Iowa Department of Education · 2011-10-27 · Career & technical educational data, Percent of high school graduates completing the core curriculum, Student to teacher ratios, Number

10/27/11 Comprehensive School Improvement Plan -- Print Summary

1/15https://www.edinfo.state.ia.us/csip/csip_summary.asp?10%2F27%2F2011+1%3A43%3A10+PM

Iowa Department of Education

School Year: 2010-2011

Go F o r m: Print Summary Go Exit

District: 2862 Name: Hartley-Melvin-Sanborn Comm School District

Division of PK-12 Education

Annual Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP)

Print Summary 2010-2011 District allowed to certify on or after: 9/1/2011

District certification due date: 9/15/2011

Five-Year Site Visit Plan within 2009-2010 -- 2013-2014

CSIP Answers Cannot Be Changed.The entire certification process has been completed for this

district.CSIP answers have been automatically ported over to a future

year to be modified.

CSIP answers have been started for a newer school year, thisyear's answers can no longer be changed or certified.

Comprehensive School Improvement Plan Select Form

All Select CSIP Question

I. What do data tell us about our student-learning needs?HMS collects the following required data: (LRDA1)--ITBS/ITED performance, Participation rate, Group item analysis reports, ICAMs in grades 4,8 and 11, Locally developed district-wide assessments, Trend-line and Subgroup data for ITBS/ITED reading and math at 4, 8, and 11. Trend-line and Subgroupdata for ITBS/ITED science at4 8 and 11. Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literary Skills (DIBELS) K-1, ACT results, Career & technical educational data, Percent of high school graduates completing the core curriculum, Student to teacher ratios, Number of instructional aides, Parent/community volunteer data, Comprehensive community-wide needs assessment (LC3), Trend-line data from Iowa Youth Survey 6,8 and 11 (SDF1, SDF3, SDF4), Climate survey data, Teacher surveys following completions of professional development,



The above data has been used to establish trend lines, which are updated annually and reported in ourAnnual Progress Report (APR). Using the Iowa Percentile Rank (IPR) information from the ITBS and ITEDassessments, we also monitor the progress of each peer group over time in the areas of readingcomprehension, mathematics, andscience (LRDA1)

To completely answer this question HMS believes there is a more complete picture of its students'''' learningneeds that could be answered by analyzing the following data:

Attendance reports, Suspension and expulsion numbers (SDF1, SDF3), Number of free and reduced lunches, Behavioral referrals (SDF1, SDF3), At-risk Annual Reports (referrals to HELP and SOS teams K-12).District Leadership Team---Thesuperintendent, building principals, technology coordinator, and the curriculum coordinator meet to discussvarious strategies, concerns, and strengths concerning the HMS district. The analysis of data includesdistrict-level data (e.g. Iowa Youth Survey information, graduation rate and survey results). In addition,information regarding the implementation of actions and activities to support current district goals iscollected and analyzed to help identify future student learning and program needs. This information is thentaken back by the principals to share at staff meetings.

Quality Support Council (QSC)--- is our School Improvement Advisory Committee---The superintendentconvenes a Quality Support Council (QSC) meeting three times a year. The council is comprised ofteachers from each building, a principal, community members with children attending HMS at various levels,curriculum coordinator, and High School students. This group makes recommendations for educationalimprovements to the school board. They participate in the annual review of the comprehensive schoolimprovement plan, the monitoring of the district''''s comprehensive fees, and oversee vocational education,multi-cultural/gender fair, and early childhood programs. This group also oversees curriculum standards andbenchmarks, , and Safe and Drug Free plans.

HELP and SOS teams---This team''''s composition varies depending on the current agenda. The teams meetweekly to discuss individual students needs based on data from the classroom, district data, andobservations. The members could include the principal, resource teacher, SCI teacher, guidance counselor,AEA speech pathologist, AEA social worker, AEA school psychiatrist, AEA consultant, and the teachersthat are involved with the concern/students. The team brainstorms ideas and strategies to help the childimprove academically, socially, and emotionally.

Grade Level Teaming K-8 groups---Grade level teaming groups weekly meetings meet to discuss currentcurriculum strategies, individual/group concerns, academic, social, and emotional success of students.Topics also include--upcoming events, testing dates and testing strategies, ITBS results/trend-lines andsubgroup information, and Test item analysis, reading strategies and character education.

Building Assistance Team 9-12---Meets at least once a month to discuss current curriculum strategies,individual/group concerns, academic, social, and emotional success of students. Topics also include--upcoming events, testing dates and testing strategies, ITEDs results/trend-lines and subgroup information,and Test item analysis, reading strategies and character education.

