Warning:Ý If you are viewing this plan on the web, some extraneous and unusual characters may appear.Ý This resulted when the plan was converted to htm , the language of the web.

An Integrated School Improvement Plan for

Ulla F. Muller Elementary School

ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN

March 2004 ñ March 2006

School Mission

The ULLA F. MULLER SCHOOL has been charged with the responsibility of providing quality educational and stimulating positive growth in students.Ý Our educational program must ensure learning for all students consistent with the needs, interests, and abilities in order for them to develop mentally, physically, emotionally, and socially, thereby preparing them to become responsible, productive citizens.

1. Introduction and Background

1. Introduction and Background

1.1 School Community

The Ulla F. Muller Elementary School is located at 101 Contant, St. Thomas, U. S. Virgin Islands. The school is comprised of sixteen regular classrooms in addition to two Gifted and Talented classes, two transitional classes, and two modified instructional classes.Ý Our school presently serves a population of 424 students from kindergarten through the sixth grade.Ý One hundred percent of our students qualify for the free lunch program and the ethnic breakdown is 93.8% African-American, 5% Hispanic, 1% Middle Eastern, and 2% Caucasian.

School Strengths:

… Committed staffÝ

Our staff extends the teaching/learning environment beyond the scope of the school day.Ý They report early, work through lunch hours, and work after school to help those students who need assistance.Ý To support learning in reading and math, our teachers are active in after school clubs such as Math Counts and Family Reading Nights.ÝÝ Twenty-five percent of our faculty are also leaders in the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

… Staff Qualification and Stability

Our staff is highly qualified:Ý 93% have a B.A degree or higher and only one teacher works outside his/her field.ÝÝ Sixty-seven percent of our teachers have been working at the school for over five years.Ý

Reading SupportÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ

The Remedial Reading teacher provides development reading for a group for 7 students in the primary Transitional class.Ý She also provides remedial instruction for students in grades one, two, and the primary Transitional class.Ý Additionally, we participate in 2 programs that extend reading beyond the classroom:Ý Reading is Fundamental (RIF) in which students receive three free books per year, and Family Reading Nights for eight weeks where students receive one free book per visit.Ý Research has shown that home reading is important in assisting children in becoming good readers. (Henderson,1987)

… Technology

In our computer lab and/or in the classrooms, students use computers in the content areas in math (Leap Frog Math), as a problem-solving tool (spreadsheets, puzzles, Inspiration) and in reading comprehension (Top Hat Tales and AstroWord). ÝOur Technology Committee trains other teachers to use technology in support of reading and math.Ý This provides teachers with additional strategies to individualize instruction and meet the needs of students with alternative learning styles.

Science and Math Lab

Our Science and Math Lab is equipped with a variety of math manipulatives for hands-on learning as well as equipment and materials to perform science experiments.Ý In addition, the television, VCR, and DVD player are used to show educational programs.ÝÝ The equipment in the Lab supports alternative learning styles by providing visual and kinesthetic learning tools.

… After School Program

In order to provide assistance to students who have shown a weakness in core academic subjects, particularly reading and math, we have conducted an After School Program at Muller for the last 6 years.

Challenges:

… Very low scores on standardized testÝÝÝ

Based on Spring 2003 scores on the WRAT standardized test, over 66% of our students scored below the 50^th percentile in reading and in math.

Low Parental Involvement

Many parents have more than one job; many of our students come from one-parent families; the education of some of our parents is minimal, and some of our parents are grounded in a culture that believes that the school is in charge of their childís education. These factors result in reduced parental involvement as confirmed by an average PTA attendance rate of 25%.Ý Research indicates that parental involvement significantly increases student achievement (1987). Ý

Technology ÝAs per our technology plan, we should have 3 computers in each classroom.Ý We only have 1.1 which is not enough to significantly support reading and math.

1.2 School Improvement Team

As in the past years, faculty and staff members volunteered to be on the 2003-2004 School Improvement Team.Ý Additional persons were recruited to represent various groups in the school and community.Ý (See below.)Ý The Team Leader was elected by the group members.Ý Each year, faculty and staff sign up for various committees and decide how many years he/she will serve.ÝÝ

Table 1: School Improvement Team

Team Member	Position	RoleÝÝÝ (COMMITTEES)	Length of Service
Mrs. O. Shillingford	Principal	Assessment Committee, (chair)	1990-
Mrs. C. Sarauw	Assistant Principal	Assessment Committee	2003-
Mrs. A. Carty	Librarian	Team Leader, Reading & Math Com.	1989-92, 1995-
Mrs. C. Tyson	Computer Teacher	Technology Committee, (chair)	1989-
Mrs. E. Stephen	K- teacher	Assessment, Reading Committee	2000-
Mrs. L. Lettsome	5^th grade teacher	Technology, Math Committee	1998-
Mrs. J. Norford	Transitional teacher	Math (chair) and Parental Committees	2003-
Ms. A. Callwood	GAT teacher	Technology, Reading	1994-
Mrs. D. Thomas	GAT teacher	Technology, Reading (chair) Com.	2001-
Miss E. Peters	1^st grade teacher	Member	1998-
Ms. D. Milliner	5th grade teacher	Parental Committee	1999-
Ms. E. Mills	Transitional teacher	Reading, Math	1998-
Miss W. Christmas	MIS teacher	Assessment Committee	2003-
Ms. K. Hendrickson	Paraprofessional	Parental Committee	2003-
Ms. U. JnBaptiste	Custodian	Parental Committee	2000-
Ms. L. Browne	Kitchen manager	Parental Committee	2000-
Mr. R. Creque	Parent	Parental Committee	2003-
Ms. A. Francis	Parent	Community Member	2003-
Mrs. J. Chesterfield	Parent	Parental Committee, recorder	2003-
Mrs. M. Thomas	Counselor	Parental Committee, (chair)	1998 -

2.Ý Data Collection, Organization and Patterns

2.1Ý Data Collection Methods

Recorded student achievement/assessment data in Reading and Mathematics for the last 3 years, were collected on all current 4^th grade students in regular, Gifted and Talented, MIS, and Transitional classes.Ý These include year-end grades, WRAT and Brigance Test results. Within our current 4^th grade, we have 1 LEP student, no students with limiting physical disabilities, and no statistically significant racial/ethnic subgroups beyond that of Afro-Americans.Ý We have opted to break the 4^th grade students into 2 subgroups:Ý (1) Students in the regular and Gifted and Talented classesÝ (2) Students in the Transition and MIS classes.Ý Our data are based on student achievement scores in the current 4^th grade; we have used and reported some summary data on students currently in the 6^th grade. Documents on demographics, educator, professional, and curriculum data were collected from District, the Board of Education, school and PTA records, and from the February 2004 Technology survey.

Table 2: Data Collection MethodsÝ

TYPE	Description (e.g., number, title, timeframe, response rate)
Survey/Interview	1.Ý Parent Survey at end of the 2002-3 school year.ÝÝ 86%, response rate 2.ÝÝ Teacher Surveyñ School Organization, Curriculum, Instructional Practices, ÝÝÝÝÝ and Assessment in March, of 2003.Ý 95% response rateÝ 3.Ý Teacher survey ñÝ ELA/Math. Dec.2003.Ý 86% response rate 4.Ý Student SurveyóJanuary 2004ÝÝ Random sample of 30 students ñ ÝÝÝÝÝ 100 % response rate 5.Ý Technology survey, February 2004, (response rate 61%)
Observations	1.Ý Year end grades in Reading and Mathematics for school years ending in 2001, 2002, and 2003 for 100% of students currently assigned to a 4^th grade level.
Documents	1. Teachers and paraprofessionalsí academic profile form, January 2004 2. Planning Research & Evaluation document submitted monthly to the Superintendentís office which includes demographics, attendance, record of infractions 2001, 2002, 2003 3. SASI data - updated weeklyÝ

Formal Assessments

1. ÝReading and Math scores on the WRAT test administered to 100 % of 3^rd grade and 5^th grade students in the Spring of 2003.Ý 2. ÝReading and Math scores on the Brigance test administered to 3^rd grade MIS ÝÝÝÝÝÝ students in the Spring of 2003 3.ÝÝÝ Star Math, January, 2004Ý 100% of 6^th grade students.

Subgroups	# Tested	School Year	Reading	Math
Regular and G&T 3^rd grade students	38	2002 to 2003	34%	5%
Third grade MIS and Transitional students	7	2002 to 2003	0%	0%
5^th Grade - all	64	2002 to 2003	27%	34%

2.2Ý Assessment Data

Table 3:Ý District Data Results:Ý Percent of Muller Students in 3^rd/ 5^th grades and the MIS/Transitional students who performed at the 50^th percentile or above on the WRAT test administered in the Spring of 2003.Ý

Chart 1

Trends for Table 3 and Graph 1

… Trend 1:Ý Across all tested grade levels and subgroups tested, a high percent performed below the 50^th percentile.

… Trend 2:Ý More students in 5^th grade performed at the 50^th percentile or higher in math than the students in 3^rd.

