School Improvement Plan (SIP) - Oak Park Elementary School ...

Abraham Lincoln Elem School 

5/15/2012 3:50:05 PM School Improvement Plan 2011 Page 1 of 52 

Local Board Approved 

Initial Submission 

Plan Resubmitted 

ISBE Monitoring Completed 

©2011 Illinois Interactive Report Card, Northern Illinois University



PRELIMINARY INFORMATION 

RCDT Number: 

District Name: 

060160970022007 

Oak Park ESD 97 School Name: 


Superintendent: 

Dr. Albert G Roberts Principal: Catherine Hamilton 

District Address: 970 Madison St School Address: 1111 S Grove Ave 

City/State/Zip: Oak Park, IL 60302 4430 City/State/Zip: Oak Park, IL 60304 1908 

District Telephone#: Label 7085243000 Extn: 0 School Telephone#: 7085243110 Extn: 0 

District Email: 

fstarks@op97.org 

School Email: 

Is this plan for a Title I School? nmlkj Yes nmlkji No 




Section I-A Data & Analysis - Report Card Data 

Item 1 - 2011 AYP Report 

Is this School making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)? Yes Has this School been identified for School Improvement according to the AYP 

specifications of the federal No Child Left Behind Act? 

No 

Is this School making AYP in Reading? Yes 2011-12 Federal Improvement Status 

Is this School making AYP in Mathematics? Yes 2011-12 State Improvement Status 

Percentage Tested on State Tests Percent Meeting/Exceeding Standards* Other Indicators 

Reading Mathematics Reading Mathematics Attendance Rate Graduation Rate 

Safe** 

Safe** 

Student Groups % Met AYP % Met AYP % Harbor Met AYP % Harbor Met AYP % Met AYP % Met AYP 

Target 

Target 

State AYP Minimum 

Target 

95.0 95.0 85.0 85.0 91.0 82.0 

All 100.0 Yes 100.0 Yes 86.6 Yes 95.0 Yes 96.1 Yes 

White 100.0 Yes 100.0 Yes 91.5 Yes 98.6 Yes 

Black 100.0 Yes 100.0 Yes 66.0 60.9 Yes 83.0 Yes 95.3 

Hispanic 

Asian 

American Indian 

Two or More Races 


Hispanic 



Asian 

American Indian 

Two or More Races 

Native 

Hawaiian/Pacific 

Islander 

LEP 

Students with 

Disabilities 

Economically 

Disadvantaged 

100.0 Yes 100.0 Yes 66.7 62.5 Yes 88.2 Yes 95.9 

100.0 Yes 100.0 Yes 

Four Conditions Are Required For Making Adequate Yearly Progress(AYP) 

1. At least 95% tested in reading and mathematics for every student group. If the current year participation rate is less than 95%, this condition may be met 

if the average of the current and preceding year rates is at least 95%, or if the average of the current and two preceding years is at least 95%. Only 

actual participation rates are printed. If the participation rate printed is less than 95% and yet this school makes AYP, it means that the 95% condition 

was met by averaging. 

2. At least 85% meeting/exceeding standards in reading and mathematics for every group. For any group with less than 85% meeting/exceeding standards, a 

95% confidence interval was applied. Subgroups may meet this condition through Safe Harbor provisions. *** 

3. For schools not making AYP solely because the IEP group fails to have 85% meeting/exceeding standards, 14% may be added to this variable in accordance 

with the federal 2% flexibility provision. 

4. At least 91% attendance rate for non-high schools and at least 82% graduation rate for high schools. 

* Includes only students enrolled as of 05/01/2010. 

** Safe Harbor Targets of 85% or above are not printed. 

*** Subgroups with fewer than 45 students are not reported. Safe Harbor only applies to subgroups of 45 or more. In order for Safe Harbor to apply, a subgroup 

must decrease by 10% the percentage of scores that did not meet state standards from the previous year plus meet the other indicators (attendance rate for 

non-high schools and graduation rate for high schools) for the subgroup. For subgroups that do not meet their Safe Harbor Targets, a 75% confidence interval is 

applied. Safe Harbor allows schools an alternate method to meet subgroup minimum targets on achievement. 


* Includes only students enrolled as of 05/01/2010. 

** Safe Harbor Targets of 85% or above are not printed. 


5/15/2012 *** Subgroups 3:50:05 PMwith fewer than 45 students are not reported. Safe Harbor School only Improvement applies to subgroups Plan 2011 of 45 or more. In order for Safe Harbor to apply, a subgroup Page 5 of 52 

must decrease by 10% the percentage of scores that did not meet state standards from the previous year plus meet the other indicators (attendance rate for 

non-high schools and graduation rate for high schools) for the subgroup. For subgroups that do not meet their Safe Harbor Targets, a 75% confidence interval is 

applied. Safe Harbor allows schools an alternate method to meet subgroup minimum targets on achievement. 





Item 2 - 2011 AMAO Report 

Schools are not accountable for AMAO. This is a district level requirement only. 





Item 3 - School Information 

School Information 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Attendance Rate (%) 96.3 95.4 95.8 95.8 95.9 96.0 95.9 96.1 

Truancy Rate (%) 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.7 

Mobility Rate (%) 4.8 7.0 5.5 7.5 4.0 6.4 3.2 4.0 

HS Graduation Rate, if applicable (%) - - - - - - - - 

HS Dropout Rate, if applicable (%) - - - - - - - - 

School Population (#) 516 556 559 535 500 527 563 599 

Low Income (%) 13.6 14.6 13.8 15.0 12.8 11.2 13.3 15.5 

Limited English Proficient (LEP) (%) 0.0 2.5 2.0 2.8 4.2 4.9 3.7 3.8 

Students with Disabilities (%) - - - - - - 15.6 16.7 

White, non-Hispanic (%) 64.7 60.8 59.2 61.1 63.6 61.7 60.0 60.6 

Black, non-Hispanic (%) 24.6 20.7 21.6 20.7 18.6 17.1 17.2 15.7 

Hispanic (%) 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.0 4.2 5.9 5.7 7.3 

Asian (%) 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 6.2 7.8 6.7 6.5 

American Indian(%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 

Two or More Races (%) - 8.1 8.8 7.9 7.4 7.6 10.1 9.3 

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (%) - - - - - - - 0.0 

Note: Hyphens in the table indicate that data is not relevant for your plan. 





