LaVergne Primary School
School Improvement Plan
Table of Contents
Component 1
1A. School Profile and Collaborative Process
1.1 SIP Leadership Team Composition
1.2 Subcommittee Formation and Operation
1.3 Collection of Academic and Non-Academic Data and
Analysis/Synthesis
1B. Academic and Non-Academic Data Analysis and Synthesis
1.4 Variety of Academic and Non-Academic Assessment Measures
1.5 Data Collection and Analysis
1.6 Report Card Disaggregation
1.7 Narrative Synthesis of All Data
1.8 Prioritized List of Goal Targets
3
4-9
10-24
25-26
26-44
44-47
48-51
51
Component 2
Beliefs, Mission, and Vision
2.1Beliefs, Common Mission and Shared Vision
52-53
Component 3
Curricular, Instructional, Assessment and Organizational Effectiveness
3.1 Curriculum Practices
3.2 Curriculum Process
3.3 Instructional Practices
3.4 Instructional Process
3.5 Assessment Practices
3.6 Assessment Process
3.7 Organizational Practices
3.8 Organizational Process
55-61
62-70
71-80
81-89
71-77
71-77
81-86
81-86
Component 4
Action Plan Development
4.1 Goals
4.2 Action Steps
4.3 Implementation Plan
91
92-101
92-101
Component 5
The School Improvement Plan and Process Evaluation
5.1 Process Evaluation
5.2 Implementation Evaluation
5.3 Monitoring and Adjusting Evaluation
104-107
107-108
109-110
10 Implementation Components
For School-Wide Schools
1. Comprehensive Needs Assessments
25-51
2. School-Wide Reform Strategies
55-86, 91-101
3. Instruction by Highly Qualified Teachers
13, 14, 19
4. High Quality and On-Going Professional Development
14, 92-101
5. Strategies to Attract Highly Qualified Teachers
14
6. Strategies to Increase Parent Involvement
12-13
7. Plans for Assisting Preschool Children in the
Transition from Early Childhood Programs to
Local Elementary Programs
12-13
8. Inclusion of Teachers in Decision About the
Academic Assessment Information for the
Purpose of Improving Student Achievement
14, 31-35
9. Effective, Timely, and Additional Assistance for
Students who have Difficulty Mastering the Standards
at Proficient and Advanced Levels
12, 92-101
10. Coordination and Integration of Federal, State,
And Local Services
55-86, 92-101
LaVergne Primary School
School Improvement Plan
2008 - 2010
Angela Thomas-Maupin, Principal
1 of 110
Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process
(TSIPP)
Assurances
with Signature of Principal
I certify that LaVergne Primary School has utilized the data and other
requirements requested for each component. The school will operate its programs in
accordance with all of the required assurances and certifications for each program area.
I CERTIFY that the assurances referenced above have been satisfied to the best of my
knowledge.
Angela Thomas-Maupin revised 9/16/09
__________________________________________
Signature of Principal
2 of 110
______________________
Date Signed
Component 1a: School Profile and Collaborative Process
1.1
SIP Leadership Team Composition
SIP Leadership Team
Member Name
Leadership
Chair?
(Y/N)
Name of Subcommittee(s) (when
applicable)
Position
Heidi Mahlon
Special Education Pre-K
Teacher
1st Grade Teacher
Component 1 Chair
Billy Atkisson
Physical Education Teacher
Component 2 Chair
Jeannie Moore
Art Teacher
Component 3 Chair
Cindy Shively
Kindergarten Teacher
Component 4 Chair
Miranda Brown
Kindergarten Readiness
Teacher
Principal
Component 5 Chair
Linda Willey
Y
Angela Thomas-Maupin
Sheri Henderson
co
School Technology Specialist
Rosa Tyser
Parent
Doug Schaffer
Community
SIP Leadership Team has met to address critical
components of the SIP and minutes are on file.
Leadership Chair Signature
Meeting Dates:
November 26, 2007
December 3, 2007
December 4, 2007
January 14, 2008
January 15, 2008
September 16, 2009
3 of 110
X
YES
NO
1.2
Subcommittee Formation and Operation
1 School Profile and Collaborative Process
Subcommittee for COMPONENT
Member Name
Position
st
1 Grade Teacher
Heidi Mahlon
Kindergarten Teacher
Becky Baxter
1st Grade Teacher
Stepphanie Hamblin
English as a Second Language Teacher
Rebecca Bragg
Jennifer Grace
Instructional Leader/ School wide
Coordinator
Pre-Kindergarten Teacher
Terri Horn
Kindergarten Teacher
Melinda Hicks
1st Grade Teacher
Gloria Montgomery
Speech & Language Teacher
Lisa Lane
School Secretary
Gretchen Blanke
Cafeteria Manager
Linda Stacey
Educational Assistant
LaVonne Wells
Educational Assistant
Becky Mitchell
Educational Assistant
Anitha Tidwell
Parent
Edgar Bernales
Community
Tammy Sands
Component 1 Subcommittee has met to address
X
critical components of the SIP and minutes are on
NO
YES
file.
Subcommittee 1 Chair Signature ________________________________
4 of 110
Chair
Y
Meeting Dates:
December 3, 2007
December 4, 2007
December 6, 2007
December 12, 2007
December 14, 2007
December 17, 2007
December 18, 2007
January 14, 2007
January 15, 2008
February 15, 2008
September 16, 2009
5 of 110
Subcommittee for COMPONENT
2 Beliefs, Mission and Vision
Member Name
Position
Physical Education Teacher
Chair
Y
Billy Atkisson
Educational Assistant
Kathy Gowen
1st Grade Teacher
Sandra Morris
Parent
Lauri Gargan
Community
Doug Schaffer
Component 2 Subcommittee has met to
address critical components of the SIP and
minutes are on file.
Subcommittee 2 Chair Signature
X
YES
NO
Meeting Dates:
December 3, 2007
December 4, 2007
January 8, 2008
January 10, 2008
January 14, 2008
January 16, 2008
January 25, 2008
February 15, 2008
March 3, 2008
March 4, 2008
September 16, 2009
Subcommittee for COMPONENT
3
Curricular, Instructional, Assessment, and
Organizational Effectiveness
Member Name
Position
6 of 110
Chair
Art Teacher
Instructional Leader/ School wide
Coordinator
eannie Moore
Lisa Vickrey
Y
1st Grade Teacher
Miranda Lewis
1st Grade Teacher
Michelle Hutti
Kindergarten Teacher
Kim Stacey
Guidance Counselor
Jan McCall
English as a Second Language Teacher
Shannon Holland
Kindergarten Teacher
Kayla Heyboer
1st Grade Teacher
Desiree Richards
1st Grade Teacher
Courtney Baker
Kindergarten Teacher
Jennifer Pirtle
Resource Teacher
Molly Swann
Kindergarten Teacher
Cindy Watson
School wide Educational Assistant
Emily Hartley
Bookkeeper
Tina Perkins
School wide Educational Assistant
Dianne Nobile
Educational Assistant
Brent Sullens
Educational Assistant
Connie Lee
Educational Assistant
Lemeca Smith
Parent
Celeste O’Bryant
Community
Crystal Quinn
Component 3 Subcommittee has met to
address critical components of the SIP and
minutes are on file.
Subcommittee 3 Chair Signature
7 of 110
X
YES
NO
Meeting Dates:
December 3, 2007
December 4, 2007
January 14, 2008
January 15, 2008
February 2, 2008
February 11, 2008
February 12, 2008
February 15, 2008
March 5, 2008
April 2, 2008
April 16, 2008
April 22, 2008
September 16, 2009
Subcommittee for COMPONENT
Member Name
4 Action Plan Development
Position
Kindergarten Teacher
Chair
Y
Cindy Shively
Kindergarten Teacher
Tammy Houck
1st Grade Teacher
Tiffiny Hunter
1st Grade Teacher
Melissa Vaughn
Media Center Specialist
Cindy Roberts
Educational Assistant
Lisa Jaradat
Educational Assistant
Patti Waters
Parent
Crystal Peralta
Community
John Oakley
Component 4 Subcommittee has met to address
critical components of the SIP and minutes are
on file.
Subcommittee 4 Chair Signature
8 of 110
X
YES
NO
Meeting Dates:
December 3, 2007
December 4, 2007
January 14, 2008
January 15, 2008
February 15, 2008
February 26, 2008
March 6, 2008
August 5, 2009
September 16, 2009
Subcommittee for COMPONENT
Member Name
5 The School Improvement Plan and Process Evaluation
Position
Kindergarten Readiness Teacher
Chair
Y
Miranda Brown
Pre-Kindergarten Teacher
Lindsay Looper
Kindergarten Teacher
Sonya Ray
Music Teacher
Elaina Hall
Educational Assistant
Licia Burkett
Educational Assistant
Pam Minton
Parent
Quin Meadows
Community
Kristi Knierim
Component 5 Subcommittee has met to address
critical components of the SIP and minutes are on
file.
Subcommittee 5 Chair Signature
Meeting Dates:
December 3, 2007
December 4, 2007
January 14, 2008
January 15, 2008
9 of 110
X
YES
NO
February 15, 2008
February 26, 2008
September 16, 2009
1.3
Collection of Academic and Non-Academic Data and Analysis/ Synthesis
1.3.1 Data Sources
Data Source
Parent/Guardian
Demographic Survey
Staff Demographic Survey
Lavergne.org;
rutherfordchamber.org;
www.rcs.k12.tn.us
Staff & Community Member
Interviews
Enrollment Data (06/07 &
07/08) – School Secretary
School wide Parent
Information Form and
Training Survey
Relevant Findings
191 of 428 surveys returned; majority of parents married and
employed with household incomes between $10,000 and $25,000;
Caucasian/White is race majority; 80% of parents hold high school
diploma or higher
Staff majority is white/Caucasian & female, majority (44%) of 37
teachers on staff have less than 5 years teaching experience, 65%
hold only a Bachelor’s degree
LaVergne, Tennessee demographic (census) data, including income,
population, race breakdown, & community resources; school
information & unique programs/ curriculum offerings
School history & facilities, curriculum offerings, per pupil
expenditures, school-business partnerships
Significant changes in student enrollment; high percentage of
children served by ESL and free/reduced lunch programs; less than
10% of children in special education programs; large percentage of
Caucasian/White & Hispanic children; higher male student
population
Parents at LaVergne Primary are interested in receiving training at
school on a variety of topics, including reading and math help,
motivating your children to learn, and how to be your child’s tutor
1.3.2 School and Community Data
Narrative and analysis of relevant school and community factors:
School Characteristics
Historical Background/ Facilities
LaVergne Primary School is a School-wide Title I Rutherford County school, built in 1963 with
additions in 1978 and 1992. It serves part of the LaVergne, Tennessee community. The building
composes 77,000 square feet, which can be broken down to 103 square feet per child. The school
grounds cover approximately 1.3 acres. A school map indicates the following school facilities: thirtythree classrooms, a staff workroom, computer lab, staff lounge, media center, gym, cafeteria, kitchen,
front office, three sets of student bathrooms, four staff restrooms, and two custodial rooms. LaVergne
Primary is also being renovated at the present time; new air conditioning systems are currently being
installed in all the classrooms and throughout the building. Because of grade restructuring and a loss of
half of our student population, all but one of our portable classrooms was removed at the beginning of
this school year. Each classroom is equipped with student computers at a ratio of one computer to every
five students and a teacher media cart. There are two playgrounds with equipment meeting safety
standards.
10 of 110
Environmental and Safety Conditions
LaVergne Primary received a Safe School status in 2006-07 on the Tennessee state report card. During
the 2007-08 school year, new doors were added at the front entrance to ensure that all visitors check in
at the office. All school personnel wear identification badges during the day, and all visitors have special
visitor stickers. In addition, Principal Angela Maupin attests that there have been no drug, alcohol, or
tobacco incidents or arrests.
Grade Distribution
LaVergne Primary currently houses grades Pre-Kindergarten through first grade. During the 2006-07
school year, we also held second grade. All second grade classes have since either transferred to Roy
Waldron Elementary School (grades 2nd through 5th) or the new LaVergne Lake Elementary School
(Kindergarten through 5th grade).
Historical Enrollment Data/ Per Pupil Expenditures
The enrollment for LaVergne Primary has dramatically decreased due to the opening of a new school
(LaVergne Lake Elementary) during the current 2007-08 year. Our enrollment for the 2006-07 school
year was 1039; currently, 429 students are enrolled at LaVergne Primary. See Student Characteristics
for more in-depth enrollment data.
Bookkeeper Tina Perkins identifies the following per pupil expenditures:
$7.00 per child for instructional supplies
$4.00 per child for free and reduced rate lunches
$1.00 per child for art
$1.00 per child for music
$1.00 per child for PE
$2.50 per child for library books
$3.00 per child for administrative expenses
$1.00 – County receives
Length of School Year/ School Day
The student school day at LaVergne Primary is seven hours long, beginning at 7:30 am and ending at
2:30 pm. The school calendar for students is 180 days while teachers report for 200 days and
administration for 220 days. Teacher work days begin at 7:10 am and end at 2:45 pm with bus/car duty
on rotating schedules. In addition, teachers receive 30 minutes of planning time per day and a 25 minute
duty-free lunch.
Curriculum Offerings
LaVergne Primary School follows the Tennessee Curriculum Framework for each of the academic
areas. Our learning goals are aligned with the Tennessee state standards and accomplishments. Each
grade level at LaVergne Primary aligned the state curriculum with our current texts to form a scope
and sequence for reading and math essential learnings/goals. These essential learnings were aligned with
the Terra Nova Achievement Test objectives, as well as state standards and accomplishments for grades
Kindergarten and first. Every six weeks, all students are evaluated with a formative assessment to
11 of 110
determine each grade level’s mastery for the identified learning goals. LaVergne Primary has also
implemented a 90 minute reading block this year which is devoted to teaching reading from a core
reading program (Treasures by Macmillan/McGraw Hill) for Kindergarten and first grade. Phonics,
phonological awareness, comprehension, vocabulary, fluency, spelling, writing, and grammar make up
the majority of the 90 minute curriculum. A 60 minute uninterrupted math block has been implemented
beginning with the 2009-10 school year. Science and social studies are taught as well. Students attend the
following co-curricular classes once a week for thirty minutes: music, library, physical education,
guidance, and art. In addition, all students in grades Kindergarten and first attend a thirty minute
intervention or enrichment time every day with a classroom teacher or co-curricular teacher based on
students’ individual needs. Action Plans for at-risk students are written by the teacher on an as-needed
basis. In addition, beginning this year, teachers at LaVergne Primary are using a Response to
Intervention program (RTI) to identify students who need extra intervention. Several students are
receiving intervention as identified by the RTI program and a school literacy team. The last step in this
program involves referring slowly progressing students to special education.
Unique Programs/ Honors Classes
As reported by the LaVergne Primary School website, the following programs are offered to enhance
student learning: Spectrum (special education for gifted students – offered to all Rutherford County
students), Developmental Kindergarten, English as a Second Language (ESL), Guidance, Hands-On
Science (provided by Rutherford County), Special Education, Music, and Art. In addition, we offer
student activities such as the American Heart Association Jump Rope for Heart, Book Fairs, Panda Fun
Run, Red Ribbon Week, Grandparents Day, a variety of field trips, 100th Day of School celebration,
Fall Fun Day, music concerts, and art displays. Because of our grade structure, we do not offer honors
or A.P. courses. However, we do have 30 minutes per day devoted to intervention and enrichment.
Students in need of reading intervention work with a classroom teacher or literacy coach while other
students attend guidance, physical education, music, art, and library classes.
Parental Support
Student progress is reported to parents in a variety of ways. We have six grading periods of six weeks
duration. Progress reports are sent home intermittently during the six weeks with report cards going
home at the end of each six weeks. Some methods of communication of student progress used by
teachers include phone calls, agendas, daily folders, written communication, parent conferences, IEPs,
Parent/Teacher Organization (PTO) notes and letters, and MARS (Math and Reading Support) and
school newsletters and calendars, in both Spanish and English. The Rutherford County School Board
schedules two parent conference nights into the school calendar. We also have several programs this
year aimed at parents and increasing parental support. Our active PTO is sponsoring a program called
“Three for Me” that encourages parents to volunteer for three hours at the school this year. LaVergne
Primary’s PTO also encourages students and parents to purchase school shirts for Spirit Day every
Friday. In addition, our School wide Coordinators are presenting Parent Power Hour programs that
invite parents into the school for one hour to participate in a fun and educational activity with their
child(ren). Such programs such as Read to Succeed focus on parent and child interaction and early
literacy. Succeed by Six, a before school program, focuses on helping parents teach their child(ren)
basic skills before the age of six. Holiday Power Hour is an adaptation of the Parent Power Hour and is
a music program and story hour that parents can attend with their child(ren) before winter break.
12 of 110
Transitional parent meetings for PK students going to kindergarten as well as K and First grade
transitional meetings are held each Spring. This meetings help transition both students and parents into
the next grade. Parents are also given materials to take home over the holiday break to help students
review skills taught in the classroom. Each month’s Power Hour encourages parents to come into the
school and spend quality educational time with their children. We are also implementing a Family Game
Night this year which allows families to come into the school at night, eat a free dinner, learn about and
play some educational games, and perhaps even walk away with a few games for their families. In
addition, LaVergne Primary School has a parent lending library with information and tips on parenting
young children. These programs have been very successful so far this year. According to the School wide
Parent Information Forms and Parent Training Surveys, parents of LaVergne Primary School are
interested in learning about how to help their children. Among those most sought after topics for
training are how to be your child’s tutor, tips and tricks for math and reading, motivating your child to
learn, test preparation, and behavior control. The School wide Coordinators use the information
gathered from these surveys to create trainings and Power Hours for the parents at our school. From
these surveys, a need for English classes was also determined. LaVergne Primary offers free evening
classes to help parents speak English with free tutoring for their school-aged children during the class.
LaVergne Primary School offers several different activities to help get parents into the school.
School – Business Partnerships
LaVergne Primary is involved with several businesses and churches in the area. The United Methodist
Church of LaVergne, the Dollar General Store, Greenvale Homes, Publix, and Ingram Books have made
contributions and donations to our school. The LaVergne Rotary Club has also donated school supplies
and other materials to support our school.
Staff Characteristics
The following staff demographics were obtained from a survey completed by all LaVergne Primary
School staff members during the Fall of 2007. LaVergne Primary has a total of 62 staff members of
which 59 (95%) are females and 3 (5%) are males. The race and ethnicity each consist of 56 Caucasians
(90%) and 6 African Americans (10%). LaVergne Primary School has 3 Pre-K, 11 Kindergarten, 11
First grade, 1 part-time resource, 1 speech and language, 2 ESL, and 5 co-curriculum teachers, in
addition to 2 literacy coaches for a total of 37 teachers. One of the first grade positions is currently filled
by an interim teacher who has a teaching license and Bachelor’s Degree. Fifteen of the thirty-seven
teachers have 1-4 years of experience, 9 have 5-9 years, 6 have 10-14 years, 4 have 15-20 years, and 2
have over 20 years of experience. Only 1 is a first year teacher. 65% of LaVergne Primary School
teachers have a Bachelor’s degree, 27% have a Master’s, 5% have MA+45, 5% have an EDS. At this
time, no teacher has his/her Doctor’s degree. In addition, all of LaVergne Primary School’s teachers are
highly qualified as required by the State and NCLB.
Teacher Experience
1st
0 years/ year teacher
1-4 years
5-9 years
10-14 years
37 Teachers
1
15
9
6
13 of 110
Percentage
3%
41%
24%
16%
15-20 years
Over 20 years
4
2
11%
5%
37 Teachers
24
10
2
2
0
0
Percentage
65%
27%
5%
5%
0%
0%
Teacher Degrees
Bachelor’s
Master’s
MA + 45
EDS
Doctor’s
Other
With 16 of our 37 teachers (44%) having less than five years of experience and 65% holding only a
Bachelor’s Degree, our staff could be considered both young and inexperienced. Several of our teachers
entered the 2006-07 school year as new teachers with no previous teaching experience. We know that
pedagogical skills increase with experience and time, and therefore scores also increase with this
experience. We expect that our high stakes test scores will rise as we gain more familiarity in the
teaching field.
Because we are ever evolving to improve our knowledge and skills and compete with other states and
countries, Rutherford County has implemented a Professional Learning Communities (PLC) program.
According to research, Professional Learning Communities have emerged as the best way to improve
instruction and student performance. As effective team-based communities, collaborative teams focus to
achieve common goals. Such goals are defining essential outcomes/learnings for each subject,
developing a “common assessment” to measure student progress, analyzing the results of the
assessment, and providing support and enrichment to students based upon the results of the analysis.
Through our collaborative meetings, we are taking action in setting high expectations for our teaching
and our students’ learning. This practice has also been effective in recruiting highly quality teachers
into our school and district.
Major Impact Factor
With a new elementary school opening this year (LaVergne Lake Elementary), our staff has decreased
by approximately half since last school year (2006-07). As a result, the members of our staff are
developing closer relationships with one another, and we are collaborating and sharing more in our
PLCs. We are anticipating not only higher scores from students but also high-potency from our staff
due to the collaboration of vast teaching strategies and techniques.
Office Staff & Administration
Tina Perkins - Bookkeeper
Gretchen Blanke – School Secretary
Tonya Conde – School Nurse
Angela Thomas-Maupin - Principal
14 of 110
Pre-K Teachers
Linda Willey
Lindsay Looper
Terri Horn
Miranda Brown (Kindergarten Readiness)
Kindergarten Teachers
Melinda Hicks
Becky Baxter
Kayla Heyboer
Kim Stacey
Jennifer Pirtle
Cindy Watson
Tammy Houck
Cindy Shively
Sonya Ray
1st Grade Teachers
Heidi Mahlon
Gloria Montgomery
Stepphanie Hamblin
Sandra Morris
Miranda Lewis
Michelle Hutti
Melissa Vaughn
Courtney Baker
Tiffiny Hunter
Desiree Richards
Special Area/ Other Teachers & Supports
Jennifer Grace – School wide Coordinator/ Literacy Coach
Lisa Vickrey – School wide Coordinator/ Literacy Coach
Sheri Henderson – School Technology Specialist (part-time)
Lisa Lane – Speech & Language Teacher
Elaina Hall – Music Teacher
Jeannie Moore – Art Teacher
Billy Atkisson – Physical Education Teacher
Jan McCall – Guidance Counselor
Cindy Roberts – Media Center Specialist
Shannon Holland – ESL Teacher
Becky Bragg – ESL Teacher
Molly Swann – Resource Teacher (part-time)
15 of 110
Educational Assistants (EAs)
Amanda Dobbs – ESL EA
Daniella Lamphear – ESL EA
LaVonne Wells
Emily Hartley
Becky Mitchell
Anitha Tidwell
Kathy Gowen
Dianne Nobile
Brent Sullens
Connie Lee
Lemeca Smith
Lisa Jaradat
Patti Waters
Licia Burkett
Pam Minton
Other School Staff
Nina Graham – Head Custodian
Robin Lumsden- Custodian
Michael O’Bard - Custodian
Linda Stacey – Cafeteria Manager
Tina Motter – Cafeteria Server
Kelly Stafford – Cafeteria Server
Denise Alexander – Cafeteria Server
Student Characteristics
Student enrollment figures at LaVergne Primary School indicate 429 students (in 2009-10, student
population is 393) with an ADA (average daily attendance) of 401 students, 93.5%. There has been a
significant change in the student enrollment and the number of classroom teachers from 2006-07 to
2007-08. The addition of a new elementary school in the city and the change of the grade structure at
LaVergne Primary resulted in a decrease in student enrollment by 59% and a 54% decrease in
classroom teachers. Preschool student numbers have increased due to the number of preschool children
served in the special education classroom and the change of one preschool from Title funded to
Governor’s Preschool. The average class size for kindergarten has decreased by three students and first
grade remains consistent at this time. Overall, our school went from an average of 20 children per class
in the 2006-07 school year to only 18 per class this year. There are similar numbers of students in both
Kindergarten and first grade.
School Changes in Grades & Number of Children Served
Grade
# of
# of
Avg. Class
Students
Teachers*
Size
2006-2007
2006-2007
2006-2007
Pre-K
46
3
15
16 of 110
# of
Students
2007-2008
55
# of
Teachers*
2007-2008
3
Avg. Class
Size
2007-2008
18
Kindergarten
346
17
20
186
11
17
1st Grade
302
16
19
188
10
19
nd
2 Grade
345
16
22
0
0
N/A
Totals
1039
52
20
429
24
18
*Teachers in this graph refers just to classroom teachers (with a homeroom roll) grades Pre-K through
2nd.
At this time there are currently sixteen preschool students who are eligible for English as a Second
Language (ESL). However, their needs are met in the regular preschool setting. They will be evaluated
next year for eligibility for ESL services. Twenty-seven percent of Kindergarten students are enrolled in
the ESL program. Eighteen percent of first grade students are receiving ESL reinforcement. LaVergne
Primary has an average of twenty percent of students enrolled in ESL classes. Data does not indicate if
there is a lower percentage of ESL students in 1st grade due to children testing out with high English
language scores in Kindergarten or due to a higher non-English speaking population moving into the
area with young children.
SubGroup: Students Served by ESL (English as a Second Language)
Grade
ESL #
ESL %
Pre-K
0
0%
Kindergarten
50
27%
1st Grade
34
18%
Total
84
20%
Data reveals that the majority (61%) of LaVergne Primary students are receiving free/reduced lunch
services. Seventy-three percent of Pre-K students are currently receiving free/reduced lunch. There is
an average of sixty-three percent of Kindergarten students now receiving free/reduced lunch. Data
indicates fifty-five percent of First grade students are on free/reduced lunch services. Based on our high
percentage of students on free/reduced lunch, LaVergne Primary School is a school-wide Title I school.
SubGroup: Free/ Reduced Lunch by Grade
Grade
Free/ Reduced Lunch #
Free/ Reduced Lunch %
Pre-K
40
73%
Kindergarten
117
63%
st
1 Grade
103
55%
Total
260
61%
Race Composition by grade levels reveals that the largest group of students is Caucasians (48%),
followed by Hispanics (25%), African American (24%), and Asian/Pacific Islander (3%). Data
indicates no Native American/Alaskan student is enrolled at this time. Because one fourth of our student
population is Hispanic, we have a comparable high percentage of students (approximately 20%)
receiving ESL services.
SubGroups: Race Composition by Grade
Grade
# A % A # B % B # C % C # D % D # E % E Totals
Pre-K
25 45%
16
29%
0
0%
14
25%
0
0%
55
Kindergarte
95 51%
37
20%
3
2%
51
27%
0
0%
186
17 of 110
n
1st Grade
86 46%
50
Totals
206 48% 103
Race Key:
A – White/ Caucasian
B – Black/ African American
C – Asian/ Pacific Islander
D - Hispanic
E – Native American/ Alaskan
27%
24%
10
13
5%
3%
42
107
22%
25%
0
0
0%
0%
188
429
The LaVergne Primary School population consists of forty-six percent female students and fifty-four
percent male students. There are sixteen percent more females than males in Pre-K. Data indicates
average of eight-fourteen percent more males than females for Kindergarten and First grade students.
SubGroup: Gender Composition by Grade
Grade
# of Female % Female # of Male % Male Total # Per Grade
Pre-K
32
58%
23
42%
55
Kindergarten
80
43%
106
57%
186
1st Grade
86
46%
102
54%
188
Totals
198
46%
231
54%
429
LaVergne Primary School has thirty-one students receiving special education services (including
services for speech and language impairments, orthopedic impairments, and learning disabilities),
making up 7% of our school population. There are eleven Pre-K students (20%) enrolled in special
educational classes. Twelve Kindergarten students (6%) are in special education classes. First grade
data reveals that eight students (4%) are receiving special educational services. Additionally, three PreK students are enrolled for speech and language services which are not indicated on this table or other
enrollment information. Beginning this year, teachers at LaVergne Primary are using a Response to
Intervention program (RTI) to identify students who need extra intervention; the last step in this
program involves referring slowly progressing students to special education. No children have been
referred to the special education program using RTI so far this year.
Students Served in Special Education
Grade
# of
# of Male Total #
% of Special
Female
Per
Education
Grade
Students Per
Grade
Pre-K
7
4
11
20%
Kindergarte
8
4
12
6%
n
1st Grade
3
5
8
4%
Totals
18
13
31
7%
18 of 110
Students in Classes with Credentialed Teachers
One hundred percent of students are enrolled in classes with highly qualified teachers.
Discipline/Student Management
At LaVergne Primary School, we encourage good behavior through positive reinforcement. Assertive
discipline is the most popular method of classroom management at LaVergne Primary. The Respect and
Protect discipline plan is used consistently throughout the school. The total number of discipline
referrals for the 2007-08 school year to date (December 2007) is 21 reports, including referrals from bus
discipline. These 21 students disciplined account for approximately 5% of our student population.
LaVergne Primary achieved Safe School Status on the 2006-07 Tennessee state report card.
Retentions/Transfers (Mobility)/Drop-outs/ Graduation
In 2006-07, a total of eighteen of the 1039 students were retained, with a retention rate of less than 2%.
Data indicates that sixty-eight of the 429 students have transferred to date in the 2007-08 school year,
with a transfer rate of 16%. LaVergne Primary School’s drop-out rate reveals 2 preschool students;
because of our grade structure, the drop-out rate is very low at less than 1%. Also, because we house
only PreK through 1st grade, we have no graduation rate.
Parent/ Guardian Demographics
A parent/guardian demographics survey was sent home to LaVergne Primary School parents/guardians
in the Fall of 2007. This survey was sent out to 428 parents/guardians of LaVergne Primary students
with 191 returned. 45% of LaVergne Primary School parents/guardians participated in the survey.
The survey addressed race, ethnicity, marital status, level of education, employment and income level of
LaVergne Primary School parents/guardians. The data collected from the LaVergne Primary School
parent/guardian demographics survey directly relates to and impacts LaVergne Primary School and the
education provided to students.
The parent/guardian demographics survey indicates that the majority of those that responded (45%)
are White/Caucasian and are of Caucasian/American ethnicity (44%). The next highest percentage
(29%) was Hispanic, with Black/African American covering 19% of our parent population. With more
than nine different ethnicities identified, LaVergne Primary has a very diverse population. These
numbers correlate to the high numbers of children in the ESL program at our school.
Parent Demographics: Race
# A % A # B % B # C % C # D % D # E % E #F
%F
86
45% 36
19% 6
3%
55
29% 0
0%
1
0%
# G % G Totals
1
0%
191
Race Key:
A – White/ Caucasian
B – Black/ African American
C – Asian/ Pacific Islander
19 of 110
D - Hispanic
E – Native American/ Alaskan
F – Other
G – Did Not Respond
Parent Demographics: Ethnicity
#A %A #B %B #C
84
44% 35
18% 1
%C
0%
#G %G #H %H #I
%I
29
15% 7
4%
1
0%
Ethnicity Key:
A – Caucasian/American
B – African American
C – American Indian/Alaskan Native
D – Chinese
E – Japanese
F – Laos
G – Mexican
H – Puerto Rican
I – Cuban
J – Arab
K – Other
#D
1
%D
0%
#E
0
%E
0%
#F
3
#J
0
%J
0%
#K
27
%K
14%
Totals
191
%F
2%
Our parent survey found that the majority (58%) of parents at LaVergne Primary School are married.
Seventeen percent are single parents, while eighteen percent are separated or divorced.
Parent Demographics: Marital Status
# A % A # B % B # C % C # D % D # E % E #F
%F
Totals
32
17% 111 58% 13
7%
21
11% 0
0%
14
7%
191
Marital Status Key:
A - Single
B - Married
C - Separated
D - Divorced
E – Widowed
F- Did Not Respond
The majority of the parents/guardians reported that they attended some college and/or obtained an
Associate’s Degree. Eighty percent of responders indicated that they hold a high school diploma or
higher.
Parent Demographics: Level of Education
# A % A # B % B # C % C # D % D # E % E #F
%F
23
12% 14
7%
48
25% 65
34% 28
15% 7
4%
20 of 110
# G % G # H %H Totals
4
2%
2
1%
191
Level of Education Key:
A – Less than High School Diploma
B – Earned a GED
C – Earned a High School Diploma
D – Some College or Associates Degree
E – Bachelor’s Degree
F – Master’s Degree
G – Above Master’s Degree
H – Did Not Respond
The survey indicates that the parents/guardians are employed. Parent involvement may be minimal due
to employment restrictions and work hours, which may limit the time parents/guardians may be
involved in the school day or homework.
Parent Demographics: Employment Rate
# Employed % Employed # Unemployed
151
79%
40
% Unemployed
21%
Totals
191
This survey also indicates that the majority of those that responded (26%) have an annual income
between $10,000 and $25,000. Seven percent of households earn less than $10,000 a year while fifteen
percent earn above $55,000 annually. With the United States poverty level averaging $20,000 for
families of three to four people (including children), our data indicates that LaVergne Primary is a high
poverty school, with a total of 33% of respondents indicating that they earned less than $25,000 a year.
These numbers correlate with our high percentage (61%) of students on the free/reduced lunch
program.
Parent Demographics: Income Level