Curriculum Cycle Group Meetings---HMS has a 5-year cycle of curriculum development and writing/revisingcurriculum. Each year there are different agendas/assignments for specific curriculum groups to do. Duringthese cycles test item analysis is reviewed, learning goals, benchmarks, standards are reviewed andrevised and prioritized student learning needs are discussed.

Stakeholder Groups---District and building information reviewed by the Quality Support Council (QSC) andthe District Leadership Team is shared with various stakeholder groups, including the HMS School Board,district patrons, and various community organizations.

The QSC studies and discusses data from the district leadership team meetings and summarizes itsfindings. The QSC then makes recommendations to board regarding district-wide prioritized needs, possible



adjustments to the CSIP goals, and the programs and services provided to students. The HMS schoolboard makes decisions based on these recommendations.

< Through analysis of district and building data and comparisons with the state''''s student performancetrajectories, the following was learned:(LRDA1, LRDA2, LRDA3 ,& LRDA4)*The trend-line in ITBS/ITED reading in 4th grade is increasing. Proficiency levels went from 84.4% in 07-08to 92.3% in 08-09, but back down to 76.9% in 09-10. In 8th grade reading, the trend-line is increasing.Proficiency levels went from 76% in 07-08 to 71% in 08-09, and in 09-10 it was 81.8%. In 11th gradereading, the trend-line is down. However, proficiency levels increased from 65.7% in 07-08 to 74.1% in 08-09, and in 09-10 it was 80.3%.*The trend-line in ITBS/ITED math in 4th grade is increasing. Proficiency levels went from 82.2% in 07-08 to92.2% in 08-09, and in 09-10 to 76.4%. However, the trend-line has a positive slope over the last 7 years. In8th grade math, the trend-line is increasing. Proficiency levels went from 75% in 07-08 to 81% in 08-09, to85.4 in 09-10. In 11th grade math, the trend-line is down, however, proficiency levels increased from 68.5%in 07-08 to 76.3% in 08-09, and in 09-10 to 84.6. However, the last 4 years are up significantly. *The trend-line in ITBS/ITED science in 4th grade is increasing. Proficiency levels went from 88.9% in 07-08 to 92.3% in 08-09, to 94.0 in 09-10. In 8th grade science, the trend-line is increasing. Proficiency levelswent from 91.1% in 07-08 to 83% in 08-09, and to 93.0% in 09-10. In 11th grade science the trend-line isstable, proficiency levels increased from 79.7% in 07-08to 81.4% in 08-09, to 84.5 in 09-10.

*HMS had over95% participationrates in ITBS and ITED testing (4, 8, and 11)*HMS drop out rate is 1.83% for 09-10.*HMS 2009-2010 seniors who intend to pursue post-secondary education or training is 89.29%.*HMS Daily average attendance K-12 rate is 95.6%.*HMS 4, 8, and 11 grade students took the ICAMS. In school year 2008-09, our 4th graders took the test forthe first time. In reading, the fourth graders scored 17.0% in the high range, 66.0% in the mid-range, and17.0% in the low range. 4th grade males scored 17.6% in the high range compared to 4th grade femaleswho scored 16.7%. In 09-10, the fourth graders scored 18.4% in the high range, 50% in the midrange, and31.6% in the low range. In 8th grade, 27.9% of students scored in the high range, 53.5% in mid-range, and18.6 in the low range. This is a marked improvement over the last year. In 11th grade, students scored18.8% in the high range, 64.6% in the mid-range, and 16.7% in the low range. 11th grade males scored111.1% in the high range compared to 11th grade females scored 28.6%.

They also took the math portion of the ICAMS. The fourth graders scored 7.9% in the high range, 71.1% inthe mid-range, and 21.1% in the low range. In 8th grade, 15.9% of students scored in the high range, 70.5%in mid-range, and 13.6% in the low range. In 11th grade, students scored 17.0% in the high range, 57.4% inthe mid-range, and 25.5% in the low range. *In 2010-2011 HMS office referrals for behavioral concerns resulted in the followingElementary 7 by 1 studentMiddle School 45 referrals by 17 studentsHigh School 17 by 9 students (SDF2)

Through analysis of district and building data and comparisons with the state''''''''s student performancetrajectories, the following was learned:(LRDA1, LRDA2, LRDA3 ,& LRDA4)*Proficiency levels went from 92.3 in 08-09, 79.4 in 09-10, to 88.2 this year. The trendline has a significantpositive slope beginning in 2002, and was 9.8 % higher this year compared to last year. In 8th gradereading, our percentage proficient fell dramatically to 61.3%. This was due to changing testing dates,weather related schedule changes and ambivalence of a difficult student body. Proficiency levels went from71% in 08-09, 83.8% in 09-10, and 61.3% in 10-11. The relates to a slightly negative trendline since startingdata collection in 2002. In 11th grade reading, the trend-line is positive for the last 5 years. Proficiencylevels increased from 74.1% in 08-09, 09-10 it was 80.3%, to 87.2% in 10-11.

