ACSIP

From: Subject: ACSIP Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:33:51 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01C91D67.DEB54B30" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C91D67.DEB54B30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip&print=1 ACSIP

School Plan

FLIPPIN MIDDLE SCHOOL
308 N 1st St, Flippin, AR = 72634

Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Plan

2008-2009

The mission of Flippin Middle School is to = strive for the highest level of student achievement = by=20 meeting their academic, social, emotional, and = physical=20 needs through equitable quality instruction, student = participation, and parental = involvement.

Grade Span: 6-8

Title I: Title I Schoolwide =

School Improvement: =

Table of Contents

Priority 1: = Literacy=20 Skills
    Goal: = Students will=20 improve their literacy skills through the use of = multiple=20 choice (practical) and open response (content and=20 practical).
Priority 2: Math=20 Skills
    Goal: = Students will=20 improve their mathematic skills with an emphasis on = algebra,=20 geometry and measurement.
Priority 4:=20 Wellness
    Goal: = Students'=20 health will improve through participation in health = and=20 physical education classes as well as through the = promotion of=20 healthy habits in the school and family = environment.

Priority 1:

Students will improve their literacy scores. =

Supporting Data:

ACSIP CRT Data Source for FLIPPIN MIDDLE = SCHOOL=20
Benchmark-6th Grade Literacy Exam =
Report=20 Created: Nov 8, 2007
2006-# Tested & = Percent=20 of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: =
56=20 Students: 66.0% of Combined Students
56 = Students:=20 66.0% of Caucasian Students
38 Students: = 55.2% of=20 Econ. Disadvantaged Students
5 Students: = 0% of=20 Students with Disabilities
2007-# Tested = &=20 Percent of Students Scoring = Proficient/Advanced:=20
81 Students: 59.2% of Combined Students =
80=20 Students: 60.0% of Caucasian Students
56 = Students:=20 46.4% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
8 = Students:=20 12.5% of Students with Disabilities
2008-# = Tested=20 & Percent of Students Scoring = Proficient/Advanced:=20
73 Students: 63% of Combined Students =
72=20 Students: 62.5% of Caucasian Students
50 = Students:=20 60% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
5 = Students: 0%=20 of Students with Disabilities
The lowest=20 identified areas for the combined population = were:=20 Content Passage - OR
The lowest identified = areas=20 for Caucasian were: Content Passage - = OR
The lowest=20 identified areas for Econ. Disadvantaged = students=20 were: Content Passage - OR
The lowest = identified=20 areas for Students with Disabilities were: = Practical=20 Passage - OR
ACSIP CRT Data Source for = FLIPPIN=20 MIDDLE SCHOOL
Benchmark-6th Grade = Mathematics Exam=20
Report Created: Nov 8, 2007
2006-# = Tested=20 &Percent of Students Scoring = Proficient/Advanced:=20
56 Students: 51.7% of Combined Students =
56=20 Students: 51.7% of Caucasian Students
38 = Students:=20 39.4% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
5 = Students:=20 0% of Students with Disabilities
2007-# = Tested=20 & Percent of Students Scoring = Proficient/Advanced:=20
81 Students: 58.0% of Combined Students =
80=20 Students: 58.7% of Caucasian Students
56 = Students:=20 46.4% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
8 = Students:=20 12.5% of Students with Disabilities
2008-# = Tested=20 & Percent of Students Scoring = Proficient/Advanced:=20
56 Students: 51.8% of Combined Students =
56=20 Students: 51.8% of Caucasian Students
38 = Students:=20 39.5% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
5 = Students:=20 0% of Students with Disabilities
The = lowest=20 identified areas for the combined population = were: NO=20 Strand - OR
The lowest identified areas for = Caucasian were: NO Strand- OR
The lowest=20 identified areas for Econ. Disadvantaged = students=20 were: NO Strand - OR
The lowest identified = areas=20 for Students with Disabilities were: DAP = Strand - OR=20
ACSIP CRT Data Source for FLIPPIN MIDDLE = SCHOOL=20
Benchmark-7th Grade Literacy Exam =
Report=20 Created: Nov 8, 2007
2006-# Tested & = Percent=20 of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: =
78=20 Students: 52.5% of Combined Students
74 = Students:=20 54.0% of Caucasian Students
46 Students: = 52.1% of=20 Econ. Disadvantaged Students
16 Students: = 0% of=20 Students with Disabilities
2007-# Tested = &=20 Percent of Students Scoring = Proficient/Advanced:=20
55 Students: 61.8% of Combined Students =
54=20 Students: 61.1% of Caucasian Students
35 = Students:=20 51.4% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
3 = Students:=20 0% of Students with Disabilities
2008-# = Tested=20 & Percent of Students Scoring = Proficient/Advanced:=20
85 Students: 76.5% of Combined Students =
84=20 Students: 77.4% of Caucasian Students
55 = Students:=20 69.1% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
7 = Students:=20 14.3% of Students with Disabilities
The = lowest=20 identified areas for the combined population = were:=20 Practical Passage - OR
The lowest = identified areas=20 for Caucasian were: Practical Passage - OR =
The=20 lowest identified areas for Econ. = Disadvantaged=20 students were: Practical Passage - OR
The = lowest=20 identified areas for Students with = Disabilities were:=20 Practical Passage - OR
ACSIP CRT Data = Source for=20 FLIPPIN MIDDLE SCHOOL
Benchmark-7th Grade=20 Mathematics Exam
Report Created: Nov 8, = 2007=20
2006-# Tested &Percent of Students = Scoring=20 Proficient/Advanced:
78 Students: 43.5% of = Combined Students
74 Students: 43.2% of = Caucasian=20 Students
46 Students: 34.7% of Econ. = Disadvantaged=20 Students
16 Students: 0% of Students with=20 Disabilities
2007-# Tested & Percent = of=20 Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced:
55 = Students:=20 41.8% of Combined Students
54 Students: = 40.7% of=20 Caucasian Students
35 Students: 37.1% of = Econ.=20 Disadvantaged Students
3 Students: 33.3% = of=20 Students with Disabilities
2008-# Tested = &=20 Percent of Students Scoring = Proficient/Advanced:=20
85 Students: 67.1% of Combined Students =
84=20 Students: 67.9% of Caucasian Students
55 = Students:=20 58.2% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
7 = Students:=20 0% of Students with Disabilities
The = lowest=20 identified areas for the combined population = were: M=20 Strand - OR
The lowest identified areas for = Caucasian were: M Strand - OR
The lowest=20 identified areas for Econ. Disadvantaged = students=20 were: NO - OR and
The lowest identified = areas for=20 Students with Disabilities were: NO Strand - = OR and M=20 Strand - OR
ACSIP CRT Data Source for = FLIPPIN=20 MIDDLE SCHOOL
Benchmark-8th Grade Literacy = Exam=20
Report Created: Nov 8, 2007
2006-# = Tested=20 & Percent of Students Scoring = Proficient/Advanced:=20
77 Students: 66.2% of Combined Students =
76=20 Students: 67.1% of Caucasian Students
44 = Students:=20 59.0% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
15 = Students:=20 0% of Students with Disabilities
2007-# = Tested=20 & Percent of Students Scoring = Proficient/Advanced:=20
86 Students: 65.1% of Combined Students =
83=20 Students: 63.8% of Caucasian Students
56 = Students:=20 64.2% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
11 = Students:=20 9.0% of Students with Disabilities
2008-# = Tested=20 & Percent of Students Scoring = Proficient/Advanced:=20
57 Students: 66.7% of Combined Students =
56=20 Students: 66.1% of Caucasian Students
31 = Students:=20 54.8% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
5 = Students:=20 0% of Students with Disabilities
The = lowest=20 identified areas for the combined population = were:=20 Literary Passage- OR
The lowest identified = areas=20 for Caucasian were: Literary Passage- OR =
The=20 lowest identified areas for Econ. = Disadvantaged=20 students were: Practical Passage - OR
The = lowest=20 identified areas for Students with = Disabilities were:=20 Practical Passage - OR
ACSIP CRT Data = Source for=20 FLIPPIN MIDDLE SCHOOL
Benchmark-8th Grade=20 Mathematics Exam
Report Created: Nov 8, = 2007=20
2006-# Tested &Percent of Students = Scoring=20 Proficient/Advanced:
77 Students: 36.3% of = Combined Students
76 Students: 36.8% of = Caucasian=20 Students
44 Students: 27.2% of Econ. = Disadvantaged=20 Students
15 Students: 0% of Students with=20 Disabilities
2007-# Tested & Percent = of=20 Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced:
86 = Students:=20 32.5% of Combined Students
83 Students: = 32.5% of=20 Caucasian Students
56 Students: 26.7% of = Econ.=20 Disadvantaged Students
11 Students: 0% of = Students=20 with Disabilities
2008-# Tested & = Percent of=20 Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced:
57 = Students:=20 42.1% of Combined Students
56 Students: = 42.9% of=20 Caucasian Students
31 Students: 32.3% of = Econ.=20 Disadvantaged Students
5 Students: 20% of = Students=20 with Disabilities
The lowest identified = areas for=20 the combined population were: DAP Strand - = OR
The=20 lowest identified areas for Caucasian were: NO = Strand=20 - MC
The lowest identified areas for Econ.=20 Disadvantaged students were: DAP Strand - = OR
The=20 lowest identified areas for Students with = Disabilities=20 were: M Strand - OR
ACSIP CRT Data Source = for=20 FLIPPIN MIDDLE SCHOOL
EOC-Algebra Exam =
Report=20 Created: Nov 8, 2007
2006-# Tested and = Percent of=20 Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced:
. = Students:=20 N/A% of Combined Students
. Students: N/A% = of=20 Caucasian Students
. Students: N/A% of = Econ.=20 Disadvantaged Students
. Students: N/A% of = Students with Disabilities
2007-# Tested = and=20 Percent of Students Scoring = Proficient/Advanced:=20
25 Students: 68.0% of Combined Students =
24=20 Students: 70.8% of Caucasian Students
10 = Students:=20 70.0% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
1 = Students:=20 0% of Students with Disabilities
2008-# = Tested=20 & Percent of Students Scoring = Proficient/Advanced:=20
26 Students: 84.6% of Combined Students =
25=20 Students: 84% of Caucasian Students
9 = Students:=20 77.8% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
1 = Students:=20 0% of Students with Disabilities
The = lowest=20 identified areas for the combined population = were: SEI=20 - OR
The lowest identified areas for = Caucasian=20 were: SEI - OR
The lowest identified areas = for=20 Econ. Disadvantaged students were: LF - = OR
The=20 lowest identified areas for Students with = Disabilities=20 were: LA - OR and SEI - OR and LF - OR

