BOARD OF EDUCATION
MIKE MITCHEM, President, Iaeger, WV
LYNDA EVANS Vice President, Welch, WV
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION
OF
THE COUNTY OF McDOWELL
Telephone (304) 436-8441  Fax (304) 436-4008
BOARD OF EDUCATION
MIKE CALLAWAY, Welch, WV
MARK SHELTON, War, WV
GEORGIA WEST, Roderfield, WV
James Brown, Superintendent
30 Central Avenue, Welch, WV 24801
http://boe.mcdo.k12.wv.us
February 26, 2011
Jan Stanley
State Title I Director
West Virginia Department of Education
1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East
Building 6, Room 330
Charleston, 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)4368441, ext. 228 or email at jgmbrown@access.k12.wv.us
Sincerely,
James G. Brown
Superintendent
Preparing Students for Today and Tomorrow
McDowell County Schools
District Capacity Index
Criteria
Poor
1 point
LEA governance
State takeover district
Title I audit reports
LEA overall
achievement ranking
Approval of the district
strategic plan by the
SEA
Findings in areas
requiring a repayment of
funds
Bottom
(5% = 3 districts)
Not approved by the SEA
(entire plan, not just the
Title I section)
Percentage of Title I
schools that met AYP
in the last testing cycle
Development of schools
as professional
learning communities
Identification of district
leadership team and
assignment of
responsibilities
School Leadership
Team
0-50% of the Title I
schools met AYP.
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.
No district leadership
team nor identified
person assigned for
monitoring
implementation
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.
Satisfactory
2 points
Limited SEA
intervention
Findings in areas
noted-repayment of
funds not required
Middle
(70% = 38 districts)
Commendable
3 points
Points
Earned
No SEA intervention
1
No findings in the
fiscal area
3
Top
(25% = 14 districts)
1
Approved by the
SEA with revisions
Approved by the SEA
without revisions
2
76-100% of the Title
I schools met AYP.
2
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
51-75% of the Title I
schools met AYP.
4 of 7 Title I schools
met AYP for the
2009-2010 school
year
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.
Lacks specific
identification of
personnel for the
district leadership
team and for
monitoring
implementation.
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.
A specific district
leadership team is
identified and one or
more persons are
assigned for
monitoring
implementation.
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
exceeded.
Preparing Students for Today and Tomorrow
3
2
Total Points
16
SOUTHSIDE K-8 SCHOOL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
OVERVIEW OF WESTEST2 DATA
SUBGROUP
ALL
BLACK
WHITE
SPECIAL
EDUCATION
LOW SES
PERCENT PROFICIENT
R
M
24.31
23.63
22.22
33.33
24.38
23.32
3.92
7.84
MET ASSESSMENT STANDARD
R
M
No
No
N/A
N/A
No
No
No
No
23.20
No
19.20
No
Southside 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
Novice
County
State
9.53
10.75
5.37
Below Mastery
45.23
47.90
35.81
Mastery
35.07
32.31
38.36
Above Master
9.23
8.12
18.08
Distinguished
0.92
0.90
2.36
Number Tested
325
2315
178,243
45.22
41.33
58.00
Proficient
When 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
10.48
Below Mastery
44.30
37.28
30.00
Mastery
31.69
36.25
41.70
Above Master
8.30
9.36
13.45
Distinguished
2.15
2.80
4.33
Number Tested
325
2317
178,328
42.14
48.41
59.48
Proficient
When 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%.
