board of educationwvde.state.wv.us/titlei/documents/letterofintentmcdowel… · web viewssk-8...

BOARD OF EDUCATION THE BOARD OF EDUCATION

OFTHE COUNTY OF

McDOWELLTelephone (304) 436-8441 Fax (304) 436-4008

James Brown, Superintendent30 Central Avenue, Welch, WV 24801

http://boe.mcdo.k12.wv.us

BOARD OF EDUCATIONMIKE CALLAWAY, Welch, WV

MARK SHELTON, War, WV

GEORGIA WEST, Roderfield, WV

February 26, 2011

Jan StanleyState Title I Director West Virginia Department of Education1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East Building 6, Room 330Charleston, WV 25305

Dear Ms. Stanley:

McDowell County Schools intends to submit a grant proposal for Southside K-8 School and Welch Elementary School. These schools were identified as Tier I schools, within the guidelines of the School Improvement Grant (SIG) Title I 1003(g) funding. Both schools will implement the Transformation Model to develop teacher and school leader effectiveness, reform instructional practices, extend learning time, and provide operating flexibility and sustained support.

McDowell County Schools did not meet the minimum 20 points required on the District Capacity Index Rubric. Therefore, we are requesting technical assistance support from the West Virginia Department of Education in the following areas: grant planning and implementation, professional learning communities, professional development, grant evaluation, sustainability, and strengthening collaboration among the SEA, LEA, and local level stakeholders.

I am including a preliminary needs assessment, initial root causes analysis, the district capacity matrix and the preliminary budget request for each school. These items are to be considered drafts, as the final grant will be forthcoming. Should you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (304)436-8441, ext. 228 or email at [email protected]

Sincerely,

James G. Brown Superintendent

Preparing Students for Today and Tomorrow

MIKE MITCHEM, President, Iaeger, WV LYNDA EVANS Vice President, Welch, WV

McDowell County SchoolsDistrict Capacity Index

Criteria Poor1 point

Satisfactory2 points

Commendable3 points

Points Earned

LEA governance State takeover district Limited SEA intervention No SEA intervention 1

Title I audit reportsFindings in areas requiring a repayment of funds

Findings in areas noted-repayment of funds not required

No findings in the fiscal area 3

LEA overall achievement ranking

Bottom (5% = 3 districts)

Middle(70% = 38 districts)

Top (25% = 14 districts) 1

Approval of the district strategic plan by the SEA(entire plan, not just the Title I section)

Not approved by the SEA Approved by the SEA with revisions

Approved by the SEA without revisions 2

Percentage of Title I schools that met AYP in the last testing cycle

0-50% of the Title I schools met AYP.

51-75% of the Title I schools met AYP.4 of 7 Title I schools met AYP for the 2009-2010 school year

76-100% of the Title I schools met AYP. 2

Development of schools as professionallearning communities

The school has not yet begun to address the practice of a PLC or an effort has been made to address the practice of PLCs, but has not yet begun to impact a critical mass of staff members.

A critical mass of staff has begun to engage in PLC practice. Members are being asked to modify their thinking as well as their traditional practice. Structural changes are being met to support the transition.

The practice of PLCs is deeply embedded in the culture of the school. It is a driving force in the daily work of the staff. It is deeply internalized and staff would resist attempts to abandon the practice.

2

Identification of district leadership team and assignment of responsibilities

No district leadership team nor identified person assigned for monitoring implementation

Lacks specific identification of personnel for the district leadership team and for monitoring implementation.

A specific district leadership team is identified and one or more persons are assigned for monitoring implementation.

3

School Leadership Team

School leadership team members are identified on the district and school level, but little evidence is produced to document whether the requirements of NCLB Sections 1116 and 1117 have been met.

School leadership team members are identified on the district and school level and evidence is produced to document whether the requirements of NCLB Sections 1116 and 1117 have been met.

School leadership team members are identified on the district and school level and include a wide range of stakeholders (e.g., parents; representatives of institutions of higher education; representatives of RESA or representatives of outside consultant groups). Evidence is produced to document whether the requirements of NCLB Sections 1116 and 1117 have been

2


exceeded.Total Points 16

SOUTHSIDE K-8 SCHOOL NEEDS ASSESSMENT

OVERVIEW OF WESTEST2 DATASUBGROUP PERCENT PROFICIENT MET ASSESSMENT STANDARD

R M R MALL 24.31 23.63 No NoBLACK 22.22 33.33 N/A N/AWHITE 24.38 23.32 No NoSPECIAL EDUCATION

3.92 7.84 No No

LOW SES 23.20 19.20 No NoSouthside K-8 School opened 2007-2008 school year. The school did not make AYP for the 2008-2009 and the 2009-2010 school year. The school did not make AYP in any of the subgroups as identified in the chart above. The cell size was not large enough to be counted in determining AYP in the black subgroup.

SCHOOL/COUNTY/STATE COMPARISON READING PROFICIENCY School County State

Novice 9.53 10.75 5.37Below Mastery 45.23 47.90 35.81Mastery 35.07 32.31 38.36Above Master 9.23 8.12 18.08Distinguished 0.92 0.90 2.36Number Tested 325 2315 178,243Proficient 45.22 41.33 58.00When comparing the county and state performances on the 2009-2010 WESTEST2 Assessment in reading, SSK8 had a higher percentage of students scoring proficient at 45.22 compared to the county at 41.33. However, the percentage was lower than the state percentage rate of 58.80.

SCHOOL/COUNTY/STATE COMPARISON MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY School County State

Novice 13.53 14.28 10.48Below Mastery 44.30 37.28 30.00Mastery 31.69 36.25 41.70Above Master 8.30 9.36 13.45

Distinguished 2.15 2.80 4.33

Number Tested 325 2317 178,328Proficient 42.14 48.41 59.48When comparing the county and state performances on the 2009-2010 WESTEST2 Assessment in mathematics, SSK8 scored lower in percentage of students scoring proficient at 42.14 compared to the county at 48.41. The percentage of students was also lower than the state percentage of 59.48. The state’s target for elementary school percent of students scoring at mastery level or above for reading is 34.0% and mathematics 37.0%. The state’s target for middle school percent of students scoring at mastery level or above for reading is 37.0% and mathematics 35.0%.


MATHEMATICS AYP DATA Class Tested Participation

Rate Novice Below

Mastery Mastery Above

Mastery Distinguished Proficient

3 41 100 54.05 37.84 8.11 0.00 0.0 8.114 48 100 33.33 37.78 20.00 8.89 0.0 28.895 44 100 43.59 23.08 23.08 10.26 0.0 33.33

READING AYP DATA Class Tested Participation

Rate Novice Below



3 41 100 70.27 10.81 16.22 2.70 0.0 18.924 48 100 60.00 24.44 11.11 4.44 0.0 15.565 44 100 58.97 28.21 2.56 7.69 2.56 12.82

Southside K-8 had 100% participation rate in both areas of reading and mathematics. The staff has created incentives and a tracking system to encourage students to attend school on testing days. The school communicates the importance of testing through newsletters, school messenger calling system, and parental communication via training and phone calls.