Arkansas Comprehensive School =
Improvement Data Source for FLIPPIN
MS
IOWA TEST OF BASIC SKILLS =96 Report Completed:  Nov 5, 2007
Number Tested and Percent of Students Scoring At/Above 50th Percentile:
COMBINED POPULATION	      Grade:6				=09
Year 2006  2007 2008
Number Tested 59  90   77=09
% At/Above 50th NPR In:Vocabulary67.8% 56.7  N/A
Reading Comprehension 55.9%  55.6%  40.3%	=20
Reading Total 62.7% 56.7% N/A		=20
Spelling 57.6%	 43.3%	N/A		    =20
Capitalization 47.5% 37.8% N/A		    =20
Punctuation 37.3%  45.6%   N/A	=09
Usage and Expression 49.2% 56.7% N/A	     =20
Language Total 44.1% 48.9% N/A		=09
Math Concepts 59.3% 48.9%   N/A 	=09
Problems&Data Inter. 62.7% 53.3% 50.6%	=09
Math Total Without Comp. 55.9%53.3% N/A 	 =20
Math Computation 55.9% 37.8% N/A	=09
Math Total With Comp.64.4% 46.7% N/A	=09
Science 64.4%  70.0%  N/A		    =20
CAUCASIAN POPULATION	     Grade:6					 =20
    =20
Year  2006  2007  2008	=09
Number Tested 56 88  76 =09
% At/Above 50th NPR In:  Vocabulary N/A% 59%  56.8%	=09
Reading Comprehension 55.4%  56.8%  39.5%	=09
Reading Total 62.5%  58.0%   N/A	=09
Spelling 57.1%	43.2%  N/A		=09
Capitalization 46.4%  37.5%  N/A	      =20
Punctuation 37.5%   45.5%  N/A	=09
Usage and Expression 50.0% 58.0%  N/A=09
Language Total 44.6%   48.9%  N/A
Math Concepts 60.7%   48.9%  N/A
Problems & Data Inter.62.5%  54.5%  50.0%	 =20
Math Total Without Comp. 57.1%	54.5%  N/A	=09
Math Computation 55.4% 37.5%  N/A	      =20
Math Total With Comp.66.1% 47.7%  N/A	     =20
Science 64.3%  70.5%  N/A		   =20
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED	 Grade:6				 =20
    =20
Year 2006   2007  2008	=09
Number Tested 6   64	54	=09
% At/Above 50th NPR In:  Vocabulary 33.3%  51.6% N/A
Reading Comprehension 16.7%  48.4%  37.0%
Reading Total 33.3%  50.0%   N/A	   =20
Spelling  16.7%    35.9%  N/A=09
Capitalization 50.0%   29.7%   N/A	     =20
Punctuation 16.7%   35.9%   N/A=20
Usage and Expression 33.3%  45.3%  N/A	     =20
Language Total 16.7%  37.5%  N/A	     =20
Math Concepts 33.3%  37.5%  N/A 	    =20
Problems & Data Inter.50.0% 43.8%  42.6%=09
Math Total Without Comp. 33.3% 42.2% N/A=09
Math Computation 0%   29.7%   N/A	    =20
Math Total With Comp. 33.3% 35.9%  N/A	     =20
Science 33.3%	64.1%	N/A
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES    Grade:6					 =20
    =20
Year 2006   2007   2008 =09
Number Tested	4  6   6=09
% At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 25.0% 0% N/A =09
Reading Comprehension  0%   0%	   0%	=09
Reading Total  25.0%   0%     N/A	=09
Capitalization 25.0%  0%   N/A	=09
Usage and Expression  25.0%  0%  N/A	=09
Math Concepts 25.0%  0%  N/A		=09
Problems & Data Inter.50.0%   0%  0%	=09
Math Total Without Comp. 25.0%	 0%  N/A=09
Math Computation 0%   16.7%  N/A	     =20
Math Total With Comp. 25.0%   0%  N/A=09
Science 25.0%	33.3%	N/A
Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Data Source for FLIPPIN MSIOWA
TEST OF BASIC SKILLS  --Report Completed:  Nov 5, 2007		      =20
Number Tested and Percent of Students Scoring At/Above 50th Percentile:  =
=20
    =20
COMBINED POPULATION	      Grade:7				=09
Year 2006 2007 2008	=09
Number Tested 86  60   89	=09
% At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 54.7%  61.7%    N/A	=09
Reading Comprehension 58.1% 61.7%  65.2%	=09
Reading Total 52.3% 65.0% N/A		=09
Spelling 32.6%	53.3%	N/A		=09
Capitalization 29.1% 38.3%  N/A 	      =20
Punctuation 38.4% 40.0%  N/A	=09
Usage and Expression 34.9% 58.3%  N/A
Language Total 37.2% 46.7%  N/A
Math Concepts 42.4% 58.3% N/A		=09
Problems & Data Inter. 50.6%  56.7%  60.7%	=09
Math Total Without Comp.50.6%	55.0%	N/A=09
Math Computation 41.7% 25.0%   N/A	=09
Math Total With Comp. 50.0% 48.3%  N/A	=09
Science 57.6% 60.0%  N/A		      =20
CAUCASIAN POPULATION	     Grade:7					 =20
    =20
Year 2006  2007    2008 =09
Number Tested 71  59  88	=09
% At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 56.3%   61.0%  N/A	=09
Reading Comprehension 62.0% 61.0%  65.9%	=09
Reading Total 54.9% 64.4% N/A		=09
Spelling 6.6% 52.5%  N/A		     =20
Capitalization 31.0% 37.3% N/A		=09
Punctuation 42.3% 39.0% N/A	=09
Usage and Expression 39.4% 57.6% N/A	=09
Language Total 40.8% 45.8% N/A		=09
Math Concepts 46.5% 57.6% N/A		=09
Problems & Data Inter. 54.9%  55.9% 61.4%	=09
Math Total Without Comp.54.9% 54.2%  N/A=09
Math Computation 44.3% 23.7%  N/A	=09
Math Total With Comp. 55.7% 47.5% N/A		=09
Science 60.6% 59.3% N/A 		=09
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED	 Grade:7				 =20
 =20
Year 2006  2007 2008	=09
Number Tested 5  39  57 =09
% At/Above 50th NPR In:  Vocabulary 60.0%  59.0%  N/A	=09
Reading Comprehension 80.0% 53.8% 54.4% =09
Reading Total 60.0%  59.0% N/A		=09
Spelling 20.0% 46.2% N/A		    =20
Capitalization 40.0% 28.2% N/A		      =20
Punctuation  20.0% 33.3%  N/A	=09
Usage and Expression 20.0%  51.3% N/A		=09
Language Total 40.0% 38.5% N/A		=09
Math Concepts 40.0% 48.7% N/A		=09
Problems & Data Inter. 60.0%  43.6%  47.4%	=09
Math Total Without Comp. 60.0% 43.6%  N/A	=09
Math Computation 40.0% 25.6% N/A	=09
Math Total With Comp. 40.0%  38.5% N/A		=09
Science 80.0%  48.7%  N/A		=09
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES    Grade:7					 =20
    =20
Year 2006  2007 2008	=09
Number Tested 17 5  6		=09
% At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 11.8%  0%  N/A
Reading Comprehension17.6%  0% 16.7%		=20
Reading Total 17.6%   0%  N/A
Problems & Data Inter.5.9%  0% 0%	   =20
Math Total Without Comp. 5.9%  0% N/A	     =20
Math Computation 5.9%  0% N/A		    =20
Science 17.6% 20.0%  N/A		      =20
Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Data Source for FLIPPIN MS	 =20
	 =20
IOWA TEST OF BASIC SKILLS  -- Report Completed:  Nov 5, 2007		 =20
    =20
Number Tested and Percent of Students Scoring At/Above 50th Percentile:  =
=20
    =20
COMBINED POPULATION	      Grade:8				=09
Year  2006   2007   2008=09
Number Tested 78  94   61	=09
% At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 51.3%  52.1%   N/A	=09
Reading Comprehension 61.5% 56.4%  63.9%=09
Reading Total 53.8% 53.2% N/A		=09
Spelling 39.7%	34.0%  N/A		      =20
Capitalization 34.6% 31.9%  N/A 	=09
Punctuation 37.2%  35.1%  N/A	=09
Usage and Expression 39.7% 47.9%  N/A	=09
Language Total 35.9%  44.7%  N/A	=09
Math Concepts 51.3% 48.9% N/A		=09
Problems & Data Inter. 61.5% 52.1%  60.7%	=09
Math Total Without Comp.53.8% 51.1% N/A 	=09
Math Computation 16.7% 37.2% N/A	=09
Math Total With Comp.44.9%  44.7% N/A		=09
Science 60.3% 60.6%  N/A		=09
CAUCASIAN POPULATION	     Grade:8					 =20
    =20
Year 2006  2007  2008	=09
Number Tested 76  90  60	=09
% At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 51.3%   51.1%   N/A	=09
Reading Comprehension 61.8% 55.6% 63.3% 	=09
Reading Total 53.9% 52.2% N/A		=09
Spelling 39.5% 34.4% N/A		      =20
Capitalization 35.5% 30.0% N/A		=09
Punctuation 36.8%  33.3%  N/A	=09
Usage and Expression 39.5% 46.7%  N/A		=09
Language Total 35.5% 43.3% N/A		=09
Math Concepts 50.0%  48.9% N/A		=09
Problems & Data Inter. 60.5% 52.2% 60.0%	=09
Math Total Without Comp.52.6%  51.1% N/A	=09
Math Computation 17.1% 35.6% N/A	=09
Math Total With Comp. 43.4% 43.3% N/A		=09
Science 60.5% 60.0% N/A 		=09
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED	 Grade:8				 =20
    Year  2006	2007  2008	    =20
Number Tested  1  62  33	=09
% At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 100.0%   45.2% N/A		=09
Reading Comprehension 100.0%   51.6% 51.5%	=09
Reading Total 100.0% 45.2% N/A		=09
Spelling 100.0%  27.4%	N/A		=09
Capitalization 0%  29.0% N/A		     =20
Punctuation 100.0%  32.3%  N/A	=09
Usage and Expression 100.0%  48.4%  N/A 	=09
Language Total 100.0%  40.3% N/A	=09
Math Concepts 100.0% 41.9% N/A
Problems & Data Inter. 100.0% 48.4% 51.5%	 =20
Math Total Without Comp. 100.0% 46.8% N/A	 =20
Math Computation 0%  27.4% N/A		=09
Math Total With Comp.100.0% 41.9% N/A	=09
Science 100.0% 58.1% N/A		=09
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES    Grade:8					 =20
    =20
Year 2006  2007  2008	=09
Number Tested  15   11	 4	=09
% At/Above 50th NPR In:   Vocabulary 13.3%   18.2%  N/A 	=09
Reading Comprehension 26.7%  0%  50.0%	=09
Reading Total 6.7%  0%	N/A		  =20
Spelling 13.3%	0%  N/A 		   =20
Usage and Expression 6.7%  0% N/A	      =20
Math Concepts 6.7%  9.1%  N/A		=09
Problems & Data Inter. 0% 9.1% 25.0%		 =20
Math Total Without Comp.0%  9.1% N/A	      =20
Math Computation 6.7% 100.0% N/A	=09
Math Total With Comp. 0%  45.5% N/A	=09
Science 13.3% 0% N/A2007-08 ENROLLMENT-228---Attendance Rate-94.3%=20
Combined Population:
Grade 6 Benchmark Exam:  In 2008, 73 students were tested and 68.7 %
scored proficient or advanced.In 2007, 81 students were tested and 59.2%
scored proficient or advanced.	In 2006, 56 students were tested and 66%
scored proficient or advanced.	The trend analysis of the open response
and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified areas are Content Passage - Open
Response.  The trend analysis  of the open response questions in the =
five
writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area is:  Content
Passage.