Preparing Students for Today and Tomorrow
MATHEMATICS AYP DATA
Class
Tested
Novice
41
Participation
Rate
100
Mastery
54.05
Below
Mastery
37.84
3
4
48
100
5
44
Class
Tested
3
4
5
Distinguished
Proficient
8.11
Above
Mastery
0.00
33.33
37.78
0.0
8.11
20.00
8.89
0.0
28.89
100
43.59
23.08
23.08
10.26
0.0
33.33
Novice
70.27
Below
Mastery
10.81
Mastery
41
Participation
Rate
100
Distinguished
Proficient
16.22
Above
Mastery
2.70
48
100
60.00
24.44
0.0
18.92
11.11
4.44
0.0
15.56
44
100
58.97
28.21
2.56
7.69
2.56
12.82
READING AYP DATA
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 Student
2008 - WESTEST
37.50
55.55
60.00
52.72
65.51
52.72
53.57
2009 - WESTEST2
40.00
52.45
50.98
40.81
38.88
29.09
42.15
2010 -WESTEST2
19.29
31.25
26.31
33.33
25.00
9.09
23.64
33.33
50.00
40.00
33.33
50.00
Black
2008 - WESTEST
50.00
2009 - WESTEST2
100.00
2010 -WESTEST2
50.00
50.00
50.00
2008 - WESTEST
37.50
16.66
2009 - WESTEST2
50.00
11.11
25.00
12.50
9.09
15.68
16.66
14.28
12.50
18.18
9.25
50.00
33.33
Sp. Ed.
2010 -WESTEST2
50.00
25.00
21.42
25.00
Low SES
2008 - WESTEST
33.33
48.88
57.77
57.44
61.22
47.91
50.34
2009 - WESTEST2
36.73
50.00
54.28
39.53
37.50
26.66
40.51
2010 -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 Student
2008 - WESTEST
47.69
64.81
56.86
60.00
67.24
57.40
58.75
2009 - WESTEST2
40.00
47.54
50.98
53.06
48.14
32.72
45.23
2010 -WESTEST2
15.78
27.08
22.80
33.33
33.33
12.72
23.64
100.00
62.50
60.00
33.33
25.00
Black
2008 - WESTEST
2009 - WESTEST2
50.00
50.00
Preparing Students for Today and Tomorrow
2010 -WESTEST2
25.00
50.00
22.22
Sp. Ed.
2008 - WESTEST
25.00
2009 - WESTEST2
16.66
2010 -WESTEST2
14.28
20.00
16.66
12.50
7.69
10.90
18.18
5.88
9.09
7.40
12.50
Low SES
2008 - WESTEST
44.26
64.44
54.34
61.70
67.34
53.19
56.94
2009 - WESTEST2
38.77
42.59
54.28
51.16
45.83
35.55
44.16
2010 -WESTEST2
14.89
25.58
26.00
28.57
30.95
12.24
22.55




Trend data indicates the “ALL” subgroup at 3 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.
rd
ACT EXPLORE ASSESSMENT DATA (8TH GRADE):
The ACT Explore average composite scores for the 2009-2010 school year were as follows:
Content Area
English
Math
Reading
Science
Composite
School
10.9
11.1
11.5
14.0
12.0
National
14.42
15.1
13.8
15.9
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
Preparing Students for Today and Tomorrow
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
47
49
44
47
46
51
47
43
51
35
49
40
3rd RLA
3rd Math
4th RLA
4th Math
5th RLA
5th Math
6th RLA
6th Math
7th RLA
7th Math
8th RLA
8th Math
SS BM1
56
46
50
51
54
48
50
52
42
31
42
40
SS BM2
38
44
40
43
44
48
45
37
49
35
46
36
48
40
45
48
46
45
47
42
41
30
42
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
53
54
48
55
58
52
54
50
46
234
198
170
86
132
197
195
209
110
4.42
3.67
3.54
1.56
2.28
3.79
3.61
4.18
2.39
NA
NA
NA
21.27
70.55
121.29
89.24
119.26
60.57
SSK-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.
