Hickman Mills C-1 School District

HICKMAN MILLS C-1 SCHOOL DISTRICT

School’s Mission:

Vision Statement:

Describe the primary focus of the school improvement efforts for the current school 2007 – 08. Include results of efforts – attach data.

HICKMAN MILLS C-1 SCHOOL DISTRICT

Briefly describe the process used to update the school improvement plan. Include how decisions are made. List names of leadership team.

Describe how the plan is to be shared with all stakeholders.

Summary of School Objectives for 2008-09

Data Availability Chart

School Goals / Evidence We Have / Evidence We Need
1. By May of 2009, 70% of K-3 students at Santa Fe will score at benchmark or above as measured by the DIBELS assessment.
2. By May of 2009, 80% of 1st-5th grade Santa Fe students will read at or above grade level as measured by the Houghton-Mifflin Leveled reading passages assessment.
3. By May of 2009, 80% of K-5 students who have attended Santa Fe for the entire 2008-09 school year will increase reading scores by one year as measured by the Houghton-Mifflin Leveled reading passages assessment.
4. By May of 2009, 80% of 4th -5th grade students at Santa Fe will increase STAR reading scores proportionate to the number of months in attendance at Santa Fe. / 68% of K-3 students at Benchmark based on DIBELS assessment, EOY
2007-08 EOY DIBELS data
2008, 2007, 2006 MAP data
2007-08 Title I data
K-2 DRA growth summary, 2007-08
Houghton Mifflin growth summary, Ox Box assessment, Fall 2007 and Spring 2008
Star Reading 4th-5th grade growth summary / 2008-09 MOY DIBELS data
2008-09 EOY DIBELS data
2009 MAP data
2008-09 Title I data
Houghton Mifflin growth summary, Ox Box assessment, Fall 2007 and Spring 2008
Star Reading 4th-5th grade growth summary
5. During the 2008-2009 school year:

• 40% of students in grade K-5 will meet expectations as set by the scoring guide for 1st Quarter
• 50% of students in grade K-5 will meet expectations as set by the scoring guide for 2nd Quarter
• 65% of students in grade K-5 will meet expectations as set by the scoring guide for 3rd Quarter
• 70% of students in grade K-5 will meet expectations as set by the scoring guide for 4th Quarter

in the area of Writing focused on conventions as measured by a grade level specific scoring guide derived from the Missouri Grade Level Expectations. / 2008, 2007 MAP data
Building-wide curriculum calendar / 2009 MAP data
Quarterly data
Anecdotal records
Writing Units of study
Whole School Publishing party sign-ins
6. During the 2008-2009 school year, 65% of 1st-5th grade students at Santa Fe will score 70% or higher on district unit post-tests.
7. During the 2008-2009 school year, 85% of kindergartners will meet or exceed quarterly expectations, as measured by the district grade cards/scoring guides / 2007-08 Math Unit tests
2nd semester grade level success plan data
Study Island Implementation data
2008, 2007 MAP data / 2008-09 Unit tests
2008-09 Study Island reports
2009 MAP data
Star Math 1st – 5th grade growth summary
2008-09 Fast Math reports
8. During the 2008-2009 school year, 85% of parents per classroom on average will participate in Parent-Teacher conferences and the 2nd school-wide publishing event.
9. Faculty and staff retention will increase by 23%.
10. Positive school climate will be measured by a formative teacher opinion survey during the 1st quarter and summative survey during the 4th quarter. / 2007 MAP Achievement Gap data
2007-08 Recovery Room data
2007-08 SAFE Team data / 2008 MAP Achievement Gap data
2009 MAP Achievement GAP data
2008-09 Recovery Room data
2008-09 SAFE Team data
Parent-Teacher Conference Classroom parent sign-in sheets
Teacher Opinion Surveys

Data-Related Topics to Discuss….

1

Revised October 7, 2008

HICKMAN MILLS C-1 SCHOOL DISTRICT

2008-09

Goal: To improve student achievement in the area of reading.

Supports CSIP Goal: Improve student learning and growth – Goal: I Objective 1, 2, 3 Goal: V Objective 1

Objective (SMART Goal):

1. By May of 2009, 70% of K-3 students at Santa Fe will score at benchmark or above as measured by the DIBELS assessment.

2. By May of 2009, 80% of 1st-5th grade Santa Fe students will read at or above grade level as measured by the Houghton-Mifflin Leveled reading passages assessment.