WESTEST2 DATA: The trend data below indicates the percentage of students scoring proficient on the WESTEST and WESTEST2 Assessments by subgroup.

Mathematics Percent Proficient Year Grade 03 Grade 04 Grade 05 Grade 06 Grade 07 Grade 08 Grade 09 Grade 10 Grade 11 All Grades

All Student2008 - WESTEST 37.50 55.55 60.00 52.72 65.51 52.72 53.572009 - WESTEST2 40.00 52.45 50.98 40.81 38.88 29.09 42.152010 -WESTEST2 19.29 31.25 26.31 33.33 25.00 9.09 23.64

Black2008 - WESTEST 50.00 33.33 50.00 40.002009 - WESTEST2 100.00 50.00 50.00 33.33 50.002010 -WESTEST2 50.00 50.00 33.33

Sp. Ed.2008 - WESTEST 37.50 16.66 50.00 25.00 21.42 25.002009 - WESTEST2 50.00 11.11 25.00 12.50 9.09 15.682010 -WESTEST2 16.66 14.28 12.50 18.18 9.25

Low SES2008 - WESTEST 33.33 48.88 57.77 57.44 61.22 47.91 50.342009 - WESTEST2 36.73 50.00 54.28 39.53 37.50 26.66 40.512010 -WESTEST2 17.02 27.90 20.00 25.71 21.42 8.16 19.54

Reading Percent Proficient Year Grade 03 Grade 04 Grade 05 Grade 06 Grade 07 Grade 08 Grade 09 Grade 10 Grade 11 All Grades

All Student2008 - WESTEST 47.69 64.81 56.86 60.00 67.24 57.40 58.752009 - WESTEST2 40.00 47.54 50.98 53.06 48.14 32.72 45.232010 -WESTEST2 15.78 27.08 22.80 33.33 33.33 12.72 23.64

Black2008 - WESTEST 50.00 100.00 62.50 60.002009 - WESTEST2 50.00 33.33 25.002010 -WESTEST2 25.00 50.00 22.22

Sp. Ed.


2008 - WESTEST 25.00 20.00 12.50 7.69 10.902009 - WESTEST2 16.66 18.18 5.882010 -WESTEST2 14.28 16.66 12.50 9.09 7.40

Low SES2008 - WESTEST 44.26 64.44 54.34 61.70 67.34 53.19 56.942009 - WESTEST2 38.77 42.59 54.28 51.16 45.83 35.55 44.162010 -WESTEST2 14.89 25.58 26.00 28.57 30.95 12.24 22.55

Trend data indicates the “ALL” subgroup at 3rd grade has fewer students proficient as compared to the 4th and 5th grade levels in reading and mathematics.

Trend data indicates the “ALL” subgroup at 8th grade has fewer students proficient as compared to the 6th and 7th grade levels in reading and mathematics.

As the rigor of state assessments have increased since 2008, student trend data reflects a decrease in the percent proficient in all subgroups at all grade levels with the exception of an increase from the 2009 to 2010 assessments at the 4th grade level Special Education subgroup.

When reviewing the 2009-2010 WESTEST2 data, in the “ALL” subgroup students at all grade level with the exception of 8th grade had fewer students scoring at mastery or above in reading as compared to mathematics.

ACT EXPLORE ASSESSMENT DATA (8TH GRADE):The ACT Explore average composite scores for the 2009-2010 school year were as follows:

Content Area School National English 10.9 14.42Math 11.1 15.1Reading 11.5 13.8Science 14.0 15.9Composite 12.0 14.9

After analyzing the identified areas of need based on student perceptions the following areas need improvement: Exploring Options After High School; Improving Public Speaking and Improving Mathematics Skills.

McDowell County Schools ranked 54th out of 55 counties on the ACT Explore in 2010 in English at 39.68%, 54th in mathematics at 15.73% and 54th in reading at 23.41% and 52nd in science at 3.24%. SSK8 ranked 184th out of 194 schools on the English benchmark at 27.78%. SSK8 ranked 179thon the mathematics benchmark at 6.00%. SSK8 ranked 184th on the reading benchmark at 9.43%. The following scores were the average scores for students at SSK8: English Language Arts (11), Math (10.8), Reading (11.5), and Science (14.1). One hundred four McDowell County students completed the 2009 ACT. The ACT Profile Report indicated that 47% of McDowell County students met the College Readiness Benchmark in English as compared to the state readiness of 71%. The average ACT score for English was 17.6 as compared to the state’s 20.8%. On the College Readiness Benchmark in mathematics, 12% of the students met benchmark with an average score of 17.5% as compared to the state’s 19.6%. The ACT Profile Report indicated that 32% of McDowell County students met the College Readiness Benchmark in reading as compared to the state readiness of 54%. The average ACT score for reading was 17.9 as compared to the state’s 21.4%. The ACT Profile Report indicated that 9% of McDowell County students met the College Readiness Benchmark in science as compared to the state readiness of 25%. The average ACT score for science was 18.1 as compared to the state’s 20.5%. Only 4% of McDowell County students met all 4 College Readiness Benchmarks. Thirty-one students completed the optional ACT English and Writing Test. An average English ACT score of those who took writing was 18.1 as compared to the state’s 21.8. The average ACT essay score was 6.2 as compared to the state’s 6.4.McDowell County continues to score below the State Average on the 2008 ACT in every subtest. Average ACT Scores in English is 18.1, while State score is 20.8; average score in mathematics is 17.2, while State score is 19.6;


average score for reading is 19.5, while State score is 21.4; average score for Science is 18.4, while State score is 20.5; and average Composite Score is 18.4, while State Composite score is 20.7. College readiness benchmark scores indicate out of 124 students tested in McDowell County, 57% met readiness benchmarks in English, while 72% met readiness benchmarks in the State; 14% met readiness benchmarks in mathematics, while 31% met readiness benchmarks in the State; 36% met readiness benchmarks in reading, while 52% met readiness benchmarks in the State; 7% met readiness benchmarks in science, while 23% met readiness benchmarks in the state; those students in the county meeting readiness benchmarks in all four areas is 3%, while the State had 16% meeting all four readiness benchmarks.

