(TSIPP)
Lyles,
Planning Process
SIP
Leadership Team
Leadership
Team Chair: Kathy
Dick
Subcommittee
Chairs: Sara Amis, Deborah DePaul,
Kari Dudney, Debbie Gross, Melanie Vincent, and Kim Taylor
Parent/Community
Members:
Levi Mobley and Janice Chessor
Component
1— School Profile and Collaborative Process
Committee
Chair: Sarah
Amis
Faculty
Members: Marlina
Ervin, Peggy McClellan, Gay Raines,
Suzie Szpont, and Jill Warren
Parent/Community
Members: David
Carroll and Michele Griggs
Component
2—Beliefs,
Committee
Chair: Kari
Dudney
Faculty
Members: Sherry
Fink, Carolyn Fleet, Frances Hobbs, Tavia McLeod, Celine Powell, Annette
Richards, and Jeri Lynn Rule
Parent/Community
Members: Donna
Carver and Tammt Faassen
Component
3—Academic and Non-Academic Data Analysis
Committee
Chair: Debbie
Gross
Faculty
Members: Debbie
Atkinson, Nicki Cole, Anndrea Eubanks, Suzanne Lewis, Brenda McFarlin, Chuck
Nall, and Linda Thomasson
Parent/Community
Members: Sarah
Booker and Angie Frazier
Component
4—Curricular, Instructional, Assessment, and Organizational Effectiveness
Committee
Chair: Deborah
DePaul
Faculty
Members: Rhonda
Deal, Mike Kelly, Jean Martin, Gloria McKinley, Lela Renberg, Tiffany Semore,
and Patricia Vadnais
Parent/Community
Members: Connie
Graves and Kari Thomason
Component
5—Action Plan Development
Committee
Chair: Melanie
Vincent
Faculty
Members: Ruthie
Buchanan, Michael Hanes, Ella Lassan, Becky Malugin, Pam Norris, and Judy Rist
Parent/Community
Members: Stephanie
Beard and Vicky Hall
Component 6—The
School Improvement Plan and Process Evaluation
Committee Chair:
Kim Taylor
Faculty Members:
Amanda Bean, Tonia Breece,
Shannon England, Cheryl Kiessling, David Renberg, and Twyla Tucker
Parent/Community Members:
Jill
Quigg and Tanya Ragsdale
Planning Process
Component 1
School
Profile and Collaborative Process
Committee Chair
Sarah
Amis
Faculty Members
Marlina
Ervin
Peggy
McClellan
Gay
Raines
Suzie
Szpont
Jill
Warren
Parent/Community Members
David
Carroll
Michele
Griggs
Overview
Our
committee collected and analyzed data regarding the student population, staff
information, parent/guardian demographics, and school and community
characteristics which all affect the overall performance of students.
Our current school population is five hundred five.
We have a total of four hundred ninety Caucasian students, four
African-American students, five Hispanic students, two Asian students, and four
American Indian students. Two
hundred thirty-three of our students are male; two hundred seventy-two are
female. Fifty-five percent of our
school population is considered economically disadvantaged.
Our school cafeteria offers breakfast and lunch to the staff and
students. We have a cafeteria staff
of eight people. Our custodial staff
consists of three people.
Our test score information has been analyzed.
We worked very hard and have seen improvements in our test scores.
Our achievement scores for 2005-2006 kept us in good standing with No
Child Left Behind.
One of our main goals is to continue to improve our test scores in the
area of special education students. Several
of our teaching staff members are volunteering their free time to help tutor
these students. We also have parent
volunteers working with these children. We
have increased testing intervals of the students and are working to provide
extra help in their areas of need.
We also are working to improve our relationship with our parents and
community. Our current
parent-teacher organization, Partners in Education, has improved this
relationship greatly. Recent surveys
indicate that parents are complimentary of our staff, administrator, and overall
school program, but we are working to increase the parental involvement within
our school.
