
Strategic Plan
2011 2016
Debra K. Green,
Principal
One for All and All for
One
Table of
Contents
Action Plan
Committees
|
ELA
Action Plan |
|
|
Wanning, John |
Jarrett, Jaime |
|
Boggs, Kristi |
Bradberry, Laurie |
|
Driver, Julie |
Fennell, Carolyn |
|
Karle, Norma |
Fricks, Sheri |
|
Lumley, Ellen |
Gambrell, Al |
|
Nizza, Barbara |
Hopkins, Carol |
|
Vanderford, Tricia |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
School & Community
Demographics |
Math
Action Plan |
|
Davis, Karen |
Harris, Ashley |
|
Anderson, Michelle |
Moore, Gail |
|
Beckham, Allison |
OQuinn, Katee |
|
Calvert, Dianne |
Ramsey, Tara |
|
Carson, Christi |
Simpson, Angie |
|
Lee, Dana |
|
|
Riley, Jill |
|
|
Thompson, Donna |
|
|
|
Teacher Quality |
|
|
Tidwell, Angela |
|
School Climate |
Anderson, Meg |
|
Schwartz, Chris |
Atkins, Ashley |
|
Bacote, Deloris |
Evans, Cristy |
|
Morris, April |
Leonard, Debbie |
|
Mullikin, Elizabeth |
Louden, Ashley |
|
Phillips, |
Mims, Sean |
|
Richardson, Brad |
|
|
Scotland, Michele |
Strategic Plan
Review |
|
Timmons, Michelle |
Buckshorn, David |
|
|
Dorn, Alice |
|
|
Green, Debra |
|
|
Hartung, Sarah |
|
|
Scotland, Michele |
|
|
White, Andrea |
|
|
|
Our Vision
We envision
Our
The mission of
Our
Beliefs
School
and Community Demographic Data
In 2008,
The school was given a
rating of Average on the 2008-2009 School Report Card and met AYP for the
academic school year 2008-2009. The
school was awarded the SC Red Carpet Award in 2008-2009 and earned Honorable
Mention as a SC Distinguished Title 1 School Closing the Achievement Gap,
2009-2010.
The school currently
serves students in kindergarten up to fifth grade. In 2009-2010, the enrollment was 591
students.
In 2009-2010,
An itinerant staff
provided the following student services: ESOL,
Parents are involved
in meeting various needs for the students and teachers at
The following
demographic data was gathered from the 2009-2010 academic school
year.
Gender
|
Grade Level |
Male |
Female |
Total |
|
Kindergarten |
64 |
42 |
106 |
|
1st
grade |
58 |
41 |
99 |
|
2nd
grade |
46 |
41 |
87 |
|
3rd
grade |
60 |
47 |
107 |
|
4th
grade |
60 |
52 |
112 |
|
5th
grade |
40 |
40 |
80 |
|
Totals |
328 |
263 |
591 |
Ethnicity
|
Grade Level |
African-American |
White |
Other |
Total |
|
Kindergarten |
42 |
54 |
10 |
106 |
|
1st
grade |
33 |
60 |
6 |
99 |
|
2nd
grade |
37 |
41 |
9 |
87 |
|
3rd
grade |
40 |
53 |
14 |
107 |
|
4th
grade |
46 |
50 |
16 |
112 |
|
5th
grade |
24 |
52 |
4 |
80 |
|
Totals |
222 |
310 |
59 |
591 |
Demographic Data (in
percentages)
|
Year |
African American |
White |
Hispanic |
Asian |
Other |
Free and Reduced
Lunch |
Number of
Students |
|
2009-2010 |
38 |
52 |
8 |
1 |
2 |
60 |
591 |
*The total percentage for
ethnicities does not equal 100% due to rounding.
Part B - Needs
Assessment
Stakeholders
Perspectives on the Quality of Education
This section of the
School Improvement Plan contains perceptions of stakeholders regarding their
satisfaction in the quality of education provided by the staff of
Data was gathered from
the results of the annual State Department of Education survey taken by the
stakeholders. In this report, the stakeholders are eighty-nine of the 2009-2010
fifth grade students, fifty-three parents of the fifth grade students, and
forty-three teachers of
Student
Survey
The table below shows the
percentage of satisfaction with the learning environment, the social and
physical environments, and the school-home relations.