2010-2011 ACUITY BENCHMARK STUDENT ACHEIVMENT DATA:

District BM1 District BM2 SS BM1 SS BM23rd RLA 47 56 38 483rd Math 49 46 44 404th RLA 44 50 40 454th Math 47 51 43 485th RLA 46 54 44 465th Math 51 48 48 456th RLA 47 50 45 476th Math 43 52 37 427th RLA 51 42 49 417th Math 35 31 35 308th RLA 49 42 46 428th Math 40 40 36 35

The Acuity Platform is being used by SSK8 students in grades 3rd -8th to measure proficiency and track progress towards mastery of the West Virginia Content Standards and Objectives (CSOs). SSK8 students continue to score below county average in all grade levels in both content areas of reading and mathematics. According to the latest usage data report for Acuity, SSK8 teachers need to increase the number of short cycle assessments and instructional exercises assigned to students. Teachers are creating bell-ringers using Acuity through the work with Framing Your Success.

TECHSTEPS SCHOOL SUMMARY FEBRUARY 2011:Grade Level Number of

Students YTD Projects Assessed

YTD Average Projects Per Student

techAttainment Points

K 53 234 4.42 NA1 54 198 3.67 NA2 48 170 3.54 NA3 55 86 1.56 21.274 58 132 2.28 70.555 52 197 3.79 121.296 54 195 3.61 89.247 50 209 4.18 119.268 46 110 2.39 60.57SSK-8 teachers implement techSteps in all content areas. Each student is required to complete all six projects at each grade level. techSteps projects have been mapped to the curriculum in grades K-5. Curriculum maps are currently being developed for grades 6th – 8th and will be included. 3rd and 8th grade has been identified as two grade levels for weak for technology integration at SSK8. The school administrator has assisted with creating action plans for the classroom teachers who need support for integrating techSteps in their curriculum.


DIBELS MIDDLE OF YEAR REPORTS: Kindergarten Intensive Strategic Benchmark Instructional Remediation 8 7 30Initial Sound Fluency 7 16 22Letter Naming Fluency 8 10 27Phoneme Segmentation 12 9 24Nonsense Word Fluency 10 6 29Kindergarten results from the MOY benchmark are alarming showing that 8 students are intensive in letter naming fluency. Interventions are also needed for the 12 students who are intensive on the phoneme segmentation assessment. First Grade Intensive Strategic Benchmark Instructional Remediation 6 20 23

Phoneme Segmentation 0 5 24

Nonsense Word Fluency 0 12 37

Oral Reading Fluency 11 15 23

Second Grade Intensive Strategic Benchmark Instructional Remediation 13 11 20Oral Reading Fluency 13 11 20 Third Grade Intensive Strategic Benchmark Instructional Remediation 19 13 18Oral Reading Fluency 19 13 18

Fourth Grade Intensive Strategic Benchmark Instructional Remediation 17 11 23Oral Reading Fluency 17 11 23Fourth grade teachers are working on oral reading fluency with the students who scored intensive through Title I Interventions and small group instruction. Lexia was also implemented for the students who are struggling with oral reading fluency.

EXTERNAL TREND DATAMcDowell County’s percent of needy students is 77.74% and SSK8 is 84.18%, thus designating the school as a high poverty school by the West Virginia Department of Education. Over the past five years, we have seen the significant decrease in student population due to the economic status in McDowell County. This places a major impact on the community support and the relationships with the school community. Migration to other counties and states has affected student population and has increased the low SES subgroup within the WESTEST2. Poverty continues to be a major social issue in our school as evidenced by the number of students receiving free and reduced lunch. With emphasis being placed on global awareness through the utilization of technology and the Internet to develop real world problem solving and creative thinking skills, this will prepare our students to be productive in the 21st century. Some of the identified root causes include the following (Source: WV Kids Count & McDowell County Blueprints Community Report and district data):

39.7% of McDowell county mothers have less than a 12th grade education level compared to the state level 18.6%, ranking McDowell County 55th in the state;

46.4% of high school graduates took the ACT College entrance exam as compared to a state rate of 59.8%; only 5.6 % of county residences hold a college degree;

23% of McDowell County’s population is under 18 years of age; 16% is 65 years of age or older; McDowell County ranks 55th in unemployment; and 54.8% of McDowell County four year olds are enrolled in pre-k.


OTHER STUDENT OUTCOMESThe total 2nd month school enrollment for 2010-2011school year was 485. The attendance rate for 2009-2010 was 93.7% compared to the county’s 94% for attendance. The percent number of white children is 97.32%. The average class was 24.8 students. The percent of classes taught by Highly Qualified Teachers is 84.7%. The pupil to teacher ratio is 14.2. The average number of years experience for professional staff is 18.8. There is one split grade classroom at the school.

ATTENDANCE: The school met AYP in Attendance FY 2009-10 at 93.7%. The schools’ geographic area endured a very harsh winter with numerous instructional days missed due to snow accumulation. The attendance rate was affected by students missing additional days due to the rural location of the area. High incidences of early checkouts have been a continual occurrence pulling students from instructional activities. Attendance is a district goal for 2010-2011 and initiatives are in place to improve attendance county-wide. The school has implemented incentives to improve attendance. The average attendance rate for the current month of February is below 93%. Teacher attendance is also a concern for the school. There is a great need for substitutes for McDowell County Schools.

SAT REFERALS/INTERVENTIONS:

Of the number of referrals to the SAT process, students received interventions in the form of shortened assignments, extended time, oral testing, tier 2 and 3 pull-out, peer tutoring, and modified grading. Students' follow-up meetings yielded that these interventions were helping and continued the remainder of the year with their prescribed interventions. Out of the total number of SAT cases 7 students were referred for academic testing, 10 were referred for speech, and 3 were referred for gifted academic testing, 10 were referred for speech, and 3 were referred for gifted.

2010-2011 SOUTHSIDE RETENTION RATE: Grade Level Enrolled Retained Rate K 51 10 19.61 53 2 3.7

2 45 0 0.03 53 1 1.84 52 0 0.05 51 1 1.96 52 0 0.07 46 0 0.08 45 0 0.0 A total of 14 students of the 448 enrolled for the 2009-2010 school year were retained for the current school year. In McDowell County Schools 65 of the 2,357 students were retained for the current school year. The dropout rate is 3.5% totaling 56 students for the 2009-2010 school year. The percent of students scoring non-proficient on the WESTEST2/APTA Mathematics assessment was 76.3. The percent of students scoring non-proficient on the WESTEST2/APTA reading assessment was 76.3.

DISCIPLINE DATADiscipline data for the 2009-2010school year indicated a total of 646 infractions. Of 646, ninety-nine resulted in out-of-school suspension, while 1 resulted in in-school suspensions. Sixty were excluded from the classroom setting. Trend data shows that the total number of infractions has increased since 2008. (See chart below.)

2010 6462009 5042008 421

After reviewing data, the team found the infractions occurring most often were aggressive conduct (304), failure to obey rules/authority (164) and disrespectful and inappropriate conduct (160).