3. By May of 2009, 80% of K-5 students who have attended Santa Fe for the entire 2008-09 school year will increase reading scores by one year as measured by the Houghton-Mifflin Leveled reading passages assessment.

4. By May of 2009, 80% of 4th -5th grade students at Santa Fe will increase STAR reading scores proportionate to the number of months in attendance at Santa Fe.

Baseline Data: See Data Availability Chart

Strategy/Action Step / Timeline / MSIP
Standard / Person
Responsible / Cost/
Resources / Professional
Development
Data Analysis – Twice a month grade level meetings focused on analyzing student data and anecdotal reading records to target instruction. / Twice/month / 6.5 / Classroom teachers, Reading First Coach / NA / 09/17, 10/22, 01/07, 03/11
Instructional Strategies – Implement all school explicit vocabulary instruction and student tracking system. / August 2008 –
Ongoing / 6.5 / Dr. Swezy, Deb Fortner / NA / Reading First Nat’l Conf. 08/14/08 intro.;
Collaborative grade level planning ongoing
Instructional Strategies – Provide students with weekly opportunities for use of Study Island software for grades 2-5 to practice MAP-like work. / Weekly / 6.5 / Rachel Roper, Lea Ann Rothmier / NA / 08/27
Community Involvement – Develop and implement a “Chat & Chew” project with the Greater Kansas City Urban League. / October 2008 – Ongoing / 7.6 / Lea Ann Rothmier / NA / NA

HICKMAN MILLS C-1 SCHOOL DISTRICT

2008-09

Goal:To improve student achievement in the area of writing.

Supports CSIP Goal: Improve student learning and growth Goal: I Objective 1, 3 Goal: V Objective 1

Objective (SMART Goal):

5. During the 2008-2009 school year:

• 40% of students in grade K-5 will meet expectations as set by the scoring guide for 1st Quarter
• 50% of students in grade K-5 will meet expectations as set by the scoring guide for 2nd Quarter

• 65% of students in grade K-5 will meet expectations as set by the scoring guide for 3rd Quarter
• 70% of students in grade K-5 will meet expectations as set by the scoring guide for 4th Quarter

in the area of Writing focused on conventions as measured by a grade level specific scoring guide derived from the Missouri Grade Level Expectations.

Baseline Data: See Data Availability Chart

Strategy/Action Step / Timeline / MSIP
Standard / Person
Responsible / Cost/
Resources / Professional
Development
Data Analysis – Use IBD data analysis and GLE’s to design grade level writing rubric focused on conventions. / October 14 / 6.1 / Vertical Teams, grade levels / NA / Vertical Teams
Data Analysis – Collaborative grade level professional development will be used to examine and compare work samples. / Monthly / 6.1 / Vertical Teams, grade levels / NA / Collaborative Grade Level Planning
Instructional Strategies – Explicitly teach the steps of the writing process. / Daily
(ongoing) / 6.1 / Classroom teachers, NIA Consultant / $1,800.00 / Collaborative Grade Level Planning
Instructional Strategies – Create and implement explicit units of study with a focus on conventions using a Backwards Design model. / Ongoing / 6.1 / Classroom teachers, Deb Fortner, NIA Consultant / NA
(already listed) / Collaborative Grade Level Planning
Parent Involvement – Organize and conduct two whole school publishing events inviting parents and community members. / Once per semester (spring and fall) / 7.5 / Amber White/ Chris Coen / PTA (TBA) / NA

HICKMAN MILLS C-1 SCHOOL DISTRICT

2008-09

Goal:To improve student achievement in the area of mathematics.

Supports CSIP Goal: Improve student learning and growth Objective: I Objective 1, 3 Goal: V Objective 1

Objective (SMART Goal):

6. During the 2008-2009 school year, 65% of 1st-5th grade students at Santa Fe will score 70% or higher on district math unit post-tests.

7. During the 2008-2009 school year, 85% of kindergartners will meet or exceed quarterly math expectations, as measured by the district grade cards/scoring guides.

Baseline Data: See Data Availability Chart

Strategy/Action Step / Timeline / MSIP
Standard / Person
Responsible / Cost/
Resources / Professional
Development
Data Analysis – Analyze data including district common assessments, STAR math , and student work (time frame corresponds with each unit) / Ongoing / 6.1 / Teachers, District Math Coach / NA / NA
Instructional Strategies – Provide students with weekly opportunities to use Study Island and Fast Math software for grades 2-5 to provide opportunities to practice MAP-like work / Weekly / 6.1 / Rachel Roper, Lea Ann Rothmier / NA / 08/27
Hire ½ time math tutors to implement math tutoring for Title I identified students in grades 3, 4, and 5. / September 18, 2008 – April 2009 / 6.1 / Dr. Swezy / NA / NA

HICKMAN MILLS C-1 SCHOOL DISTRICT

2008-09

Goal: To create a school climate conducive to increasing student achievement.

