Greysbranch Elementary

SCHOOl IMPROVEMENT Plan

SCHOOL ASSURANCE REVIEW

SCHOOL YEAR 2008-2009

The GreysbranchElementary school council and school planning committee reviewed the Assurances in the Kentucky Comprehensive Improvement Planning School Framework (2003) prior to approval of our plan.

______Jeff Wireman____ 11/20/08

Chairperson, School CouncilDate

______Jamie Hunt______11/20/08

Chairperson, School Planning CommitteeDate

Plan Approved by the School Council: / Plan Approved by the Local Board:
Principal Signature
Jeff Wireman
Date:11/20/2008 / Superintendent Signature
Local Board Chair Signature
______
Date

School Council Members:

Jessica Gullett-Teacher

/ Jeff Wireman-Principal
Shauna Brillhart-Teacher / Brad Stultz-Parent
Katie Bechtel-Teacher / Joe Mauk-Parent

Note: Although the Assurance Certification is not included in the school’s improvement plan, the assurances for the categorical programs should be reviewed by the school council and the school planning committee prior to approval of the plan by the school council. The Assurances for 2003-2004 are in the Comprehensive School Improvement Planning Framework (2003) and can be downloaded from the Web Page at:

School Plan Format Copyright  Kentucky Department of Education, 2003

GreysbranchSchool Improvement Plan

Accountability Trend

Identified GAPS

2008 CATS Gap Facts
Reading / Index / Male / Female / FRL-App. / FRL-no / Dis.-No / Dis. - Yes
3rd / 95.57 / 91.62 / 99.13 / 88.1 / 104.43 / 99.3 / 77.3
4th / 90.03 / 81.64 / 89.85 / 85.48 / 98 / 92.74
5th / 91.56 / 83.73 / 101.6 / 84.3 / 105 / 97.9 / 71.3
Math / Index / Male / Female / FRL-App. / FRL-no / Dis.-No / Dis. - Yes
3rd / 96 / 94.96 / 96.97 / 84.35 / 109.84 / 101.07 / 71.2
4th / 83.08 / 72.75 / 93.77 / 72.83 / 101 / 89.09
5th / 91.2 / 83.07 / 101.6 / 86.43 / 100 / 102.35 / 43.2
Science / Index / Male / Female / FRL-App. / FRL-no / Dis.-No / Dis. - Yes
4th / 94.16 / 91.17 / 97.25 / 89.69 / 102 / 95.79
Social Studies / Index / Male / Female / FRL-App. / FRL-no / Dis.-No / Dis. - Yes
5th / 73.38 / 72.66 / 74.32 / 66.06 / 86.95 / 83.08 / 39.2
Arts & Human. / Index / Male / Female / FRL-App. / FRL-no / Dis.-No / Dis. - Yes
5th / 70.24 / 65.38 / 76.48 / 58.49 / 92 / 82.48 / 26.6
Practical Living / Index / Male / Female / FRL-App. / FRL-no / Dis.-No / Dis. - Yes
4th / 99.98 / 89.5 / 110.94 / 90.82 / 116 / 103.89

Executive Plan Summary

In this plan are many activities that are already implemented. The staff and other stakeholders feel that the activities that are on going have been successful and want to continue implementing them.

New Activities include:

  • Evaluating and Adopting new Math curriculum
  • Professional Learning Communities
  • RTI with Aims Web Data Collection
  • StudyIsland
  • Open Response template consistent school wide.
  • 21st Century Program

Ongoing Activities include:

  • Star Early Literacy
  • Behavior Treasure Box
  • All students will be tested during CATS
  • Calendar Math
  • Daily Math Drills
  • SRA Reading
  • School wide Read, Write and Gold
  • Smart Boards/Airliners/Responders
  • KET United Streaming
  • CRT dedicated to GES fulltime
  • Utilize Star Reading Program.
  • Continued implementation of Earobics.
  • Teachers will send home expectations at the beginning of each new nine weeks.
  • The Safety Committee will conduct monthly inspections.
  • A variety of Professional development offered throughout the year
  • Art Expo
  • Have a talent show and field day
  • Science and Social Studies projects.
  • Conduct “POPS” program.
  • Continue to purchase research based Accelerated Reader books.
  • Provide intensive reading remediation through Great Leaps.
  • Utilize “Coach” books.
  • Academic Awards assemblies.
  • Utilizing extended school services
  • Involvement of parents and community personnel.
  • Family reading night.
  • Home school communications through grading reports, parent conferences, agenda books, good news cards, email, school web page,teacher web page,classroom newsletter
  • School safety patrol.
  • School Bus safety
  • Implementation of discipline packets as behavioral intervention
  • Partially departmentalizing fourth and fifth grades.
  • The School’s Schedule allows for collaboration
  • Annual parent/teacher conferences as needed.