EDVANTIA PARENT APPRAISALSA review for SSK8 included an assessment of the two components of the WVDE Parent and Community Involvement Checklists, which focus on creating and maintaining partnerships with parents and community. The data showed the school is at the Partial Implementation Level in the area of Collaboration with Community. The school showed data Emerging Implementation Level in four of the six areas: Volunteering, Decision Making, Parenting, and Families in Transition. In the area of Communication, the school practices were at the No Implementation Level. In the areas of Linking to Learning component, the team examined data obtained through document reviews, walk-throughs, and interviews with school administrators, teachers, and students. Data showed the school is at the Emerging Implementation Level in five of the six areas: Communication, Volunteering, Home Learning Environment, Collaboration with Community, and Families in Transition. In the area of Parenting, the school practices were at the No Implementation Level.

OEPA AUDIT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS:

The Team identified four high quality standards necessary to improve performance andprogress. They include the following:

7.1.11. Guidance and Advisement – Counselor was not available to all students. 7.1.13. Instructional Day – All students were not receiving equal access due to bus transportation. 7.2.1. County and School Electronic Strategic Improvement Plans – Weaknesses were identified in the

Strategic Plan. 7.6.3. Evaluation – An observation were not compliance within the timelines.

The Team also conducted a resource evaluation to assess the resource needs of the school. The Team submits this initial report to guide Southside K-8 School in improvement efforts. The latest report indicated that improvements were needed in adequate parking and playground facilities.

MONITORING REPORTS: Title I Reports: Southside K-8 School opened April 2008. The school has not yet participated in a Title I Monitoring.

Special Education Reports: Southside K-8 School opened April 2008. The school has not yet participated in a Special Education Monitoring.

HIGH YIELDS PRACTICES REPORT:

The report recommended that a leadership team be formed to begin to discuss issues such as teacher and student attendance, low morale and low expectations. The school has developed a Leadership Team to address issues identified as weaknesses and make improvements based on identified needs. The deficiencies identified by the Monitoring Team have been identified and addressed along with recommendations from the High Yield Practice Report, Surveys and our Culture Survey. The staff continues to work with Dr. Steve Edwards and Framing Your Success to increase student achievement and apply those recommendations and strategies. We implemented an 8-period day rather than modified block. Teachers are using bell ringers with DOK 2 or higher, implementing teaching and learning tools such as Acuity, WV Writes, TechSteps, etc. Teachers are implementing closure activities as part of daily instruction. The school administration is conducting test talks with students prior to all state testing including ACT Explore and WESTEST2. A data wall has been constructed to monitor student progress through benchmark testing for all students in grades 3-8. New instructional programs include Carnegie Math (Bridge to Algebra) for 8th graders and Headsprout (phonemic awareness) for grades K-1. The school implemented Lexia Reading for students 2nd – 8th grade. The counselor's schedule was revised to provide additional time for individual counseling, group counseling and class counseling.

PRIORITIZED STRATEGIC ISSUES:


Southside will be focusing on achievement, parental involvement, and attendance. Increasing achievement is going to be our primary goal for the next five years. We are going to focus on improving our Tier I core programs by including our support staff in all content areas. Once the Tier I programs show improvement, we start to build our Tier II programs. Achievement will encompass reading, writing, and mathematics. We will continue the 21CCLC after school program, after school tutoring programs for students at Southside which have the potential to raise literacy awareness among our students. This would have a positive impact on our students and create greater enthusiasm for literacy among them.

Another goal will be to improve parental and community involvement. We will continue to have Reading and Math Nights, along with Open House, and other activities. We will also offer opportunities for parent trainings such as Pinnacle Gradebook and student assessments. We intend to improve both student and staff attendance. We have planned incentive activities for both groups in hopes of meeting this goal. Individual teachers have their own classroom plan used to improve school-wide attendance. The school has planned to recognize students with perfect attendance each month. Southside will have quarterly drawings for students who have perfect attendance for prizes as well as classroom level recognition.

ANALYSIS OF CULTURE, CONDITIONS AND PRACTICESCULTURE AND CLIMATE SURVEY:

SSK8 staff indicated weaknesses in the area of Collaborative Leadership Factors (2.96) and Learning Partnership Factors (2.66).

When reviewing Collaborative Leadership Factors the following areas show great need for improvement:

2.45 – Teachers are rewarded for experimenting new ideas and techniques. 2.76 – Teachers are kept informed. 2.76 – My involvement in policy or decision making is taken seriously.

When reviewing Learning Partnership Factors the following areas show great need for improvement:

2.21 – Students generally accept responsibility 2.62 – Teachers and parents have the same expectations 2.90 – Parents trust teachers’ professional judgments

When reviewing Efficacy Factors the following areas show great need for improvement based on the results:

3.41 – My success or failure in teaching students is due to factors primarily out of my control rather than to my own efforts and ability.

2.17 – Many of the students I teach are not capable of learning the material I am suppose to teach them. 3.83 – The level of student misbehavior in this school interferes with my teaching.

JERRY VALENTINE’S CULTURE TYPLOGY REPORT:February 2, 2011

The culture topology was administered to the educators of Southside K-8 School on Monday, February 21, 2011. Educators participated in one of two ninety minute sessions with 22 teachers in session one and 17 educators in session two. Results are presented on the consensus chart summary scores and reflection sheet comments.

Most cited descriptors of the overall culture are: There are cliques of teachers that parents perceive as the better teachers.


School leaders monitor the meetings that are designed for teacher collaboration. Communication is dominated by top-down mandates. Some grades, departments, or teams consider their successes as separate from the whole school. There are teachers who only trust certain teachers. Teachers are given time to discuss student achievement and are expected to do that during this time. Most teachers are aware of only what their friends in the school are teaching. It is difficult to have productive dialogue with certain groups of teachers. Most teachers discussions related to student achievement are restricted to within departments, cliques, or

close friends. There are small groups of teachers that share educational values. There are small groups of teachers that attempt to control the decisions made concerning students. School leaders mandate teachers to try new ideas. Teachers usually keep their opinions and advice concerning instruction among their friends. Teachers are expected to contribute to discussions about effective teaching at meetings.

FRAMING YOUR SUCCESS MATRIX: SSK8 staff indentified the school’s status in regard to characteristics of high-performing schools indicated the following weaknesses:

Involvement of all stakeholders Applying techniques and strategies shared with the team Transferring of knowledge from the FYS Team meetings to entire staff

INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES INVENTORY 10-14-10 – CORE CLASSES 16% Complete Disengagement 12% Student Work – Teacher Not Engaged 22% Student Work – Teacher Engaged 44% Teacher Led Instruction 1% Student Learning Conversations 5% Student Active Engaged Learning

After an in depth analysis of the aforementioned data the Leadership Team has identified the following root causes and has chosen the Transformation Model to improve school achievement at Southside K-8 School.