Item 4 - Student Race/Ethnicity 

Native 

American Two Or More Hawaiian/ 

Year 

Asian 

White Black Hispanic 

Indian Races Pacific Islander 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

2000 63.9 28.7 4.3 2.8 0.3 - - 

2001 63.0 28.8 4.1 3.8 0.3 - - 

2002 60.0 23.6 10.7 5.7 - - - 

S 2003 62.6 26.5 5.3 5.3 0.4 - - 

C 2004 64.7 24.6 5.4 5.2 - - - 

H 2005 60.8 20.7 5.2 5.2 - 8.1 - 

O 2006 59.2 21.6 5.2 5.2 - 8.8 - 

O 2007 61.1 20.7 5.0 5.2 - 7.9 - 

L 2008 63.6 18.6 4.2 6.2 - 7.4 - 

2009 61.7 17.1 5.9 7.8 - 7.6 - 

2010 60.0 17.2 5.7 6.7 0.2 10.1 - 

2011 60.6 15.7 7.3 6.5 0.5 9.3 - 

2000 58.8 34.7 3.6 2.6 0.3 - - 

2001 58.4 34.4 3.8 3.1 0.2 - - 

D 2002 57.5 30.2 8.5 3.7 0.2 - - 

I 2003 60.4 31.7 4.0 3.6 0.2 - - 

S 2004 60.5 31.8 4.1 3.5 0.1 - - 

T 2005 55.6 29.8 3.9 3.6 0.1 6.9 - 

R 2006 55.9 29.2 4.0 3.5 0.1 7.4 - 

I 2007 56.5 28.2 3.8 3.7 0.1 7.8 - 

C 2008 57.1 26.6 3.7 4.0 0.1 8.4 - 

T 2009 56.9 25.8 3.8 4.3 - 9.2 - 

2010 56.7 24.7 4.4 4.2 0.2 9.7 - 

2011 57.5 23.9 4.8 4.2 0.2 9.5 - 

2000 61.1 20.9 14.6 3.3 0.2 - - 

©2011 Illinois Interactive Report Card, 2001 Northern Illinois 60.1 University 20.9 15.4 3.4 0.2 - -

