Member Name

Position

Chair

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

Component 1 Subcommittee has met to address critical components of the SIP and minutes are on file.

YES

NO

Subcommittee for COMPONENT 2 Beliefs, Mission and Vision

Member Name

Position

Chair

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Component 2 Subcommittee has met to address critical components of the SIP and minutes are on file.

YES

NO

Member Name

Position

Chair

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Component 3 Subcommittee has met to address critical components of the SIP and minutes are on file.

YES

NO

Member Name

Position

Chair

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

Component 4 Subcommittee has met to address critical components of the SIP and minutes are on file.

YES

NO

Member Name

Position

Chair

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

Component 5 Subcommittee has met to address critical components of the SIP and minutes are on file.

YES

NO

Stakeholder Survey

Our School Improvement committees were formed and time frames for component completions agreed upon. Each committee would be responsible for the data collection and analysis as required by their component. They would present their findings to the leadership committee for review and final drafting.

Formative assessments (Think Link, Star Reading, and Dibels) administered in September were early indicators of the strengths and weaknesses in our students in reading/language arts, math, and science. Online programs such as Study Island and Academy of Reading were used to progress monitor and adjust instruction to meet the student's needs.

Upon receipt of the 2007 TVAAS report and Tennessee Report Card, our SIP committees met again as a group to analyze the information these reports offered. The principal and literacy leader met with teachers to disaggregate the data from these reports and further identify strengths and needs in areas of subgroups, subjects, and individual students.

Non-academic data was obtained through randomly surveyed stakeholder surveys conducted periodically throughout the year. The person responsible for conducting the survey compiled the results and presented them to the appropriate committees. The information gained from these surveys was used to complete our analysis for this School Improvement Plan.

Committee members and stakeholders were pleased that the aggregate data collected during this SIP process revealed a number of strengths in our program. Most importantly, Union Heights met or exceeded the 2007 AYP measures for reading/language arts, math, and attendance and remains in good standing status. A one point deficient in Social Studies kept us from having all "A’s" on the 2007 Tennessee Report Card and all subgroups but one exceeded AYP targets in reading/language arts and math. Surveys indicated our stakeholders perceive the school as a safe and secure environment where the principal and teachers are easy to talk with and care about the students.

The aggregate data did reveal one major area of need that must be addressed aggressively starting in the 2008 - 2009 school year. (The 2009 report card does not reflect our expected gains in math and therefore, will be addressed again in our revised action plan). The subgroup, students with disabilities, experienced a high percentage of students scoring below proficient in reading/language arts and math. (This subgroup did experience a significant improvement in reading and a slight improvement in math. Our revised action plan will include ALL subgroups in math for the 2010 school year). Additionally, the data revealed a slight gender gap in those students scoring advanced in reading/language arts. (The data used in 2006 no longer exists to gain an accurate comparison for this subgroup, however, the 2009 data indicates very little differences between the genders in reading and/or math and we will consider this goal as being met). Non-academic data showed a weakness in how UHS recognizes and awards student achievement and attendance.

Race/Ethnicity

Based on the 2009 Tennessee Department of Education Report Card for Union Heights School, Caucasian students scored 8% below proficient, 42.3% proficient, and 50% advanced in math. Only the advanced scores showed improvement from the 2008 report. Caucasians scored 3% below proficient, 49.6% proficient, and 47.7% advanced in reading/language arts. Below proficient and advanced both showed an increase over the 2008 scores.

The numbers of other ethnic backgrounds were too low for reporting purposes.

Economically Disadvantaged

This subgroup scored 13% below proficient, 41.3% proficient, and 45.3% advanced in math.

These scores represent an increase of 5% on students scoring below proficient and a decrease of 13.2 % on proficient from the 2008 report, however, the advanced group showed a 7.4 % increase.

In reading/language arts, 6% scored below proficient, 49.4 % proficient, and 44.9% advanced.

This was an increase of 3% in students scoring below proficient and a decrease of 9.4 % of students scoring proficient and advanced increasing by 7 % from the 2008 report.