Grade 7 Benchmark Exam:  In 2008, 85 students were tested and 76.5 %
scored proficient or advanced.	In 2007, 55 students were tested and =
61.8%
scored proficient or advanced.	In 2006, 78 students were tested and =
52.5%
scored proficient or advanced.	The trend analysis of the open response
and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified areas are Practical Passage - =
Multiple
Choice.  The trend analysis  of the open response questions in the five
writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area is: Practical
Passage.

Grade 8 Benchmark Exam:  In 2008, 57 students were tested and 66.7 %
scored proficient or advanced.	In 2007, 86 students were tested and =
65.1%
scored proficient or advanced.	In 2006, 77 students were tested and =
66.2%
scored proficient or advanced.	The trend analysis of the open response
and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified areas are Practical Passage - Open
Response.  The trend analysis  of the open response questions in the =
five
writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area is:  Practical
Passage.

Caucasion Population:
Grade 6 Benchmark Exam:  In 2008, 72 students were tested and 62.5 %
scored proficient or advanced.	In 2007, 80 students were tested and 60%
scored proficient or advanced.	In 2006, 56 students were tested and 66%
scored proficient or advanced.	The trend analysis of the open response
and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified areas are Content Passage - Open
Response.  The trend analysis  of the open response questions in the =
five
writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area is:  Content
Passage.

Grade 7 Benchmark Exam:  In 2008, 84 students were tested and 77.4% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2007, 54 students were tested and 61.1% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2006, 74 students were tested and 54% scored
proficient or advanced.  The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified areas are Practical Passage - =
Multiple
Choice.  The trend analysis  of the open response questions in the five
writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area is:  Practical
Passage.

Grade 8 Benchmark Exam:  In 2008, 57 students were tested and 66.7 %
scored proficient or advanced.	In 2007, 83 students were tested and =
63.8%
scored proficient or advanced.	In 2006, 76 students were tested and =
67.1%
scored proficient or advanced.	The trend analysis of the open response
and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified areas are Practical Passage - Open
Response.  The trend analysis  of the open response questions in the =
five
writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area is:  Practical
Passage.

Economically Disadvantage (SES):
Grade 6 Benchmark Exam:  In 2008, 50 students were tested and 60 % =
scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2007, 56 students were tested and 46.4% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2006, 38 students were tested and 55.2% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified areas are Content Passage - Open
Response.  The trend analysis  of the open response questions in the =
five
writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area is:=20
ContentPassage.

Grade 7 Benchmark Exam:  In 2008, 55 students were tested and 69.1 %
scored proficient or advanced.	In 2007, 35 students were tested and =
51.4%
scored proficient or advanced.	In 2006, 46 students were tested and =
52.1%
scored proficient or advanced. The trend analysis of the open response =
and
multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified areas are Practical Passage - =
Multiple
Choice.  The trend analysis  of the open response questions in the five
writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area is: Practical
Passage.

Grade 8 Benchmark Exam:  In 2008, 31 students were tested and 54.8% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2007, 56 students were tested and 64.2% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2006, 44 students were tested and 59% scored
proficient or advanced.  The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified areas are Practical Passage - Open
Response. The trend analysis  of the open response questions in the five
writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area is:  Practical
Passage.

Students with Disabilities:
Grade 6 Benchmark Exam:  In 2008, 5 students were tested and 0 % scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2007, 8 students were tested and 12.5% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2006, 5 students were tested and 0% scored
proficient or advanced.  The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified areas are Practical Passage - Open
Response.  The trend analysis  of the open response questions in the =
five
writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area is:  Practical
Passage.

Grade 7 Benchmark Exam:  In 2008, 7 students were tested and 14.3% =
scored
proficient or advanced. In 2007, 3 students were tested and 0% scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2006, 16 students were tested and 0% scored
proficient or advanced. The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified areas are Practical Passage - Open
Response.  The trend analysis  of the open response questions in the =
five
writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area is:  Practical
Passage.  =20

Grade 8 Benchmark Exam:  In 2008, 5 students were tested and 0% scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2007, 11 students were tested and 9% scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2006, 15 students were tested and 0% scored
proficient or advanced.  The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified areas are Literary Passage - Open
Response.  The trend analysis  of the open response questions in the =
five
writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area is:  Practical
Passage.

Goal

Students will improve their literacy skills = through=20 the use of multiple choice (practical) and open = response=20 (content and practical).

Benchmark

As of the 2007-08 test results, the number of=20 students scoring at or above proficiency level = on the=20 state benchmark exam is 68.73% with the state = AYP being=20 51.40% for 2007-08. An annual growth rate of = 5.21% will=20 be projected.

Intervention: Teachers will = include=20 objective, essay, fill-in-the-blank, and = listening=20 comprehension questions covering details, = main=20 idea, sequencing, and inference. =

Scientific Based Research: = Nagin,=20 Carl (2006). "Why Writing Matters" The = National=20 Writing Project, Because Writing Matters.=20 = http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/resource/writingmatters/2003/nagin.htm= l(accessed=20 2007).