… Trend 3:Ý More students in 3^rd grade performed at the 50^th percentile or higher in reading than the students in 5^th.

… Trend 4:Ý None of the students in our MIS or Transitional Classes tested at or above the 50^th percentile in Reading and Mathematics on the WRAT Test.

School Assessment Data

4A: School Data Results:Ý Classroom Performance Data based on year-end report card grades in Reading and Mathematics 2000-2003.

Percent of current 4^th Grade Muller Students at a Proficiency Level of 70%

GradeÝ 4 students	#	School Year	Reading grades	Math grades
Students in Regular and G&T classes	46 51 56	2000 to 2001 2001 to 2002 2002 to 2003	87% 84% 82%	85% 88% 88%
Students in MIS and Transitional class	12 12 14	2000 to 2001 2001 to 2002 2002 to 2003	92% 75% 64%	92% 83% 57%

…

Trend 1:Ý In the last three years, at least 80% of the Regular and G&T are working above the district proficiency level of 70% or above, in both reading and math.

… Trend 2:Ý Year-end average grades in Reading for this sample of students have shown a downward trend over the last 3 years.

… Trend 3: There was a significant decrease in the percent of students performing at the district proficiency level of 70% or above, in both subjects, by the MIS and transitional students.

Ý

Table 4B: School Data Results:Ý Percent of 6^th grade and Transitional students performing at the 50^th Percentile or above on the Star Math assessment/placement test administered in 2004.

Grade	# Tested	School Year	% > 50^thpercentile
6ÝÝÝ	61	Jan. 2004	5%
1^st/2^nd TransitionalÝÝ	14	Feb. 2004	4%
3^rd/4^th Transitional	11	Feb. 2004	0%

*Note:Ý Recently, we acquired the Star Math assessment/placement program.Ý Our 6^th grade and 3^rd/4^th grade Transitional students took the assessment test in January 2004.Ý We are using it to confirm our conclusions from the WRAT scores that the majority of our students are below the 50^th percentile.

Table 4C: School Data Results:

Percent of MIS and Transitional Students Proficient* (at grade level) in Reading and

Math as Measured by the Brigance Test results, Administered in the Spring of 2003

Grade 4	# Tested	School Year	Reading	Math
Third grade MIS/Transitional students	4	2002 to 2003	25%	25%

*Note:Ý Proficiency on the Brigance test is based on a score that is commensurate with the studentsí grade level.Ý These students were tested when they were in 3^rd grade, close to the mid year; hence a score of 3.5 or above would indicate proficiency

2.3Ý Demographic Data

Table 5: General School Data from SASI and School Records

	School Year 2001ñ2002		School Year 2002ñ2003		School Year 2003ñ2004
Attendance rate (#/%)	422/436=/97%		407/448=/91%		429//432=99%
Suspension rate (#/%)	21/5%		21/5%		pending
Expulsion rate (#/%)	0		0		pending
Transfers/Withdrawals (#/%)	69/16%		19/4.2%		pending
Promotion rate (#/%) (K-6)	431/99%		426/95%		pending
Retention rate (#/%) (K-6)	3/1%		13/3%		pending
6^th grade promotion rate (#/%) (if applicable)	68/100%		67/97%		pending
Gender (#/% males/females)	M 238/55%	F 198/45%	M 222/51%	F 226/49%	M 230/53%	F 202/47%
Caucasian (#/%)	N/A		1/ .22%		2/ .46%
Afro-American (#/%)	N/A		421/93.97%		409/94.67%
Hispanic (#/%)	N/A		23/5.13%		19/4.41%
Asian (#/%)	N/A		0		0
Middle Eastern (#/%)	N/A		3/.67%		2/.46%

… Trend 1:Ý There has been no significant change in the ethnicity of students over the past 3 years.

… Trend 2:Ý The high attendance rate and low expulsion/suspension rate indicate that the greatÝ majority of students are at school each day.

… Trend 3:Ý LessÝ than 5% of our population is of a non Afro-American ethnicity.

Table 6: Enrollment Data

Grade levels in the school, K-6	School Year 2001ñ2002	School Year 2002ñ2003	School Year 2003ñ2004
School population Total (#)	436	448	432
Grade K (#)	38	50	46
Grade 1 (#)	53	42	57
Grade 2 (#)	44	51	47
Grade 3 (#)	62	47	48
Grade 4 (#)	71	58	49
Grade 5 (#)	76	66	56
Grade 6(#)	63	72	61
MISÝ and SIS*	37	34	29
Transitional	11	21	26
Gifted and Talented	0	19	22

… Trend 1:Ý Overall student population is generally greatest on the primary level.

… Trend 2:Ý Number of Transitional/MIS students increased yearly.

… Trend 3:Ý There are more MIS and Transitional students than Gifted and Talented.

Table 7: Student Subgroups

	School Year 2001ñ2002		School Year 2002ñ2003		School Year 2003ñ2004
	#	%	#	%	#	%
Total Limited English Proficient (LEP)***	5	1.1 %	7	1.5%	12	2.8%
Spanish	5	1.1 %	5	1.1%	11	2.5%
Arabic	0	0%	2	0%	1	0%
French	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Total Gifted	41**	10%	19	4.2	22	5%
Total Special Education Population *	37	8.4%	34	7.3%	29	7.1%
ÝSpeech/Language	15	3.4%	24	5.3%	21	4.8%
Learning Disability	36	8.4%	34	7.3%	29	7.1%
Physical Disability	1	0 %	0	0%	0	0%
Full student attendance days (#)	436		448		432

*Students with IEPs

** In school year 2001-2002, there was no self-contained Gifted and Talented program.Ý Rather, there was a pull out enrichment program for gifted students.Ý Of the 42 students involved in this program, 10 were 6^th graders who worked in an accelerated math program.

*** In the geographic area around Muller School, elementary students with a significant, limited English language proficiency are sent to a neighboring school that has an LEP program.Ý Although 12 LEP students are enrolled at Muller this year, all but four function adequately in the English language.Ý There is only one LEP student in the data set of current 4^th grade students.

… Trend 1:Ý The number of LEP students (particularly Hispanic) has increased slightly over the 3 years, but remains less than 10%

… Trend 2: Number of Special Education students decreased over the last 3 years.

1.4 Program Data

Table 8: Educator Data from Human Resources Document and School Records

	School Year 2001-2002			School Year 2002-2003			School Year 2003-2004
	School	District	Territory	School	District	Territory	School	District	Territory
Total Full-Time Classroom Teachers	33			33	682		34	660	1462
Average Years Teaching	15.7			16	13.7		16	13.2	13.6
% Teachers New to Building	6%			0	4%		12%	1%	2%
% First-Year Teachers	6%			0	4%		2	1%	2%
% with B.A. Degree	70%			71%	65%		73%	65%	64%
% with M.A. & Above	21%			24%	31%		20%	33%	31%
% with Emergency or Provisional Credentials				84%	90%		70%	68%	71%
Teachers working out of field (#)*	1			1	216		1	144	325
Classroom Teacher Attendance	97%			93%			95%
% Caucasian Teachers	12%			15%	12%		12%	12%	9%
% Afro-Am. Teachers	88%			85%	84%		8%	84%	83%
% Hispanic Teachers	0			0	4%		0	3%	7%
% Male Teachers	15%			15%	24%		15%	22%	22%
% Female Teachers	85%			85%	76%		85%	78%	78%
Total Paraprofessionals	8			7	115		7	123	292
Total Under-qualified paraprofessionals**	8			7	111		7	119	274
Total Counselors	2			2	40		2	39	77
Total Librarians	1			1	14		1	12	28
Total Social Workers/Psychologists	0			0			0
Total Other Staff	15			15	260		14	249	546

**Note:ÝÝ Paraprofessionals with less than 2 years of training and/or education degree.

… Trend 1:Ý 90% of our teachers have Bachelorís degrees or higher, and have more than 10 years experience.

… Trend 2:Ý Over 86 % of the teachers are African/American with few Hispanic and Caucasians.

… Trend 3:Ý All reading and math teachers are teaching in their field except the computer teacher.

Table 9: Professional Growth Data:Ý School Records, Teacher Surveys (100% in 2003) and interviews

TOPIC	Mo/Year	Grade Levels	# Participants	School wide Y/N	Format
AFT-Miniquest	Oct. 2001ÝÝÝ -02, -03	K ñ6	All teachers & Paras	Yes	Forum and workshops
Direct Instruction	Aug 2002	K-6	All teachers & Paras	Yes	Workshop
National Kindergarten workshop	JulyÝ 2002	K	One teacher	No	Workshop
Improving outcomes for students with disabilities	Apr.Ý 2002	Transi- tional	3 teachers 1 Ad	No	Workshop
Challenging the Gifted Learner	Apr & Oct, 2002	GAT	2 GAT teachers	No	Conference
Make sense strategies - Math	Apr. 2002	K-3	3 teachers	No	Workshop
NCTM	2001, 02,03	K-6	5 teachers	No	Workshops
Thinking Math	Apr. 2003	K-6	1 teacher	No	Workshop
Family Math	Feb. 2003	K-6	1 teacher	No	Workshop
Renaissance Math	Jan. 2003 Feb. 2004	6	1 teacher, 1 A 5 teachers	No	Workshop Workshop
University courses	2001 -02. -03	all	6 teachers 4 paras	No	Adm/MA Courses BA Courses
Riverdeep	Aug. ñ Nov. 2003	1-6	8 teachers	No	Technology course, On line.
National Educational Computing Conference (NECC)	July 2002 July 2003	All	2 teachers 1 teacher	No	Conference workshops, sessions and seminars
Monthly meetings for MIS instructors	2001, 02, 03	MIS	2 teachers	No	Meetings/ workshops

… Trend 1:Ý Most professional development has been a one shot approach with little follow up, has not focused on specific problems in Reading and Math, and has targeted a few teachers.