Students with Disabilities

This subgroup represents our lowest scoring group of students and the focus of our attention in this School Improvement Plan. In math, 38 % of students scored below proficient, 53.8 % proficient, and only 7.7 % in advanced. These scores represent a decrease of 12 % in below proficient, an increase of 3.8 % in proficient, and a 7.7% increase in advanced.

Reading/language arts scores were 3 % below proficient, 82.8 % proficient, and 13.8 % advanced. This represents a decrease of 9 % in below proficient, an increase of 1 % in proficient, and an increase of 7.7 % in advanced over the 2008 data.

English Language Learners

This subgroup did not have a sufficient number for data reporting.

Gender

According to the data from the 2007 TVAAS reports, both male and female appear to be about equal in those scoring in the lowest quadrille in reading/language arts. Ratios were 8% males to 7% females. In math, the gap was slightly higher with 9% of males compared to 13% of females. In the highest quadrille in reading/language arts, females scored 45.7% compared to only 18% of males were in the highest quadrille. In math, the percentages were much closer with 18% of males and 30% of females scoring in the highest quadrille. This data indicates a gender gap in reading/language arts that needs to be addressed in Component 4. The data is not represented in this format on the 2009 TVAAS reports, however, the new data does show that the gender gap has closed to almost even in both reading and math.

Proficiency Level Disaggregation

Based on the 2009 TCAP test results, UHS students have not made significant improvement in math in any subgroup except students with disabilities.

In reading/language arts, the subgroup economically disadvantaged experienced a decrease of 3 % in proficient/advanced while the students with disabilities subgroup increased in proficient and advanced. There were no scores for the remaining subgroups.

The high percentage of all subgroups scoring below proficient in math, along with the new and rigorous math standards, necessitates this be a main goal in our revised action plan if we are to continue to meet AYP targets.

Growth Differences/Gaps

The 2007 TVAAS report for reading/language arts indicates a gap between low and middle achievers is fairly wide with 4% low to 40% in the middle sector. There is a much closer gap between middle achievers with 39.9% and high achievers who scored at 56%.

This trend followed in math with 2.7% scoring as low achievers and 37.7% were middle achievers. Again, the gap between middle achievers at 37.7% was closer with 59.6% scoring as high achievers.

The large gap between low achievers and middle achievers is representative of the results we found when the subgroup data was disaggregated. The low achievers appear to be those found in the students with disabilities subgroup.

Union Heights School’s academic growth on the 2007 Report Card indicates a negative mean gain of -0.6 in math where our status moved from a B to a D in one year. This negative gain is represented in grades 4, 6, 7, and 8. It will be the recommendation of this committee that math be included as a goal in Component 4. Could not locate this data on the 2009 reports.

The disaggregation of academic data revealed race does not seem to be an issue in how our students score on TCAP tests. Based on the 2009 results, 93% of all students at UHS scored proficient and advanced in math and 97 % scored proficient and advanced in reading/language arts. These scores represented a blend of all ethnic populations attending Union Heights School.

Economically disadvantaged students are scoring slightly lower in both reading/language arts and math. The ED subgroup had 87 % scoring proficient or advanced in math, while 94 % scored proficient or advanced in reading/language arts.

Students with disabilities, is the subgroup creating the most concern for Union Heights School. There were 38% of students in this subgroup who scored below proficient in math and 3 % in reading/language arts. Only 7.7 % of this subgroup scored advanced or proficient in math and 13.8 students in reading/language arts. Although these percentages are still high in this subgroup, it shows improvement.

We will not address the ELL subgroup data since there was not enough to report. At present, we have only one Kindergarten student receiving these services, and both she and her family speak English quite well.

In the process of dissecting our data, we found a growth gap between low achievers and middle achievers in both math and reading/language arts. There were 3% low achievers to 38% middle achievers in math and 4% low achievers to 40% middle achievers in reading/language arts. The gap difference between middle and high achievers was much closer in both subjects. Reading/language arts had 40% middle to 56% high achievers. Math experienced a little larger gap with 38% low achievers to 59% high achievers. UHS continually strives to move all students to the high achiever status through ongoing assessments, highly qualified instruction and professional development, and rigorous, research-based resources.