*The trend-line in ITBS/ITED math in 4th grade is increasing. Proficiency levels went from 92.2% in 08-09,to 76.4% in 09-10, back up to 92.1 in 10-11. The trend-line has a positive slope over the last 7 years. In 8thgrade math, the trend-line is increasing. Proficiency levels went from 81% in 08-09, to 85.4 in 09-10, anddown to 77.4 in 10-11. Proficiency levels increased from 76.3% in 08-09, to 84.6 in 09-10, to 87.2 in 10-11.The last 4 years are up significantly.



*The trend-line in ITBS/ITED science in 4th grade is increasing. Proficiency levels went from 92.3% in 08-09, to 94.0 in 09-10, to 92.2 in 10-11, with a much higher percentage of students in the advanced category.In 8th grade science, the trend-line is increasing. Proficiency levels went from 83% in 08-09, to 93.0% in 09-10, and down to 82.3. In all areas (Math, Reading, and Science, our students under-performed at the 8thgrade level.) In 11th grade science the trend-line is stable, proficiency levels increased from 81.4% in 08-09,to 84.5 in 09-10, and then to 91.5 in 10-11. Science consistently rates as our schools'' best academictesting area.

*HMS had over 95% participation rates in ITBS and ITED testing (4, 8, and 11)*HMS drop out rate is 1.86% for 10-11.*HMS 2010-11 seniors who intend to pursue post-secondary education or training is 77.36%.*HMS Daily average attendance K-12 rate is 95.9%.*HMS 4, 8, and 11 grade students took the ICAMS. In 10-11, the fourth graders scored 26.9% in the highrange, 65.4% in the mid-range, and 7.7% in the low range. 4th grade males scored 12.9% in the high rangecompared to 4th grade females who scored 50.0% in the high range. In 8th grade, 20.0% of students scoredin the high range, 53.8% in mid-range, and 26.2 in the low range. In 11th grade, students scored 12.8% inthe high range, 72.3% in the mid-range, and 14.9% in the low range. 11th grade males scored 4.3% in thehigh range compared to 11th grade females scored 20.8%.

They also took the math portion of the ICAMS. The fourth graders scored 15.4% in the high range, 76.9% inthe mid-range, and 7.7 % in the low range. This is a marked improvement from last year. In 8th grade,28.8% of students scored in the high range, 34.8% in mid-range, and 36.4% in the low range. There is alarge increase in both the high and low from last year. There are avery few (34.8%) in the middle range. In11th grade, students scored 37.8% in the high range, 46.7% in the mid-range, and 15.6% in the low range.This is significant improvement from last year.

*In 2010-2011 HMS office referrals for behavioral concerns resulted in the followingElementary -- 9 by 2 studentsMiddle School -- 98 referrals by 52 studentsHigh School -- 23 by 11 students (SDF2)

*From the 08-09 year - On the Iowa Youth Survey district data answers the question students in my schooltreat each other with respect by answering disagree 37%. Iowa Youth Survey also reports that HMS district39% think that it is fun to watch others act silly when they are drinking alcohol. (SDF3)

In May 2004 the district distributed a comprehensive, community-wide needs assessment survey toapproximately 700 individuals, including community members, parents, administrators, staff, and students.Approximately 230 of these surveys (32%) were completed and returned. Through analysis of the surveydata, the district learned the following: (LC3):

*Summary of general school district effectivenessthe overall lowest rated area was clear sense of purpose.The highest rated area was the climate and instructional improvement. *Summary of general curriculum and instruction the overall lowest rated area was knowledge about foreigncultures and students accept responsibility for their behavior. The highest rated area was opportunities tostudy advanced math and opportunity to participate in fine arts.*Summary of support programs and services the overall lowest rated area was guidance/counseling.Thehighest rated area was secretarial/clerical.

Based on the data reviewed, we developed the following list of prioritized student needs: (LC4):

Improve reading comprehension for all students

Improve Math proficiency levels on ITBS/ITED for all students



Use technology in developing proficiency in reading and math

Decrease the number of office referrals for discipline K-12.The district leadership team and the district SIACwill use the prioritized needslist to generate and recommend goal statements to the board for adoption. Thedistrict leadership team and building administration in collaborationwithcommunity stakeholders asappropriate will design strategies and actions that align with and support the established goals.