R 2006 55.9 29.2 4.0 3.5 0.1 7.4 - 

I 2007 56.5 28.2 

Abraham 

3.8 

Lincoln Elem School 

3.7 0.1 7.8 - 

C 2008 57.1 26.6 3.7 4.0 0.1 8.4 - 

5/15/2012 3:50:05 PM School Improvement Plan 2011 

T 2009 56.9 25.8 3.8 4.3 - 9.2 - 

Page 9 of 52 

2010 56.7 24.7 4.4 4.2 0.2 9.7 - 

2011 57.5 23.9 4.8 4.2 0.2 9.5 - 

2000 61.1 20.9 14.6 3.3 0.2 - - 

2001 60.1 20.9 15.4 3.4 0.2 - - 

2002 59.3 20.8 16.2 3.5 0.2 - - 

2003 58.6 20.7 17.0 3.6 0.2 - - 

S 

2004 57.7 20.8 17.7 3.6 0.2 - - 

T 

2005 56.7 20.3 18.3 3.7 0.2 0.7 - 

A 

2006 55.7 19.9 18.7 3.8 0.2 1.8 - 

T 

2007 54.9 19.6 19.3 3.8 0.2 2.2 - 

E 

2008 54.0 19.2 19.9 3.9 0.2 2.7 - 

2009 53.3 19.1 20.8 4.1 0.2 2.5 - 

2010 52.8 18.8 21.1 4.2 0.2 2.9 - 

2011 51.4 18.3 23.0 4.1 0.3 2.8 0.1 






Item 5 - Educational Environment 

Year 

Parental 

Chronic HS Dropout HS Graduation 

Chronic Truants 

LEP Low Income Involvement Attendance Mobility 

Truancy Rate Rate 

(N) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

2000 1.9 13.9 100.0 95.7 16.0 - - - - 

2001 2.8 10.5 98.0 95.7 10.1 - - - - 

2002 3.3 12.3 100.0 95.6 6.9 2 0.3 - - 

S 2003 3.0 9.3 100.0 95.4 6.8 1 0.2 - - 

C 2004 - 13.6 100.0 96.3 4.8 - - - - 

H 2005 2.5 14.6 100.0 95.4 7.0 1 0.2 - - 

O 2006 2.0 13.8 100.0 95.8 5.5 1 0.2 - - 

O 2007 2.8 15.0 100.0 95.8 7.5 - - - - 

L 2008 4.2 12.8 100.0 95.9 4.0 - - - - 

2009 4.9 11.2 100.0 96.0 6.4 1 0.2 - - 

2010 3.7 13.3 100.0 95.9 3.2 1 0.2 - - 

2011 3.8 15.5 100.0 96.1 4.0 10 1.7 - - 

2000 1.4 14.5 100.0 95.7 8.7 3 0.1 - - 

2001 1.7 10.6 99.2 95.8 8.2 4 0.1 - - 

D 2002 1.5 12.5 99.3 95.8 9.2 8 0.2 - - 

I 2003 1.3 13.3 99.0 94.5 12.0 3 0.1 - - 

S 2004 - 16.3 99.6 96.0 15.5 5 0.1 - - 

T 2005 1.2 16.3 99.7 95.7 8.5 6 0.1 - - 

R 2006 1.1 17.9 99.8 95.7 7.9 1 - - - 

I 2007 1.6 18.4 99.8 95.5 6.8 1 - - - 

C 2008 1.7 19.2 99.7 95.5 6.8 - - - - 

T 2009 1.6 17.1 100.0 95.4 5.5 7 0.1 - - 

2010 1.5 19.3 100.0 95.7 4.6 4 0.1 - - 

2011 1.4 20.7 100.0 95.8 4.6 40 0.8 - - 

2000 6.1 36.7 97.2 93.9 17.5 45,109 2.4 5.8 82.6 

2001 6.3 36.9 94.5 93.7 17.2 42,813 2.2 5.7 83.2 

©2011 Illinois Interactive 

2002 

Report Card, 

6.7 

Northern Illinois 

37.5 

University 

95.0 94.0 16.5 39,225 2.0 5.1 85.2

I 2007 1.6 18.4 99.8 95.5 6.8 1 - - - 

C 2008 1.7 19.2 99.7 

Abraham 

95.5 


6.8 - - - - 

T 2009 1.6 17.1 100.0 95.4 5.5 7 0.1 - - 


2010 1.5 19.3 100.0 95.7 4.6 4 0.1 - - 

2011 1.4 20.7 100.0 95.8 4.6 40 0.8 - - 

2000 6.1 36.7 97.2 93.9 17.5 45,109 2.4 5.8 82.6 

2001 6.3 36.9 94.5 93.7 17.2 42,813 2.2 5.7 83.2 

2002 6.7 37.5 95.0 94.0 16.5 39,225 2.0 5.1 85.2 

2003 6.3 37.9 95.7 94.0 16.4 37,525 1.9 4.9 86.0 

S 

2004 6.7 39.0 96.3 94.2 16.8 40,764 2.1 4.6 86.6 

T 

2005 6.6 40.0 95.7 93.9 16.1 43,152 2.2 4.0 87.4 

A 

2006 6.6 40.0 96.6 94.0 16.0 44,836 2.2 3.5 87.8 

T 

2007 7.2 40.9 96.1 93.7 15.2 49,056 2.5 3.5 85.9 

E 

2008 7.5 41.1 96.8 93.3 14.9 49,858 2.5 4.1 86.5 

2009 8.0 42.9 96.7 93.7 13.5 73,245 3.7 3.5 87.1 

2010 7.6 45.4 96.2 93.9 13.0 72,383 3.6 3.8 87.8 

2011 8.8 48.1 96.0 94.0 12.8 63,067 3.2 2.7 83.8 





Section I A Data & Analysis - Report Card Data 

Item 6 - Enrollment Trends 

Year 

School Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 11 

(N) 

(N) 

(N) 

(N) 

(N) 

(N) 

(N) 

2000 648 - - - - - - 

2001 638 - - - - - - 

2002 627 97 95 88 - - - 

S 2003 529 85 97 95 - - - 

C 2004 516 - - - - - - 

H 2005 556 - - - - - - 

O 2006 559 87 104 104 - - - 

O 2007 535 102 91 100 - - - 

L 2008 500 93 99 88 - - - 

2009 527 94 94 104 - - - 

2010 563 90 89 97 - - - 

2011 599 73 88 93 - - - 

2000 5,075 - - - - - - 

2001 5,035 552 559 557 573 580 - 

D 2002 5,013 547 553 558 627 579 - 

I 2003 4,923 535 537 546 573 599 - 

S 2004 4,938 548 539 526 572 559 - 

T 2005 4,969 543 554 553 574 571 - 

R 2006 4,973 531 556 558 516 573 - 

I 2007 5,001 533 521 581 536 521 - 

C 2008 5,040 554 529 525 560 532 - 

T 2009 5,247 585 552 537 597 560 - 

2010 5,421 597 594 552 555 603 - 

2011 5,580 574 596 603 538 565 - 

2000 1,983,991 - - - - - - 

2001 2,007,170 164,791 161,546 162,001 151,270 148,194 123,816 

2002 2,029,821 - - - - - - 

©2011 Illinois Interactive Report Card, 

2003 

Northern 

2,044,539 

Illinois University 

164,413 

S 

157,570 159,499 160,924 156,451 138,559

2008 5,040 554 529 525 560 532 - 

T 2009 5,247 585 

Abraham 

552 


537 597 560 - 

5/15/2012 3:50:05 PM 

2010 5,421 597 594 552 

School Improvement Plan 2011 

555 603 - 

Page 13 of 52 

2011 5,580 574 596 603 538 565 - 

2000 1,983,991 - - - - - - 

2001 2,007,170 164,791 161,546 162,001 151,270 148,194 123,816 

2002 2,029,821 - - - - - - 

2003 2,044,539 164,413 157,570 159,499 160,924 156,451 138,559 

S 

2004 2,060,048 161,329 160,246 158,367 162,933 160,271 139,504 

T 

2005 2,062,912 156,370 158,622 160,365 162,047 162,192 142,828 

A 

2006 2,075,277 155,155 154,372 158,822 160,362 160,911 147,500 

T 

2007 2,077,856 155,356 153,480 154,719 162,594 159,038 150,475 

E 

2008 2,074,167 155,578 152,895 153,347 160,039 161,310 149,710 

2009 2,070,125 156,512 152,736 152,820 155,433 158,700 144,822 

2010 2,064,312 155,468 154,389 152,681 154,465 154,982 146,919 

2011 2,074,806 153,516 153,301 154,241 153,981 153,986 151,059 






Item 7 - Educator Data 

**Educator Data is available only for district level** 

Average 

Teachers with 

Average 

Total Teacher Teacher 

Bachelor's 

Year 

Teacher Salary 

FTE Experience 

Degree 

($) 

(N) (Years) 

(%) 

Teachers with 

Pupil-Teacher 

Master's Degree 

Ratio 

(%) 

(Elementary) 

Classes not 

Teachers w/ 

taught by 

Emergency/ 

Pupil-Teacher 

Highly 

Provisional 

Ratio 

Qualified 

Credentials 

(HighSchool) 

Teachers 

(%) 

(%) 