Proficiency level data shows that Union Height’s student proficiency levels improved in math and reading/language arts in all subgroups except students with disabilities.

The student achievement trend in writing remains stable with a score of A in both 5^th and 8^th grades.

On the 2009 criterion-referenced portion of the Tennessee Report Card, Union Heights School had A’s in science and social studies. We received B’s in reading and math. UHS met or exceeded the state’s grade in all subjects.

The process of disaggregating the data found a need to address the subgroup students with disabilities. This subgroup is experiencing a high percentage of students scoring below proficient in reading/language arts and math.

Based on this same data, our strengths at UHS were identified as meeting or exceeding AYP targets in reading/language arts and math.

We remain in good standing status under NCLB. Our stakeholders perceive the school as a positive influence in the community and our students feel safe and cared for by administrators and teachers who listen to their concerns.

UHS believes that research based information and data should be used to drive academic decisions. Student learning should be rigorous, relevant, and developmentally appropriate.

The administration and faculty believe that ALL students can learn and achieve and, therefore, hold high expectations for ALL students. Teachers support these high expectations with differentiated instruction, early identification for interventions, and recognition of achievement to help the student be successful. This alignment of procedures helps both teachers and students maintain a focus on student achievement.

Union Heights School strives to foster both internal and external communication between stakeholders. Faculty meetings, teacher collaboration, parent meetings, parent programs, Parent-Teacher Conferences, surveys, and school visitations help UHS stakeholders "buy into" our commitment to success.

The development of our beliefs, mission, and shared vision for the future of Union Heights School reflects our commitment to building a legacy of excellence one student at a time.

Our ideal future would be for all UHS students to be successful, productive members of our community, state, and world and view themselves as limited by their dreams and not by their backgrounds or circumstances.

Tennessee Dept. of Educ. State approved standards

Grade appropriate cohesive standards based model for literacy

Grade appropriate cohesive standards based model for math

Teaching and learning materials are correlated to state standards & distributed to staff

Monitoring to enhance the quality of instruction and curriculum

Formative assessments aligned with the school benchmarks

Support system to enhance the quality of curriculum & instruction

The local website has links to the state standards

6-8 teachers have Prentice Hall

Standards- based supplemental and intervention materials that correlate to textbooks

Star Reading Assessment given three times a year in grade 4-8

Dibels will be given in K-3

SRA is used in the sped department

School level training provided by Lit. Leader

Tennessee Report Card

TCAPs

Unit Tests

Student Report Card

Unit tests

Projects

Student Report Card

Unit tests

Student Report Card

Tennessee Report Card

TCAPs

Think Link

Dibels

Star Reading

Study Island

Academy of Reading

Progress monitoring charts

Supple-mental resources

Checklists

School level powerpoint presentation used with training

advanced levels in reading/language arts from the 2006 report

advanced levels in math from the previous year

2 point gain in our achievement grade score in reading/

language arts on the 2008 TVAAS report

advanced in reading and

a .09% increase in math during the 2007 school year

Assessment in the tier 1 level

C.O. will notify principal and teachers of any changes to current standards

Schedule Tier 1 - 4 intervention times

Adjust instruction/

curriculum to meet identified needs

Literacy leader will assist in train-ing on RTIs at school level

(How are we currently allocating our time, money, personnel and other resources and building capacity around understanding and implementing high quality curricular practices?)

Are we providing equity and adequacy to all of our teachers?

Each teacher is provided the required curriculum materials as well as supplemental resources purchased with the adoptions. Reading and math intervention resources including personnel support all classroom teachers.

Are we targeting funds and resources effectively to meet the needs of all of our teachers in being effective with all their students?

Classroom teachers are given an equal amount of instructional money each year to purchase materials for their classroom and students as they deem necessary. Title 1 monies and stimulus money is used to make sure every teacher has equal technology and resources that would not be available were we not a Title 1 school.

Based on the data, are we accurately meeting the needs of all students in our school?