# A % A # B % B # C % C # D % D # E % E #F
%F
14
7%
50
26% 35
18% 30
16% 21
11% 29
15%
# G % G Totals
12
6%
191
Income Level Key:
A – Under $10,000
B – $10,000-$25,000
C – $25,000-$35,000
D – $35,000-$45,000
E - $45,000-$55,000
F – Above $55,000
G – Did Not Respond
21 of 110
Community Characteristics
Size and Analysis of Community
LaVergne, Tennessee ranks 61st on Forbes’ list of the fastest growing cities in the United States. It is
located in Middle Tennessee, sharing a city limits with capital Nashville. The city consists of 15 square
miles of inhabited land in the city limits and includes Percy Priest Lake. The total population according
to a Chamber of Commerce 2006 estimated census is 27,255, up from 8,204 in 1990 and 18,689 in 2000.
This represents a gain of 19,051 residents (an increase of 232%) in sixteen years, including an over
800% increase in the city’s Hispanic population. The growth can be attributed to LaVergne’s close
proximity to Interstate Highway 24, easy access to Interstates 65, 40 and 840, and its availability to a
major city. In addition, LaVergne has the lowest property taxes in Rutherford County and the largest
industrial park in the state. Because of the dramatic increase in population, LaVergne is now home to
the largest subdivision in the state of Tennessee. After several years of overcrowding at LaVergne
Primary School, a new elementary school (LaVergne Lake Elementary) was opened in the 2007-08
school year to house half of last year’s LaVergne Primary student population.
Major Employers
LaVergne is home to international companies such as Bridgestone/Firestone, Ingram Books, Ingram
Entertainment, Walden/Borders Books Inc., Hollywood Video, and Whirlpool Corp. Other major
companies in the city are Nokian Tires, United Stationers, Quality Industries, Thompson Machinery,
and Square D. The city is home to a large heavy industrial park.
Number of Schools in the Area
LaVergne students are spread among five elementary schools (including a new Kindergarten through 5th
grade elementary school), two middle schools and one high school. The new elementary school
(LaVergne Lake Elementary) precipitated the new grade structure for LaVergne Primary School, going
from PreK – 2nd grade to Pre-K – 1st grade). The closest elementary private school is located in nearby
Smyrna, Tennessee.
Community Involvement/ Participation in School Activities
Community involvement is promoted through partnerships and sponsorships with businesses. The
LaVergne Rotary Club is a school sponsor, donating supplies to needy children and classrooms. The
LaVergne First United Methodist Church and Phi Delta Omicron Sorority contribute school supplies
and clothing for the needy, while the Home Builder Association of Rutherford County invites children to
a Toys for Tots holiday party. LaVergne Primary School and the community work together to offer
parent education programs sponsored by Success by Six, Read to Succeed, and Adult
Education/Rutherford County. Local martial arts schools offer scholarships to qualifying students. The
LaVergne Primary Parent/Teacher Organization (PTO) helps connect parents, teachers, and
community members with various activities along with school-sponsored programs. The City of
LaVergne also provides community programs and recreational facilities to its residents including
football fields, soccer fields, boat launching areas, campgrounds, a city park, and a public library.
Demographic Breakdown of the Populous
The following information contains the 2006 estimated census statistics for the City of LaVergne. This
22 of 110
information is found on the LaVergne City website (http://www.lavergne.org/ and the Rutherford
County Chamber of Commerce website, http:// www. rutherfordchamber.org). Although the Hispanic
population is shown to be a very small portion of LaVergne, it makes up approximately one fourth of
our school population. This could be due to census information not being presented in a native language,
a large influx of Hispanics with young children, or it could be due to illegal immigrants in our school not
counted in government census data.
Race:
#A
18,730
%A
84.5%
#B
2,341
%B
10.6%
#C
81
%C
0.4%
#D
434
%D
2%
#E
279
%E
1.3%
#F
299
%F
1.4%
Race Key:
A – White
B – Black/ African American
C – American Indian/ Alaskan
D – Asian/ Pacific Islander
E – Some Other Race
F – Two or More Races
Ethnicity:
# Hispanic
1,374
% Hispanic
# Non-Hispanic/ Latino
6.2%
20,798
% Non-Hispanic/
Latino
93.8%
Average Income/ Economic Level
The average household income in LaVergne is reported to be $62,534 while the median household
income is a close $58,674. This contrasts our parent/guardian demographic data, which shows the
majority (26%) of LaVergne Primary households earn $10,000 - $25,000. The vast difference in this data
could be due to the increase of a young population and the fact that most income increases with age (our
student population is young; therefore, our parent population is also young). As our students increase in
age, their parents will increase in age and typically earn a larger salary.
Annual Household Income:
$0-$14,999
$15,000$29,999
7.9%
12.4%
$30,000$49,999
22.4%
$50,000$74,000
27%
23 of 110
$75,000$99,999
15.9%
$100,000$149,000
11.1%
$150,000 +
3.4%
Resident Age
LaVergne is a relatively young town with a young population. The estimated median resident age is 32.1
years. The largest age groups are 25 – 34 years (21%) and 5 -14 years (15.9%). This indicates that a
majority of residents of LaVergne are young parents (25-34 years of age) with elementary school-aged
children (5-14 years of age).
0-4
9.2%
5-14
15.9%
15-19
5.6%
20-24
4.7%
25-34
21%
35-44
1.6%
24 of 110
45-54
12.8%
55-64
8.1%
65-74
3.5%
75-84
1.2%
85+
0.4%
Component 1b: Academic and Non-Academic Data Analysis/
Synthesis
1.4 Variety of Academic and Non-Academic Assessment Measures
List Data Sources
Attendance Reports
English as a Second Language (ESL) ELDA & CELLA Test Data – Summative
Assessments 2006-07 – 2007-08
Kindergarten Exit Test Data 2006-2007 – Local System Summative Assessment
DIBELS Assessments - Formative Assessments for Reading 2006-07 – 2007-08 – 2008 -09
School Developed PreK-1st Grade Formative Assessments – Formative Assessments given
grade-wide at the end of each six weeks 2007-08
Tennessee State Report Card 2006-07
MacMillan/McGraw Hill Treasures Reading Series (Text Book) Placement Test Data 200708 – Local System Assessment
Promotion/ Retention/ Dropout/ Graduation Data
Math Formative Assessments (Kindergarten and 1st Grade) – Local System Formative
Assessment 2006-07 - 2007-08
Kindergarten Formative Reading Assessment – Local System Formative Assessment 200607
TCAP/ Terra Nova 1st Grade Data 2006-07
Kindergarten Readiness Assessment – Local System Assessment 2006-07
TVAAS Value-added Data – Because of grade structure, we do not have this data.
TVAAS Diagnostic and Performance Diagnostic Reports – Because of grade structure, we
do not have this data.
ACT/SAT Tests – Because of grade structure, we do not have this data.
25 of 110
Gateway Tests – Because of grade structure we do not have this data.
Discovery Assessment – 1st grade – 2008-09
1.5 Data Collection and Analysis
Describe the data collection and analysis process used in determining your strengths and
needs.
A variety of academic and non-academic data were collected, reviewed, and analyzed to
find our school’s strengths and needs (areas for improvement). Following is an analysis of
each of the data sources reviewed. Our academic data sources are limited to our grade
structure, Pre-K through 1st grade. Therefore, we do not have data for Gateway Tests or
ACT/SAT Tests, nor TVAAS Diagnostic and Performance Diagnostic Reports or TVAAS
Value-added Data. Furthermore, because of our grade structure, we do not have
disaggregated data for our high-stakes test (TCAP/Terra Nova). Our Tennessee State
Report Card shows disaggregated data for Roy Waldron Elementary School (grades 2nd
through 5th) because we are its feeder school. The Report Card analysis focuses on the
data from this school. In the analysis, you will also find that LaVergne Primary School has
several new assessments and data this year that we did not have last year. Therefore, some
of the data presented is not compared to previous LaVergne Primary data but to
expectations according to LaVergne Primary teachers, national and local averages and
goals, and text book goals.
Attendance Rates
LaVergne Primary School data indicates that so far, the 2007-08 school year shows an
average attendance rate of 93.5%. The Tennessee State Report Card shows rates for the
past three years as: 94.6%, 94.7%, and 93.9%. Although the attendance rates have
slightly decreased for the past three years (2005-06 – 2007-08), they remain above the state
goal of 93%. This area has been a strength for our school but may soon turn into a need if
the rate continues to drop.
Promotion/ Retention/ Dropout/ Graduation Rates
LaVergne Primary School data shows that less than 2% of students were retained during
the 2006-07 school year, with more than 98% of students being promoted. The Tennessee
Report Card shows similar data with the past three years showing a 98.3%, 98%, and
99.1% promotion rate. With the state goal being 97% promotion, this area is a strength
for our school. Because of our grade structure, we have a very low dropout rate of less
than 1% (2 Pre-K dropouts in 2006-07), well below the state goal of 10%. Also, because we
are Pre-K through 1st grade, we have no graduation rate.
MacMillan/McGraw Hill Treasures Reading Series (Text Book) Placement Test Data
26 of 110
2007-08
This year (2007-08), Rutherford County Schools adopted a new reading series by
MacMillan/ McGraw Hill called Treasures. At the beginning of the school year, all
students using this series in Rutherford County took a Reading Placement Test to
determine if they were On Level, Approaching Level, or Beyond Level in their reading
instruction. These tests were used to place students in reading groups for differentiated
instruction based on their tested levels. At LaVergne Primary School, all Kindergarten
and 1st grade students took this test. The results are displayed below. Because this is the
first year we are using this reading series, we have no data with which to compare.
Therefore, we are relying on what the Treasures Reading Series tells us is approaching,
on, or beyond level to determine our strengths and weaknesses (areas for improvement) in
reading.
Kindergarten Placement Test Data
One hundred seventy-one Kindergarten students took the Reading Placement test in the
Fall of 2007. Their scores ranged from 3% to 97%. A score of 0% - 79% places a child in
the Approaching Level, 80% - 90% is On Level, and above 90% is Beyond Level. The
average score for incoming Kindergarteners was Approaching at 54%. The table below
illustrates the percentage of Kindergarteners testing at each level according to Treasures.
Approaching Level
On Level
Beyond Level
79%
15%
6%
First Grade Placement Data
One hundred ninety-two 1st grade students took the Reading Placement test in the Fall of
2007. Their scores ranged from 20% to 98%. A score of 0% - 79% places a child in the
Approaching Level, 80% - 90% is On Level, and above 90% is Beyond Level. The average
score for incoming 1st graders was Approaching at 67%. The table below illustrates the
percentage of 1st graders testing at each level according to Treasures.
Approaching Level
On Level
Beyond Level
72%
19%
9%
The average scores of 54% and 67% are both on the Approaching Level, indicating that
most students at LaVergne Primary are below average in reading knowledge and skills
coming into Kindergarten and 1st grade. The tables confirm this assumption, showing that
79% and 72% of students are entering their grades at the Approaching Level. We do not
yet have data to show progress made during the year because this is the first year our
school system has used this series. Because the 1st grade data shows more students on level
and beyond (28% compared to Kindergarten’s 21%), we can assume that the instruction
in Kindergarten is moving more students out of the Approaching Level and more into the
On Level and Beyond Level groups. MacMillan/McGraw Hill’s Treasures Placement
Tests show that LaVergne Primary School has a weakness in reading with both incoming
students and students in their second year of education. There is no disaggregated data to
show how students coming into Kindergarten from LaVergne Primary School’s Pre-K or
Kindergarten Readiness programs scored on the Kindergarten Placement test.
27 of 110
Kindergarten Exit Test Data 2006-2007 – Local System Summative Assessment
The Kindergarten Exit Test is a county wide assessment given at the end of the school
year to all Kindergarten students. The data is displayed in two manners: one set of data
shows school and county averages including special education and ESL students; the other
set of data shows school and county averages excluding special education and ESL
students. In this section, the data including special education and ESL students will be
analyzed. For a disaggregated analysis, please see the next section.
2007 % Mastery
2006 % Mastery
2005 % Mastery
Including Sp.Ed. & ESL
96%
96%
94.5%
Data shows that the 2007 student average (county wide) is 96% for all students.
Therefore, LaVergne Primary School met the county average of Kindergarten mastery
including the subgroups of special education and ESL students. The data also shows that
there has been an increase each year in percentages of Kindergarten students who show
mastery on the exit test, indicating a strength at our school in the area of general
Kindergarten instruction.
English as a Second Language (ESL) ELDA & CELLA Test Data – Summative
Assessments 2006-07 – 2007-08
At the end of the 2006-07 school year, all ESL students at LaVergne Primary School are
given a summative assessment to determine if they will be receiving ESL services during
the next school year and to determine each child’s progress in learning the English
language. The test scores children on four concepts: reading, speaking, listening, and
writing. Scores range from level 1 to level 5, from pre-functional to full English
proficiency. A score of 4 or 5 tests a student out of ESL services. The scores are
disaggregated by gender in the next section. Forty-six Kindergarteners who received ESL
services during the 2006-07 school year were tested during the spring of 2007. All of these
students had been receiving ESL services for one school year. Of these 46 students, three
(7%) scored on a level 1, pre-functional, the majority of students, twenty-six (57%) scored
on a level 2, beginning, twelve (26%) scored at a level 3, intermediate, and five (11%)
tested at a level 4, advanced. No Kindergarten student tested at a level 5, full English
proficiency.
At the beginning of the 2007-08 school year, the CELLA test was used to assess the
proficiency of English and to establish eligibility for ESL for incoming Kindergarteners.
The test was given to 57 Kindergarten students in the fall of 2007. As compared to 46 ESL
students in 2006-07, 56 Kindergarteners were eligible for ESL services this year. Scores on
the CELLA test range from 0 to 30; scores below 20 recommend direct ESL service daily
for these beginning language learners, scores from 20 to 26 indicate that the child is an
intermediate student and will receive ESL services weekly, and scores between 27 and 30
indicate full English proficiency, disqualifying him/her from ESL services. One child
28 of 110
scored in the proficient range. A small percentage (18%) scored in the intermediate level,
and the majority of students (75%) scored in the beginning level, being eligible to receive
ESL services daily.
Kindergarten Readiness Assessment – Local System Assessment 2006-07
The students in Kindergarten Readiness were assessed with a county-made test at the end
of the 2006-07 school year. The skills assessed were in literacy, mathematics, and motor
skills. The results of the assessment are listed below. Average scores from LaVergne
Primary are compared with the average scores of other Rutherford County Kindergarten
Readiness assessment scores. The scores are based on the number of correct answers
given by the children.
Thirteen Kindergarten Readiness students took the end of the year assessment in May
2007. The average scores ranged from 92% - 100% for LaVergne Primary School
students and 92% -99% for the RCS student averages. The table below illustrates the
comparison of LPS and RCS averages.
SKILLS
Oral Language
Listening/Phonological
Awareness
Alphabet
Story Knowledge
Cognitive/Mathematics
Motor Skills
LPS AVERAGE
92%
100%
RCS AVERAGE
95%
94%
100%
100%
100%
100%
96%
92%
99%
99%
The overall scores for RCS and LPS are above the 80% range which is considered
mastery. LaVergne Primary Kindergarten Readiness students scored above the county
average in four out of the five skills tested with 100% mastery, while the LaVergne
Primary students were 3% below the county average in oral language skills assessed.
These scores show strengths in the Kindergarten Readiness categories of listening/
phonological awareness, alphabet, story knowledge, cognitive/ mathematics, and motor
skills.
Kindergarten Formative Reading Assessment – Local System Assessment 2006-07
A Kindergarten reading assessment was administered twice during the 2006-2007 school
year, once in the fall, and once in the spring. The assessment assesses students’ academic
standing and progress in reading. Three hundred thirty-three Kindergarten students were
counted for taking both tests. During the fall pretest, the range of scores was from 0% to
100% while the range of scores on the posttest was 1% to 100% correct. Evaluation
results revealed an average pre test score of 18 and an average posttest score of 64%, a
significant increase of 46%. Tests results further indicated that 97% of students made
progress from the pretest to the posttest. In addition, the majority of students scored
29 of 110
more than ten points greater on the posttest than the pretest.
Based upon data collection, strength was noted with progress in reading skills. While
pretest scores were low, follow up evaluation results demonstrated a significant
improvement.
Math Formative Assessments (Kindergarten and 1st Grade) – Local System Assessment
2006-07 - 2007-08
Kindergarten Data
An academic math test was given to all kindergarten students in 2006-2007 and 2007-2008
school years which consists of a pre, mid and post test. The following is an analysis of the
data reviewed. Because the test is for Kindergarten only, the data collected is based on
only Kindergarten standards and assessments. Data for the mid and post tests of 20072008 school year have yet to be calculated.
For approximately ten years, LaVergne Primary School has given each student the pre,
mid and post math tests. Each pre, mid, and post test consists of the following
mathematical components: counting by rote, identifying numbers 0-10, counting sets,
predicting the next shape, and identifying shapes. The following data are the results of the
2006-2007 (pre, mid, and post tests) and 2007-2008 (pre test).
In the school year of 2006-2007, two hundred seventy-nine kindergarten students took the
pre, mid, and post tests. Two hundred seventy-three Kindergarten students made
progress. The average gain was 57. 05% for this class. 91% made a 10% or better score.
The average pretest score was 33% which gave a range of 0%-100%. The average
posttest score was 90%, which gave a range of 13%-100%.
In the school year of 2007-2008, one hundred thirty-four kindergarten students took the
pre-test. The average score was 39 % which gave a range of 1%-100%.
The pre-test average for the school year of 2006-2007 was 33%. This is lower than the pretest average for the school year of 2007-2008, 39%. Data showed a fifty-seven percent
increase by the post test in the 2006-2007 school year. According to data, students will
show an increase range of at least 13%-100% as accomplished in the previous school year.
All previous data for the 2006-2007 school year shows the mathematical testing process as
a strength for LaVergne Primary School. Data shows a significant increase between the
pre-tests of the kindergarten students and the post tests of the Kindergarten students at
LaVergne Primary School.
First Grade Data
A first grade pretest and posttest were given in math for the year of 2006-2007. The test is
no longer given as of the 2007-08 school year. Data from these tests was collected,
reviewed, and analyzed to find strengths and weaknesses in this area and to determine
30 of 110
which skills needed to be taught during the school year. The First Grade Readiness test
consists of 22 questions from Harcourt Brace’s Math Advantage Series. The entire first
grade took the test at the beginning of the year and again at the end of the year to show
improvement and progress made.
Two hundred ninety-three students took both tests in the 2006-2007 school year. The
pretest scores ranged from 50% to 100% while the posttest scores ranged from 9% to
100%. The average score for the pretest was 75% and 84% for the posttest. Two hundred
fifty (85%) students showed progress between the two tests. The average percentage
points gained for this class between the fall and spring tests were 9.33%. The percentage
of students making a 10% or better gain was 74%. Several of the posttest scores went
down from the pretest scores evidenced by the lowest score of 50% on the pretest and 9%
on the posttest. The 9.33% gain was lower than the expected gain in a year for first
grader, indicating a need for improvement in the area of math instruction.
Teacher Created Formative Assessments
For the year of 2007-08, LaVergne Primary teachers created and administered a
formative assessment each six weeks to all Pre-Kindergarten, Kindergarten, and First
Grade students. This is the first year that the test was administered. The purpose for
these tests is to both determine percentages of mastery for skills taught during each six
weeks period and determine what skills need more practice during the next six weeks.
Because this is the first year that these tests are being administered, there is no prior data.
The following data was collected from the first three formative assessments. At the time of
completion of Component 1, no other formative assessment data had been compiled.
Pre-Kindergarten Formative Assessment #1
Skill
Percent Mastery
Identifies First Letter of Name
100
Counts to 10
77
Writes First Name Correctly
20
Identifies Eight Basic Colors
67
Identifies Four Shapes
68
Recognizes Numbers 0 - 10
25
Identifies 10 or More Capital Letters
48
Number of Students
60
In reading, it was noted that 100% of the students mastered identifying the first letter of
their name. A weakness was that only 20% could write their first name correctly. In
math, 77% of these students could count to 10, whereas only 25% could recognize the
numbers 0-10.
Pre-Kindergarten Formative Assessment #2
Skill
Percent Mastery
Identifies First Letter of Name
100
31 of 110
Counts to 10
Writes First Name Correctly
Identifies Eight Basic Colors
Identifies Four Shapes
Recognizes Numbers 0 – 10
Identifies Ten or More Capital Letters
Identifies Ten Position Words
States the Alphabet
Points to Their First Name
Number of Students
90
55
83
80
38
83
42
23
100
60
According to the above criteria, pre-k students have two strengths at 100% mastery in
reading. One is Identifying the First Letter of his/her Name and the other is pointing to
his/her first name. However, only 23% can state the alphabet. In math, Counting to Ten
was noted as a strength with 90% mastery. A weakness was Recognizing Numbers 0 - 10
at 38% mastery.
Pre-Kindergarten Formative Assessment #3
Skill
Identifies First Letter of Name
Counts to 10
Writes First Name Correctly
Identifies Eight Basic Colors
Identifies Four Shapes
Recognizes Numbers 0 – 10
Identifies Ten or More Capital Letters
Identifies Ten Position Words
States the Alphabet
Points to Their First Name
States One Rhyming Song/Nursery Rhyme
Identifies Text and Illustrations
States the Days of the Week
Constructs an Eight Piece Puzzle
Number of Students
Percent
Mastery
100
98
67
90
91
64
93
66
52
100
84
93
72
98
58
As a strength in math, pre-k students have 98 percent mastery in Counting to 10 and
Constructing an Eight Piece Puzzle. A weakness in math was Recognizing Numbers 0 - 10
with 64% mastery. However, this is up from 38% mastery on formative assessment #2. In
reading, a strength continues to be Recognizing the First Letter of His/Her Name and
Pointing to Their First Name at 100% mastery. A weakness is in Stating the Alphabet at
52% mastery. Still, it is up from 23% mastery on the second formative assessment.
32 of 110
Kindergarten Formative Assessment #1
Essential Skills
Percent
Mastery
ID Shapes
82
Draw Shapes
62
Assemble 6 – 8 Piece Puzzle
88
Counts to 25
51
ID Colors
94
Sight Words
85
Sorting
93
Personal Data
62
According to the above formative assessment scores, the following student strength was
cited as Identifying Colors at 94%. Students weaknesses were seen in: Counting From 0 –
25 at 51% and Drawing Shapes and Personal Data, both at 62%.
Kindergarten Formative Assessment #2
Essential Skills
Percent
Mastery
Identifying letters S, P, A, M
92
Sounds S, P, A and M
90
Sight Words
90
Match Numbers to Sets
95
Position Words
81
Reproduce a Pattern
70
Identify Numbers
79
Write First Name
85
Count to 50
35
Write Numbers
80
Repeat Five Words
76
Follow Three Step Directions
98
Patterns
86
Writing Letters S, P, A, and M
93
According to the above formative assessment, the highest scores were Following Three
Step Directions at 98% and Matching Numbers to Sets at 95%. The lowest scores were
identified as Counting to 50 at a score of 35% and Reproducing a Pattern at 70%. A
consistent weakness was noted in counting on both assessments.
33 of 110
Kindergarten Formative Assessment #3
Essential Skills
Percent Mastery
Identify letters S, P, A, M, I, N, C, T
95
Sounds S, P, A, M, I, N, C, T
92
Sight Words
90
Graphing
94
Count to 50
59
Count by 10s to 50
60
Identify Numbers 0 to 20
84
Write Numbers 0 to 20
81
Match Equivalent Sets
92
Identify More or Less
92
Tie Shoes
44
Write S, P, A, M, I, N, C, T
96
Pretend Read
77
Retell Story
84
Sequencing
86
Distinguishing Letters from Words
86
Order Numbers 0 to 20
77
In the 3rd six weeks formative assessment, the lowest scores were identified as Tie Shoes at
44%, Counting to 50 at 59% and Counting by 10s to 50 at 60%. The highest scores were
Letter Identification at 95%, Writing Letters at 96%, and Graphing at 94%.
1st Grade Formative Assessment #1
Essential Skill
Percent
Mastery
Mastery of Letters
84
Initial and Final
69
Sounds
Rhyming Short a
73
Words
Identify Sight Words
81
Sequencing
77
Numbers 0 – 20
93
Great Than/Less Than
77
Patterns
94
Basic Addition (0 – 8)
94
Before, After, Between
73
Based on the above formative assessment scores, the following first grade strengths were
observed: Patterns at 94% and Basic Addition from 0 – 8 also at 94%.
34 of 110
Student weaknesses were observed in Initial and Final Sounds at 69%, Rhyming Short a
Words in Reading, and Before, After, and Between in Math scores at 73%.
1st Grade Formative Assessment #2
Essential Skills
Percent
Mastery
Addition Facts
90
Subtraction Facts
86
Blends
87
Vocabulary/Sight Words
82
Medial Sounds
85
Initial and Final
94
Consonants
Comprehension
82
Based on the above formative assessment scores, the following strength was observed:
Initial and Final Consonants made great improvements from 69% mastery on the last
assessment to the highest score on this assessment at 94%. Student weaknesses were in
Vocabulary/Sight Words and Comprehension, both at 82%. Initial and Final Consonants
were on both first grade assessments; in assessment #1, this skill showed the lowest
percentage of mastery at 69%. However, in assessment #2, this skill showed the highest
percentage of mastery at 94%, representing an increase of 25%.
1st Grade Formative Assessment #3
Essential Skill
Tally Marks
Graphing
Addition and Subtraction
Sequencing
Time
Calendar
Fractions
Vocabulary
Fiction and Nonfiction
Story Elements
Story Order
Diagraphs
Percent Mastery
85
94
91
92
89
78
80
85
75
85
86
90
According to the 3rd formative assessment for 1st grade, the weaknesses include
Identifying Fiction and Nonfiction at 75%, Calendar Skills at 78%, and Fractions at 80%.
The strengths are Graphing at 94%, Sequencing at 92%, and Addition and Subtraction at
91%.
35 of 110
TCAP/ Terra Nova Data 2006-07
In the Spring of 2007, first graders at LaVergne Primary School participated in the TCAP
test for Rutherford County Schools. This data provides information concerning first
grade performance data in norm referenced terms. First grade students were tested in the
areas of Reading, Vocabulary, Reading Composite, Language, Mathematics, Math
Computation, Math Composite, Science, Social Studies and Word Analysis. The results of
this data are displayed below and are from K-2 NRT Class Summary Report. This data
was taken from the Tennessee Online Reporting System. The test data compares
LaVergne Primary School’s 2006-2007 first graders’ performance to the Rutherford
County District first grade as a whole.
First Grade TCAP Data
Two hundred ninety first grade students at LaVergne Primary took the Reading portion
of the TCAP test in the Spring 2007. The Median National Percentile (MDNP) for
LaVergne Primary’s first grade students is 44.9%. The district MDNP is 68.2%.
Two hundred fifty-eight first grade students at LaVergne Primary took the Vocabulary
portion of the TCAP test in the Spring 2007. The Median National Percentile (MDNP) for
LaVergne Primary’s first grade students is 42.0%. The district MDNP is 69.8%.
Two hundred fifty-eight first grade students at LaVergne Primary took the Reading
Composite portion of the TCAP test in the Spring 2007. The Median National Percentile
(MDNP) for LaVergne Primary’s first grade students is 46.0%. The district MDNP is
69.8%.
Two hundred ninety first grade students at LaVergne Primary took the Language portion
of the TCAP test in the Spring 2007. The Median National Percentile (MDNP) for
LaVergne Primary’s first grade students is 42.0%. The district MDNP is 72.9%.
Two hundred ninety-two first grade students at LaVergne Primary took the Mathematics
portion of the TCAP test in the Spring 2007. The Median National Percentile (MDNP) for
LaVergne Primary’s first grade students is 35.0%. The district MDNP is 64.4%.
Two hundred fifty-seven first grade students at LaVergne Primary took the Math
Computation portion of the TCAP test in the Spring 2007. The Median National
Percentile (MDNP) for LaVergne Primary’s first grade students is 34.3%. The district
MDNP is 61.3%.
Two hundred fifty-seven first grade students at LaVergne Primary took the Math
Composite portion of the TCAP test in the Spring 2007. The Median National Percentile
(MDNP) for LaVergne Primary’s first grade students is 40.2%. The district MDNP is
65.0%.
Two hundred fifty-seven first grade students at LaVergne Primary were reported in the
Total Score portion of the norm-referenced TCAP test. The Total Score consists of
36 of 110
Reading Composite, Language Composite and Math Composite. The Total Score
reported for LaVergne Primary’s first grade students in terms of Median National
Percentile is 43.4%. The district MDNP is 71.6%.
Two hundred fifty-eight first grade students at LaVergne Primary took the Science
portion of the TCAP test in the Spring 2007. The Median National Percentile (MDNP) for
LaVergne Primary’s first grade students is 35.2%. The district MDNP is 55.2%.
Two hundred fifty-seven first grade students at LaVergne Primary took the Social Studies
portion of the TCAP test in the Spring 2007. The Median National Percentile (MDNP) for
LaVergne Primary’s first grade students is 41.7%. The district MDNP is 62.8%.
Two hundred fifty-seven first grade students at LaVergne Primary took the Word
Analysis portion of the TCAP test in the Spring 2007. The Median National Percentile
(MDNP) for LaVergne Primary’s first grade students is 44.3%. The district MDNP is
66.2%.
Median National Percentile (MDNP) for 1st Graders
LaVergne Primary School
44.9
Rutherford County
68.2
42.0
69.8
46.0
69.8
42.0
72.9
35.0
64.4
34.3
61.3
40.2
65.0
43.4
71.6
35.2
55.2
41.7
62.8
44.3
66.2
Reading
Vocabulary
Reading Composite
Language
Mathematics
Math Computation
Math Composite
Total Score
Science
Social Studies
Word Analysis
37 of 110
Data from LaVergne Primary School’s K-2 NRT Class Summary Report indicates that
scores from the first graders TCAP test fall in the average range (25-75) along the Norm
Curve Equivalent for National Percentile. In reference to all portions of the test, scores
are higher in the areas of Reading Composite (46.0%), Reading (44.9) and Word Analysis
(44.3%).
In comparison to Rutherford County’s District Data, LaVergne Primary’s K-2 NRT Class
Summary Report indicates that scores from the first graders TCAP test fall below the
district as a whole. Specific areas in need of improvement include Math Computation
(34.3%), Mathematics (35.0) and Science (35.2). As compared to district data, these areas
are critical needs for LaVergne Primary School’s first grade students.
DIBELS Assessments - Formative Assessments for Reading 2006-07 – 2007-08 – 2008-09
2006-2007 was the first year that LaVergne Primary used the Dynamic Indicators of Basic
Early Literacy Skills, DIBELS. First grade has taken the test for three years, 2006-2008,
and Kindergarten began last year, 2007-2008. This research based test uses simple
assessments to predict how children are likely to be doing in reading comprehension by
the end of third grade and beyond. All students are given Benchmark Assessments three
times per year. Students who score in the “at risk” category are assessed weekly with a
progress-monitoring assessment.
Kindergarten 2007-08 Data
Kindergarten used this assessment for the first time in the fall of 2007.
Fall 2007
Low Risk
Initial Sound Fluency 50%
Goal: 8 initial sounds
Letter Naming
56%
Fluency
Goal: 8 letter names
Spring 2008
Initial Sound Fluency
Goal: 25 letter sounds
Letter Naming Fluency
Goal: 27 letters
Nonsense Word Fluency
Goal: 13 letter sounds
Phoneme Segmentation
Fluency
Goal: 18 letter sounds
Some Risk
25%
At Risk
25%
Mean
9.4
17%
26%
16.2
Low Risk/
Established
45%
Some Risk/
Emerging
44%
At Risk/
Deficit
11%
Mean
61%
18%
20%
30.6
70%
17%
14%
21.1
46%
28%
27%
18.4
38 of 110
23.4
DIBELS data indicates that Kindergarten students are beginning the school year with
minimal knowledge of letters and sounds. Fifty percent are considered “some risk” or “at
risk” for identifying initial sounds and approximately 43% are “some risk” or “at risk”
for letter naming fluency. These scores show that LaVergne Primary School
Kindergarteners are entering with a deficiency in pre-reading skills. By the spring of