… Trend 2:Ý Only Direct Instruction workshops were school wide and focused on Reading.

… Trend 3:Ý Transitional class teachers have had no professional training.

… Trend 4:Ý Teachers have not had professional development in literal and inferential comprehension and contextual vocabulary, the areas in which our students scored poorly on the WRAT test.

Curriculum Implementation Data

The programs below are generally based upon standard textbooks that are closely aligned to the VI Content Standards. Before the 2001 school year, the basal reader used for instruction was Literature Works, a thematic approach using literature.Ý It was supplemented by Scholastic and SRA Phonics, Remedial Reading, and RIF.Ý In 2001, Direct Instruction, a scientific based program, was implemented in Kindergarten and over the subsequent years has been phased in up to 5^th grade.ÝÝ As it is phased in, Literature Works is phased out. As yet, we have no formal assessment of the program though our teachers unanimously agree that those students who have used Direct Instruction come into their class better prepared. Focus was developed for students with poor reading skills.Ý For this reason, and its high interest level, Focus is used in our special education classes.ÝÝÝ In order to extend reading beyond the school walls, a Family Reading program was instituted this year.Ý Renaissance Math, with its extensive diagnostics, is being phased into 3^rd and 6^th grades this year, and within 2 years, all grade levels will use this scientific based program.Ý In all of the other promotional subjects, the textbooks were adopted several years before the 2001 school year and are still in use.Ý The arrows in the columns below indicate the program was continued in that year.

Table 10:Ý Curriculum Implementation Data

	School Years prior to 2001	School Year 2001-2002	School Year 2002-2003	School Year 2003-2004
Reading	Reading is Fundamental Literature Works Remedial Reading (1-2) Direction Instruction (K) Scholastic Phonics (K-2) SRA Phonics (3)	ý ý ý Direct InstructionÝ (K-1) ý ý	ý ý(3-6) ý Direct Instruction ý ý	ý ý(5-6) ý Direct Inst.Ý (K-4) SRA (K-2) Family Reading
Mathematics	Exploring Mathematics	Exploring Mathematics	Exploring Mathematics	ý Renaissance Math (3 & 6)
Science	Discovery Works Science Horizons	ý ý	ý ý	ý ý
Writing	The Write Source	ý	ý	ý
Gifted & Talented/ Enrichment	Literature Works Exploring Mathematics	ý ý	ý ý Literary Reflections	ý ý ý
Special Education	Focus Exploring Math SRA Phonics	ý ý ý	ý ý ý	ý ý ý Direct Instruction
Transitional	Literature Works Exploring Math Remedial Reading SRA Phonics	ý ý ý ý	ýDirect Instruction ý ý ý	ýDirect Instruct. Renaissance Math ý ý

… Trend 1:Ý Curriculum materials for Special Education and Transitional classes are the same as those for the regular classes with some teacher modifications.

… Trend 2:Ý Of the Reading programs used at Muller School, only the Direct Instruction program was widely supported through professional development (6) sessions.

… Trend 3:Ý Of the Math programs used at Muller School, only the Renaissance Math has been supported through professional development (26 individualized) sessions.

… Ý

2.5 Perception Data:Ý Student SurveyÝÝ A stratified random sample of 50 students from 4^th ñ6^th grades, completed the survey in January 2004.Ý The survey looked at studentsí perceptions toward Math and Reading.Ý The Likert scale was a 3 point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

Table 11A:Ý Student SurveyÝÝÝÝ January 2004ÝÝ 100%Ý Response rate

Question	% Agree
My teacher uses the computer to help me with Reading and Math	35%
My teacher uses a lot of hand-on activities in Math	60%
My teacher uses a lot of worksheets in Reading and Math	61%
My family gives help with my homework	89%
I enjoy reading books, magazines, and newspapers when I am not in school	65%
I use the computer at home to help me with my reading and Math	44%
I enjoy my reading class	88%
I enjoy my Math class	71%

… Trend 1:Ý Over 70% of the students indicated they enjoyed their Reading and Math classes.

… Trend 2:Ý Less than 50% of the students use a computer to support learning at home or at school.

Parent Survey:Ý A random sample of 200 parents assessed their perceptions of the school on its environment, academics, communication, attitude, and involvement.Ý The 3 point Likert Scale ranged from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

Table 11B:ÝÝÝÝ Parent surveyÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ MayÝ 2003ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ 56% response rate

	Question	Agree
Environment	The school building is generally bright, clean, and kept in good repair.	63%
Academics	Muller teachers are quick to assist when children are having academic problems.	66%
	Overall, I am satisfied with the education my child is getting at this school.	84%
Communication	Parents get frequent reports on how well their children are learning	79%
	I feel free to contact my childís teachers.	93%
Attitude	There is a good spirit at our school.	74%
	My child enjoys school	85%
Involvement	Gave reasons for lack of parental involvement with the school	54%

… Trend 1:Ý Parents have a positive attitude toward their childís experience at Muller School.

… Trend 2:Ý A high percentage of students do not have access to a computer at home.

Table 11C:Ý Teacher survey:Ý This survey addressed teachersí perceptions toward school organization and climate, curriculum, instructional practices, assessment and use of technology.Ý It was administered in March 2003 and had a response rate of 100%.Ý The rating scale ranged from 1 to 5 where 1 means does not reflect our school or program,, and 5 meansÝ accurately describes our school or program.Ý

School Organization & Climate:Ý High leadership and expectations; safe environment, presence of school based management.	3.8
Curriculum:Ý Aligned to standards, insures basic skill mastery, high order thinking skills are taught	3.7
Instructional practices:Ý High standards for learning, effective instruction, quality resources, meets individualized needs of students.	3.8
Assessment:Ý High variety and frequency of assessments, aligned to curriculum,	4
Technology:Ý Number of computers used in the classroom for instruction of reading and math. (AVG)	1.1

Trend 1:Ý Teachers feel they are adequately assessing the progress of our students using criterion testing.

Trend 2:Ý Teachers feel the school organization and climate are generally positive.

Trend 3:Ý Instructional practices are relatively aligned to the curriculum.Ý

Table 11D:Ý District Survey of K-12 Classroom Practices in Reading, December, 2003, Response rate 86%/100%*

Homework	Teachers assign 15-30 minutes of homework daily.	53%
Learning Centers	Teachers use learning centers daily.	32%
Cooperative learning	Teachers involve students in cooperative learning on a daily basis.	37%
Instructional strategies	… Teachers are using whole group instruction daily for reading/writing ÝÝ lessons. … Teachers use small group presentations 2-3 times per week. … Teachers use the lecture method and drill/practice seatwork. … Teachers use student-engaging instruction.	53% 42% 42% 16%
Instructional time	Teachers use a minimum of 120 minutes for reading/writing instruction.	32%

Table 11E:Ý District Survey of K-12 Classroom Practices in MathÝÝ December, 2003ÝÝ Response rate 86%/100%*

Instructional Time	Technology is under utilized in math education.
Student Engagement	Students rarely are encouraged to work together in math assignments or projects.
Instructional Preparation	Teachers feel well or very well prepared to manage cooperative learning groups, teach problem solving strategies, teach students with special needs, involve parents, and integrate math with other subjects.Ý
Professional Development	Frequency of professional development is only once or twice per year.Ý
General	Instruction time on Mathematics is, on average, slightly less than 5 hours per week.
Homework	Time on Math homework is reasonable for elementary school students (15-30 minutes) but frequency is less than 4 times per week.