II. What do/will we do to meet student-learning needs?Based upon recommendations of the Quality Support Council (QSC), the CSIP committee, and theLeadership Teams the school board has adopted district goals aligned with student needs. (LC5)

District Goals

Hartley-Melvin-Sanborn CSD students learning goals are the general expectations of all its graduates.Students graduating from Hartley-Melvin-Sanborn CSD will be able to do the following:(LC6)

*Effectively generate and communicate thoughts, ideas, and information to a variety of audiences.

*Utilize critical and creative thinking skills to solve problems.

*Display interpersonal skills maximizing their ability to work responsibly with one another, maintain apositive view of ones self, set personal goals, and assess one''s self.

*Use technology and other sources of information in problem solving and decision-making.

*Select goals, make plans, and engage in activities to achieve and maintain optimum health.

*Understand and accept cultural diversity.

*Know the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

District Long-Range Goals

Hartley-Melvin-Sanborn CSD long-range goals define the desired targets to be reached over an extendedperiod of time. These long-range goals serve two purposes: 1) to meet locally determined student needsgoals and 2) to address state and federal student accountability.

Goal 1: All students will achieve high levels in reading comprehension. (LRG1, MCGF3, AR6, EIG1)

The following indicators will measure district progress with Goal 1:

1a. Percentage of students who score at the proficient level or above (41st percentile or above usingnational norms) on the ITBS Reading Total scores in grades 4 and 8 and the ITED Reading ComprehensionTest in grade 11, including data disaggregated by subgroup.

1b. Percentage of students in grades K-1 who score at grade level on the DIBELS test. (IEI1)

1c. Percentage of students in grades 4, 8 and 11 who achieve at the intermediate level or above on theIowa Collaborative Assessment Modules (ICAMs).

Goal 2: All students will achieve at high levels in Mathematics. (LRG2, MCGF3, AR6, EIG1)




2a. Percentage of students who score at the proficient level or above (41st percentile or above usingnational norms) on the ITBS Math Total Test in grades 4 and 8 and the ITED Mathematics Test in grade 11,including data disaggregated by subgroup.

2b. Percentage of students in grades4, 8 and 11 who achieve at the intermediate level or above on the IowaCollaborative Assessment Modules (ICAMs).

Goal 3: Students will achieve at high levels in science. (LRG3, MCGF3, AR6, EIGI1)


3a. Percentage of students who score at the proficient level or above (41st percentile or above usingnational norms) on the ITBS Test in grade4, 8 and the ITED Science Test in grade 11, including datadisaggregated by subgroup.

3b. Percentage of students in 8th grade who achieve at the proficient level or above on the districtdeveloped science assessment.

Goal 4: Students will use technology in developing proficiency in reading and mathematics. (FTP1)


4a. The indicators identified for Goals 1 and 2.

4b. Percentage of students at grade 8 who score at the proficient level or above on a locally developedtechnology assessment.

Goal 5: Students will demonstrate improvement of students'' perception of school climate.


5a. Percentage of student body in elementary, middle, high school that receives any discipline referrals(i.e., office referrals, suspensions, and expulsions). (SDF5, SDF6, SDF7)

5b. Percentage of students in grades 6, 8, and 11 that report student violence, alcohol, tobacco, or otherdrugs on the triennial Iowa Youth Survey. (SDF5, SDF6, SDF7)

The stakeholders impacted by our goals should have a voice in determining how to meet them. As a result,the Quality Support Council (QSC), the CSIP committee, and the Leadership Teams, will identifystakeholders most directly impacted, and they will meet to determine actions and strategies to meet thegoals. Our district will use the Iowa Professional Development Model process to develop its District CareerDevelopment Plan and an action research design to guide conversations and assist making goal progress.As actions are developed to support each goal, implementation plans will be developed at the appropriatelevels (e.g. elementary, middle school, and high school) to provide K-12 system alignment ofefforts.Instructional strategies currently used in the district*Flexible grouping for accelerated Math 4th grade*Co-teaching in grades 5-12*Reading recovery strategies at the Elementary*Second Chance Reading at the High School is being implemented for nonproficient 10th and 11th gradestudents*All 9th grade students are participating in the Academy of reading, a self leveled, reading program focusedon developing students'' Reading Comprehension Strategies



*Rebound Math for non-proficient 10th and 11th grade students*Inquiry-based science (K-8)*Hands on Science*Authentic assessments in Math *Higher Order thinking skills*Guided reading strategies*Differentiated Instruction Pk-12*Every Student Counts 5-8

