HICKMAN MILLS C-1 SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Center Of Differentiated Education
2008-2009
MISSION
VISION
DATA ANALYSIS
DISTRICT-CSIP
COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
SCHOOL
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Accountability
"Greatness is not a question of implementing a new program or addressing the latest trend, but is rather a question of unrelenting perseverance in continuing improvement, a perseverance that is often lacking in school systems."
Jim Collins
Good to Great
District Mission Statement
The primary focus of the school improvement efforts for the current school 2008-09:
The Mission of the Hickman Mills C-1 School District is to
educate our students for a lifetime of success.
HICKMAN MILLS C-1 SCHOOL DISTRICT VISION
In order to accomplish the Mission of the Hickman Mills C-1 School District, the Board of Education is committed to:
· Educating all students to achieve high levels of academic performance while fostering positive growth in social and emotional behaviors and attitudes essential to succeed in our diverse and competitive society.
· Involving schools, families, businesses, and community as partners in preparing our students for lifelong learning.
· Securing sufficient resources to provide the best educational opportunities for students through an equitable financial plan while being cost-responsive.
· Hiring and developing administrative, certified, and classified personnel who recognize and foster the unique academic potential of each student.
· Ensuring the most efficient use of district facilities to enhance the learning environment and academic achievement for our students.
· Becoming well-informed on educational and community issues in order to determine the best direction for our school district.
HICKMAN MILLS C-1 SCHOOL DISTRICT
Center of Differentiated Education
School's Mission:
The Mission of the Center Of Differentiated Education is to provide educational enrichment opportunities for identified gifted students that will foster the development of each student’s unique potential.
Vision Statement:
In order to accomplish the Mission of the Center Of Differentiated Education, we are committed to:
· Fostering the student’s desire to become an independent, self-directed, life-long learner.
· Providing an environment for gifted students to challenge each other by interacting with students of similar abilities and talents.
· Offering challenging learning experiences that are not included in the regular school curriculum.
· Developing the student’s creative and critical thinking skills.
· Guiding the student’s personal growth, social development, communication skills, and leadership ability.
· Involving schools, families, businesses, and community partners in preparing students for life-long learning.
The primary focus of the school improvement efforts for the current school 2008-09:
This school year we have focused on raising student achievement by:
· Applying the backward design model to written curriculum (Understanding by Design, Wiggins & McTighe)
· Developing a written gifted program curriculum that is aligned to the GLE’s and Show-Me Standards
· Improving student writing skills using the “6 + 1 Trait” writing model
Leadership Structure:
The entire staff met to review this year’s SIP and discuss any adjustments for next school year. The CODE leadership team met to update our mission and vision statements. The leadership team created a rough draft of our SIP objectives, strategies, and action steps. The entire staff met to review the rough draft and make any changes/corrections. The CODE leadership team members are Stephanie Hill, Candi Marshall, Lois Hutchins, and Julie Blackwell.
The plan will be shared with our PTSA Executive Board this spring and disseminated to all parents at our back-to-school night in August. The plan will be placed on the district website and will be available for all stakeholders to view.
Summary of School Objectives for 2008-09
1. Students will improve reading achievement through the use of critical thinking as measured by a score of 3 or better (4 point scale) on the gifted program scoring guide. Overall student averages will increase by 5% as compared to previous school year. (Data for 2007-08 shows 34% of students scoring 3 or better)
2. Students will improve math achievement through the use of problem solving as measured by a score of 3 or better (4 point scale) on the gifted program scoring guide. Overall student averages will increase by 5% as compared to previous year. (Data for 2007-08 shows 34% of students scoring 3 or better)
3. Students will improve the quality of their writing as evidenced by a score of 4 or better (6 point scale) on the gifted program writing scoring guide. Overall student averages will increase by 5% as compared to previous year. (Data for 2007-08 shows 49% of students scoring 4 or better)
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
Goal: (SMART = Specific, measurable, attainable, results oriented and time bound)
Students will improve reading achievement through the use of critical thinking as measured by a score of 3 or better (4 point scale) on the gifted program scoring guide. Overall student averages will increase by 5% as compared to previous school year.