Supports CSIP Goal: Improve student learning and growth Objective: I Objective 1, 3 Goal: V Objective 1

Objective (SMART goal):

8. During the 2008-2009 school year, 85% of parents per classroom on average will participate in Parent-Teacher conferences and the 2nd school-wide publishing event.

9. Faculty and staff retention will increase by 23%.

10. Positive school climate will be measured by a formative teacher opinion survey during the 1st quarter and summative survey during the 4th quarter.

Baseline Data:

Strategy/Action Step / Timeline / MSIP
Standard / Person
Responsible / Cost/
Resources / Professional
Development
Data Analysis – Create and disseminate monthly parent newsletter outlining specific assessments, purpose and implications. Reading First and Title I will collaborate to produce a quarterly newsletter. / Monthly
Quarterly / 7.1 / Secretary,
Deb Fortner,
Cathy Dennis,
Dr. Swezy / NA / NA
School Climate – Train new and existing faculty and staff on the BIST process / Summer 2008, Ongoing / 6.5 / Dr. Swezy, Cherie Mericle / $300.00
$150.00 / 07/21-25
07/31-08/01
School Climate – District and building level mentor program to support and sustain faculty and staff. / Ongoing / 6.7.1 / Entire faculty and staff / NA / NA
School Climate – Create a survey to gather teacher and parent climate concerns and satisfaction. / Fall 2008 / 6.6 / Dr. Swezy
LEAD team / NA / NA
School Climate – Develop and implement a conflict mediation project. / October 2008 – May 2009 / 6.6 / Michelle Winter, Marion Morris / NA / NA
School Climate – Implement the Art of Living Foundation for all interested faculty and staff. / October 2008 / 6.6 / Swapnum Kumar, Dr. Swezy, Art of Living Foundation / NA / NA
Parent Involvement – Create homework contracts and homework policy. / August 2008 / 6.5 / Classroom teachers / NA / NA
Parent Involvement – Send monthly communications to parents regarding specific content and student academic progress. / Ongoing / 7.5 / Classroom teachers / NA / NA
4 / 3 / 2 / 1
Overview / The school’s vision statement focuses directly on student performance.
The entire plan focuses directly on student performance.
The objectives of the plan are measurable.
The plan includes improvement strategies.
All the strategies will accomplish the objectives. / The plan includes some improvement strategies.
The school’s vision statement addresses student performance.
The plan primarily focused on student performance.
The objectives of the plan are measurable.
Many of the strategies will accomplish the objective. / The plan includes a few improvement strategies.
The school’s vision statement mentions student performance.
The plan focuses on student performance to some degree.
Some of the objectives of the plan are measurable.
Some of the strategies will accomplish the objective. / The plan includes only maintenance strategies.
The school’s mission statement addresses issues other than student performance.
The plan focuses on issues other than student performance.
Few if any of the objective are measurable.
None of the strategies will accomplish the objective.
Stakeholders / All stakeholders (teachers, support staff, parents, community members, central office personnel and students) have an opportunity for input.
The plan strongly reflects the school community’s need.
Communication with stakeholders is ongoing during the plan’s development/ implementation.
The PDC rep. is linked to the planning team. / Most stakeholders have an opportunity for input.
The plan reflects the school community’s needs.
Communication with all stakeholders was intermittent during the plan’s development.
Most of the time the PDC rep. is linked to the planning. / Several stakeholders have an opportunity for input.
The plan reflects the school community’s needs to some degree.
Communication with all stakeholders was sporadic during the plan’s development.
The PDC rep. is linked to the planning team to some degree. / Few stakeholders have an opportunity for input.
The plan does not reflect the school community’s needs.
Communication with all stakeholders was nonexistent during the plan’s development.
The PDC rep. is not linked to the planning team.
Data and
Research / The team correctly used appropriate hard and soft data to assess the school.
The team consistently used quality research to assist its members in making decisions. / The team used hard and soft data to assess the school.
The team used quality research to assist its members in making some decisions. / The team used soft data to assess the school.
The team used quality research to assist its members in making a few of the decisions. / The team used no data to assess the school.
The team used poor quality research to assist it members in making decisions.
Action
Plans / All of the action plans are realistic (do-able) and reflect continuous improvement.
All action plans will directly impact student performance.
The action plans are evaluated on an on-going basis. / Most of the action plans are realistic (do-able).
Most of the plans will impact student performance.
The action plans are evaluated intermittently. / Some of the actions plans are realistic (do-able).
Some actions plans will impact student performance.
The action plans are rarely evaluated. / Few, if any, of the action plans are realistic (do-able).
The action plans will not impact student performance.
The action plans are evaluated.
Professional
Development / Professional development is on-going, job-embedded, and evaluated. / Professional development is on-going but not job-embedded and not evaluated. / Professional development is not on-going, not job-embedded and not evaluated. / There is no Professional Development plan.
Alignment / The plan aligns with district and building budgetary constraints.
The plan aligns with the district CSIP.
Planned staff development is aligned with Guidelines for Best Practices in Staff Development.
Technology is infused in the plan.
Parent involvement is infused in the plan. / The plan partially aligns with district and building budgetary constraints.
Most of the plan aligns with the district CSIP.
Planned staff development is partially aligned with Guidelines for Best Practices in Staff Development.
Some technology is infused in the plan.
Parent involvement is a separate part of the plan. / The plan partially aligns with district and building budgetary constraints.
Some of the plan aligns with the district CSIP.
Plan staff development is aligned to some degree with Guidelines for Best Practices in Staff Development.
Technology is a separate part of plan.
Parent involvement is only a maintenance issue. / The plan is incongruent with district and building budgetary constraints.
The plan is not aligned with the district CSIP.
Planned staff development is not aligned Guidelines for Best Practices in Staff Development.
No technology is listed in the plan.
No parent involvement is part of plan.

