Rhea County's Approved TCSPP for 2008-2009

No parts of this manual may be copied, photocopied, or reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the State of Tennessee Department of Education. All trademarks, service marks, products or services are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders.

Tennessee Comprehensive Systemwide Planning Process

(TCSPP)

Assurances

with Signature of Director of Schools

I certify that the RHEA COUNTY School System has utilized the data and other requirements requested from each department, as shown in the Compliance Matrix 5.1 found in the Framework/Guide, in the development of our TCSPP. The school system 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.

__________________________________________ ______________________

Signature of Director of Schools Date Signed

COMPONENT 1

SCHOOL SYSTEM PROFILE DEVELOPMENT and
COLLABORATIVE PROCESS IDENTIFICATION

TCSPP TEMPLATE 1.1

Evaluation of Our Process for
Developing Priorities for Improving Schools

The first two charts require the listing of the Leadership Teams of the system. This information is to be turned in to the TDOE as part of Component 1.

Composition of the Systemwide Leadership Teams –Listing required

*System-Wide Leadership Team*	*System-Wide Leadership Team*
Member	Member
Dallas Smith	Dallas Smith
Ray Fugate	Ray Fugate
Katrina Casteel	Katrina Casteel
Sue Brown	Sue Brown
Gary Cooper	Gary Cooper
Walta Toliver	Walta Toliver
Bimbo McCawley	Bimbo McCawley
Anita Edwards	Anita Edwards
Rusty Fisher	Rusty Fisher
Beth Price	Beth Price
Melody Ruehling	Melody Ruehling
Gayla Hood	Gayla Hood
Tina Stinnette	Tina Stinnette
Dawn Combs	Dawn Combs
Dedra Hale Sims	Dedra Hale Sims
Barbara Roach	Barbara Roach

TCSPP TEMPLATE 1.1

(Continued)

Evaluation of Our Process for Developing Priorities for Improving Schools

Composition of the Component Leadership Teams –Listing required
Components 1-6 Members	Role

*Component 1 Planning Team--Development of System-wide Profile and Collaborative Process*
Dallas Smith	Superintendent of Schools
Ray Fugate	Asst. Super. / Title II A & Title V Director/Elementary/Middle/Secondary Curriculum Supervisor
Paul Riggs	Technology / Title II D Director
Sue Brown	Title I, III, X Director
Buddy Jackson	Principal
Rhonda Freeman	Assistant Principal
Rusty Fisher	Teacher
Bimbo McCawley	School Board Chairman/Business Partner
Whit Matthews	Para Professional

*Component 2 Planning Team--Beliefs, Mission, and Shared Vision*
Dawn Combs	Staff Development (Technology)
Dedra Sims	Staff Development (Curriculum)
Rusty Ray	Parent
Michelle McCuiston	Parent
Kris Jollay	Teacher
Amanda Cook	Teacher
Katie Arnold	Rhea County High School Student

*Component 3 Planning Team-- Academic and Non-Academic Data Analysis and Synthesis*
Dallas Smith	Superintendent of Schools
Ray Fugate	Asst. Super. / Title II A & Title V Director/Elementary/Middle/Secondary Curriculum Supervisor
Sue Brown	Title I, III, X Director
Katrina Casteel	Special Education Director

TCSPP TEMPLATE 1.1

(Continued)

Evaluation of Our Process for Developing Priorities for Improving Schools

Composition of the Component Leadership Teams –Listing required
Clark Graham	Attendance Supervisor
Gary Cooper	Vocational Director/Asst. Principal
Elizabeth Brown	Principal
Grant Roddy	Asst. Principal

*Component 4 Planning Team—Curricular, Instructional, Assessment, and Organizational Effectiveness*
Dallas Smith	Superintendent of Schools
Ray Fugate	Asst. Super. / Title II A & Title V Director/Elementary/Middle/Secondary Curriculum Supervisor
Sue Brown	Title I, III, X Director
Katrina Casteel	Special Education Director
Gayle Kelly	Principal
Walta Toliver	Asst. Principal
Gayla Hood	Teacher