SOUTHSIDE K-8 - ROOT CAUSES1. Administrator(s) and Teachers

Need for Additional Support and Mentoring for New Administrator Math Interventionist Needed to Provide Interventions Teachers Need to Ensure that Every Student Masters Designated Learning Goals through

Monitoring and Data Analysis Staff Attendance Needs Improved Lack of Highly-Qualified Teachers Low Number of Available Substitutes Lack of Consistent Planning and Collaboration Core Beliefs and Values Need to be Evident in all Practices, Policies, and Processes within the

School High Expectations are Not Evident in All Classrooms Teachers Need to Align the Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment to the WV Curriculum

Standards and Objectives for Content, Learning Skills, and Technology Tools.


2. Curriculum and Resources Need for Additional Interventions for At-Risk Students Inconsistency of Integration of Technology Extended Learning Time Teachers Need to Understand and Use Effective, Specific Content Strategies. Assignments Need Differentiated (Individualized Instruction) in Response to Individual

Performance on Assessments Need for Additional Professional Development through Framing Your Success Initiative Stakeholders need to use the Mission to Guide the Daily Operations and Long-Term Planning A Comprehensive Guidance Counseling Program Needs Designed, Delivered, and Implemented

3. Schedule and Classroom Management Lack of Student Engagement High Retention Rates Expectations Need Clearly Defined Consistent Language Needs to be Utilized by All Staff Scheduling Issues Need for Data Notebooks and Student Goals

4. Students and Parental Involvement Additional Parent/Family Education Opportunities are Needed to Address Varying Parental

Concerns Regarding Academics, Behavior, Social, and Emotional Stages. Improvements Needed in Two-Way Communication Strategies Among Students, School Personnel,

and Families High Disciplinary Infractions High Mobility Rates of Students Need to Increase Rituals, Ceremonies and Traditions Relationships are Non-Existent between Students, Staff, and Parents


WELCH ELEMENTARY NEEDS ASSESSMENT

OVERVIEW OF WESTEST2 DATASUBGROUP PERCENT PROFICIENT MET ASSESSMENT STANDARD

R M R MALL 15.70 23.96 NO NOBLACK 14.70 26.47 NA NAWHITE 16.27 22.09 NO NOSPECIAL EDUCATION

0.0 0.0 NA NA

LOW SES 15.15 23.23 NO NOThe school did not make AYP for the 2008-2009 and the 2009-2010 school year. The school did not make AYP in any of the subgroups as identified in the chart above. The cell size was not large enough to be counted in determining AYP in the black subgroup. The cell size was not large enough to be counted in determining AYP in the Special Education subgroup.

SCHOOL/COUNTY/STATE COMPARISON READING PROFICIENCY School County State

Novice 5.03 10.75 5.37

Below Mastery 52.51 47.90 35.81

Mastery 35.25 32.31 38.36Above Master 5.03 8.12 18.08

Distinguished 2.15 0.90 2.36

Number Tested 139 2,315 178,243Proficient 42.43 41.33 58.80When comparing the county and state performances on the 2009-2010 WESTEST2 Assessment in reading, WES had a higher percentage of students scoring proficient at 42.43 compared to the county at 41.33. However, the percentage was lower than the state percentage rate of 58.80. The state’s target for elementary school percent of students scoring at mastery level or above for reading is 34.0% and mathematics 37.0%. The state’s target for middle school percent of students scoring at mastery level or above for reading is 37.0% and mathematics 35.0%.

SCHOOL/COUNTY/STATE COMPARISON MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY School County State

Novice 2.15 14.28 10.48Below Mastery 43.88 37.28 30.00Mastery 30.21 36.25 41.70Above Master 20.14 9.36 13.45Distinguished 3.59 2.80 4.33Number Tested 139 2,317 178,328Proficient 53.94 48.41 59.48When comparing the county and state performances on the 2009-2010 WESTEST2 Assessment in mathematics, WES scored higher in percentage of students scoring proficient at 53.94 compared to the county at 48.41. The percentage of students was, however, lower than the state percentage of 59.48. The state’s target for elementary school percent of students scoring at mastery level or above for reading is 34.0% and mathematics 37.0%. The state’s target for middle school percent of students scoring at mastery level or above for reading is 37.0% and mathematics 35.0%.

MATHEMATICS AYP DATA Class Tested Participation Novice Below Mastery Above Distinguished Proficient


Rate Mastery Mastery 3 41 100 54.05 37.84 8.11 0.00 0.00 8.114 48 100 33.33 37.78 20.00 8.89 0.00 28.895 44 100 43.59 23.08 23.08 10.26 0.00 33.53

READING AYP DATA Class Tested Participation

Rate Novice Below



3 41 100 70.27 10.81 16.22 2.70 0.00 18.924 48 100 60.00 24.44 11.11 4.44 0.00 15.565 44 100 58.97 28.21 2.56 7.69 2.56 12.82

WES had 100% participation rate in both areas of reading and mathematics. The staff has created incentives and a tracking system to encourage students to attend school on testing days. The school communicates the importance of testing through newsletters, school messenger calling system, and parental communication via training and phone calls.

WESTEST/WESTEST2 TREND DATA: The trend data below indicates the percentage of students scoring proficient on the WESTEST and WESTEST2 Assessments by subgroup.

MATHEMATICS Percent Proficient Year Grade 03 Grade 04 Grade 05 Grade 06 Grade 07 Grade 08 Grade 09 Grade 10 Grade 11 All Grades

All Student2008 - WESTEST 60.86 84.09 81.39 75.182009 - WESTEST2 49.01 54.54 59.09 53.952010 -WESTEST2 17.07 27.08 29.54 24.81

Black2008 - WESTEST 70.00 87.50 83.33 80.002009 - WESTEST2 52.94 28.57 25.00 40.622010 -WESTEST2 10.00 43.75 12.50 26.47

Sp. Ed.2008 - WESTEST 50.00 16.66 20.002009 - WESTEST2 44.44 33.33 35.712010 -WESTEST2

Low SES2008 - WESTEST 55.26 81.08 78.37 71.422009 - WESTEST2 46.51 48.57 59.37 50.902010 -WESTEST2 18.18 23.07 31.57 24.54

READING Percent Proficient Year Grade 03 Grade 04 Grade 05 Grade 06 Grade 07 Grade 08 Grade 09 Grade 10 Grade 11 All Grades

All Student2008 - WESTEST 63.04 77.27 72.09 70.672009 - WESTEST2 41.17 38.63 47.72 42.442010 -WESTEST2 21.95 14.58 11.36 15.78

Black2008 - WESTEST 50.00 75.00 83.33 70.002009 - WESTEST2 58.82 14.28 37.50 43.752010 -WESTEST2 30.00 12.50 14.70

Sp. Ed.2008 - WESTEST 16.66 10.002009 - WESTEST2 33.33 21.42


2010 -WESTEST2 Low SES

2008 - WESTEST 57.89 75.67 72.97 68.752009 - WESTEST2 37.20 37.14 46.87 40.002010 -WESTEST2 21.21 15.38 10.52 15.45

Trend data indicates the “ALL” subgroup at 3rd grade has fewer students proficient as compared to the 4th and 5th grade levels in mathematics.