General
Information:
Grades:
3-5
Student
Population: 505
Teacher
to Student Ratio: 1 to 15.8
Teacher
to Administrator Ratio: 32 to 1
Counselor
to Student Ration: 1 to 505
Student
Body Population
Caucasian:
490
African
American: 4
Hispanic:
5
Asian:
2
Native
American: 4
Attendance
Rate
95.1%
Promotion
Rate
98.9%
Community Profile
The demographics included in the census report are as follows:
22,377 are Caucasian, 1,084 are African American, 118 are American
Indian, 21 are Asian, 4 are Pacific Islander, 66 are of other ethnicity, 207 are
multiracial, and 249 are Hispanic.
The total households reported in the census were 8,341.
Of that total, 6,017 were reported as families.
Annual household income is as follows:
1,051 had a total income less than $10,000, 1,419 reported an income of
$10,000-$20,000, 1,264 reported an income of $20,000-$30,000, 1,175 reported
$30,000-$40,000, 946 reported $50,000-$60,000, 742 reported $60,000-$70,000, 772
reported $70,000-$80,000, 563 reported $75,000-$100,000, and 409 reported an
annual income over $100,000.
The household net worth for 2005 was as follows:
1,022 had a total net worth less than $0, 1,191 reported a net worth of
$1-$5,000, 599 reported $5,000-$10,000, 1,024 reported $10,000-$25,000, 1,103
reported a net worth of $25,000-$50,000, 1,359 reported $50,000-$100,000, 1,561
reported $100,000-$250,000, 586 reported $250,000-$500,000, and 289 reported a
total net worth of $500,000 or more.
The 2005 census reported the labor force of
The educational attainment of the population of Hickman County is as
follows: 2,071 reported having an
educational level less than ninth grade, 3,303 reported a range from grades
9-12, 5,934 graduated high school, 2,597 reported having some college, 769
received an associates degree, 878 received a bachelors degree, and 515
completed graduate school.
Administrative
Staff
Kathy Dick
Principal
Bachelor of
Science,
Master of Arts
in Education,
Career Ladder
Level: I
Years of
Experience: 17
Sarah Amis
Assistant Principal
Fourth Grade Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Master of Arts
in Education,
Years of
Experience: 3
Debbie Gross
Assistant Principal
Fifth
Grade Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Masters of Arts
in Education,
Years of
Experience: 7
Faculty
Amanda Bean
Third Grade Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Years of
Experience: 5
Tonia Breece
Fifth Grade Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Years of
Experience: 1
Nicki Cole
Fifth Grade Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Years of
Experience: 4
Deborah DePaul
Third Grade Teacher
Bachelor of
Science, Nova Southeastern University
Years of
Experience: 10
Kari Dudney
Third Grade Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Years of
Experience: 6
Shannon England
Fourth Grade Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Career Ladder
Level: I
Years
of Experience: 7
Marlina Ervin
Third Grade Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Years of
Experience: 4
Anndrea Eubanks
Fifth Grade Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Years of
Experience: 7
Michael Hanes
Fifth Grade Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Years of
Experience: 7
Frances Hobbs
Fourth Grade Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Career Ladder
Level: I
Years of
Experience: 34
Mike Kelly
Guidance Teacher
Bachelor of
Arts,
Years of
Experience: 5
Ella Lassan
Fourth Grade Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Years of
Experience: 8
Suzanne Lewis
Third Grade Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Years of
Experience: 6
Becky Malugin
Third Grade Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Years of
Experience: 7
Peggy McClellan
Third Grade Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Career Ladder
Level: I
Years of
Experience: 15
Brenda McFarlin
Physical Education Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Master of Arts
in Education,
Career Ladder
Level: III
Years of
Experience: 26
Gloria McKinley
Special Education Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Years of
Experience: 7
Tavia McLeod
Special Education Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Master of Arts
in Education,
Years of
Experience: 4
Pam Norris
Special Education Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Years of
Experience: 14
Chuck Nall
Music Education Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Years of
Experience: 7
Celine Powell
Third Grade Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Years of
Experience: 8
Gay Raines
Fourth Grade Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Career Ladder
Level: I
Years of
Experience: 21