*Component 5 Planning Team—Action Plan Development*
Dallas Smith	Superintendent of Schools
Ray Fugate	Asst. Super. / Title II A & Title V Director/Elementary/Middle/Secondary Curriculum Supervisor
Sue Brown	Title I, III, X Director
Katrina Casteel	Special Education Director
Paul Riggs	Technology Director
Barbara Roach	Principal
Doug Keylon	Principal
Jerry Levengood	Principal
Gayle Kelly	Principal
Elizabeth Brown	Principal
Buddy Jackson	Principal
Clark Graham	Attendance Supervisor

TCSPP TEMPLATE 1.1

(Continued)

Evaluation of Our Process for Developing Priorities for Improving Schools

The following questions address the use of various data in Component 1. They are designed as a culminating activity to help you assimilate the work of Component 1. This information will be turned in to the TDOE as part of Component 1 of the TCSPP.

Collection of Data - Narrative Response Required

How were data collected and organized for school system profile?

Rhea County’s Central Office supervisors were all involved in the collection and discussions of both quantitative and qualitative data for the system. All supervisors collaborated and were involved in use of the system’s Report Card, particularly Part I, in discussions leading to development of our Mission, Vision, and Beliefs. The system’s Report Card, Parts II, III, and IV were used for discussing questions in the Reflective Matrix, specifically in the discussion of Title I. /Federal Programs, Special Education, and Career Technical education for all subgroups of students. We are heavily involved in a proposal to meet the 90% graduation requirement of students in our system. Additionally, we used the System-wide Profile provided to us which shows data longitudinally.

Data was collected from student/parent surveys at the beginning of the year to determine student demographics and characteristics for each school. Principals input this information into the student management program and printed a copy for the TCSPP team. The information was used to give the team an idea of the school and community characteristics of each school within the system. Title I provided the team with information concerning the totals at each school of economically disadvantaged students. Equity and Adequacy were topics of discussion in reference to the schools that had the highest percent of educationally disadvantaged students.

TCAP assessment data, Gateway assessment data, and End of Course assessment data provided a substantial amount of summative data, and was broken down by classroom at each individual school. Principals held meetings with each teacher to discuss the successes and limitations to their previous year’s assessment results and developed a plan to address the areas of need for each individual teacher.

Formative Assessment pieces were maintained for the 2007-08 school year and included a compilation of DIBELS data for K-2 students, THINKLINK data for students in grades 3-8, and student profile data from PLATO labs at the high school level. Elementary schools also have added Orchard and Waterford for K-1 students. School leadership teams were required to meet on a bi-monthly basis to discuss formative assessment data and develop interventions to address each deficit area.

Use of Data - Narrative Response Required

How will you use your perceptual data (Surveys, Interviews, and Questionnaires) as you revisit/recreate the mission, vision, and beliefs of the system?

The non-academic data: Value Added, nonacademic data, i.e., attendance patterns, promotion patterns, dropout and graduation patterns. This information has been shared with each school and discussed during administrators meetings. We also use surveys for all constituencies, i.e. parents, the community, staff, and students to gather information about perceptions in our community. These results guide our visioning activities as we move forward in a building program for a new middle and high school. We examined and collected fiscal data over the past three years to review expenditure patterns per program area per student subgroup area of need to determine appropriate expenditure patterns.

Collection of Student Performance Data - Narrative Response Required

What types of student performance data are included in your profile?

Formative Assessment pieces were maintained for the 2007-08 school year and included a compilation of DIBELS data for K-2 students, THINKLINK data for students in grades 3-8, and student profile data from PLATO labs at the high school level. Elementary schools also have added Orchard and Waterford for K-1 students. School leadership teams were required to meet on a bi-monthly basis to discuss formative assessments and develop interventions to address each deficit area.