2007, only 11% of Kindergarteners are considered “at risk,” for Initial Sound Fluency but
a much greater percentage are in the “some risk” category. Less than half of
Kindergarteners are considered “low risk” in Initial Sound Fluency, as compared to 50%
at the year’s beginning. Furthermore, the mean score of 25 letter sounds was not met in
the spring as the goal of 8 letter sounds was met in the fall. In Letter Naming Fluency,
Kindergarteners increased the mean from 16.2 letter sounds to 30.6 letter sounds,
surpassing the goal of 27 sounds for Spring. Sixty-one percent of Kindergarteners are
considered “low risk.” In Nonsense Word Fluency, 70% of LaVergne Primary School
Kindergarteners scored “low risk” while only 14% scored in the “at risk” category.
Kindergarteners also had a mean of over 21 letter sounds, while the goal was only 13 letter
sounds. However, Phoneme Segmentation Fluency shows more than half of the
Kindergarteners tested scored in the “some risk” or “at risk” category, with a mean score
very close to the Spring Goal. This indicates a weakness in phonemic awareness
instruction (Initial Sound Fluency and Phoneme Segmentation Fluency) but strengths in
letter naming and phonetic reading (Nonsense Word Fluency).
Kindergarten 2008-09 Data
Fall 2008
Low Risk
Initial Sound Fluency 43%
Goal: 8 initial sounds
Letter Naming
51%
Fluency
Goal: 8 letter names
Some Risk
23%
At Risk
34%
15%
34%
Spring 2009
Low Risk/
Established
47%
Some
Risk/Emerging
27%
At Risk/Deficit
68%
20%
12%
82%
12%
6%
Letter Naming
Fluency
Goal: 27 letters
Nonsense Word
Fluency
Goal: 13 letter
sounds
Phoneme
Segmentation
Fluency
39 of 110
27%
Goal: 18 letter
sounds
DIBELS data indicates that more students entering Kindergarten in Fall 2008 were at risk
than those entering Kindergarten in Fall 2007. In 2008, fifty-seven percent are considered
“some risk” or “at risk” for identifying initial sounds and forty-nine percent are “some
risk” or “at risk” for letter naming fluency. Once again, the Kindergarteners at
LaVergne Primary School are entering school with a deficiency in pre-reading skills. By
spring of 2009, fewer students were at-risk in letter naming fluency but “low risk”
percentages were lower in the Spring and “some risk” percentages showed a small
The most improvement was shown in Phoneme Segmentation Fluency in Spring 2009. In
Spring 2008, 27% of the students were at risk while in Spring 2009 only 6% were at risk.
Eighty-two percent of the Kindergarteners were at low risk in Spring 2009 compared to
46% in Spring 2008.
First Grade 2006-07 – 2008-09 Data
First grade began using this assessment in the fall of 2006. Because we were learning how
to administer the assessment and use the data, the test was only given twice in the 2006-07
school year: Beginning 2006 and Middle 2006.
Letter Naming Fluency
Goal:37 letter names
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
Goal: 35 phonemes
Nonsense Word Fluency
Goal: 24 letter sounds
Beginning 2006
Mean 41.3
Low risk 62%
Some risk 26%
At risk 12%
Mean 24.6
Established
31%
Emerging 47%
Deficit 23%
Mean 28.1
Low risk 56%
Some risk 25%
At Risk 18%
Middle/Spring 2006-07
Phoneme Segmentation
Fluency
Goal: 35 letter sounds
Nonsense Word Fluency
Mean: 34.3
Established: 57%
Emerging: 34%
Deficit: 9%
Mean: 40.9
40 of 110
Beginning 2007
Mean 38.7
Low risk 54%
Some risk 32%
At risk 14%
Mean 27.6
Established 37%
Emerging 48%
Deficit 15%
Mean 27.3
Low risk 53%
Some risk 28%
At Risk 19%
Middle/Spring 200708
Mean: 41.4
Established: 71%
Emerging: 23%
Deficit: 3%
Mean: 45.4
Goal: 50 letter sounds
Established: 23%
Emerging: 45%
Deficit: 32%
Established: 35%
Emerging: 49%
Deficit: 16%
Oral Reading Fluency
Goal: 20 words
Mean: 31.8
Low Risk: 54%
Some Risk: 30%
At Risk: 15%
Mean: 26.2
Low Risk: 43%
Some Risk: 41%
At Risk: 16%
This is a new assessment for our school and therefore, we do not have much data that can
be compared. For comparison purposes, we can look at first grade scores for the fall of
2006 and fall 2007. Scores for letter names for the beginning of 2006 show a smaller
percent of students were struggling with the skill than in the 2007-08 school year. In 2006,
the mean score was 41.3 and in 2007 it was 38.7. Phonemes are the opposite with 2006
having a mean score of 24.6 and 2007 with a mean score of 27.6. The “emerging” group
(similar to “some risk”) was very similar with 47% of students in 2006 and 48% of
students in 2007. Nonsense Word Fluency (letter sounds and blending them to make
words) tested very similarly in the fall 2006 and 2007 with means of 28.1 sounds and 27.3
sounds, respectively. Data from the Middle/Spring assessments shows much more
variance. In the 2006-07 school year, only 57% of students scored “established” in
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency while 71% scored in the same category during the 200708 year. Furthermore, the average score jumped from 34.3 sounds to 41.4! This indicates
a strength in the area of phonemic awareness instruction during the 2007-08 school year.
Another strength during this year is noted in Nonsense Word Fluency, where scores
increased from an average of 40.9 to 45.4 sounds per minute. However, the average score
for Oral Reading Fluency went down 5 words per minute between the two compared
school years. In 2006-07, 45% were considered “some risk” or “at risk” while that
percentage jumped to 57% during 2007-08.
We can also do our first grade analysis of the same students as they progress through the
year. Between the fall and spring of each year, the goal for phonemes stayed the same but
the scores showed a significant change. In the fall of 2006-07, the mean score was 24.6
phonemes, but by the spring it had risen to 34.3 while in 2007-08 the scores showed a
similar increase of 27.6 sounds to 41.4. For letter sounds (Nonsense Word Fluency), the
expectations were raised from 24 letter sounds to 50 between the fall and spring. The
mean score for this skill went from 28.1 to 40.9 sounds, but the percent of students in the
group with at risk scores went from 18% to 32% of students at a deficit in letter sound
skills. Only 23% of students had “established” this skill in the spring of 2006-07 compared
to 56% having low risk on the same test in the fall (2006-07 school year). In the 2007-08
school year, similar numbers are shown. In the fall, students had an average of 27.3
sounds, and by spring this had increased to 45.4. Although it shows a large increase, the
goal of 50 sounds per minute was still not met. This shows a weakness in the amount of
progression with this basic reading skill.
41 of 110
First Grade 2008-09 Data
Fall 2008
Letter Naming
Fluency
Phoneme
Segmentation
Fluency
Nonsense Word
Fluency
Spring 2009
Phoneme
Segmentation
Fluency
Nonsense Word
Fluency
Oral Reading
Fluency
Low Risk/
Established
58%
Some
Risk/Emerging
28%
At Risk/ Deficit
56%
37%
7%
63%
25%
12%
Low Risk/
Established
87%
Some
Risk/Emerging
12%
At Risk/ Deficit
59%
34%
7%
52%
30%
18%
15%
1%
DIBELS data indicates that over half of the 1st grade students are at low risk for letter
naming fluency at the beginning of the year. This remained consistent over the past three
years. There was a significant gain in Phoneme Segmentation Fluency from Fall 2008 to
Spring 2009 with the low risk or established group. A slight decrease was noted in
Nonsense Word Fluency from the Fall to the Spring. There was a moderate increase in
Oral Reading Fluency from Spring 2008 to Spring 2009.
Discovery Assessment – 1st grade – 2008-09
First grade at LaVergne Primary School took the Discovery Assessment (PAS test) in the
2008-09 school year. Test 1 was given in January and Test 2 in April. Each test had the
same set of skills (8 skills for reading and 8 skills for math). However, each test was based
on skills learned by the testing period. Test 1 was based on specific skills learned by
January, and Test 2 was based on specific skills learned by April. The following results
were gleamed from the Discovery Assessment.
Test 1
73.3%
84.5%
13.2%
2.3%
Reading
School Average
Percentage Advanced
Percentage Proficient
Percentage Not Proficient
42 of 110
Test 2
77.6%
89.8%
9.7%
0.6%
On test 1, 84.5% of the students performed at the Advanced level. On test 2, 89.8% tested
at the Advanced Level. This shows an increase of students on grade level in reading.
Reading
Test 1
Mastery
Test 1
Non
Mastery
2.87%
Test 2
Mastery
89.66%
Test 1
Partial
Mastery
7.47%
86.93%
Test 2
Partial
Mastery
10.80%
Test 2
Non
Mastery
2.27%
Underst
and
Interpre
t
Extend
Compre
hend
Words
Sentenc
es
Compos
ition
Edit
82.76%
13.22%
4.02%
89.20%
7.39%
3.41%
87.36%
55.75%
10.34%
29.89%
2.30%
14.37%
92.05%
79.55%
5.68%
18.75%
2.27%
1.70%
77.59%
65.52%
18.39%
18.97%
4.02%
15.52%
75%
70.45%
18.18%
22.73%
6.82%
6.82%
53.45%
29.89%
16.67%
45.45%
33.52%
21.02%
37.36%
40.80%
21.84%
69.32%
18.75%
11.93%
There was a slight increase in the categories of Interpret, Extend, and Sentences between
Test 1 and Test 2. There was a significant gain in Comprehension and Editing. A slight
decrease of students showing mastery with grade-level material was reported in
Understanding and Composition from Test 1 to Test 2.
Math
School Average
Percent Advanced
Percent Proficient
Percent Non-Proficient
Math
Test 1
Mastery
%
Number
Comput
ation/Es
t.
Operati
on
Measur
Test 1
69.9%
66.3%
31.4%
2.3%
Test 2
72.9%
77.1%
21.7%
1.1%
Test 1
NonMastery
%
23.84
18.02
Test 2
Mastery
%
37.21
51.74
Test 1
Partial
Mastery
%
38.95
30.23
83.43
57.71
Test 2
Partial
Mastery
%
12.57
29.14
Test 2
NonMastery
%
4.00
13.14
80.81
15.70
3.49
32.57
33.71
33.71
88.95
8.14
2.91
76.57
18.29
5.14
43 of 110
e
Geomet
ry
Analysis
/ Stats.
Patterns
/Algebr
a
Problem
Solving
74.42
19.77
5.81
96.57
2.29
1.14
65.7
20.93
13.37
85.71
12.00
2.29
59.30
25.00
15.70
62.86
27.43
9.71
49.42
33.14
17.44
61.71
26.29
12.00
The Discovery Assessment results indicate that first grade students start the year with
80% or greater mastery of operation and measurement. In 2009 first grade students
started the year with low skills in numbers and computation.
At the end of the year 80% of students (or greater) showed mastery in numbers,
geometry, and analysis. Significant gains were shown in the area of number skills, with
only 37% mastery in January and 83% by April. However, first graders as a whole
struggled with operations, with mastery of grade-level material at only 32%.
1.6 Report Card Data Disaggregation
Report Card Data Disaggregation
Tennessee State Report Card 2006-07
The Tennessee Department of Education Report Card for LaVergne Primary School lists
the 2006-07 student population as 966 while data from the school secretary shows 1039
students. The demographics are broken down to show that 30% are African American,
3.7% are Asian/ Pacific Islander, 19.2% are Hispanic, 0% are Native American/ Alaskan,
and 47% are White. Over 57% are “Economically Disadvantaged.” Males represent
approximately 52% of the student population, and the remaining 48% are female. There
are less than 45 students in both the Asian/ Pacific Islander and Native American/ Alaskan
categories, so no data shows the Adequate Yearly Progress for these groups. Furthermore,
because there were no Native American/ Alaskan students, no data is reported for this
group.
Because LaVergne Primary School is Pre-K through 1st, we only give high stakes tests to
one grade in our school (1st grade). The data for the TCAP/Terra Nova tests is not
disaggregated for 1st grade. Therefore, the data presented in this section comes from Roy
Waldron Elementary School (we are their feeder school), which houses grades 2nd through
5th.
Adequate Yearly Progress
Roy Waldron Elementary/ LaVergne Primary School Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Summary indicates the following data. The key below is for all graphs in this section.
A – African American
44 of 110
Report Card Data Disaggregation
B – Asian Pacific/ Islander
C – Hispanic
D – White
*Native American/ Alaskan – We have no students and no data for this subgroup.
E – Economically Disadvantaged
F – Students with Disabilities
G – Limited English Proficient
AYP
+ Met Federal Benchmark
All
X Did Not Meet Federal Benchmark
A B C D E F G
Math
% Tested
+
+
+
+
+
+ + +
% Proficient & Advanced
+
+
+
+
+
+ X +
Reading/ Language Arts/ Writing
% Tested
+
+
+
+
+
+ + +
% Proficient & Advanced
+
+
+
+
+
+ + +
In math, all subgroups except students with disabilities made adequate yearly progress. In
reading/ language arts/ writing, all subgroups made adequate yearly progress. Because we
tested 100% of students, LaVergne Primary School met the federal benchmark for the
percentage of students tested.
*We do not have enough Asian/ Pacific Islander students to be statistically relevant.
A – African American
B – Asian Pacific/ Islander
C – Hispanic
D – White
*Native American/ Alaskan – We have no students and no data for this subgroup.
E – Economically Disadvantaged
F – Students with Disabilities
G – Limited English Proficient
Math
All A B C D E F G
% Proficient & Advanced 2006-07
88 84 97 87 91 84 49 85
% Proficient & Advanced 2 Year
87 82 99 82 91 82 49 68
Average
% Proficient & Advanced 3 Year
87 82 99 82 91 82 52 74
Average
Report Card data shows that overall in math, students are making progress. Eighty-eighty
percent of all students are proficient or advanced, meeting the target goal of 79%. Two
groups (Asian/ Pacific Islander and Students with Disabilities) are not making progress.
Their average percentages have decreased by two to three points over the past three years.
The lack of progress by students with disabilities in math was also highlighted in the
Adequate Yearly Progress table as not meeting the federal benchmark. This area shows a
critical need for improvement. Although the Limited English Proficient subgroup has two
45 of 110
Report Card Data Disaggregation
and three year averages below the target goal of 79%, substantial progress was made in the
2006-07 testing, with 85% of these students scoring proficient or advanced. One hundred
percent of students were tested.
Data further reveals that Asian/ Pacific Islander and White students (the majority of our
school population) have higher percentages of students proficient or advanced than do
African American, Hispanic, Economically Disadvantaged, and Limited English Proficient,
although most of these groups are showing progress and all met the federal benchmarks for
adequate yearly progress. There is a significant gap between these students and Students
with Disabilities’ scores in the math portion of the TCAP/Terra Nova test.
A – African American
B – Asian Pacific/ Islander
C – Hispanic
D – White
*Native American/ Alaskan – We have no students and no data for this subgroup.
E – Economically Disadvantaged
F – Students with Disabilities
G – Limited English Proficient
Reading/ Language Arts/ Writing
All
88
88
A
86
86
B
93
93
C
81
81
D
92
91
E F
83 66
83 62
G
75
63
% Proficient & Advanced 2006-07
% Proficient & Advanced 2 Year
Average
% Proficient & Advanced 3 Year
89 87 95 84 92 85 64 71
Average
Data in reading/ language arts/ writing shows that 88% of all students are proficient or
advanced, surpassing the target goal of 83%. Every subgroup met the federal benchmark
for adequate yearly progress. However, African American, Asian/ Pacific Islander,
Hispanic, and Economically Disadvantaged students all show a decrease in percentage of
students proficient or advanced over the past three years.
Similar to the math data, Asian/ Pacific Islander and White students have higher
percentages of students proficient or advanced than do the other groups. Although all
groups met the federal benchmarks for adequate yearly progress, there are significant gaps
in percentages between Students with Disabilities (66%), Limited English Proficient (75%),
and the other subgroups (81% – 93%). There is a critical need to continue making
adequate yearly progress with these subgroups to close the gap in achievement.
We have no disaggregated data to compare male and female proficiency on the TCAP/Terra
Nova test. Furthermore, we have no TVAAS data to show comparative growth among high,
middle, and low achievers. Because of our grade structure and giving the TCAP/Terra Nova
46 of 110
Report Card Data Disaggregation
test to only one grade at our school, we do not receive either the School Diagnostic Report or
the School Performance Diagnostic Report.
English as a Second Language (ESL) ELDA Test Data – Summative Assessment 2006-07
At the end of the 2006-07 school year, all ESL students at LaVergne Primary School are
given a summative assessment to determine if they will be receiving ESL services during
the next school year. Scores range from level 1 to level 5, from pre-functional to full English
proficiency. The scores are disaggregated by gender. Twenty-five Kindergarten boys and
21 Kindergarten girls were tested during the spring of 2007. Data shows that of the 25 boys,
17 (68%) scored on level 2 and 8 (32%) boys scored on level 3. This data greatly contrasts
the girls’ data which shows a much wider variance in scores. Of the 21 tested, 3 (14%)
scored on a level 1, 9 (43%) scored on a level 2, 4 (19%) scored on a level 3, and 5 (24%)
scored on a level 4, testing out of ESL instruction. The gap between performance on the
ESL ELDA Test shows that more girls are becoming proficient in English than boys after
one year with ESL services. The data also shows that the girls have a wider variance in
scores than the boys, who all scored in the level 2 and level 3 range. The data shows a need
to increase English proficiency in boys receiving ESL services.
Kindergarten Exit Test Data 2006-2007 – Local System Summative Assessment
Data from the 2006-07 Kindergarten Exit Test is presented in two ways. The first data
indicates the percentage of mastery for the past three years, including special education
and ESL students. The second set of data indicates the percentage of mastery for the past
three years, excluding special education and ESL students. The table below illustrates the
Kindergarten percentages of mastery from the past three years.
2007 % Mastery
2006 % Mastery
2005 % Mastery
Including Sp.Ed. & ESL
96%
96%
94.5%
Excluding Sp.Ed. & ESL
97%
96%
96%
Data shows that the 2007 student average (county wide) is 96% including special education
and ESL students and 98% excluding special education and ESL students. Therefore,
LaVergne Primary School met the county average of Kindergarten mastery including the
subgroups of special education and ESL students. However, LaVergne Primary did not
meet the county average of the other non-identified subgroups. In contrast to the Report
Card data, our students receiving special education and ESL scored higher on the
Kindergarten pass test than the county average. While the data is not significant enough to
show a school wide strength, it does indicate that these subgroups do not have a critical
need for improvement among Kindergarten students. The data also shows that there has
been an increase each year in percentages of Kindergarten students who show mastery on
the exit test, especially including scores of students in special education and ESL.
47 of 110
1.7 Narrative Synthesis of All Data
Narrative Synthesis of Data
After analyzing academic and non-academic data, members Component 1 identified
several strengths and weaknesses/ areas in need of improvement for LaVergne Primary
School. They are listed below.
Strengths
Data from LaVergne Primary School indicates that our promotion rate (above 98%) is
both above the state goal of 97% and a strength for our school.
Data shows that our attendance rate (at 93.5%) is above the state goal of 93% and is a
strength for our school.
The data from the 2006-07 Kindergarten Exit Tests (local county summative assessment)
shows that there has been an increase each year in percentages of Kindergarten students
who show mastery on the pass test, especially including scores of students in special
education and ESL. This data indicates a strength for our school in Kindergarten
instruction, especially that of students receiving special education and ESL services.
Scores from the 2006-07 Kindergarten Readiness Assessment show strengths in the
Kindergarten Readiness categories of listening/ phonological awareness, alphabet, story
knowledge, cognitive/ mathematics, and motor skills, all at 100% mastery.
According to data from a local Kindergarten reading assessment, LaVergne Primary
School has a strength in reading instruction. With reading pretest scores averaging a low
18%, students gained a significant average of 46% between fall 2006 and spring 2007.
Posttest data revealed that the spring mean was 64%.
Data from the Kindergarten formative math assessment (2006-07) shows the mathematical
testing process as a strength for LaVergne Primary School. Data shows a significant
increase (57%) between the pre and posttests for Kindergarten students. This indicates a
strength in Kindergarten math instruction.
According to the 2007-08 School Developed Formative Assessments # 1, #2, and #3, the
following strengths were noted for Kindergarten: Following Three Step Directions at 98%
mastery and Matching Numbers to Sets at 95%. First Grade strengths were: Patterns,
Basic Addition, Graphing, and Initial and Final Consonants, all at 94%. Initial and Final
Consonants were on both first grade assessments; in assessment #1, this skill showed the
lowest percentage of mastery at 69%. However, in assessment #2, this skill showed the
highest percentage of mastery at 94%, representing an increase of 25%.
48 of 110
Narrative Synthesis of Data
According to data from the 2007-08 School Developed Formative Assessments #1, #2, and
#3 for Pre-Kindergarten, strengths are shown in all reading and math areas. Although the
areas of recognizing numbers 1 through 10 and stating the alphabet were the lowest areas
on each assessment, they showed amazing progress. Mastery of recognizing numbers 1
through 10 went from 25% on Assessment #1 to 64% on Assessment #3 while stating the
alphabet mastery went from 23% on Assessment #2 to 52% mastery on Assessment #3.
This data indicates strengths in the Pre-Kindergarten program.
Data from DIBELS Formative Assessment indicates a strength in the area of 1st grade
phonemic awareness instruction during the 2007-08 school year with averages in the area
of Phoneme Segmentation Fluency exceeding goals. Strengths in Kindergarten are shown
in letter naming and phonetic reading.
Data from LaVergne Primary School’s K-2 NRT Class Summary Report (TCAP/Terra
Nova) indicates that scores from the first graders TCAP test fall in the average range (2575) along the Norm Curve Equivalent for National Percentile. In reference to all portions
of the test, scores are higher in the areas of Reading Composite (46.0%), Reading (44.9)
and Word Analysis (44.3%).
Weaknesses/ Areas in Need of Improvement
Because the majority (79% of Kindergarteners and 72% of 1st graders) of students this
year (2007-08) in both Kindergarten and 1st grade tested on the Approaching Level
according to the Treasures’ placement tests, reading is an overall weakness for our school
and is in need of improvement.
The MacMillan/McGraw Hill Treasures’ placement test data also indicates that incoming
Kindergarteners tested significantly below the expected academic reading level, indicating
a need for more reading instruction before entering Kindergarten, either in Pre-K,
Kindergarten Readiness, or at home. This data shows a critical need for reading
instruction and intervention before entering Kindergarten.
Data from the Tennessee Department of Education Report Card indicates that LaVergne
Primary/ Roy Waldron Elementary School is not meeting adequate yearly progress in the
area of math with students with disabilities. The scores for students with disabilities in
math were 49% proficient or advanced while the other subgroups ranged from 84% to
97% proficient or advanced. There is a need for improvement in math for students with
disabilities. In addition, the scores of both students with disabilities and students with
limited English proficiency (66% and 75% proficient or advanced, respectively) are
significantly below those of other subgroups (81% to 93% proficient or advanced) in the
area of reading/ language arts/ writing. This data shows a critical need for both continuing
to meet adequate yearly progress for these two subgroups in reading/ language arts/
writing.
49 of 110
Narrative Synthesis of Data
The data from the First Grade Math Readiness test indicates that first graders at
LaVergne Primary School did not make adequate yearly progress in math during the 20062007 school year, gaining an average of only 9% from fall to spring. Therefore, math is an
overall weakness for our school and in need of improvement.
According to the School Developed Formative Assessments #1 and 2, the following
weaknesses were noted for Kindergarten: Drawing Shapes and Personal Data both at 62%.
The lowest percentage of mastery for Kindergarteners, however, came from counting on
both assessments. On assessment #1, only 51% of students mastered counting to 25, and
data from assessment #2 showed that only 35% of students were able to count to 50. Again,
math is showing a critical need for improvement among LaVergne Primary School
students. On assessment #3, the biggest weakness was identified as tying shoes at 44%
mastery. However, because this area is not academic, it is not a primary concern at
LaVergne Primary. Weaknesses for First Grade were Initial and Final Sounds at 69%
(although this percentage showed a 25% increase to 94% mastery on assessment #2), and
Rhyming Short a Words and Numbers Before, After, and Between, both at 73%. Another
area of weakness was noted in Identifying Fiction and Non-Fiction with only 75% mastery
on Assessment #3.
In comparison to Rutherford County’s District Data, LaVergne Primary’s K-2 NRT Class
Summary Report (TCAP/Terra Nova) indicates that scores from the first graders TCAP
test fall below the district as a whole. Specific areas in need of improvement include Math
Computation (34.3%), Mathematics (35.0) and Science (35.2). As compared to district
data, these areas are critical needs for LaVergne Primary School’s first grade students.
According to 2007-08 DIBELS data, 50% of incoming Kindergarteners are considered
“some risk” or “at risk” for identifying initial sounds and approximately 43% are “some
risk” or “at risk” for letter naming fluency. These scores show that LaVergne Primary
School Kindergarteners are entering with a deficiency in pre-reading skills. Pre-reading
skills among incoming Kindergarteners are a weakness for LaVergne Primary School.
DIBELS data also shows that the mean score for nonsense word fluency (identifying letter
sounds and blending them together to read basic words) went from 28.1 to 40.9 sounds, but
the percent of students in the group with at risk scores went from 18% to 32% of students
at a deficit in letter sound skills. Only 23% of students had “established” this skill by the
spring as compared to over 50% having “low risk” for this skill the previous fall.
Furthermore, DIBELS data from 2007-08 shows that 1st graders are still not meeting the
Spring goal of 50 sounds per minute. This shows a critical need for improvement in the
amount of progression during 1st grade with this basic reading skill. Oral Reading Fluency
scores in both 2006-07 and 2007-08 also show needs for improvement. Although the goals
were met by our average scores, 45% and 57% of students in 2006-07 and 2007-08,
50 of 110
Narrative Synthesis of Data
respectively, were still in the “some risk” or “at risk” categories.
Development of Goals
After analyzing academic and non-academic data for LaVergne Primary School, members
of Component One met to discuss the development of goal targets based on our weaknesses
and areas in need of improvement as well as previous SACS-CASI/TSIP goals. We
identified areas of weaknesses based on data from the previous assessments. The following
section sums up our discussion.
1.8 Prioritized List of Goal Targets
Prioritized List of Goal Targets
1. LaVergne Primary School will increase academic achievement in reading for all
children, monitoring closely the subgroups Students with Disabilities, Limited
English Proficiency, and at risk incoming Kindergarteners.
2. LaVergne Primary School will meet adequately yearly progress goals in math
for the subgroup Students with Disabilities.
3. LaVergne Primary School will increase academic achievement in math for all
children, specifically with math computation and counting skills.
51 of 110
Component 2 – Beliefs, Common Mission and Shared Vision
2.1: Beliefs, Common Mission and Shared Vision
LaVergne Primary teachers, support staff, parents, and community members were given
the responsibility of reviewing their vision and mission statements and beliefs in
conjunction with Rutherford County's countywide policy. The vision and mission
statements and beliefs were created with the knowledge of the needs of all of our
stakeholders.
Beliefs
Beliefs:
LaVergne Primary School believes that all children can learn, and that there is a positive
correlation between learning and school attendance.
LaVergne Primary School believes there should be clearly stated high expectations based
on students’ individual needs.
LaVergne Primary School believes in using a variety of instructional techniques to meet
different learning styles and abilities.
LaVergne Primary School believes in providing all students with opportunities for success
each day.
LaVergne Primary School believes in developing an appreciation for the fine arts including
music, drama, art, and literature in order to cultivate the imagination and creativity of all
children.
LaVergne Primary School believes collaboration and communication among parents,
community, and the school are vital to the development of self-directed lifelong learners.
LaVergne Primary School believes all students need to be actively involved in their own
learning, which is a lifelong process, in order to become successful citizens.
LaVergne Primary School believes in providing all students with opportunities for decision
making, problem solving, and higher order thinking skills to equip them for future
educational goals and life skills.
LaVergne Primary School believes each child is a valued individual who is assisted by the
school, parents, and community to develop intellectually, physically, socially, and
emotionally.
LaVergne Primary School believes in promoting a safe, inviting, and nurturing
environment conducive to learning.
LaVergne Primary School believes it is important to have high expectations of teachers,
support staff, students, parents, and community to foster student achievement and success.
LaVergne Primary School believes that data should drive instructional decisions.
Common Mission
Mission Statement:
The mission of LaVergne Primary School is to ensure that each student has a mastery of
basic academic skills in a challenging, nurturing, and safe learning environment while
providing the appropriate curriculum, instruction, and resources.
52 of 110
Shared Vision
Vision Statement:
The vision of LaVergne Primary School is to encourage lifelong learning and to prepare all
students to achieve high levels of success as they become responsible and productive
citizens. We can do this through community and parental involvement and by providing
adequate technology and effective teaching resources. A safe and sufficient child-centered
environment is maintained for all learners.
53 of 110
Component 3
Curricular, Instructional, Assessment, and Organizational
Effectiveness
Component 3 spent time analyzing the effectiveness of our school’s
Curricular, Instructional, Assessment, and Organizational practices.
Through this process, the Component 3 team was able to identify many of the
strengths and challenges our school faces in helping our students reach their
learning goals. The objective was to find ways to build on our strengths and
suggest ways to address the challenges in the achievement of our students.
Component 3 Meeting Timeline:
 12/03/2007
 12/04/2007
 01/14/2008
 01/15/2008
 02/06/2008
 02/11/2008
 02/12/2008
 02/15/2008
 03/05/2008
 04/02/2008
 04/16/2008
 04/22/2008
 09/16/2009
54 of 110
3.1.a: Curricular Practices
(Rubric Indicators 3.1 and 3.2)
Current Curricular
Practices
Monitoring
is in place
for
enhancing
the quality
of
curriculum
and
instruction.
Curriculum is
prioritized and
mapped.
School has
established school
wide student
achievement
benchmarks.
School has
implemented a
grade
appropriate
cohesive
standards based
model for
literacy.
School has
implemented a
grade
appropriate
cohesive
standards based
model for
mathematics.
Support system is
in place for
enhancing the
quality of
curriculum and
instruction.
Teaching and
learning
materials are
correlated to the
State standards
and distributed
to the
instructional
staff.
TN Weekly
Standards
Planners for
Reading and
Math
curriculums,
long-range
mapping
Yes
Marzano A new
era of school
reform: Going
where the
research takes us
Essential
learnings, Long
range mapping
for math and
reading
Essential
learnings,
S.M.A.R.T. goals
Evidence of Practice (State in
definitive/tangible terms)
DIBELS Progress
Monitoring,
Formative
Common Assessments
Treasures
Reading Series,
long-range maps
for reading, 90
minute reading
block
Houghton-Mifflin
Math
Curriculum,
long-range maps
for math
Professional
Learning
Community
(PLC); ESL;
MARS , staff
development
Is the current practice researchbased?
Yes
Fisher et. al
Tennessee
Reading First
Intervention
Guide, pgs. 5-12
Yes
Marzano et. al. A
Handbook for
Classroom
Instruction that
Works, pg. 130
Yes
Marzano A new
era of school
reform: Going
where the
research takes us
Yes
Marzano A new
era of school
reform: Going
where the
research takes us
Is it a principle & practice of
high-performing schools?
Yes
http://ies.ed.gov/n
cee/wwc/
Yes
http://ies.ed.gov/n
cee/wwc/
Yes
DuFour et. al.
Learning by
Doing: A
Handbook for
Professional
Learning
Communities at
Work pg. 215
Yes
http://www.nwrel
.org/scpd/esp/esp
95toc.html
Yes
http://www.nwrel
.org/scpd/esp/esp
95toc.html
Yes
http://www.nwrel
.org/scpd/esp/esp
95toc.html
Yes
DuFour et. al.
Learning by
Doing: A
Handbook for
Professional
Learning
Communities at
Work pg. 219
Yes
http://www.nwrel
.org/scpd/esp/esp
95toc.html
Effective
Effective
Effective
Effective
Effective
Effective
Effective
DIBELS
Assessments;
Teacher Created
Formative
Assessments
Teacher Created
Formative
Assessments
Teacher Created
Formative
Assessments;
DIBELS
Assessments
DIBELS
Assessments;
McMillan/McGra
w Hill Treasures
Reading Series
Formative Math
Assessments
English as a
Second Language
ELDA & CELLA
Test Data;
Teacher Created
Teacher Created
Formative
Assessments;
DIBELS
Assessments
Yes
http://www.nwrel
.org/scpd/esp/esp
95toc.html
Has the current practice been
effective or ineffective?
What data source(s) do you
have that support your answer?
(Identify all applicable sources)
55 of 110
(Text Book)
Placement Test