David Renberg
Fifth Grade Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Years of
Experience: 12
Lela Renberg
Special Education Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Master of Arts
in Education,
Years of
Experience: 2
Annette Richards
Third Grade Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Years of
Experience: 8
Judy Rist
Fourth Grade Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Career Ladder
Level: I
Years of
Experience: 20
Jeri
Bachelor of
Science, University of Tennessee-Knoxville
Master of Arts
in Education,
Years of
Experience: 2
Tiffany Semore
Fourth Grade Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Years of
Experience: 2
Kim Taylor
Reading Teacher
Bachelor of
Science,
Years of
Experience: 10
Patricia Vadnais
Librarian
Bachelor of
Science,
Master of Arts,
Career Ladder
Level: I
Years of
Experience: 25
Melanie Vincent
Fifth Grade Teacher
Bachelor of
Arts,
Master of Arts,
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Career Ladder
Level: I
Years of
Experience: 12
Educational
Assistants
Debbie Atkinson
Regular Education Assistant
Ruthie Buchanan
Fifth Grade Special Education
Rhonda Deal
Regular Education Assistant
Sherry Fink
Physical Education
Cheryl Kiessling
Third Grade Special Education
Jean Martin
Regular Education Assistant
Linda Thomasson
CDC
Jill Warren
Fourth Grade Special Education
Office
Staff
Carolyn Fleet
ISS
Suzie Szpont
Attendance
Twyla Tucker
Accounting
Other
Staff
Marla Beard
Nurse
Brandi Branton
Speech
Leah Conder
Fill in Nurse
Levi Mobley
SRO Officer
Planning Process
Component 2
Beliefs,
Committee Chair
Kari
Dudney
Faculty Members
Sherry
Fink
Carolyn
Fleet
Frances
Hobbs
Tavia
McLeod
Celine
Powell
Annette
Richards
Jeri
Lynn Rule
Parent/Community Members
Donna
Carver
Tammy
Faassen
Overview
Our
committee involved all stakeholders in formulating a list of what we believe in
our school as well as creating our mission and vision statements.
We revised our beliefs, mission, and vision so that all would easily
understand them. Our committee met
August 2007 to discuss whether any changes and/or additions were necessary.
The group agreed that our current beliefs, mission, and vision met the
school’s needs.
At
EHIS, we formulated our beliefs, mission statement, and vision by polling
teachers, support personnel, administrators, students, and stakeholders.
We focused on making sure our communication to all involved could easily
be understood.
Beliefs
·
We believe all students can learn. (Learning)
·
We believe each student is a valued
individual with unique abilities and needs. (Learning)
·
We believe lessons should be
designed for all learning styles. (Instruction)
·
We believe learning should be
developmentally appropriate for all students. (Learning)
·
We believe each student should
demonstrate his/her understanding of essential knowledge and skills and be
actively involved in solving problems and producing quality work. (Assessment
and Decision Making)
·
We believe each student should be
challenged to reach his/her full potential. (Instruction)
·
We believe students should apply
their learning to real life. (Learning)
·
We believe that students learn best
when given an active role in the process. (Decision
Making)
·
We believe a student’s
self-esteem is raised by positive relationships and mutual respect among and
between students and staff. (Learning and
Instruction)
·
We believe a safe and physically
comfortable environment promotes student learning. (Learning)
·
We believe that the educational
success of each student requires a combined effort of the family, the school,
and the community. (Policy)
Our
mission at EHIS is to work together to create a safe and caring environment
where all students will actively learn to their fullest potential.
Vision
Our
vision at EHIS is to give all students the opportunity to achieve and maintain
their highest individual level of performance.
Planning Process
Component 3
Academic
and Non-Academic Data Analysis
Committee Chair
Debbie
Gross
Faculty Members
Debbie
Atkinson
Nicki
Cole
Anndrea
Eubanks
Suzanne
Lewis
Brenda
McFarlin
Chuck
Nall
Linda
Thomasson
Parent/Community Members
Sarah
Booker
Angie
Frazier
Overview
Our
committee reviewed the current SIP and all relevant school information including
academic and non-academic data. The
disaggregated data was used to identify subgroups, and recognize strengths and
areas of need. Goal targets were
prioritized and listed in order of need.
Introduction
The purpose of Component 3 was to review the current school improvement
plan and school level reports. Our
committee disaggregated data and used No Child Left Behind standards to identify
areas of strengths and areas of need.