* Note:Ý The response rate of teachers who teach reading and math was 100%

Table 11F:Ý District Technology SurveyÝÝÝÝ February, 2004ÝÝÝÝÝ Preliminary response Rate 61%

Category	Question	% that agree
Use of technology by teachers	Use a computer at school once per week or more	80%
ÝÝ	Use email once per week or more to communicate with students, principal, other teachers, or parents	Up to 20%
Technology available in the classrooms	Classrooms in which technology, other than computers, is available.	!0%
ÝÝ	Classrooms in which a multimedia computers is available (regardless of age).	100%
Teachers use technology with students	Word processors, at least monthly	60%
ÝÝ	Internet, at least monthly Internet, at least monthly	50%
Teachers preferences on technology related professional development	Teachers want professional development in using student software	70%
ÝÝ	Teachers want PD for planning lessons that integrate technology in specific content areas	75%
ÝÝ	Teachers prefer technology PD to take place at their own school	70%
Teachers believe technology is a useful learning tool	Technology better prepares my students for 21st century	90%
ÝÝ	Using technology enhances my student' learning	90%

SUMMARY

Table 12: Summary of Major Patterns Observed

Patterns of strengths	Data upon which conclusion is drawn.
1.Ý Overall student learning at Muller is above average, according to classroom observations and perception surveys. ÝStudents are learning what is being taught and assessed.	Table 4A Tables 11B, & 11C
2. There is a high alignment of ethnicity/culture between teachers and students.Ý The great majority of teachers and students are Afro-American.	Tables 5, 7, & 8
3.Ý Teachers, students, and parents have indicated there is a positive atmosphere at the school.Ý This is supported by high attendance and low expulsion/suspension rates among students and low turn over rate among teachers.Ý	Tables 5, &11A Table 11B & 11C
PATTERNS OF PROBLEMS
1.Ý There is a great divergence between student classroom performance (year-end grades) and standardized test scores in Mathematics.Ý	Tables 3 Tables 4A & 4B, 4C
2.Ý There is a great divergence between student classroom performance (year-end grades) and standardized test scores in Reading.Ý	Table 3 Tables 4A, 4B &4C
3.Ý Muller staff had only one school-wide professional development workshop (Direct Instruction).Ý Reading is one of the areas in which our students have tested poorly on standardized instruments.	Table 9 Table 10 TableÝ 3
4.Ý Only one administrator and one teacher participated in professional development that supports mathematics instruction (Renaissance Math).	Table 9 Tables 10 & 3
5.Ý There is lack of valid, timely, and standard assessment of student proficiency.	Tables 3, 4B, & 4C
6.Ý There is a lack of parental involvement in school academic activities.Ý	Table 11B, School &Ý PTA records
7.Ý Technology is underutilized as a learning tool.	Tables 11A, E, & F

3. ÝHypotheses and Goals

Root Causes of Underperformance

Student Data

… Problem Statement: Certain groups of students, including our special education students, are reading below grade level, with standardized scores below the 50^th percentile. (Tables 3, 4b & 4C). Hypotheses: Teachers have not have opportunities for effective professional development in writing (Table 3,9, 11D). The lack of effective professional development in inferential and literal comprehension and in contextual vocabulary instruction and assessment may account for the discrepancy between teachersí grades and student achievement in standardized tests (Tables 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 10, 11). There is an absence of a school wide approach to literacy instruction and collaboration among teachers is minimal (Table 9).Ý There may be an inadequate alignment of curriculum, instruction, assessment, resources, and/or professional development with national standards (Tables 9,10).Ý Many teachers focus on decoding words and use a low range of instructional strategies (worksheets) in reading, rather than focus on comprehension and higher order thinking levels (Table 11A, 11D).Ý Most transition and MIS students have not been tested yearly and there is no ongoing school-wide assessment system to monitor all studentsí progress in reading comprehension except for teachersí grades on report cardsÝ (Table 4C).ÝÝ Additionally our students may not have had sufficient exposure to standardized tests (Tables 3 & 4A).Ý As a result, students do not all have the same opportunities to master challenging academic standards and demonstrate achievement.

… Problem Statement: A large percentage of our students, including special education students, are below grade level in mathematics, especially in problem solving, concepts, and other higher order thinking skills.Ý Hypotheses:Ý There is an absence of a school wide approach to math instruction and assessment (Tables 3, 4C, & 10). The mathematics curriculum is fragmented and taught inconsistently.ÝÝ Some teachers are uncomfortable teaching more advanced topics, hence there is a lack of alignment between the Mathematics Content Standards and what is being taught in the classroom (Tables 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 11E).Ý There is no timeline, set of expectations, and structure for content by month, grading period, semester, and year (See Previous School Improvement Plans).Ý Instruction focuses on basic skills and facts rather than on concepts, problem solving, and numeration (3, 11e).Ý Most transition and MIS students have not been tested yearly and there is no ongoing school-wide assessment system to monitor all studentsí progress in problem solving except teacherís grades on report cards (Table 4C). The lack of effective professional development in problem solving, concepts, and operations instruction and assessment accounts for the discrepancy between teachersí grades and student achievement in standardized tests (Tables 3, 4A, & 9).Ý Poor reading comprehension and lack of test taking skills may account for low assessment scores on standardized tests.Ý Due to the above factors, our students are not actively engaged in math education and do not master challenging academic standards in mathematics.

Educator Data

o Problem Statement: ÝAlthough we have an experienced and degreed staff, our students have not performed well on standardized tests.Ý Hypotheses: Teachers are not teaching to the content standards in Reading and Mathematics, there is an over emphasis on the use of drill and practice worksheets and high level teaching strategies are not the norm (Table 11E).Ý Over 75% of the teachers graduated more than 10 years ago, prior to more stringent preparation standards and the use of technology as a teaching strategy(Table 8). At present there are no Territory requirements for teachers to periodically obtain additional university credits in their area of certification or the use of technology in education.Ý Technology is under utilized in reading and math, possibly because they lack the skills for integrating technology into instruction.Ý (Table 11C).Ý With the exception of Direct Instruction, they have not participated in sustained school-wide professional development in targeted curricular areas and there has been minimal exposure to new and effective instructional strategies and research based programs (Table 9).Ý The District only allows for 2 days of paid professional development annually. This is far from sufficient since it takes approximately 80-160 hours in a content area to become proficient.ÝÝ

Additional Data

o Problem Statement: Classrooms use a low range of instructional strategies in reading and mathematics.Ý Hypotheses: Most classrooms are dominated by teacher talk, worksheets, and textbook learningówith few opportunities for students to engage in challenging, hands-on, ìminds-onî activities (Tables 11A, 11E).ÝÝ There is an absence of structures, training, and organizational practices designed to foster teacher collaboration around instructional quality. As a result, instructional quality varies significantly from one classroom to another, which in turn linked to variation in student achievement.Ý

o Problem Statement: Technology is underutilized.Ý Computers are used primarily for drills, typing of final drafts, and presenting factual knowledge.Ý Hypotheses: Teachers lack the knowledge and skills necessary to integrate technology into their classroom instruction (Tables 11 A&E).Ý Also there is insufficient technology in the classrooms (Table 11C &11F). These factors translate into lost opportunities for supporting content instruction in mathematics and reading, and for the use of technology to involve students in the use of high order thinking skills in problem solving tasks.

o Problem Statement:Ý There is a lack of family involvement in academically oriented school activities.Ý Hypotheses: For a number of reasons, communication between school and home is ineffective.Ý (PTA records indicate that less than 25 percent of families attend PTA meetings).Ý There is an absence of a school-wide plan to promote family support for learning (School Improvement Plans over the last 3 years).Ý Since family support for learning is known to be an important factor in student achievement, this is a lost opportunity.ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ

Table 13: Hypotheses

Problem Statement:Ý Certain groups of students are reading below grade level, with poor reading comprehension, fluency, and vocabulary.
Hypotheses: …Ý There is a lack of effective reading professionalÝ development on science based research instructional strategies and materials. …Ý There is a lack of effective professional development in inferential and literal comprehension instruction and assessment …Ý Many teachers use a low range of instructional strategies in reading. …Ý Studentsí lack of exposure to materials on standardized tests hampers studentsí performance. …Ý There is an inadequate alignment of instructional content and content standards. …Ý There is no school wide approach to math instruction and nor is there a systematized method of assessment. …Ý There is a lack of standardized assessment data on the MIS and Transitional students.	Evidence: Over use of worksheets Tables 3,9,11D Tables 9 &Ý 4B, 4CÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ Tables 11A and 11D Tables 3, 4A, 4B, 4C ÝÝ ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ Tables 3, 4A, 4B, 4C ÝTable 3, 4B, 4C Tables 3, 4B,4C
Problem Statement:Ý Low scores in Mathematics especially in topics such as concepts, problem solving, numeration and higher order thinking skills.
Hypothesis:Ý … Teachers do not move on from basic math skills to more challenging applications. … Poor reading comprehension results in poor problem solving skills. … Students are not actively engaged in math; math is not integrated into daily living experiences … Lack of alignment between the content standards and what is taught in the classroom. … More staff development is needed on teaching some of the more advanced topics in Math. … Students lack test-taking skills. … There is no school wide approach to math instruction and assessment, little collaboration between teachers … Many teachers use a low range of instructional strategies in math.	Evidence Tables 3, 11A, 11E, Tables 4A, 4C, 4B Tables 3, 11A, 11E, ÝTables 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4E Tables 3, 4A, 9 Tables 3, 4A, 4B, 4C Tables 3, 4C, 10 Tables 3, 11A, 11E
… Most MIS/Transitional students are not tested yearlyÝÝÝÝÝ Table 4C
Problem Statement: Teachers use a low range of instructional strategies in reading & math.
… Teachers have not been exposed to effective research based strategies math methodology	Tables 8, 9, 11D, 11E
… Teachers have not had relevant and sustained professional development.	Tables 3, 4A , 9, 11E
Problem statement:Ý Technology is under utilized for reading and math instruction
… Teachers lack the knowledge and skills to effectively integrate technology into instruction.	Tables 11A, 11C, 11E, 11F
… There is insufficient technology in the classroom	Tables 11A, 11C, 11E, 11F
Problem statement:Ý There is a lack of family involvement in academically-oriented school activities
… Communication between parents and school has been ineffective:Ý Less than 25 % of families attend PTA meetings.Ý	Table 11B
… There is an absence of a school plan to promote family support for reading and math	Table 11B