Trend data indicates less students are proficient in reading compared to mathematics in grades 3 – 5. As the rigor of state assessments have increased since 2008, student trend data reflects a decrease in the

percent proficient in all subgroups at all grade levels with the exception of an increase from the 2009 to 2010 assessments with the exception of the black subgroup in mathematics.

When reviewing the 2009-2010 WESTEST2 data, in the “ALL” subgroup students at all grade levels with the exception of 8th grade had fewer students scoring at mastery or above in mathematics as compared to reading.

WESTEST2 CONFIDNETIAL SUMMARY REPORT:According to the WESTEST2 Confidential Summary Report:

The third grade Reading/Language Arts ALL subgroup indicates 21.95% of Welch Elementary third graders were "At or Above Mastery". The third grade Mathematics ALL subgroup indicates 17.07% of Welch Elementary third graders were "At or Above Mastery".

The fourth grade Reading/Language Arts ALL subgroup indicates 14.58% of Welch Elementary fourth graders were "At or Above Mastery". The fourth grade Mathematics ALL subgroup indicates 27.08% of Welch Elementary fourth graders were "At or Above Mastery".

The fifth grade Reading/Language Arts ALL subgroup indicates 11.36% of Welch Elementary fifth graders were "At or Above Mastery". The fifth grade Mathematics ALL subgroup indicates 29.55% of Welch Elementary fifth graders were "At or Above Mastery".

EVERDAY MATHEMATICS FINAL GOALS REPORT K-5:Teachers (K-5) at Welch Elementary School completed the Everyday Mathematics class profile information indicating the number/percent of students meeting benchmark by the end of the school year (2009-2010). The results are as follows:

Kindergarten – 86% First Grade – 85% Second Grade – 85% Third Grade – 78% Fourth Grade – 94% Fifth Grade – 91%

2010-2011 ACUITY BENCHMARK STUDENT ACHEIVMENT DATA:District BM1 District BM2 WES BM1 WES BM2

3rd RLA 47 56 43 553rd MATH 49 46 46 444th RLA 44 50 42 444th MATH 47 51 41 445th RLA 46 54 46 555th MATH 51 48 54 53The Acuity Platform is being used by WES students in grades 3rd -5th to measure proficiency and track progress towards mastery of the West Virginia Content Standards and Objectives (CSOs). WES students continue to score below county average at the 3rd and 4th grade levels in both content areas of reading and mathematics. The 5th


graders, however, are scoring above the county benchmark average in both reading and mathematics. According to the latest usage data report for Acuity, WES teachers need to increase the number of short cycle assessments and instructional exercises assigned to students. Teachers are creating bell-ringers using Acuity through the work with Framing Your Success.

TECHSTEPS SCHOOL SUMMARY FEBRUARY 2011:Grade Level Number of

Students YTD Projects Assessed

YTD Average Projects Per Student

techAttainment Points

K 57 172 3.02 NA1 49 110 2.24 NA2 44 125 2.84 NA3 53 49 0.92 28.094 46 104 2.26 0.795 47 129 2.74 125.21WES teachers implement techSteps in all content areas. Each student was required to complete all six projects. techSteps projects have been mapped to the curriculum in grades K-5. Students in grade 4 have been identified as those not having adequate opportunities to reach tech literacy. School administrators have assisted with creating action plans for the classroom teachers who need support for integrating techSteps in their curriculum.

DIBELS MIDDLE OF YEAR REPORTS: Kindergarten Intensive Strategic Benchmark Instructional Remediation 7 22 26Initial Sound Fluency 4 36 15Letter Naming Fluency 5 15 35Phoneme Segmentation 14 16 25Nonsense Word Fluency 7 6 42Kindergarten results from the MOY benchmark indicate that 5 students remain intensive in letter naming fluency. Interventions are also needed for the 14 students who are intensive on the phoneme segmentation assessment. First Grade Intensive Strategic Benchmark Instructional Remediation 8 14 26

Phoneme Segmentation 0 36 12

Nonsense Word Fluency 9 17 22

Oral Reading Fluency 3 15 30

Second Grade Intensive Strategic Benchmark Instructional Remediation 5 5 34Oral Reading Fluency 5 5 34

Third Grade Intensive Strategic Benchmark Instructional Remediation 18 13 21Oral Reading Fluency 18 13 21

Fourth Grade Intensive Strategic Benchmark Instructional Remediation 12 17 14Oral Reading Fluency 12 17 14

Fifth Grade Intensive Strategic Benchmark Instructional Remediation 8 4 32Oral Reading Fluency 8 4 32The MOY DIBELS benchmark scores reflect a weakness in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade levels in oral reading fluency. Lexia Reading will assist with word attack and decoding skills. Teachers need to increase fluency activities.


EXTERNAL TREND DATAMcDowell County’s percent of needy students is 77.74% and WES is 76.49%, thus designating the school as a high poverty school by the West Virginia Department of Education. Over the past five years, we have seen the significant decrease in student population due to the economic status in McDowell County. This places a major impact on the community support and the relationships with the school community. Migration to other counties and states has affected student population and has increased the low SES subgroup within the WESTEST2. Poverty continues to be a major social issue in our school as evidenced by the number of students receiving free and reduced lunch. With emphasis being placed on global awareness through the utilization of technology and the Internet to develop real world problem solving and creative thinking skills, this will prepare our students to be productive in the 21st century. Some of the identified root causes include the following (Source: WV Kids Count & McDowell County Blueprints Community Report and district data):

39.7% of McDowell county mothers have less than a 12th grade education level compared to the state level 18.6%, ranking McDowell County 55th in the state;

46.4% of high school graduates took the ACT College entrance exam as compared to a state rate of 59.8%; only 5.6 % of county residences hold a college degree;

23% of McDowell County’s population is under 18 years of age; 16% is 65 years of age or older; McDowell County ranks 55th in unemployment; and 54.8% of McDowell County four year olds are enrolled in Pre-K.

OTHER STUDENT OUTCOMESWES total school enrollment for 2010-2011school year was 312. The attendance rate for 2009-2010 was 97.5% compared to the county’s 94% for attendance. The percent number of white children is 72.44%. The average class was 20.7 students. The percent of classes taught by Highly Qualified Teachers is 87.1%. The pupil to teacher ratio is 14.3. The average number of years experience for professional staff is 16.3. There are no split grades at the school.