The appropriate standards-based curriculum programs are supplied to meet the needs of students, but appear to be failing in effectiveness with the students with disabilities subgroup and a minute number of boys who are not advancing at the same rate as the girls in reading.

Easy availability of the state standards through the state website, standards based textbook adoptions, formative assessments, progress monitoring, and the support we receive from the supervisor of instruction, federal programs director, and technology coordinator are all strengths in our curriculum program at Union Heights School. We believe the usage and success of these resources are reflected in our 2007 TCAP test scores across grade levels and subject content. Teachers feel the standards and various assessment data gives them guidance in which skills their students will be required to master in order to achieve proficiency on the TCAP tests each spring. When teachers have input into the decisions that result in the adoption of rigorous, standards based curriculum programs, they experience a sense of ownership. Curriculum support services offer teachers and students diverse methods to overcome problems they may be experiencing in the classroom. Intervention procedures and personnel are established that facilitate early identification of struggling students. Title 1 Stimulus money was used to purchase TCAP Coach books, a media center, and additional paraprofessionals in both regular and special education.

Additional support services include Consolidated School Health who works to enhance health awareness. Adult education and vocational/technical training offers stakeholders opportunities to improve their lifestyles. Title I and IIA adds monies to improve the quality of professional development and academic achievement of the disadvantaged. Drug education and violence prevention is obtained through Title IV and V which includes our guidance counselor.

Classroom Instruction is Aligned with the Standards Based Curriculum

Classroom Instruction is Aligned with the Assessments

Teaching Process is Data Driven

Teachers Incorporate a Wide Range of Research Based, Student Centered Teaching Strategies

Classroom Organization and Management Techniques Support the Learning Process

Students are Provided with Multiple Opportunities to Receive Additional Assistance To Improve Learning Beyond Classroom Instruction

K-2 teachers provide phonics instruction using Saxon Phonics

Teachers use the standards and assessment data as a guide when planning lessons

Meeting boards are used in math at K - 5th grade levels

Projects and learning centers are created in the classroom that supplement instruction

Technology programs are used that support student learning

Teachers use the Blueprint for Learning as a guide in planning lessons

Student

planners are

used daily to record subject assignments

Expectations are presented to students through class postings, notes home, and student planners

Benchmark testing is used to identify students needing Tier interventions

Related arts are provided to all students that extend classroom learning

AR is used as a supplemental reading program to motivate students to read

Unit Tests

Daily grades

Tennessee Report Card

TVAAS

Think Link

Dibels

Star Reading

Brigance

Unit Tests

TVAAS

Tennessee Report Card

Think Link

Dibels

Star Reading

Brigance

Daily grades

Unit test

Project Grades

Student Report Cards

Student Planners

Dibels Reports

Brigance

TCAPs

A+

Study Island

Academy of Reading

Essential Skills

advanced levels in both math and reading/language arts from 2006

1 – 4 points in every subject on the 2007 report card

advanced levels in both math and reading/language arts from 2006

1 – 4 points in every subject on the 2007 report card

Scott Foresman, Prentice Hall, Saxon Phonics, & Saxon Math

All students receive a student planner at the beginning of school

Technology, and related arts resources

K - 3rd grade as benchmark measures

Expand technology support to include the subjects of science and social studies

Student Assessments Aligned with the TDOE Standards-Based Curriculum

Appropriate Assessments are Used to Guide Decisions Relative to Student Achievement

Assesses All Categories of Students

Uses a Wide Range of Assessments

Provides Support and Technical Assistance to Teachers in Developing & Using Assessments

Provides Assessment Information to Communicate with Students, Parents, & Stakeholders Regarding Student Learning

Unit tests are administered after the completion of units

All students in Kindergarten through 8^th grade take benchmark tests a minimum of twice a year