2000 366 16 50,834 31 69 16 - - - 

2001 377 15 50,474 35 65 16 - - - 

D 2002 379 14 52,807 35 65 16 - 1 - 

I 2003 387 14 53,683 37 63 15 - 2 - 

S 2004 370 14 58,034 31 69 16 - 1 - 

T 2005 348 14 60,032 28 72 16 - - - 

R 2006 356 13 61,443 30 70 16 - 1 - 

I 2007 355 13 64,531 30 70 16 - 1 - 

C 2008 360 13 64,667 28 72 16 - - - 

T 2009 372 13 69,675 27 73 16 - - - 

2010 392 13 72,208 26 75 16 - - - 

2011 396 12 69,949 26 74 16 - - - 

2000 122,671 15 45,766 53 47 19 18 - - 

2001 125,735 15 47,929 54 46 19 18 - - 

2002 126,544 14 49,702 54 46 19 18 2 2 

2003 129,068 14 51,672 54 46 18 18 3 2 

S 

2004 125,702 14 54,446 51 49 19 19 2 2 

T 

2005 128,079 14 55,558 50 49 19 18 2 2 

A 

2006 127,010 13 56,685 49 51 19 19 2 1 

T 

2007 127,010 13 58,275 48 52 19 19 2 3 

E 

2008 131,488 12 60,871 47 53 18 18 1 1 

©2011 Illinois Interactive 2009 Report 133,017 Card, Northern Illinois 13 University 61,402 44 56 18 18 1 1 

2010 132,502 13 63,296 42 57 18 18 1 1

2010 392 13 72,208 26 75 16 - - - 

2011 396 12 69,949 

Abraham 

26 


74 16 - - - 

2000 

5/15/2012 3:50:05 PM 

122,671 15 45,766 53 47 

School Improvement Plan 2011 

19 18 - 

Page 

- 

15 of 52 

2001 125,735 15 47,929 54 46 19 18 - - 

2002 126,544 14 49,702 54 46 19 18 2 2 

2003 129,068 14 51,672 54 46 18 18 3 2 

S 

2004 125,702 14 54,446 51 49 19 19 2 2 

T 

2005 128,079 14 55,558 50 49 19 18 2 2 

A 

2006 127,010 13 56,685 49 51 19 19 2 1 

T 

2007 127,010 13 58,275 48 52 19 19 2 3 

E 

2008 131,488 12 60,871 47 53 18 18 1 1 

2009 133,017 13 61,402 44 56 18 18 1 1 

2010 132,502 13 63,296 42 57 18 18 1 1 

2011 128,262 13 64,978 40 60 19 19 1 1 






Item 8a - Assessment Data (Reading) 

ISAT - % Meets + Exceeds for Reading for Grades 3-8, 2006-2011 

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

AYP Benchmark 

% Meets + Exceeds 

47.5 55.0 62.5 70.0 77.5 85.0 47.5 55.0 62.5 70.0 77.5 85.0 47.5 55.0 62.5 70.0 77.5 85.0 

All 87.8 87.9 80.4 81.1 80.6 87.6 87.0 84.7 91.8 89.1 82.9 83.6 87.0 85.8 92.8 89.1 84.0 86.9 

White 96.3 92.2 90.9 81.0 92.0 95.0 91.5 94.6 96.9 96.4 91.2 89.8 94.3 90.0 98.3 97.0 89.5 93.0 

Black 61.1 68.4 47.1 60.0 52.4 64.7 73.9 57.9 77.8 75.1 57.1 66.7 82.1 73.9 79.0 70.6 50.1 66.6 

Hispanic - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Asian - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

American Indian - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Two or More Races - - 90.0 - - - - - - 100.0 - - - - - - 100.0 - 

LEP - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Students with 

Disabilities 

63.7 66.7 50.0 52.4 73.7 - 42.9 50.0 73.3 66.6 45.8 75.1 46.7 57.2 76.9 81.3 62.6 64.0 

Low Income 56.3 54.5 - 53.3 53.8 70.0 81.3 70.6 69.2 - 61.1 66.7 80.0 62.6 70.5 84.6 - 63.2 

Native Hawaiian/Pacific 

Islander 

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


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

AYP Benchmark 


47.5 55.0 62.5 70.0 77.5 85.0 47.5 55.0 62.5 70.0 77.5 85.0 47.5 55.0 62.5 70.0 77.5 85.0 

All - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

White - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Black - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Hispanic - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Asian - - - - - 

©2011 Illinois Interactive Report Card, Northern Illinois University 

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

American Indian - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

63.7 66.7 50.0 52.4 73.7 - 42.9 50.0 73.3 66.6 45.8 75.1 46.7 57.2 76.9 81.3 62.6 64.0 

Disabilities 


Low Income 56.3 54.5 - 53.3 53.8 70.0 81.3 70.6 69.2 - 61.1 66.7 80.0 62.6 70.5 84.6 - 63.2 



Islander 

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


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

AYP Benchmark 


47.5 55.0 62.5 70.0 77.5 85.0 47.5 55.0 62.5 70.0 77.5 85.0 47.5 55.0 62.5 70.0 77.5 85.0 

All - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

White - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Black - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Hispanic - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Asian - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


Two or More Races - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

LEP - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Students with 

Disabilities 

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

Low Income - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


Islander 

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






Item 8b - Assessment Data (Mathematics) 

ISAT - % Meets + Exceeds for Mathematics for Grades 3-8, 2006-2011 


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

AYP Benchmark 


47.5 55.0 62.5 70.0 77.5 85.0 47.5 55.0 62.5 70.0 77.5 85.0 47.5 55.0 62.5 70.0 77.5 85.0 

All 93.9 94.9 91.4 86.6 93.6 95.9 93.0 92.9 97.0 94.6 93.2 97.8 90.9 93.0 94.0 97.0 94.7 90.1 

White 98.1 95.3 98.2 89.6 100.0 100.0 98.3 98.2 98.5 98.2 98.2 100.0 96.2 93.3 98.2 98.5 98.2 96.5 

Black 77.8 89.5 64.7 66.6 80.9 82.4 78.3 79.0 94.4 81.3 85.7 90.5 85.8 95.6 79.0 88.3 75.1 77.8 