Process summary

The legal requirements for Planning involve how you developed the Plan as well as what you put in the Components, and this Process section shows that you are in compliance on those issues. In the Process Summary, answer the following questions:

  1. When and how did your school develop its mission statement? The SBDM council adopted the mission statement at GES on 12/2/2004. The mission statement was developed with input of the staff and recommended to the council at an SBDM meeting on 11/11/2004. When and how did your school community last review it? Based upon input from stakeholders, the SBDM adopted the following mission statement Increase student achievement in a safe an orderly environment while building relationships an enjoying the experience”. The mission statement was adopted by the SBDM council on 4/17/2003. The mission statement was reviewed during a SBDM council meeting on 11/8/07. The meeting was open for all stakeholders to have input.
  2. Did the council use a Needs Assessment process aligned with Kentucky’s Standards and Indicators for School Improvement? If not, please identify and describe the process that was used. The teams and committees worked collaboratively to complete a comprehensive needs assessment including data from CATS and No Child Left Behind reports and review of former plans of the school. The input from the teams and committees was shared with the SBDM council.
  3. When did the council complete each step of its Needs Assessment Work? If some parts were completed in past years and not repeated in the current school year, please identify those parts and when they were most recently completed. The staff began review of the CATS data on September 10, 2008 and the SBDM council reviewed data on September 11,2008. The component teams met on October 29,2008 to review the current SIP, at that same time GAP strategy discussions occurred. The component teams met again on November 5, 2008 thru November 19,2008 to set priority needs, goals and objectives and discuss and make suggested recommendations for revisions. The entire staff met on November 19, 2008 to discuss the recommended changes for final revision recommendations to be submitted to the SBDM council. The council met on November 20, 2008, to review and discuss revisions. After review of the data, discussion and revisions the council adopted the plan on 11/20/2008.
  4. When did the council decide on Priority Needs, Causes, Goals, and Objectives? The council reviewed all the disaggregated data on 9/10/2008, the teams reached consensus on the priority needs, goals, objectives, and strategies on 11/5/2008. This information was then shared with SBDM council on 11/20/2008. After this filtering, the priority needs, goals, objectives, and strategies were then finalized by the SBDM council on 11/20/2008.
  1. When did the council identify substantive achievement gaps, set gap targets, and adopt its time schedule for closing the gaps? SBDM council reviewed data and looked at gaps on September 11,2008. The component teams met on October 29, 2008 and again November 5th thru November 20,2008 to examine achievement gaps, establish biennial goals to address gaps and determine strategies and activities to eliminate the gaps. All SBDM meetings are open to all stakeholders.
  2. When did the council review drafts of the components? 11/20/2008
  3. When did the council review estimates for costs and drafts of Section 7 requests? This step is still in the future, as of today the council will discuss section seven request in a regular SBDM meeting on February 12,2009, and will be making request of the board of education for needed funds.
  4. When was the public meeting held to present the Plan to the community, and who attended? All SBDM council meetings are open to the public. At a special meeting on November 20,2008 stakeholders attending included parents, teachers and administration. When did the council officially adopt your revised Plan? November 20, 2008.
  5. When did the council officially adopt any Section 7 requests? This step is still being discussed, as of today section7 request has not been adopted.
  6. When and why has the Plan been revised since that data? The entire school population felt that the SIP needed major revisions , especially in the Academic Performance component. The component teams met several times to look at data and make the suggested revisions to the current SIP. Council first met for data disaggregation on 9/11/2008. Committees met throughout November to look at and identify achievement gaps and develop strategies to eliminate achievement gaps. Data indicate achievement gaps in students with disabilities in reading and math and students on FRL in reading and math and male students in Reading and math. There were gaps with the same sub-populations in other content areas as well. The committees developed strategies and activities to eliminate the gaps.
  7. How will you evaluate your Plan, and when? The SBDM council will evaluate and review the plan at during monthly SBDM meetings. The PLC’s will look at the plan/ strategies during their monthly meetings. The plan will be evaluated and revised on an ongoing basis.
  8. For each step listed above, what other stakeholders were involved and how? Include names and identify those who represent parents, teachers, other staff, other stakeholders, primary parents, migrant parents, and your community’s ethnic diversity.