Think Link

Dibels

Star Reading

Brigance

Unit Tests

Teacher Created Tests

End of Year Tests

Accelerated Reading

The principal and Literacy Leader conducts school level training throughout the school year on mining for data as a tool for instruction

conferences

TCAP results are sent home as soon as the school receives copies

Scott Foresman

Prentice Hall

Saxon Phonics

Saxon Math

2007 TVAAS

2007 Tennessee Report Card

TVAAS

Tennessee Report Card

Computer generated reports

Daily grades

Student Report Card

TVAAS

Tennessee Report Card

Computer generated reports

Progress monitoring reports

TCAP reports

Tennessee Report Card

TVAAS

Professional Development Rosters

Attendance Rosters

TCAP reports

Tennessee Report Card

Daily Grades

AR Points

Parent/Teacher Conference Attendance Rosters

from 2006 by a range of 0.3 – 5.4 in reading/LA, 0.3 – 5.2 in math,

advanced levels in both math and reading/language arts from 2006

93% of all students scored proficient or advanced

advanced levels in both math and reading/language arts from 2006

Star Reading will be administered to students in grades 4^th – 8th

All schools have access to the technical support services

All teachers are offered appropriate professional development

Every school conducts three parent/teacher conferences a year

RTI

Use Star Reading as a benchmark for grades 4^th – 8th

(How are we currently allocating our time, money, personnel and other resources and building capacity around understanding and implementing high quality assessment practices?)

Are we providing equity and adequacy to all of our teachers?

We are providing all teachers Tier I benchmark assessments data on each of their students at the beginning of school. All teachers will be required to provide interventions based on these benchmark assessments. All teachers will have the opportunity to refer students to the S Team for additional interventions as needed.

Are we targeting funds and resources effectively to meet the needs of all of our teachers in being effective with all their students?

We believe we are targeting our funds and resources effectively to meet the needs of our students by providing assessments and materials to all grade levels. These assessment resources provide teachers with reports that help identify weaknesses in student learning. Early identification of deficiencies is vital in helping students’ master skills and improve their achievement.

Based on the data, are we accurately meeting the needs of all students in our school?

Our data indicates that we are not meeting the needs of the subgroup – students with disabilities. The percentage of students in this subgroup scoring below proficient in math and reading language/arts is well above an expected norm. Reports show that all other subgroups are improving in achievement with one exception. The number of boys scoring advanced in reading/language arts is well below the number of girls scoring advanced. Our advance scoring students need some type of accelerated instruction to maintain motivation and challenge their learning. These issues will be addressed throughout the school improvement plan.

There are several major strengths associated with our assessment practices at UHS.

The supervisor of instruction, federal programs supervisor, and technology supervisor work closely to provide our school with a variety of resources and materials that perform standards- based benchmark, formative, and summative assessments. These resources furnish teachers with needed data to plan instruction and monitor progress.

Support offered by the central office in the form of high quality professional development and training in the areas of assessment and disaggregating data reinforces our ability to stay focused on student learning. Our school system requires 1^st and 2^nd grade students to take TCAP test in the spring, whereas most other systems do not test these grade levels. It is the belief of administrators and teachers that testing 1^st and 2^nd grades provides data that is essential for identifying deficiencies early in the child’s education. Research states that the earlier a child’s deficiencies are identified and corrected, the less likely the child will experience frustration and lack of motivation for learning.

Title II D and PreK money was used to create a computer lab during the last phase of reconstruction on our building. The lab is equipped with 30 newer Dell computers that have several research-based software programs supporting classroom instruction, assessments, and interventions. Lab scheduling ensures that all students from PreK through eighth grade receive computer instruction a minimum of once a week from a highly qualified instructor. The remainder of the lab schedule is used for technology-assisted interventions.

The 2007 data indicates a challenge for UHS in how we use our assessment data to meet the needs of all students. According to the 2007 Tennessee Report Card, the subgroup students with disabilities continues to have a high percentage of students scoring below proficient in both reading/language arts and math. The number of students in this subgroup represents a small percentage of our student body and can easily be identified through benchmark testing and established individualized educational plans.

Time to administer assessments will also create a need for a school-wide coordination of schedules. UHS has several traveling teachers each week and their schedules never coincide with each other. When the Response To Intervention program is implemented next year, schedules will then become an even greater issue.