Hispanic - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Asian - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


Two or More Races - - 100.0 - - - - - - 100.0 - - - - - - 100.0 - 

LEP - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Students with 

Disabilities 

72.8 75.0 78.6 66.7 94.7 - 78.5 83.3 86.6 80.0 79.2 100.1 64.2 71.4 76.9 87.6 81.3 76.0 

Low Income 75.1 81.8 - 60.0 100.0 90.0 81.3 76.4 100.0 - 88.9 94.5 70.0 87.5 76.5 100.0 - 68.5 


Islander 

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


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

AYP Benchmark 


47.5 55.0 62.5 70.0 77.5 85.0 47.5 55.0 62.5 70.0 77.5 85.0 47.5 55.0 62.5 70.0 77.5 85.0 

All - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

White - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Black - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Hispanic - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Asian - - - - - 


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

American Indian - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

72.8 75.0 78.6 66.7 94.7 - 78.5 83.3 86.6 80.0 79.2 100.1 64.2 71.4 76.9 87.6 81.3 76.0 

Disabilities 


Low Income 75.1 81.8 - 60.0 100.0 90.0 81.3 76.4 100.0 - 88.9 94.5 70.0 87.5 76.5 100.0 - 68.5 



Islander 

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


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

AYP Benchmark 


47.5 55.0 62.5 70.0 77.5 85.0 47.5 55.0 62.5 70.0 77.5 85.0 47.5 55.0 62.5 70.0 77.5 85.0 

All - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

White - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Black - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Hispanic - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Asian - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


Two or More Races - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

LEP - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Students with 

Disabilities 

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

Low Income - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


Islander 

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






Data – What do the School Report Card data tell you about student performance in your school? What areas of weakness are indicated by these data? What areas of strength are 

indicated? 

Lincoln School had 255 students take the ISATs in 2011. Of these, 73 were in 3 rd grade, 91 in 4 th and 91 in 5 th . 

School Report Card data indicate that black, low income, and students with IEP's are most in need of assistance in succeeding on the ISAT test. In many instances, students not 

meeting or exceeding standards are those who fall into all three categories, that is they are black, low income and have an IEP. 

In reading, of the 36 students not meeting or exceeding standards, 19 (53%) were black, Of these, 8 were low income, 2 had an IEP, and 4 had an IEP and were low income. The 

second largest group not meeting or exceeding standards by race was white with 11 students (31%) of these 7 had IEP's. 

Weaknesess 

In reading, overall 16% of students failed to meet or exceed expectations. The percentages by grade level were 12% in 3rd, 16% in 4 th , and 13 % in 5 th . 

In Math, overall 5% failed to meet or exceed expectations. The percentages by grade level were 4% in 3 rd grade, 2% in 4 th grade, and 10% in 5 th . 

The tables below provide more specific detail on these numbers. 

All students taking the ISATs 

Total number Categories Reading 

Percent of students Below 

or in Academic Warning 

Math 



255 All 11% 6% 

54 Black 35% 15% 

146 White 8% 1% 

47 Free and Reduced Lunch 34% 17% 

49 IEP 25% 12% 


Percent of students Below Percent of students Below 

or in Academic 

Abraham 

Warning 

Lincoln Elem 

or 

School 

in Academic Warning 

255 

5/15/2012 3:50:05 PM 

All 11% 6% 

School Improvement Plan 2011 Page 21 of 52 

54 Black 35% 15% 

146 White 8% 1% 


49 IEP 25% 12% 

3 rd Grade 




Math 



73 All 3 rd grade 12% 4% 

17 Black 35% 12% 

40 White 5% 0% 


8 IEP 25% 0% 

4 th Grade 




Math 



91 All 4th grade 16% 2% 

21 Black 33% 10% 

49 White 10% 0% 


16 IEP 25% 0% 

5 th Grade 




Math 




16 Black 38% 25% 

57 White 7% 6% 


©2011 25 Illinois Interactive Report Card, IEP Northern Illinois University36% 

24%


Math 

Percent of Abraham students Lincoln Below Elem Percent Schoolof students Below 

5/15/2012 3:50:05 PM 

or in Academic Warning or in Academic Warning 



16 Black 38% 25% 

57 White 7% 6% 


25 IEP 36% 24% 

The data in the table above shows that there are three groups of concern in both reading and math: blacks, children receiving free and reduced lunch, and students with IEPs. 

Reading 

When looking more closely at the item-specific data, we found that the greatest area of need for all three subgroups was reading comprehension, followed by vocabulary, and 

then reading strategies. This was determined by looking at the percent of correct responses in each of the areas. 

For black students: 

Reading comprehension % of correct responses ranged from 32% to 42% 

Vocabulary scores % of correct responses ranged from 40% to 46% 

Reading strategies % of correct responses ranged from 40% to 47% 

For students with IEPs: 


Vocabulary scores % of correct responses ranged from 34% to 64% 


For students receiving FRL: 


Vocabulary scores % of correct response ranged from 41% to 46% 


In Math, the greatest areas of need differing by subgroup were as follows: 

For black students the three greatest areas of need in priority order were: 

Number sense (18%-37% correct responses) 

Measurement (23% to 35% correct responses) 

Algebra (0% to 42% correct responses) 


In Math, the greatest areas of need differing by subgroup were as follows: Abraham Lincoln Elem School 


For black students the three greatest areas of need in priority order were: 

Number sense (18%-37% correct responses) 


Algebra (0% to 42% correct responses) 

For students with IEPs the three areas of greatest need in priority order were: 

Algebra (25% correct responses) 

Number sense (28% correct responses) 

Data and Statistics (30% correct responses) 

For students receiving FRL the three greatest areas of need in priority order were: 

Data and Statistics (20% to 33% correct responses) 


Number Sense ( 23% to 48% correct responses) 

Strengths: 

Reading: Target 85.0% 

In 3rd grade, 87.6% of all students met or exceeded on the 2011 ISAT. 