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Teachers will continue using rubrics to = score=20 open-ended questions and will teach = students how=20 to use the rubrics to score open-ended = questions=20 on the Target Test.
Action Type:=20 Equity
Action Type: Special = Education

Anna Hudson

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

Performance Assessments
Teachers
Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Teachers will continue using educational = software (Accelerated Reader, S.T.A.R., = A+) to=20 reinforce literacy skills.
Action Type: = Alignment
Action Type: Program=20 Evaluation
Action Type: Special=20 Education
Action Type: Technology=20 Inclusion

Petra Pershall

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

Computers
Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Teachers will evaluate their test = formats to=20 determine the best method for student=20 success.
Action Type: Equity
Action = Type:=20 Program Evaluation

Lisa Thompson

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

Performance Assessments
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

The school meets the following = attributes of a=20 schoolwide project-needs assessment, = schoolwide=20 reform strategies, alignment, highly = qualified=20 teachers, professional development, = strategies to=20 attract HQT, parent involvement, = collaboration,=20 transition measures to inlcude teachers in = decision making, point-in-time = remediation, and=20 coordination and integration of=20 programs.
Action Type: Title I=20 Schoolwide

Kelvin Hudson

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

District Staff


ACTION BUDGET:	$

In compliance with Act 307, Parent = Involvement=20 is integrated into all areas of the school = environment, including, informational = packets,=20 parent involvement meetings, volunteer = resource=20 book, school's process for resolving = parental=20 concerns in handbook, enable formation of = PTA/PTO,=20 parent facilitator, and holding two = parent/teacher=20 conferences per year.
Action Type: = Parental=20 Engagement

Lisa Daffron

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Upon review of the 2008 ACTAAP scores, = the=20 reading strategies will be assessed for = program=20 effectiveness.
Action Type: Program=20 Evaluation

Lisa Thompson

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

Performance = Assessments


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Target Testing will be used as a = formative=20 assessment to provide point-in-time = remediation to=20 ensure that students will have the = vocabulary=20 knowledge needed to increase student=20 achievement.
Action Type: Program=20 Evaluation

Lisa Thompson

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Intervention: A reading = class will=20 be provided for all 6th grade students to = increase=20 Benchmark achievement scores.

Scientific Based Research: = Warrican,=20 Ph.D., S. Joel. (Oct/Nov. 2006). = "Promoting=20 Reading Amidst Repeated Failure: Meeting = the=20 Challenges." High School Journal, 90(1),=20 33-43.

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

A reading teacher will be provided for = 37.5%=20 FTE equivalent.
Action Type: Title I=20 Schoolwide

Kelvin Hudson

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

$19419

Title I - Employee Benefits:	$3744.00
Title I - Employee Salaries:	$15675.00

ACTION BUDGET:

Teachers will assign materials based on=20 individual student needs through the use = of=20 Accelerated Reader and other library=20 resources.
Action Type: = Alignment
Action=20 Type: Collaboration
Action Type:=20 Equity
Action Type: Special = Education
Action=20 Type: Technology Inclusion
Action Type: = Title I=20 Schoolwide

Veronica Pace

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

Computers
School Library
Teachers

$9666

Title I - Materials & = Supplies:	$8000.00
Title V - Materials & = Supplies:	$1666.00

ACTION BUDGET:

Teachers will evaluate the reading = program for=20 success and effectiveness based on = Accelerated=20 Reader tests, S.T.A.R. pre/post tests and = the=20 target tests.
Action Type: Program=20 Evaluation
Action Type: Technology=20 Inclusion

Susie Jones

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

Computers
Performance = Assessments


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Student AIPs will include a reading=20 intervention for those students who have a = substantial deficiency in reading. This=20 intervention will include, but is not = limited to,=20 Accelerated Reader, STAR and A+.
Action = Type:=20 Alignment
Action Type: = Collaboration
Action=20 Type: Special Education
Action Type: = Technology=20 Inclusion

Susie Jones

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

Performance Assessments
School Library
Teachers


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Charnell Phillips

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Upon review of the 2008 ACTAAP scores, = the=20 reading program will be assessed for = effectiveness=20 in student achievement.
Action Type: = Program=20 Evaluation

Lisa Thompson

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

$29085

Intervention: The Lit Lab = program=20 will be used to increase students reading=20 abilities and literacy skills.

Scientific Based Research: = Atwell,=20 Nancie. (1998). In the Middle: New = Understandings=20 About Writing, Reading, and Learning. = Portsmouth,=20 NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, = Inc.

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Thirty student laptop computers will be=20 purchased for use in grades 6, 7, and 8 to = support=20 the literacy and mathematics curriculum to = increase student achievement. These = strategies are=20 part of the schoolwide project to enhance = the=20 curriculum opportunities and performance = of all=20 students served by the schoolwide project = and will=20 support outside grant funds.
Action = Type:=20 Collaboration
Action Type: Technology=20 Inclusion

Lisa Thompson

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

Administrative Staff
Computers
Teachers

$32838

Title I - Materials & = Supplies:	$32838.00

ACTION BUDGET:

Classroom literacy libraries will be=20 established in grades 6, 7, and 8 to = improve=20 student achievement. These strategies are = part of=20 the schoolwide project to enhance the = curriculum=20 opportunities and performance of all = students=20 served by the schoolwide = project.
Action Type:=20 Program Evaluation
Action Type: Title I = Schoolwide

Lisa Thompson

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

Outside Consultants
Teachers

$3299.35

Title I - Materials & = Supplies:	$3299.35

ACTION BUDGET:

Total Budget:

$36137.35

Intervention: Teachers will = use=20 "Total Instructional Alignment" pacing = guides to=20 help guide the instruction in the literacy = classroom.

Scientific Based Research: = Carter,=20 Lisa. (2007). Total Instructional = Alignment: From=20 Standards to Student Success. Bloomington, = IN:=20 Solution Tree.

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Teachers will partcipate in a book study = to=20 cover the book "Total Instructional = Alignment" by=20 Lisa Carter.
Action Type:=20 Collaboration
Action Type: Professional = Development
Action Type: Program=20 Evaluation

Anna Batterton

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Periodic horizontal alignment meetings = will be=20 held to help aid with total instructional=20 alignment.
Action Type: = Collaboration
Action=20 Type: Professional Development
Action = Type:=20 Program Evaluation

Lisa Thompson

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Priority 2:

Students will improve their mathematic skills. =

Supporting Data:

ACSIP CRT Data Source for FLIPPIN MIDDLE = SCHOOL=20
Benchmark-6th Grade Literacy Exam =
Report=20 Created: Nov 8, 2007
2006-# Tested & = Percent=20 of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: =
56=20 Students: 66.0% of Combined Students
56 = Students:=20 66.0% of Caucasian Students
38 Students: = 55.2% of=20 Econ. Disadvantaged Students
5 Students: = 0% of=20 Students with Disabilities
2007-# Tested = &=20 Percent of Students Scoring = Proficient/Advanced:=20
81 Students: 59.2% of Combined Students =
80=20 Students: 60.0% of Caucasian Students
56 = Students:=20 46.4% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
8 = Students:=20 12.5% of Students with Disabilities
2008-# = Tested=20 & Percent of Students Scoring = Proficient/Advanced:=20
73 Students: 63% of Combined Students =
72=20 Students: 62.5% of Caucasian Students
50 = Students:=20 60% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
5 = Students: 0%=20 of Students with Disabilities
The lowest=20 identified areas for the combined population = were:=20 Content Passage - OR
The lowest identified = areas=20 for Caucasian were: Content Passage - = OR
The lowest=20 identified areas for Econ. Disadvantaged = students=20 were: Content Passage - OR
The lowest = identified=20 areas for Students with Disabilities were: = Practical=20 Passage - OR
ACSIP CRT Data Source for = FLIPPIN=20 MIDDLE SCHOOL
Benchmark-6th Grade = Mathematics Exam=20
Report Created: Nov 8, 2007
2006-# = Tested=20 &Percent of Students Scoring = Proficient/Advanced:=20
56 Students: 51.7% of Combined Students =
56=20 Students: 51.7% of Caucasian Students
38 = Students:=20 39.4% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
5 = Students:=20 0% of Students with Disabilities
2007-# = Tested=20 & Percent of Students Scoring = Proficient/Advanced:=20
81 Students: 58.0% of Combined Students =
80=20 Students: 58.7% of Caucasian Students
56 = Students:=20 46.4% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
8 = Students:=20 12.5% of Students with Disabilities
2008-# = Tested=20 & Percent of Students Scoring = Proficient/Advanced:=20
56 Students: 51.8% of Combined Students =
56=20 Students: 51.8% of Caucasian Students
38 = Students:=20 39.5% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
5 = Students:=20 0% of Students with Disabilities
The = lowest=20 identified areas for the combined population = were: NO=20 Strand - OR
The lowest identified areas for = Caucasian were: NO Strand- OR
The lowest=20 identified areas for Econ. Disadvantaged = students=20 were: NO Strand - OR
The lowest identified = areas=20 for Students with Disabilities were: DAP = Strand - OR=20
ACSIP CRT Data Source for FLIPPIN MIDDLE = SCHOOL=20
Benchmark-7th Grade Literacy Exam =
Report=20 Created: Nov 8, 2007
2006-# Tested & = Percent=20 of Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced: =
78=20 Students: 52.5% of Combined Students
74 = Students:=20 54.0% of Caucasian Students
46 Students: = 52.1% of=20 Econ. Disadvantaged Students
16 Students: = 0% of=20 Students with Disabilities
2007-# Tested = &=20 Percent of Students Scoring = Proficient/Advanced:=20
55 Students: 61.8% of Combined Students =
54=20 Students: 61.1% of Caucasian Students
35 = Students:=20 51.4% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
3 = Students:=20 0% of Students with Disabilities
2008-# = Tested=20 & Percent of Students Scoring = Proficient/Advanced:=20
85 Students: 76.5% of Combined Students =
84=20 Students: 77.4% of Caucasian Students
55 = Students:=20 69.1% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
7 = Students:=20 14.3% of Students with Disabilities
The = lowest=20 identified areas for the combined population = were:=20 Practical Passage - OR
The lowest = identified areas=20 for Caucasian were: Practical Passage - OR =
The=20 lowest identified areas for Econ. = Disadvantaged=20 students were: Practical Passage - OR
The = lowest=20 identified areas for Students with = Disabilities were:=20 Practical Passage - OR
ACSIP CRT Data = Source for=20 FLIPPIN MIDDLE SCHOOL
Benchmark-7th Grade=20 Mathematics Exam
Report Created: Nov 8, = 2007=20
2006-# Tested &Percent of Students = Scoring=20 Proficient/Advanced:
78 Students: 43.5% of = Combined Students
74 Students: 43.2% of = Caucasian=20 Students
46 Students: 34.7% of Econ. = Disadvantaged=20 Students
16 Students: 0% of Students with=20 Disabilities
2007-# Tested & Percent = of=20 Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced:
55 = Students:=20 41.8% of Combined Students
54 Students: = 40.7% of=20 Caucasian Students
35 Students: 37.1% of = Econ.=20 Disadvantaged Students
3 Students: 33.3% = of=20 Students with Disabilities
2008-# Tested = &=20 Percent of Students Scoring = Proficient/Advanced:=20
85 Students: 67.1% of Combined Students =
84=20 Students: 67.9% of Caucasian Students
55 = Students:=20 58.2% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
7 = Students:=20 0% of Students with Disabilities
The = lowest=20 identified areas for the combined population = were: M=20 Strand - OR
The lowest identified areas for = Caucasian were: M Strand - OR
The lowest=20 identified areas for Econ. Disadvantaged = students=20 were: NO - OR and
The lowest identified = areas for=20 Students with Disabilities were: NO Strand - = OR and M=20 Strand - OR
ACSIP CRT Data Source for = FLIPPIN=20 MIDDLE SCHOOL
Benchmark-8th Grade Literacy = Exam=20
Report Created: Nov 8, 2007
2006-# = Tested=20 & Percent of Students Scoring = Proficient/Advanced:=20
77 Students: 66.2% of Combined Students =
76=20 Students: 67.1% of Caucasian Students
44 = Students:=20 59.0% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
15 = Students:=20 0% of Students with Disabilities
2007-# = Tested=20 & Percent of Students Scoring = Proficient/Advanced:=20
86 Students: 65.1% of Combined Students =
83=20 Students: 63.8% of Caucasian Students
56 = Students:=20 64.2% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
11 = Students:=20 9.0% of Students with Disabilities
2008-# = Tested=20 & Percent of Students Scoring = Proficient/Advanced:=20
57 Students: 66.7% of Combined Students =
56=20 Students: 66.1% of Caucasian Students
31 = Students:=20 54.8% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
5 = Students:=20 0% of Students with Disabilities
The = lowest=20 identified areas for the combined population = were:=20 Literary Passage- OR
The lowest identified = areas=20 for Caucasian were: Literary Passage- OR =
The=20 lowest identified areas for Econ. = Disadvantaged=20 students were: Practical Passage - OR
The = lowest=20 identified areas for Students with = Disabilities were:=20 Practical Passage - OR
ACSIP CRT Data = Source for=20 FLIPPIN MIDDLE SCHOOL
Benchmark-8th Grade=20 Mathematics Exam
Report Created: Nov 8, = 2007=20
2006-# Tested &Percent of Students = Scoring=20 Proficient/Advanced:
77 Students: 36.3% of = Combined Students
76 Students: 36.8% of = Caucasian=20 Students
44 Students: 27.2% of Econ. = Disadvantaged=20 Students
15 Students: 0% of Students with=20 Disabilities
2007-# Tested & Percent = of=20 Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced:
86 = Students:=20 32.5% of Combined Students
83 Students: = 32.5% of=20 Caucasian Students
56 Students: 26.7% of = Econ.=20 Disadvantaged Students
11 Students: 0% of = Students=20 with Disabilities
2008-# Tested & = Percent of=20 Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced:
57 = Students:=20 42.1% of Combined Students
56 Students: = 42.9% of=20 Caucasian Students
31 Students: 32.3% of = Econ.=20 Disadvantaged Students
5 Students: 20% of = Students=20 with Disabilities
The lowest identified = areas for=20 the combined population were: DAP Strand - = OR
The=20 lowest identified areas for Caucasian were: NO = Strand=20 - MC
The lowest identified areas for Econ.=20 Disadvantaged students were: DAP Strand - = OR
The=20 lowest identified areas for Students with = Disabilities=20 were: M Strand - OR
ACSIP CRT Data Source = for=20 FLIPPIN MIDDLE SCHOOL
EOC-Algebra Exam =
Report=20 Created: Nov 8, 2007
2006-# Tested and = Percent of=20 Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced:
. = Students:=20 N/A% of Combined Students
. Students: N/A% = of=20 Caucasian Students
. Students: N/A% of = Econ.=20 Disadvantaged Students
. Students: N/A% of = Students with Disabilities
2007-# Tested = and=20 Percent of Students Scoring = Proficient/Advanced:=20
25 Students: 68.0% of Combined Students =
24=20 Students: 70.8% of Caucasian Students
10 = Students:=20 70.0% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
1 = Students:=20 0% of Students with Disabilities
2008-# = Tested=20 & Percent of Students Scoring = Proficient/Advanced:=20
26 Students: 84.6% of Combined Students =
25=20 Students: 84% of Caucasian Students
9 = Students:=20 77.8% of Econ. Disadvantaged Students
1 = Students:=20 0% of Students with Disabilities
The = lowest=20 identified areas for the combined population = were: SEI=20 - OR
The lowest identified areas for = Caucasian=20 were: SEI - OR
The lowest identified areas = for=20 Econ. Disadvantaged students were: LF - = OR
The=20 lowest identified areas for Students with = Disabilities=20 were: LA - OR and SEI - OR and LF - OR