TCSPP TEMPLATE 1.1

(Continued)

Evaluation of Our Process for Developing Priorities for Improving Schools

Use of School Processes Data - Narrative Response Required

How have system office personnel provided equity and adequacy in resources, support, and personnel to our schools?

ü The LEA annually allocates each teacher $ 300.00

ü The LEA provides $ 20.00 per child to each school in lieu of fund raisers

ü Personnel are assigned to meet BEP

ü LEA provides continuous professional development for school personnel. We designate 3 of our weather related days for Professional Development

ü Title I Federal funds are distributed on the percent free/reduced population per school

ü Title IV funds are distributed to schools as per student population

ü Title III funds are utilized in program implementation to service ELL students

ü Title II provides 3 CSR teachers to reduce pupil-teacher ratio in 2 of the 6 schools

ü BEP 2.0 funds provided for 4 Reading Coaches at 3 of the 6 schools

ü BEP 2.0 funds provided for a county-wide staff development coordinator to plan activities for teacher professional development

ü BEP 2.0 funds provided for Guidance Counselors at 2 schools giving each school at least one counselor.

ü BEP 2.0 funds provided for a middle school Math Interventionist at Rhea Central Elementary to help address math deficiencies in the middle grades.

ü LEA has paid for paraprofessionals to take the ParaPro test to become Highly Qualified

ü Trained Reading Recovery Teacher Leader trained for Title I schools.

Delivery of Services - Narrative Response Required

What insights have we gained as to our delivery of services to schools?

Funding is always a major issue in providing a quality education within each LEA. Federal and local monies have diminished the past few years and program costs are soaring. Unfunded mandates through NCLB have left local school districts searching for the programs that are affordable yet yield the highest results for their specific population of students.

Staff Development continued to be a major point of emphasis during the 2007-08 school year. Through BEP 2.0 Funds, a staff development services position was created to develop a comprehensive program that would use teacher surveys, data dissagregation, and district directives. The team has made a special effort to get every school within the system on a similar path to teacher staff development. In assessing the staff development practices at each school, the team determined that there was a wide range of activities occurring at each school with little regard to what the other schools in the system were doing. The only exception to this was the technology training provided for staff members at every school. A consistent plan had been developed in this area. This plan became the focal point for other staff development activities to follow. Although the plan is still “a work in progress”, there has been a substantial improvement in this area.

Evaluation of the Collaborative Process- Narrative Response Required

What are the strengths and needs of the collaborative process used in the TCSPP?

Strengths included the opportunity to build collaborative teams within the school district and give each separate school an idea of things that are successful at the other schools within the county. These meetings can provide opportunities to develop “Best Practices” within the system and alleviate the need to duplicate unsuccessful programs. The process also provides an opportunity to gain and share ideas from the community as a whole. This time provides stakeholders within the community an opportunity to see the obstacles that are present within the school system framework.

Limitations include the massive amount of time and energy it takes to organize and implement each phase of the process. Some have speculated that this is time taken away from the students and their education. Also, there is currently a serious issue with duplicating work in each of the leadership areas. The original intent of the process was to combine the specialized areas within the school leadership team and streamline their paperwork. This has not been the case to this point. The team does understand that this is a “work in progress” and it will improve as people gain an understanding as to what is required of each special area of individuals.

(Collaboration should be a major focus in the development of each component. Revisit after completing the work of all 6 components.)

COMPONENT 2

BELIEFS, MISSION, and SHARED VISION

TCSPP TEMPLATE 2.1

BELIEFS, MISSION, and SHARED VISION

BELIEFS:

· All children can learn

· Children learn better in an age-appropriate setting. (K-5, 6-8, 9-12 schools)

· All Professional educators want to do a good job

· Students have the right to learn in a positive, safe, nurturing, and stimulating environment.

· Students’ rights and student responsibilities go hand in hand.

· It is important to develop the character of the students as well as the mind.

· Schools exist for the student.

· Parental Involvement is key!

· Community support is critical!

