07 Ghsd Title I Plan

St. Helen Elementary School
Title I Schoolwide Program
Kathy Rees, St. Helen Principal/District Title I Director
Gayla Mann, MDE, Field Consultant - MannG@mi.gov

I) Gerrish-Higgins Title I Services Overview
A) What is Title I?

In the 1960‟s, Lyndon Johnson created Title I as part of his „War on Poverty‟. The goal
was to provide supplemental services to schools to ensure that students from poverty
could be successful in academic skills, with emphasis on language arts and mathematics.
The goal of the program has remained the same. Every ten years Title I is reauthorized
and the laws that accompany the money are reviewed and refined. This year, the year of
reauthorization, the emphasis in the program will be on assessment, achievement, and
plans for student and school improvement. While the program may become more
flexible in how services may be delivered to children, the evaluation of program success
will be more stringent. However, the goal of the program remains providing money for
supplemental services that lead to student academic success.

B) How are participating schools in the Gerrish-Higgins School District chosen?

In Gerrish-Higgins Title I is available in both elementary schools and the middle school.
Every year schools are chosen according to the percentage of students who are eligible
for free and reduced lunch. This report, generated on October 31st, is used to fund
programs for the following school year. The Title I Coordinator, and business office,
ranks the schools from the highest percentage of students eligible for free and reduced
lunch to the lowest using a comparability formula. Using this ranking, the money
received from the federal government is given out to the schools until all the money is
used or until the school with the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced
lunch is at the county average. However, the district can choose to allot even more
dollars to the school-wide building in order to improve services in the building where
everyone in the building is technically viewed as eligible. This year the Title I schools
are: St. Helen Elementary (School-wide), Roscommon Middle School (School-wide),
Roscommon Elementary (School-wide).

C) How are the Title I services delivered?

There are two kinds of Title I schools, School-wide and Targeted Assistance Schools.
School-wides are schools that have 50% or more of the students eligible for free and
reduced lunch, or they are schools that have received a waiver to enable them to be a
school-wide. For instance, St. Helen Elementary has gone through the yearlong process

to become a school-wide building with a current free and reduced lunch eligibility of
66%. In St. Helen, the Title I program is very flexible; the money given may be used to
enhance the whole school‟s academic program. In schools that fall below 50% or do not
have waivers, the Targeted Assistance money is directed to programs that enhance the
academics of identified individual students who are struggling academically. These
students are chosen based on the matrix score in language arts and mathematics. The
school may choose the subject that is the focus of Title I and it may choose the grade
levels that will receive the extra support. This is accomplished through the use of a needs
assessment. As of last year, both Roscommon Middle School and Roscommon
Elementary School have eligibility levels that qualify them for school-wide status.
Therefore, during the 2003/04 school year they chose the North Central Accreditation
(NCA) Association as their approved service provider and worked with this provider over
the 2003-04 school year to also become school-wide buildings. Regardless of which
program is in operation in a school, the goal is for all students to reach the county and
state academic standard, and for those subgroups generally known to be at higher risk for
academic success to reach the same high performance standards. The principal and the
School Improvement Team through disaggregation of data, formulation of a school-wide
plan, and monitoring of aggregated and disaggregated student success decide upon
exactly how this will be accomplished. At Roscommon Elemetary, the principal with the
SIT team decided to use team teachers to deliver the services. At St. Helen Elementary
and Roscommon Middle School the principals and their SIT team decided to hire
additional teachers in order to lower the teacher/student ratio. Each of the three programs
use paraprofessionals to provide students with private tutorials or to work with small
groups. The Gerrish-Higgins School District Title I approach is to always on all four
Core Curricular proficiencies no matter which service delivery method is utilized. Every
plan chosen by each of the three schools must be reviewed and approved by the Title I
Team, a group of: parents, community members, teachers, paraprofessionals and
administrative representatives, who meet frequently to monitor the success of the Title I
programs.

In addition to monitoring the instructional gains of Title I services, daily documentation
needs to be kept by all Title I staff. Using the log in appendix A, all Title I staff need to
maintain daily logs. These logs can be used to record the names of an entire group and
describing an activity or with individual students.

II) St. Helen Elementary Schoolwide Plan

Section 1: Schoolwide Program Planning Team
St. Helen Elementary School‟s Schoolwide program is developed with the involvement
of the community we serve and the individuals who will carry out the plan. Our existing
Building Leadership Team, which consists of teachers, paraprofessionals and the building
administrator has assumed the planning responsibilities for the Schoolwide program, by
also adding parent team members, the Title I Teacher and the Special Education when we
plan our Title I Services. Because of the age level of our student there is no student
representation.

2

A. Name of People Developing The Plan
1. Kathy Rees – Building Principal
2. Arlene Martin - Second Grade Teacher
3. Christina Wintersheimer – Title I Teacher/Coodinator
4. Cheri Hutek – Special Education Teacher
5. Jean Christiansen – Kindergarten Teacher
6. Mary Ward – 2 & 3 combination/music teacher
7. Michelle Young – Paraprofessional
8. Marci Howey – Preschool Teacher/Building PTCO Representative
9. Amy Hess – Parent

B. Team Meeting Dates (Past & Future)
1. May 25, 2007
a. Full Building Meeting Regarding Staff Distribution As They Relate to Title I
Services. - Summary – Consulted data to determine where the need was reflected
in order to direct initial Title I Services. There appears to be a data driven need at
second grade in the area of Reading/Writing. Second Grade Math scores indicate
less of a need. We then decided that we needed to pair one of our Title I Teachers
to the 2nd grade data identified need in the area of Reading/Writing. We decided
to pair our other Title I teacher to both Kindergarten (reading and math) and 3rd
grade (reading/writing). We decided to utilize Title I paraprofessionals in grades
Kindergarten, First and Fourth where the data indicated need but far less need
than grades, Second and third. We concluded that through more strategic Tier I
interventions at 3rd grade we may be able to again adjust those Title services as
early as in the first Trimester. We recognize that the data is indicating that we
need to intensify Title I/Special Education services as much as possible at the
second grade level in the area of reading and certainly writing. There appears to
be far more kids in 2nd grade that are in Tiers II and even in Tier III. Therefore,
interventions should be directed more universally at the all students in order to
bump as many students that we can into the Universal Tier I level. Some Title I
kids will require and benefit form Tier III interventions while other students who
may be unsuccessful at Tier III, even with intensive Title I Services, may in fact
be referred to Special Education if they do not already qualify for such services.
2. May 31, 2007
a. Title I Leadership Team Meeting Summary – Consulted data in order to
evaluate our Title I Plan (updated/changed/revised). Developed Plan for
communicating the Title I Plan.
3. June 8, 2007
a. Met with Parent Group Regarding Title I Plan – Reviewed data trends and the
staff proposal for addressing the needs. Obtained positive feed back from
parents regarding Title I services being more intensive at both 2nd and 3rd
grade.
4. September 27 , 2007 – Reviewed Title I Plan at Welcome
Back to School Night with all parents and staff.