Preparing Students for Today and Tomorrow
DIBELS MIDDLE OF YEAR REPORTS:
Kindergarten
Instructional Remediation
Initial Sound Fluency
Letter Naming Fluency
Phoneme Segmentation
Nonsense Word Fluency
Intensive
8
7
8
12
10
Strategic
7
16
10
9
6
Benchmark
30
22
27
24
29
Kindergarten 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
Instructional Remediation
Intensive
6
Strategic
20
Benchmark
23
Phoneme Segmentation
0
5
24
Nonsense Word Fluency
0
12
37
Oral Reading Fluency
11
15
23
Second Grade
Instructional Remediation
Oral Reading Fluency
Intensive
13
13
Strategic
11
11
Benchmark
20
20
Third Grade
Instructional Remediation
Oral Reading Fluency
Intensive
19
19
Strategic
13
13
Benchmark
18
18
Fourth Grade
Instructional Remediation
Oral Reading Fluency
Intensive
17
17
Strategic
11
11
Benchmark
23
23
Fourth 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 DATA
McDowell 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.
Preparing Students for Today and Tomorrow
OTHER STUDENT OUTCOMES
The 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 20102011 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
K
1
Enrolled
51
53
Retained
10
2
Rate
19.6
3.7
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
45
53
52
51
52
46
45
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0.0
1.8
0.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
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 nonproficient on the WESTEST2/APTA Mathematics assessment was 76.3. The percent of students scoring nonproficient on the WESTEST2/APTA reading assessment was 76.3.
DISCIPLINE DATA
Discipline 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
2009
2008
646
504
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 APPRAISALS
Preparing Students for Today and Tomorrow
A 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 and
progress. 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
Preparing Students for Today and Tomorrow
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 PRACTICES
CULTURE 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.
Preparing Students for Today and Tomorrow












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 CAUSES
1. 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.
Preparing Students for Today and Tomorrow
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
Preparing Students for Today and Tomorrow
WELCH ELEMENTARY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
OVERVIEW OF WESTEST2 DATA
SUBGROUP
ALL
BLACK
WHITE
SPECIAL
EDUCATION
LOW SES
PERCENT PROFICIENT
R
M
15.70
23.96
14.70
26.47
16.27
22.09
0.0
0.0
MET ASSESSMENT STANDARD
R
M
NO
NO
NA
NA
NO
NO
NA
NA
15.15
NO
23.23
NO
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. 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
Novice
County
State
5.03
10.75
5.37
Below Mastery
52.51
47.90
35.81
Mastery
35.25
32.31
38.36
Above Master
5.03
8.12
18.08
Distinguished
2.15
0.90
2.36
139
2,315
178,243
42.43
41.33
58.80
Number Tested
Proficient
When 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
Novice
County
State
2.15
14.28
10.48
Below Mastery
43.88
37.28
30.00
Mastery
30.21
36.25
41.70
Above Master
20.14
9.36
13.45
Distinguished
3.59
2.80
4.33
Number Tested
139
2,317
178,328
53.94
48.41
59.48
Proficient
When 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%.
Preparing Students for Today and Tomorrow
MATHEMATICS AYP DATA
Class
Tested
Novice
41
Participation
Rate
100
Mastery
54.05
Below
Mastery
37.84
3
4
48
5
44
Class
Tested
3
Distinguished
Proficient
8.11
Above
Mastery
0.00
0.00
8.11
100
33.33
100
43.59
37.78
20.00
8.89
0.00
28.89
23.08
23.08
10.26
0.00
33.53
Novice
70.27
Below
Mastery
10.81
Mastery
41
Participation
Rate
100
Distinguished
Proficient
16.22
Above
Mastery
2.70
0.00
18.92
4
48
100
60.00
5
44
100
58.97
24.44
11.11
4.44
0.00
15.56
28.21
2.56
7.69
2.56
12.82
READING AYP DATA
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 Student
2008 - WESTEST
60.86
84.09
81.39
75.18
2009 - WESTEST2
49.01
54.54
59.09
53.95
2010 -WESTEST2
17.07
27.08
29.54
24.81
Black
2008 - WESTEST
70.00
87.50
83.33
80.00
2009 - WESTEST2
52.94
28.57
25.00
40.62
2010 -WESTEST2
10.00
43.75
12.50
26.47
Sp. Ed.