Arkansas Comprehensive School =
Improvement Data Source for FLIPPIN
MS
IOWA TEST OF BASIC SKILLS =96 Report Completed:  Nov 5, 2007
Number Tested and Percent of Students Scoring At/Above 50th Percentile:
COMBINED POPULATION	      Grade:6				=09
Year 2006  2007 2008
Number Tested 59  90   77=09
% At/Above 50th NPR In:Vocabulary67.8% 56.7  N/A
Reading Comprehension 55.9%  55.6%  40.3%	=20
Reading Total 62.7% 56.7% N/A		=20
Spelling 57.6%	 43.3%	N/A		    =20
Capitalization 47.5% 37.8% N/A		    =20
Punctuation 37.3%  45.6%   N/A	=09
Usage and Expression 49.2% 56.7% N/A	     =20
Language Total 44.1% 48.9% N/A		=09
Math Concepts 59.3% 48.9%   N/A 	=09
Problems&Data Inter. 62.7% 53.3% 50.6%	=09
Math Total Without Comp. 55.9%53.3% N/A 	 =20
Math Computation 55.9% 37.8% N/A	=09
Math Total With Comp.64.4% 46.7% N/A	=09
Science 64.4%  70.0%  N/A		    =20
CAUCASIAN POPULATION	     Grade:6					 =20
    =20
Year  2006  2007  2008	=09
Number Tested 56 88  76 =09
% At/Above 50th NPR In:  Vocabulary N/A% 59%  56.8%	=09
Reading Comprehension 55.4%  56.8%  39.5%	=09
Reading Total 62.5%  58.0%   N/A	=09
Spelling 57.1%	43.2%  N/A		=09
Capitalization 46.4%  37.5%  N/A	      =20
Punctuation 37.5%   45.5%  N/A	=09
Usage and Expression 50.0% 58.0%  N/A=09
Language Total 44.6%   48.9%  N/A
Math Concepts 60.7%   48.9%  N/A
Problems & Data Inter.62.5%  54.5%  50.0%	 =20
Math Total Without Comp. 57.1%	54.5%  N/A	=09
Math Computation 55.4% 37.5%  N/A	      =20
Math Total With Comp.66.1% 47.7%  N/A	     =20
Science 64.3%  70.5%  N/A		   =20
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED	 Grade:6				 =20
    =20
Year 2006   2007  2008	=09
Number Tested 6   64	54	=09
% At/Above 50th NPR In:  Vocabulary 33.3%  51.6% N/A
Reading Comprehension 16.7%  48.4%  37.0%
Reading Total 33.3%  50.0%   N/A	   =20
Spelling  16.7%    35.9%  N/A=09
Capitalization 50.0%   29.7%   N/A	     =20
Punctuation 16.7%   35.9%   N/A=20
Usage and Expression 33.3%  45.3%  N/A	     =20
Language Total 16.7%  37.5%  N/A	     =20
Math Concepts 33.3%  37.5%  N/A 	    =20
Problems & Data Inter.50.0% 43.8%  42.6%=09
Math Total Without Comp. 33.3% 42.2% N/A=09
Math Computation 0%   29.7%   N/A	    =20
Math Total With Comp. 33.3% 35.9%  N/A	     =20
Science 33.3%	64.1%	N/A
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES    Grade:6					 =20
    =20
Year 2006   2007   2008 =09
Number Tested	4  6   6=09
% At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 25.0% 0% N/A =09
Reading Comprehension  0%   0%	   0%	=09
Reading Total  25.0%   0%     N/A	=09
Capitalization 25.0%  0%   N/A	=09
Usage and Expression  25.0%  0%  N/A	=09
Math Concepts 25.0%  0%  N/A		=09
Problems & Data Inter.50.0%   0%  0%	=09
Math Total Without Comp. 25.0%	 0%  N/A=09
Math Computation 0%   16.7%  N/A	     =20
Math Total With Comp. 25.0%   0%  N/A=09
Science 25.0%	33.3%	N/A
Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Data Source for FLIPPIN MSIOWA
TEST OF BASIC SKILLS  --Report Completed:  Nov 5, 2007		      =20
Number Tested and Percent of Students Scoring At/Above 50th Percentile:  =
=20
    =20
COMBINED POPULATION	      Grade:7				=09
Year 2006 2007 2008	=09
Number Tested 86  60   89	=09
% At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 54.7%  61.7%    N/A	=09
Reading Comprehension 58.1% 61.7%  65.2%	=09
Reading Total 52.3% 65.0% N/A		=09
Spelling 32.6%	53.3%	N/A		=09
Capitalization 29.1% 38.3%  N/A 	      =20
Punctuation 38.4% 40.0%  N/A	=09
Usage and Expression 34.9% 58.3%  N/A
Language Total 37.2% 46.7%  N/A
Math Concepts 42.4% 58.3% N/A		=09
Problems & Data Inter. 50.6%  56.7%  60.7%	=09
Math Total Without Comp.50.6%	55.0%	N/A=09
Math Computation 41.7% 25.0%   N/A	=09
Math Total With Comp. 50.0% 48.3%  N/A	=09
Science 57.6% 60.0%  N/A		      =20
CAUCASIAN POPULATION	     Grade:7					 =20
    =20
Year 2006  2007    2008 =09
Number Tested 71  59  88	=09
% At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 56.3%   61.0%  N/A	=09
Reading Comprehension 62.0% 61.0%  65.9%	=09
Reading Total 54.9% 64.4% N/A		=09
Spelling 6.6% 52.5%  N/A		     =20
Capitalization 31.0% 37.3% N/A		=09
Punctuation 42.3% 39.0% N/A	=09
Usage and Expression 39.4% 57.6% N/A	=09
Language Total 40.8% 45.8% N/A		=09
Math Concepts 46.5% 57.6% N/A		=09
Problems & Data Inter. 54.9%  55.9% 61.4%	=09
Math Total Without Comp.54.9% 54.2%  N/A=09
Math Computation 44.3% 23.7%  N/A	=09
Math Total With Comp. 55.7% 47.5% N/A		=09
Science 60.6% 59.3% N/A 		=09
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED	 Grade:7				 =20
 =20
Year 2006  2007 2008	=09
Number Tested 5  39  57 =09
% At/Above 50th NPR In:  Vocabulary 60.0%  59.0%  N/A	=09
Reading Comprehension 80.0% 53.8% 54.4% =09
Reading Total 60.0%  59.0% N/A		=09
Spelling 20.0% 46.2% N/A		    =20
Capitalization 40.0% 28.2% N/A		      =20
Punctuation  20.0% 33.3%  N/A	=09
Usage and Expression 20.0%  51.3% N/A		=09
Language Total 40.0% 38.5% N/A		=09
Math Concepts 40.0% 48.7% N/A		=09
Problems & Data Inter. 60.0%  43.6%  47.4%	=09
Math Total Without Comp. 60.0% 43.6%  N/A	=09
Math Computation 40.0% 25.6% N/A	=09
Math Total With Comp. 40.0%  38.5% N/A		=09
Science 80.0%  48.7%  N/A		=09
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES    Grade:7					 =20
    =20
Year 2006  2007 2008	=09
Number Tested 17 5  6		=09
% At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 11.8%  0%  N/A
Reading Comprehension17.6%  0% 16.7%		=20
Reading Total 17.6%   0%  N/A
Problems & Data Inter.5.9%  0% 0%	   =20
Math Total Without Comp. 5.9%  0% N/A	     =20
Math Computation 5.9%  0% N/A		    =20
Science 17.6% 20.0%  N/A		      =20
Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Data Source for FLIPPIN MS	 =20
	 =20
IOWA TEST OF BASIC SKILLS  -- Report Completed:  Nov 5, 2007		 =20
    =20
Number Tested and Percent of Students Scoring At/Above 50th Percentile:  =
=20
    =20
COMBINED POPULATION	      Grade:8				=09
Year  2006   2007   2008=09
Number Tested 78  94   61	=09
% At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 51.3%  52.1%   N/A	=09
Reading Comprehension 61.5% 56.4%  63.9%=09
Reading Total 53.8% 53.2% N/A		=09
Spelling 39.7%	34.0%  N/A		      =20
Capitalization 34.6% 31.9%  N/A 	=09
Punctuation 37.2%  35.1%  N/A	=09
Usage and Expression 39.7% 47.9%  N/A	=09
Language Total 35.9%  44.7%  N/A	=09
Math Concepts 51.3% 48.9% N/A		=09
Problems & Data Inter. 61.5% 52.1%  60.7%	=09
Math Total Without Comp.53.8% 51.1% N/A 	=09
Math Computation 16.7% 37.2% N/A	=09
Math Total With Comp.44.9%  44.7% N/A		=09
Science 60.3% 60.6%  N/A		=09
CAUCASIAN POPULATION	     Grade:8					 =20
    =20
Year 2006  2007  2008	=09
Number Tested 76  90  60	=09
% At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 51.3%   51.1%   N/A	=09
Reading Comprehension 61.8% 55.6% 63.3% 	=09
Reading Total 53.9% 52.2% N/A		=09
Spelling 39.5% 34.4% N/A		      =20
Capitalization 35.5% 30.0% N/A		=09
Punctuation 36.8%  33.3%  N/A	=09
Usage and Expression 39.5% 46.7%  N/A		=09
Language Total 35.5% 43.3% N/A		=09
Math Concepts 50.0%  48.9% N/A		=09
Problems & Data Inter. 60.5% 52.2% 60.0%	=09
Math Total Without Comp.52.6%  51.1% N/A	=09
Math Computation 17.1% 35.6% N/A	=09
Math Total With Comp. 43.4% 43.3% N/A		=09
Science 60.5% 60.0% N/A 		=09
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED	 Grade:8				 =20
    Year  2006	2007  2008	    =20
Number Tested  1  62  33	=09
% At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 100.0%   45.2% N/A		=09
Reading Comprehension 100.0%   51.6% 51.5%	=09
Reading Total 100.0% 45.2% N/A		=09
Spelling 100.0%  27.4%	N/A		=09
Capitalization 0%  29.0% N/A		     =20
Punctuation 100.0%  32.3%  N/A	=09
Usage and Expression 100.0%  48.4%  N/A 	=09
Language Total 100.0%  40.3% N/A	=09
Math Concepts 100.0% 41.9% N/A
Problems & Data Inter. 100.0% 48.4% 51.5%	 =20
Math Total Without Comp. 100.0% 46.8% N/A	 =20
Math Computation 0%  27.4% N/A		=09
Math Total With Comp.100.0% 41.9% N/A	=09
Science 100.0% 58.1% N/A		=09
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES    Grade:8					 =20
    =20
Year 2006  2007  2008	=09
Number Tested  15   11	 4	=09
% At/Above 50th NPR In:   Vocabulary 13.3%   18.2%  N/A 	=09
Reading Comprehension 26.7%  0%  50.0%	=09
Reading Total 6.7%  0%	N/A		  =20
Spelling 13.3%	0%  N/A 		   =20
Usage and Expression 6.7%  0% N/A	      =20
Math Concepts 6.7%  9.1%  N/A		=09
Problems & Data Inter. 0% 9.1% 25.0%		 =20
Math Total Without Comp.0%  9.1% N/A	      =20
Math Computation 6.7% 100.0% N/A	=09
Math Total With Comp. 0%  45.5% N/A	=09
Science 13.3% 0% N/A2007-08 ENROLLMENT-228---Attendance Rate-94.3%=20
Combined Population:
Grade 6 Benchmark Exam:  In 2008, 56 students were tested and 51.8% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2007, 81 students were tested and 58% scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2006, 56 students were tested and 71% scored
proficient or advanced.  The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified areas are NO Strand - Open Response. =

The trend analysis  of the open response questions in the five writing
domains revealed that the lowest identified area is:  NO Strand.

Grade 7 Benchmark Exam:  In 2008, 85 students were tested and 67.1 %
scored proficient or advanced.	In 2007, 55 students were tested and =
41.8%
scored proficient or advanced.	In 2006, 74 students were tested and =
4.32%
scored proficient or advanced.	The trend analysis of the open response
and multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified areas are NO Strand - Open Response. =

The trend analysis  of the open response questions in the five writing
domains revealed that the lowest identified area is:  M Strand.