Instructional Programs/Services supports currently used in the district

Reading Renaissance Program/Accelerated ReaderGuided Reading ProgramDistrict Career Development Plan (K-12)At-risk program/service (K-12)Discovery! Program (Gifted and Talented Education)Language! program in grade 3-8Special Education program/services (K-12)Foster grandparent program (K-8)County Extension Agency O''Brien County Naturalist O''Brien County Multi-disciplinary teamHELP/SOS (student assistance teams) (K-12)After school tutoring program (K-8)Reading Recovery and Title One services (K-4)Alternative High School (9-12)Technology-based reading and mathematics programs (K-12)Character Programs (K-12)Mentoring and Induction Program

Hartley-Melvin-Sanborn delivers the following programs and accesses these program funds as a result ofidentified student need:

Title I, Part A Parental Involvement Title II, Part A Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting

Title III, Language Instruction for Limited Proficient and Immigrant students

Carl Perkins Funds

System-wide Management Supports Currently Used in the District

Resource allocation (e.g., financial and personnel)Technology (e.g., data management system and infrastructure)Policy DevelopmentCurriculum DevelopmentPersonnel evaluation systems (includes administrators, teachers, andassociates)

Leadership for CSIP implementation

Using an action research process, we considered the available research base and local student data. Boththe research and local data indicate that our current practices should contribute (or have contributed to)positive student results. We relied upon the Iowa Content Area Networks, NWAEA, and local content areaexperts to access information about practices supported by scientifically based research.

The district has determined that research and/or local student data support the use of several or our currentpractices related to the goal areas. These practices include, but are not limited to, the following:



Reading Accelerated Reader Title One Reading Recovery Second Chance Reading Guided Reading PK-12 Differentiated Instruction ReadAbout and Academy of Reading

Mathematics Accelerated Math Algebra in Middle School Higher level, secondary math options Every Student Counts (5-8) PK-12 Differentiated Instruction

Environment Block Scheduling Middle school concept Alternative high school programming (AR7) Character Counts! PK-12 Differentiated Instruction

The Quality Support Council and the Comprehensive School Improvement Committee collected data andreviewed the literature based on practices beyond reading and mathematics. These committees will worktogether to establish timelines within the next five years for each of the following areas of study:Science: (AMN3) Inquiry based science instructionHands-on science instructionResearch-based instructional strategies applied to sciencePK-12 Differentiated Instruction

Technology: Strategies designed to enhance instruction in reading,Mathematics, and sciencePK-12 Differentiated Instruction

Environment: Block schedulingMiddle school conceptAlternative high school programming (AR7)Character Counts!PK-12 Differentiated Instruction

The committees will also use a goal-oriented approach to program evaluation (clear expectations, resultsdata, and targeted program/service evaluation) to determine program effectiveness relative to CSIP goalsand other program goals.We have developed standards and benchmarks in all content areas. We have focused on aligning ourreading and mathematics curriculum both vertically and horizontally. We completed an alignment review ofour curriculum and district-wide assessments .

In a review of our instructional practices, it was discovered that we have some practices with a documentedresearch base, some practices with a weak research base, and some practices with no research base.Within the next five years we must address the following two issues:1) Discontinue practices that are not supported by research or have not produced evidence of contributing toimproved student achievement, and



2) Implement instructional strategies that are research-based and/or have contributed to improved studentachievement.

In the process of considering possible gaps in reading and mathematics practices, we studied theinstructional strategies used in the classroom, the training teachers have had in various instructionalstrategies being used throughout the district, and the current best practices concerning research-basedinstructional strategies that improve student achievement. We reviewed the literature base and are confidentthat the nine instructional strategies as presented in Robert Marzano''s "Classroom Instruction That Works"and Carol Ann Tomlinson''s book "How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed Ability Classrooms" are wellgrounded in research that indicates a positive impact on student achievement. We found that not allteachers are well versed in the application of these strategies. Research-based instructional strategies willbe the focus of our Professional Development district wide. We will collect data on the implementation andapplication of these strategies in the classroom, as well as student achievement data, to measure theimpact of implementing these strategies in our classrooms.

In our examination of student achievement data in the areas of reading, mathematics and science, it wasnoted that an achievement gap exists in grades 4, 8, and 11 in the areas of reading, mathematics, andscience with the free/reduced lunch student scoring markedly lower in these areas than the non-free/reduced lunch students. Given that the Middle School, when collapsed to 5-8th grade, did not meettheir AYP goal with this subgroup, we are considering options for programming that are tailor-made to thisgroup of students k-12.