3

C. Plans for Communicating to the School and Community About
the Schoolwide Plan and Planning Process:
1. June 8, 2007 – Met with a Parent Group regarding the Title I Plan
2. June 27, 2007 – Addressed the School Baord and community
about the Title I Plan and Planning Process

D. Technical Assistance – Team Members
1. Gayla Mann Field Support Services
a. April 26, 2007 = Consolidated Application Workshop
b. May 9, 2007 = Gayla Mann corresponding through email that our district
could use Title I Schoolwide funds to purchase the professional development
for our teachers in order to focus in on target groups of needy students.
c. May 11, 2007 = Schoolwide Schools Toolkit Workshop
2. Shay Anderson – Gerrish-Higgins Business Manager
a. May 7, 2007 – Meeting Regarding the possibility of using Title I funds to
purchase NWEA software/professional development.
b. May 10, 2007 – Finance Meeting Regarding Title I
possible funding cuts and reexamining how we are
currently utilizing Title I funds. This information will be
taken back to the Title I/School Improvement Committee
to review how funds are being utilized by this grant and to
consider any alternatives that would work best for needy
students.
3. Joyce Zeneberg – Saginaw Valley Instructor
a. May 9, 2007 – Finance Meeting Regarding Title I
possible funding cuts and reexamining how we are
currently utilizing Title I funds. This information will be
taken back to the Title I/School Improvement Committee
to review how funds are being utilized by this grant and to
consider any alternatives that would work best for needy
students.
4. District Finance Task Force (Score)
a. March 28, 2007 Reviewed district comprehensive current financial status
including all grant monies and brainstormed recommendations to these bugets.
b. April 25, 2007 – Reviewed district comprehensive current financial status
including all grant monies and compiled all former and new recommendations to
these bugets.
5. Gerrish-Higgins School Board Meeting – June 27, 2007
a. Publicly addressed the School Board regarding Title I Plan for next Year.
Kathy Rees Gerrish-Higgins Title I Director, Christina Wintersheimer Title I
Coordinator (St. Helen Elementary), Jane Carol (Roscommon Elementary)
reviewed the Comprehensive Needs Assessment Process for each of the
individual buildings and presented the results of our data to the Board. We
reviewed the final Title I Plan recommendations with the School Board and
responded to Public comment regarding these recommendations.

4

(Roscommon Elementary) reviewed the Comprehensive Needs Assessment
Process for each of the individual buildings and presented the results of our data
to the Board. We reviewed the final Title I Plan recommendations with the
School Board and responded to Public comment regarding these
recommendations.

Section 2: School Profile and Comprehensive Needs Assessment

A. Profile – Key Features of the School and Its Community
1) See attached School and Community Profiles

B. Inclusive Comprehensive Needs Assessment – Including all of
the members of the School Community with a Particular Focus
on all Educationally Disadvantaged Children.

1) Over the last 3 years Title I Services have been completely restructured.
Christina Wintersheimer is now our full time Title I service provider.
Special Education services were also greatly restructured to address this sub
population. Together, Title I and Special Education services has become a
service delivery unit. Personnel distributions from both programs were
considered when planning for services to raise achievement levels of both
groups of students. The services of both Educationally Disadvantaged and
Special Education students were considered first in our planning strategies for
the 2007-08 School Year. Title I and Special Education services were planned
first and Specials such as Music, PE, Library and Computer Lab were then
planned around the service delivery unit services. In summary, more than
ever Title I has been brought right up front in our planning efforts as the
number one driving force for instructional practices that are student
achievement driven.

Monitoring of Disaggregation of Student Achievement
A) Disaggregation of student achievement data will be widely driven by the
decision of the St. Helen Elementary Staff to completely restructure the Title I
service delivery system. Christina Wintersheimer will now devote all of her
time to Title I and Anne Obermeyer will continue to provide services for half
of the day. In June 2007, Mrs. Wintersheimer (SHES) worked with Jane
Carroll (RES), and Building Principal, Kathy Rees on disaggregation and
analysis of student achievement data. Mrs. Wintersheimer, Ms. Carroll and
Mrs. Rees will compile this data into a Comprehensive Needs Assessment
Grid which will be downloaded into NWEA.

1) Information on this grid will be also plotted out onto large chart paper and
reviewed with staff the first week of the 2007-08 school year. Discussion

5

will take place as to the implementation of best practice strategies to
address the analysis of the Comprehensive Needs Assessment as they
relate to the defined disaggregated subgroups. The results of this
discussion will also be complied and given to NCA Chairs. The NCA
teams will revisit and possibly revise current goals and strategies which
will specifically state how Title I services will be utilized as a strategy for
improving student achievement in all four core curricular areas: Math,
Language Arts, Science and Social Studies, as they relate all sub groups.
These revisions will be reviewed by the Steering Committee/Leadership
Team at their first Leadership Team Meeting, which will be held in
September of 2007 so that the strategies can be implemented at the
beginning of the 2007-08 School Year.

Reporting of Disaggregation of Student Achievement
A) St. Helen Elementary will prepare and publicly disseminate the
reporting of the disaggregation in our Annual Report in the
beginning of 2007-08 school year to all staff, all parents, and all
students for the following:
1) Aggregate student achievement at each proficiency level on state
assessments.
2) Student achievement at each proficiency level will be disaggregated by
race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, migrant status, English
proficiency, and status as economically disadvantaged, provided that these
subgroups are more than 30 students in our building per grade level tested.
3) Percentage of students not tested, disaggregated by each group (if
statistically sound).
4) Most recent 2-year trend in achievement in each subject area and for each
grade level.
B) Results of locally administered student competency tests (QRI, Dibels, MLPP
& Everyday Math and/or nationally normed achievement tests (MEAP). This
data from these assessments will be collected for students in grades 1-5 as
required by section 1280b of the School Code (PA 25).

C) In regards to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Data St. Helen Elementary
will also report:
1) Aggregate information on other indicators (student attendance) used to
determine AYP.
2) AYP information, including number, names, and percentage of Title I
schools identified for school improvement in our district, and how long
identified.
3) Comparison between actual achievement of each group (excluding gender
and migrant) and state‟s annual measurable objectives.
4) Comparison of building, district and state achievement data on state
assessments and other indicators of AYP, such as attendance rates.

6

Section 3: Analyzing Needs & Deriving Schoolwide Program
Goals

A. The Comprehensive Needs Assessment identified the following
current strengths and weaknesses of the educational program.