2008 - WESTEST
2009 - WESTEST2
50.00
44.44
16.66
20.00
33.33
35.71
2010 -WESTEST2
Low SES
2008 - WESTEST
55.26
81.08
78.37
71.42
2009 - WESTEST2
46.51
48.57
59.37
50.90
2010 -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 Student
2008 - WESTEST
63.04
77.27
72.09
70.67
2009 - WESTEST2
41.17
38.63
47.72
42.44
2010 -WESTEST2
21.95
14.58
11.36
15.78
Black
2008 - WESTEST
50.00
75.00
83.33
Preparing Students for Today and Tomorrow
70.00
2009 - WESTEST2
58.82
14.28
2010 -WESTEST2
30.00
12.50
37.50
43.75
14.70
Sp. Ed.
2008 - WESTEST
2009 - WESTEST2
16.66
10.00
33.33
21.42
2010 -WESTEST2
Low SES
2008 - WESTEST
57.89
75.67
72.97
68.75
2009 - WESTEST2
37.20
37.14
46.87
40.00
2010 -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
rd
3 RLA
47
56
43
3rd MATH
49
46
46
th
4 RLA
44
50
42
4th MATH
47
51
41
th
5 RLA
46
54
46
WES BM2
55
44
44
44
55
Preparing Students for Today and Tomorrow
5th MATH
51
48
54
53
rd
th
The Acuity Platform is being used by WES students in grades 3 -5 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
YTD Projects YTD Average
Students
Assessed
Projects Per
Student
techAttainment Points
57
172
3.02
NA
K
49
110
2.24
NA
1
44
125
2.84
NA
2
53
49
0.92
28.09
3
46
104
2.26
0.79
4
47
129
2.74
125.21
5
WES 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
Instructional Remediation
Initial Sound Fluency
Letter Naming Fluency
Phoneme Segmentation
Nonsense Word Fluency
Intensive
7
4
5
14
7
Strategic
22
36
15
16
6
Benchmark
26
15
35
25
42
Kindergarten 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
Instructional Remediation
Intensive
8
Strategic
14
Benchmark
26
Phoneme Segmentation
0
36
12
Nonsense Word Fluency
9
17
22
Oral Reading Fluency
3
15
30
Second Grade
Instructional Remediation
Oral Reading Fluency
Intensive
5
5
Strategic
5
5
Benchmark
34
34
Third Grade
Instructional Remediation
Oral Reading Fluency
Intensive
18
18
Strategic
13
13
Benchmark
21
21
Fourth Grade
Instructional Remediation
Oral Reading Fluency
Intensive
12
12
Strategic
17
17
Benchmark
14
14
Preparing Students for Today and Tomorrow
Fifth Grade
Instructional Remediation
Oral Reading Fluency
Intensive
8
8
Strategic
4
4
Benchmark
32
32
The 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 DATA
McDowell 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 OUTCOMES
WES 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:
2009-2010
The 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
K
1
Enrolled
54
48
Retained
7
6
Rate
12.9
12.5
2
3
43
50
2
0
4.6
0.0
Preparing Students for Today and Tomorrow
4
5
42
44
0
0
0.0
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
2009
2008
36
45
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 PRACTICES
OEPA REPORTS:
The Team identified five high quality standards necessary to improve performance and
progress. 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.