Evidence of effectiveness or
ineffectiveness (State in terms of
quantifiable improvement)


Initial and

final sounds
fluency on
first grade
Teacher
Created
Formative
Assessment
showed a
25% increase
after being
identified as a
weakness.
The Teacher 
Created
Formative
Assessment
indicated a
weakness of
counting to 50
in Kindergarten. This
led to the
development
of
intervention
plans.
Although 25%
of Kindergartners were
found to be at
risk at the
beginning of
the 2007
school year
for DIBELS
Initial Sound
Fluency, only
11% were
deficient in
January 2008
despite an
increase of
the goal
expectation.
On letter sound
Initial and

final sounds
fluency on
first grade
Teacher
Created
Formative
Assessment
showed a
25% increase
after being
identified as a
weakness.
On the

Teacher
Created
Formative
Assessment,
an observed
weakness of
counting to 50
was identified
in Kindergarten. This
led to the
development
of
intervention
plans

Initial and

final sounds
fluency on
first grade
Teacher
Created
Formative
Assessment
showed a
25% increase
after being
identified as a
weakness.
On the
Teacher
Created
Formative
Assessment,
an observed
weakness of
counting to 50
was identified
in Kindergarten. This
led to the
development
of
intervention
plans
Although 25%
of Kindergarteners
were found to
be at risk at
the beginning
of the 2007
school year
for DIBELS
Initial Sound
Fluency, only
11% were
deficient in
January 2008
despite an
increase of
the goal
56 of 110
Based on
the
McMillan/Mc
Graw-Hill
Placement
Test data,
first grade
data shows
students on
level and
beyond at
28% and
Kindergarten
at 21%.
According to
DIBELS
assessment,
students
showed
improvement
in phoneme
segmentation,
moving from
a mean score
of 24.6 to 34.3
from the
beginning of
2006 to the
middle of
2006.
According to
DIBELS
assessment,
students
showed
improvement
in nonsense
word fluency,
moving from
a mean score
of 28.1 to 40.9
from the
beginning of
2006 to the
middle of
2006.
Formative
Assessments
On the math
formative
assessment for
Kindergarten in
the 2006-2007
year, the average
gain was 57.05%.
In first grade,
85% of students
showed progress
between pre-test
and post-test on
the math
formative
assessment of the
2006-2007 school
year.
At the end of the
2006-2007 school
year, on the ESL
ELDA test,
students move
from prefunctional to
beginning,
intermediate, and
advanced
proficiency. 57%
scored at
beginning
proficiency, 26%
at intermediate
proficiency, and
11% at advanced
proficiency for
the 2006-2007
school year.
Initial and final
sounds fluency on
first grade
Teacher Created 
Formative
Assessment
showed a 25%
increase after
being identified
as a weakness.