Baseline Data: Data for 2007-08 shows 34% of students scoring 3 or better.
Attach data: Data was acquired from individual student scoring guides available in the CODE office.
|
Strategy/Action Step
|
Timeline
|
MSIP
Standard
|
Person
Responsible
|
Cost/
Resources
|
Professional
Development
|
|
Teachers will document students’ participation in the shared inquiry discussions through the “shared inquiry documentation form”.
|
Oct-May
|
9.2
|
CODE Staff
|
PD funds
|
“Jr. Great Books” PD training
|
|
Teachers will develop a timeline of story progression through the Great Books anthologies.
|
Aug-Nov
|
9.2
|
CODE Staff
|
|
|
|
Students will use technology (laptops, handheld computers) to take notes/respond to writing prompts related to the Jr. Great Books story.
|
Aug-May
|
6.4
|
CODE Staff
|
CODE budget
|
PD refresher on incorporating technology
|
|
Students will receive a mid-year and end-of-year evaluation of their progress in the area of critical thinking.
|
Dec
May
|
9.2
|
CODE Staff
|
|
|
|
Teachers will identify the content-specific vocabulary for each class.
|
Aug-May
|
9.2
|
CODE Staff
|
|
|
|
7th Grade Middle School students and High School students will use technology to focus on ACT vocabulary development.
|
Sept-Dec
|
9.2
|
CODE Staff
|
|
|
|
Teachers will incorporate non-linguistic representations to build vocabulary.
|
Aug-May
|
9.2
|
CODE Staff
|
|
PD refresher on Marzano strategies
|
|
Develop “home study” materials to involve parents in efforts to increase students’ vocabulary proficiency.
|
Sept-Nov
|
6.7
7.5
|
CODE Staff
|
CODE budget
|
|
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
Goal: (SMART = Specific, measurable, attainable, results oriented and time bound)
Students will improve math achievement through the use of problem solving as measured by a score of 3 or better (4 point scale) on the gifted program scoring guide. Overall student averages will increase by 5% as compared to previous year.
Baseline Data: Data for 2007-08 shows 34% of students scoring 3 or better.
Attach data: Data was acquired from individual student scoring guides available in the CODE office.
|
Strategy/Action Step
|
Timeline
|
MSIP
Standard
|
Person
Responsible
|
Cost/
Resources
|
Professional
Development
|
|
Teachers will implement problem solving strategies learned during professional development training.
|
Aug-May
|
6.1, 6.2, 6.7
|
CODE Staff
|
PD funds
|
GAM Conference
|
|
Students will participate in math-related classes that concentrate specifically on logic problems, patterns and relationships, and creative problem solving.
|
Aug-May
|
6.1, 6.2, 6.7
|
CODE Staff
|
|
PD on Depth of Knowledge
|
|
7th Grade Middle School students will participate in an ACT prep class.
|
Aug-Dec
|
6.1, 6.2, 6.7
|
CODE Staff
|
Grant funds pay for exam
|
|
|
Parents and students will participate in the CODE “Brain Bender Bash”, which focuses on math and problem solving activities..
|
Aug
|
7.5
|
CODE Staff
|
PTSA funds
|
|
|
Teachers will implement the inquiry-based strategies learned during professional development training.
|
Aug-May
|
6.1, 6.2, 6.7
|
CODE Staff
|
|
GAM Conference
|
|
Teachers will implement inquiry-based activities using science probes, handheld computers, and other technology.
|
Aug-May
|
6.4
|
CODE Staff
|
PD funds
|
SuccessLink training
|
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
Goal: (SMART = Specific, measurable, attainable, results oriented and time bound)
Students will improve the quality of their writing as evidenced by a score of 4 or better (6 point scale) on the gifted program writing scoring guide. Overall student averages will increase by 5% as compared to previous year.
Baseline Data: Data for 2007-08 shows 49% of students scoring 4 or better.