MISSION STATEMENT:

The System-wide Leadership Team chose to collaborate and develop a new Mission Statement, Motto, and Vision for the 2007-08 school year. The team decided to research the implementation of a Mission Statement by reading and discussing Chapter 2 in the Book “Failure is Not an Option” which dealt specifically with the development of a consistent system-wide Mission Statement and Vision. After completing the chapter review, the Leadership Team implemented the following Mission Statement and presented it to the system’s School Board of Education. The Board of Education adopted this into policy during the regular board meeting held in March, 2007. The System-wide Leadership Team agreed to keep the current Beliefs, Mission Statement, and Vision Statement at the October 1, 2007 meeting.

MISSION STATEMENT

The Rhea County School System strives to foster a community of life-long learners committed to providing a safe, academically rich, and creative environment empowering all students to attain their personal best while demonstrating the life skills that will enable them to reach for and attain their dreams.

Since the new Mission Statement was substantially longer than the previous statement, the team wanted to use a condensed version of the statement and develop a central theme during the 2007-08 school year. Since our educator’s primary goal is to help students find that special something that they really enjoy doing and strive to be the best at it that they can be, it was decided to develop the following motto for the Rhea County school system. The team felt that if students worked hard to find their dream and strive to reach that dream, then the school system and society would be a success.

Motto:

Reach for the Stars!!!

SHARED VISION STATEMENT:

Developing the knowledge and skills of life for life while planning for a better tomorrow by guiding today’s students to become tomorrow’s leaders.

COMPONENT 3

ACADEMIC and NON-ACADEMIC DATA ANALYSIS and SYNTHESIS: DEVELOPING PRIORITIES FOR IMPROVING SCHOOLS

TSPP TEMPLATE 3.1

Evaluation of Our Process for Developing Priorities for Improving Schools

The following summary questions address the use of various data in Component 3. They are designed as a culminating activity to help you assimilate the work of Component 3. This information comprises Component 3 of the TCSPP to be turned in to the Tennessee Department of Education.

Evaluation of Aggregated Data - Narrative Response Required

What are the strengths and needs of your system based on the aggregated data?

Using a collaborative process to evaluate the data, the committee determined the following:

K-8 Aggregated Data

Math Reading

Below Proficient Proficient/Advanced Below Proficient Proficient/Advanced

All Students 9 91 All Students 22 88

White 10 90 White 21 89

Hispanic 11 89 Hispanic 17 83

African American 26 74 African American 16 84

Economically Disadvantaged 13 87 Economically Disadvantaged 15 85

Students w/ Disabilities 52 48 Students w/ Disabilities 42 58

Limited English Proficient 33 77 Limited English Proficient 45 55

Female 7 93 Female 5 95

Male 10 90 Male 10 90

**No Native American, Asian/Pacific Islander data…

Writing

Grade 2005 2006 2007 2007 State

5^th 3.9 4.0 3.8 4.1

8^th 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.2

9-12 Aggregated Data

Gateway

Algebra Biology English II

Below Proficient Proficient/Advanced Below Proficient Proficient/Advanced Below Proficient Proficient/Advanced

17 83 1 99 3 98

End of Course

Math Foundations English I Physical Science

Below Proficient Proficient/Advanced Below Proficient Proficient/Advanced Below Proficient Proficient/Advanced

18 82 3 97 4 96

U.S. History

Below Proficient Proficient/Advanced

1 99

11^th Grade Writing

2005 2006 2007 2007 State

3.8 3.7 3.91 4.0

ACT

Math English Reading Science

2005 18.8 19.8 20.5 19.7

2006 19.0 20.1 20.9 19.9

2007 19.6 20.7 21.7 20.6

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Strengths:

·AYP was met in all subject areas, at all grade levels K-8 and 9-12, and by the system.