1. Implementation of the district career development plan (professional development program) (AMN1,AMN2, PERK1, SPED1, TQ7)Our district career development plan describes district-level professional development efforts aligned withprioritized student needs. The professional development target will be the acquired knowledge,implementation and effective application of research-based instructional strategies. The selection of theprofessional development target was based on student data. Teacher practices and student achievementdata in the areas of reading, math and sciences were studied to help identify professional developmentneeds. This aligns with long-range goals #1, #2, and #3 and will be designed to provide supports that willaddress the achievement gaps identified between our F/R lunch population and non-F/R lunch population.(PD6, TQ1, TQ2) The plan describes a cycle in which professional development efforts will be targeted atstudent learning and sustained until student gains are acquired. Professional development time andresources will be focused on learning new content and instructional practices. (TQ3, TQ4, FTP3, LEP1)

Our Professional Development Committee, consisting of representatives from the district leadership teamand certified staff, reviewed research on instructional strategies that have been found to have resulted insignificant students achievement gains. In addition, we applied the following criteria to determine if aprogram/strategy has a quality research base:a) Evidence of positive student achievement results demonstrated by research that employed systematicempirical methods andb) The research was described in studies that demonstrated the use of rigorous, systematic, and objectiveprocedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs. (PD5,SDF9)

All teachers will be engaged in training, including those responsible forTitle 1, Special Education, At-Risk,ELL, and Gifted and Talented. The principals and central office staff will also be actively involved. We willwork with NWAEA so that teachers can receive licensure renewal credits or graduate credit for participationin district-wide and building-wide professional development meetings and for their work with implementationof new strategies within their classrooms. (PERK1, SPED1, LEP1, TQ8)

During the 2011-2012 school year, professional instructional staff will be instructed on the implementation



and application of the following instructional strategies: (FTP2, FTP4, FTP5)

Differentiated Instruction

These professional development actions align directly with the following Iowa Teaching Standards andCriteria: (TQ5)Standard #2 Demonstrates competence in content knowledge (specifically criteria 2a, 2b, and 2d)Standard #3 Demonstrates competence in planning and preparation for instruction (specifically criteria 3a,3b, 3d and 3e)Standard #4 Uses strategies to deliver instruction that meet the multiple learning needs of students(specifically criteria 4a, 4b, and 4f)Standard #7 Professional Development (specifically criteria 7a, 7b, 7c, and 7d)

Implementation of the district career development plan will involve these components: (TQ8)a) Common, district-wide training sessions on inservice days during the school year (theory presentations,reading literature, discussions, practice)

c) Building level meetings (observing demonstrations, working with data, developing lessons, reviewingtheory)

e) Meetings of the professional development committee (collecting, organizing and analyzing data, planningfuture professional development)

AEA consultants will serve as the professional development provider for the district. The Iowa Departmentof Education accredits this provider. (TQ6)

2. Address the gap perceived in student achievement between the district wide assessments and ICAMs.a) Continued study of curriculum alignment with ICAM assessments and district-wide assessments.b) Continued examination of validity and reliability of district-wide assessment

Actions for CSIP Goal #4a) Continued use of Accelerated Reader, Accelerated Mathb) Continued research in to current best practices addressing the use of technology and the impact onstudent achievement in reading and math

Actions for CSIP Goal #51. Create a learning environment that is safe, supportive, and conducive to learning (a culture ofachievement and respect)a) Continue Hands and Words Pledge along with Character Counts! K-12 (AR7, SDF9)b) Maintain the work on systems of school-wide anti-bullying and harassment K-12 (AR7, SDF9)

We will devise implementation plans for the actions previously described for CSIP goals 1,2,3,4, and 5.Implementation plans will address the following components:a) Clear expectations at the district, building and classroom levels.b) Baseline data for each action, if availablec) Resources to support each action including time-lines, personnel and budget (including state and federalprograms support as necessary)d) Specific implementation outcomes for action stepse) Persons responsible for oversight of implementationf) Evaluation of action implementation effectiveness

III. How do/will we know that student learning has changed?HMS will use multiple data sources to determine if student learning has changed, including a combination ofdistrict-wide standardized assessments, grade level and classroom assessments, and perceptual data(e.g., surveys). The District Leadership Team, and Grade Level Teams, and Study Group Teams, willensure that data from theses assessments measures are collected, analyzed, and shared with the Quality



Support Council (QSC) and School Board as outlined in Question 1B. The district will continue to ensurethat all students enrolled at the specified grade level are included in the district-wide assessments.(DWAP1)