 100% of
teachers have
received the
teaching and
learning
materials,
which are
correlated to
the State
standards.
Initial and
final sounds
fluency on
first grade
Teacher
Created
Formative
Assessment
showed a
25% increase
after being
identified as a
weakness.
Although
25% of
Kindergartne
rs were found
to be at risk
at the
beginning of
the 2007
school year
for DIBELS
Initial Sound
Fluency, only
11% were
deficient in
January 2008
despite an
increase of
the goal
expectation.
On letter
sound fluency
of the
DIBELS


fluency of the
DIBELS
assessment
for
Kindergarten
ers, there was
a decrease by
6% of at risk
students,
despite an
increase of
the goal
expectation.
On DIBELS
phoneme
segmentation
fluency for
First grade,
there was a
12% decrease
in deficient
students from
Fall 2007 to
January 2008.
On non-sense
word fluency
of the
DIBELS
assessment,
19% of First
graders were
identified as
at risk in Fall
2007, but only
16% were
deficient in
January 2008.



expectation.

On letter sound
fluency of the
DIBELS
assessment
for
Kindergarten
ers, there was
a decrease by
6% of at risk
students,
despite an
increase of
the goal
expectation.
On DIBELS
phoneme
segmentation
fluency for
First grade,

there was a
12% decrease
in deficient
students from
Fall 2007 to
January 2008.
On non-sense
word fluency
of the
DIBELS
assessment,
19% of First
graders were
identified as
at risk in Fall 
2007, but only
16% were
deficient in
January 2008

57 of 110
Although
25% of
Kindergarteners
were found to
be at risk at
the beginning
of the 2007
school year
for DIBELS
Initial Sound
Fluency, only
11% were
deficient in
January 2008
despite an
increase of
the goal
expectation.
On letter
sound fluency
of the
DIBELS
assessment
for
Kindergarten
ers, there was
a decrease by
6% of at risk
students,
despite an
increase of
the goal
expectation.
On DIBELS
phoneme
segmentation
fluency for
First grade,
there was a
12% decrease
in deficient
students from
Fall 2007 to
January 2008.
On nonsense word
fluency of the
DIBELS
assessment,

assessment
for
Kindergarten
ers, there was
a decrease by
6% of at risk
students,
despite an
increase of
the goal
expectation.
On DIBELS
phoneme
segmentation
fluency for
First grade,
there was a
12% decrease
in deficient
students from
Fall 2007 to
January 2008.
 On non-sense
word fluency
of the
DIBELS
assessment,
19% of First
graders were
identified as
at risk in Fall
2007, but
only 16%
were deficient
in January
2008
19% of First
graders were
identified as
at risk in Fall
2007, but only
16% were
deficient in
January 2008
All teachers
utilize DIBELS &
Common
Assessments
Evidence of equitable school
support for this practice
Next Step (changes or
continuations)
We will continue
DIBELS progress
monitoring and
evaluating the
Teacher Created
Formative
Assessments for
strengths and
weaknesses. We
will continue to
use those to guide
interventions for
improving
curriculum and
instruction and
will revise them
as necessary.
Early dismissal
days for
Professional
Learning
Communities;
reading series
purchased which
is mapped out
appropriate for
grade level;
collaborative
meetings
We will continue
to use the
Teacher Created
Formative
Assessments to
identify essential
learnings and
guide mapping of
curriculum.
All teachers have
a copy of
Essential
Learnings and
SMART Goals
All teachers have
access to and
utilize the
materials from
the Treasures
reading series
and mapping
guides
All teachers have
access to and
utilize the
materials from
Houghton-Mifflin
math texts and
mapping guides
All teachers are
involved in
Professional
Learning
Communities.
All standards
guides are given
to all teachers
We will continue
to use the
Teacher Created
Formative
Assessments,
DIBELS
assessments, and
McMillan/McGra
w-Hill Treasures
Reading Series
Placement tests
to establish
school wide
achievement
benchmarks
through essential
learnings and
S.M.A.R.T. goals.
We will continue
to align state
standards with
McMillan/McGra
w-Hill Treasures
Reading Series
and will update
long-range maps
of reading skills
to reflect changes
in the state
curriculum.
We will continue
to align state
standards with
Houghton Mifflin
Math
Curriculum and
will update longrange maps of
math skills to
reflect changes in
the state
curriculum.
We will continue
to use the PLC to
enhance quality
of curriculum
and instruction
through a review
of the Teacher
Created
Formative
Assessments and
DIBELS
assessments. In
addition we will
have greater
communication
between support
services, such as
ESL and MARS,
with the
classroom
teachers on
achievement and
curricular goals.
We will continue
to provide staff
development.
We will continue
to align state
standards with
Houghton Mifflin
Math
Curriculum and
creating longrange maps of
math skills.
58 of 110
We will continue
to align state
standards with
McMillan/McGra
w-Hill Treasures
Reading Series
and creating
long-range maps
of reading skills.
3.1.b: Curriculum Gap Analysis
Curriculum Gap Analysis - Narrative Response Required
“What is” The Current Use of: TIME, MONEY, PERSONNEL And OTHER
RESOURCES
(How are we currently allocating our time, money, personnel and other resources and building
capacity around understanding and implementing high quality curricular practices?)

TIME
We spend 30 minutes each week in mini team meetings, discussing curriculum, teaching strategies,
specific student needs, and intervention. We meet once a month in grade level teams and once a
month in PLCs to analyze curriculum, assessment data for strength and weaknesses in instruction
and six weeks curricular goals.
 MONEY
Money is provided through or Title I budget to support professional development to improve
curricular practice. Title I funds also provide us with two School wide Coordinators to assist us
with additional support.
 PERSONNEL
All general education teachers with the assistance of the School wide Coordinators and principal
work together to map curriculum standards and establish essential learnings. Educational
Assistants work with General Education Teachers to support implementation of curriculum
although they are given other duties outside of assisting instruction such as office duty, mail duty,
and substituting which detracts from their ability to support the curriculum.
 OTHER RESOURCES
Our current building capacity enables every teacher to have a classroom inside the building,
including
support services and co-curricular. In addition, extra space has been allocated for a school wide
computer lab.
“What Ought to Be” – How Should we be Using Our: TIME, MONEY, PERSONNEL
And OTHER RESOURCES
(How should we be allocating our time, money, personnel and other resources and building
capacity around understanding and implementing high quality curricular practices?)