· K-8: Math—White, African American, Hispanic, and Economically Disadvantaged

· K-8 Reading—White, African American, Hispanic, and Economically Disadvantaged

· 5^th Writing

· 8^th Writing

· 9-12: Gateways: Biology, English II

· End of Course: English I, Physical Science, U.S. History

Needs:

· 3-8 Students with Disabilities—Math and Reading

· 3-8 Limited English Proficient—Math and Reading

· 3-8 African American—Math and Reading

· 9-12: Gateway: Algebra

· End of Course: Math Foundations

· 11^th Grade Writing

What evidence/sources support your response?

Rhea County Report Card 2007
TCAP Achievement Performance Level Reports
TCAP Achievement Performance Index Reports
TCAP Achievement Reporting Category% Proficient
Gateway and End of Course Performance Level Reports
Component 1 Profile Summary Report
TVAAS Reports
Writing Assessment Summary Reports
Vocational MIS Report
Reporting Category Performance Index Ratios Chart

Evaluation of Disaggregated Data - Narrative Response Required

What are the strengths and needs of your system based on the disaggregated data?

Using the collaborative process to evaluate the data, the committee determined the following:

K-8 Disaggregated Data

Frazier Elementary

Math Reading

Below Proficient Proficient/Advanced Below Proficient Proficient/Advanced

TOTAL 5 95 TOTAL 6 94

White 4 96 White 5 95

Economically Disadvantaged 7 93 Economically Disadvantaged 5 95

Female 7 93 Female 1 99

Male 4 96 Male 4 96

**No Hispanic, African American, Native American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Students with Disabilities, or Limited English Proficient data…

Writing

Grade 2005 2006 2007 2007 State

5^th 3.7 3.9 4.3 4.1

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

K-8 Disaggregated Data

Graysville Elementary

Math Reading

Below Proficient Proficient/Advanced BelowProficient Proficient/Advanced

All Students 4 96 All Students 14 86

White 3 97 White 14 86

Economically Disadvantaged 5 95 Economically Disadvantaged 18 82

Female 0 100 Female 10 90

Male 8 92 Male 9 91

**No Hispanic, African American, Native American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Students with Disabilities, or Limited English Proficient data…

Writing

Grade 2005 2006 2007 2007 State

5^th 3.7 3.9 3.7 4.1

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

K-8 Disaggregated Data

Rhea Central Elementary

Math Reading

Below Proficient Proficient/Advanced BelowProficient Proficient/Advanced

All Students 12 88 All Students 14 86

White 11 83 White 13 87

Hispanic 17 69 Hispanic 20 80

Economically Disadvantaged 14 86 Economically Disadvantaged 17 83

Students w/Disabilities 56 44 Students w/ Disabilities 52 48

Female 10 90 Female 11 89

Male 13 87 Male 13 87

**No African American, Native American, Asian/Pacific Islander or Limited English Proficient data…

Writing

Grade 2005 2006 2007 2007 State

5^th 3.8 3.9 3.8 4.1

8th 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2

Avg. 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.2

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

K-8 Disaggregated Data

Spring City Elementary

Math Reading

Below Proficient Proficient/Advanced Below Proficient Proficient/Advanced

All Students 13 87 All Students 13 87

White 12 88 White 13 87

Economically Disadvantaged 13 87 Economically Disadvantaged 16 84

Female 14 86 Female 3 97

Male 13 87 Male 13 87

** No Hispanic, African American, Native American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Students w/ Disabilities or Limited English Proficient data…

Writing

Grade 2005 2006 2007 2007 State

5^th 3.9 3.9 3.8 4.1

K-8 Disaggregated Data

Spring City Middle

Math Reading

Below Proficient Proficient/Advanced Below Proficient Proficient/Advanced

All Students 8 92 All Students 9 91

White 8 92 White 8 92

Economically Disadvantaged 13 87 Economically Disadvantaged 11 89

Female 4 96 Female 2 98

Male 13 87 Male 11 89

**No Hispanic, Native American, African American, Student w/ Disabilities, Asian/Pacific Islander, or Limited English Proficient data…

Writing

Grade 2005 2006 2007 2007 State

8th 3.7 3.7 4.1

Disaggregated Data

Rhea County High School

Gateway

Algebra Biology English II

Below Proficient Proficient/Advanced Below Proficient Proficient/Advanced Below Proficient Proficient/Advanced