Goal Setting

Table 14: SMART Goals

SMART Goals	Data that influenced the decision
Goal # 1 To improve reading comprehension (literal comprehension, inferential comprehension and words in context) of 2^nd, and 5^th grade students so that the percentage of students achieving at the 50^th percentile or higher on the ITBS, increases by 5% over the baseline March 2004 scores in March 2005 and March 2006.	Poor reading scores on a standardized test that was administered in Spring of 2003.
Goal # 2 To improve math performance in concepts, problem solving, and numeration of 2^nd, and 5^th grade students so that the percentage of students achieving at the 50^th percentile or higher increases by 5% over the baseline March 2004 scores in March 2005 and March 2006.	Poor math scores on a standardized test that was administered in Spring of 2003.

4.Ý Integrated Action Plan

Focus on Reading Comprehension ñ Inferential, Literal, and Vocabulary

What the Research Says

Research clearly shows that learning to read requires the development of phonemic awareness, phonics skills, the ability to apply these word-level skills to text rapidly and fluently, a sufficiently-large working vocabulary, and the ability to actively relate what you are reading to background knowledge (including vocabulary) in order to comprehend (National Reading Panel, 2000). Explicit instruction coupled with literacy experiences is essential when addressing reading instructions and that the assessment of beginning readers need to be frequent and ongoing in order to level and support these students (Cunningham and Allington, 1999). Failure to master word recognition impedes text comprehension (Snow, Burns and Griffin, 1990). (1994 Pinker) shows that students gain access to thousands of new words through morphological rules such as prefixes, suffixes, compounds, and acronyms. Family/Parent involvement is associated with higher level of students performance, improves student behavior and community support of the schools, (Henderson, 1987).Ý Research states that although all children benefit from their family involvement in their education, children from low income and minority families tend to have the greatest gain from comprehensive parent and family involvement, (Clark, 2002; Henderson, 1997; Pena, 2000).Ý Many psychologists believe knowledge is stored in a linguistic form (associated with words) and an imagery form (Pavio, 1990). The imagery mode of representation is referred to as a nonlinguistic representation. Nonlinguistic representations are powerful ways to learn and recall information. The question is, how can we be sure that these skills are taught effectively on a school wide basis? Research cited by the National Research Council Report shows that ìÖschool-wide efforts, when they have included solid and coherent regular classroom reading instruction, have generally proven more effective than disconnected strategies or restructuring focused on organizational issues that have not included classroom-level and curriculum changesî (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Also, it is know that in high-performing schools, teachers in all subject areas help students learn to read and write (Just for the Kids, 2001). In other words, a school-wide approach to literacy instruction, based on sound scientific research, is more likely to succeed than a fragmented approach, or one that is not based on research.Ý

Ý

Measurable ìSMARTî Goals

Goal # 1 To improve reading comprehension (literal comprehension, inferential comprehension and word in context) of 2^nd, and 5^th grade students so that the percentage of students achieving at the 50^th percentile or higher on the ITBS, increases by 5% over the baseline March 2004 scores in March 2005 and March 2006.	Mar.. 2004 ñ Aug. 2004	Sept. 2004 ñ Aug. 2005	Sept. 2005 ñ Mar. 2006	EVALUATION
% of primary teachers using phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency and accuracy strategies to increase decoding skills.	75%	85%	95%	District Survey, PD Evaluation Data/
% of all teachers trained to implement reading comprehension strategies.	75%	85%	95%	District Survey, PD Evaluation Data/Attendance Sheets
% of all teachers using guided reading, summarizing, and graphic organizers and records of informal assessment to increase reading comprehension	75%	85%	95%	District Survey, Principal Observation Checklists/Reports
% of students proficient in reading comprehension	Base line	5% increase	5 % increase	ITBS, DIBELS, Reading Inventory
% of parents participating in Family Reading	10%	15%	20%	Reading and Parent Committee, attendance reports
% of teachers using research-based strategies in support of reading	75%	85%	95%	DIBELS,Ý Reading Inventory, Observations
% of teachers participating in professional development in Reading Methodology	75%	85%	95%	Professional Development, evaluation, Teacher Observation
% of teachers using technology to support reading.	80%	85%	90%	Teacher Survey, Student Survey, Observations

Strategies/Actions with Timelines Key to Responsibility codes:ÝÝÝÝ ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ

1-3	1-3 teachers	DRC	District Reading Coordinator	RC	Reading Committee
4-6	4-6 Teachers	GLL	Grade Level Leaders	RT	Reading Teacher
A	Administrator	KT	Kindergarten Teacher	SIP	School Improvement Plan Team
AC	Assessment Committee	LC	Literacy Coach	SIT	School Improvement Team
AST	After School Teachers	LPA	Learning Points Associates Coach	SSC	Summer School Committee
C	Counselor	MC	Math Committee	SST	Summer School Teachers
CT	Classroom Teachers	PC	Parent Committee	TL	Team Leaders
D	District	PE	Physical Education Teacher	TT	Technology Teacher
DMC	District Math Coordinator

Strategies/Actions		2003-2004 School Year							2004-2005 School Year																					2005-2006 School Year
	Responsibility	Mr.	Ap	M	J	Ju	A		S		O		N		D		Ja		F		Mr		A		M	J	Ju	A		S		O		N		D		J	F	Mr
1. Select a currently employed staff member to serve as reading/literacy coach using district approved criteria.	SIT	X
2. Provide 60 hours of training and follow-up support including quarterly meetings for the building literacy coach on guided reading, summarizing and graphic organizers.	DRC				X		X						X				P		X						X			X						X					X
3. Provide 60 hours of professional development workshops in guided reading for all K-3 teachers and paraprofessionals.	LPA						X		X		X																	X
4. Provide a minimum of 30 hours of in-class coaching for each K-3, MIS/TransitionalÝ teachers.	LC										X		X		X		X		X		X		X		X					X		X		X		X		X	X	X
5. Hold bi-monthly after-school meetings with all MIS/TransitionalÝ teachers to reinforce guided reading strategies and insure continuity and consistency in application.	LC										X				X				X				X					X				X				X			X
6. Develop content for 4-6 grade teachers and paraprofessionalsÝ in reading forÝ monthly workshops.Ý	RC, LPA, A, LC			X																					X
7. Provide monthly professional development workshops onÝ Friday afternoons forÝ 1 ‡ hours on (inferential and literal comprehension, vocabulary, summarizing, questioning strategies, writing in response to reading, assessing reading comprehension) for all 4-6 grade and MIS/Transitional teachers and paraprofessionals.Ý Included will be strategies forÝ special education students.	LPA , 4-6	`							X		X		X		X		X		X		X		X		X					X		X		X		X		X	X	X
8. Create guidelines, a checklist, and an observational tool Ýfor assessing use of comprehension and other strategies addressed in the professional development sessions.	RC / LPA /LC							X
9. Mentor K-6 grade and MIS/Transitional teachers and collaboratively complete the checklist to identify use and effectiveness ofÝ comprehension instructional strategies.Ý Coach may meet with grade level groups to collaborate on lesson plans, analyze student work, share research and strategies and reflect on teaching practices.Ý Included will be strategies for special education students.	LC							X		X		X		X		X		X		X		X		X					X		X		X		X		X		X		X
10. Implement comprehension instructional strategies (inferential and literal comprehension, vocabulary, summarizing, questioning strategies) for 4-6 and MISÝ classes.Ý on a weekly basis. Included will be strategies forÝ special education students and students not making adequate yearly progress .	CT(4-6) MIS							X		X		X		X		X		X		X		X		X					X		X		X		X		X		X		X

11. Review, identify, and purchase reading materials at multiple reading levels for each 4-6 grade classroom

RC,LC,A

X

X

X

X

12. Provide workshops to 4-6 grade and MIS teachers at the faculty meeting to learn how to use multi-level reading materials.

A, LC, LPA

X

X

X

X

13. Formally observe each classroom teacherÝ using reading comprehension instructional strategies.Ý Give feedback.

A

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

14. Purchase test taking materials for use with 1-6^th grade students on two Fridays per month for 1 ‡ hours in the afternoon to enhance testing skills and strategies.