Attach data: Data was acquired from individual student scoring guides available in the CODE office.
|
Strategy/Action Step
|
Timeline
|
MSIP
Standard
|
Person
Responsible
|
Cost/
Resources
|
Professional
Development
|
|
Students will participate in weekly writing sessions.
|
Aug-May
|
6.1, 6.2, 6.7
|
CODE Staff
|
|
6+1 Trait Writing refresher
|
|
Teachers will develop writing prompts that are specific to the content of individual classes.
|
Aug-May
|
6.1, 6.2, 6.7
|
CODE Staff
|
|
|
|
Students will use technology (handheld computers, laptops) to respond to writing prompts.
|
Aug-May
|
6.4
|
CODE Staff
|
|
PD refresher on incorporating technology
|
|
Teachers will incorporate “Inspiration” software to create graphic organizers for pre-writing.
|
Aug-May
|
6.4
|
CODE Staff
|
|
PD on “Inspiration” software
|
|
Parents will participate in the evaluation of their child’s writing samples using the gifted program writing scoring guide.
|
Dec
May
|
7.5.3
|
CODE Staff
|
|
|
|
Students will receive a mid-year and end-of-year evaluation of the quality of their writing.
|
Dec
May
|
6.1, 6.2, 6.7
|
CODE Staff
|
|
|
|
Teachers will incorporate the use of learning logs/journaling/self-reflections in daily classes.
|
Aug-May
|
6.1, 6.2, 6.7
|
CODE Staff
|
|
PD refresher on learning logs
|
|
|
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 objectives 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 needs.
* 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 will all stakeholders was
intermittent during the plan's development.
* Most of the time the PDC rep. is linked to
the planning team
|
* Several stakeholders have an opportunity
for input.
* The plan reflects the school community's
needs to some degree.
* Communication will 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 qualityresearch 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 its 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 action 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.
|
Data Availability Chart
|
School Goals
|
Evidence We Have
|
Evidence We Need
|
|
To improve student achievement in the area of reading
|
· Reading First Data
· MAP Data
· Achievement Score from CODE entrance exam
· Teacher Observation
|
· Data from Jr. Great Books “Shared Inquiry Documentation Form”
|
|
To improve student achievement in the area of mathematics
|
· ACT Data
· MAP Data
· Achievement Score from CODE entrance exam
· Teacher Observation
|
· Data from the “problem-solving” section of the Gifted Program Scoring Guide
|
|
To improve student achievement in the area of writing
|
· MAP Data
· Data from previous student samples
· Teacher Observation
|
· Data from student samples scored using Gifted Program Writing Scoring Guide
|
Professional Development Plan 2008-09
1. Differentiated Instruction with gifted students (How the Gifted Brain Learns by David Sousa)
2. Depth of Knowledge
3. Marzano Strategies (Classroom Instruction that Works by Robert Marzano)
4. Backward Design (Understanding by Design by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe)
Calendar of Events 2008-09
|
Date
|
PD Activity and Design
|
Facilitator/Resource Person(s)
|
Participants
|
Evaluation
|
|
August 20
|
Harry Wong refresher (procedures & routines)
|
Hill
|
CODE Staff
|
Create procedures & routines documents
|
|
August 27
|
“What is a Gifted Brain?” (Sousa)