3.1
Variety of Academic and Non-Academic Assessment Measures
Accelerated
After
School Tutoring
Attendance
Rates
Family
Friendly Schools Surveys
High
Flying Eagles
Parent
Volunteer Tutoring
Portfolios
Promotion
Rates
School
Counselor
STAR
Reading Program
State
Report Card
Student
Advisory Group
Student
Council Tutors
Student
Surveys
Study
Lab Tutoring
Survey
of Goals for Student Learning
TCAP
test scores
Teacher
Input
Teacher
Surveys
TVAAS
(Value Added)
3.2
Data Collection and Analysis
Committee members compared the most current available data (2005-2006) to
data gathered in 2004-2005. All data
sources were discussed.
Current disaggregated data of standard test scores show the differences
in test scores by gender, disabilities and economic disadvantage.
Comparisons of all gathered data were perused.
The committee looked at the overall scores and subgroup scores of each
subject available. We compared
scores from 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. We
also compared the three-year average. All
scores were compared to state scores as well.
Current data of TVAAS scores show the gains students make from year to
year. Comparisons of all gathered
data were perused. The committee
looked at the overall growth of each subject available.
We compared scores from 2004-2005 and 2005-2006.
We also compared the three-year average.
All scores were compared to state scores as well.
Computer-generated reports and teacher summaries were looked at in regard
to non-standardized test items. Charts
and graphs were compiled from all surveys for review and comparison.
Bar graphs created from data received from the Goals for Student Learning
were also reviewed. Comparisons were
made among the various goals to find our strengths and needs.
Our strengths and needs were defined using this process.
3.3 Report Card Data Disaggregation
Enrollment was 505 in the Fall of 2007.
Demographically the student body consists of 96.0% Caucasians, 0.1%
African Americans, 0.1% Hispanic, 0.1% Asian, 0.1% Native Americans with no
Pacific Islanders. Our enrollment is
made up of 46.1% males and 53.9% females.
There were no expulsions in 2005-2006.
There were no suspensions. The
attendance rate was 95.1% which exceeded the state goal of 93%.
The promotion indicators averaged 98.9% which also exceeded the state
goal of 97%.
Proficiency level and growth differences are detailed in the next
section.
3.4 Narrative Synthesis of All Data
The performance of our school is judged on AYP scores.
In 2004-2005, the school percent of proficiency and advancement in math
was 88.0%. It rose to 93.0% in
2005-2006 which was greater than the state percentage.
The males and the females scored at the state average in 2006.
Our economically disadvantaged students scored 81.0% in 2004-2005.
They increased that percent to 89.0% in 2005-2006 which is greater than
the state percent. Our students with
disabilities had a proficiency and advancement percent of 54.0% in 2004-2005
increasing it to 73.0% in 2005-2006. The
2005-2006 percent was well above the state percent of 58.0%.
Other categories were not differentiated in the state reports.
In 2004-2005, the third grade percent of proficiency and advancement in
math was 86.2%. It decreased to
85.8% in 2005-2006. It was below the
state percentage of 87.5%. The males
and the females scored 87.7% and 84.3% respectively making the males higher and
the females lower than the state average of 87.2% and 87.8% respectively in
2006. Our economically disadvantaged
students in third grade scored 80.8% in 2004-2005.
They decreased that percent to 79.6% in 2005-2006 which was lower than
the state percent of 81.2%. Our
students with disabilities in third grade had a proficiency and advancement
percent of 52.6% in 2004-2005 dropping it to 50.0% in 2005-2006.
The 2005-2006 percent was below the state percent of 61.8%.
Other categories were not differentiated in the state reports.
In
2004-2005, the fourth grade percent of proficiency and advancement in math was
91.3%. It increased to 96.4% in
2005-2006. That score was higher
than the state percentage of 87.7%. The
males and the females scored 94.0% and 100.0% respectively making it higher than
the state average of 86.3% and 89.3% respectively in 2006.
Our economically disadvantaged students in fourth grade scored 86.8% in
2004-2005. They increased that
percent to 96.0% in 2005-2006 which remained higher than the state percent of
81.1%. Our students with
disabilities in fourth grade had a proficiency and advancement percent of 55.6%
in 2004-2005 increasing it to 88.9% in 2005-2006.
The 2005-2006 percent was greatly above the state percent of 59.3%.