Grade 8 Benchmark Exam:  In 2008, 57 students were tested and 42.1% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2007, 86 students were tested and 32.5% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2006, 77 students were tested and 36.3% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified areas are DAP Strand - Open =
Response.=20
The trend analysis of the open response questions in the five writing
domains revealed that the lowest identified area is:  M Strand.
Caucasion Population:
Grade 6 Benchmark Exam:  In 2008, 72 students were tested and 58.3% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2007, 88 students were tested and 58% scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2006, 56 students were tested and 51.7% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified areas are NO Strand - Open Response. =

The trend analysis  of the open response questions in the five writing
domains revealed that the lowest identified area is:  NO Strand.

Grade 7 Benchmark Exam:  In 2008, 84 students were tested and 67.9% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2007, 54 students were tested and 40.7% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2006, 74 students were tested and 43.2% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified areas are NO Strand - Open Response. =

The trend analysis  of the open response questions in the five writing
domains revealed that the lowest identified area is:  M Strand.

Grade 8 Benchmark Exam:  In 2008, 56 students were tested and 42.9% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2007, 83 students were tested and 32.5% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2006, 76 students were tested and 36.8% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified areas are DAP Strand - Open =
Response.=20
The trend analysis  of the open response questions in the five writing
domains revealed that the lowest identified area is:  NO Strand.
Economically Disadvantage (SES):
Grade 6 Benchmark Exam:  In 2008, 50 students were tested and 56% scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2007, 56 students were tested and 46.4% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2006, 38 students were tested and 39.4% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified areas are NO Strand - Open Response. =

The trend analysis  of the open response questions in the five writing
domains revealed that the lowest identified area is:  NO Strand.

Grade 7 Benchmark Exam:  In 2008, 55 students were tested and 58.2% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2007, 35 students were tested and 37.1% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2006, 46 students were tested and 34.7% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified areas are NO Strand - Open Response
and A Strand - Open Response.  The trend analysis  of the open response
questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest =
identified
area is:  M Strand.

Grade 8 Benchmark Exam:  In 2008, 31 students were tested and 32.3% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2007, 56 students were tested and 26.7% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2006, 44 students were tested and 27.2% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified areas are DAP Strand - Open =
Response.=20
The trend analysis  of the open response questions in the five writing
domains revealed that the lowest identified area is:  NO Strand.
Students with Disabilities:
Grade 6 Benchmark Exam:  In 2008, 5 students were tested and 0 % scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2007, 8 students were tested and 12.5% =
scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2006, 5 students were tested and 0% scored
proficient or advanced.  The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified areas are DAP Strand - OR.	The trend
analysis  of the open response questions in the five writing domains
revealed that the lowest identified area is:  NO Strand.

Grade 7 Benchmark Exam:  In 2008, 7 students were tested and 0% scored
proficient or advanced.In 2007, 3 students were tested and 33.3% scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2006, 16 students were tested and 0% scored
proficient or advanced. The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified areas are NO Strand and M Strand - =
OR.
 The trend analysis  of the open response questions in the five writing
domains revealed that the lowest identified area is:  M Strand.=20

Grade 8 Benchmark Exam:  In 2008, 5 students were tested and 20% scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2007, 11 students were tested and 0% scored
proficient or advanced.  In 2006, 15 students were tested and 0% scored
proficient or advanced.  The trend analysis of the open response and
multiple-choice questions, in the three types of reading passages,
revealed that the lowest identified areas are M Strand - Open Response.=20
The trend analysis  of the open response questions in the five writing
domains revealed that the lowest identified area is:  M Strand.
EOC - Algebra:
Combined Population:
In 2008, 26 students were tested and 84.6% scored proficient or =
advanced.=20
In 2007, 25 students were tested and 68% scored proficient or advanced.=20
The lowest identified area is area is LF - Open Response.=20
Caucasion Population:
In 2008, 25 students were tested and 84% scored proficient or advanced.=20
In 2007, 25 students were tested and 68% scored proficient or advanced.=20
The lowest identified area is area is LF - Open Response.
Economically Disadvantaged (SES):
In 2008, 9 students were tested and 77.8% scored proficient or advanced. =

In 2007, 25 students were tested and 68% scored proficient or advanced.=20
The lowest identified area is LF - Open Response.
Students with Disabilities:
In 2008, 1 student was tested and 0% scored proficient or advanced.  The
lowest identified area is LF - Open Response and SEI - Open Response and
LA - Open Response.

Goal

Students will improve their mathematic skills = with=20 an emphasis on algebra, geometry and = measurement.

Benchmark

As of the 2007-08 test results, the number of=20 students scoring at or above proficiency level = on the=20 state benchmark exam is 56.03% with the state = AYP being=20 46.83% for 2007-08. An annual growth rate of = 7.33% will=20 be projected.

Intervention: Math = instruction will=20 include cumulative review of previously = taught=20 material.

Scientific Based Research:=20 "Open-ended Assessment in Math-Using a = Rubric to=20 Score Student Responses. 2006.=20 = http://books.heinemann.com/math/rubric.cfm

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Teachers will use educational software=20 (Accelerated Math, Math S.T.A.R., A+) to = reinforce=20 mathematic skills.
Action Type:=20 Collaboration
Action Type: = Equity
Action=20 Type: Special Education
Action Type: = Technology=20 Inclusion

Anna Batterton

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

Computers
Teachers
Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Students with Individualized Education = Plans=20 will focus on the use of = calculators.
Action=20 Type: AIP/IRI
Action Type: = Equity
Action=20 Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: = Special=20 Education

Barbara Armfield

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

Performance Assessments
Teachers
Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Homework assignments will include = cumulative=20 review of previously taught material due = to the=20 fact that math skills are built on = curriculum that=20 overlaps throughout the year and with = previous=20 years.
Action Type: Alignment
Action = Type:=20 Collaboration
Action Type: = Equity
Action=20 Type: Parental Engagement
Action Type: = Special=20 Education

Kevin Vines

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

Teachers
Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Technology will be used as indicated on = the=20 Arkansas Frameworks, including but not = limited to;=20 graphing calculators and math related=20 software.

Tracie Luttrell

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Upon review of the 2008 ACTAAP scores, = the=20 mathematic strategies will be evaluated to = determine effectiveness.
Action Type: = Program=20 Evaluation

Anna Batterton

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Target Testing data will be used as a=20 formative assessment to provide = point-in-time=20 remediation to ensure that students will = have the=20 vocabulary knowledge needed to increase = student=20 achievement.
Action Type: Program=20 Evaluation

Kevin Vines

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Intervention: Teachers will = model=20 how to answer open-response = questions.

Scientific Based Research: = Badger,=20 E., & Thomas, B. "Open-ended = Questions."=20 Washington, D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on = Tests,=20 Measurement, and Evaluation. = ED355253.

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

In order to facilitate student learning, = open-response guided practice will be = included in=20 class instruction and classroom = assignments.=20 Review of open-response questions will = focus on=20 the writing process.
Action Type:=20 Alignment
Action Type: Equity
Action = Type:=20 Special Education

Anna Batterton

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

Teachers
Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Teachers will evaluate open-response = questions=20 via rubrics and will teach students how to = use=20 rubrics to evaluate their open-response = questions=20 on the Target Test.
Action Type:=20 Alignment
Action Type: Program=20 Evaluation

Kristen Rodriguez

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

Performance = Assessments


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Students with Individualized Education = Plans=20 will analyze open-response problems by=20 constructing open-response questions = and/or=20 stories.
Action Type: = Alignment
Action Type:=20 Collaboration
Action Type: = Equity
Action=20 Type: Special Education

Danielle Lee

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Review of constructed = response/open-response=20 questions will focus on the writing=20 process.
Action Type: = Alignment
Action Type:=20 Equity
Action Type: Technology = Inclusion

Kevin Vines

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

Computers
Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Upon review of the 2008 ACTAAP scores, = the=20 mathematics strategies will be reviewed = for=20 program effectiveness in increasing = student=20 achievement.
Action Type: Program=20 Evaluation

Anna Batterton

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

Performance = Assessments


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Anna Batterton

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Intervention: Math = instruction will=20 include a focus on vocabulary.

Scientific Based Research: = "Teachers=20 Say Word Walls Work." 2006.=20 = http://www.education-world.com/a_curr/profdev/profdev086.shtml/=20 "Math Journals for All Ages-Reflecting = About=20 Mathematics." 2007.=20 = http://math.about.com/library/weekly/aa123001a.htm=20

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Students will use a math journal to help = improve their understanding of the = problems they=20 are completing and to help their writing = skills=20 across the curriculum.
Action Type:=20 Alignment
Action Type: Equity
Action = Type:=20 Special Education

Anna Batterton

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Teachers will include benchmark study = skills=20 in their instruction.
Action Type:=20 Alignment
Action Type: = Collaboration
Action=20 Type: Equity
Action Type: Special=20 Education

Kevin Vines

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

Teachers
Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Vocabulary from the Arkansas frameworks=20 glossary will be included in instruction = and=20 utilized on tests. Teachers will be = encouraged to=20 use word walls to help students better = retain this=20 vocabulary.
Action Type: = Alignment
Action=20 Type: Collaboration
Action Type:=20 Equity
Action Type: Special = Education

Kristen Rodriguez

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Kristen Rodriquez

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Upon review of the 2008 ACTAAP scores, = the=20 mathematic strategies will be reviewed for = effectiveness.
Action Type: Program=20 Evaluation

Tracie Luttrell

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Intervention: Teachers will = use=20 "Total Instructional Alignment" pacing = guides to=20 help guide the instruction in the math=20 classroom.