Fall 2007 will see the implementation of the Response To Intervention program for grades Kindergarten through eighth at Union Heights School. We are hopeful that this program will strengthen our abilities to identify those students scoring below grade level proficiency much earlier than before. RTI is based on Tiers I, II, and III which require teacher referrals to an S Team for the next tier of interventions. Teachers will gain training and an understanding of the program through professional development delivered by The Modern Red School House at the beginning of school. A state approved, system-wide Response To Intervention Plan will be given to all administrators and teachers as a guide to follow. All students will be administered benchmark testing three times a year. Classroom interventions will begin immediately for any student that meets the criterion for Tier II intervention. Documentation must be maintained by the classroom teacher in order to make an S Team referral. Tier II interventions will be performed by the literacy leader and paraprofessionals or reading interventionist. Students in Tier II will receive progress monitoring at regular intervals and documentation kept on file. Any student not progressing as expected will be referred for Tier III. Tier III students will receive an additional 60 minutes a day of reading/language instruction outside the regular classroom. If the students still fails to meet expectations, the student may then be referred for special educational services. This process of referrals and interventions should help eliminate confusion about when or how interventions should be used. All students will be benchmark tested but obviously a student’s I.E.P. must be considered before making further referrals past the benchmarks.

The success of this program will rely upon scheduling and our teachers’ acceptance. System- wide scheduling will be completed this summer by the central office and school administrators. Principals should have copies of these schedules available for teachers by the first work day in July. Benchmark testing will be performed in the first two weeks of school. A school S Team will be created to make decisions on referrals and times scheduled for the S Team to meet outside the regular school day.

Evidence of our collaborative process in the SIP development included regular bi-monthly SIP committee/component team meetings beginning August 01, 2007. The focus of these meetings were the importance of across the board input and participation by all subcommittee members, as well as inter-committee communication throughout the process.

All subcommittees met on October 25, 2007 to divide component work and outline timetables for completion. As each successive component had some dependence upon the one before it, timely completion was a top priority on the agenda.

Parent committee members were communicated with about times and dates of meetings and/or emailed pertinent information.

Team members of Component 2 conducted a parent survey to gain input regarding what parents considered to be the most important elements in their child’s education.

Student surveys were conducted to gain input concerning their educational experience at UHS and what could be done to make it better.

Both surveys allowed the SIP teams to include parent/student input into the Union Heights School mission statement, beliefs, and vision.

The development and success of our School Improvement Plan depends upon the cooperation and collaboration from all of our stakeholders and committee members.

Surveys and results are on file at Union Heights School as well as rosters and agenda for SIP committee meetings.

Mining our data from the 2006-2007 TCAP tests revealed areas of advanced, proficient, and below proficient student progress. Based on this data, at least one subgroup failed to reach an acceptable level of proficiency in one or more subjects. These test results lead Component 1 committee members to create part of our prioritized goal targets that will be addressed as action plans in Component 4.

Other standardized sources used to establish our goals were the 2007 TVAAS report and the 2007 Tennessee Report Card. Formative assessment measures that helped us align our goals to the data were Think Link and Dibels results three times a year, Star Reading pre- and post- tests, and the Brigance tests at the beginning and end of school.

To better target those areas of below proficient and borderline advancement, the goals of UHS must reflect attainable benchmarks that will be checked with ongoing data accumulation throughout the 2008-2009 school year.

During the current and subsequent school years, teachers will monitor student achievement based on clear, relevant data. Both formative and summative results will be used to check ongoing progress and assure that alignment to our goals is maintained. Ongoing progress monitoring through assessment measures will allow for adjustments of the action steps in our SIP any time throughout the school year.

All stakeholders must be kept informed of the TSIPP. Our SIP teams have met regularly throughout the planning stages and will continue to meet periodically. During all meetings, alignment with the plan will be discussed as well as data that supports success or lack thereof toward proficiency. These meetings will update all parties on the progress made toward our goals. Rosters and agendas will be kept on file at the school as evidence of communication along with the Family & Community Engagement notebook. The FCE notebook will be used to keep newspaper clippings, announcements, letters home, photos, PTO meetings, Open House, Parent/Teachers Conferences, and various other types of activities related to our stakeholders.