School Improvement Planning Committees

  1. Language Arts component team: Jenny Weaver, Jessica Gullett, Glenda Blevins, Shauna Brillhart, Brooke Lowe, Anita Prater, Brooke Wells
  2. Math component team: Mitzi Lanning, Jonda Bonzo,Renata Cox, Miranda Blair, Brittany McCullough, Katie Bechtel, Sherry Mullins
  3. Science and Social Studies component team: Patrica Wireman, Lisa Farley, Latisha Conley, Lee Ann Stout, Misty Tackett, Gale Morris
  4. Arts and Humanities component team: Keith Simmons, Brian Fletcher, Rhonda Hamiliton
  5. Academic Performance: Trina Griffith, Debbie Wienshienk, Jamie Hunt, Julie Stamper, Cherri Carr
  6. School Culture component team: Jeff Wireman, Jamie Hunt, Dana McCleese, Julie Stamper

GREENUP COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Greysbranch Elementary

COMPREHENSIVESCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2008

Component – Academic Performance

NEEDS AND GOALS

Component Manager: Julie Stamper and Trina Griffith

Date: 11-5-08

Priority Need:
  • High functioning and struggling learners need to be identified at every grade level
  • High functioning students need more enrichment beyond the grade level curriculum to increase challenge their learning and increase their skills.
  • Struggling learners need to be provided intervention strategies that can be measured
  • To not over refer children for special education (as reported in the national averages).
  • To raise overall CATS and Terra Nova Scores building scores.
/ Goal:
To achieve an overall academic index of 100 by 2014
To identify individual student levels of functioning for math and reading.
To identify high functioning learners in specific academic areas.
To identify struggling learners in specific academic areas.
To provide enrichment activities for high functioning learners.
To provide intervention strategies for struggling learners that are measurable.
To meet the needs of all children in the areas of reading and math that will be reflected in increased test scores.
Causes/Contributing Factors:
*Currently not an global method for all grade levels to identify children’s ability levels in reading and math.
*Limited resources available to obtain enrichment activities.
*Lack of an established school wide measurable and comparable method for progress monitoring.
* Lack of established RTI method prior to special education referral to show student’s lack of growth with specifically provided interventions.. / Measurable Objectives:
*Given assessments, students will be identified as high functioning who score in the “well above average” range for a particular subject area.
*Students identified as highly functioning will
receive enrichment opportunities to go beyond their regular grade level curriculum.
*Identified Struggling learners will be given intervention strategies to increase their knowledge and performance in identified areas.
*Response to Intervention plan will be adopted as a pre-referral strategy prior to special education referral.

Component – Academic Performance

Strategies And Impact

Objective: To meet the Academic needs of students identified as struggling or high performing.

Strategy/Activity / Expected Impact / Responsible Person(s) / Start/
End Date / Cost
Fund Source / I
IP
NI / Outcomes
Report of Progress / Review Date
AP1 Aims Web Testing for reading and math (all students K-5) / Identify highly functioning and struggling learners in individual academic areas / All Teachers, Instructional Assistants, CRT and Principal / Aug-May / District funds / IP / Fall Reading test has been completed. / Monthly
AP2 Use of curriculum supplementary materials that come with textbook series or other researched based materials for students who are identified as struggling or high functioning. / Students identified as struggling will progress toward being on grade level. Highly functioning students will excel beyond their immediate level. Increase knowledge as reflected in overall test scores / Teachers and Instructional Assistants / Aug-May / 5000.00 Title I / IP / Some existing materials are used. / Monthly
AP3 Professional development for teachers on the use and maintenance of Aims web data / Teachers will gain working knowledge of how to obtain Aimsweb data, monitor student progress and to use information to provide students with additional help. / Principal / Jan 09 / 100.00 PD funds / IP / Some staff attended a PD training. Further training needed. / Jan 2009
AP4 StudyIsland use for enrichment and supplemental materials / Highly functioning children have access to enrichment activities to further their learning beyond the grade level curriculum
Struggling learners can use activities to remediate identified areas of need. / Teachers, Instructional Assistants and parents. / Dec 08
ongoing / IP / Monthly
AP5 Professional development for teachers on using StudyIsland / Teachers have working knowledge of how to plan for and implement student use of the program / Principal / Dec- 2008 / IP / Scheduled for Dec 2nd / Dec. 2008
AP6 Individual goal setting for students in areas of reading and math. / Personal goals set for and montored by students to increase their core knowledge and increase test scores / Principal
Teachers and RTI team / May 2008 / NI / Jan 2009
AP7 Develop an RTI plan for Reading. / Students will be provided extra reading to help bring them back to grade level. / Principal, School RTI team. / Jan 2009 / NI / Jan 2009-ongoing