In 3rd grade, 95% of white students met or exceeded on the 2011 ISAT. 

In 3rd grade, the percentage of black students meeting or exceeding increased from 52.4% in 2010 to 64.7% in 2011. 

In 3rd grade, the percentage of IEP students meeting or exceeding increased from 52.4% in 2009 to 73.% in 2010. (There is no data for 2011) 

In 3rd grade, the percentage of low income students meeting or exceeding increased from 53.8% in 2010 to 70% in 2011. 

In 4th grade, 89.8% of white students met or exceeded on the 2011 ISAT. 

In 4th grade, the percentage of black students meeting or exceeding increased from 57.1% in 2010 to 66.7% in 2011. 

In 4th grade, the percentage of IEP students meeting or exceeding increased from 45.8% in 2010 to 75.1% in 2011. 

In 4th grade, the percentage of low income students meeting or exceeding increased from 61.1% in 2010 to 66.7% in 2011. 

In 5th grade, 86.9% of all students met or exceeded on the 2011 ISAT. 

In 5th grade, 93% of white students met or exceeded on the 2011 ISAT. 

In 5th grade, the percentage of all students meeting or exceeding increased from 84% in 2010 to 86.9 in 2011. 

©2011 In 5th Illinois grade, Interactive the percentage Report of Card, white Northern students Illinois meeting University or exceeding increased from 89.5% in 2010 to 93% in 2011. 

In 5th grade, the percentage of black students meeting or exceeding increased from 50.1% in 2010 to 66.6% in 2011.


In 4th grade, the percentage of IEP students meeting or exceeding increased Abraham from Lincoln 45.8% Elem in School 2010 to 75.1% in 2011. 

In 4th grade, the percentage of low income students meeting or exceeding increased from 61.1% in 2010 to 66.7% in 2011. 


In 5th grade, 86.9% of all students met or exceeded on the 2011 ISAT. 

In 5th grade, 93% of white students met or exceeded on the 2011 ISAT. 

In 5th grade, the percentage of all students meeting or exceeding increased from 84% in 2010 to 86.9 in 2011. 

In 5th grade, the percentage of white students meeting or exceeding increased from 89.5% in 2010 to 93% in 2011. 


In 5th grade, the percentage of IEP students meeting or exceeding increased from 62.6% in 2010 to 64% in 2011. 

When looking for growth over time, the following cohort made gains in reading from 2009 to 2011. 

Reading Over Time 

Cohort 2009-2011 

3 rd through 5 th grade 

% Meets/Exceeds ISAT 

Reading 2009 (3 rd grade) 2010 (4 th grade) 2011 (5 th grade) 

All 81.1% 82.9% 86.9% 

White 81.0% 91.2% 93.0% 

Black 60.0% 57.1% 66.6% 

IEP 52.4% 45.8% 64.0% 

Low Income 53.3% 61.1% 63.2% 




Factors - What factors are likely to have contributed to these results? Consider both external and internal factors to the school. 

Factors: 

Weaknesses: 

Open Court reading series lacked skill specific lessons. 

Open Court reading series was not designed for small group, skill based work. 

Reading Roundup implemented in 2010-11. 

Due to lack of resources, scheduleing and staff, Reading Roundup was not able to continue in the 2011-12 school year. 

RtI and progress monitoring is in its initial phases. 

Strengths: 

Student to teacher ratio is 16:1, this allows for differentiation and targeted individual instruction in the classroom. 

Conclusions - What do these factors imply for next steps in improvement planning? These conclusions will be carried forward to Part D (Key Factors). 

Factors suggest that Lincoln Elementary needs to: 

1. Use the new Treasures reading series to focus specific assistance to the groups in high need. 

2. Continue to roll out RtI to focus support for low-performing groups. 

3. Continue to differentiate in the classroom. 

4. Low-performing students should be monitored closely to ensure progress. 




Section I-B Data & Analysis - Local Assessment Data (Optional) 

Data - Briefly describe the relevant local assessment data used in this plan. What do these data tell you? What areas of weakness are indicated by these data? What areas of 

strength are apparent? 

Lincoln School is presenting information in the MAP assessment for local data support of ISAT scores. The following information is from the Spring of 2011 MAP assessment. This was 

chosen because it was taken closest to the ISAT. 

MAP scores in reading support the evidence that black student scores are much lower than whites. In the MAP assessment 49% of black students scored below the 50th 

percentile, while only 17% of white students did. The MAP evidence also supports lower performance for low-income students and those with IEPs. Forty-three percent of 

students from low income families and 64% of students with IEPs scored below the 50th percentile. 

MAP scores in math support the evidence that black student scores are much lower than whites. In the MAP assessment 63% of black students scored below the 50th percentile 

while only 16% of white students did. The MAP evidence also supports lower performance for low income students and those with IEPs. Fifty-five percent of students from low 

income families and with IEPs scored below the 50th percentile. 

The tables below provides more specific detail on these numbers. 

All students taking the MAP assessment 


Below the 50 th percentile 

nationally 

Math 


nationally 

240 All 26% 29% 

51 Black 49% 63% 

136 White 17% 16% 


42 IEP 64% 55% 

3 rd Grade 

©2011 

Total 

Illinois 

number 

Interactive Report Card, 

Categories 

Northern Illinois University 

Reading Math

51 Black 49% 63% 


136 White 17% 16% 



42 IEP 64% 55% 

3 rd Grade 



nationally 

Math 


nationally 

74 All 3 rd grade 31% 39% 

20 Black 65% 85% 

38 White 13% 13% 


10 IEP 50% 90% 

4 th Grade 


Percent of students below 

or in Academic warning 

Math 




19 Black 26% 37% 

48 White 23% 19% 


15 IEP 53% 27% 

5 th Grade 




Math 




12 Black 58% 67% 

50 White 14% 16% 


17 IEP 65% 59% 


The data in the table above shows that there are three groups of concern in both reading and math: black students, children receiving free and reduced lunch and students with

or in Academic warning or in Academic warning 

78 All 5th grade 26% 

Abraham Lincoln Elem 

26% 


12 

5/15/2012 3:50:05 PM 

Black 58% 67% 


50 White 14% 16% 


17 IEP 65% 59% 

The data in the table above shows that there are three groups of concern in both reading and math: black students, children receiving free and reduced lunch and students with 

IEPs. 