17 83 1 99 3 98

End of Course

Math Foundations English I Physical Science

Below Proficient Proficient/Advanced Below Proficient Proficient/Advanced Below Proficient Proficient/Advanced

18 82 3 97 4 96

U.S. History

Below Proficient Proficient/Advanced

1 99

11^th Grade Writing

2005 2006 2007 2007 State

3.8 3.7 3.91 4.0

ACT

Math English Reading Science

2005 18.8 19.8 20.5 19.7

2006 19.0 20.1 20.9 19.9

2007 19.6 20.7 21.7 20.6

Individual Strengths and Needs

Strengths:

Frazier Elementary

All areas are at or above the Target

Graysville

All areas are at or above the Target

Rhea Central Elementary

Math and Reading – All students, White, Economically Disadvantaged, Male, and Female

Spring City Elementary

All areas are at or above the Target

Spring City Middle

All areas are at or above the Target area

Rhea County High School

9-12: Gateways: Algebra I, Biology, English II

End of Course: English I, Physical Science, U.S. History, Math Foundations

Needs:

Frazier Elementary

Continue to implement program and adjust as needed

Graysville

Continue to implement program and adjust as needed

Rhea Central Elementary

Math and Reading – Hispanic and Students with Disabilities

Spring City Elementary

Continue to implement program and adjust as needed

Spring City Middle

Continue to implement program and adjust as needed

Rhea County High School

11^th grade writing

TCSPP TEMPLATE 3.1

(Continued)

Evaluation of Our Process for Developing Priorities for Improving Schools

Evaluation of Non-Academic Data- Narrative Response Required

What are the strengths and needs of your system based on the non-academic data?

Using a collaborative process to evaluate the data, the committee determined the following:

Strengths:

Good Standing Status for System
Highly Qualified Teachers
K-8 Attendance and Promotion
9-12 Dropout Rate

Needs:

9-12 Attendance and Dropout Rate
Per Pupil Expenditure – ADA and ADM
Parent Involvement

Observed Trends:

The percent of identified high school student receiving free/reduced lunch has increased substantially
The Hispanic and limited English Proficient population has significantly increased
The graduation rate has increased
The attendance rate has increased with K-8 more significantly than 9-12
Student population has increased
The identification of the Homeless population has increased
There has been increased technological used by students and staff
The Dropout rate has decreased by .4% and is still above state requirements for graduation rates

What evidence/sources support your response?

· Attendance, Dropout, and Graduation Data-State Report

· Highly Qualified Update Report

· Rhea County Report Cards 2005, 2006, 2007

· Component I Profile

· Perceptual Surveys

· Percent of Free/Reduced Lunch Report 1990-2008

TCSPP TEMPLATE 3.1

(Continued)

Evaluation of Our Process for Developing Priorities for Improving Schools

The committee met and discussed all data to identify the district’s strengths and needs. Using the discrepancy analysis process, the academic and non-academic needs were listed. Each committee member used a rating process to determine the prioritized needs. Scores were tallied and the prioritized needs established.

The committee also looked for academic and non-academic trends that are relevant to the district and important to know when considering curriculum, instruction, personnel and expenditure of funds.

Evaluation of the System’s Current Approach in Meeting the Needs of All Students - Narrative Response Required

What are the strengths and needs of your system in meeting the needs of all students?