Monitoring Progress with Long-Range CSIP Goals

As stated previously (see Question 2A), HMS will monitor progress on its long-range goals through analysisof aggregate and disaggregated trend line data from the following sources:*ITBS reading comprehension and mathematics totals test at grades 2-8, and the science test at grades 4-8(Goals 1-4)*ITED reading comprehension, mathematics, and science tests at grade 11 (Goals 1-4)*ICAMS are given at grades 4, 8, and 11 for our multiple assessments in reading and math (DWAP7)*8th grade students take a district developed science test for our multiple assessment in science (DWAP8)*DIBELS test at grades K-1 (DWAP6, DWAP3, DWAP4)*CBM assessments given at grades 1-*The percentage of the elementary, middle and high school student body that receives a discipline referral(i.e., office referral, suspension, and /or expulsion) as reported on the at-risk annual report (Goal 5)

Professional Development days will be used to vertically and horizontally align curriculum, formulateformative and summative assessments.

Student Indicator Data Used for Evaluation of Programs and Services

The same student indicator data used to measure progress with the CSIP goals will also be used to helpinform decisions regarding the effectiveness of the following programs and services provided by HMS:

*Professional development for teachers and principals (e.g., District Career Development Plan and Title II,Part A)*Supplemental reading services for eligible students (e.g., Title I, Part A)*Programs and services to assist English Language Learners (Title III, Part A)*Drug and violence prevention program (Title IV, Part A)*Early Intervention programs for grades K-3*K-12 at-risk program*K-12 gifted and talented (DISCOVERY!) program*Special Education services*Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs

Additional Data Gathering and Data Analysis

To help provide a more complete picture of student learning needs, HMS will continue to monitor thefollowing data sources:

*All data points included in the district's Annual Progress Report (APR).*The percentages of students who participate in district-wide assessment*The percentage of students in the lowest (at-risk or deficit) category on DIBELS in grades K-1 *The percentage of students in the lowest (at-risk or deficit) category on CBM measurements in grades 1-8in both reading and mathematics (DWAP3, DWAP4, and DWAP6)*Student performance on the ICAM reading and mathematics assessments at grades 4 8 and 11 *Annual cohort performance from grade 3 through grade 11 as measured by the ITBS and ITED in the areasof reading, mathematics, science, and social studies*Career and technical education student data from the end-of-year program report (Perkins report)*The percentage of students indicating a safe learning environment and that other students treat them withrespect as reported through Iowa Youth Survey*English Language Development Assessment ELDA and /or Language Assessment Scale (LAS) tomeasure ELL students' English proficiency (LEP2)

Future Data Gathering



HMS is aware that it will need to collect additional information to allow for more informed evaluation ofprograms and services. Currently, the district plans to add the following measures:

Frequency and Implementation logs of staff members to help monitor the effectiveness of the DistrictCareer Development Plan in regards to implementing Differentiated Instruction.

Formative assessment data will be the focus of professional development.

IV. How will we evaluate our programs and services to ensure improved student learning?HMS has adopted a goal-oriented approach to formally evaluate the programs and services it offers to meetprioritized student needs as identified in its CSIP (ECSIP1) This goal-oriented approach to programevaluation includes the following components:

Identification of programs that contribute to progress with CSIP goals (program expectations)Identification of any additional program goals (program expectations)Identification of variables that affect performanceIdentification of the indicators by which program effectiveness will be judged relative to performanceDevelopment of procedures for collecting information about performance Collection of performance dataComparison of the information regarding performance with the expected CSIP/program goalsCommunication of results of the comparison to appropriate audiences

HMS will use a combination of formative and summative evaluation processes within the programevaluation process. (TQ12) The district will also determine the frequency of the formative and summativeevaluation processes for each of the programs/services by two factors: 1) legal mandates and 2) local data.At a minimum, an in-depth formal summative evaluation for all of the programs that HMS incorporates intoits CSIP will occur within a five-year rotation. NOTE: HMS will submit, as required, any annualevaluation/reporting data for state and federal programs.

The Quality Support Council (QSC) aka SIAC, recommended the following program rotation and timelinesfor in-depth summative program evaluation, using both student achievement data and teacherimplementation data:*

PROGRAM In-Depth Program Evaluation Rotation

1. Professional Development Program Annually, beginning in 2005 (TQ10, (District Career Development Plan) TQ11)*

2. Title II, Part A (Teacher and Principal Annually, beginning 2005 (TPTR1)* Training and Recruiting) Note: Title II, Part A is embedded into HMS''s district career development plan.