Scientific Based Research: = Carter,=20 Lisa. (2007). Total Instructional = Alignment: From=20 Standards to Student Success. Bloomington, = IN:=20 Solution Tree.

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Lisa Thompson

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Anna Batterton

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Priority 4:

Flippin Middle School will implement school = health=20 activities and strategies.

Supporting Data:

School Health Index--School Health = Policies &=20 Environment--Module 1--48%=20
School Health Index--Health = Education--Module=20 2--98%=20
School Health Index--Physical Education = &=20 Other Physical Activity Programs--Module = 3--84%=20
School Health Index--Nutrition = Services--Module=20 4--69%=20
School Health Index--School Health=20 Services--Module 5--31%=20
School Health Index--School Counseling,=20 Psychological, and Social Services--Module = 6--86%=20
School Health Index--Health Promotion for=20 Staff--Module 7--15%=20
School Health Index--Family & = Community=20 Involvement--Module 8--89%=20

According to the Arkansas Center for =
Health Improvement, the
following data was obtained: 2007-2008 61.4% (males) and 48.5% (females)
were noemal or underweight. 38.6% (males) and 51.5% (females) were at =
risk
of becoming overweight, and 24.6% (males) and 23.5% (Females) were
overweight.  2006-2007 63.0% (males) and 57.3% (females) were normal or
underweight, 16.8% (males)and 21.4 % (females) were at risk of becoming
overweight, and 20.2% (males) and 21.4% (females) were overweight.
2005-2006 56.3% (males) and 58.4% (females) were normal or underweight,
20.5% (males) and 17.0% (females) were at risk of becoming overweight =
and
23.2% (males) and 24.5% (females) were overweight.pre>

Goal

Students' health will improve through = participation=20 in health and physical education classes as well = as=20 through the promotion of healthy habits in the = school=20 and family environment.

Benchmark

During the 2007-2008 school year, the BMI will = decrease by 1%.

Intervention: A healthy = school=20 environment will be provided for all=20 participants.

Scientific Based Research:=20 "Opportunities for Action." Office of = Assistant=20 Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. = Office of=20 Health Policy. Available:=20 = http://aspe.hhs.gov/health.blueprint/action.shtml.=20 Accessed 11/6/2007

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Vending machines will be turned off = until 30=20 minutes after the lunch period.
Action = Type:=20 Collaboration
Action Type: = Wellness

Lisa Daffron

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

None


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Upon analysis of student BMIs and the = School=20 Health Index, the plan will be evaluated = and=20 revised accordingly.
Action Type: = Program=20 Evaluation

Patrick Henry

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

Performance = Assessments


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Intervention: A healthy = lifestyle=20 will be promoted within the family=20 environment.

Scientific Based Research: = Houghton,=20 P. "Finding Allies: Sustaining Teachers' = Health=20 and Well-Being." Phi Delta Kappan May = 2001: Vol.=20 82, Issue 9, p706-11. Database: ERIC. = Available:=20 http://web8.epnet.com

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Posters and/or brochures will be = displayed in=20 the parent center promoting a healthy=20 lifestyle.
Action Type: = Collaboration
Action=20 Type: Wellness

Lisa Daffron

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

Teachers
Teaching Aids


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Health-related links will be provided on = the=20 school website.

Kelvin Hudson

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Intervention: Students will = be=20 provided physical activity = daily.

Scientific Based Research: = Pivarnik,=20 Ph.D., J.M. & Pfeiffer, Ph.D., K. "The = Importance of Physical Activity for = Children and=20 Adolescents." 2002. = http://www.michiganfitness.org=20 (accessed 2006).

Actions

Person Responsible

Timeline

Resources

Source of Funds

Students will be required to meet the = ADE=20 requirements for physical = education.

Kelvin Hudson

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Students will be evaluated each school = year=20 according to the Presidential Physical = Fitness=20 assessment instrument.
Action Type:=20 Equity
Action Type: Program = Evaluation

Garry Ash

Start: 07/01/2008
End: = 06/30/2009

Performance = Assessments


ACTION BUDGET:	$

Total Budget:

Planning Team

Classification Name Position Committee

Classroom Teacher Armfield, Barbara 6th Grade Math Mathematics

Classroom Teacher Ash, Garry 6th-8th PE Wellness

Classroom Teacher Batterton, Anna 7th Grade Math Mathematics Chair

Classroom Teacher Durbin, Faith Special Education Aide Wellness

Classroom Teacher Henry, Patrick 6th-8th Special Education Wellness

Classroom Teacher Hudson, Heather 7th-8th Grade Business Science

Classroom Teacher Jones, Susie 7th Grade English Literacy

Classroom Teacher Lawrence, Judith 6th & 7th Social = Studies Science

Classroom Teacher Lee, Danielle Special Education Mathematics

Classroom Teacher Luttrell, Tracie EAST Lab Facilitator Mathematics

Classroom Teacher Pace, Veronica 8th English Literacy

Classroom Teacher Phillips, Charnell 7th & 8th Social = Studies Literacy

Classroom Teacher Raney, Tara Choir Director Literacy

Classroom Teacher Rodriquez, Kristen 7th & 8th Science Science

Classroom Teacher Stahlman, Marbela 6th & 7th Science Science

Classroom Teacher Stoops, Treva Special Education Aide Wellness

Classroom Teacher Thompson, Lisa 6th English Literacy Chairperson

Classroom Teacher Vines, Kevin 8th Math/Algebra I Mathematics

Community Representative Blasdel, Tyler Student Wellness

Non-Classroom Professional = Staff Daffron, Lisa Counselor Wellness Chairperson

Non-Classroom Professional = Staff Hudson, Anna Media Specialist Literacy

Non-Classroom Professional = Staff Parkinson, Malia Middle School Secretary Mathematics

Parent Potter, Juanenlle Parent Mathematics

Principal Hudson, Kelvin Middle School Principal Literacy

=20

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C91D67.DEB54B30 Content-Type: text/css; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://acsip.state.ar.us/css/styles.css BODY { FONT-SIZE: 11px; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, = Helvetica, sans-serif } .text { FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } .priority { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14px } .goal { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12px } TABLE { FONT-SIZE: 11px; COLOR: #000000; TEXT-DECORATION: none } TD { FONT-SIZE: 11px; COLOR: #000000; TEXT-DECORATION: none } TD.content { FONT-SIZE: 12px; LINE-HEIGHT: 140%; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, = Helvetica, sans-serif } P.content { FONT-SIZE: 11px; LINE-HEIGHT: 140%; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, = Helvetica, sans-serif } P.bold { PADDING-RIGHT: 12px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11px; COLOR: = #222222; LINE-HEIGHT: 140%; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .title { PADDING-LEFT: 12px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 18px; LINE-HEIGHT: = 140%; PADDING-TOP: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana } .login { PADDING-RIGHT: 2px; PADDING-LEFT: 2px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: = 11px; COLOR: #222222; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } .boxtitle { PADDING-RIGHT: 3px; PADDING-LEFT: 3px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: = 11px; COLOR: #222222; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } .box { PADDING-RIGHT: 3px; PADDING-LEFT: 3px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: = 11px; COLOR: #222222; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } .bold { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .btn { PADDING-RIGHT: 12px; PADDING-LEFT: 2px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: = 10px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 12px; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; PADDING-TOP: 12px; = FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A:link { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10px; COLOR: #0066cc; TEXT-DECORATION: = none } A:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10px; COLOR: #cc3300; TEXT-DECORATION: = none } A:visited { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10px; COLOR: #0066cc; TEXT-DECORATION: = none } A:active { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10px; COLOR: #0066cc; TEXT-DECORATION: = none } .error { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14px; COLOR: #ff0000 } .generictable { BACKGROUND-COLOR: #505153 } TH.generic { PADDING-RIGHT: 2px; PADDING-LEFT: 2px; FONT-SIZE: 10px; PADDING-BOTTOM: = 2px; PADDING-TOP: 2px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ccccff } TD.generic { PADDING-RIGHT: 2px; PADDING-LEFT: 2px; FONT-SIZE: 10px; PADDING-BOTTOM: = 2px; PADDING-TOP: 2px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff } TD.genericborder { PADDING-RIGHT: 2px; PADDING-LEFT: 2px; FONT-SIZE: 10px; PADDING-BOTTOM: = 2px; PADDING-TOP: 2px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00 } TD.genericlow { PADDING-RIGHT: 2px; PADDING-LEFT: 2px; FONT-SIZE: 10px; PADDING-BOTTOM: = 2px; PADDING-TOP: 2px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ff6600 } .redmenu { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12px; COLOR: #ffffff; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, = Helvetica, sans-serif } .graymenu { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12px; COLOR: #333333; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, = Helvetica, sans-serif } .sectiontitle { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 18px; COLOR: #081a7e; FONT-FAMILY: = Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } .content { FONT-SIZE: 14px; COLOR: #333333; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .contentfine { FONT-SIZE: 10px; COLOR: #333333; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .error { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; COLOR: #ff0000 } .file SPAN { DISPLAY: block } .file .fileheader { COLOR: #888 } .file .hunkheader { COLOR: #888 } .file .hunk .ctx { BACKGROUND: #eee } .file .hunk INS { DISPLAY: block; BACKGROUND: #dfd; TEXT-DECORATION: none } .file .hunk DEL { DISPLAY: block; BACKGROUND: #fdd; TEXT-DECORATION: none } ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C91D67.DEB54B30--