1. The Comprehensive Needs Assessment identified for us that our students tend
to do better in 3rd grade and then we experience a dip across the board in 4th
grade. Reading is a strength in our building, followed by math. However, all
grade level are struggling in the area of writing.
B. The following priority focus areas (maximum 3) for achieving
the outcomes of the proposed Schoolwide program
1. Improving Math Skills
2. Improving Oral Reading Fluency
3. Improving Writing Skills
C. Goals of the Schoolwide Program:
1. Students throughout the district will increase the percentage of students at grade
level in math to reach 75% in each classroom.
2. Students throughout the district will increase oral reading fluency from the
beginning of the year to the end of the year.
3. Students throughout the district will increase the percentage of students at
grade level in writing to reach 75% in each classroom.

Section 4: Instructional Program
A. The following specific changes in the instructional program
and procedures were utilized to implement the goals of the
Schoolwide program.

1. Title I and Special Education has become a Special Services Delivery System. As a
building we lay our the title I Comprehensive Needs Assessment and we identify the
students in Tier I , Tier II and Tier III. Tier I involves universal instruction to all
students. Tier II is our title I students who are given supplemental support in the areas
identified by the needs assessment, as are title III kids but who tend to be the Special
Education students. Through our MiBLSI Training we intend to develop strategies and
intervention kits to be utilized with students who are either Tier II or Tier III.

Section 5: Professional Development
A. Professional Qualifications of the Professional Staff
1. All teachers (Pre-12) within the Gerrish-Higgins School District meet the Federal
Standards for Highly Qualified.

7

B. Schoolwide support for intensive and sustained professional
development

Professional development is very key in utilizing the Title I program as a vehicle for
change. We recognize that there is not one mold that answers the professional
development needs of every educator. It is essential that the professional development
plan provides an opportunity for both the needs of the individual and the needs of the
district to be met. It is recognized that professional development, to be effective, must be
ongoing, and sustained, providing both training and opportunities to apply the new
learning. Implementation of learning communities are encouraged at both building and
district levels. To this end, the expectation for professional development at Gerrish-
Higgins is aligned to the National Staff Development Council‟s Standards for Staff
Development 2001:
Our professional development plan incorporates learning strategies appropriate for the
intended goal and is aligned with our district curriculum and instructional practices and
our district mission.

We base professional development opportunities on educator‟s content knowledge, we
provide them with research-based instructional strategies to assist students in meeting
rigorous academic standards, and prepare them to use various types of classroom
assessments appropriately. We believe that Standards for Teaching and Learning from
Michigan Curriculum Frameworks are foundational in professional development (Higher
Order Thinking, Substantive Conversation, Deep Knowledge, Real-World Application).

We use disaggregated data from a variety of sources (MEAP, Terra Nova, MLPP, Dibels,
Everyday Math, NCA instruments, grade-level and department created assessment data)
to determine adult learning priorities, monitor progress, and help sustain continuos
improvement.

Context Standards:

1. LEARNING COMMUNITIES will be encouraged as a means to provide ongoing
support to adults working to improve student learning.
2. LEADERSHIP to guide continuous instructional improvement is an essential
component for improving student learning and will be developed and supported.
3. RESOURCES to support adult learning and collaboration will be sought through
a variety of means: grants, in-kind resources, release time when possible, and
necessary materials to support adult learning

Process Standards:
4. DATA DRIVEN: Disaggregated data from a variety of sources (MEAP, Terra
Nova, MLPP, Everyday Math, NCA common matrix and context bound
instruments, grade-level and department created assessment data) will be utilized
to determine adult learning priorities, monitor progress, and help sustain

8

continuous improvement. Professional development is planned with input from
the stakeholders.
5. EVALUATION of professional development will be ongoing, utilizing multiple
sources of information to guide improvement and determine the impact of
professional development on student learning.
6. RESEARCH-BASED decision-making is an expected outcome for all
professional development … preparing educators to apply research and best
practices to instructional decision-making.
7. DESIGN of professional development incorporates learning strategies appropriate
for the intended goal and is aligned with district curriculum and instructional
practices and the district mission.
8. LEARNING: Effective professional development applies knowledge about
human learning and change, relating directly to the teaching and learning process.
9. COLLABORATION is a process that is modeled and taught so that adult learners
can learn how to and apply a collaborative process within their learning
communities and within their classrooms. Professional development is aligned
with the school improvement plan at both the district and building levels.

Content Standards:

10. EQUITY: Professional development prepares educators to understand and
appreciate all students, create safe, orderly and supportive learning environments,
and hold high expectations for their academic achievement.
11. QUALITY TEACHING: Professional development depends on educator‟s
content knowledge, provides them with research-based instructional strategies to
assist students in meeting rigorous academic standards, and prepares them to use
various types of classroom assessments appropriately. The Standards for
Teaching and Learning from Michigan Curriculum Frameworks are foundational
in professional development (Higher Order Thinking, Substantive Conversation,
Deep Knowledge, Real-World Application).
12. PARENT INVOLVEMENT: Professional development provides educators with
knowledge and skills to involve families and other stakeholders appropriately.

Section 6: Parent Involvement
This section of St. Helen‟s Schoolwide Plan is devoted to the
parent involvement activities of our school. One of the advantages
of the Schoolwide program is the opportunity to use ESEA
resources to support activities that our parents value. Our parents
actively participate in designing, implementing, and evaluating
these activities.
A. Parents will be involved in all phases of the Schoolwide
program in the following ways:

9

Parent involvement is a cornerstone of a Title I school. In Gerrish-Higgins the guidance
counselor‟s function in this capacity in our Title I school. These staff members act as the
„bridge‟ between home and school. There is a Title I orientation held in each school
twice a year (fall and spring). There are parent/teacher/student compacts, parent
meetings, and special Title I parent outreach programs and services are offered. At St.
Helen Elementary, there is a parent involvement plan which represents six aspects of
parent involvement.. In June of 2006, a parent group consisting of 6 members revised the
Three-Year Plan themselves, as well as the Parent Compact. On the Parent Compact they
added a few things in the narrative plus they added a section for Parent to devise a goal
that they would work on to support the elements of the Parent Compacts. The Compacts
were reviewed and signed at the Fall Parent Teacher Conferences. Copies of the new
plans were given to both the teacher and the parents and will be reviewed once again in
the spring conferences.