3. Title I, Part A (Parent Involvement) Annually, beginning in 2005 (TITL1)*

6. Mentoring and Induction Program Annually 2004 through NWAEA (TQ9)*



7. Title III (Language Instruction for LEP Every two years, beginning 2006 students) (LEP3)*

8. Talented and Gifted Program Every four years on curriculum cycle beginning 2006 (GT2)

9. Perkins (Vocational/Career and Annually through }NWAEA consortium Technical Education Programs)

10. At-risk Program Annually beginning 2005 (ART4)*

11. Special Education Programs and Annually through NWAEA Services12. Technology Program Annually through the number of 8th grade students that successfully complete the 8th grade computer class (FTP6)

HMS will collect formative evaluation data for each program on an annual basis. However the district willcollect data regarding some programs, such as the professional development program (district careerdevelopment plan), more frequently. Progress toward meeting program/service expectations will be reportedto the District Leadership Team, the Board of Education, and the QSC.CSIP INDICATOR DATA TO MEASURE PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS

HMS will evaluate the effectiveness of the majority of its instructional programs and services, at leastpartially, through examination of the indicator data, disaggregated by program participants, for each of thegoals listed in its CSIP Constant Conversation Question #2. Based on input from the program providers, theTeaming groups, and the District Leadership Team, the district decided that evaluation of these data wouldbe sufficient, at this time, to assist in determining the effectiveness of the following programs:

*Professional Development Program (district career development plan)(TQ11)*At-Risk Program (AR4)*Perkins (Vocational/Career and Technical Education Programs) (PERK2, PERK3)*Mentoring and Induction Programs (TQ9)*Special Education Programs and Services (ESPE2)*Title I, Part A )Parental Involvement Program) (TITL1)*Title II, Part A (Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Program) (TPTR1)

*Title III (Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students Program) (LEP3)*Title IV (Safe and Drug-Free Schools) (SDF10)

ADDITIONAL INDICATOR DATA TO MEASURE PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS

The district decided that it needs additional information to determine the effectiveness of some of itsprograms. In addition to the indicator data associated with the CSIP goals listed in HMS ''s ConstantConversation #2, the district will also collect, analyze, and use the following data to inform effectivenesswith the following programs:

Professional Development Program and Title II, Part A (TQ10, TQ11, TQ12, TPTR1)*Percentage of faculty responsible for instruction who participate in district and building career developmentopportunities*Percentage of K-12 teachers who accurately use the strategies as measured by observations andimplementation logs

DISCOVERY! PROGRAM (Gifted and Talented Program) (GT2)

Rather than judging the effectiveness of its DISCOVERY! program through CSIP goal indicators since HMSdoes not believe that disaggregating its district-wide assessment data by DISCOVERY! student participants



provides meaningful information, HMS is going to use the following indicator to determine the effectivenessof its DISCOVERY! program:

PERKINS (Vocational/Career and Technical Education Programs (PERK2, PERK3)

*Percentage of students by special population subgroups in career and technical programs who areproficient in occupational skills*Percentage of graduates by special population who were program concentrators who receive a high schooldiploma or equivalent*Percentage of senior program completers by subgroups who participate in career and technical programswho indicate their intention to continue their education, non-military employment, or military employment

MENTORING and INDUCTION PROGRAM (TQ9)

*Percentage of beginning teachers participating in the mentoring and induction program who meet goals ofthe district career development plan, as appropriate to their teaching assignment*Percentage of beginning teachers participating in the mentoring and induction program who demonstratecompetency in classroom management skills

SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS and SERVICES (ESPE1)

*Percentage of all students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) who meet their IEP goals

TITLE I, PART A, PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT (TITL1)

*Percentage of parents who participate in the annual evaluation of the parental involvement policy inimproving the academic quality of schools served under Title 1, Part A

TITLE III (LEP3)

*Percentage of ELL students who are proficient in English

District Information

Authorized Agency Hartley-Melvin-Sanborn Comm School District240 1st Street SEHartley, Iowa 51346AEA: AEA 12 Northwest (district filed under aea control code 9212)

CSIP Coordinator Name: Mark Dorhout

Title: Middle School Principal

Telephone: 712 - 930 - 3281 Extension:

FAX: 712 - 930 - 5414

Email: [email protected]

Year Site Visit Scheduled 2008



Certified Dates District: 9/15/2011 6:09:52 PMReaders: 10/19/2011 3:13:50 PMState: 10/19/2011 3:14:34 PM

Annual Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP)Current Date and Time: 10/27/2011 1:43:11 PM

(REFRESHING WEB PAGE UPDATES DATE AND TIME)

Documents

Iowa Department of Education · 2011-10-27 · Career & technical educational data, Percent of high school graduates completing the core curriculum, Student to teacher ratios, Number