TIME - We need more time to meet with co-curricular teachers and support staff such as ESL and
the Schoolwide Coordinators in order to integrate the curriculum and additional resources.
MONEY - More money should be allocated for professional development to increase our
understanding of ESL students since data shows an increase in that population and an achievement
gap.
PERSONNEL - Additional support of more Educational Assistants would be useful or a better
allocation of educational assistant’s time so that teachers may utilize them in more than one subject
area.
OTHER RESOURCES – At this time, current use of building capacity is being used in the most
effective and practical ways.
59 of 110
Equity and Adequacy:
Are we providing equity and adequacy to all of our teachers? Yes, all teachers have long range mapping of
subject areas, teachers manuals, and planning time.
Are we targeting funds and resources effectively to meet the needs of all of our teachers in being effective
with all their students? Yes, however the personnel are sometimes ineffectively distributed. Educational
Assistants are used for non-instructional uses and some teachers only get their assistant during one subject
area.
Based on the data, are we accurately meeting the needs of all students in our school? No – because our ESL
students are not making adequate progress as shown by the ELDA and CELLA scores for ESL students,
these scores listed in component 1 indicate a need to increase proficiency in males in ESL because there is a
wider variance in female performance than in males.
60 of 110
3.1.c: Curricular Summary Questions
Curriculum Summary Questions- Narrative Response Required
What are our major strengths and how do we know?
Our major strength is evaluating our weaknesses in curricular instruction and developing intervention
plans to address those weaknesses. We know that there is an increase in student achievement when we
started using this curricular practice as shown by teacher created formative assessments and DIBELS
Progress Monitoring which indicate increases throughout the current school year in reading. We also do a
good job of mapping out different subjects areas for a year and identifying essential learnings. We know
this because we have long-range maps for reading and math, as well as essential learnings in these subjects.
Curriculum Summary Questions- Narrative Response Required
What are our major challenges and how do we know. (These should be stated as curricular practice
challenges identified in the templates above, that could be a cause of the prioritized needs identified in
component 1.)
Our major challenge is increasing the communication between support systems such as ESL and cocurricular teachers to enhance the quality of curriculum and instruction. This could be related to the
prioritized goal of increasing adequate yearly progress and increase achievement in reading for subgroups:
students with disabilities and limited English proficiency. This goal was identified through data gathered on
the ESL ELDA test administered in the 2006-2007 school year that showed a greater variance in
performance by females than in males who were in ESL.
Curriculum Summary Questions- Narrative Response Required
How will we address our challenges?
In order to address these challenges, we will increase the communication between ESL,
the School wide Coordinators and other support services with general education teachers
to integrate curriculum and instruction. We will give long range plans to support services
so they can align with general education as much as possible. Also, time needs to be set
aside for at least one general education teacher from each grade to meet with ESL, the
School wide Coordinators, and co-curricular teachers to generate ideas to integrate the
curriculum of these support services. General education teachers need to let ESL and
other support staff who work with these students know which areas they most need
assistance.
61 of 110
3.2.a: Instructional Practices
(Rubric Indicators 3.3 and 3.4)
Current Instructional
Practices
Classroom
instruction is
aligned with the
standards based
curriculum.
Classroom
instruction is
aligned with the
assessments.
Teaching process
is data driven.
Teachers
incorporate a wide
range of research
based, student
centered, and
teaching strategies.
Classroom
organization and
management
techniques support
the learning
process.
Reading series, etc.
are standards
based and school
created
curriculum maps
are aligned.
Common
assessments based
on the curriculum
framework,
benchmark,
Professional
Learning
Communities,
weekly tests,
DIBLES, unit tests
Common
assessments, daily
Intervention/Enric
hment time -30
minutes per child,
benchmark,
DIBELS,
Professional
Learning
Communities,
intervention plans
are derived from
assessments
Lexia, Buggles &
Beezy, small group
rotations, daily
Intervention/Enric
hment time -30
minutes per child
Music/movement,
technology,
manipulatives,
large & small
group instruction,
Yes
Methods for
Effective Teaching:
Promoting K-12
Student
Understanding (4th
ed.). Burden, P.R.,
& Byrd, D. (2007).
Classroom
Instruction that
Works: ResearchBased Strategies
for Increasing
Student
Achievement.
Marzano, R.J.,
Pickering, D.J., &
Pollack, J.E.
(2005).
Yes
On Common
Ground
DuFour/Eaker
Professional
Learning
Communities at
Work
Dufour/Eaker
1998
Whatever It Takes
DuFour/Eaker/Ka
ranek
Yes
On Common
Ground
DuFour/Eaker
Professional
Learning
Communities at
Work
Dufour/Eaker
1998
Whatever It Takes
DuFour/Eaker/Ka
ranek
Classroom
Instruction that
Works: ResearchBased Strategies
for Increasing
Student
Achievement.
Marzano, R.J.,
Yes
Methods for
Effective Teaching:
Promoting K-12
Student
Understanding (4th
ed.). Burden, P.R.,
& Byrd, D. (2007).
Classroom
Instruction that
Works: ResearchBased Strategies
for Increasing
Student
Achievement.
Marzano, R.J.,
Pickering, D.J., &
Pollack, J.E.
(2005).
Yes
Methods for
Effective Teaching:
Promoting K-12
Student
Understanding (4th
ed.). Burden, P.R.,
& Byrd, D. (2007).
Classroom
Instruction that
Works: ResearchBased Strategies
for Increasing
Student
Achievement.
Marzano, R.J.,
Pickering, D.J., &
Pollack, J.E.
(2005).
Evidence of Practice (State
in definitive/tangible terms)
Is the current practice
research-based?
62 of 110
Students are
provided with
multiple
opportunities to
receive additional
assistance to
improve their
learning beyond
the initial
classroom
instruction.
Math And
Reading Support,
daily
Intervention/Enric
hment time -30
minutes per child,
resource, speech &
lang., English as a
second Language,
Response to
Intervention,
Occupational
Therapy, Physical
Therapy
Yes
Methods for
Effective Teaching:
Promoting K-12
Student
Understanding (4th
ed.). Burden, P.R.,
& Byrd, D. (2007).
Classroom
Instruction that
Works: ResearchBased Strategies
for Increasing
Student
Achievement.
Marzano, R.J.,
Pickering, D.J., &
Pollack, J.E.
(2005).
Classroom
instruction
supports the
learning of
students with
diverse cultural &
language
backgrounds &
with different
needs & learning
styles.
English as a
second Language,
Educational
Assistants in
classrooms,
inclusion, speech
& language
services,
Yes
“High-performing
Schools Serving
MexicanAmerican
Students: What
They Can Teach
Us.” ERIC Digest,
Scribner, Alicia
Paredes and Jay
Scribner (2001).
Methods for
Effective Teaching:
Promoting K-12
Student
Understanding (4th
ed.). Burden, P.R.,
& Byrd, D. (2007).
Classroom
Instruction that
Works: Research-
Pickering, D.J., &
Pollack, J.E.
(2005).
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Based Strategies
for Increasing
Student
Achievement.
Marzano, R.J.,
Pickering, D.J., &
Pollack, J.E.
(2005).
Yes
Effective
Effective
Effective
Effective
Effective
Effective
Effective
Reading series,
science kit, math
curriculum
Common
assessments,
benchmark,
Professional
Learning
Communities,
weekly tests,
DIBELS, unit tests
Common
assessments, daily
Intervention/Enric
hment time -30
minutes per child,
benchmark,
DIBELS,
Professional
learning
Communities
Technology, small
group rotations,
daily
Intervention/Enric
hment time -30
minutes per child
Music/dance,
technology,
manipulatives,
large & small
group instruction
English as a
second Language
Educational
Assistants in
classrooms,
inclusion, speech
& language
services
Improvement has
been shown
through
administering
formative
assessments
throughout the
year. Initial &
Final consonants
were on first grade
common
assessments 1&2.
In assessment #1
the percent
mastery was 69%.
In assessment #2
this skill showed
the highest
percentage of
Scores from the
various
assessments are
tracked and used
to guide
instruction. Initial
& Final
consonants were
on first grade
common
assessments 1&2.
In assessment #1
the percent
mastery was 69%.
In assessment #2
this skill showed
the highest
percentage of
mastery at 94%,
Yes, the teaching
process is data
driven due to the
fact teachers track
scores in order to
guide daily
Intervention/Enric
hment time -30
minutes per child,
as well as
instruction in
general. Initial &
Final consonants
were on first grade
common
assessments 1&2.
In assessment #1
the percent
mastery was 69%.
Yes, through the
use of technology,
small group
rotations, daily
Intervention/Enric
hment time -30
minutes per child,
Math And
Reading Support,
English as a
second Language,
and Response to
Intervention.
Initial & Final
consonants were
on first grade
common
assessments 1&2.
In assessment #1
Yes, through the
use of technology,
small group
rotations, handson activities, and
music/dance.
Initial & Final
consonants were
on first grade
common
assessments 1&2.
In assessment #1
the percent
mastery was 69%.
In assessment #2
this skill showed
the highest
percentage of
mastery at 94%,
Math And
Reading Support,
daily
Intervention/Enric
hment time -30
minutes per child,
resource, speech &
lang., English as a
second Language,
Response to
Intervention,
Occupational
Therapy, Physical
Therapy
Yes, through the
use of technology,
small group
instruction, daily
Intervention/Enric
hment time -30
minutes per child,
Math And
Reading Support,
English as a
second Language,
resource, speech &
language,
Occupational
Therapy, Physical
Therapy, and
Response to
Intervention.
Initial & Final
Is it a principle & practice
of high-performing schools?
Has the current practice
been effective or
ineffective?
What data source(s) do you
have that support your
answer? (identify all
applicable sources)
Evidence of effectiveness or
ineffectiveness (State in
terms of quantifiable
improvement)
63 of 110
Yes, through the
use of technology,
small group
instruction, daily
Intervention/Enric
hment time -30
minutes per child,
Math And
Reading Support,
English as a
second Language,
resource, speech &
language,
Occupational
Therapy, Physical
Therapy and
Response to
Intervention.
Initial & Final
mastery at 94%,
representing a
25% increase.
representing a
25% increase.
In assessment #2
this skill showed
the highest
percentage of
mastery at 94%,
representing a
25% increase.
the percent
mastery was 69%.
In assessment #2
this skill showed
the highest
percentage of
mastery at 94%,
representing a
25% increase.
representing a
25% increase.
consonants were
on first grade
common
assessments 1&2.
In assessment #1
the percent
mastery was 69%.
In assessment #2
this skill showed
the highest
percentage of
mastery at 94%,
representing a
25% increase.
consonants were
on first grade
common
assessments 1&2.
In assessment #1
the percent
mastery was 69%.
In assessment #2
this skill showed
the highest
percentage of
mastery at 94%,
representing a
25% increase.
Classes are
teaching the same
curriculum &
standards across
the grade level
Classes are
assessing the same
curriculum &
standards across
the grade level
Classes are
incorporating the
same data to drive
their instruction
Every classroom is
provided with the
same opportunities
for technology and
various resources
throughout the
school.
All teachers
incorporate the
various learning
styles to
accommodate the
varying needs of
students.
English as a
second Language,
Educational
Assistants in
classrooms,
inclusion, and
speech & language
services are
available to all
students in need of
them throughout
the school.
We will continue
to teach the same
curriculum &
standards across
the grade level.
We will continue
to assess the same
curriculum &
standards across
the grade level.
We will continue
incorporating the
same data to drive
their instruction.
We will continue
to provide the
same opportunities
for technology and
various resources
throughout the
school.
We will continue
to incorporate the
various learning
styles to
accommodate the
varying needs of
students.
Math And
Reading Support,
daily
Intervention/Enric
hment time -30
minutes per child,
resource, speech &
lang., English as a
second Language,
Response to
Intervention,
Occupational
Therapy, Physical
Therapy are
available to all
students in need of
them throughout
the school.
We will continue
to offer Math And
Reading Support,
daily
Intervention/Enric
hment time -30
minutes per child,
resource, speech &
lang., English as a
second Language,
Response to
Intervention,
Occupational
Therapy, Physical
Therapy are
available to all
students in need of
Evidence of equitable
school support for this
practice
Next Step (changes or
continuations)
64 of 110
We will continue
to provide English
as a second
Language,
Educational
Assistants in
classrooms,
inclusion, and
speech & language
services are
available to all
students in need of
them throughout
the school.
them throughout
the school.
65 of 110
3.2.b: Instructional Gap Analysis
Instructional Gap Analysis - Narrative Response Required
“What is” The Current Use of: TIME,
(How are we currently allocating our time, money, personnel and other resources and building
capacity around understanding and implementing high quality instructional practices?)
• Our school has invested considerable time, in all departments, in staff
training to build capacity around understanding and implementing research-based
instructional strategies and to improve teaching for learning and character development.
The
district provides high-quality staff development for teachers and administrators on
proven effective instruction.
Central office and building-level administrators participated in staff development related
to
Professional Learning Communities and other instructional practices.
• In technology, training is provided primarily by a trainer who either arranges or
provides it. The School Technology Supervisor is required to provide 42 hours of training
per year.
• There is a 90-minute block set aside daily for balanced reading instruction.
• The intervention coaches are an integral part of the leadership team and are fully
involved in providing, securing, training and planning the schedule, materials, and
student interventions
• Staff has monthly collaborative meetings.
• Each grade level team has weekly collaborative meetings.
“What Ought to Be” – How Should we be Using Our: TIME
(How should we be allocating our time, money, personnel and other resources and building
capacity around understanding and implementing high quality instructional practices?)
There needs to be additional support given to facilitate teachers in order to provide
current research-based instructional practices.
66 of 110
Instructional MONEY Gap Analysis – Narrative Response Required
“What is” The Current Use of: MONEY
(How are we currently allocating our funds in providing assistance to schools and building
capacity
around understanding and implementing research-based instructional practices?)
• The system provides, through both state, local funding as well as federal funding
literacy coaches for all elementary schools. Their purpose is to provide teachers with
an appropriate model for reading instruction, coaching and staff development & student
instruction.
• A School Technology Supervisor is made available through combined funding sources
for all K-8 schools for supplemental instruction both for remediation and enrichment
based on individual student need.
• Monies are provided for training and implementation of DIBELS testing in grades K-1.
• Staff Development monies, both the state and Federal Title I funds are used to provide
teachers with knowledge and skills to improve instructional practices.
“What Ought to Be” – How Should we be Using Our: MONEY
We should continue using the monies to meet the needs of our school as we have been
doing by offering more in-service days to teachers, giving them additional tools to drive
their instruction.
Instructional PERSONNEL Gap Analysis – Narrative Response Required
“What is” The Current Use of: PERSONNEL
(How are we currently allocating personnel in providing assistance to schools and building
capacity
around understanding and implementing research-based instructional practices?)
• All administrators and supervisors, through the Framework for Evaluation and
Professional Growth, provide teachers with specific feedback regarding instructional
practices, offering suggestions and changes for professional growth.
• The system, through federal Title I funds, provides 2 literacy coaches and one full time
educational assistant to provide both group and individual staff development for teachers
to enhance instruction.
• We have seven general educational assistants that serve a minimum of 5.5 hours daily in
direct contact with students.
• Student teacher ratio K-1 is 1:20; Pre-K classes have a student teacher ratio of 1:20 with
a full time educational assistant. All certified staff participates in daily
intervention/enrichment time for all students.
67 of 110
“What Ought to Be” – How Should we be Using Our: PERSONNEL
Although already stretched to the limit, especially when considering the time necessary to
complete this plan, school personnel need to:
• Provide additional assistance to new teachers
• Provide more personal contact with all instructional staff on teaching techniques.
• Provide more training for parents.
• Spend more time in classrooms observing, reflecting and coaching teachers on
instructional practices.
Instructional OTHER RESOURCES Gap Analysis - Narrative Response Required
“What is” The Current Use of: OTHER RESOURCES
(How are we currently allocating other resources in providing assistance to schools and building
capacity
around understanding and implementing research-based instructional practices?)
• The Internet provides teachers with a vast array of resources and opportunities for
professional growth.
• Imagination Library provides books for children from birth, enabling parents as their
first
teachers to read to them, and then to encourage the habit of reading even before school
begins.
• Rutherford County Schools operate a “Teacher Resource Center” which provides
teachers
with many resources to improve the academic achievement of all students. The center
helps with the duplicating and laminating of resources, and creates classroom materials.
• Teachers who attend conferences are required to share new techniques with their
colleagues.
“What Ought to Be” – How Should we be Using Our: OTHER RESOURCES
Continue and expand the use of these resources, with a process for accountability
ensuring that
best instructional practices are in place for all students.
68 of 110
Equity and Adequacy:
Are we providing equity and adequacy to all of our teachers?
• Considerable efforts are made to provide equity in our school. All classes conform with
the required pupil/teacher ratio. All federally funded programs stay within the
requirements for staffing, training, materials, and programs.
• The Special Education Department supports equity across schools, and this department
plays a major role in providing adequacy for our children by identifying and supporting
the individual needs of our students.
• Instructional Technology is funded and used throughout the school
Are we targeting funds and resources effectively to meet the needs of all of
our teachers in being effective with all their students?
• An examination of funding reveals that, to date, much of the Title I funds have been
invested in the K-1 reading/language initiative. Data analysis and identified goals
justified (and continue to justify) this decision. Further examination reveals that this
investment appears to have been made primarily in personnel, for professional
development and coaches, as well as necessary instructional materials and staff
development.
• During this school year, we also applied for and received a Pre-K classroom funding for
a total of 2 Pre-K classrooms in addition to one Special Education Pre-K; this is another
way that we are meeting our youngest population’s needs.
Based on the data, are we accurately meeting the needs of all students in our
school?
Our Title I total allocation is $181,575.00. Of this money, $80, 851.00 is put towards
instructional materials, supplies, network programs, as well as professional development.
In addition to these funds, we receive $7.00 per student for instructional supplies each
year. Data from the 2006-2007 school year shows that we had less than a 2% retention
rate, with more than 98% of students being promoted. Further data shows that during the
2007-2008 school year, all kindergarten and first grade students scored an average of 82%
in kindergarten and an 87% in first grade on school developed formative assessments
given during the second 6 weeks. This data, along with the test scores show that our
instructional practices are effective and meet the needs of our students.
69 of 110
3.2.c: Instructional Summary Questions
Instructional Summary Questions- Narrative Response Required
What are our major strengths and how do we know?
• As observed by drop-in visits and informal evaluations, classroom instruction is aligned
with the standards-based curriculum.
• Teachers are teaching from state performance indicators therefore classroom
instruction
is aligned with the assessments, as state assessments are criterion driven.
• Teaching process is data-driven, as evidenced by TCAP, benchmark, and by DIBELS
test results.
• Students are provided with multiple opportunities to receive additional assistance to
improve their learning beyond the initial classroom instruction, as evidenced by the use
of MARS (Math And Reading Support), daily Intervention/Enrichment time, and
Professional Learning Communities.
Instructional Summary Questions- Narrative Response Required
How will we address our challenges?
We will continue to offer English as a Second Language, MARS (Math And Reading
Support), Intervention/Enrichment, Resource, Speech & Language, Occupational
Therapy, Physical Therapy and Response to Intervention to meet the needs of students
who are not performing on grade level. In addition to these practices, teachers are allowed
to attend various in-service opportunities to become better equipped to identify and meet
the needs of struggling students. The teachers who attend these conferences will then come
back & share these new techniques with their colleagues.
70 of 110
3.3.a: Assessment Practices
Rubric Indicators 3.5 and 3.6
Current
Assessment
Practices
Evidence of Practice
(State in
definitive/tangible
terms)
Is the current practice
research-based?
Uses student
assessments
that are
aligned with
the Tennessee
Department
of Education
Standards
based
curriculum
Ensures that the
appropriate
assessments are used to
guide decisions relative
to students
achievement
Uses a variety
of data points
for decision
making relative
to students
achievements
Assess all
categories of
students
DIBELS,
As a school we use the
data provided by
assessments,
DIBELS, Benchmark
We assess nine
AYP
subgroups:
1. All School
(meaning all
students)
DIBELS,
Benchmark
As a school we
use the data
provided by the
formative
assessments
previously
mentioned to
guide our daily
instruction and
tiering by
ability of all
students.
2. African
American
3. Asian/
Pacific Islander
4. Hispanic
5. Native
Americans
6. White
7. Economically
Disadvantaged
8. Students
with
Disabilities
9. Limited
English
Proficient
Unit
assessments,
Treasures
formative
assessments,
TCAP, Phelps
formative
assessment
Houghton
Mifflin
formative math
assessments,
Discovery
assessments.
Yes
www.dibels.org
, and
www.dibels.uor
egon.com ,
www.pas.discov
eryeducation.co
m
Yes
www.dibels.org
, and
www.dibels.uor
egon.com ,
www.pas.discov
eryeducation.co
m
Yes
www.dibels.org
, and
www.dibels.uor
egon.com ,
www.pas.discov
eryeducation.co
m
Unit
assessments,
Treasures
formative
assessments,
Phelps
formative
assessment
Houghton
Mifflin
formative
math
assessments,
Discovery
assessments.
Yes
www.dibels.or
g, and
www.dibels.u
oregon.com ,
www.pas.disc
overyeducatio
n.com
assessments,
Unit assessments,
Treasures formative
assessments,
Phelps formative
assessment, and
Houghton Mifflin
formative math
assessments to create
intervention plans to
guide our daily
instruction and tiering
by ability of all
students. Discovery
assessments.
Yes
www.dibels.org, and
www.dibels.uoregon.co
m,
www.pas.discoveryeduc
ation.com
71 of 110
Uses a wide
range of
assessments,
CRT, NRT,
Portfolios,
Curriculum
based
assessments,
etc.
Benchmark
assessments,
Provides
professional
development in
the appropriate
use of
assessment
Our faculty
attended
training in
DIBELS
provided by
our School wide
Coordinators.
We also meet
weekly and
monthly with
our grade-level
teams to
construct and
reflect on
common
assessments
that we have
developed
through the
Professional
Learning
Community
requirements.
Yes “Learning
By Doing”
Dufour,
Dufour, Eaker ,
and
Many.2006,
“Results Now”
by Mike
Schmoker 2006,
www.dibels.org
Provides
support and
technical
assistance to
teachers in
developing and
using
assessments
Our school
system offers
in-service
trainings that
focus on
developing and
utilizing
assessments.
We also have a
STS on site for
technical
support. Our
Principal along
with our
intervention
coaches assist
with
assessments.
Yes
www.dibels.org
, and
www.dibels.uor
egon.com ,
www.pas.discov
eryeducation.co
m
Provides
assessment
information to
communicate
with students
parents and
other
appropriate
stake holders
regarding
students
learning
Daily progress
is sent home as
well as midgrading period
progress
reports. Report
cards are sent
home every six
weeks. TCAP
results are
communicated
annually by the
state. The
results and
progress from
our DIBELS
assessments is
shared with our
Literacy Team.
Yes
www.dibels.org
, and
www.dibels.uor
egon.com ,
www.pas.discov
eryeducation.co
m
Is it a principle &
practice of highperforming schools?
Has the current
practice been effective
or ineffective?
What data source(s) do
you have that support
your answer? (Identify
all applicable sources)
Yes
On Common
Ground
DuFour/Eake
r
Professional
Learning
Communities
at Work
Dufour/Eaker
1998
Whatever It
Takes
DuFour/Eake
r/Karanek
Yes
On Common Ground
DuFour/Eaker
Professional Learning
Communities at Work
Dufour/Eaker 1998
Whatever It Takes
DuFour/Eaker/Karane
k
Yes
On Common
Ground
DuFour/Eaker
Professional
Learning
Communities at
Work
Dufour/Eaker
1998
Whatever It
Takes
DuFour/Eaker/
Karanek
Yes
On Common
Ground
DuFour/Eaker
Professional
Learning
Communities at
Work
Dufour/Eaker
1998
Whatever It
Takes
DuFour/Eaker/
Karanek
Yes
On Common
Ground
DuFour/Eaker
Professional
Learning
Communities at
Work
Dufour/Eaker
1998
Whatever It
Takes
DuFour/Eaker/
Karanek
Effective:
On Common
Ground
DuFour/Eake
r
Professional
Learning
Communities
at Work
Dufour/Eaker
1998
Whatever It
Takes
DuFour/Eake
r/Karanek
Effective:
On Common Ground
DuFour/Eaker
Professional Learning
Communities at Work
Dufour/Eaker 1998
Whatever It Takes
DuFour/Eaker/Karane
k
Effective:
On Common
Ground
DuFour/Eaker
Professional
Learning
Communities at
Work
Dufour/Eaker
1998
Whatever It
Takes
DuFour/Eaker/
Karanek
Effective:
On Common
Ground
DuFour/Eaker
Professional
Learning
Communities at
Work
Dufour/Eaker
1998
Whatever It
Takes
DuFour/Eaker/
Karanek
Effective:
On Common
Ground
DuFour/Eaker
Professional
Learning
Communities at
Work
Dufour/Eaker
1998
Whatever It
Takes
DuFour/Eaker/
Karanek
Treasures
Reading
Series
Diagnostic
Assessment
TCAP
Kindergarten
Exit
Assessment
Houghton
Mifflin
formative
Treasures Reading
Series Diagnostic
Assessment.
TCAP
Kindergarten Exit
Assessment
DIBELS, Discovery
assessments.
Treasures
Reading Series
Diagnostic
Assessment.
TCAP
Kindergarten
Exit
Assessment
DIBELS,
Discovery
assessments.
Treasures
Reading Series
Diagnostic
Assessment.
TCAP
Kindergarten
Exit
Assessment
DIBELS,
Discovery
assessments.
Treasures
Reading Series
Diagnostic
Assessment.
TCAP
Kindergarten
Exit
Assessment
DIBELS,
Discovery
assessments.
72 of 110
, and
www.dibels.uor
egon.com ,
www.pas.discov
eryeducation.co
m
Yes
“Learning By
Doing” by
Dufour,
Dufour, Eaker,
and Many.
Yes
On Common
Ground
DuFour/Eaker
Professional
Learning
Communities at
Work
Dufour/Eaker
1998
Whatever It
Takes
DuFour/Eaker/
Karanek
Yes
On Common
Ground
DuFour/Eaker
Professional
Learning
Communities at
Work
Dufour/Eaker
1998
Whatever It
Takes
DuFour/Eaker/
Karanek
Effective:
On Common
Ground
DuFour/Eaker
Professional
Learning
Communities at
Work
Dufour/Eaker
1998
Whatever It
Takes
DuFour/Eaker/
Karanek
Effective:
On Common
Ground
DuFour/Eaker
Professional
Learning
Communities at
Work
Dufour/Eaker
1998
Whatever It
Takes
DuFour/Eaker/
Karanek
Effective:
On Common
Ground
DuFour/Eaker
Professional
Learning
Communities at
Work
Dufour/Eaker
1998
Whatever It
Takes
DuFour/Eaker/
Karanek
We have
formative
assessment
scores that
show growth
within the
specified
content area
that our teams
chose to focus
on based on
previous TCAP
Treasures
Reading Series
Diagnostic
Assessment.
TCAP
Kindergarten
Exit
Assessment
DIBELS,
Discovery
assessments.
Treasures
Reading Series
Diagnostic
Assessment.
TCAP
Kindergarten
Exit
Assessment
DIBELS,
Discovery
assessments.
math
assessments
DIBELS,
Discovery
assessments.
Houghton
Mifflin
formative
math
assessments
showed a
9.33%
increase from
the pre
assessment
given in
august to the
midassessment
given in
January.
Evidence of
effectiveness or
ineffectiveness (State in
terms of quantifiable
improvement)
For our
TCAP score
the Median
National
Percentile
(MDNP) for
LaVergne
Primary’s
first grade
students is
44.9%. The
district
MDNP is
68.2%. Our
DIBELS
report shows
a 12%
decrease in
the deficit in
the phoneme
category, a
3% decrease
in the deficit
in the letter
sounds
category, a
14% decrease
in the deficit
in the initial
Houghton Mifflin
formative math
assessments showed a
9.33% increase from
the pre assessment
given in august to the
mid-assessment given
in January. Our
instruction in based
upon these findings.
For our TCAP score
the Median National
Percentile (MDNP) for
LaVergne Primary’s
first grade students is
44.9%. The district
MDNP is 68.2%. Our
DIBELS report shows
a 12% decrease in the
deficit in the phoneme
category, a 3%
decrease in the deficit
in the letter sounds
category, a 14%
decrease in the deficit
in the initial sounds
category, and a 6%
decrease in the deficit
in the letter names
category.
For the 08-09 school
year our Dibels report
showed that for our
Kindergarten students,
6% of students were
deficient in phoneme
segmentation. 34% of
students were at risk
in initial sounds and a
7% decrease in at risk
students in letter
naming fluency.
Houghton
Mifflin
formative math
assessments
showed a
9.33% increase
from the pre
assessment
given in august
to the midassessment
given in
January. Our
instruction in
based upon
these findings.
For our TCAP
score the
Median
National
Percentile
(MDNP) for
LaVergne
Primary’s first
grade students
is 44.9%. The
district MDNP
is 68.2%. Our
DIBELS report
shows a 12%
decrease in the
deficit in the
phoneme
category, a 3%
decrease in the
deficit in the
letter sounds
category, a
14% decrease
in the deficit in
the initial
sounds
category, and a
6% decrease in
the deficit in
73 of 110
The data from
our 2007 State
Report Card
shows that in
Math all
students scored
88% proficient
and advanced,
African
American
scored 84%,
Asian/Pacific
scored 97%,
Hispanic scored
87%, White
scored 91 %,
Economically
Disadvantaged
scored 84%,
Students with
Disabilities
scored 49%,
Limited
English
Proficient
scored 85%. In
Reading/Langu
age Plus
writing, all
students scored
88% Proficient
and Advanced,
African
American
scored 86%,
Asian/Pacific
Islander scored
93%, Hispanic
scored 81%,
White scored
92%,
Economically
Disadvantaged
scored 83%,
Students with
Houghton
Mifflin
formative math
assessments are
curriculum
based. The
DIBELS
assessment is a
CRT. The
Treasures
formative
Assessments
are Curriculum
based. The
Benchmark
and The Unit
assessments are
also curriculum
based.
The Houghton
Mifflin
formative Math
assessments are
curriculum
based. The
TCAP
assessment is a
NRT.
discovery
assessments
strengths and
weaknesses.
Dibels and
Discovery
assessments.
Our faculty
participates in
professional
development
occurring bimonthly with
our PLC’s, to
evaluate and
collaborate
regarding the
appropriate use
of the
previously
mentioned
assessments.
We also
provided a
Staff Retreat in
which we
provided
instruction and
support with
our MacMillan
Reading Series
Assessments.
Twenty
members of our
faculty
attended
DIBELS
training during
this school year
facilitated by
our School wide
Coordinators.
Twenty
members of our
faculty
attended
DIBELS
training during
this school year
facilitated by
our School wide
Coordinators.
Our STS has
trained 13
teachers in
Dreamweaver,
24 teachers in
the
MacMillian/
Treasures, and
17 teachers in
the use of
Music in the
Classroom
using their
innovative
IPOD
equipment.
All of the
following scores
are effectively
reported to the
students,
families, and
appropriate
stakeholders
regarding
student
learning. The
mid-six week’s
progress
reports were
sent home on
the following
dates:
9/12/07
10/31/07
12/05/07
02/06/08
03/19/08
The six week’s
report cards
were sent home
on the following
dates:
10/10/07
11/14/07
01/09/08
02/27/08
04/23/08
05/28/08
For the 08-09
school year, the
mid-six week’s
progress
reports were
sent home on
the following
dates:
9/4/08
10/28/08
12/16/08
sounds
category, and
a 6%
decrease in
the deficit in
the letter
names
category.
For the 08-09
school year
our Dibels
report showed
that for our
Kindergarten
students, 6%
of students
were deficient
in phoneme
segmentation.
34% of
students were
at risk in
initial sounds
and a 7%
decrease in at
risk students
in letter
naming
fluency.
For the 08-09
school year
our Dibels
report showed
that for our
first grade
students 15%
of students
were at risk in
Letter
Naming
fluency and a
6% increase
in deficient
students in
phoneme
segmentation
as well as a
5% decrease
For the 08-09 school
year our Dibels report
showed that for our
first grade students
15% of students were
at risk in Letter
Naming fluency and a
6% increase in
deficient students in
phoneme segmentation
as well as a 5%
decrease in at risk
students in nonsense
word fluency.
For the 08-09 school
year the Discovery
Assessment shows that
in Reading nonmastery students
decreased in
understanding by 6%,
interpreting by .61%,
extending by .03%,
comprehension by
12.67%, sentences by
8.7 %, editing by
9.91%.
In Math, non-mastery
students decreased in
computation /
estimation by 19.84%,
geometry by 4.6 %,
analyzing / strategies
by 11.08%, Patterns /
Algebra by 5.99%,
problems solving by
5.44 %.
the letter names
category.
For the 08-09
school year our
Dibels report
showed that for
our
Kindergarten
students, 6% of
students were
deficient in
phoneme
segmentation.
34% of
students were
at risk in initial
sounds and a
7% decrease in
at risk students
in letter naming
fluency.
For the 08-09
school year our
Dibels report
showed that for
our first grade
students 15%
of students
were at risk in
Letter Naming
fluency and a
6% increase in
deficient
students in
phoneme
segmentation as
well as a 5%
decrease in at
risk students in
nonsense word
fluency.
For the 08-09
school year the
Discovery
Assessment
shows that in
Reading non-
74 of 110
disabilities
scored 66%,
and Limited
English
Proficient
scored 75%.
1/29/09
3/26/09
5/8/09
The six week’s
report cards
were sent home
on the following
dates:
9/25/08
11/13/08
1/8/09
2/19/09
4/16/09
5/29/09
in at risk
students in
nonsense
word fluency.
mastery
students
decreased in
understanding
by 6%,
interpreting by
.61%,
extending by
.03%,
comprehension
by 12.67%,
sentences by 8.7
%, editing by
9.91%.
For the 08-09
school year
the Discovery
Assessment
shows that in
Reading nonmastery
students
decreased in
understandin
g by 6%,
interpreting
by .61%,
extending by
.03%,
comprehensio
n by 12.67%,
sentences by
8.7 %, editing
by 9.91%.
In Math, nonmastery
students
decreased in
computation /
estimation by
19.84%,
geometry by 4.6
%, analyzing /
strategies by
11.08%,
Patterns /
Algebra by
5.99%,
problems
solving by 5.44
%.
In Math, nonmastery
students
decreased in
computation /
estimation by
19.84%,
geometry by
4.6 %,
analyzing /
strategies by
11.08%,
Patterns /
Algebra by
5.99%,
problems
solving by
5.44 %.
Evidence of equitable
school support for this
practice
Both
Macmillan/M
cGraw-Hill
Treasures
Formative
Both
Macmillan/McGrawHill Treasures
Formative Assessments
and Dibels are
Both
Macmillan/Mc
Graw-Hill
Treasures
Formative
75 of 110
Both
Macmillan/Mc
Graw-Hill
Treasures
Formative
Both
Macmillan/Mc
Graw-Hill
Treasures
Assessment and
All teachers
meet weekly
and monthly
with our gradelevel teams to
Both
Macmillan/Mc
Graw-Hill
Treasures and
Dibels are
We send home
mid-grading
period progress
reports as well
report cards
Assessments
and Dibels
are available
and utilized
by all
teachers in
reading in
grades k-1.
TCAP is
available and
utilized for
reading and
math. Phelps
is conducted
for all
Kindergarten.
Houghton
Mifflin
formative
math
assessments
are also
conducted.
available and utilized
by all teachers in
reading in grades k-1.
TCAP is available and
utilized for reading and
math. Phelps is
conducted for all
Kindergarten.
Houghton Mifflin
formative math
assessments are also
conducted.
Discovery assessment
is conducted and
utilized by 1st grade.
Next Step (changes or
continuations)
TCAP is
available and
utilized for
reading and
math. Phelps
is conducted
for all
TCAP is
available and
utilized for
reading and
math. Phelps is
conducted for
all
Kindergarten.
Houghton
Mifflin
formative math
assessments are
also conducted.
Discovery
assessment is
conducted and
utilized by 1st
grade.
Discovery
assessment is
conducted
and utilized
by 1st grade.
Both
Macmillan/M
cGraw-Hill
Treasures
Formative
Assessments
and Dibels
are available
and utilized
by all
teachers in
reading in
grades k-1.
Assessments
and Dibels are
available and
utilized by all
teachers in
reading in
grades k-1.
Both
Macmillan/McGrawHill Treasures
Formative Assessments
and Dibels are
available and utilized
by all teachers in
reading in grades k-1.
TCAP is available and
utilized for reading and
math. Phelps is
conducted for all
Kindergarten.
Houghton Mifflin
formative math
assessments are also
conducted.
Discovery assessment
is conducted and
Both
Macmillan/Mc
Graw-Hill
Treasures
Formative
Assessments
and Dibels are
available and
utilized by all
teachers in
reading in
grades k-1.
TCAP is
available and
utilized for
reading and
math. Phelps is
conducted for
all
Kindergarten.
76 of 110
Assessments
and Dibels are
available and
utilized by all
teachers in
reading in
grades k-1for
diversified
learning and
assessing.
TCAP is
available and
utilized for
reading and
math. Phelps is
conducted for
all
Kindergarten.
Houghton
Mifflin
formative math
assessments are
also conducted.
Dibels are
available and
utilized by all
teachers in
reading in
grades k-1.
TCAP is
available and
utilized for
reading and
math.
construct and
reflect on
common
assessments
that we have
developed
through the
Professional
Learning
Community
requirements.
available and
utilized by all
teachers in
reading in
grades k-1.
TCAP is
available and
utilized for
reading and
math.
each six weeks.
TCAP results
are
communicated
annually by the
state.
Each of these
provides
extensive
teacher
instruction, as
well as in the
classroom
technology and
online support.
Discovery
assessment is
conducted and
utilized by 1st
grade.
Discovery
assessment is
conducted and
utilized by 1st
grade.
Both
Macmillan/Mc
Graw-Hill
Treasures
Formative
Assessments
and Dibels are
available and
utilized by all
teachers in
reading in
grades k-1for
diversified
learning and
assessing.
TCAP is
available and
utilized for
reading and
math. Phelps is
Both
Macmillan/Mc
Graw-Hill
Treasures
Assessment and
Dibels are
available and
utilized by all
teachers in
reading in
grades k-1.
TCAP is
available and
utilized for
reading and
math.
Discovery
assessment is
conducted and
All teachers
meet weekly
and monthly
with our gradelevel teams to
construct and
reflect on
common
assessments
that we have
developed
through the
Professional
Learning
Community
requirements.
Both
Macmillan/Mc
Graw-Hill
Treasures and
Dibels are
available and
utilized by all
teachers in
reading in
grades k-1.
TCAP is
available and
utilized for
reading and
math.
Each of these
provides
extensive
teacher
We send home
mid-grading
period progress
reports as well
report cards
each six weeks.
TCAP results
are
communicated
annually by the
state.
Kindergarten.
Houghton
Mifflin
formative
math
assessments
are also
conducted.
Discovery
assessment is
conducted
and utilized
by 1st grade.
utilized by 1st grade.
Houghton
Mifflin
formative math
assessments are
also conducted.
Discovery
assessment is
conducted and
utilized by 1st
grade.
77 of 110
conducted for
all
Kindergarten.
Houghton
Mifflin
formative math
assessments are
also conducted.
Discovery
assessment is
conducted and
utilized by 1st
grade.
utilized by 1st
grade.
instruction, as
well as in the
classroom
technology and
online support.
3.3.b: Assessment Gap Analysis
Assessment Gap Analysis – Narrative Response Required
“What is” The Current Use of: TIME, MONEY, PERSONNEL And OTHER
RESOURCES
(How are we currently allocating our time, money, personnel and other resources and building
capacity around understanding and implementing high quality assessment practices?)
 TIME
Time for collaborative team events was developed to allow teachers to meet once a
month at early release days to establish team norms and create formative assessments.
 MONEY
Money is provided through Title I to provide professional development in order to
improve assessment practices.
 PERSONNEL
All general education teachers with the assistance of the School wide Coordinators and
the principal work together to give assessments and analyze data. Educational
Assistants work with General Education Teachers to support quality assessment
practices by testing small groups and assisting teachers with gathering assessment
data.
 OTHER RESOURCES
Our current building capacity enables every teacher to have a classroom inside the
building, including support services and co-curricular. In addition, extra space has
been allocated for a school wide computer lab in which to administer our quality
assessments.
“What Ought to Be” – How Should we be Using Our: TIME, MONEY, PERSONNEL
And OTHER RESOURCES
(How should we be allocating our time, money, personnel and other resources and building
capacity around understanding and implementing high quality assessment practices?)
 TIME
Continue early release days to allow for adequate time to analyze data.
 MONEY
Continue to provide funding for the PLC days to analyze assessments.
 PERSONNEL
EA should continue to assist with small group testing when needed. The School wide
Coordinators should continue to provide support with DIBELS Testing and faculty
training on assessments.
 OTHER RESOURCES
Continue with the current use of building capacity. We feel that is the most effective and
practical use of our facility.
Equity and Adequacy:
Are we providing equity and adequacy to all of our teachers? Yes.
Are we targeting funds and resources effectively to meet the needs of all of our teachers in being effective
with all their students? Yes, however, sometimes our personnel are sometimes ineffectively distributed at
times.
Based on the data, are we accurately meeting the needs of all students in our school? No – because our ESL
students are not making adequate progress.
79 of 110
3.3.c: Assessment Summary Questions
(Rubric Indicator 3.6)
Assessment Summary Questions- Narrative Response Required
What are our major strengths and how do we know?
Our major strengths are revealed through 5 common assessments that both the Kindergarten and First
Grade implement throughout the year. For our Kindergarten team, the first common assessment revealed
94% tested proficient in colors and 93% in sorting. The third common assessment revealed 94% proficient
in graphing. The fourth common assessment showed 98 % proficient in measurement.
For our first grade team, the first common assessments revealed that 84 % of our students tested
proficient in Mastery of Letters and that 94 % of students tested proficient in both patterns and basic
addition facts (0-8). The second common assessment revealed that 94 % of students tested proficient in
Initial/final consonant and that 90 % of students tested proficient in addition facts. The third common
assessment revealed that 90 % of students tested proficient in digraphs and that 95% tested proficient in
graphing. The fourth common assessment revealed that 96% of our students tested proficient in both long
vowels and triple s blends and 88% of student s tested proficient in place value.
Assessment Summary Questions- Narrative Response Required
What are our major challenges and how do we know.
Our major challenges are revealed through 5 common assessments that both the Kindergarten and First
Grade implement throughout the year. For our Kindergarten team, the first common assessment revealed
51% tested proficient in counting to 25 and 61 % in drawing shapes. The third common assessment showed
50% testing proficient for counting to 50. The fourth common assessment showed 60 % testing proficient in
tying their shoe For our first grade team, the first common assessment revealed that 69% of the first graders
tested proficient in initial and final consonant sounds, and 73% of students tested proficient in before,
between, and after. The second common assessment revealed that 82% of students tested proficient in both
sight words and comprehension and that 86% of students tested proficient in subtraction. The third
common assessment revealed that 79% tested proficient in calendar and 75% tested proficient in
fiction/non-fiction. The fourth common assessment showed that 82% tested proficient in compare and
contrast and 74% tested proficient in time and calendar.
Assessment Summary Questions- Narrative Response Required
How will we address our challenges?
The skills that we identify as areas to strengthen become the focus of intervention plans that address any
weaknesses. Therefore, any unexpected challenges should be identified and resolved in a timely manner.
We address the data through the use of our 90-minute reading block, researched based reading instruction,
and RTI. The assessments will continue to be evaluated on a regular basis in order for our needs to continue
to be met with such success.
80 of 110
3.4.a: Organizational Practices
Rubric Indicators 3.7 and 3.8
School’s beliefs,
mission and shared
vision define the
purpose and direction
for the school
Current
Organizational
Practices
Organizational
processes increase
the opportunity
for success in
teaching and
learning at all
schools
Organizational
practices and
processes promote
the effective timeon-task for all
students.
School provides
School is
continuous
organized to be
professional
proactive in
development for
addressing issues
school leaders.
that might impede
School is
organized to
support a diverse
learning
community
through its
programs and
practices.
School is
organized to
engage the
parents and
community in
providing
extended learning
opportunities for
children.
Our school provides
the following
programs for children
in order to meet any
and all special needs:
Two Governor’s Preschools and one
Special Education Preschool, Occupational
therapy, Physical
therapy, Speech
classes, CDC,
Resource, ESL,
ATLAS, Individual
counseling, Daily
intervention and
Enrichment time, and
a Professional
Learning Community.
Our school provides
the following
programs to engage
parents and the
community in
extended learning
opportunities for
children: Parent
Power Hour, Adult
ESL classes, PTO,
YMCA fun company,
winter concert,
educational
assemblies, and author
visits. In addition to
the following
programs our school
sends out monthly
school calendars in
English and Spanish,
MARS newsletters in
English and Spanish,
and weekly teacher
newsletters. Our
school also provides a
parent lending library
teaching and
learning.
School’s beliefs,
mission and vision are
posted in the
handbook and
throughout the school
and are created with
the input of all
stakeholders.
Evidence of
Practice
Faculty and staff are
highly qualified.
However 44% of our
staff has four years or
less teaching
experience.
New professional hires
participate in effective
teacher training.
Grade levels share
common planning
times and participate
in team meetings after
school. All of the
faculty are active
participants in the
Professional Learning
Community that meets
on a regular basis.
Kindergarten through
First grade
participates in a 90
minute uninterrupted
reading block.
Kindergarten through
First also participate
in Intervention and
Enrichment activities
guided by highly
qualified teachers.
Response to
Intervention has been
established to identify
students who need
extra intervention.
Teachers are actively
participating in the
Professional Learning
Community. The
master schedule was
created to allow for 90
minute reading block,
Intervention/Enrichme
nt time, and common
planning time.
School administrators
and system level
supervisors participate
in professional
development activities
each summer prior to
school and meet
together monthly.
Teachers are required
to complete 12 hours
of in-service during
the school year. A
faculty retreat and inservice was planned
and attended. Faculty
meetings are held once
a month. Early
dismissal days are
allowed each month
for Professional
Learning Community
activities. Additional
professional
development is offered
after school on site.
Professional Learning
Communities have
been set up in each
school throughout the
county in order for
teachers to
communicate, share,
and learn from one
another thus creating a
more diverse and
creative learning
environment.
Innovations are
encouraged in an effort
to provide research
based educational
experiences.
and maintains an
updated school
website.
Is the current
practice researchbased?
Is it a principle &
practice of highperforming
schools?
Has the current
practice been
effective or
ineffective?
What data
source(s) do you
have that support
your answer?
(Identify all
applicable
sources)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Clearinghouse on
Educational Policy
and Management
http://eric.uoregon.edu
/publications/digests/di
gest091.html
No Child Left Behind
Reading First
Initiative
(http://www.ed.gov/pr
ograms/readingfirst/pe
rformance.html)
Learning By Doing- A
Handbook for
Professional Learning
Communities at WorkRichard DuFour,
Rebecca DuFour,
Robert, Eaker, and
Thomas Many
Learning By Doing- A
Handbook for
Professional Learning
Communities at WorkRichard DuFour,
Rebecca DuFour,
Robert, Eaker, and
Thomas Many
Department of
Education
Family Friendly
Schools- Joyce Epstein
Dr. Becky Thomason,
an Educational
consultant, conducted
training on the new
reading series.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Failure is Not an
Option: Six Principles
that Guide Student
Achievement –Alan M.
Blankstein
Failure is Not an
Option: Six Principles
that Guide Student
Achievement –Alan M.
Blankstein
Failure is Not an
Option: Six Principles
that Guide Student
Achievement –Alan M.
Blankstein
Effective
Title I, Compensatory
Education at the
Crossroads- Geoffrey
D. Borman, Sam
Stringfield, Samuel C.
Stringfield, Robert E.
Slavin
Effective
Title I, Compensatory
Education at the
Crossroads- Geoffrey
D. Borman, Sam
Stringfield, Samuel C.
Stringfield, Robert E.
Slavin
Effective
ELL test data,
DIBELS test data,
Special Ed. Test data,
Speech test data,
Physical Therapy,
assessment data.
Sign-in sheets are
obtained at each
parent involvement
activity.
Failure is Not an
Option: Six Principles
that Guide Student
Achievement –Alan M.
Blankstein
Learning By Doing- A
Handbook for
Professional Learning
Communities at WorkRichard DuFour,
Rebecca DuFour,
Robert, Eaker, and
Thomas Many
Success for All
Yes
Yes
Yes
Failure is Not an
Option: Six Principles
that Guide Student
Achievement –Alan
M. Blankstein
Learning By Doing- A
Handbook for
Professional Learning
Communities at WorkRichard DuFour,
Rebecca DuFour,
Robert, Eaker, and
Thomas Many
Title I, Compensatory
Education at the
Crossroads- Geoffrey
D. Borman, Sam
Stringfield, Samuel C.
Stringfield, Robert E.
Slavin
The Leadership and
Learning Center
(http://www.leadandle
arn.com/displayPage/2
26)
Effective
Effective
Effective
Effective
School improvement
plan has beliefs and
mission statements
tied to the system-wide
beliefs and mission
statement
Common Grade level
assessment data.
Common Grade level
assessments
School wide Needs
Assessment Data
DIBELS test data
During the 2007-2008
school year, LaVergne
Primary School
teachers attended the
following staff
development provided
by Title I funds:
What Works in
Schools- Robert J.
Marzano
82 of 110
School wide Needs
Assessment Data
All LaVergne Primary
School teachers are
actively involved in our
Professional Learning
Community.
Learning By Doing- A
Handbook for
Professional Learning
Communities at WorkRichard DuFour,
Rebecca DuFour,
Robert, Eaker, and
Thomas Many
According to
Component 2,
Parent/Teacher
surveys indicate a
100% approval of
school’s beliefs,
mission, and shared
vision.
Evidence of
effectiveness or
ineffectiveness
(State in terms of
quantifiable
improvement)
There is an increase in
scores on formative
and common
assessments.
Houghton Mifflin
formative math
assessments showed a
9.33% increase from
the pre assessment
given in august to the
mid-assessment given
in January.
Initial and final
sounds fluency on first
grade Teacher
Created Formative
Assessment showed a
25% increase after
being identified as a
weakness.
Professional Learning
Communities, 90minute reading block,
and intervention/
enrichment are pilot
programs for
LaVergne Primary
School. Collection of
data will be an
ongoing process and is
continually being
evaluated.
Although 25% of
Kindergarten was
found to be at risk at
the beginning of the
2007 school year for
DIBELS Initial Sound
Fluency, only 11%
were deficient in
January 2008 despite
an increase of the goal
expectation.
Brain Gym, Staff
Retreat, National Title
I Conference, DIBELS
Training, K and 1st
Grade Conferences,
and East Tennessee
Title I Conference.
Title I Spring
Planning results
indicate plans for Title
I funds to provide LPS
teachers with staff
development in the
areas of Math
Strategies, Grade
Specific Conferences,
Staff Retreat, and
Poverty Training
during the 2008-2009
school year.
All school leaders
participate in and
complete professional
development that
provides them with the
knowledge and skills
necessary for
educational
improvement.
Using the results from
the spring planning
meeting, Title I funds
will provide
professional
development
opportunities to our
staff in the following
areas: math
strategies, grade
specific conferences,
staff retreat, and
poverty training.
On letter sound
fluency of the DIBELS
assessment for
Kindergarten, there
was a decrease by 6%
83 of 110
Professional Learning
Communities are a
pilot program for
LaVergne Primary
School. Collection of
data will be an ongoing
process and is
continually being
evaluated.
According to 20072008 Teacher Surveys
for Spring Planning,
teachers at LaVergne
Primary showed
interest in the following
areas as a focus for
next school year (20082009): Additional
materials for the
reading series, staff
development, parental
involvement projects,
classroom instructional
materials, math
resources, and author
visits. LPS teachers
were most interested in
math, conferences, and
additional training for
Data is collected
through various
methods. In ESL, the
ELDA (English
Language
Development
Assessment) is used as
a Pre and Posttest.
DIBELS testing is
used to collect new
data and uses
benchmark testing and
a common pre, mid,
and post math
assessment. Special
Education uses the
Stanford Binet IQ
Test. Parent/Teacher
evaluations and rating
scales are used to
evaluate for ADHD.
Speech uses the TOLD
(Test of Language
Development),
Vocabulary test
(Receptive and
Expressive)
screenings, and
Braganske Language
Screening for
LaVergne Primary
School offers Parent
Trainings throughout
the year.
April 10, 2007-PreK-K
Transition-21 parents
attended.
April 22, 2007-K-1st
Transition-33 parents
attended.
Aug. 23, 2007Kindergarten Boo Hoo
Breakfast- 23 parents
attended.
Sept. 28, 2007-Family
Literacy Training- 26
parents attended.
Nov. 26, 2007Imagination Station
Training-27 parents
attended.
Dec. 20, 2007-Holiday
Power Hour/Winter
Concert-200 parents
of at risk students,
despite an increase of
the goal expectation.
On DIBELS phoneme
segmentation fluency
for First grade, there
was a 12% decrease in
deficient students from
Fall 2007 to January
2008.
On non-sense word
fluency of the DIBELS
assessment, 19% of
First graders were
identified as at risk in
Fall 2007, but only
16% were deficient in
January 2008.
At the beginning of
Kindergarten, fall
2008, 34% were found
to be at risk in the
area of initial sound
fluency.
In the fall of 2008,
34% of Kindergarten
was found to be at risk
in letter naming
fluency. By spring
2009, 27% were found
to be at risk.
Letter naming fluency
of the DIBELS
assessment for
Kindergarten 2008-09,
there was a decrease
by 7% of at risk
students.
Spring DIBELS, 2009
phoneme segmentation
fluency for
Kindergarten, 82%
were found to be
established, 12%
84 of 110
the Treasures reading
series in the area of
staff development.
Kindergarten and
First Grades. Physical
Therapy: VMI, TVPS,
Peabody motor
assessment, Jordan
Left/Right Reversal
test.
attended.
Feb. 22, 2008-Program
by author Michael
Shoulders-15 parents
attended.
March 18, 2008Family Game Night-56
parents attended.
emerging, and 6%
were deficient.
On non-sense word
fluency of the DIBELS
assessment, 68% of
Kindergarten were
found to be
established, 20% were
emerging, and 12% at
risk in spring 2009.
For first grade 200809 fall DIBELS 58%
were established, 28%
were emerging, &
15% were at risk for
letter naming fluency.
On DIBELS phoneme
segmentation fluency
for First grade, there
was a 6% decrease in
deficient students from
Fall 2008 to January
2009.
On non-sense word
fluency of the DIBELS
assessment, 12% of
First graders were
identified as at risk in
Fall 2008, but only 7%
were deficient in
January 2009.
Evidence of
equitable school
support for this
practice
LaVergne Primary is
SACS/CASI
accredited.
Highly qualified status
required of all
teachers. All
educational Assistants
have met highly
qualified status, and
all new hires must be
On oral reading
fluency of DIBELS,
52% were found to be
established, 30%
emerging, and 18% at
risk in spring 2009.
All highly qualified
staff is participating in
these activities.
Intervention time is
given to Tier level
students. Enrichment
time is given to Non-
All school leaders
participate in and
complete professional
development that
provides them with the
knowledge and skills
necessary for
85 of 110
Professional Learning
Communities are a
school wide practice at
LaVergne Primary
School.
Our highly qualified
staff provide the
following programs
and services to all
students who have
special needs: Two
Governor’s Pre-
The School wide
Coordinators obtain
parent sign-in sheets
for each activity.
Next Step
(changes or
continuations)
Continue to emphasize
and promote the vision
and mission of our
school and county.
highly qualified. The
county assigns a
mentor to work with
all non-tenured
teachers. Our
Professional Learning
Community supports
all teachers.
Tier level students.
The master schedule
supports a 90-minute
reading block for all
classes.
educational
improvement.
Continue to seek
highly qualified,
properly endorsed
teachers. Continue to
grow and strengthen
our Professional
Learning
Communities.
Continue 90 minute
reading block, I/E, and
Professional Learning
Communities.
Continue the
professional growth
process for all staff.
86 of 110
Continue Professional
Learning Communities.
schools service 40
children (many
students are turned
away due to limited
openings) and one
Special Education Preschool, Occupational
therapy, Physical
therapy, Speech
classes, CDC,
Resource, ESL,
ATLAS, Individual
counseling,
Intervention and
Enrichment time.
Continue current and
investigate other
programs and
practices that support
our diverse learning
community.
Continue to seek out
programs that will
encourage parents and
the community to be
active in our school.
3.4.b: Organizational Gap Analysis
Organizational Gap Analysis – Narrative Response Required
“What is” The Current Use of: TIME, MONEY, PERSONNEL And OTHER
RESOURCES
(How are we currently allocating our time, money, personnel and other resources and building
capacity around understanding and implementing high quality organizational practices?)