Other categories were not differentiated in the state reports.
In
2004-2005, the fifth grade percent of proficiency and advancement in math was
88.7%. It increased to 97.9% in
2005-2006. That score was higher
than the state percentage of 92.0%. The
males and the females scored 97.6% and 98.3% respectively making higher scores
than the state average of 91.3% and 92.8% respectively in 2006.
Our economically disadvantaged students in fifth grade scored 80.8% in
2004-2005. They increased that
percent to 96.1% in 2005-2006 which was greater than the state percent of 87.5%.
Our students with disabilities in fifth grade had proficiency and
advanced at 57.2% in 2004-2005 increasing it to 93.8% in 2005-2006.
The 2005-2006 percent was greatly above the state percent of 67.3%.
Other categories were not differentiated in the reports.
In 2004-2005, the school percent of proficiency and advancement in
reading/language arts was 89.0%. It
increased to 92.0% in 2005-2006. This
score was above the state average of 88.0%.
The males scored 90.0% in 2005-2006 which was above the 85.0% the state
required. The females scored 92.0%
in 2005-2006 which was equal to the state percent of 92.0%.
Our economically disadvantaged students scored 85.0% in 2004-2005.
They increased that percent to 88.0% in 2005-2006 which is above the
state percent of 82.0%. Our students
with disabilities had a proficiency and advancement percent of 72.0% in
2004-2005 increasing it to 76.0% in 2005-2006.
The 2005-2006 percent was well above the state percent of 64.0%.
Other categories were not differentiated in the state reports.
In 2004-2005, the third grade percent of proficiency and advancement in
reading/language arts was 90.9%. It
decreased to 89.1% in 2005-2006. This
score is the same as the state average of 89.1%.
The males scored 88.9% in 2005-2006 which was above the 87.2% the state
required. The females scored 89.2%
in 2005-2006 which was below the state percent of 91.2%.
Our economically disadvantaged students in third grade scored 91.2% in
2004-2005. They decreased that
percent to 83.7% in 2005-2006 which is slightly above the state percent of
83.5%. Our third grade students with
disabilities had a proficiency and advancement percent of 71.1% in 2005-2006.
This was a decrease from 2004-2005’s score of 94.8%.
The 2005-2006 percent was below the state percent of 75.8%.
Other categories were not differentiated in the state reports.
In 2004-2005, the fourth grade percent of proficiency and advancement in
reading/language arts was 85.1%. It
greatly increased to 92.8% in 2005-2006. This
score was higher than the state average of 88.0%.
The males scored 89.2% in 2005-2006 which was above the 85.4% the state
required. The females scored 98.3%
in 2005-2006 which was above the state percent of 90.7%.
Our economically disadvantaged students in fourth grade scored 77.6% in
2004-2005. They increased that
percent to 92.1% in 2005-2006 which is above the state percent of 81.4%.
Our fourth grade students with disabilities had a proficiency and
advancement percent of 50.0% in 2004-2005 greatly increasing it to 81.5% in
2005-2006. The 2005-2006 percent was
above the state percent of 67.2%. Other
categories were not differentiated in the state reports.
In 2004-2005, the fifth grade percent of proficiency and advancement in
reading/language arts was 87.4%. It
greatly increased to 95.1% in 2005-2006. This
score was above the state average of 91.9%.
The males scored 93.9% in 2005-2006 which was above the 89.9% the state
required. The females scored 96.6%
in 2005-2006 which was above the state percent of 94.1%.
Our economically disadvantaged students in fifth grade scored 82.1% in
2004-2005. They increased that
percent to 92.1% in 2005-2006 which is above the state percent of 87.2%.
Our fifth grade students with disabilities had a proficiency and
advancement percent of 64.2% in 2004-2005 increasing it to 93.8% in 2005-2006.
The 2005-2006 percent was well above the state percent of 74.1%.
Other categories were not differentiated in the state reports.
After looking at this information, it is evident that our math and reading/language arts scores are increasing in most areas. Our scores are higher than the state average in most areas as well. However, we do see a trend that our third grade is not making the gains that the fourth and fifth grades are making. Although there are gains in these subject areas, we still feel these are areas of needs. We wis