CT

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

15. Provide 20 hours of training to allÝÝ teachers to administer and interpretÝ the DIBELS and 4-6 grade teachers and paraprofessionals to use the Basic Reading Inventory,

LC,LPA

X

X

X

16. Administer the DIBELS or the reading inventory to all students at the beginning, mid and end of the year to determine reading levels and progress.

CT, A, C, RC

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

17. Administer the EPSF screening and post test to Kindergarten

KT, C ,PE,RT

X

X

18. Administer the ITBS test to 2 and 5^th grade students.

2^nd & 5^th CT, C,A

X

X

X

19. Create a system to collect data, administer the Direct Instruction Mastery Tests in grades K-6, collect and analyze the data.

LC, RC,AC CT

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

20. Summarize and analyze the ITBS, pre-, midyear, and post- DIBELS andÝÝ reading inventories, and EPSF screening and post-tests, direct instruction mastery tests,Ý and communicate the results to teachers at faculty meetings and parents at PTA meetings and through newsletters and memos.

A, AC, C

X

X

X

21. Purchase and Implement Direct Instruction materials and strategies K-6, school-wide

X

22. Develop and Provide 96 (6 weeks, x 4 days x 4) hours of summer school focused on building comprehension for 90 students (10% of whom are special ed students) who scored lower than the 50 percentile on the March, 2004 ITBS and teacher recommendation for students 2 years or below grade level.Ý

RC, C, A

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

23. Monitor effectiveness summer school program and revise plan if necessary.

A,AC SSC

X

X

X

X

24. One day per week provide 12 hours (6weeks x 1dayx 2 hours) professional development to summer school teachers in instructional strategies for reading comprehension

LPA/ LC/DRC

X

X

X

X

25. Develop/revise an after school program that targets reading comprehension strategies.

AST, A, RC, C

X

X

X

X

X

26. Identify, monitor, and revise lists of eligible students for the after school program (maximum capacity 90 students grades 1-6) using the March 2004 and 2005 ITBS and teacher recommendation of students achieving below grade level as identified on the DIBELS and reading inventories in September/October 2004 or 2005.

CT, C, AST, A, RC

X

X

X

X

27. Implement an after school program.ÝÝ Provide 1 hour of homework tutorial each day and instruction as follows: ÝTuesday /Thursday--1 hourÝ of reading comprehension instruction Wednesday--1hour of math problem solving, concepts, and operations..

AST

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

28. Monitor the effectiveness of after school program by analyzing the student data from standardized assessment, report grades/progress reports,Ý and DIBELS and reading inventories.

AST,A

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

29. Implement Direct Instruction materials and strategies for 1-6 summer school students.

SST

X

X

X

X

30. Implement and maintain the Parent Center designed prior to March 2004 and include in the center a family bulletin board and suggestion box.Ý Purchase books, food, supplies.

PTA

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

31. Implement Family Reading Academy bi-monthly, with K-6 families.Ý Parents will receive reading support strategies to use with their children, have opportunities to see teachers model strategies, read with their children, and receive free books. Purchase supplies, and snacks.

PC, RC

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

32. Create and implement a school-parent compact to be distributed & signed at Back-to-School Nights and make personal contact with those parents who do not attend.Ý Monitor and revise.

C, PC, A

X

X

X

X

X

X

33. Provide lessons and opportunities for 4-6 grade students to use software that supports reading comprehension (inferential, literal, and vocabulary) during their computer time in the lab and in the classrooms.

CT, TT

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

34. Identify, review and purchase software to support student learning in reading comprehension skills (inferential, literal, and vocabulary) to be used in 4-6 grade computer classes and classrooms.

RC, LC, TC, TT

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

35. Provide workshops to K-3 and MIS/transitional teachers to learn how to use software that supports reading comprehension development.

LC, TT, DRC

X

X

X

X

X

X

36. Use software in K-6 grade and MIS/Transitional classrooms to support reading comprehension development.

CT (1-6)

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

37. Identify and purchase books on tape for all K-6 and MIS/Transitional classrooms that give students opportunities to respond to text using inferential and literal comprehension skills.

RC

X

X

38. Set up learning centers with books on tape and cassette players in K-6 and MIS/Transitional classrooms.

CT (1-6)

X

X

X

X

39. Purchase multi-media equipment (computers, cassette players, overhead projectors)Ý for K-6 and MIS/Transitional classrooms to enable students to actively engage in reading comprehension.

AD, TT

X

X

X

40. Communicate the progress of the plan to parents at the open house, PTA meetings, and monthly newsletters and the progress of studentsí achievement through report cards, progress reports, and standardized tests results.

PTA, PC AD, SIP

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

41.Ý Communicate the progress of the plan toÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ faculty at monthly meetings.

PC, A

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

42. Survey parents and collect data to determine their perceptions of and involvement in school academic activities.

SIT

X

X

X

43.Ý SIP team will meet to monitor, evaluate and revise the SIP.

SIT

X

X

X

X

44.Ý Survey teachers to monitor their use of instructional and assessment techniques and perceptions about professional development, student progress.

SIT

X

X

45. Conduct student perception survey

SIP

X

X

46. Share school average assessment results (DIBELS, ITSB) with parents at PTA meetings, news letters, website.

SIP

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

47. Share performance data with parents on progress reports (sixth week of each term,), report cards, and conferences) and standardized data in individual conferences.

K-6 CT

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

48. Select experienced teachers to be mentors to new teachers. Train the mentors. Mentors and new teachers will meet monthly and as needed to support new teachers in instruction, assessment, and classroom management. Evaluate the program by interviewing the new teachers and mentors.

A, D, ÝK-6 CT, LC

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Table 15: Focus on Math Problem Solving, Concepts, and Operations

What the Research Says

Goal # 2 To improve math performance in concepts, problem solving, and operations so that the percentage of 2^nd and 5^th grade students achieving at the 50^th percentile or higher on the ITBS increases by 5% over the baseline March, 2004 scores in March 2005 and March 2006.	Mar.. 2004 ñ Aug. 2004	Sept. 2004 ñ Aug. 2005	Sept. 2005 ñ Mar. 2006	EVALUATION
% of all teachers trained to implement instructional strategies for math problem solving, concepts, and operations.	25%	90%	90%	District Survey, PD Evaluation Data, Principal observations
% of all teachers using instructional strategies for math problem solving, concepts, and operations	25%	90%	90%	District Survey, Principal observation Checklists/Reports
% of students proficient in math problem solving, concepts, and operations	Base line	5% increase	5 % increase	ITBS, Achievement records,
% of parents participating in Family Math	10%	15%	20%	Math Committee, parent surveys, attendance records
% of teachers using technology to support problem solving, math concepts, and numeration/computation.	70	80	90	Teacher survey, student survey, Technology committee, Principal observations.

Research on best instructional methods for teaching and learning mathematical reasoning and problem solving consistently and clearly identifies the necessity for teachers to provide mathematically rich environments conducive to investigations.Ý Effective mathematics instruction occurs in community settings in which teachers carefully selects problems, materials, and grouping practices, provide opportunity for mathematics discourse, and use assessment practices designed to provoke and support student thinking.Ý Mathematical reasoning and problem solving requires teachers to teach mathematics as the power of thought rather than the power of discrete facts (Sutton, J., & Krueger, A. ed. 2002). Valued-added studies in Tennessee and Dallas demonstrate that children assigned to three effective teachers consecutively score up to 50 percentile points higher on mathematic assessments than children assigned to three ineffective teaches in a row (Sanders & Rivers, 1996; Haycock, 1998).Ý Research on best instructional methods for teaching and learning mathematical reasoning and problem solving consistently and clearly identifies the necessity for teachers to provide mathematically rich environments conducive to investigations (Sutton, J., & Krueger, A. ed. 2002).Ý These researchers have found that when teachers have the opportunity to become actively engaged in their own learning through observations and in the collaborative study of student work and curriculum planning, they are more likely to improve their practice (Garet et al., 2001). ÝAccording to Ysseldyke et al. (2004), curriculum management systems have been proven by research to be ìreliable and valid for enhancing the level of information educators need modify instruction for students (Dino 1995; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1988; 1988; Shinn,1995).îÝÝ Many psychologists believe knowledge is stored in a linguistic form (associated with words) and an imagery form (Pavio, 1990). The imagery mode of representation is referred to as a nonlinguistic representation. Nonlinguistic representations are powerful ways to learn and recall information.Ý Research states that although all children benefit from family involvement in their education, children from low income and minority families tend to have the greatest gain from comprehensive parent and family involvement, (Clark, 2002; Henderson, 1997; Pena, 2000)

Measurable ìSMARTî Goals

Strategies/Actions		2003-2004 School Year									2004-2005 School Year																						2005-2006 School Year
	Responsibility	Mr		Ap	M	J	Ju		A		S		O		N		D		Ja		F		Mr		A		M	J	Ju		A		S		O		N		D		J		F	Mr
1. On two district allocated professional days provide 12 hours of professional development workshops in Math problem solving concepts, for all K ñ 6 teachers including strategies for special education students (HOTS, graphic organizers, math writing, questioning techniques, using manipulatives, modeling, math thinking process, andÝ multiple strategies)	LPA											X						X																X						X
2. Provide a 2 hour workshop to K-1 special education, and transitional teachers to learn how to use Leap Frog Math technology to support students problem solving.	CT K-1 teachers							X																						X
3. Implement the Leap Frog Math program for K-1 students ,special education and transitional students as supplement.	K-1 teachers									X		X		X		X		X		X		X		X		X						X		X		X		X		X		X			X
4. Provide online professional development for teachers in grade levels 3 and 6 to learn how to implement and manage the Renaissance Star Math program.	CT	X	X
5. Provide online professional development for teachers of grade levels 2, 4, 5, and MIS/TransitionalÝ to learn how to implement and manage the RenaissanceÝ Math program.	CT									X		X
6. Implement technological instructional strategies for problem solving using Renaissance Math in 2^nd ñ 6^th grade and MIS/Transitional.Ý Use to provide ongoing computerized assessment.	CT 2-6									X		X		X		X		X		X		X		X		X						X		X		X		X		X		X			X

7. See line 9 of Reading Strategies/ActionsÝ but with reference to teaching math problem solving, concepts, and operations.