TIME
LaVergne Primary has invested a considerable amount of time developing our
Professional Learning Communities in order to create, implement, and analyze
goals and objectives set for our students in reading and math.
MONEY
Money is provided through federal, state, and local funding based on the number
of children in our school. The money is spent on instructional supplies, free and
reduced lunches, co curricular items, administrative expenses, teacher salaries,
educational assistance, extended contracts, supplies and materials, instructional
equipment, technology, parent involvement, staff development, and consultants.
A budget for Title I money is set forth in early Spring and is decided upon by
teachers, administrators, parents, and community members.
PERSONNEL
All personnel are working together through the Professional Learning Community
to establish, instill, and enforce the goals and objectives set forth by the curriculum
framework.
OTHER RESOURCES
As of this year every teacher and support staff member is in the building.
Additional space has been used to provide a computer lab for all students.
All classrooms are set up with Internet connections. LaVergne Primary along with
Rutherford County provides excellent internet resources for teachers, students,
and parents.
Specialty area teachers such as Title I, ESL, Special Education, and Co Curricular
provide essential support and resources for the classroom teacher, parents, and
community in order to reach diverse learners.
“What Ought to Be” – How Should we be Using Our: TIME, MONEY, PERSONNEL
And OTHER RESOURCES
(How should we be allocating our time, money, personnel and other resources and building
capacity around understanding and implementing high quality organizational practices?)



TIME
More time is needed to continue to develop and implement our newly established
Professional Learning Community. More time needs to be devoted to meeting with
support staff such as the School wide Coordinators, ESL, and Co Curricular in
order to integrate the curriculum and additional resources.
MONEY
More money needs to be allocated for professional development to increase our
understanding of all diverse learners such as ESL and Special Education. We need
to continue to focus our money on meeting the learning needs of all our students.
PERSONNEL
All of our personnel need to continue working together to further develop our
Professional Learning Community in an effort to meet the learning needs of our
students.
 OTHER RESOURCES
Resources such as classroom space, computer lab, internet resources, Specialty
area
teachers and Co Curricular teachers should continue being
utilized in the most effective possible way. We should investigate new resources that
might further help in meeting our students learning needs.
Equity and Adequacy:
Are we providing equity and adequacy to all of our teachers?
Yes.
Are we targeting funds and resources effectively to meet the needs of all of our teachers in
being effective with all their students?
Yes. We should, however, investigate other programs and resources that might help our
teachers and students.
Based on the data, are we accurately meeting the needs of all students in our school?
Yes. We have a wide array of programs and resources to help in meeting our student’s
needs.
Page 88 of 112
3.4.c: Organization Summary Questions
(Rubric Indicator 3.8)
Organization Summary Questions- Narrative Response Required
What are our major strengths and how do we know?
Our Professional Learning Community is a major strength at LaVergne Primary School. This PLC has
been instrumental in helping teachers communicate, share, and learn from one another to improve the
learning environment of our students.
Another strength is that LPS has organized many activities and programs in an effort to help our diverse
group of learners succeed. Through our Professional Learning Community and RTI, our group of highly
qualified professionals strives to meet each student’s individual needs. An example of this would be the
intervention time given to Tier level students and enrichment time given to non-Tier level students.
Organization Summary Questions- Narrative Response Required
What are our major challenges and how do we know. (These should be stated as organizational practice
challenges identified in the templates above that could be a cause of the prioritized needs identified in
component 1.)
A continuing challenge LPS faces is finding ways to engage the parents and community in providing
extended learning opportunities for our students. Although parent turnout at our programs has been
encouraging, a higher level of parental involvement in our student’s education would be preferred.
Finding the time and money needed to support the needs of our diverse group of learners is also very
challenging. Our Professional Learning Community has been very successful, but does require a great deal
of planning and time, which takes time away from the many responsibilities, duties, and paperwork already
required of teachers. In an effort to understand and meet the needs of our diverse learners such as ESL and
Special Education, more time and funds are needed for professional development in these areas.
Organization Summary Questions- Narrative Response Required
How will we address our challenges?
LaVergne Primary School will continue our Professional Learning Community, professional
development, and our many programs and activities that have helped our students be successful. We will
investigate other possibilities in an effort to get our parents and community involved in the education of our
students and to meet the needs of our ESL and Special Education students.
Page 89 of 112
Component 4
Action Plan - Revised
Page 90 of 112
Component 4 Action Plan Development
As a team, Component 4 studied the needs identified by Component 1 in the Prioritized List of Goal Targets. These Goal
Targets were identified after the Component 1 team analyzed data collected from a variety of sources. Working with their findings,
Component 4 collaborated to establish two critical goals which address identified needs and which also reflect Rutherford County’s
Five-Year Plan.
1. LaVergne Primary School will increase the number of students performing at or above their benchmark in their critical
Reading measure (Kindergarten-phoneme segmentation and First Grade-nonsense word fluency and oral reading fluency) and
on Writing Rubrics by 5% by May 2010.
2. LaVergne Primary School will increase academic achievement for all students in math by 5% using scores on Pre-Mid-Post
test by May 2010.
After formulating these goals, our team studied the findings of Component 3 in order to develop the Action Steps to support each goal.
Component 3’s analysis of instructional practices and organizational procedures provided us with the data needed to develop these
Action Steps and then we worked together to create an Implementation Plan that will focus on improving student learning at LaVergne
Primary School.
Component 4 Meeting Timeline
 December 3, 2007
 December 4, 2007
 January 14, 2008
 January 15, 2008
 February 15, 2008
 February 26, 2008
 March 6, 2008
 October 1, 2008
Page 91 of 112
Component 4 Revisions