Percentage of Students Who
Agree
|
Survey
Question |
Percentage |
|
Percent satisfied
with the learning environment |
83.5 |
|
Percent satisfied
with the social and physical environment |
86.6 |
|
Percent satisfied
with school-home relations |
82.5 |
Parent
Survey
Over 90% of the
fifty-three returned surveys indicated that the learning environment, the social
and physical environments, and the home-school relations are
satisfactory.
Percentage of Parents Who Agree
|
Survey Question |
Percentage |
|
Percent satisfied
with the learning environment |
92.9 |
|
Percent satisfied
with the social and physical environment |
90.1 |
|
Percent satisfied
with school-home relations |
90.1 |
Teacher
Survey
All teachers surveyed
agreed that the learning environment at
Percentage of Teachers Who
Agree
|
Survey Question |
Percentage |
|
Percent satisfied
with the learning environment |
100 |
|
Percent satisfied
with the social and physical environment |
97.7 |
|
Percent satisfied
with school-home relations |
97.7 |
Part C Student
Achievement
PASS Performance
Data
This section of the School Improvement Plan provides
disaggregated student performance data provided by 2009 PASS test results. Teachers studied the performance data as
a grade level, as members of Action Plan committees, and as an entire
faculty. Student population was
compared by sub-group performance to identify areas of strength and weakness in
ELA (English Language Arts) and Math.
The data below are the
percentages of students who scored Not Met, Met, and Exemplary in the areas of
ELA and Math in a sub-group of race population by year and by grade level.
|
ELA |
Not
Met |
Met |
Exemplary |
|
2009 |
19.9 |
37.2 |
42.9 |
White Population by
Year
|
ELA |
Not
Met |
Met |
Exemplary |
|
2009 |
8.5 |
32.4 |
59.2 |
White Population by Grade
Level
|
ELA |
Not
Met |
Met |
Exemplary |
|
3 |
23 |
29 |
48 |
|
4 |
20.5 |
38.6 |
13.9 |
|
5 |
16 |
44.7 |
39.4 |
|
|
|
|
ELA |
Not
Met |
Met |
Exemplary |
|
3 |
39.5 |
33.3 |
27 |
|
4 |
44.4 |
40.7 |
14.8 |
|
5 |
30.9 |
47.6 |
21.4 |
PASS 2009 -
Math
Total Population by Year
|
Math |
Not
Met |
Met |
Exemplary |
|
2009 |
26.2 |
45 |
28.7 |
|
Math |
Not
Met |
Met |
Exemplary |
|
2009 |
10.6 |
45.1 |
44.4 |
|
ELA |
Not
Met |
Met |
Exemplary |
|
3 |
9 |
36.3 |
54.5 |
|
4 |
15 |
41.5 |
43.3 |
|
5 |
10.4 |
54.1 |
35.4 |
|
Math |
Not
Met |
Met |
Exemplary |
|
2009 |
43 |
44.7 |
12.3 |
|
Math |
Not
Met |
Met |
Exemplary |
|
3 |
62.5 |
27 |
10.4 |
|
4 |
40.7 |
44.4 |
14.8 |
|
5 |
40.4 |
50 |
9.5 |
The data below are the percentages of students who scored Not Met, Met,
and Exemplary in the areas of ELA and Math in a sub-group of students receiving
subsidized lunch (free or reduced) or full pay lunch by year and by grade
level.
|
ELA |
Not
Met |
Met |
Exemplary |
|
2009 |
8.9 |
30.8 |
60.1 |
|
ELA |
Not
Met |
Met |
Exemplary |
|
3 |
8.1 |
16.2 |
75.6 |
|
4 |
13.3 |
35.5 |
51.1 |
|
5 |
4.8 |
39 |
56 |
|
ELA |
Not
Met |
Met |
Exemplary |
|
2009 |
27.6 |
42.3 |
30.1 |
|
ELA |
Not
Met |
Met |
Exemplary |
|
3 |
34.2 |
35.7 |
30 |
|
4 |
31.1 |
42.2 |
26.6 |
|
5 |
29 |
43.6 |
27.2 |
|
Math |
Not
Met |
Met |
Exemplary |
|
2009 |
11.3 |
39.8 |
48.7 |
|
Math |
Not
Met |
Met |
Exemplary |
|
3 |
5.4 |
37.8 |
56.7 |
|
4 |
17.7 |
35.5 |
46.6 |
|
5 |
9.7 |
54.5 |
9.0 |
|
Math |
Not
Met |
Met |
Exemplary |
|
2009 |
38 |
49.1 |
12.9 |
|
Math |
Not
Met |
Met |
Exemplary |
|
3 |
54.2 |
31.4 |
14.2 |
|
4 |
33.3 |
48.8 |
17.7 |
|
5 |
36.3 |
54.5 |
9 |
The data below are the percentages of students who scored Not Met, Met,
and Exemplary in the areas of ELA and Math in a sub-group of student gender by
year and by grade level.