Professional Development Plan 2008-09

Big Ideas to be developed

1. Collaborative Planning
2. Vocabulary
3. BIST
4. Writing Process
5. Depths of Knowledge (DOK)
6. Data Analysis/Formative Assessments
7. Professional Learning Communities (PLC)

Calendar of Events 2008-09

Date / PD Activity and Design / Facilitator/Resource Person(s) / Participants / Evaluation
August 20 / BIST (Tiered) / BIST Vision Team / Tier I – Basic BIST (BIST Vision Team)
Tier II – Advanced BIST (Cherie Mericle)
August 27 / Backward Design (Technology Integration)
Study Island/Fast Math (two 45-min rotations) / Jennifer Bickford
Kristi Sanborn
Study Island consultant/Rachel Roper / K-1 Backward Design (Technology Integration – 1st grade)
2-5 Study Island/Fast Math
Sept. 3 / BIST
Technology Integration / Jennifer Bickford / Tier I – Workshop Basics (principal discretion)
Tier II – Backward Design (Technology Integration – 3rd grade)
Sept. 10 / Backward Design
AND Technology Integration / Jennifer Bickford / Tier I – Workshop Basics (principal discretion)
Tier II – Backward Design (Technology Integration – K)
Sept. 17 / Data Analysis / Deb Fortner / K Grade level/
grade level groups
Sept. 24 / PLC/IBD Analysis
MSIP Observation / Jill Shockley, Jim Lewis, Diana Swezy / Whole faculty
Oct. 1 / STAR Math Webinar (District Renaissance Assessment Training)
K Collaborative Plan / IT Department
Lea Rothmier
Diana Swezy
Deb Fortner / Grades 1-5/
K Grade level (Fortner)
Oct. 8 / Collaborative Planning
aligned with monthly whole group focus for implementation / Deb Fortner (vocabulary support)
Monica Nance (3-5)
(writing support)
District math & science coaches as available / Whole faculty/grade levels
Oct. 15 / Collaborative Planning
aligned with monthly whole group focus for implementation and grade level analysis of student work (formative) / Deb Fortner
(vocabulary support)
Monica Nance (3-5)
(writing support)
District math & science coaches as available / Whole faculty/grade levels
Oct. 22 / Depths of Knowledge
(DOK) Application / Deb Fortner
Angela Cordier / Whole faculty/Specials/Reading Paras
Nov. 5 / Collaborative Planning
aligned with monthly whole group focus for implementation / Deb Fortner
(communication arts)
Monica Nance (3-5)
(communication arts)
District math & science coaches as available / Whole faculty/grade levels
Nov. 12 / Collaborative Planning
aligned with monthly whole group focus for implementation / Deb Fortner
(communication arts)
Monica Nance (3-5)
(communication arts)
District math & science coaches as available / Whole faculty/grade levels
Nov. 19 / Collaborative Planning
aligned with monthly whole group focus for implementation and grade level analysis of student work (formative)
AND Technology Integration / Deb Fortner
(communication arts)
District math & science coaches as available
Jennifer Bickford / Whole faculty/Grade levels (Technology Integration – 2nd grade)
Dec. 3 / PLC/Smart Goals / Jill Shockley, Jim Lewis, Diana Swezy,
Angela Cordier / Whole faculty/Grade levels
Dec. 10 / Collaborative Planning
aligned with monthly whole group focus for implementation / Deb Fortner
(communication arts)
Monica Nance (3-5)
(communication arts)
District math & science coaches as available / Whole faculty/grade levels
Dec. 17 / Collaborative Planning
aligned with monthly whole group focus for implementation / Deb Fortner
(communication arts)
District math & science coaches as available / Whole faculty/grade levels