The school’s website will offer stakeholders access to pertinent information about UHS and our educational programs.

Two times a year UHS offers Parent/Teacher Conferences to provide additional communication with parents. Teachers are to specifically address areas of strengths and weaknesses for students and work up action plans with the parent to help improve student achievement. During these conferences teachers will relay any summative and/or formative assessment results that may be new information as well as progress toward the SIP goals.

Progress reports will go home with students every 3 weeks and report cards every 6 weeks.

The Union Heights School mission statement, beliefs, and vision were formed through the collaborative efforts by the school and community. Indicator 2.2 of Component 2 addresses researched based instructional strategies and continuity of assessment. It also indicates that decision making is a shared process that includes the principal, parent advisory committee, faculty, and other appropriate stakeholders.

Periodic meetings between all of these stakeholders will ensure that all keep the goals front and center. The goals created by Component 4 were driven by the goal targets in Component 1 and reflect the appropriate steps required to implement the beliefs, shared vision, and mission of UHS.

Analysis of TCAP and Think Link data, researched based curriculum and instructional strategies, and differentiated instruction are all discussed in grade level and subject area meetings to ensure alignment.

For benchmarks to be met, all instruction must be planned by using required resources, differentiated instruction, and following the data produced from the evaluations and progress monitoring.

Component 3 of the School Improvement Plan identified challenges/next steps that needed to be met. The action steps in Component 4 were based on these challenges/next steps and focus on curricular, instructional, assessment, and organizational practices. Specific actions must be taken in order to progress toward our prioritized goal targets.

Teachers at UHS use the state approved standards and correlating guides when planning lessons. Lessons are also planned using the data that indicates areas of non-advancement/or below desired progress.

The instructional practices at UHS are not only aligned with assessments, but are driven by research based strategies.

During the summer of 2007 all teachers attended several professional development sessions focusing on research based instructional strategies, differentiated learning styles, and assessment methods.

Various formal and informal assessment questioning practices used are all based on needs shown by available data and are developed using scientific based techniques.

No matter how well organized, all improvement processes can be made better. On-going review of the process is crucial to improving our planning process. The School Improvement Plan must be more than a document sent to the state. It must be a reference when writing daily lesson plans, formulating assessments, holding meetings, disaggregating data, meeting with students and parents, and communicating with all other stakeholders.

Each action step, strategy, and intervention must be constantly evaluated to determine effectiveness and modified if needed to attain the desired results.

Scheduled faculty/SIP meetings, grade and subject level meetings, parent/teacher and student meetings must always focus on the goals and action steps. Specific items on each agenda must reflect time for earnest discussion of progress or lack thereof. Continually improved communication to all stakeholders of important items such as assessment results, instructional strategies, and collaboration will contribute to the continuation of our shared vision.

To implement the action steps in our SIP, all stakeholders must have knowledge of the steps and the person responsible for seeing that the steps are carried out. All teachers and administrators will receive a final copy of the SIP by the start of school in August 2008. The SIP leadership team will then analyze and discuss the action steps at their August meeting. Any person on the team who is responsible for a specific action step will take note and check the timeline for completion as well as suggested evaluation strategies.

The August subject area meetings will focus on the action plans that are to be implemented by the teachers and those strategies and interventions suggested as well those already being used that have been successful. The August meeting will devote time to those steps already taken as well as those that are ongoing. Responsible persons will report on progress and/or needs.

Communication with stakeholders will be analyzed and discussed to check on ongoing utilization of the plan.

Professional development will be scheduled, if needed, to help implement strategies and programs such as Response to Intervention.

Lesson plans will reflect standards based instruction using data driven strategies and interventions targeted toward stated goals in each subject area. Intervention models will be monitored for progress along with benchmark assessments at specific times throughout the year.

Positive growth toward our stated goals will be evidenced by improved Dibels, Think Link, and Star Reading Assessment scores, student practice work, and classrooms assessments.