Reading 

When looking more closely at the item-specific data in MAP, we found that the greatest area of need for all three subgroups was vocabulary, followed by reading comprehension. 

For black students and those from low income households, the next area of need was literary works, while for students with IEP's the third area of need was literature. While the 

order of priority does not exactly match the ISAT data, the three top areas of need are very similar, suggesting that staff focus a great deal of effort in vocabulary development as 

well as strengthening reading comprehension for all students. The final area is understanding literature. 

For black students: 

72% of those below the 50 percentile had low scores in vocabulary. 

68% of those below the 50 percentile had low scores in reading comprehension. 

64% of those below the 50 percentile had low scores in literary works. 

For students receiving FRL: 



58% of those below the 50 percentile had low scores in literary works. 

For students with IEPs: 



59% of those below the 50 percentile had low scores in literature. 

In math, the greatest areas of need differed by subgroup, just as they did with the ISATS. 

For black students, the greatest areas of need were the same in the categories of measurement and algebra, but rather than number sense, MAPs results showed weakness in 


geometry.

63% of those below the 50 percentile had low scores in vocabulary. Abraham Lincoln Elem School 

5/15/2012 63% of those 3:50:05 below PMthe 50 percentile had low scores in reading comprehension. School Improvement Plan 2011 Page 29 of 52 

59% of those below the 50 percentile had low scores in literature. 

In math, the greatest areas of need differed by subgroup, just as they did with the ISATS. 

For black students, the greatest areas of need were the same in the categories of measurement and algebra, but rather than number sense, MAPs results showed weakness in 

geometry. 

For students with IEPs, again the areas of greatest need were the same in 2 areas but not a third. Areas that showed greatest need were algebra, and data and statistics. However, 

the third area of number sense was not in the highest three, rather it was geometry. 

For students receiving FRL, again 2 of the greatest areas of need were the same in the MAP and ISATs, and one differed. The shared areas were data and statistics, and number 

sense. The third area in the MAP was geometry. 

The math results show that Lincoln needs to focus on measurement, algebra, data and statistics, and geometry. 

Factors - What factors are likely to have contributed to these results? Consider both external and internal factors to the school. 

Open Court reading curriculum lacked skill-specific lessons. 

Open Court reading curriculum was not designed for small group, skill-based work. 

Reading Roundup was implemented in 2010-11. 

Due to a lack of resources, scheduling and staff, Reading Roundup was not able to continue in the 2011-12 school year. 

RtI and progress monitoring is in its initial phases. 


Implement new Treasures Language Arts Program with fidelity. 

Use small group, skill-based instruction on a daily basis. 

Use centers for skill-based, differentiated work on a daily basis. 

Use MAP RIT scores and DesCartes lessons for students needing additional support. 




Section I-C Data & Analysis - Other Data (Optional) 

Item 1 - Attributes and Challenges 

Data - Briefly describe attributes and challenges of the school and community that have affected student performance. What do these data and/or information tell you? 

Factors - In what ways, if any, have these attributes and challenges contributed to student performance results? 



Item 2 - Educator Qualifications, Staff Capacity, and Professional Development 

Data - Briefly describe data on educator qualifications and data and/or information about staff capacity and professional development opportunities related to areas of weakness 

and strength. What do these data and information tell you? 

Strength: 

74% of teachers at Lincoln hold Master's Degrees. 

Seven Lincoln teachers have a Master's Degree in Reading. 

Student to teacher ratio is 16:1. 

©2011 Support Illinois staff work Interactive with students Report Card, who have Northern deficits Illinois their University learning (LAS, LDR, Speech, OT, Social Work, Psychologist, GTD).


5/15/2012 Strength: 3:50:05 PM School Improvement Plan 2011 Page 31 of 52 

74% of teachers at Lincoln hold Master's Degrees. 

Seven Lincoln teachers have a Master's Degree in Reading. 

Student to teacher ratio is 16:1. 

Support staff work with students who have deficits in their learning (LAS, LDR, Speech, OT, Social Work, Psychologist, GTD). 

Factors - In what ways, if any, have educator qualifications, staff capacity, and professional development contributed to student performance results? 

Staff qualifications are strong and help build students' skills. 

Currently, three Lincoln teachers are in the process of getting a Reading Specialist endorsement from various college programs. 

Student to teacher ratios allow teachers to differentiate in the classroom providing instruction to meet each student's needs. 


Continue to encourage and support teachers in their graduate school work. 

Have staff members with reading endorsements lead some of the Wednesday staff development sessions. 

As much as possible, continue with low student-to-teacher ratios. 


Item 3 - Parent Involvement 

Data - Briefly describe data on parent involvement. What do these data tell you? 

100% parent participation in parent/teacher conferences. 

Regular PTO meetings attended by an average of 20 parents. 

We have strong parent involvement. Parents volunteer in the classrooms and building on a daily basis. 

Four parent-education nights are scheduled for the 2011-12 school year. Attendance is not mandatory. We typically get 80 to 90 parents at each session. 




Factors - In what ways, if any, has parent involvement contributed to student performance results? 

Parent involvement creates a strong connection between home and school. 

However, we have low attendance at PTO and parent education evenings. 


We need to personally invite parents of low-performing students to attend the parent education evenings. 

Section I-D Data & Analysis - Key Factors 

From the factor pages (I-A, I-B, and I-C), identify key factors that are within the school’s capacity to change or control and which have contributed to low achievement. What 

conclusions about next steps have you reached from reviewing available data and information and about all the factors affecting student achievement? 

The school will: 

Maintain low student-to-teacher ratios. 

Continue to encourage parental involvement. 

Ensure strong implementation of new Treasures reading series. 