Jan. 7 / Collaborative Planning
aligned with monthly whole group focus for implementation and grade level analysis of student work (formative) / Deb Fortner
(communication arts)
Monica Nance (3-5)
(communication arts)
District math & science coaches as available / Whole faculty/grade levels
Jan. 14 / Analyzing Summative 1st Semester Assessment Data / Deb Fortner / Whole faculty
Jan. 21 / Collaborative Planning
aligned with monthly whole group focus for implementation / Deb Fortner
(communication arts)
Monica Nance (3-5)
(communication arts)
District math & science coaches as available / Whole faculty/grade levels
Jan. 28 / Collaborative Planning
aligned with monthly whole group focus for implementation
Technology Integration / Deb Fortner
(communication arts)
District math & science coaches as available
Jennifer Bickford / Whole faculty/grade levels
Feb. 4 / Collaborative Planning
aligned with monthly whole group focus for implementation and grade level analysis of student work (formative) / Deb Fortner
(communication arts)
Monica Nance (3-5)
(communication arts)
District math & science coaches as available / Whole faculty/grade levels
Feb. 11 / MAP/Terra Nova Prep for students – Integrating standardized post test data into lesson plans / Deb Fortner
Cathy Dennis / Whole faculty
Feb. 18 / Collaborative Planning
aligned with monthly whole group focus for implementation / Deb Fortner
(communication arts)
Monica Nance (3-5)
(communication arts)
District math & science coaches as available / Whole faculty/grade levels
Feb. 25 / Collaborative Planning
aligned with monthly whole group focus for implementation
Technology Integration / Deb Fortner
(communication arts)
Monica Nance (3-5)
(communication arts)
District math & science coaches as available
Jennifer Bickford / Whole faculty/grade levels
Mar. 4 / Collaborative Planning
aligned with monthly whole group focus for implementation and grade level analysis of student work (formative) / Deb Fortner
(communication arts)
District math & science coaches as available / Whole faculty/grade levels
Mar. 11 / Standardized Testing Teacher Prep / Deb Fortner
Cathy Dennis / Whole faculty
Mar. 25 / Standardized Testing Teacher Prep / Deb Fortner
Cathy Dennis
Susan Griggs / Whole faculty
Apr. 1 / Collaborative Planning
aligned with monthly whole group focus for implementation / Deb Fortner
(communication arts)
Monica Nance (3-5)
(communication arts)
District math & science coaches as available / Whole faculty/grade levels
Apr. 8 / Collaborative Planning
aligned with monthly whole group focus for implementation and grade level analysis of student work (formative)
Technology Integration / Deb Fortner
(communication arts)
Monica Nance (3-5)
(communication arts)
District math & science coaches as available
Jennifer Bickford / Whole faculty/grade levels
Apr. 15 / Standardized Testing Reflection / Deb Fortner
Cathy Dennis / Grade levels
Apr. 22 / Structured Collaborative Planning – BIST Vision Team / BIST Vision Team / Whole faculty/grade levels
Apr. 29 / Structured Collaborative Planning – PLC / Jill Shockley
Jim Lewis
Diana Swezy
Angela Cordier / Whole faculty/grade levels
May 6 / Structured Collaborative Planning – Vertical Teams / Vertical Team Leaders / Whole faculty/grade levels
May 13 / Reflections on our school year / Deb Fortner
Cathy Dennis
Diana Swezy / Whole Faculty
May 20 / Celebrate / Diana Swezy / Whole Faculty
Results of PD efforts (Data included)

1