Benchmark assessments will be administered in the fall, winter, and spring using Think Link in grades 3^rd – 8^th and Dibels in grades Kindergarten – 3^rd. The Star Reading Assessment will be used as additional benchmarking for grades 4 – 8^th with the pre-test administered in August and the post-test in May. Kindergarten teachers will also assess their students in August and May using the Brigance assessment.

Upon receipt of the formative assessment results, each teacher will evaluate the data and develop a plan to improve upon areas showing non-proficiency or borderline proficiency. Think Link data will be made available to parents and students within two weeks of the teachers receiving the results.

Any student assigned to use classroom computers or teacher generated probes will record their progress in a folder so the teacher can regularly review their progress. These folders will be used by the teacher to plan lessons or remediate/enrich where needed. Training will be provided by the Literacy Leader in the implementation of Think Link probes to teachers during a monthly faculty meeting or as desired. A webinar over Think Link probes was conducted on Jan. 4, 2010 in the computer lab to all teachers) The principal and Literacy Leader will share formative and teacher reported gains during these monthly faculty meetings. Teachers will use all data at their disposal in the planning process related to lessons, modifications, interventions, and enrichments.

The School Improvement Leadership Team will meet in the UHS computer lab in August/Sept., Jan/Feb., and April/May. The Literacy Leader (Gayle Uhles) will be responsible for communicating the meeting time and location as well as agenda, minutes, and rosters. These will be open meetings where any stakeholder is welcome to attend. Gayle will type the minutes and distribute to all stakeholders through emails, notes home, and/or parent meetings. Richard Anderson, principal, or the assistant principal will be responsible for guiding these meetings and making sure the SIP is being implemented and sustained.

The leadership team, with feedback from the faculty, will hold meetings after each benchmark period to evaluate available results of assessment data, practice tests, Academy of Reading, RTI monitoring, and other relevant data not previously reviewed.

A formative/summative data review sheet, kept by team members, will be utilized to review this information. The data will be analyzed to determine whether the action steps are having the desired effect on student achievement. If results are positive, the steps will be continued. If there are areas where student achievement is not moving toward or reaching the desired levels, the team will discuss adjustments needed to better ensure positive student progress. Results from the leadership team evaluations will be disseminated and discussed in faculty meetings.

Additionally, the principal and literacy leader will meet with teachers individually to analyze plans and classroom strategies and interventions. Should assessments indicate a lack of desired progress, S Team members may be called upon for input in how interventions would best be accomplished to meet the needs of the teacher and individual students through tier interventions.

Ongoing evaluation of our SIP by the leadership team through periodic meetings will increase our awareness of how well the plan is being implemented and progressing. The principal, Richard Anderson, will perform a walk-through where he will observe the action steps being utilized.

The Literacy Leader will give all teachers a copy of any changes in action steps that the evaluations found needing adjustments.

Faculty meetings will give ample opportunity for the stakeholders to discuss the progress and/or lack thereof in order for adjustments to be made in areas that are deficient.

Additional resources, materials, or professional development that may be needed to complete the action steps may be presented during these meetings or directly to the principal or leadership team.

Documentation kept on file from the meetings, checklists, and other relevant information related to the SIP action steps will be kept on file either in Mr. Anderson’s office or with the Literacy Leader.

A more detailed process for adjustments would be made based on:

All stakeholders (administrators, teachers, paraprofessionals, parents, students, and community) must be made aware of whether or not progress is being made toward our SIP stated goals. Results from the all assessments will be analyzed and distributed to teachers, parents, and students.

An awards and recognition of achievement banquet will be held in the spring to celebrate our successes. Stakeholders will be invited to attend and the principal and teachers will give awards to those students achieving academic success and improvement.

The parent meetings will be another venue for communicating our progress to stakeholders. Rosters, agendas, and minutes from these meetings are always kept on file.

The newspaper, school and district websites, email distribution lists, and the local T.V. cable channel will be utilized to keep everyone informed of our progress and any adjustments that may be necessary to ensure the success of our plan.