parent in-service sessions have been conducted throughout the year. We also provide a parent section within our library. We intend to further expand this parent resource to include a lot more things. We will be offering make-and-take workshops and we will supply all of the materials this spring. Parents, teachers, and students work together at these workshops with teaching aids and games that can be used by parents in their homes with students. These events are intended to provide a warm and inviting place where parents feel welcome and are encouraged to be an active member in their child‟s education. B. The following provisions will be made to facilitate ongoing consultation among the individuals in the planning team (Section 1) concerning the continuing educational progress of all students in the school. 1. Once a month we will have an early release day in the afternoon. We will utilize this time to review the Title I Schoolwide Plan and the Comprehensive Needs Process that is so crticial to the implementation of this plan. Section 9: Fiscal Information We have found that one of the biggest advantages of the Schoolwide program is the opportunity to combine the funding from separate programs to support whole-school reform. Reauthorization permits Schoolwide programs to incorporate funds from state, local, and other federal programs, in addition to Title I. It does not exempt schools from providing appropriate services to the children in the target population in each of these programs. Therefore, in our district we take full advantage of coordinating several funding sources in order to meet the needs of our students to the fullest extent possible. The funds associated with those sources are derived from a careful Comparability study of all three of our Title I Buildings, as they relate to the High School needs which is not 18
  19. 19. a Title I Building. Title I funds follow the needs of the students and are distributed according to the most needy buildings. Other sources of grant monies are then considered also in realtion to the student needs of the high School. A. Title I funds and funds from other sources will be used to implement the Schoolwide program through the following method: 1. Coordination of funds will allow our district to address several needs. Thus, utilizing our funds in a coordinated manner allowing us to provide the maximum extent possible of needed services. B. See attached Schoolwide budget which includes and summarizes all funding sources. C. Attached B Above also supports the district and state support the Title I program. Including dollar amounts of local and state funds spent at this school. Section 10: The names and roles of the reviewers of the schoolwide program plan: Name Current Role Role in Developing in School or the Schoolwide Plan School Community Kathy Rees – Building Principal – Pulling the Plan Together Arlene Martin - Second Grade Teacher – Language Development For The Plan Christina Wintersheimer – Title I Teacher/Coodinator - Language Development For The Plan Cheri Hutek – Special Education Teacher - Language Development For The Plan Jean Christiansen – Kindergarten Teacher - Language Development For The Plan Mary Ward – 2 & 3 combination/music teacher - Language Development For The Plan Michelle Young – Paraprofessional - Language Development For The Plan Marci Howey – Preschool Teacher/Building PTCO Representative - Language Development For The Plan Amy Hess – Parent - Language Development For The Plan 19
  20. 20. What is Title I? In the 1960‟s, Lyndon Johnson created Title I as part of his „War on Poverty‟. The goal was to provide supplemental services to schools to ensure that students from poverty could be successful in academic skills, with emphasis on language arts and mathematics. The goal of the program has remained the same. Every ten years Title I is reauthorized and the laws that accompany the money are reviewed and refined. This year, the year of reauthorization, the emphasis in the program will be on assessment, achievement, and plans for student and school improvement. While the program may become more flexible in how services may be delivered to children, the evaluation of program success will be more stringent. However, the goal of the program remains providing money for supplemental services that lead to student academic success. 20
  21. 21. How are participating schools in the Gerrish-Higgins School District chosen? In Gerrish-Higgins Title I is available in both elementary schools and the middle school. Every year schools are chosen according to the percentage of students who are eligible for free and reduced lunch. This report, generated on October 31st, is used to fund programs for the following school year. The Title I Coordinator, and business office, ranks the schools from the highest percentage of students eligible for free and reduced lunch to the lowest using a comparability formula. Using this ranking, the money received from the federal government is given out to the schools until all the money is used or until the school with the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced lunch is at the county average. However, the district can choose to allot even more dollars to the school-wide building in order to improve services in the building where everyone in the building is technically viewed as eligible. This year the Title I schools are: St. Helen Elementary (School-wide), Roscommon Middle School (School-wide), Roscommon Elementary (School-wide). How are the Title I services delivered? There are two kinds of Title I schools, School-wide and Targeted Assistance Schools. School-wides are schools that have 50% or more of the students eligible for free and reduced lunch, or they are schools that have received a waiver to enable them to be a school-wide. For instance, St. Helen Elementary