|
ELA |
Not
Met |
Met |
Exemplary |
|
2009 |
23.8 |
34.3 |
42 |
|
ELA |
Not
Met |
Met |
Exemplary |
|
3 |
25 |
31.1 |
44.2 |
|
4 |
31.7 |
39 |
29.2 |
|
5 |
21.2 |
34 |
44.6 |
|
ELA |
Not
Met |
Met |
Exemplary |
|
2009 |
15.8 |
40.3 |
43.9 |
|
ELA |
Not
Met |
Met |
Exemplary |
|
3 |
26 |
26 |
47.8 |
|
4 |
14.2 |
38.7 |
46.9 |
|
5 |
16.3 |
48.9 |
34.6 |
|
Math |
Not
Met |
Met |
Exemplary |
|
2009 |
25.2 |
43.4 |
31.5 |
|
Math |
Not
Met |
Met |
Exemplary |
|
3 |
34.4 |
32.7 |
32.7 |
|
4 |
29.2 |
39 |
31.7 |
|
5 |
23.4 |
51 |
25.5 |
|
Math |
Not
Met |
Met |
Exemplary |
|
2009 |
27.3 |
46.8 |
25.9 |
|
Math |
Not
Met |
Met |
Exemplary |
|
3 |
41.3 |
34.7 |
23.9 |
|
4 |
22.4 |
44.8 |
32.6 |
|
5 |
26.5 |
51 |
22.4 |
From the preceding data, the
faculty concluded that a large percentage of our African American students and
students receiving subsidized lunch are in the Not Met and Met categories.
The faculty identified areas
of academic strengths and weaknesses in the student population of
ACTION PLAN |
EVALUATION |
| |||||||||
STRATEGY 1: Increase the percentage of
students scoring met and exemplary on PASS ELA.
Activity
(List the processes to fully
implement the strategy. Include professional development, scientifically
based research, academic assistance, innovation initiatives, parent
involvement, technology, etc.) |
Timeline
Start/End Date |
Person Responsible |
Estimated
Cost
|
Funding
Source |
Measures of Success/Indicators of
Implementation (Formative measures used to
assess impact of strategies and activities on
improvement) |
| |||||
|
Continue to train
teachers in grades K-5 in Balanced Literacy to strengthen the reading
program. Provide teachers
with extra collaborative time. Continue training in
Writers Workshop in order to provide a consistent school-wide writing
program. Update technology
training (Smartboard, Video Streaming educational websites) to effectively
enhance instruction. |
2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 |
Principal & Instructional Specialist Principal & Instructional
Specialist School Technology Leader & Media
Specialist |
$0 $0 $0 |
N/A District Funds N/A |
Attendance log Principal observation forms, Guided Reading/SRA Lesson Checks, MAP
data & PASS results Attendance log, Principal observation &
PASS results Attendance logs, Principal observation &
PASS results |
| |||||
|
|
|
| |||||||||
ACTION PLAN |
EVALUATION |
| |||||||||
|
STRATEGY 2: Utilize professional learning community
structures at all levels to improve academic
success. Activity
(List the processes to fully
implement the strategy. Include professional development, scientifically
based research, academic assistance, innovation initiatives, parent
involvement, technology, etc.) |
Timeline
Start/End Date |
Person Responsible |
Estimated
Cost
|
Funding
Source |
Measures of Success/Indicators of
Implementation (Formative measures used to
assess impact of strategies and activities on
improvement) |
| |||||
|
Utilize research-based
essential standards and develop pacing guides for
ELA. Continue to meet in
grade level meetings (Professional Learning Community) and analyze all
data to provided differentiated instruction, varied academic
support/services to insure success of all students. |
2011-2016 2011-2016 |
Principal & Instructional
Specialist Grade Level Chair & Administrative Staff |
$0 $0 |
N/A N/A |
Oncourse Lesson Plans
& Grade Level Meeting Agendas Grade Level Meeting Agendas & Data Room |
| |||||
|
|
|
| |||||||||
|
Performance Goal Area: Math Student Achievement
Teacher/Leadership Quality
School Climate (Parent Involvement, Safe and
Healthy Schools, etc.)