Strengths:

· Good Standing Status

· Highly Qualified Teachers

· K-8 Attendance/Promotion

· 9-12 Graduation Rate

· K-8 Achievement: Math

· K-8 Achievement Reading/Language Arts except Hispanic

· 9-12 Gateways: English II

· 9-12 End-of-Course: Math Foundations, English I (All Students, White)

· ACT

· K-8 TVAAS: Science, Social Studies

· K-8 Gain by Year by Grade: Math: 5,6; Science: 7; Social Studies: 7

· AYP

Needs:

9-12 Attendance and Dropout Rate
Per Pupil Expenditure- ADA/ADM
Parent Involvement
K-8 Reading/ Language Arts for Hispanic Students
9-12 Gateways: Algebra: (All Students, White, Economically Disadvantaged)
9-12 Gateways: English: Economically Disadvantaged
K-8 TVAAS: Gain by Year by Grade:

Reading/Language Arts: 4-8

Math: 4,7,8

Science: 5,6,8

Social Studies: 4,6,8

· 9-12 TVAAS: Gateways: Algebra

End-of-Course: English I

11^th Grade Writing

Observed Trends:

· The percent of identified high school students receiving free/reduced lunch has increased substantially

· The Hispanic and Limited English Proficient population has significantly increased

· The graduation rate has increased

· The attendance rate has increased with K-8 more significantly than 9-12

· Student population has increased

· The identification of the Homeless population has increased

· There has been increased technological use by students and staff

· K-8 in all grade levels and subject areas show positive growth

· The Dropout rate has decreased by 4.9%

What evidence/sources support your response?

Rhea County Report Card 2007
Writing Assessment Summary Reports
Gateway and End-of-Course Summary Reports
TVAAS Reports
No Child Left Behind AYP Report
TCAP Achievement Summary Reports
Gateway and End-Of-Course Demographic Summary reports
TCAP Achievement Disaggregation Summary Reports
Component I Profile Summary report
Vocational MIS Report
Special Education Federal Tables
Attendance, Dropout and Graduation Data-State Report
Perceptual Surveys

All academic and non-academic data was gathered and shared among the committee. The committee reviewed academic and non-academic data for the respective grade levels. The data summaries and the Discrepancy Analysis Chart with the various data sources were used. Academic strengths and needs were listed along with the supporting evidence.

The committee studied the strengths and needs. After discussion, each member prioritized the academic and non-academic needs for K-8 and 9-12 using the ranking process. All members participated in prioritizing the K-8 and 9-12 needs.

The committee reviewed the rubric for Component 3 to determine if all data sources had been used. The Reflective Matrix and Reflection questions were also utilized.

The goals were developed from the prioritized needs. The observed trends were considered in the establishment of goals as well.

The TCSPP Template was completed and the committee met for a final review.

All decisions were based upon the revealed data.

Evaluation of the Prioritized Goals - Narrative Response Required

What are your data driven prioritized goals?

Academic Goals:

· To increase the percent of Students with Disabilities scoring advanced or proficient by 5 percentage points at each targeted school within a two year period.

· To increase the percent of Limited Proficient students scoring advanced or proficient by 5 percentage points at each targeted school within a two year period.

· To increase the percent of Economically Disadvantaged students achieving proficient or advanced at each targeted school within a one year period by 3 percentage points.

· To increase the percent of Male students achieving proficient or advanced at each targeted school within a one year period by 3 percentage points.

· To increase per pupil expenditures on the above areas to address limited funding within the targeted subgroups.

· To increase the number of high school students scoring proficient on Gateway Algebra I assessments by 2 percent within a one year period.

· To increase the growth standard on the 3 year average by 1 % K-8 TVAAS Reading/Language Arts 4-8; Math 4,7,8 Science : 5,6,8 and Social Studies: 4,6,8

Non-Academic Goals:

· To increase the Attendance Rate at Rhea County High School to the State Goal of 93%

· Each year for the next 5 years, Rhea County will increase the proportion of students on target for graduation with their class by 2%.