has gone through the yearlong process to become a school-wide building with a current free and reduced lunch eligibility of 66%. In St. Helen, the Title I program is very flexible; the money given may be used to enhance the whole school‟s academic program. In schools that fall below 50% or do not have waivers, the Targeted Assistance money is directed to programs that enhance the academics of identified individual students who are struggling academically. These students are chosen based on the matrix score in language arts and mathematics. The school may choose the subject that is the focus of Title I and it may choose the grade levels that will receive the extra support. This is accomplished through the use of a needs assessment. As of last year, both Roscommon Middle School and Roscommon Elementary School have eligibility levels that qualify them for school-wide status. Therefore, during the 2003/04 school year they chose the North Central Accreditation (NCA) Association as their approved service provider and worked with this provider over the 2003-04 school year to also become school-wide buildings. Regardless of which program is in operation in a school, the goal is for all students to reach the county and state academic standard, and for those subgroups generally known to be at higher risk for academic success to reach the same high performance standards. The principal and the School Improvement Team through disaggregation of data, formulation of a school-wide plan, and monitoring of aggregated and disaggregated student success decide upon exactly how this will be accomplished. At Roscommon Elemetary, the principal with the SIT team decided to use team teachers to deliver the services. At St. Helen Elementary and Roscommon Middle School the principals and their SIT team decided to hire additional teachers in order to lower the teacher/student ratio. Each of the three programs use paraprofessionals to provide students with private tutorials or to work with small 21
  22. 22. groups. The Gerrish-Higgins School District Title I approach is to always on all four Core Curricular proficiencies no matter which service delivery method is utilized. Every plan chosen by each of the three schools must be reviewed and approved by the Title I Team, a group of: parents, community members, teachers, paraprofessionals and administrative representatives, who meet frequently to monitor the success of the Title I programs. In addition to monitoring the instructional gains of Title I services, daily documentation needs to be kept by all Title I staff. Using the log in appendix A, all Title I staff need to maintain daily logs. These logs can be used to record the names of an entire group and describing an activity or with individual students. There is an important service delivery stipulation. No matter how services are delivered they need to be supplemental in nature and by no means take the place of, or supplant core area instruction. As the definitions would imply, supplement indicates to make an addition to, were as supplant means to take the place of. Title I services must not take the place of instruction, instead services need to compliment or offer additional practice of core area instruction. How are Title I students assessed? In accordance with the legislative mandate to provide documentation that all students in Kindergarten through 8th grade are making continuous progress, the Gerrish-Higgins School District is committed to assuring that all students are making positive continuous growth – academic, social, physical, emotional. There is strong evidence that assessment, especially for early elementary years, must be ongoing, developmental and directly aligned with instruction. Gerrish-Higgins School District will utilize Michigan Literacy Progress Profile (MLPP) for charting continuous progress for all children in literacy development grades Kindergarten through 3. Beginning with the 2003-2004 school year, MLPP for upper grades will be used with students in grades 3 – 6.We will utilize teacher- developed grade level assessments aligned with Everyday Mathematics for charting continuous progress for all students in mathematics in grades K – 6. In addition, teacher- developed assessments aligned with Michigan Content Standards and Benchmarks will be utilized to measure student progress in all content areas K-12. It is essential that assessment be ongoing, aligned with and connected to instruction. It is not intended that a special “time” be set aside for assessment – but rather be incorporated into the day-to-day instruction. It is important that teachers utilize information obtained from students to reflect upon and design further instruction. LITERACY DEVELOPMENT: The Michigan Literacy Progress Profile (MLPP) is the assessment tool that will be used for charting continuous progress in literacy development for students in pre-school through grade 3. Beginning in the 2003-2004 school year, MLPP for upper grades were used for grade 3-6. At grades 3 & 4, MEAP is administered. At grade 5, oral reading 22