Other (optional) | ||||||
|
PERFORMANCE
GOAL: (desired result of student
learning) |
By May, 2016, 100% of our students in grades
3-5 will meet standard in Math as measured by the PASS
assessment. | |||||
|
INTERIM PERFORMANCE GOAL: (annual) |
By 2010-2011, 76.3% of students in grades 3-5
will meet standard in math as measured by the PASS assessment.
| |||||
|
DATA SOURCE(S): |
PASS data (holistic and subgroups), MAP data,
Accelerated Math data, common informative assessments followed by flexible
groupings and enrollment information. | |||||
|
OVERALL MEASURES: Grades 3 5 PASS MATH percentages of students
scoring met or above. |
Average
Baseline |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
|
80.5% |
86.1% |
88.9% |
91.7% |
94.5% |
100% | |
ACTION PLAN |
EVALUATION | ||||
STRATEGY: Increase the percentage of
students scoring Met or Above on PASS Math
Activity
(List the processes to fully
implement the strategy. Include professional development, scientifically
based research, academic assistance, innovation initiatives, parent
involvement, technology, etc.) |
Timeline
Start/End Date |
Person Responsible |
Estimated
Cost
|
Funding
Source |
Measures of Success/Indicators of
Implementation (Formative measures used to
assess impact of strategies and activities on
improvement) |
|
Establish individual
goals and monitor student achievement through student/teacher and
parent/teacher conferences utilizing FASTT Math, PASS, MAP, and
Accelerated Math. Provide remediation
for students through small group instruction, volunteer efforts, and
tutorial websites. Enrich math
instruction through teacher observations, the Gifted and Talented program,
Brain Boosters, small group instruction, flexible grouping, the Revised
Blooms Taxonomy, and the annual Family Math and Science nights.
Utilize research
based instructional strategies and manipulatives to plan and implement
instruction. Provide opportunities
for collaboration through Professional Learning Communities
(PLC). Use technology to
effectively enhance instruction. |
2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 |
Classroom teachers & Instructional
Specialist Classroom teachers & Instructional
Specialist Classroom teachers, GT Instructor,
Instructional Specialist & the Principal Classroom teachers & Instructional
Specialist Classroom teachers, Instructional Specialist,
& the Principal Classroom teachers |
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 |
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A |
Conference logs, FASTT Math reports, PASS
scores, MAP scores, & Accelerated Math Lesson plans, schedules, volunteer sign-in
report Lesson Plans &
Schedules Lesson plans & Student
data PLC attendance log and meeting
minutes Lesson plans & student
data |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Performance Goal Area: Teacher /
Administrator Quality (Technology) Student Achievement
Teacher/Administrator Quality
School Climate (Parent Involvement, Safe and
Healthy Schools, etc.)