AC 2-6

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

8. Implement instructional strategies to support student problem solving on a weekly basis. Included will be strategies for special education students.

ACT

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

9. Purchase Renaissance Accelerated Math Libraries for 2-5 and MIS/Transitional classrooms to be used in professional development and implementation.

AD

X

10. Provide workshops to teachers of 2-6 grade and MIS/Transitional at the faculty meeting to learn how to implement and manage the Renaissance Math program.

AD

X

X

X

11. Formally observe each classroom using instructional strategies for math problem solving.Ý Give feedback to teachers.

AD

X

X

X

X

12. Test taking skills.Ý See line 14 inÝ Reading Strategies/ActionsÝ

1-6 CT

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

XX

13. Administer the EPSF screening and post test to Kindergarten to determine math understanding.

KT, C, PE, & RT

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

14. Create and administer data collection system for results of Renaissance Math Tests in grades 2-6; Leap Frog tests in K-1 and special and transitional students

2,5 CT,C

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

x

15. Summarize and analyze the ITBS and the Renaissance Math assessments.Ý Communicate the results to teachers at faculty meetings and parents at PTA meetings and through newsletters and memos.

MC

16. Develop, monitor effectiveness, and revise a summer school program that targets math problem solving strategies.

MC

X

X

X

X

X

X

17. Implement the summer school program usingÝ the Leapfrog Math CD kit programs forÝ grades 1-5Ý students. See line 2 description of summer school and building problem solving skills

AD,AC, SST

X

X

X

X

18. Summer school professional developmentÝ See line 24 in Reading Strategies/Actions

LPA, LC, DRC

X

X

X

X

19. Develop/revise an after school program that targets math problem solving strategies.

AD,MC,SST

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

20. Identify, monitor, and revise lists of eligible students for the after school program (maximum capacity 90 students grades 1-6) using the March 2004 and 2005 ITBS and teacher recommendation of students achieving below grade level as identified in the Renaissance Star Math and Leapfrog assessments.

CT, C, AST, A, RC

X

X

21. Implement After School Program.Ý See line 27 in Reading Strategies/Actions.

AST

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

22. Monitor the effectiveness of the after school program by analyzing the scores of students in the after school programs in standardized assessment, report card grades/progress reports,Ý and Renaissance Star Math and Leapfrog assessments.

AST, A

X

X

X

X

X

X

23. Implement the Leapfrog Math CD program and online program forÝ 3^rd ñ6^th gradeÝ students.

AST

X

X

24. Pre- and Post-test all students in the after school program using the STAR Math test in problem solving to monitor effectiveness of program.

AST

X

X

X

25. Collect and analyze the pre and post tests to determine the effectiveness of the after school program.Ý

MC

26. Parent Center.Ý See line 30 in Reading Actions.Ý Purchase books,Ý food, supplies.

PTA

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

27. Implement Family Math Academy bi-monthly, with K-6 families.Ý Parents will receive math support observe teachers model strategies, and use manipulatives to solve problems with their children.Ý Purchase snacks,Ý books, supplies.

Parent, Chair, PC, RC,

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

28. Develop a school/parent compact.Ý See line 32 in Reading Strategies/Actions

C

X

X

X

X

X

X

29. Share assessments.Ý See line 47 in Reading Strategies/ActionsÝ

K-6 CT

30. Provide lessons and opportunities for 1-6 grade students and special education students to use software that supports math problem solving during their computer time in the lab.

CT

31. Review and identify software to support student learning in problem solving, operations, and concepts to be used in 1-6 grade special education/transitional students in computer classes and classrooms.

MC, TC

32. Provide workshops to teachers to learn how to use software that supports problem solving development in 1-6 grade and special education/transitional students.

Consul-tant

X

X

X

X

33. Use software in K-6 grade students and special education/transitional students in classrooms to support problem solving development.

ACT

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

34. Set up learning centers with calculators and manipulatives in K-6 and special education/transitional classrooms.

ACT

X

X

35. Purchase multi-media equipment (computers, cassette players, overhead projectors)Ý for K-6 and special/transitional education classrooms to enable students to actively engage in math problem solving.

AD, TT

X

X

X

36. Communicate plan to parents.Ý See line 40 or Reading Strategies/Actions

PTA, PC, AD,Ý SIP

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

37. Communicate plan to teachers.Ý See line 41 of Reading Strategies/Actions

SIP

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

38. Parent Survey.Ý See line 42 of Reading

SIP

X

X

39. SIP revision.Ý See line 43 of Reading

SIP

40. Teacher survey.Ý See line 44 of Reading

SIP

X

X

41. Conduct student surveys.Ý See line 45 of Reading

SIP

X

X

42. Share school average assessment results (Star Math, Renaissance Math , ITBS) with parents at PTA meetings, news letters, website.

SIP

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

43. See line 47 in Reading Strategies/Action

K-6 CT

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

44. See line 48 in Reading Strategies/Action but with reference to Mathematics

A, D,K-6 CT

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Estimated Budget for Reading Goal: The following strategies do not need any budget- 1,3,-10,13,16-20,23-26,28-30,32,33,35,36,38-47

Strategy/Action	Salaries/Stipends	Employee Benefits	Purchased Services	Supplies/Materials	Capital Outlay	Source of Funds
2. Provide 60 hrs of training and follow up support including quarterly meetings for the building literacy on guided reading, summarizing and graphic organizers				($31.10x 15)+($17.55x20)=$817.50		Title V
11. Review, identify, and purchase reading materials at multiple reading levels for each 4-6 grade classroom.				$1800x8=$14,400.		Title V
12. Provide workshops to 4-6 grade and MIS teachers at faculty meetings to learn how to use multi level reading materials.				$1800x3= $5400		Title V
14. Purchase test taking materials for use with 1-6^th grade students on two Fridays per month for 1 ‡Ý hrs in the afternoon to enhance testing skills and strategies				($3.69 x 500=$1845.00)+ $276.75Shipping+$360. T.E=$2481.75		Title V
15. Provide 20 hrs of training to all K-3Ý teachers to administer and interpret the DIBELS and 4-6 grade teachers and paraprofessionals to use the Basic Reading Inventory	20hrsx11teachersx $14.78=$3,251.60	20x11x $1.22= $268.40				Title V
21. Purchase and implement Direct Instruction materials and strategies for K-6, school wide.				$35813.36		Title V
22. .Provide 96 hrs of summer schoolÖ	120hrsx7teachersx$14.78= $12,415.20	120x$1.22=$1024.80	Ý	Ý		Title V
27. Implement an after school program Ö	60 hrs x7 teachers x $14.78= $6,07.60	60x7x$1.22= $512.40				Title V
31. Implement Family Reading Academy providing reading support strategies and free books	20 hrsx2 teachersx$14.78= $591.20	20x2x$1.22= $48.80	ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ	Books, instructional materials and supplies$8019.07 Snacks$800.00		Title V
34. Identify, review and purchase software to support student learning in reading comp. skills to be used in 4-6 gradeÖ				11x$23.95=$263.45		Title V
37. Identify and purchase books on tape for all K-6 classrooms.				3 sets $682.=$2046+ $306.75 shipping=$2,352.75		Title V
39.Ý Purchase multimedia equipment k-6, MIS, Transitional				$45,300		Title V Imprest

Estimated Budget for Math GoalÝ The following strategies do not need any budget- 3, 7,10, 11, 13, 14, 20, 22, 24, 25, 30, 32, 33