B. The following Parent Education Activities will be offered:
1. Title I Family Nights – Language Arts, Math, Behavior Intervention, Brain Gym,
Basic Food Groups
C. The quality of Parent Activities will be Monitoring through the
following method:
1. Parent Survey
2. Informal Conversation
D. Linkages to comprehensive family, health and social services
will be established through:
1. School Links Awareness Programs – Asthma, dangers of food allergies, childhood
diabetes, community Mental Health Serivices and childhood obesity

Section 7: Accountability

The Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) provides
the foundation for our program evaluation. This assessment
provides evaluation data for reading and mathematics which is
disaggregated by gender, major ethnic or racial groups, limited
English proficient status, migrant students, and children with
disabilities as compared to other students and by economically
disadvantaged students as compared to students who are not
economically disadvantaged

A. The following procedures for measuring and reporting adequate
student progress will be utilized on an annual basis:

10

Title I schools are carefully monitored by both the Central Office through the work of the
aforementioned Title I Team, and the Michigan State Department of Education. The
measure of success is the Michigan Education Assessment program (MEAP) that is used
to determine Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Each year the Title I coordinator receives
information from the state about the trend seen in MSPAP performance, be it positive or
negative. Schools that show a negative trend based on the Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP), are given a warning. Schools that show a negative trend for two years are put in
improvement. Parents of these students are allowed to transfer to another school
providing there is room. This is called the student transfer option. In addition, the Central
Office works with the school to ensure that extra assistance is available. The staff from
the state Title I office visits and monitors the school to offer any appropriate assistance.
Gerrish-Higgins had an on-site review last year. Once a school is in the second year of a
downward trend, it must show a positive trend for two consecutive years in order to be
dismissed from school improvement. During this time the central office and, eventually
the Michigan State Department of Education, may become active in the school in order to
turn around achievement. The plans for improvement vary widely and may include
adding specific staff development, removing some site-based decision making, changing
key staff, and reviewing curricular programs used. Regardless of the road taken, the goal
of improvement is to increase achievement, especially for students who are at-risk for
academic success.

In accordance with the legislative mandate to provide documentation that all students in
Kindergarten through 8th grade are making continuous progress, the Gerrish-Higgins
School District is committed to assuring that all students are making positive continuous
growth – academic, social, physical, emotional. There is strong evidence that assessment,
especially for early elementary years, must be ongoing, developmental and directly
aligned with instruction. Gerrish-Higgins School District will utilize Michigan Literacy
Progress Profile (MLPP) for charting continuous progress for all children in literacy
development grades Kindergarten through 3. Beginning with the 2003-2004 school year,
MLPP for upper grades will be used with students in grades 3 – 6.We will utilize teacher-
developed grade level assessments aligned with Everyday Mathematics for charting
continuous progress for all students in mathematics in grades K – 6. In addition, teacher-
developed assessments aligned with Michigan Content Standards and Benchmarks will
be utilized to measure student progress in all content areas K-12.

It is essential that assessment be ongoing, aligned with and connected to instruction. It is
not intended that a special “time” be set aside for assessment – but rather be incorporated
into the day-to-day instruction. It is important that teachers utilize information obtained
from students to reflect upon and design further instruction.

LITERACY DEVELOPMENT:
The Michigan Literacy Progress Profile (MLPP) is the assessment tool that will be used
for charting continuous progress in literacy development for students in pre-school
through grade 3. Beginning in the 2003-2004 school year, MLPP for upper grades were
used for grade 3-6. At grades 3 & 4, MEAP is administered. At grade 5, oral reading
fluency and comprehension will be assessed using leveled texts and writing will be

11

assessed using a grade level determined prompt and scored with the MDE 6-point rubric.
It is understood that progress should be charted on a regular basis (2 to 3 times per year)
for each student using the MILESTONE tools of the MLPP .The ENABLING tools will
be used as needed on a student-by-student basis to “dig deeper”. Each teacher will
provide a progress report to the building principal with a copy to the Curriculum Director
at least twice per year. Grades 7 and 8 teams will also agree on the assessments that
will be utilized for each unit and will report student progress to their building principal,
with with a copy to the Curriculum Director at least quarterly. The English Language
Arts department will align assessment with content standards and benchmarks for each
course and will report student progress to their building principal, with a copy to the
Curriculum Director at least quarterly.

MATHEMATICS:
Grades K – 6 grade level teams will reach consensus on the format and items from the
Everyday Mathematics program to be used by every teacher within the grade level to
assess progress at least every 9 to 12 weeks. The target areas will be those objectives that
are designated as “Secure” (Proficient) in the Towards a Balanced Assessment for
Everyday Mathematics document. Progress for each student will be reported to the
building principal with a copy to the Curriculum Director according to the time schedule
determined by the grade level team - with a minimum of three reporting periods per
year. Grades 7 and 8 teams will also agree on the assessments that will be utilized for
each unit and will report student progress to their building principal, with copies going to
the Curriculum Director at least quarterly. The mathematics department will align
assessment with content standards and benchmarks for each course and will report
student progress to their building principal, with copies to the Curriculum Director, at
least quarterly.

SCIENCE
Grade level and department teams will also agree on the assessments that will be utilized
for each unit and will report student progress to their building principal, with copies to
the Curriculum Director at least quarterly.

SOCIAL STUDIES

SUMMER SCHOOL
At the elementary level, a comprehensive summer school program will be offered, as a
minimum to all students who have not demonstrated desired progress over time, with
priority given to students in 3rd grade who are most at-risk. The program will be a “Jump
Start” program that will take place two weeks before the first day of school. The
instructional format used for this summer program will follow a balanced literacy format
and will utilize the MLPP tools as the basis for assessment and instruction in literacy.
Mathematics development in the summer program will be based on the structure of the
Everyday Mathematics program. The instructional design for both literacy development

12

and mathematics development will be based on authentic, real-world learning
opportunities that engage students in hands-on, interactive opportunities. Worksheets,
workbooks and “skill and drill” paper pencil activities will be avoided and used ONLY if
such a structure is the best way in which to promote student learning.

Comprehensive Assessment Plan
Kindergarten Beginning Middle End
Informal MLPP – Informal MLPP – Formal MLPP –Complete Individual
LITERACY Oral Language Oral Language Literacy Profile for each student
Concepts of Print Concepts of Print Oral Language
Comprehension – Storytelling Comprehension – Storytelling Concepts of Print
using Sulzby using Sulzby Comprehension – Storytelling
Letter / Sound ID Letter / Sound ID using Sulzby and retelling
Writing – score with rubric Writing – score with rubric rubric
Letter / Sound ID
Writing – score with rubric

MATH Baseline Assessment Mid-Year Assessment Late-in-Year-Assessment

SCIENCE Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed
assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with
SOC. ST. content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks

1st Grade Beginning Middle End
Informal MLPP – (Formal for new Informal MLPP – (Formal for new MLPP –
students.) students.) Oral Language
LITERACY
Oral Language Oral Language Phonemic Awareness
Phonemic Awareness Phonemic Awareness Oral Running Record
Oral Running Record Oral Running Record DRA
DRA DRA Comprehension
Comprehension Comprehension Storytelling
Storytelling Storytelling Oral Retelling
Oral Retelling Oral Retelling Writing
Writing Writing Literacy Attitudes
Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Enabling tools as needed:
Enabling tools as needed: Enabling tools as needed:  Hearing and Recording
 Hearing and Recording  Hearing and Recording Sounds
Sounds Sounds  Sight Words /Decodable
 Sight Words /Decodable  Sight Words /Decodable Words
Words Words  Letter / Sound ID
 Letter / Sound ID  Letter / Sound ID  Known Words
 Known Words  Known Words  Concepts of Print
 Concepts of Print  Concepts of Print Literacy Attitudes
Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes

MATH
Units 1 and 2 (Early Nov.) Units 3 – 5 (mid Feb) Units 9 – 12 (by end of year)
Units 6 – 8 (mid April)

SOC. ST. assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with
content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks

N/A

2nd Grade Beginning Middle End
MLPP – Informal (Formal for new MLPP – Informal (Formal for new MLPP – Formal – Complete an

13

LITERACY students) students) Individual Literacy Profile for each
student
Oral Language Oral Language Oral Language
Phonemic Awareness Phonemic Awareness Phonemic Awareness
Oral Running Record Oral Running Record Oral Running Record
DRA DRA DRA
Comprehension Comprehension Comprehension
Storytelling Storytelling Storytelling
Oral Retelling Oral Retelling Oral Retelling

Writing Writing Writing
Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes
Enabling tools as needed: Enabling tools as needed: Enabling tools as needed:
 Hearing and Recording  Hearing and Recording  Hearing and Recording
Sounds Sounds Sounds
 Sight Words /Decodable  Sight Words /Decodable  Sight Words /Decodable
Words Words Words
 Letter / Sound ID  Letter / Sound ID  Letter / Sound ID
 Known Words  Known Words  Known Words
 Concepts of Print  Concepts of Print  Concepts of Print

Units 1 -3 (Early Nov.) Units 4 – 6 (February) Units 10 – 12 (End of Year)
MATH Units 7 – 9 (April)

Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed
SCIENCE assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with assessments which are aligned with
SOC. ST.

3rd Grade Beginning Middle End
students) students Individual Literacy Profile for each
LITERACY
student

Oral Running Record –using Oral Running Record –using Oral Running Record
classroom designated materials classroom designated materials DRA (Rigby for DRA levels 30
DRA for new students DRA for new students and higher)
[Storytelling (Sulzby)] [Storytelling (Sulzby)] [Storytelling (Sulzby)]
Oral Retelling (Scoring Rubric) Oral Retelling (Scoring Rubric) Oral Retelling (Scoring Rubric)
Written Retelling (Scoring Written Retelling (Scoring Written Retelling (Scoring
Rubric) Rubric) Rubric
Writing (4-Point Rubric) Writing (4-Point Rubric) Writing (6-Point Rubric)
Words Words Words
 Phonemic Awareness  Phonemic Awareness  Phonemic Awareness

MATH
Units 7 – 9 (April)

14

SOC. ST.
TECH

4th Grade Beginning Middle End
LITERACY Comprehension Comprehension Comprehension
Written Retelling Written Retelling Written Retelling
Profundity Scale Profundity Scale Profundity Scale
Known Words Known Words Known Words

MATH Units 1 -3 (Early Nov.) Units 4 – 6 (February) Units 11 – 13 (End of Year)
SCIENCE


MATH Units 1 -3 (First Quarter) Units 4 – 6 (Second Quarter) Units 10 - 12 (Fourth Quarter)
Units 7 – 9 (Third Quarter)

TECH

Using Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader
Technology Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess)
Classworks Classworks Classworks
Standardized
MEAP Science
MEAP Social Studies
6th Beginning Middle End

LITERACY Oral Running Record Oral Running Record Oral Running Record

15


MATH Units 1- 3 (First Quarter) Units 4 – 5 (Second Quarter) Units 8 – 10 (Fourth Quarter)
SCIENCE
SOC. ST. Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed
TECH. content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks

Using
Technology Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader
Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess)

STANDARDIZED
TerraNova during MEAP window
LITERACY
MATH Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed Grade-level team developed
SCIENCE
SOCIAL
STUDIES
TECHNOLOGY
Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader
USING Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess)
TECHNOLOGY Classworks Classworks Classworks
MOIS MOIS MOIS

STANDARDIZED MEAP – ELA

LITERACY
SCIENCE
SOCIAL
STUDIES
TECHNOLOGY
AS APPROPRIATE: AS APPROPRIATE: AS APPROPRIATE:
USING Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader
TECHNOLOGY Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess)
MOIS MOIS MOIS

STANDARDIZED MEAP: Math, Science, Social Studies

B. The following methods will be utilized for including teachers in
decisions to use assessments that supplement the state
assessment system:
1. The building Leadership Team will be untilized to revise the local assessment
plan and to obtain staff input in the development of the new assessment plan
C. Results of assessments will be reported to parents and

16

community by:
1. School Newsletter, Principal Letter Home to Parents, local
media and website.

Section 8: Coordination and Ongoing Program Development
A. The Schoolwide Program will coordinate with other programs
and agencies through the following ways:

. 1. Federal, state and local services and programs are effectively
coordinated through the district consolidated application process to
support our school-wide plan. In fact, Gerrish-Higgins is involved
in a number of grants that the Business Manager, Shay Anderson;
Superintendent and Director of 31a, Dr.Millie Park Mellgren; and
Title I Director, Kathy Rees, have written through the consolidated
application process. They have worked very hard to
coordinate the following grants.

Title I, Part A/D
Title II, Part A
Title II, Part D
Title V
31a State At-Risk
ECE

Kathy Rees is responsible for the Title I and Early Childhood grants.
Dr. Park Mellgren, Superintendent, coordinates services for students
formally identified to receive at-risk services. Mrs. Anderson
coordinates Title II, Parts A & D and Title V. Mrs. Anderson, Dr.
Park Mellgren , and Mrs. Rees have coordinated their efforts to
efficiently supply materials, professional development activities,
teacher stipends, release time and other support to the entire school
district. The district professional development request form has been
very helpful to coordinate those types of opportunities. On the
forms, staff members are first and foremost requested to identify the
connection of the professional development activity to NCA/School
Improvement Goals. They are also required to obtain the approval of
the project director if funding from one of the above grants is
required.

Mrs. Anderson, Dr. Park Mellgren, and Mrs. Rees adjust the source
of the funding, with the purpose of coordinating all of the grants. For
example, staff members who request to attend professional
development activities need to complete a plan of how they intend to
share and use the information themselves, upon their return. Their

17

goal is to make meaningful choices for professional development,
which reflects a comprehensive, coordinated approach for
educational reform. At the intermediate school district level, Mrs.
Mcnitt, Roscommon Elementary Principal is a member of the COOR
Intermediate Coordinating Committee for Professional Development
(CCCPD). The CCCPD have coordinated grant efforts and have
offered extensive training sessions that are ongoing throughout the
year.