  23. 23. fluency and comprehension will be assessed using leveled texts and writing will be assessed using a grade level determined prompt and scored with the MDE 6-point rubric. It is understood that progress should be charted on a regular basis (2 to 3 times per year) for each student using the MILESTONE tools of the MLPP .The ENABLING tools will be used as needed on a student-by-student basis to “dig deeper”. Each teacher will provide a progress report to the building principal with a copy to the Curriculum Director at least twice per year. Grades 7 and 8 teams will also agree on the assessments that will be utilized for each unit and will report student progress to their building principal, with with a copy to the Curriculum Director at least quarterly. The English Language Arts department will align assessment with content standards and benchmarks for each course and will report student progress to their building principal, with a copy to the Curriculum Director at least quarterly. MATHEMATICS: Grades K – 6 grade level teams will reach consensus on the format and items from the Everyday Mathematics program to be used by every teacher within the grade level to assess progress at least every 9 to 12 weeks. The target areas will be those objectives that are designated as “Secure” (Proficient) in the Towards a Balanced Assessment for Everyday Mathematics document. Progress for each student will be reported to the building principal with a copy to the Curriculum Director according to the time schedule determined by the grade level team - with a minimum of three reporting periods per year. Grades 7 and 8 teams will also agree on the assessments that will be utilized for each unit and will report student progress to their building principal, with copies going to the Curriculum Director at least quarterly. The mathematics department will align assessment with content standards and benchmarks for each course and will report student progress to their building principal, with copies to the Curriculum Director, at least quarterly. SCIENCE Grade level and department teams will also agree on the assessments that will be utilized for each unit and will report student progress to their building principal, with copies to the Curriculum Director at least quarterly. SOCIAL STUDIES Grade level and department teams will also agree on the assessments that will be utilized for each unit and will report student progress to their building principal, with copies to the Curriculum Director at least quarterly. SUMMER SCHOOL At the elementary level, a comprehensive summer school program will be offered, as a minimum to all students who have not demonstrated desired progress over time, with priority given to students in 3rd grade who are most at-risk. The program will be a “Jump Start” program that will take place two weeks before the first day of school. The instructional format used for this summer program will follow a balanced literacy format and will utilize the MLPP tools as the basis for assessment and instruction in literacy. Mathematics development in the summer program will be based on the structure of the 23
  24. 24. Everyday Mathematics program. The instructional design for both literacy development and mathematics development will be based on authentic, real-world learning opportunities that engage students in hands-on, interactive opportunities. Worksheets, workbooks and “skill and drill” paper pencil activities will be avoided and used ONLY if such a structure is the best way in which to promote student learning. Comprehensive Assessment Plan Kindergarten Beginning Middle End Informal MLPP – Informal MLPP – Formal MLPP –Complete Individual LITERACY Oral Language Oral Language Literacy Profile for each student Concepts of Print Concepts of Print Oral Language Comprehension – Storytelling Comprehension – Storytelling Concepts of Print using Sulzby using Sulzby Comprehension – Storytelling Letter / Sound ID Letter / Sound ID using Sulzby and retelling Writing – score with rubric Writing – score with rubric rubric Letter / Sound ID Writing – score with rubric MATH Baseline Assessment Mid-Year Assessment Late-in-Year-Assessment SCIENCE Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with SOC. ST. content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks 1st Grade Beginning Middle End Informal MLPP – (Formal for new Informal MLPP – (Formal for new MLPP – students.) students.) Oral Language LITERACY Oral Language Oral Language Phonemic Awareness Phonemic Awareness Phonemic Awareness Oral Running Record Oral Running Record Oral Running Record DRA DRA DRA Comprehension Comprehension Comprehension Storytelling Storytelling Storytelling Oral Retelling Oral Retelling Oral Retelling Writing Writing Writing Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Enabling tools as needed: Enabling tools as needed: Enabling tools as needed:  Hearing and Recording  Hearing and Recording  Hearing and Recording Sounds Sounds Sounds  Sight Words /Decodable  Sight Words /Decodable  Sight Words /Decodable Words Words Words  Letter / Sound ID  Letter / Sound ID  Letter / Sound ID  Known Words  Known Words  Known Words  Concepts of Print  Concepts of Print  Concepts of Print Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes MATH Units 1 and 2 (Early Nov.) Units 3 – 5 (mid Feb) Units 9 – 12 (by end of year) Units 6 – 8 (mid April) SCIENCE Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed SOC. ST. assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks N/A 2nd Grade Beginning Middle End 24
  25. 25. MLPP – Informal (Formal for new MLPP – Informal (Formal for new MLPP – Formal – Complete an students) students) Individual Literacy Profile for each LITERACY student Oral Language Oral Language Oral Language Phonemic Awareness Phonemic Awareness Phonemic Awareness Oral Running Record Oral Running Record Oral Running Record DRA DRA DRA Comprehension Comprehension Comprehension Storytelling Storytelling Storytelling Oral Retelling Oral Retelling Oral Retelling Writing Writing Writing Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Enabling tools as needed: Enabling tools as needed: Enabling tools as needed:  Hearing and Recording  Hearing and Recording  Hearing and Recording Sounds Sounds Sounds  Sight Words /Decodable  Sight Words /Decodable  Sight Words /Decodable Words Words Words  Letter / Sound ID  Letter / Sound ID  Letter / Sound ID  Known Words  Known Words  Known Words  Concepts of Print  Concepts of Print  Concepts of Print Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Units 1 -3 (Early Nov.) Units 4 – 6 (February) Units 10 – 12 (End of Year) MATH Units 7 – 9 (April) Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with SCIENCE content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks SOC. ST. 3rd Grade Beginning Middle End MLPP – Informal (Formal for new MLPP – Informal (Formal for new MLPP – Formal – Complete an students) students Individual Literacy Profile for each LITERACY student Oral Language Oral Language Oral Language Oral Running Record –using Oral Running Record –using Oral Running Record classroom designated materials classroom designated materials DRA (Rigby for DRA levels 30 DRA for new students DRA for new students and higher) Comprehension Comprehension Comprehension [Storytelling (Sulzby)] [Storytelling (Sulzby)] [Storytelling (Sulzby)] Oral Retelling (Scoring Rubric) Oral Retelling (Scoring Rubric) Oral Retelling (Scoring Rubric) Written Retelling (Scoring Written Retelling (Scoring Written Retelling (Scoring Rubric) Rubric) Rubric Writing (4-Point Rubric) Writing (4-Point Rubric) Writing (6-Point Rubric) Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Enabling tools as needed: Enabling tools as needed: Enabling tools as needed:  Hearing and Recording  Hearing and Recording  Hearing and Recording Sounds Sounds Sounds  Sight Words /Decodable  Sight Words /Decodable  Sight Words /Decodable Words Words Words  Letter / Sound ID  Letter / Sound ID  Letter / Sound ID  Known Words  Known Words  Known Words  Concepts of Print  Concepts of Print  Concepts of Print  Phonemic Awareness  Phonemic Awareness  Phonemic Awareness Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes MATH Units 1 -3 (Early Nov.) Units 4 – 6 (February) Units 10 – 11 (End of Year) Units 7 – 9 (April) 25
  26. 26. Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed SCIENCE assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with SOC. ST. content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks TECH 4th Grade Beginning Middle End Oral Running Record Oral Running Record Oral Running Record LITERACY Comprehension Comprehension Comprehension Oral Retelling Oral Retelling Oral Retelling Written Retelling Written Retelling Written Retelling Profundity Scale Profundity Scale Profundity Scale Known Words Known Words Known Words Writing (6-Point Rubric) Writing (6-Point Rubric) Writing (6-Point Rubric) Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes MATH Units 1 -3 (Early Nov.) Units 4 – 6 (February) Units 11 – 13 (End of Year) Units 7 – 10 (April) SCIENCE Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed SOC. ST. assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks 5th Grade Beginning Middle End Oral Running Record Oral Running Record Oral Running Record LITERACY Comprehension Comprehension Comprehension Oral Retelling Oral Retelling Oral Retelling Written Retelling Written Retelling Written Retelling Profundity Scale Profundity Scale Profundity Scale Known Words Known Words Known Words Writing (6-Point Rubric) Writing (6-Point Rubric) Writing (6-Point Rubric) Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes MATH Units 1 -3 (First Quarter) Units 4 – 6 (Second Quarter) Units 10 - 12 (Fourth Quarter) Units 7 – 9 (Third Quarter) Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed SCIENCE assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with SOC. ST. content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks TECH Using Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader Technology Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Classworks Classworks Classworks Standardized MEAP Science MEAP Social Studies 6th Beginning Middle End LITERACY Oral Running Record Oral Running Record Oral Running Record 26
  27. 27. Comprehension Comprehension Comprehension Oral Retelling Oral Retelling Oral Retelling Written Retelling Written Retelling Written Retelling Profundity Scale Profundity Scale Profundity Scale Known Words Known Words Known Words Writing (6-Point Rubric) Writing (6-Point Rubric) Writing (6-Point Rubric) Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes MATH Units 1- 3 (First Quarter) Units 4 – 5 (Second Quarter) Units 8 – 10 (Fourth Quarter) Units 6 – 7 (Third Quarter) SCIENCE Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed SOC. ST. assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with TECH. content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks Using Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader Technology Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Classworks Classworks Classworks STANDARDIZED TerraNova during MEAP window th 7 Grade Beginning Middle End LITERACY MATH Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with SCIENCE content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks SOCIAL STUDIES TECHNOLOGY Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader USING Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) TECHNOLOGY Classworks Classworks Classworks MOIS MOIS MOIS STANDARDIZED MEAP – ELA 8th Grade Beginning Middle End LITERACY MATH Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with SCIENCE content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks SOCIAL STUDIES TECHNOLOGY AS APPROPRIATE: AS APPROPRIATE: AS APPROPRIATE: USING Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader TECHNOLOGY Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Classworks Classworks Classworks MOIS MOIS MOIS STANDARDIZED MEAP: Math, Science, Social Studies How are Title I schools evaluated for success? Title I schools are carefully monitored by both the Central Office through the work of the aforementioned Title I Team, and the Michigan State Department of Education. The measure of success is the Michigan Education Assessment program (MEAP) that is used to determine Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Each year the Title I coordinator receives information from the state about the trend seen in MSPAP performance, be it positive or negative. Schools that show a negative trend based on the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), are given a warning. Schools that show a negative trend for two years are put in 27