Component – Language Art (Reading)

NEEDS AND GOALS

Component Manager: Glenda Blevins and Shauna Brillhart

Date: 11-5-08

Priority Need:
In 2008, our Academic Index results on the KY Core Content
Test include the following areas of need:
Our academic index in reading was 92.4.
48% of male students scored below Proficient on the 2008 CATS.
42% of students on FRL scored below Proficient on the 2008
CATS assessment.
58.6% of students with disabilities scored below Proficient on the
2008 CATS assessment. / Goal:
To achieve an overall academic index of 100 by 2014 we will increase our index score in Reading by 3 each year.
In 2009, our academic results on the KY Core Content Test will include the following indexes:
  • Combined overall Reading academic index of 95.4

Causes/Contributing Factors:
  1. Some Male interest levels are low in the reading content.
  2. Students that receive FRL may have a lack of opportunity due to economic status.
  3. Students with disabilities may have a lack of exposure to core content vocabulary.
/ Measurable Objectives:
On the 2009 CATS assessment our school will achieve the following:
  1. Decrease the amount of male students performing below proficient by 10% (9 students).
  2. Decrease the amount of students receiving FRL performing below proficient by 10% (11 students).
  3. Decrease the amount of students with disabilities performing below proficient by 10% (3 students).

Component – Language Art (Reading)

Strategies And Impact

Objective: On the 2009 CATS, students scoring below proficient will decrease by 10% from 2008 CATS results in Reading and Writing.

Strategy/Activity / Expected Impact / Responsible Person(s) / Start/End Date / Cost
Fund Source / I
IP
NI / Outcomes
Report of Progress / Review Date
Reading:
LA1 Nightly reading log. Every child reads 15 minutes every evening.
LA2 Use adopted textbook.
-Use SRA and COACH books as supplements.
-
LA3 Available PD for Kid Stations and other supplemental reading activities.
LA4 Lesson plans guided by Core Content Reading Vocabulary to include DOK levels. / Increase interest levels of students.
Make students and parents accountable for independent reading.
Increase students with IEP’s exposure to Core content vocabulary.
Increase test scores. / Teachers
Special Educators
Parents
Students
Principal / Jan. 09 / 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 / NI
IP
NI
IP / Houghton Mifflin reading series.
SRA used in Special Education
Coach books used for 3rd,4th, and 5th / Monthly during PLC meetings

Component – WRITING

NEEDS AND GOALS

Component Manager: Glenda Blevins and Shauna Brillhart

Date: 11-5-08

Priority Need:
In 2008, our Academic Index results on the KY Core Content
Test include the following areas of need:
Writing Portfolio 88.72
55% of males score below proficient.
58% of students on FRL scored below proficient.
80% of students with disabilities scored below proficient.
On-Demand 67.88
88% of males scored below proficient.
83% of students on FRL scored below proficient.
92% of students with disabilities scored below proficient / Goal:
To achieve an academic index of 100 by 2014 we will increase are index score by 3 each year in Writing Portfolio.
To increase our academic index we will increase are index score by 5 each year in On-Demand Writing.
In 2009, our academic results on the KY Core Content Test will include the following indexes:
  • 91.7 in Writing Portfolio for all students
  • 72.8 in On-Demand for all students

Causes/Contributing Factors:
  1. Some Male interest levels are low in the writing content.
  2. Students that receive FRL may have a lack of exposure due to limited income resources.
  3. Students with disabilities may have a lack of exposure to various writings.
/ Measurable Objectives:
On the 2009 CATS assessment our school will achieve the following:
  1. Decrease the amount of male students performing below proficient by 10%.
  2. Decrease the amount of students receiving FRL performing below proficient by 10%.
  3. Decrease the amount of students with disabilities performing below proficient by 10%.

Component – Language Arts (Writing)

Strategies And Impact

Objective: On the 2009 CATS, students scoring below proficient will decrease by 10% from 2008 CATS results in Reading and Writing.