August 6, 2009
September 16, 2009
GOAL 1 – Action Plan Development
Template 4.1 – (Rubric Indicator 4.1)
Revised DATE: October 1,
2008__________________________
Section A –Describe your goal and identify which need(s) it addresses. (Remember that your previous components identified the strengths and challenges/needs.)
Goal
Which need(s) does this Goal
address?
How is this Goal linked to the
system’s Five-Year Plan?
ACTION STEPS – Template
4.2 – (Rubric Indicator 4.2)
Section B – Descriptively list the action
you plan to take to ensure you will be
able to progress toward your goal.
Action steps are strategies and
interventions which should be
scientifically based where possible and
include professional development,
technology, communication, and parent
and community involvement initiatives
within the action steps of each goal.
LaVergne Primary School will increase the number of students performing at or above their benchmark
in their critical Reading Measure (Kindergarten-phoneme segmentation) and (First Grade-nonsense work
fluency, oral reading fluency) and on Writing Rubrics by 5% by May 2010.
LaVergne Primary School will increase academic achievement in reading/language arts for all children.
To increase the number of K-8 ESL students who score proficient or advanced in reading/language arts
by 8%
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN – Template 4.3 – (Rubric Indicator 4.3)
Section C – For each of the Action Steps you list, give timeline, person(s) responsible, projected cost(s)/required resources, funding sources,
evaluation strategy and performance results/outcomes. (For Evaluation Strategy, define how you will evaluate the action step.)
Timeline
Person(s)
Responsible
Page 92 of 112
Required Resources
Projected Cost(s) &
Funding Sources
Evaluation Strategy
Performance
Results /
Outcomes
Action
Step
All Kindergarten and First
Grade will use daily the
Treasure reading series
for 90 uninterrupted
minutes a day.
Action
Step
First grade students will
work on vocabulary
usage daily in the
classroom and give
vocabulary homework for
review and parental
involvement at home.
Action
Step
All Kindergarten and First
Grade classes will use
daily the Response to
Intervention program for
all students.
August 2008May 2010
August 2008May 2010
August 2008May 2010
Action
Step
DiBELS refresher training
with Intervention coaches
August 2008
Action
Step
Review Professional
Learning Communities
(PLC’s) Essential
Learnings for Reading
August 2008
and August
2009
Principal
Angela
ThomasMaupin and
Intervention
Coach
Shelia
Martin
Team
LeadersMichele
Hutti and
Miranda
Lewis
Intervention
CoachesShelia Matin
and Jennifer
Grace
Intervention
Coaches
Shelia
Martin and
Jennifer
Grace
Team
Leaders
Jennifer
Pirtle and
Miranda
Page 93 of 112
Teacher created
common
assessments that are
analyzed for strengths
and weaknesses.
Reading Unit tests,
Formative Reading
Assessment,
benchmark testing,
dibels testing, and
daily teacher
observation.
Weekly Vocabulary
tests, Reading Unit
tests, Formative
Reading
Assessments,
benchmark testing,
and daily teacher
observation.
Teacher created
common Reading
assessments that are
analyzed for strengths
and weaknesses.
Reading Unit tests,
Benchmark testing,
dibels testing, and
daily teacher
observation.
Macmillan McGraw-Hill
“Treasures Reading Series”
Rutherford County
Board of
Education/$2074.98
per Teacher and
First Grade $125.34
per student
Macmillan McGraw-Hill
“Treasures Reading Series”,
Copies of Vocabulary
Homework and Vocabulary
Lists
Rutherford County
Board of
Education/$2074.98
per teacher and
$125.34 per student
Teacher Classroom
Accounts/.02 cents
per copy
Macmillan McGraw-Hill
“Treasures Reading Series”
and “Treasures Reading for
Intervention, Tier
Documentation Sheets
Rutherford County
Board of
Education/$2074.98
per teacher and
First Grade $125.34
per student/.02
cents per copy
DIBELS materials
Rutherford County
Board of Education/
.02 cents per
Handout copy
DIBELS will be used
to benchmark
students and to track
students progression
in reading
Free Online Access
Essential Learnings
will be used in
mapping and guiding
the planning and
assessments during
Curriculum standards
Lewis
Action
Step
Action
Steps
Action
Step
Action
Step
Review Professional
Learning Communities
(PLC’s) SMART goals for
Reading
Parent Power Hours:
1. United Way’s
Success by
Six/Family
Literacy
2. Read to
Succeed/Imagin
ation Station
3. Holiday Power
Hour/Music
Program
4. Author
Visit/Michael
Shoulders
Review training on New
Reading Series
Daily Intervention and
Enrichment Period
school year and will
be revised yearly to
reflect changes in the
curriculum.
SMART goals will be
used to help reinforce
specific skills that
have been targeted
as weakness by
classroom teachers
and will be revised
based on Reading
Assessment data.
August 2008
and August
2009
Team
Leaders
Tammy
Houck and
Michele
Hutti
Curriculum standards
August 2008May 2010
Instructional
Leader
Jennifer
Grace and
Music
Teacher
Elaina Hall
Speakers, Authors, Parent
Trainers, Refreshments,
Door prizes, and hand outs
Title 1 Funds/$1875
Macmillian McGraw-Hill
“Treasures Reading Series”,
Handouts
Rutherford County
Schools/.02 cents
per copy
Teacher Feedback,
Teacher Survey, and
Title I Needs
Assessment
Macmillian McGraw-Hill
“Treasures Reading Series”,
all researched based
materials available, and Title
I Materials available for
checkout
Rutherford County
Board of
Education$2074.98
per teacher and
First-$125.34 per
student Title 1
funds-Teacher
Dibels Progress
Monitoring and
Formative
Assessment Data
August 6, 2008
August 2008May 2010
Intervention
Coaches
Jennifer
Grace and
Shelia
Martin
Principal
Angela
ThomasMaupin and
Related Arts
Team
Leader Bill
Page 94 of 112
Free Online Access
Parent Participation,
Parent Feedback,
and Title I Needs
Assessment
Atkisson
TSIPP
Chairperson
Macmillian McGraw-Hill
“Treasures Reading Series”,
Curriculum standards
Reading Series
already provided
and Curriculum
Standards provided
free online
Rutherford County
Board of Education/
.02 cents per
handout copy
Action
Step
Review Professional
Learning Communities
(PLC’s) curriculum maps
for Reading
Action
Step
Kindergarten DIBELS
refresher Training
September 17,
2008
Team
Leader
Jennifer
Pirtle
DIBELS materials, Handouts,
and Literacy Coaches
Jennifer Grace and Lisa
Vickrey
Action
Step
Kindergarten will biweekly use hands on
spelling games in the
classroom and will give
spelling homework for
extra review and parental
involvement at home.
September
2008-May 2010
Kindergarten
Teacher
Cindy
Shively
Spelling Games, letter tiles,
letter stamps, Zaner-Bloser
Spelling Text
Profressional Learning
Communities (PLC’s)
Analysis of formative
assessments and
creation of intervention
plans
September
2008-May 2010
and October 15
2008/November
13
2008/December
10
2008/February
26 2009
Action
Step
Action
Steps
Reading Technology
used: Lexia, Buggles &
Beezy, BrainpopJr.
September
2008 and
September
2009
Check-out/$1800
August 2008
thru May 2010
Principal
Angela
ThomasMaupin
School
Technology
Specialist
Page 95 of 112
Title1funds/ $1800
Student completed teacher
created formative
assessment and
collaboration time provided
by stockpiled days
Rutherford County
Board of
Education/.02 cents
per copy
Computers, Buggles and
Beezy Software, Lexia
Software , Brainpop Jr.
subscription
Rutherford County
Board of
Education/Included
in price of text
adoption, Title 1
funds/$4500
Maps will be reviewed
each Spring and
revised to allow for
changes in State
Curriculum Standards
DIBELS will be used
to benchmark
students and to track
students progression
in reading
Teacher created
common
assessments that are
analyzed for strengths
and weaknesses.
Reading Unit tests,
Formative Reading
Assessment,
benchmark testing,
and daily teacher
observation
The percentages of
mastery of skills are
analyzed and
intervention plans
created to reteach
skills. These will be
reevaluated and
revised yearly.
Formative Reading
Assessments,
DIBELS, and
Progress Monitoring
Action
Step
Revise Profressional
Learning Communitites
(PLC’s) Curriculum maps
Spring 2008
and Spring
2009
Action
Steps
Revise Professional
Learning Communities
(PLC’s) Essential
Learnings and SMART
Goals for Reading for
Fall 2008
Spring 2008
and Spring
2009
Action
Step
First Grade PAS test
implementation and
Intervention Plans
Jan.
2009/March
2009 and
January
2010/March
2010
Action
Step
Create Writing Rubrics
for PK-1
Action
Step
Writing Strategies Inservice
Action
Step
Monthly School-wide
Writing Prompts/One
Class Response Read
Daily on Announcements
Jan. 2009-May
2010
Action
Step
Individual Monthly
Writing Prompt Analysis
in PLC meetings
Feb. 2009-May
2010
Oct./Nov 2008
December 1,
2008
Team
Leaders
Tammy
Houck and
Michele
Hutti and
TSIPP
Chairperson
Team
Leader
Jennifer
Pirtle and
Miranda
Lewis
Principal
Angela
ThomasMaupin
Team
Leader
Miranda
Lewis
First Grade
Teacher
Heidi Baker
Team
Leaders
Tammy
Houck, and
Michele
Hutti
Team
Leaders
Jennifer
Page 96 of 112
2008-2009 School Calendar.
Treasures Reading Series.
Revised Curriculum
standards
Provided Online
Free of Charge
These will be
reviewed every
Spring for needed
revisions.
2008-2009 School Calendar.
Treasures Reading Series.
Revised Curriculum
standards
Provided Online
Free of Charge
These will be
reviewed every
Spring for needed
revisions.
PAS test materials and
completed, graded, tests.
Rutherford County
Board of
Education/$9 per
student
PAS tests will give the
grading of each
student on first grade
skills. This will be
used a way to
determine mastery of
skills or if there is a
need for reteaching.
Sample rubrics
Previously provided
at training
These will be
reviewed annually
Handouts/rubrics
School Instructional
Funds/.02 per copy
Teacher feedback
prompts
Already provided in
LA series
Teacher/Administrator
Feedback/Rubric
Score
Individual writing samples
Student work
PLC team review and
discussion
Action
Step
Implement Common
Writing Assessment each
6 weeks
Action
Step
95% Group Training
Beginning Feb.
13, 2009-May
30 2010
October 09
November 09
February 10
Pirtle and
Miranda
Lewis
Kindergarten
Teacher
Cindy
Shively
Instructional
Leaders
Jennifer
Grace and
Shelia
Martin
Page 97 of 112
Writing
Assessments/rubric/feedback
sheets
School Instructional
Funds/.02 per copy
Rubrics/Scorer
feedback
Trainers
Provided by County
Funds
Progress Monitoring
Date
GOAL 2 – Action Plan Development
Template 4.1 – (Rubric Indicator 4.1)
Revised DATE: October c1,
2008__________________________
Section A –Describe your goal and identify which need(s) it addresses. (Remember that your previous components identified the strengths and challenges/needs.)
LaVergne Primary School will increase academic achievement for all students in math by 5%
using scores on Kindergarten Post Test and the PASS test by May 2010.
LaVergne Primary School will increase academic achievement in math for all children,
Which need(s) does this Goal
address? specifically with math computation and counting skills.
Goal
How is this Goal linked to the
system’s Five-Year Plan?
ACTION STEPS – Template 4.2 –
(Rubric Indicator 4.2)
Section B – Descriptively list the action you
plan to take to ensure you will be able to
progress toward your goal. Action steps are
strategies and interventions which should be
scientifically based where possible and
include professional development,
technology, communication, and parent and
community involvement initiatives within the
action steps of each goal.
Action
Step
First Grade students will have
individual tutoring, daily
exposure to flash-cards and
math computation skills. Also
the task of ability grouping will
be utilized.
To increase the number of K-8 ESL students who score proficient or advanced in math by 4%.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN – Template 4.3 – (Rubric Indicator 4.3)
Section C – For each of the Action Steps you list, give timeline, person(s) responsible, projected cost(s)/required resources, funding
sources, evaluation strategy and performance results/outcomes. (For Evaluation Strategy, define how you will evaluate the action
step.)
Timeline
August 2009May 2010
Page 98 of 112
Person(s)
Responsible
Lead Educational
Assistant Becky
Mitchell
Required
Resources
Flash cards,
Houghton Mifflin
Math Text
Projected Cost(s)
& Funding Sources
Evaluation Strategy
Classroom
Money$8.00 per
Teacher
Teacher created
common
assessments,
formative math
assessments, PAS
Test, teacher
observation, and
math text
chapter/unit
assessments.
Performance
Results /
Outcomes
Action
Step
Action
Step
Kindergarten students will
have daily exposure to coins
and their values and counting
to 100 during Calendar Time.
Parental support will be
encouraged at home through
homework and weekly
communication through
newsletters.
Each class will utilize money
games
September
2009-May
2010
Team Leaders
Tammy Houck and
Jennifer Pirtle
September
2009-May
2010
Instructional
Leader Jennifer
Grace
Coin
manipulatives,
counting to 100
chart, and
calendar
materials
Title1funds/$120
per Teacher
Money games
Title1funds/$200
Action
Step
Review Professional Learning
Communities (PLC’s)
Essential Learnings for Math.
August 2009
and August
2010
Team Leaders
Jennifer Pirtle and
Miranda Lewis
State Curriculum
Standards for
Math
Provided Free Online
Action
Step
Review Professional Learning
Communities (PLC’s) SMART
goals for Math.
August 2009
and August
2010
Team Leaders
Tammy Houck,
Michele Hutti and
TSIPP Chairperson
Assessment
Data
Data is already
available
Action
Step
Review the Professional
Learning Communities (PLC’s)
Math curriculum map.
August 2009
and August
2010
TSIPP Chairperson
Houghton Mifflin
Math Series
Materials Already
Provided
Action
Step
Classroom teachers will
identify students at risk in
math to participate in Math
Intervention Groups daily.
August 2009May 2010.
Instructional
LeaderJennifer
Grace
Assessment
Results
Already Available
Page 99 of 112
Teacher created
common
assessments,
formative math
assessments, daily
teacher observation,
and math text
chapter/unit
assessments.
Teacher created
common
assessments,
formative math
assessments, daily
teacher observation,
and math text
chapter/unit
assessments.
Essential Learnings
will be evaluated
each Spring and
revisions made as
needed.
All summative
assessment data
will be reviewed to
determine new
SMART goals for
upcoming year.
Maps will be
reviewed each
Spring and revised
to allow for changes
in State Curriculum
Standards.
Math Assessment
Data will be
reviewed on an
ongoing basis to
determine amount of
student progress.
Action
Step
Classroom teachers will create
Math Intervention Plans.
Fall 2009Spring 2010
Principal Angela
Thomas-Maupin
Spring 2008
Roy Waldron
School
Instructional
Leader
Action
Step
Number Worlds Training
Action
Step
Revise Professional Learning
Communities (PLC’s) math
curriculum map to address
new math standards.
Spring 2009
and Spring
2010
Action
Step
Revise Professional Learning
Communities (PLC’s)
essential learnings and
SMART goals.
Action
Step
Classroom teachers will use
the PAS Test results to
develop intervention plans for
math.
Action
Step
Action
Step
Action
Step
Classroom teachers will
address math needs by using
math technology :Brainpop Jr.
Classroom teachers and
Instruc tional Leaders will
encourage parent involvement
by offering a Parent Power
Hour to address math needs
for their children:
1. Family Game Night
Training on Use of Interwrite
Pad and software
Test Data,
Collaboration
Time
Trainer
Both Time and
Data are already
provided
Math Assessment
Data will be
reviewed to
determine amount of
student progress.
Title I/Free with
purchase of
Number Worlds
Kits already
provided
Teacher Feedback
Curriculum Maps
will be reviewed
each Spring and
Revised to reflect
any changes in the
curriculum.
These will be
reviewed every
Spring for needed
revisions.
TSIPP Chairperson
Houghton Mifflin
Math Text and
new State
Curriculum
Standards
Resources already
available
Spring 2009
and Spring
2010
Principal Angela
Thomas-Maupin
New state
Curriculum
Standards for
Math
Provided On-Line
free of charge
January
2009/March
2009 and
January
2010/March
2010
Test Coordinator
Jenny Grace and
School Technology
Specialist
PAS Test
Rutherford County
Board of
Education/$9 per
student
Roughly $1800
Analysis of PAS
Test results
Fall 2009Spring 2010
School Technology
Specialist
Brainpop Jr.
Subscription
? (get from
Angela/Sheri)
Technology Survey
May 2009May 2010
Instructional
Leader Jenny
Grace
Math Games,
Hot Dogs, Buns,
Chips, Drinks
Title 1
Funds/$1100
Parent Participation
and Parent
Feedback
Fall/Spring
2009-2010
STS
lab
Already available
Technology Survey
Page 100 of 112
Action
Step
Installation and
Implementation of Interwrite
Software
Action
Step
Action
Step
Fall/Spring
2009-2010
STS
software
Already available
Monitoring by STS
and Administrator
Implementation of 1 hour
uninterrupted Math Block
August 2009
Angela ThomasMaupin/Principal
Master schedule
None needed
Walk through
observations
conducted by
Principal
Math Retreat Muggins Math
Materials Training
November 56, 2009
Instructional
Leaders Jennifer
Grace and Shelia
Martin
Muggins
Materials
$6,000 Title I
Funds
Math Post Test
2009-2010
Instructional
Leaders Jennifer
Grace and Shelia
Martin
Math
Manipulatives,
computers,
Promethean
Board
$20,000 Title I
Stimulus Funds
Math Post
Assessments
Spring 2009
Instructional
Leader Jenny
Grace
Trainer and
Handouts
Offered with no
charge from
Company
Teacher Survey
Action
Step
Implementation of Math Lab
Action
Step
Classroom teachers will attend
Singapore training.
Page 101 of 112
Component 5: The School Improvement Plan and Process Evaluation
Subcommittee for COMPONENT
Member Name
5 The School Improvement Plan and Process Evaluation
Position
Kindergarten Readiness Teacher
Chair
Y
Miranda Brown
Preschool Teacher
Lindsay Looper
Kindergarten Teacher
Sonya Ray
Music Teacher
Elaina Hall
Educational Assistant
Pam Minton
Educational Assistant
Licia Burkett
Parent
Quin Meadows
Community Representative
Kristi Knierim
Component 5 Subcommittee has met to address critical
components of the SIP and minutes are on file.
Page 102 of 112
x
YES
NO
Subcommittee 5 Chair Signature
Component 5—Meeting Dates
December 3, 2007
December 4, 2007
January 14, 2008
January 15, 2008
February 15, 2008
February 26, 2008
September 16, 2009
Page 103 of 112
Component 5 – The School Improvement Plan and Process Evaluation
5.1: Process Evaluation
(Rubric Indicator 5.1)
Evidence of Collaborative Process – Narrative response required
What evidence do we have that shows that a collaborative process was used throughout the entire planning
process?
Every component team consisted of teachers, parents, community members and non-certified staff. The
leadership team throughout the planning process scheduled mandatory meetings for each component. Each
member of the team was made aware of meeting times and was given notes of each meeting. Throughout the
process all stakeholders were encouraged to participate in surveys, meetings and discussions. Meetings were
scheduled in a way to accommodate as many stakeholders as possible. Component teams shared information
for the development of each component. Stakeholders were notified of information they may have missed if
absent at a meeting and they were asked for additional suggestions, comments or input. Assigned dates were
given to each component chair to check in with the leadership team on progress made to that point. Sign-in
sheets and meeting notes are on file.
Evidence of Alignment of Data and Goals – Narrative response required
What evidence do we have that proves alignment between our data and our goals?
A finished copy of Component 1 was given to the Component 4 team to use in developing the goals in our SIP.
Component 4 used the data collected and analyzed the Prioritized List of Goal Targets in Component 1 to
identify and shape the goals stated in our action plan. The goals established by Component 4 were developed
in response to the needs identified by the data in Component 1. The data collected in Component 1 showed
that 79% of Kindergarteners and 72% of 1 st graders tested on the Approaching Level on the Treasures’
placement test. DIBELS data shows that the percentage of Kindergarten students in the at risk group for
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency was at 27% in the Spring of 2008 and 6% in Spring 2009. DIBELS data
shows that the percentage of 1st grade students in the group with at risk scores went from 18% to 32% of
students at a deficit in letter sound skills. Also, DIBELS data from 2007-08 shows that 1st graders were not
meeting the Spring goal of 50 sounds per minute. 2008-2009 data shows that in the Spring only 59% of
students were Low Risk/Established in Nonsense Word Fluency and 52% were Low Risk/Established in Oral
Reading Fluency. This data led Component 4 to develop our goal “to increase the number of students
performing at or above their benchmark in their critical Reading Measure (Kindergarten-phoneme
segmentation) and (First Grade-nonsense word fluency, oral reading fluency) by 5%.”
Page 104 of 112
Evidence of Alignment of Data and Goals – Narrative response required
The lowest percentage of mastery for Kindergarteners in math on the School Developed Formative came
from counting. On assessment #1, only 51% of students mastered counting to 25, and data from assessment
#2 showed that only 35% of students were able to count to 50 and on the formative assessment (#3) only 59%
were able to count to 50. Data from the Tennessee Department of Education Report Card indicates the
scores for students in 1st grade with disabilities in math were 49% proficient or advanced and students with
limited English proficiency were 75% proficient or advanced. The data from the First Grade Math
Readiness test indicates that there was only an average gain of 9% from fall to spring, meaning that students
did not meet adequate yearly progress in math. LaVergne Primary’s K-2 NRT Class Summary Report
(TCAP/Terra Nova) indicates that scores from the first graders TCAP test fall below the district as a whole.
Specific areas in need of improvement include Math Computation (34.3%), Mathematics (35.0) and Science
(35.2). This data led Component 4 to develop our goal “to increase academic achievement for all students in
math by 5% using scores on Kindergarten Exit Test and the PASS test by May 2009.” After Component 4
used the data provided by Component 1 to develop our goals, the information was given to the chairperson of
our TSIPP and our principal. Our principal and TSIPP chairperson reviewed both components to make sure
the data and goals were aligned.
Evidence of Communication with All Stakeholders – Narrative response required
What evidence do we have of our communication of the TSIPP to all stakeholders?
Information was shared throughout the TSIPP to all stakeholders through our component meetings and
meeting notes are on file. There was a large variety of stakeholders represented on each component team, so
at each component meeting stakeholders were given new information and asked for input. Letters were sent
home to parents and other stakeholders from Component 2 asking for input on the beliefs, shared vision and
mission of our school. After Component 2 was finished developing the beliefs, shared vision and mission,
another note was sent to parents and other stakeholders to see and approve the final product. In order to
continue on-going communication the TSIPP will be shared at the Spring 2008 parent meetings and in the
May 2008 school-wide calendar/newsletter.
Evidence of Alignment of Beliefs, Shared Vision, and Mission with Goals – Narrative
response required
Page 105 of 112
Evidence of Alignment of Beliefs, Shared Vision, and Mission with Goals – Narrative
response required
What evidence do we have that shows our beliefs, shared vision and mission in Component 2 align with our
goals in Component 4?
Component 4 was created with our mission to help all students achieve in basic academic areas in mind. The
action plans reflect the core academic areas of Reading and Math. The action plan steps also encourage all
students to be successful while focusing on a variety of enrichment and intervention opportunities.
Evidence of Alignment of Action Steps with Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and
Organization – Narrative response required
What evidence do we have that shows our action steps in Component 4 align with our analyses of the areas of
curriculum, instruction, assessment and organization in Component 3?
A completed copy of component 3 was given to the members of component 4. The Curricular, Instructional,
Assessment and Organizational practices that were found to be most effective were used when creating the
action steps. The purpose for this is to make sure we are using the most highly effective resources we have to
make sure the goals we have set will be achieved. Each step of Component 4 will be evaluated. Evaluation
measures are also in place for curricular, instructional, assessment and organizational practices and will be
throughout the implementation process. Teachers met and discussed current action steps in relation to our
students needs. Action steps were revised, deleted and added as needed. Our principal and SIP chairperson
reviewed each component in order to check for alignment between the two components.
Page 106 of 112
Suggestions for the Process – Narrative response required
What suggestions do we have for improving our planning process?
One suggestion for improving the planning process in our school would be to have flexible planning times set
up individually by each component. Many mandatory meetings were scheduled by the School Leadership
Team for each component before Components 1 and 2 were complete. This made it difficult for Components
3, 4 and 5 to accomplish their goals at these meetings. The mandatory meetings scheduled for each
component were very valuable to the SIP process, but would have been more productive if they were
scheduled in more staggered phases. Another suggestion would be to have more scheduled meetings between
the SLT in order to keep each component updated on the progress of each component.
5.2: Implementation Evaluation
(Rubric Indicator 5.2)
Evidence of Implementation – Narrative response required
What is our plan to begin implementation of the action steps?
The TSIPP plan will be reviewed with all teachers in August 2008. The faculty and staff will review all the
action steps that they will be implementing throughout the 2008-2010 school year. Several of the action steps
will be implemented at the end of this school year to help relieve some of the stress at the beginning of a new
school year. Some of the actions that will be implemented this year will be revising Essential Learnings,
revising SMART goals and curriculum mapping in Kindergarten and First grade math and reading. These
revisions will be made during grade level meetings in Spring 2008 and 2009. There will be several in-services
held to help implementation of the action steps in Fall 2008. These in-services will include technology and a
collaborative retreat with Roy Waldron. There will be a Touch Math in-service held in Spring 2009.
Evidence of the Use of Data – Narrative response required
What is the plan for the use of data?
Sources of formative data include:
-DIBELS: (Beginning, Middle, End of year and students scoring in the intensive or strategic areas are
progress monitored weekly) DIBELS testing will be used to monitor students’ progress in the 5 key areas of
reading based on the National Panel of Reading. DIBELS will be used to benchmark students and to track
students’ progression in reading.
-Benchmark tests: (Test A is given at the beginning and end of year and test B is given in December)
-Reading Unit Tests: (given at the end of each of the 10 Reading Units) Unit tests will be reviewed after each
Page 107 of 112
unit and used to aid in re-teaching and intervention groups.
-Formative Reading Assessments: will be reviewed on an ongoing basis to determine amount of student
progress.
-Formative Math Assessments: will be reviewed on an ongoing basis to determine amount of student
progress.
-Math Text Chapter/Unit Tests: (given throughout the year at the end of each Math Unit) Unit tests will be
reviewed after each unit and used to aid in re-teaching and intervention groups.
-Vocabulary Tests: (Given weekly in 1st grade)
-Teacher Created Common Assessments: (Given every 6 weeks) The data from these formative assessments
will be analyzed on a grade level and per teacher basis for strengths and weaknesses for every student.
-PASS: (Given twice a year for First grade). The PASS tests will give the grading of each student on first
grade skills. This will be used a way to determine mastery of skills or if there is a need for re-teaching. The
classroom teachers to develop intervention plans for math and reading will use the scores from the PASS test.
The data gathered from these formative assessments will be used to guide instruction and determine
Response to Intervention groups on an on-going basis. The data gathered will also be used in Spring and
Fall of 2008 and 2009 to revise current Essential Learnings, SMART goals curriculum maps and to direct the
professional development that will be provided beyond 2010.
Page 108 of 112
5.3: Monitoring and Adjusting Evaluation
(Rubric Indicator 5.3)
Evidence of Monitoring Dates – Narrative response required
What are the calendar dates (Nov/Dec and May/June) when the School Leadership Team will meet to sustain
the Tennessee School Improvement Planning Process? Identify the person(s) responsible for monitoring and
the role they will play in the monitoring process.
November 26, 2007: The first meeting held by the SLT.
December 3, 2007: SLT meeting to monitor the TSIP process.
January 7, 2008: SLT meeting to monitor the TSIP process.
February 15, 2008: SLT meeting to monitor the TSIP process.
March 3, 2008: SLT meeting to monitor the TSIP process.
May 5, 2008: SLT meeting to monitor the TSIP process.
May 8, 2008: Principal Angela Thomas Maupin- Monitoring the SMART goals Essential Learnings,
Mapping.
August 2008: Michelle Carter- Monitoring DIBELS and Reading Assessments.
October 30, 2008: Professional Learning communities will meet to discuss current progress with the action
steps outlined in Component 4.
November 2008: Linda Willey- Review TSIP action step process.
February 11, 2009: Professional Learning Communities will meet to discuss current progress with the action
steps outlined in Component 4.
May 6, 2009: Principal Angela Thomas Maupin- Review and evaluate the completion of the plan.
Monthly Literacy Team Meetings will be held 2008-2010- Gloria Montgomery, Jennifer Pirtle, Terri HornMonitoring student progress.
August 2009/January 2010/: Professional Learning Communities will meet to review progress toward goal
attainment and to review remaining action steps.
May 2010: Professional Learning Communities will meet to assess progress toward goal attainment and
conduct final assessment of overall plan.
Page 109 of 112
Evidence of a Process for Adjusting Plan – Narrative response required
What will be the process that the School Leadership Team will use for adjusting our plan (person(s)
responsible, timeline, actions steps, resources, evaluation strategies) when needed?
The SLT will meet throughout the 2008-2009/2009-2010 school years to review data collected from DIBELS,
Kindergarten Exit, and PASS testing. The SLT will meet again in August 2009 to review the data and
determine new action steps to be used that year to meet our goal. Throughout the year the administrative
staff may call a meeting of the SLT to determine current progress with the action steps, resources and
evaluation strategies being used.
Evidence of a Plan for Communicating to All Stakeholders – Narrative response required
How will the School Leadership Team communicate success/adjustments of the plan to stakeholders and
solicit ongoing input from stakeholders?
The SLT will post a finished copy of the TSIPP plan on the school website for all stakeholders to easily view.
Stakeholders will be asked throughout the year to provide feedback on the success of action steps being taken.
Staff will be updated monthly through staff meetings on the success/adjustments of the plan. Parents and
community will be informed of successes and modifications made through monthly meetings (Parent Power
Hour) and monthly school calendars/newsletters.
Page 110 of 112