  28. 28. improvement. Parents of these students are allowed to transfer to another school providing there is room. This is called the student transfer option. In addition, the Central Office works with the school to ensure that extra assistance is available. The staff from the state Title I office visits and monitors the school to offer any appropriate assistance. Gerrish-Higgins had an on-site review last year. Once a school is in the second year of a downward trend, it must show a positive trend for two consecutive years in order to be dismissed from school improvement. During this time the central office and, eventually the Michigan State Department of Education, may become active in the school in order to turn around achievement. The plans for improvement vary widely and may include adding specific staff development, removing some site-based decision making, changing key staff, and reviewing curricular programs used. Regardless of the road taken, the goal of improvement is to increase achievement, especially for students who are at-risk for academic success. How are parents involved? Parent involvement is a cornerstone of a Title I school. In Gerrish-Higgins the guidance counselor‟s function in this capacity in our Title I school. These staff members act as the „bridge‟ between home and school. There is a Title I orientation held in each school twice a year (fall and spring). There are parent/teacher/student compacts (See attachment B), parent meetings, and special Title I parent outreach programs and services are offered. At St. Helen Elementary, there is a parent involvement plan which represents six aspects of parent involvement (See attached C). In June of 2004, a parent group consisting of 6 members revised the Three-Year Plan themselves, as well as the Parent Compact. On the Parent Compact they added a few things in the narrative plus they added a section for Parent to devise a goal that they would work on to support the elements of the Parent Compacts. The previous Compact was signed and returned with the Welcome Back Packets in the beginning of the year. The new Compacts were reviewed and signed at the Fall Parent Teacher Conferences. Copies of the new plans were given to both the teacher and the parents and will be reviewed once again in the spring conferences. How are agencies involved? As the motto indicates, “It Take a Whole Village to Raise a Child”. Efforts need to be taken in order to effectively utilize the services available throughout the community. Appendix D contains our entire agency coordination process. The three year Action Plans for each organization will be updated in October of 2006. What is the importance of professional development? Professional development is very key in utilizing the Title I program as a vehicle for change. We recognize that there is not one mold that answers the professional development needs of every educator. It is essential that the professional development 28
  29. 29. plan provides an opportunity for both the needs of the individual and the needs of the district to be met. It is recognized that professional development, to be effective, must be ongoing, and sustained, providing both training and opportunities to apply the new learning. Implementation of learning communities are encouraged at both building and district levels. To this end, the expectation for professional development at Gerrish- Higgins is aligned to the National Staff Development Council‟s Standards for Staff Development 2001: Our professional development plan incorporates learning strategies appropriate for the intended goal and is aligned with our district curriculum and instructional practices and our district mission. We base professional development opportunities on educator‟s content knowledge, we provide them with research-based instructional strategies to assist students in meeting rigorous academic standards, and prepare them to use various types of classroom assessments appropriately. We believe that Standards for Teaching and Learning from Michigan Curriculum Frameworks are foundational in professional development (Higher Order Thinking, Substantive Conversation, Deep Knowledge, Real-World Application). We use disaggregated data from a variety of sources (MEAP, Terra Nova, MLPP, Dibels, Everyday Math, NCA instruments, grade-level and department created assessment data) to determine adult learning priorities, monitor progress, and help sustain continuous improvement. Context Standards: 13. LEARNING COMMUNITIES will be encouraged as a means to provide ongoing support to adults working to improve student learning. 14. LEADERSHIP to guide continuous instructional improvement is an essential component for improving student learning and will be developed and supported. 15. RESOURCES to support adult learning and collaboration will be sought through a variety of means: grants, in-kind resources, release time when possible, and necessary materials to support adult learning Process Standards: 16. DATA DRIVEN: Disaggregated data from a variety of sources (MEAP, Terra Nova, MLPP, Everyday Math, NCA common matrix and context bound instruments, grade-level and department created assessment data) will be utilized to determine adult learning priorities, monitor progress, and help sustain continuous improvement. Professional development is planned with input from the stakeholders. 17. EVALUATION of professional development will be ongoing, utilizing multiple sources of information to guide improvement and determine the impact of professional development on student learning. 29

×