District Priority | |||||||||||||||
|
PERFORMANCE GOAL: (desired result of student
learning) |
By 2016, competent, and diverse personnel to implement
the schools mission statement as measured by the State Departments Accreditation Report,
the Computer Proficiency Report, NCLB criteria, and schools retention
rate. | ||||||||||||||
|
INTERIM PERFORMANCE
GOAL: |
Increase technology proficiency of certified
staff five percent yearly. | ||||||||||||||
|
DATA SOURCE(S): |
State Technology Proficiency Report, lesson
plan monitoring, and classroom observations by
the Principal. | ||||||||||||||
|
OVERALL MEASURES: State Technology Proficiency Report, lesson
plan monitoring, and classroom observations by the
principal. |
* Represents projections of
improvement | ||||||||||||||
ACTION PLAN
|
EVALUATION | ||||
|
STRATEGY:
Assist all teachers in
accomplishing proficiency in
technology as required by the district. Activity
(List the processes to fully
implement the strategy. Include professional development, scientifically
based research, academic assistance, innovation initiatives, parent
involvement, technology, etc.) |
Timeline
Start/End Date |
Person Responsible |
Estimated
Cost
|
Funding
Source |
Measures of Success/Indicators of
Implementation (Formative measures used to
assess impact of strategies and activities on
improvement) |
|
Provide assistance to teachers in completing
district requirements in proficiency of technology. Provide information and training on the use of
progressive technology in order to provide effective classroom
instruction. |
2011-2016 2011-2016 |
School Technology Leader,
Instructional Technology Specialist, & Office of Computing
Services School Technology Leader
|
$0 $0 |
N/A N/A |
Proficiency online
assessment Oncourse lesson
plans |
|
Performance Goal Area: School Climate
Student Achievement
Teacher/Administrator Quality
School Climate (Parent Involvement, Safe and
Healthy Schools, etc.)
District Priority | |||||||||||||||
|
PERFORMANCE GOAL: Community and Parent
Involvement |
| ||||||||||||||
|
INTERIM PERFORMANCE GOAL: Annual |
2010-2011. | ||||||||||||||
|
DATA SOURCE(S): |
Volunteer Application
forms Volunteer sign-in sheets (School
Check-In) Certificate of
Agreement | ||||||||||||||
|
OVERALL MEASURES: Total number of volunteers as documented by
volunteer sign-in register. |
* Represents projections of
improvement | ||||||||||||||
|
ACTION PLAN |
EVALUATION | |||||||||
|
STRATEGY 2: Increase community
volunteer involvement. |
Timeline Start/End
Date |
Person
Responsible |
Estimated Cost |
Funding Source |
Indicators of
Implementation | |||||
|
Activity (List the processes to fully
implement the strategy. Include professional development, scientifically
based research, academic assistance, innovation initiatives, parent
involvement, technology etc.) |
|
(Formative measures used to
assess impact of strategies and activities on
improvement) | ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
Strengthen
relationship with current business partners. Adopt new business
partners. Coordinate partnership
recognition. |
2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 |
Public relations, the Principal, and
Hospitality Committee Public relations, the Principal, and
Hospitality Committee Public relations, the Principal, and
Hospitality Committee |
$0 $0 $0 |
N/A N/A N/A |
Teacher survey on
effectiveness of volunteers and the impact on student
achievement Teacher survey on
effectiveness of volunteers and the impact on student
achievement Teacher survey on
effectiveness of volunteers and the impact on student
achievement | ||||
|
Performance Goal Area: School
Climate Student Achievement
Teacher/Administrator Quality
School Climate (Parent Involvement, Safe and
Healthy Schools, etc.)
District Priority | |||||||||||||||
|
PERFORMANCE GOAL: Community/Parent
Involvement |
| ||||||||||||||
|
INTERIM PERFORMANCE
GOAL: |
| ||||||||||||||
|
DATA SOURCE(S): |
State Department of Education survey and the
annual school report card | ||||||||||||||
|
OVERALL MEASURES: State Department of Education survey and the
annual school report card |
* Represents projections of
improvement | ||||||||||||||
|
ACTION PLAN |
EVALUATION | ||||||||||
|
STRATEGY: Diversify
communication with parents by enhancing and expanding communication tools
and channels. |
Timeline Start/End
Date |
Person
Responsible |
Estimated Cost |
Funding Source |
Indicators of
Implementation | ||||||
|
Activity (List the processes to fully
implement the strategy. Include professional development, scientifically
based research, academic assistance, innovation initiatives, parent
involvement, technology etc.) |
|
(Formative measures used to
assess impact of strategies and activities on
improvement) | |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
Analyze the
effectiveness of the current communication tools in the school and make
necessary changes. Collaborate with parents and expand
communication of school activities. Enhance new outreach opportunities such as
websites, mass callings, instructional calendars, newsletters, and local
media. |
2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 |
Principal and
teacher committee Principal and SIC
committee Principal and
Instructional Specialist. |
$0 $0 $0 |
N/A N/A N/A |
Parent survey
asking which communication
tools and channels
impacted their attendance at
conferences.
Parent
Survey Parent
Survey | |||||