At the community level, the Title I programs coordinate services with
25 different agencies within the Gerrish-Higgins community to
provide services to students in Roscommon. Action plans are written
to identify the agency providing the services, action to be taken, target
date, agency person responsible, technology needs, and even has a
section for review status. Parent involvement will be expanded and
enhanced through the efforts of a Parent Involvement Committee. A
three-year Parent Involvement Plan, based on the six identified parent
involvement standards by Dr. Joyce Epstein will be written.
Regularly scheduled parent in-service sessions have been conducted
throughout the year. We also provide a parent section within our
library. We intend to further expand this parent resource to include a
lot more things. We will be offering make-and-take workshops and
we will supply all of the materials this spring. Parents, teachers, and
students work together at these workshops with teaching aids and
games that can be used by parents in their homes with students. These
events are intended to provide a warm and inviting place where
parents feel welcome and are encouraged to be an active member in
their child‟s education.
B. The following provisions will be made to facilitate ongoing
consultation among the individuals in the planning team
(Section 1) concerning the continuing educational progress of
all students in the school.
1. Once a month we will have an early release day in the afternoon. We will
utilize this time to review the Title I Schoolwide Plan and the Comprehensive
Needs Process that is so crticial to the implementation of this plan.
Section 9: Fiscal Information
We have found that one of the biggest advantages of the Schoolwide program is the
opportunity to combine the funding from separate programs to support whole-school
reform. Reauthorization permits Schoolwide programs to incorporate funds from state,
local, and other federal programs, in addition to Title I. It does not exempt schools from
providing appropriate services to the children in the target population in each of these
programs. Therefore, in our district we take full advantage of coordinating several
funding sources in order to meet the needs of our students to the fullest extent possible.
The funds associated with those sources are derived from a careful Comparability study
of all three of our Title I Buildings, as they relate to the High School needs which is not

18

a Title I Building. Title I funds follow the needs of the students and are distributed
according to the most needy buildings. Other sources of grant monies are then
considered also in realtion to the student needs of the high School.
A. Title I funds and funds from other sources will be used to
implement the Schoolwide program through the following
method:
1. Coordination of funds will allow our district to address several needs. Thus,
utilizing our funds in a coordinated manner allowing us to provide the maximum
extent possible of needed services.
B. See attached Schoolwide budget which includes and
summarizes all funding sources.
C. Attached B Above also supports the district and state support
the Title I program. Including dollar amounts of local and state
funds spent at this school.

Section 10: The names and roles of the reviewers of the
schoolwide program plan:

Name Current Role Role in Developing
in School or the Schoolwide Plan
School Community

Kathy Rees – Building Principal – Pulling the Plan Together
Arlene Martin - Second Grade Teacher – Language Development For The Plan
Christina Wintersheimer – Title I Teacher/Coodinator - Language Development For
The Plan
Cheri Hutek – Special Education Teacher - Language Development For The Plan
Jean Christiansen – Kindergarten Teacher - Language Development For The Plan
Mary Ward – 2 & 3 combination/music teacher - Language Development For The
Plan
Michelle Young – Paraprofessional - Language Development For The Plan
Marci Howey – Preschool Teacher/Building PTCO Representative - Language
Development For The Plan
Amy Hess – Parent - Language Development For The Plan

19

What is Title I?

In the 1960‟s, Lyndon Johnson created Title I as part of his „War on Poverty‟. The goal
was to provide supplemental services to schools to ensure that students from poverty
could be successful in academic skills, with emphasis on language arts and mathematics.
The goal of the program has remained the same. Every ten years Title I is reauthorized
and the laws that accompany the money are reviewed and refined. This year, the year of
reauthorization, the emphasis in the program will be on assessment, achievement, and
plans for student and school improvement. While the program may become more
flexible in how services may be delivered to children, the evaluation of program success
will be more stringent. However, the goal of the program remains providing money for
supplemental services that lead to student academic success.

20

How are participating schools in the Gerrish-Higgins School District chosen?

In Gerrish-Higgins Title I is available in both elementary schools and the middle school.
Every year schools are chosen according to the percentage of students who are eligible
for free and reduced lunch. This report, generated on October 31st, is used to fund
programs for the following school year. The Title I Coordinator, and business office,
ranks the schools from the highest percentage of students eligible for free and reduced
lunch to the lowest using a comparability formula. Using this ranking, the money
received from the federal government is given out to the schools until all the money is
used or until the school with the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced
lunch is at the county average. However, the district can choose to allot even more
dollars to the school-wide building in order to improve services in the building where
everyone in the building is technically viewed as eligible. This year the Title I schools
are: St. Helen Elementary (School-wide), Roscommon Middle School (School-wide),
Roscommon Elementary (School-wide).

How are the Title I services delivered?

There are two kinds of Title I schools, School-wide and Targeted Assistance Schools.
School-wides are schools that have 50% or more of the students eligible for free and
reduced lunch, or they are schools that have received a waiver to enable them to be a
school-wide. For instance, St. Helen Elementary has gone through the yearlong process
to become a school-wide building with a current free and reduced lunch eligibility of
66%. In St. Helen, the Title I program is very flexible; the money given may be used to
enhance the whole school‟s academic program. In schools that fall below 50% or do not
have waivers, the Targeted Assistance money is directed to programs that enhance the
academics of identified individual students who are struggling academically. These
students are chosen based on the matrix score in language arts and mathematics. The
school may choose the subject that is the focus of Title I and it may choose the grade
levels that will receive the extra support. This is accomplished through the use of a needs
assessment. As of last year, both Roscommon Middle School and Roscommon
Elementary School have eligibility levels that qualify them for school-wide status.
Therefore, during the 2003/04 school year they chose the North Central Accreditation
(NCA) Association as their approved service provider and worked with this provider over
the 2003-04 school year to also become school-wide buildings. Regardless of which
program is in operation in a school, the goal is for all students to reach the county and
state academic standard, and for those subgroups generally known to be at higher risk for
academic success to reach the same high performance standards. The principal and the
School Improvement Team through disaggregation of data, formulation of a school-wide
plan, and monitoring of aggregated and disaggregated student success decide upon
exactly how this will be accomplished. At Roscommon Elemetary, the principal with the
SIT team decided to use team teachers to deliver the services. At St. Helen Elementary
and Roscommon Middle School the principals and their SIT team decided to hire
additional teachers in order to lower the teacher/student ratio. Each of the three programs
use paraprofessionals to provide students with private tutorials or to work with small

21

groups. The Gerrish-Higgins School District Title I approach is to always on all four
Core Curricular proficiencies no matter which service delivery method is utilized. Every
plan chosen by each of the three schools must be reviewed and approved by the Title I
Team, a group of: parents, community members, teachers, paraprofessionals and
administrative representatives, who meet frequently to monitor the success of the Title I
programs.

In addition to monitoring the instructional gains of Title I services, daily documentation
needs to be kept by all Title I staff. Using the log in appendix A, all Title I staff need to
maintain daily logs. These logs can be used to record the names of an entire group and
describing an activity or with individual students.