ATTENDANCE: The school did meet AYP in Attendance FY 2009-10. The school’s geographic area endured a very harsh winter with numerous instructional days missed due to snow accumulation. The attendance rate was affected by students missing additional days due to the rural area. High incidences of early checkouts have been a continual occurrence pulling students from instructional activities. Attendance is a district goal for 2010-2011 and initiatives are in place to improve attendance county-wide. The school has implemented incentives to improve attendance. The average attendance rate each month this school year is currently above 93%. Teacher attendance is also a concern for the school. There is a great need for substitutes for McDowell County Schools.

SAT REFERRALS:2009-2010The number of SAT Referrals were 26. Interventions were put into place and 1 student was placed in special programs and 29 referrals were closed due to lack of need or Special Education referrals.

2010-2011 WELCH ELEMENTARY RETENTION RATE: Grade Level Enrolled Retained Rate K 54 7 12.91 48 6 12.5

2 43 2 4.63 50 0 0.04 42 0 0.05 44 0 0.0 A total of 15 students of the 312 enrolled for the 2009-2010 school year were retained for the current school year. In McDowell County Schools 65 of the 2,357 students were retained for the current school year. The dropout rate is


3.5% totaling 56 students for the 2009-2010 school year.

DISCIPLINE DATA:WES discipline data for the 2009-2010school year indicated a total of 36 infractions. Of 36, thirty-five resulted in out-of-school suspension, while 1 resulted in in-school suspensions. Actions such as counseling, parent conferences, goal setting, and etc. need to be established by administration. Trend data shows that the total number of infractions has decreased since 2008. (See chart below.)

2010 362009 452008 109

After reviewing data, the team found the infractions occurring most often were aggressive conduct (27), failure to obey rules/authority (1) and disrespectful and inappropriate conduct (4), weapons (2), and legal concerns (2).

EDVANTIA PARENT APPRAISALS:A review for WES included an assessment of the two components of the WVDE Parent and Community Involvement Checklists, which focus on creating and maintaining partnerships with parents and community. The data showed the school is at the Partial Implementation Level in the areas of Volunteering and Collaboration with Community. The school showed data Emerging Implementation Level in three of the six areas: Decision Making, Communication, and Families in Transition. In the area of Parenting, the school practices were at the No Implementation Level. In the areas of Linking to Learning component, the team examined data obtained through document reviews, walk-throughs, and interviews with school administrators, teachers, and students. Data showed the school is at Partial Implementation Level for three of the six review areas: Communication, Volunteering and Home Learning Environment. In the areas of Collaboration with Community, and Families in Transition the school practices were Emerging Implementation Level. In the area of Parenting, the school practices were at the No Implementation Level.

PRIORITIZED STRATEGIC ISSUES: To improve student achievement in reading/language arts/writing on the WESTEST2, DIBELS, Acuity,

Pearson SuccessNet, Writing Roadmap, and techSteps.

To improve student achievement in math on the WESTEST2, Acuity, Everyday Math and Pinpoint Math.

ANALYSIS OF CULTURE, CONDITIONS AND PRACTICESOEPA REPORTS:The Team identified five high quality standards necessary to improve performance andprogress. They include the following:

7.1.3. Learning Environment – Weaknesses were cited in classroom management. Reports were made of harassment and bullying.

7.1.6. Instruction in Writing – Writing was not taught at least once per week. Poor utilization of Writing Roadmap was noted.

7.1.7. Library/Educational Technology Access and Technology Application – Limited access to the computer lab was cited.

7.7.1. School Rules, Procedures, and Expectations – Rules were inconsistently enforced. 7.8.1. Leadership – Assistance was cited as a need to improve building level leadership. Consistent and fair

application of the school and county discipline plan are necessary for school improvement.

MONITORING REPORTS:Preparing Students for Today and Tomorrow

Title I Monitoring Report: In a November 2007 report, Welch Elementary School was cited for having a paraprofessional providing instructional services without direct supervisor of a teacher.

Title I Recommendations: Provide Technical Assistance and Guidance in Tier Instruction in Grades K-3 Utilize Title I Teachers in an In-Class Model to Provide Differentiation in the Core

Special Education Monitoring Report: In a November 2007 report, Welch Elementary School needs improvement in the utilization of Special Education in order to maximize the implementation of tier reading to fully implement IEPs. Welch Elementary School had no findings of non-compliance.

FRAMING YOUR SUCCESS MATRIX A Framing Your Success Matrix, completed by WES staff, indentifying the school’s status in regard to characteristics of high-performing schools indicated the following weaknesses:

Involvement of all stakeholders Applying techniques and strategies shared with the team Modify the school structure to meet the school’s needs

After an in depth analysis of the aforementioned data the Leadership Team has identified the following root causes and has chosen the Transformation Model to improve school achievement at Welch Elementary School.

WELCH ELEMENTARY- ROOT CAUSES5. Administrator(s) and Teachers

Need for Additional Support and Mentoring for New Administrator Math Interventionist Needed to Provide Interventions Need for Interventionist Facilitator Teachers Need to Ensure that Every Student Masters Designated Learning Goals through Monitoring

and Data Analysis Staff Attendance Needs Improved Lack of Highly-Qualified Teachers Low Number of Available Substitutes Lack of Consistent Planning and Collaboration Core Beliefs and Values Need to be Evident in all Practices, Policies, and Processes within the School High Expectations are Not Evident in All Classrooms Teachers Need to Align the Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment to the WV Curriculum Standards

and Objectives for Content, Learning Skills, and Technology Tools.

6. Curriculum and Resources Need for Additional Interventions for At-Risk Students Inconsistency of Integration of Technology Extended Learning Time Teachers Need to Understand and Use Effective, Specific Content Strategies. Assignments Need Differentiated (Individualized Instruction) in Response to Individual Performance on

Assessments


Need for Additional Professional Development through Framing Your Success Initiative Stakeholders need to use the Mission to Guide the Daily Operations and Long-Term Planning A Comprehensive Guidance Counseling Program Needs Designed, Delivered, and Implemented

7. Schedule and Classroom Management Lack of Student Engagement High Retention Rates Expectations Need Clearly Defined Consistent Language Needs to be Utilized by All Staff Scheduling Issues Need for Data Notebooks and Student Goals

8. Students and Parental Involvement Additional Parent/Family Education Opportunities are Needed to Address Varying Parental Concerns

Regarding Academics, Behavior, Social, and Emotional Stages. Improvements Needed in Two-Way Communication Strategies Among Students, School Personnel, and

Families High Disciplinary Infractions High Mobility Rate of Students Need to Increase Rituals, Ceremonies and Traditions Relationships are Non-Existent between Students, Staff, and Parents

Preliminary Budget Form


District Name: McDowell County Schools

School Name by TierIntervention Models: Select the model that will be implemented in each Tier I and Tier II school.Turnaround Restart Closure Transformation

Tier I School:Welch Elementary School XSouthside K-8 School X

Complete a separate table for each Tier I school or Tier II school. Estimate the amount of funds required to implement the intervention model selected for each school.