Action/Strategy	Salaries/Stipends	Employee Benefits	Purchased Services	Supplies/Materials	Capital Outlay	Source of Funds
1. Provide 12 hrs of PD in Math problem solving concepts for K-6 teachers including Sp. Ed. teachers.		$244.80	Hotel: $100/nght x 3 x 4 = $ 1,200 Stipend: $2,955.20	Tickets: $1,000.00		Title V
2. Provide a 2 hr. workshop to K-1 Sp. Ed teacher in use of Leap Frog Math.	No expense			Software : $325. x 2 = $ 650		Title V
4. Provide online Renaissance Star Math PD for 3 ñ 6 teachers				1 x $ 49. = $ 49		Title V
5. Provide online Renaissance Star Math PD for grades 2, 4, & 5 teachers.				7 x $ 49. = $ 343		Title V
6. Implement tech instructionalÝ strategies for problem solving using Renaissance Math for 2 - 6				$ 2,000 for reams of paper		Title V
8. Implement Instructional Strategies to support student problem solving weekly (all grades)				Math Traveler K ñ 6: 7 x 4 48 = $336 + S & H ($50.40) = $386.40 Daily Math Warm-up: 1 ñ 5 11 x $10.99 = $120.89 + S&H (18.13) = $258.75		Title V
9. Purchase Renaissance Accelerated Math Libraries for 3 ñ 6				4 x $99 = $396 + S&H(17.33) = $413.33 Additional Scanner: $599Ý ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝScan cards:$10x $39 = 390 6 Printer @ $129 = $774 Learning cards 4 x $495 = $1,980		Title V
12. Test taking skillsÝ See line 14 in Reading Strategies	No additional expense			No additional expense
15. Summarize & analyze the ITBS and R-math assessments. Communicate results at faculty & PTA mtgs.			No additional costs			PTA funds
16. Develop, monitor effectiveness of summer school program (See line 22 of Reading)	No additional costs
17. Implement summer school program (Line 23 of Reading)	No additional costs
18. Summer school PD (See line 24 of Reading)
19. Dev./revise after school program for math (Line 25 of Reading)	No additional costs
21. Implement after school program (Line 27 - Reading)	No additional costs
23. Implement Leap frog math CD program for 3 ñ 6				3 x $325 =$975 4X$750=$3000		Title V
26. Parent Center (See line 30 of Reading	No additional costs
27. Implement Family Math Academy bi-monthly for K ñ 6				Video (Eng, & Spanish) 2 x $26.95 = $53.90 + S&H(8.08) = $61.98 Family Math Kit: $274 + S&H(41.24) = $316.19 Family Math II $26.39 Matematica para la FamiliaÝ $22.94
28. Develop school/parent compact (Line 32 - Reading)
29. Share assessments (Line 46 of Reading)			No additional costs
31. Review and identify software to support math problem solving techniques for all grade levels.				Problem solving videosÝ 2 sets of 3 each Ý$522.10		Title V
34. Set up Learning centers with calculators and manipulatives in all classes				Calculators: 6.95 x 300 = $2,085 + S&H(312.75) =Ý $2,397.75 Manipulative Kits K-5Ý 6x$664.90 = $3,989.40 + S&H(598.41) = $4,587.81 Kit for Sp. Ed. $385 + S&H(57.75) = $442.75		Title V
35. Purchase multi-media equipment				Overhead Projectors and replacement lamps $2,647.50		Title V

5. Reflection, Evaluation, Refinement

5.1 School Improvement Team Meeting Schedule

The entire Muller School Improvement Team will meet on the first and third Thursdays of each month.Ý The sub-committees will meet on the second and fourth Thursdays.Ý All meetings will begin at 2:00 p.m. and end by 3:30 p.m.Ý After the ITBS scores have been received, several full team meetings will be scheduled to analyze the data, and write an Annual School Progress Report on the Plan and the use of the scientific research based strategies we have implemented.Ý Additional meetings will be scheduled as needed.

5.2Ý Monitoring

On-going monitoring will be done by the administrators, teachers, the reading, math, assessment, technology, parental, after- school, summer school committees, and the Learning Points coach.Ý We will review the data on studentsí academic performance from: report cards, Direction Instruction Mastery Tests (frequency outlined in Action Plan ), Renaissance Star Math and Leap Frog (same frequency as reading), and other standardized tests, including ITBS and DIBELS.Ý Teachers will meet by grade level to discuss the effectiveness of various programs, and recommendations will be made to the School Improvement Team. Frequency of meetings will be once per marking period and also following the results of standardized rests.Ý For bi-weekly full Team meetings, the S.I.T. leader will serve as the facilitator.Ý Agendas will be distributed before the meeting.Ý The recorder will take minutes and read them to the group at the end of the meeting.Ý The management Checklist of Effective Meetings will be used to evaluate each meeting.Ý The chairperson for each sub-committee will serve as facilitator for their alternate bi-weekly meetings and will follow the same guidelines mentioned above.ÝÝ Additionally, one month before the revision deadlines, other stakeholders (such as parents, community members) will be asked to review and suggest revisions to the plan.ÝÝ Revisions will be made based by a majority consensus of S.I.T. members.Ý We will complete the progress report and submit it electronically to the District Superintendent by September 30, 2004.Ý A subsequent revision will be submitted by March 31, 2005.

5.3Communication:Ý

Student Achievement:Ý Review of student work and academic progress will be shared with parents through progress reports in the 6^th week of each term and on report card days when general meetings will be held, followed by parent/teacher conferences.Ý Individual parental conferences will be held more frequently for lower achieving students.Ý As soon as results of standardized tests are available, we will schedule parental meetings to share their assessment scores.Ý Teachers will explain how to interpret test results.

The School Improvement Plan:Ý The Administrators and the S.I.T.Ý have already made a presentation to the PTA and Community in which we discussed the requirements of the School Improvement Plan.Ý A booklet was distributed that contained a list of plan requirements and graphs of the 4^th grade assessment level on the WRAT and an average classroom achievement levels (based on year-end report card grades).Ý This information was displayed on an overhead projector and its significance was explained.ÝÝÝ We asked the parents and the community for their assistance and input as needed as we complete and implement the plan.Ý When the plan is completed, we will communicate its contents to the Parents and Community at our May advertised PTA meeting.Ý The Plan will be made available to parents and the community on our website, umuller.org. As revisions are made, we will inform parents at the monthly PTA meeting, through our newsletter and on the website.

ÝÝÝÝÝÝ Effectiveness of plan in increasing student achievement: Upon receipt of the March 2004 ITBS test results, we will share the schoolís summary percentile scores for reading and math.Ý These scores will be used as a basis to judge the effectiveness of our School Improvement Plan.Ý The results of the March 2005 ITBS reading and math tests will be communicated to the parents in the following PTA meeting and compared with scores of the previous year.Ý The success or failure of our plan will be discussed and the progress report will be posted on our website.

Reference Page

Clark, R. (2002). Ten hypotheses about what predicts student achievement for African American students

and all other students: What the research shows.

Cunningham, P. M., &Ý Allington, R. L. (1999). Classrooms that work. They can all read and write. New

York: Longman.

Fuchs, L.S., & D. Fuchs.Ý ìCurriculum-Based Measurement:Ý A Methodology for Evaluating and

Improving Students Programs.Ý ìDiagnostique 14, no. 1 (1988): 3-13.

Garet, M.S., Porter A.C. Deismone, L., Birman, B, & Yoos, K. (2001). What make professional

ÝÝÝÝÝ ÝÝÝÝÝ development effective? Results from a National Sample of Teachers.Ý American Educational

ÝÝÝÝÝ ÝÝÝÝÝ Research Journal, 38(4), 915-94.

5

Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters: How well-qualified teachers can close the Gap. Thinking K-

16 3(2), 1-14.

Henderson, A., & Lewis, A. (1997). Urgent message: Families crucial to school reform. Washington,

DC: Center for Law and Education.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: Reports of the subgroups. Washington,

ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ www.national readingpanel.org/Publications/subgroups.htm.

Pavio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

PeÒa, D. C. (2000). Parent involvement: Influencing factors and implications. The Journal of Educational

Research, 94(1), 42ñ54.ÝÝ EJ615791.

Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New York: Harper Perennial.

Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V., Martin, V., King, A., & Menke, D. (1992). Encouraging mindful

use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27(1). 97.

Sanders, W., & Rivers J. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects on future student academic

ÝÝÝÝÝÝ ÝÝÝÝ achievement. Knoxville, TN.Ý University of Tennessee Value - Added Research and Assessment

ÝÝÝÝÝ ÝÝÝÝÝ Center.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). 1998).Ý Preventing reading difficulties in young children.

ÝÝÝÝÝ ÝÝÝÝÝ Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Sutton, J., & Krueger, A. ed. (2002).Ý EDThoughts what we know about Mathematics Teaching and

ÝÝÝÝ ÝÝÝÝÝÝ ÝLearning. Aurora, CO: Mid-continentÝ Research for Education and Learning (McREL).

W. R. Allen, M. B. Spencer, & C. OíConner (Eds.), African American education: Race, community/

ÝÝÝÝ ÝÝÝÝÝÝ Ýinequality, and achievement: A Tribute to Edgar G. Epps. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.

Ysseldyke, J., R. Spicuzza, s. Kosciolek, E. Teelucksingh, C. Boys, & A. Lemkuil. Using a Curriculum-

Based Instructional Management System to Enhance Math Achievement in Urban Schools.

Minneapolis:Ý National Center for Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota, 2001.