· To implement the following Family Engagement Initiatives:

School meetings located places other than the school

Telephone numbers & e-mails for all teachers and staff

Translation services

Training/staff development on educational issues

On-going communication

TCSPP TEMPLATE 4.1a

CURRICULAR PRACTICES

Current Curricular Practices	STANDARDS –BASED CURRICULUM	HOUGTON MIFFLIN MATH K-5	Saxon Math 6-8	MC DOUGAL LITTELL 9-12	Scott Foresman Reading K-5	Holt-Rhinehart Reading 6-8	Quick Reads
Evidence of Practice	Curriculum Mapping Process; “Blueprint for Learning”; Teacher Lesson Plans	Textbook Adoption Process; Teacher Lesson Plans	Textbook Adoption Process; Teacher Lesson Plans	Textbook Adoption Process; Teacher Lesson Plans	Textbook Adoption Process; Teacher Lesson Plans	Textbook Adoption Process; Teacher Lesson Plans	Oregon First Florida Center for Reading Research
Is the current practice research-based?	YES	Vendor facilitated	Vendor facilitated	Vendor facilitated	Vendor facilitated	Vendor facilitated	YES
Is it a principle & practice of high-performing school systems?	YES	NO	NO	NO	NO	NO	YES
Has the current practice been effective or ineffective?	Effective	Disaggregated TVAAS data would indicate no in reference to certain subgroups	Disaggregated TVAAS data would indicate no in reference to certain subgroups	Disaggregated TVAAS data would indicate no in reference to certain subgroups	Disaggregated TVAAS data would indicate no in reference to certain subgroups	Disaggregated TVAAS data would indicate no in reference to certain subgroups	More time will be required to determine effectiveness
What data source(s) do you have that support your answer? (identify all applicable sources)	TVAAS; Lesson Plans; All assessments	TVAAS	TVAAS	TVAAS	TVAAS	TVAAS	DIBELS
Evidence of effectiveness or ineffectiveness	“A’s – TVAAS; embedded beliefs; State Performance Level success; ACT scores	Math Grade 4	Math Grades 7&8	Gateway Algebra	Language Arts All grade levels	Language Arts All grade levels	TBD
Evidence of equitable system support for this practice	Utilization of Federal Programs for more schools; system-wide program purchases	Textbook Adoption Process	Textbook Adoption Process	Textbook Adoption Process	Textbook Adoption Process	Textbook Adoption Process	All schools
Next Step (changes or continuations)	“Best Practices” sharing; PD(admin; teachers; staff)	Increase focus on Standard Based Curriculum & Instruction	Increase focus on Standard Based Curriculum & Instruction	Increase focus on Standard Based Curriculum & Instruction	Increase focus on Standard Based Curriculum & Instruction		Continue to Implement

Current Curricular Practices

Guided Reading Books

RTI Staff Development Materials

Curriculum Prioritization

Bill Daggett

Reading Instruction—5 Areas of Reading

H.S. Tutoring Program

(One Lunch)

Technology

Enhancement

Evidence of Practice

Reading Rooms at the identified schools

Program is still under development by District Staff

Staff Development Teacher Training

ThinkLink, Academy of Reading ,Plato

Failure Free Reading,

Vmath, K-5 End of Unit Reading Test

Is the current practice research-based?

YES

TBA

YES

Is it a principle & practice of high-performing school systems?

YES

TBA

YES

Has the current practice been effective or ineffective?

Effective

TBD

Effective

What data source(s) do you have that support your answer? (identify all applicable sources)

DIBELS Results

ThinkLink Results

TBD

Inter. Center for Leader. In Ed.

DIBELS Results

ThinkLink Results

TCAP Results

Gateway Scores

Leveled Test

Evidence of effectiveness or ineffectiveness

Effective

TBD

Effective To Date

Effective to Date

Effective To Date

Evidence of equitable system support for this practice

K-2 Classrooms

Sp. Ed. Documentation

System Notebook

Staff Development Sign-in Sheets

H.S. School Sign-In Sheets

Teacher Lesson Plans

Next Step (changes or continuations)

Expand Reading Rooms at Targeted Schools

Staff Development

Teacher Training

Continue to Implement

New Courses Offered

Continue to Implement

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TCSPP TEMPLATE 1.1

TCSPP TEMPLATE 2.1

TSPP TEMPLATE 3.1

TCSPP TEMPLATE 4.1a

TCSPP TEMPLATE 4.1b