School Name: Welch Elementary School Tier: 1Total: $2000 $329,000 $329,000 $329,000 $987,000

Transformation Model Pre-Implemen-

tation

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Total

A. Develop teacher and school leader effectivenessReplace the principalUse rigorous, transparent and equitable evaluation systems that take into account data on student growthIdentify and reward school leaders, teachers and other staff who have increased student achievement and the graduation rate (Incentives)

$10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000

Provide high quality, job-embedded professional development (Stipends)

$35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $105,000

Implement strategies to recruit, place and retain staffOther permissible activities as defined in the regulations (Technology Specialist)

$47,000 $47,000 $47,000 $141,000

Subtotal: $92,000 $92,000 $92,000 $276,000

B. Comprehensive instructional reform programsUse data to identify and implement an instructional program that is research-based and vertically aligned from one grade to the next as well as aligned with State academic standardsPromote the continuous use of student data to inform and differentiate instructionOther permissible activities as defined in the regulations (specify activities) (Update Lab/PCs, Updating Library)

$35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $105,000

Subtotal: $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $105,000

C. Increasing learning time and creating community-oriented schoolsEstablish schedules and strategies that provide increased learning time as defined by ED and create community-oriented schools (Two K-2 After School Teachers)

$25,000 25,000 $25,000 $75,000

Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement (Attendance/Social Work Services)

$27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $81,000


Other permissible activities as defined in the regulations (specify activities)Subtotal: $52,000 $52,000 $52,000 $156,000

D. Provide operating flexibility and sustained supportGive schools operating flexibility to implement fully a comprehensive approachEnsure that the school receives ongoing, intensive technical assistance and related support from the LEA and/or the SEAProvide intensive technical assistance and related support from a designated external lead partnership organization

$2000Edwards Grant Assistance

$150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $450,000

Other permissible activities as defined in the regulations (specify activities)Subtotal: $2000.00 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $450,000

Total for Transformation Model: $2000 $329,000 $329,000 $329,000 $987,000

School Name: Southside K-8 School Tier: 1Total: $2000 $434,000 $434,000 $434,000 $1,302,000

Transformation Model Pre-Implemen-

tationYear

1Year

2Year

3Total

A. Develop teacher and school leader effectivenessReplace the principalUse rigorous, transparent and equitable evaluation systems that take into account data on student growthIdentify and reward school leaders, teachers and other staff who have increased student achievement and the graduation rate

$15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $45,000

Provide high quality, job-embedded professional development (Carnegie, Literacy Co-Hort)

$30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $90,000

Implement strategies to recruit, place and retain staffOther permissible activities as defined in the regulations (Technology Specialist & Transformation Specialist)

$152,000 $152,000 $152,000 $456,000

Subtotal: $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $591,000

B. Comprehensive instructional reform programsUse data to identify and implement an instructional program that is research-based and vertically aligned from one grade to the next as well as aligned with State academic standardsPromote the continuous use of student data to inform and differentiate instructionOther permissible activities as defined in the regulations (Upgrade PCs and Library)

$35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $105,000

Subtotal: $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $105,000

C. Increasing learning time and creating community-oriented schoolsEstablish schedules and strategies that provide $25 ,000 $25,000 $25,000 $75,000


increased learning time as defined by ED and create community-oriented schools (Two K-2 After School Teachers)Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement (Attendance/Social Work Services)

$27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $81,000

Other permissible activities as defined in the regulations (specify activities) Subtotal: $52,000 $52,000 $52,000 $156,000

D. Provide operating flexibility and sustained supportGive schools operating flexibility to implement fully a comprehensive approachEnsure that the school receives ongoing, intensive technical assistance and related support from the LEA and/or the SEAProvide intensive technical assistance and related support from a designated external lead partnership organization

$2000Edwards Grant Assistance

$150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $450,000

Other permissible activities as defined in the regulations (specify activities)Subtotal: $2000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $450,000

Total for Transformation Model: $2000 $434,000 $434,000 $434,000 $1,302,000

The budget should take into account the following:1. The number of Tier I and Tier II schools that the LEA commits to serve and the intervention model

(turnaround, restart, closure, or transformation) selected for each school.

2. The budget request for each Tier I and Tier II school must be of sufficient size and scope to support full and effective implementation of the selected intervention over a period of three years. The year one budget may include ‘pre-implementation’ activities that will be conducted prior to the beginning of the 2011-2012 school term.

Possible activities that an LEA may carry out during the spring or summer prior to full implementation may include:

Family and Community Engagement: Hold community meetings to review school performance, discuss the school intervention model to be implemented, and develop school improvement plans in line with the intervention model selected; survey students and parents to gauge needs of students, families, and the community; communicate with parents and the community about school status, improvement plans, and local service providers for health, nutrition, or social services through press releases, newsletters, newspaper announcements, parent outreach coordinators, hotline, and direct mail.

Instructional Programs: Provide remediation and enrichment to students in schools that will implement an intervention model at the start of the 2011-2012 school year through programs with evidence of raising student achievement (e.g., summer school for in-coming freshmen, summer school programs designed to prepare low achieving students to participate successfully in advanced coursework, such as Honors, AP or IB); identify and purchase instructional materials that are research-based, aligned with State academic standards, and have data-based evidence of raising student achievement; or compensate staff for instructional planning, such as examining student data, developing a curriculum that is aligned to State


standards and aligned vertically from one grade level to another, collaborating within and across disciplines, and devising student assessments.

Professional Development and Support: Train staff on the implementation of new or revised instructional programs and policies that are aligned with the school’s comprehensive instructional plan and the school’s intervention model; provide instructional support for returning staff members, such as classroom coaching, structured common planning time, mentoring, consultation with outside experts, and observations of classroom practice, that is aligned with the school’s comprehensive instructional plan and the school’s intervention model.

Preparation for Accountability Measures: Analyze data on leading baseline indicators or develop and adopt interim assessments for use in SIG-funded schools.

The budget must be planned at a minimum of $50,000 per year. The maximum amount cannot exceed $2 million multiplied by the number of schools served or no more than $6 million over three years.

3. The LEA may request funding for LEA-level activities that will support the implementation of school intervention models in Tier I and Tier II schools and support school improvement activities, at the school or LEA level, for each Tier III school identified in the LEA’s application.

4. The number of Tier III schools that the LEA commits to serve and school improvement activities the LEA plans to provide to these schools over the three-year grant period.


board of educationwvde.state.wv.us/titlei/documents/letterofintentmcdowel… · web viewssk-8...

Documents