There is an important service delivery stipulation.

No matter how services are delivered they need to be supplemental in nature and by no
means take the place of, or supplant core area instruction. As the definitions would
imply, supplement indicates to make an addition to, were as supplant means to take the
place of. Title I services must not take the place of instruction, instead services need to
compliment or offer additional practice of core area instruction.

How are Title I students assessed?

In accordance with the legislative mandate to provide documentation that all students in
Kindergarten through 8th grade are making continuous progress, the Gerrish-Higgins
School District is committed to assuring that all students are making positive continuous
growth – academic, social, physical, emotional. There is strong evidence that assessment,
especially for early elementary years, must be ongoing, developmental and directly
aligned with instruction. Gerrish-Higgins School District will utilize Michigan Literacy
Progress Profile (MLPP) for charting continuous progress for all children in literacy
development grades Kindergarten through 3. Beginning with the 2003-2004 school year,
MLPP for upper grades will be used with students in grades 3 – 6.We will utilize teacher-
developed grade level assessments aligned with Everyday Mathematics for charting
continuous progress for all students in mathematics in grades K – 6. In addition, teacher-
developed assessments aligned with Michigan Content Standards and Benchmarks will
be utilized to measure student progress in all content areas K-12.

It is essential that assessment be ongoing, aligned with and connected to instruction. It is
not intended that a special “time” be set aside for assessment – but rather be incorporated
into the day-to-day instruction. It is important that teachers utilize information obtained
from students to reflect upon and design further instruction.

LITERACY DEVELOPMENT:
The Michigan Literacy Progress Profile (MLPP) is the assessment tool that will be used
for charting continuous progress in literacy development for students in pre-school
through grade 3. Beginning in the 2003-2004 school year, MLPP for upper grades were
used for grade 3-6. At grades 3 & 4, MEAP is administered. At grade 5, oral reading

22

fluency and comprehension will be assessed using leveled texts and writing will be
assessed using a grade level determined prompt and scored with the MDE 6-point rubric.
It is understood that progress should be charted on a regular basis (2 to 3 times per year)
for each student using the MILESTONE tools of the MLPP .The ENABLING tools will
be used as needed on a student-by-student basis to “dig deeper”. Each teacher will
provide a progress report to the building principal with a copy to the Curriculum Director
at least twice per year. Grades 7 and 8 teams will also agree on the assessments that
will be utilized for each unit and will report student progress to their building principal,
with with a copy to the Curriculum Director at least quarterly. The English Language
Arts department will align assessment with content standards and benchmarks for each
course and will report student progress to their building principal, with a copy to the
Curriculum Director at least quarterly.

MATHEMATICS:
Grades K – 6 grade level teams will reach consensus on the format and items from the
Everyday Mathematics program to be used by every teacher within the grade level to
assess progress at least every 9 to 12 weeks. The target areas will be those objectives that
are designated as “Secure” (Proficient) in the Towards a Balanced Assessment for
Everyday Mathematics document. Progress for each student will be reported to the
building principal with a copy to the Curriculum Director according to the time schedule
determined by the grade level team - with a minimum of three reporting periods per
year. Grades 7 and 8 teams will also agree on the assessments that will be utilized for
each unit and will report student progress to their building principal, with copies going to
the Curriculum Director at least quarterly. The mathematics department will align
assessment with content standards and benchmarks for each course and will report
student progress to their building principal, with copies to the Curriculum Director, at
least quarterly.

SCIENCE

SOCIAL STUDIES

SUMMER SCHOOL
At the elementary level, a comprehensive summer school program will be offered, as a
minimum to all students who have not demonstrated desired progress over time, with
priority given to students in 3rd grade who are most at-risk. The program will be a “Jump
Start” program that will take place two weeks before the first day of school. The
instructional format used for this summer program will follow a balanced literacy format
and will utilize the MLPP tools as the basis for assessment and instruction in literacy.
Mathematics development in the summer program will be based on the structure of the

23

Everyday Mathematics program. The instructional design for both literacy development
and mathematics development will be based on authentic, real-world learning
opportunities that engage students in hands-on, interactive opportunities. Worksheets,
workbooks and “skill and drill” paper pencil activities will be avoided and used ONLY if
such a structure is the best way in which to promote student learning.

Comprehensive Assessment Plan
Kindergarten Beginning Middle End
Informal MLPP – Informal MLPP – Formal MLPP –Complete Individual
LITERACY Oral Language Oral Language Literacy Profile for each student
Concepts of Print Concepts of Print Oral Language
Comprehension – Storytelling Comprehension – Storytelling Concepts of Print
using Sulzby using Sulzby Comprehension – Storytelling
Letter / Sound ID Letter / Sound ID using Sulzby and retelling
Writing – score with rubric Writing – score with rubric rubric
Letter / Sound ID
Writing – score with rubric
MATH Baseline Assessment Mid-Year Assessment Late-in-Year-Assessment


1st Grade Beginning Middle End
Informal MLPP – (Formal for new Informal MLPP – (Formal for new MLPP –
students.) students.) Oral Language
LITERACY
Oral Language Oral Language Phonemic Awareness
Phonemic Awareness Phonemic Awareness Oral Running Record
Oral Running Record Oral Running Record DRA
DRA DRA Comprehension
Comprehension Comprehension Storytelling
Storytelling Storytelling Oral Retelling
Oral Retelling Oral Retelling Writing
Writing Writing Literacy Attitudes
Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes Enabling tools as needed:
Enabling tools as needed: Enabling tools as needed:  Hearing and Recording
 Hearing and Recording  Hearing and Recording Sounds
Sounds Sounds  Sight Words /Decodable
 Sight Words /Decodable  Sight Words /Decodable Words
Words Words  Letter / Sound ID
 Letter / Sound ID  Letter / Sound ID  Known Words
 Known Words  Known Words  Concepts of Print
 Concepts of Print  Concepts of Print Literacy Attitudes
Literacy Attitudes Literacy Attitudes

MATH
Units 1 and 2 (Early Nov.) Units 3 – 5 (mid Feb) Units 9 – 12 (by end of year)
Units 6 – 8 (mid April)


N/A

2nd Grade Beginning Middle End

24

students) students) Individual Literacy Profile for each
LITERACY
student
Phonemic Awareness Phonemic Awareness Phonemic Awareness
DRA DRA DRA
Storytelling Storytelling Storytelling

Writing Writing Writing
Words Words Words

MATH Units 7 – 9 (April)

SCIENCE content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks
SOC. ST.