|
Hill
|
CODE Staff
|
Group Discussion
|
|
Sept. 3
|
Action Research on DOK
|
Hill
|
CODE Staff
|
Small groups report out on examples/application
|
|
Sept. 10
|
“Challenging the Gifted Brain” (Sousa)
|
Hill
|
CODE Staff
|
Group Discussion
|
|
Sept. 17
|
Action Research on DOK
|
Hill
|
CODE Staff
|
Small groups report out on examples/application
|
|
Sept. 24
|
Integrating technology
(Inspiration, Smart Board)
|
Sanborn (IT coach)
|
CODE Staff
|
Lesson plans reflect integration
|
|
Oct. 1
|
“Underachieving Gifted Students” (Sousa)
|
Hill
|
CODE Staff
|
Group Discussion
|
|
Oct. 8
|
GAM Conference
|
Hill
|
CODE Staff
|
Workshop reflections
|
|
Oct. 15
|
GAM sharing/debriefing
|
Newman
|
CODE Staff
|
Workshop reflections
|
|
Oct. 22
|
Marzano Video “School Factors”
|
Dodd
|
CODE Staff
|
Marzano reflection Q’s
|
|
Nov. 5
|
Marzano Video “Teacher Factors”
|
Stewart
|
CODE Staff
|
Marzano reflection Q’s
|
|
Nov. 12
|
Marzano Video “Student Factors”
|
Newman
|
CODE Staff
|
Marzano reflection Q’s
|
|
Nov. 19
|
Team Collaboration
(scoring writing samples)
|
Teacher Teams
|
CODE Staff
|
Scored Samples
|
|
Dec. 3
|
Team Collaboration
(scoring writing samples)
|
Teacher Teams
|
CODE Staff
|
Scored Samples
|
|
Dec. 10
|
Team Collaboration
(unit & lesson design)
|
Teacher Teams
|
CODE Staff
|
Develop Units for 2nd semester
|
|
Dec. 17
|
Team Collaboration
(unit & lesson design)
|
Teacher Teams
|
CODE Staff
|
Develop Units for 2nd semester
|
|
Jan. 7
|
Integrating Technology
(science probes/handhelds)
|
SuccessLink
|
CODE Staff
|
Lesson plans reflect integration
|
|
Jan. 14
|
Marzano strategy 1
|
Dodd
|
CODE Staff
|
Lesson plans reflect integration
|
|
Jan. 21
|
Marzano strategy 2
|
Stewart
|
CODE Staff
|
Lesson plans reflect integration
|
|
Jan. 28
|
Marzano strategy 3
|
Newman
|
CODE Staff
|
Lesson plans reflect integration
|
|
Feb. 4
|
Team Collaboration
(unit & lesson design)
|
Teacher Teams
|
CODE Staff
|
Develop Units for 4th quarter
|
|
Feb. 11
|
Team Collaboration
(unit & lesson design)
|
Teacher Teams
|
CODE Staff
|
Develop Units for 4th quarter
|
|
Feb. 18
|
Marzano strategy 4
|
Dodd
|
CODE Staff
|
Lesson plans reflect integration
|
|
Feb. 25
|
Marzano strategy 5
|
Stewart
|
CODE Staff
|
Lesson plans reflect integration
|
|
Mar. 4
|
Marzano strategy 6
|
Newman
|
CODE Staff
|
Lesson plans reflect integration
|
|
Mar. 11
|
“Working with Gifted Readers” (Sousa)
|
Hill
|
CODE Staff
|
Group Discussion
|
|
Mar. 25
|
“Mathematically Gifted Students” (Sousa)
|
Hill
|
CODE Staff
|
Group Discussion
|
|
Apr. 1
|
Marzano strategy 7
|
Dodd
|
CODE Staff
|
Lesson plans reflect integration
|
|
Apr. 8
|
Marzano strategy 8
|
Stewart
|
CODE Staff
|
Lesson plans reflect integration
|
|
Apr. 15
|
Marzano strategy 9
|
Newman
|
CODE Staff
|
Lesson plans reflect integration
|
|
Apr. 22
|
Team Collaboration
(scoring writing samples)
|
Teacher Teams
|
CODE Staff
|
Scored Samples
|
|
Apr. 29
|
Team Collaboration
(scoring writing samples)
|
Teacher Teams
|
CODE Staff
|
Scored Samples
|
|
May 6
|
Team Collaboration
(unit & lesson design)
|
Teacher Teams
|
CODE Staff
|
Develop Units for next year
|
|
May 13
|
Team Collaboration
(unit & lesson design)
|
Teacher Teams
|
CODE Staff
|
Develop Units for next year
|
|
May 20
|
Team Collaboration
(unit & lesson design)
|
Teacher Teams
|
CODE Staff
|
Develop Units for next year
|
|