Preparing Students for Today and Tomorrow
MONITORING REPORTS:
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 CAUSES
5. 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
Preparing Students for Today and Tomorrow






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
Preparing Students for Today and Tomorrow
Preliminary Budget Form
District Name: McDowell County Schools
School Name by Tier
Intervention 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
Southside K-8 School
X
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: 1
$2000
$329,000
$329,000
$329,000
$987,000
Total:
Transformation Model
A. Develop teacher and school leader effectiveness
Replace the principal
Use rigorous, transparent and equitable evaluation
systems that take into account data on student growth
Identify and reward school leaders, teachers and other
staff who have increased student achievement and the
graduation rate (Incentives)
Provide high quality, job-embedded professional
development (Stipends)
Implement strategies to recruit, place and retain staff
Other permissible activities as defined in the
regulations (Technology Specialist)
Subtotal:
B. Comprehensive instructional reform programs
Use 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 standards
Promote the continuous use of student data to inform
and differentiate instruction
Other permissible activities as defined in the
regulations (specify activities) (Update Lab/PCs,
Updating Library)
Subtotal:
C. Increasing learning time and creating
community-oriented schools
Establish schedules and strategies that provide
increased learning time as defined by ED and create
community-oriented schools (Two K-2 After School
Teachers)
Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and
PreImplementation
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Total
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$30,000
$35,000
$35,000
$35,000
$105,000
$47,000
$47,000
$47,000
$141,000
$92,000
$92,000
$92,000
$276,000
$35,000
$35,000
$35,000
$105,000
$35,000
$35,000
$35,000
$105,000
$25,000
25,000
$25,000
$75,000
$27,000
$27,000
$27,000
$81,000
Preparing Students for Today and Tomorrow
community engagement (Attendance/Social Work
Services)
Other permissible activities as defined in the
regulations (specify activities)
Subtotal:
D. Provide operating flexibility and sustained
support
Give schools operating flexibility to implement fully a
comprehensive approach
Ensure that the school receives ongoing, intensive
technical assistance and related support from the LEA
and/or the SEA
Provide intensive technical assistance and related
support from a designated external lead partnership
organization
Other permissible activities as defined in the
regulations (specify activities)
Subtotal:
Total for Transformation Model:
School Name: Southside K-8 School
Total:
Transformation Model
A. Develop teacher and school leader effectiveness
Replace the principal
Use rigorous, transparent and equitable evaluation
systems that take into account data on student growth
Identify and reward school leaders, teachers and other
staff who have increased student achievement and the
graduation rate
Provide high quality, job-embedded professional
development (Carnegie, Literacy Co-Hort)
Implement strategies to recruit, place and retain staff
Other permissible activities as defined in the
regulations (Technology Specialist &
Transformation Specialist)
Subtotal:
B. Comprehensive instructional reform programs
Use 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 standards
Promote the continuous use of student data to inform
and differentiate instruction
Other permissible activities as defined in the
regulations (Upgrade PCs and Library)
Subtotal:
C. Increasing learning time and creating
community-oriented schools
$52,000
$52,000
$52,000
$156,000
$2000
Edwards
Grant
Assistance
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$450,000
$2000.00
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$450,000
$2000
$329,000
$329,000
$329,000
$987,000
$2000
$434,000
Tier: 1
PreImplementation
$434,000
$434,000
$1,302,000
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Total
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
$45,000
$30,000
$30,000
$30,000
$90,000
$152,000
$152,000
$152,000
$456,000
$197,000
$197,000
$197,000
$591,000
$35,000
$35,000
$35,000
$105,000
$35,000
$35,000
$35,000
$105,000
Preparing Students for Today and Tomorrow
Establish schedules and strategies that provide
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)
Other permissible activities as defined in the
regulations (specify activities)
Subtotal:
D. Provide operating flexibility and sustained
support
Give schools operating flexibility to implement fully a
comprehensive approach
Ensure that the school receives ongoing, intensive
technical assistance and related support from the LEA
and/or the SEA
Provide intensive technical assistance and related
support from a designated external lead partnership
organization
Other permissible activities as defined in the
regulations (specify activities)
Subtotal:
Total for Transformation Model:
$25 ,000
$25,000
$25,000
$75,000
$27,000
$27,000
$27,000
$81,000
$52,000
$52,000
$52,000
$156,000
$2000
Edwards
Grant
Assistance
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$450,000
$2000
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$450,000
$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
Preparing Students for Today and Tomorrow
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.
Preparing Students for Today and Tomorrow