3rd Grade Beginning Middle End
students) students Individual Literacy Profile for each
LITERACY
student

Oral Running Record –using Oral Running Record –using Oral Running Record
classroom designated materials classroom designated materials DRA (Rigby for DRA levels 30
DRA for new students DRA for new students and higher)
[Storytelling (Sulzby)] [Storytelling (Sulzby)] [Storytelling (Sulzby)]
Oral Retelling (Scoring Rubric) Oral Retelling (Scoring Rubric) Oral Retelling (Scoring Rubric)
Written Retelling (Scoring Written Retelling (Scoring Written Retelling (Scoring
Rubric) Rubric) Rubric
Words Words Words
 Phonemic Awareness  Phonemic Awareness  Phonemic Awareness

MATH

25

SCIENCE
TECH


MATH Units 1 -3 (Early Nov.) Units 4 – 6 (February) Units 11 – 13 (End of Year)
SCIENCE


MATH Units 1 -3 (First Quarter) Units 4 – 6 (Second Quarter) Units 10 - 12 (Fourth Quarter)

TECH

Using Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader
Standardized
MEAP Science
MEAP Social Studies
6th Beginning Middle End

LITERACY Oral Running Record Oral Running Record Oral Running Record

26


MATH Units 1- 3 (First Quarter) Units 4 – 5 (Second Quarter) Units 8 – 10 (Fourth Quarter)
SCIENCE
TECH. content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks content standards and benchmarks

Using

STANDARDIZED
TerraNova during MEAP window
th
7 Grade Beginning Middle End
LITERACY
SCIENCE
SOCIAL
STUDIES
TECHNOLOGY
USING Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess)
TECHNOLOGY Classworks Classworks Classworks
MOIS MOIS MOIS

STANDARDIZED MEAP – ELA

LITERACY
SCIENCE
SOCIAL
STUDIES
TECHNOLOGY
AS APPROPRIATE: AS APPROPRIATE: AS APPROPRIATE:
USING Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader Accelerated Reader
TECHNOLOGY Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess) Accelerated Math (Star Math Assess)
MOIS MOIS MOIS

STANDARDIZED MEAP: Math, Science, Social Studies

How are Title I schools evaluated for success?

Title I schools are carefully monitored by both the Central Office through the work of the
aforementioned Title I Team, and the Michigan State Department of Education. The
measure of success is the Michigan Education Assessment program (MEAP) that is used
to determine Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Each year the Title I coordinator receives
information from the state about the trend seen in MSPAP performance, be it positive or
negative. Schools that show a negative trend based on the Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP), are given a warning. Schools that show a negative trend for two years are put in

27

improvement. Parents of these students are allowed to transfer to another school
providing there is room. This is called the student transfer option. In addition, the Central
Office works with the school to ensure that extra assistance is available. The staff from
the state Title I office visits and monitors the school to offer any appropriate assistance.
Gerrish-Higgins had an on-site review last year. Once a school is in the second year of a
downward trend, it must show a positive trend for two consecutive years in order to be
dismissed from school improvement. During this time the central office and, eventually
the Michigan State Department of Education, may become active in the school in order to
turn around achievement. The plans for improvement vary widely and may include
adding specific staff development, removing some site-based decision making, changing
key staff, and reviewing curricular programs used. Regardless of the road taken, the goal
of improvement is to increase achievement, especially for students who are at-risk for
academic success.

How are parents involved?

Parent involvement is a cornerstone of a Title I school. In Gerrish-Higgins the guidance
counselor‟s function in this capacity in our Title I school. These staff members act as the
„bridge‟ between home and school. There is a Title I orientation held in each school
twice a year (fall and spring). There are parent/teacher/student compacts (See attachment
B), parent meetings, and special Title I parent outreach programs and services are
offered. At St. Helen Elementary, there is a parent involvement plan which represents six
aspects of parent involvement (See attached C). In June of 2004, a parent group
consisting of 6 members revised the Three-Year Plan themselves, as well as the Parent
Compact. On the Parent Compact they added a few things in the narrative plus they
added a section for Parent to devise a goal that they would work on to support the
elements of the Parent Compacts. The previous Compact was signed and returned with
the Welcome Back Packets in the beginning of the year. The new Compacts were
reviewed and signed at the Fall Parent Teacher Conferences. Copies of the new plans
were given to both the teacher and the parents and will be reviewed once again in the
spring conferences.

How are agencies involved?

As the motto indicates, “It Take a Whole Village to Raise a Child”. Efforts need to be
taken in order to effectively utilize the services available throughout the community.
Appendix D contains our entire agency coordination process. The three year Action
Plans for each organization will be updated in October of 2006.

What is the importance of professional development?

Professional development is very key in utilizing the Title I program as a vehicle for
change. We recognize that there is not one mold that answers the professional
development needs of every educator. It is essential that the professional development

28

plan provides an opportunity for both the needs of the individual and the needs of the
district to be met. It is recognized that professional development, to be effective, must be
ongoing, and sustained, providing both training and opportunities to apply the new
learning. Implementation of learning communities are encouraged at both building and
district levels. To this end, the expectation for professional development at Gerrish-
Higgins is aligned to the National Staff Development Council‟s Standards for Staff
Development 2001:
Our professional development plan incorporates learning strategies appropriate for the
intended goal and is aligned with our district curriculum and instructional practices and
our district mission.

We base professional development opportunities on educator‟s content knowledge, we
provide them with research-based instructional strategies to assist students in meeting
rigorous academic standards, and prepare them to use various types of classroom
assessments appropriately. We believe that Standards for Teaching and Learning from
Michigan Curriculum Frameworks are foundational in professional development (Higher
Order Thinking, Substantive Conversation, Deep Knowledge, Real-World Application).

We use disaggregated data from a variety of sources (MEAP, Terra Nova, MLPP, Dibels,
Everyday Math, NCA instruments, grade-level and department created assessment data)
to determine adult learning priorities, monitor progress, and help sustain continuous
improvement.

Context Standards:

13. LEARNING COMMUNITIES will be encouraged as a means to provide ongoing
support to adults working to improve student learning.
14. LEADERSHIP to guide continuous instructional improvement is an essential
component for improving student learning and will be developed and supported.
15. RESOURCES to support adult learning and collaboration will be sought through
a variety of means: grants, in-kind resources, release time when possible, and
necessary materials to support adult learning

Process Standards:
16. DATA DRIVEN: Disaggregated data from a variety of sources (MEAP, Terra
Nova, MLPP, Everyday Math, NCA common matrix and context bound
instruments, grade-level and department created assessment data) will be utilized
to determine adult learning priorities, monitor progress, and help sustain
continuous improvement. Professional development is planned with input from
the stakeholders.
17. EVALUATION of professional development will be ongoing, utilizing multiple
sources of information to guide improvement and determine the impact of
professional development on student learning.

29

07 Ghsd Title I Plan

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to 07 Ghsd Title I Plan

Similar to 07 Ghsd Title I Plan (20)

More from KathyRees

More from KathyRees (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

07 Ghsd Title I Plan