Continue differentiation in the classroom. 

Focus on identification of struggling students and provide interventions to meet their individual needs. 




Action Plan Objectives and Deficiencies 

Objective 

Number 

1 

2 

3 

Title 

(click the link to edit any objective) 

Reading: 1)Develop vocabulary knowledge to raise the reading MAP scores 10% each trimester for the students who did not 

Meet or Exceed standards on the 2011 ISAT. 

Reading: 2) Develop reading comprehension strategies to raise the MAP comprehension scores 10% each trimester for the 

students who did not Meet or Exceed standards on the 2011 ISAT Reading Test. 

Reading: Develop deeper understanding of literature to raise the reading MAP scores 10% each trimester for the students 

who did not Meet or Exceed standards on the 2011 ISAT. 

Deficiencies Addressed 

No deficiencies have been identified in the most recent AYP Report for your school 

Section II-A Action Plan - Objectives 

Objective 1 

Reading: 1)Develop vocabulary knowledge to raise the reading MAP scores 10% each trimester for the students who did not Meet or Exceed standards on the 2011 ISAT. 

Objective 1 Description 

a.) Staff Development: Staff will receive training on how to implement Treasures Connect Ed. resources by November 23, 2011. Staff will receive additional training on using the 

MAP DesCartes lessons from MAP. 

b) Student Strategies/Activities: 

1) Students will use Connect Ed vocabulary resources from Treasures reading series at least 3 times/week. 

2) Students will complete individual vocabulary activities, determined by MAP RIT scores, until meeting the grade level benchmark in reading. 


c) Parental Involvement: Parents will receive training on how to use Treasures Connect Ed through an evening parent education workshop on November 17, 2011 and January 19,




a.) Staff Development: Staff will receive training on how to implement Treasures Connect Ed. resources by November 23, 2011. Staff will receive additional training on using the 


b) Student Strategies/Activities: 

1) Students will use Connect Ed vocabulary resources from Treasures reading series at least 3 times/week. 

2) Students will complete individual vocabulary activities, determined by MAP RIT scores, until meeting the grade level benchmark in reading. 

c) Parental Involvement: Parents will receive training on how to use Treasures Connect Ed through an evening parent education workshop on November 17, 2011 and January 19, 

2012. They will also learn how to assist children with DesCartes reading homework activities. 

d) Monitoring: Classroom teachers will monitor student work by logging into Treasures Connect Ed weekly to check progress. The Assistant Principal, 

and Principal will document progress on MAP DesCartes vocabulary activities once a month. 

No deficiencies have been identified from your most recent AYP Report. 

Section II-B Action Plan - Strategies and Activities for Students 

Objective 1 Title : 


TimeLine 

Budget 

1 

2 

Strategies and Activities Start Date End Date Fund Source Amount($) 

Students in grades 2-5 will use Connect Ed vocabulary resources from 

Treasures Reading Series. These lessons will be completed during 10/03/2011 05/24/2013 During School Local Funds 0 

reading workshop time and as homework. 

Students in grades 2-5 will complete vocabulary lessons, determined by 

MAP RIT scores, during reading workshop/station time and as 

10/03/2011 05/24/2013 During School Local Funds 0 

homework. 




Section II-C Action Plan - Professional Development Strategies and Activities 



TimeLine 

Budget 

1 


Teachers will receive ongoing training for Treasures and MAP DesCartes 

lessons. 

08/22/2011 05/24/2013 After School Local Funds 0 

Section II-D Action Plan - Parent Involvement Strategies and Activities 



TimeLine 

Budget 


1 Parents will attend curriculum education nights in Reading. 11/17/2011 04/14/2011 After School Other 300 

Section II-E Action Plan - Monitoring 



Monitoring - Include the process for monitoring the effectiveness of the strategies and activities for the objective and identify the person(s) responsible for overseeing the work. 

Describe the process and measures of success of this objective. (How will school personnel monitor the effectiveness of the strategies and activities?) 

The School Improvement Team, Assistant Principal and Principal will analyze data to verify progress each trimester. 

Designate the name and role of the person(s) (e.g., Karen Smith, assistant principal) overseeing the strategies and activities in the action plan to achieve each objective. 

Name 

Title 

1 Catherine Hamilton Principal 

©2011 2 Illinois Paula Interactive Caradine Report Card, Northern Illinois University 

Assistant Principal 

3 Elizabeth Chase-Vivas Teacher, Kindergarten, SIT member



5/15/2012 

The 

3:50:05 


PM 

Improvement Team, Assistant Principal and Principal will 


analyze 

Improvement 

data to verify 

Plan 2011 

progress each trimester. 

Page 36 of 52 


Name 

Title 


2 Paula Caradine Assistant Principal 

3 Elizabeth Chase-Vivas Teacher, Kindergarten, SIT member 

4 Kathy Hayes Teacher, Grades 1 & 2, SIT member 

5 Diane Conmy Teacher, Grade 3, SIT member 

6 Elizabeth Smith Teacher, Grade 5, SIT member 


Objective 2 

Reading: 2) Develop reading comprehension strategies to raise the MAP comprehension scores 10% each trimester for the students who did not Meet or Exceed standards on the 

2011 ISAT Reading Test. 


a) Staff Development: Staff will receive training on how to implement Treasures Connect Ed. resources by November 23, 2011. Staff will receive additional training on using the 


b.) Strategies/Activities: 

1) Students will use Connect Ed comprehension resources from Treasures Reading Series 3-5 times/week. 

2) Students will complete individual comprehension lessons, determined by MAP RIT scores, during reading workshop/station time, until meeting the grade level benchmark in 

reading. 

c.) Parental Involvement: Parents will receive training on how to use Treasures Connect Ed resources through an evening parent education workshop on November 17, 2011. 

d.) Monitoring: Classroom teachers will monitor student work by logging into Treasures Connect Ed weekly to check progress. LAS/Reading Coach, Assistant Principal and 

Principal will document progress on MAP Descartes comprehension activities once a month. 



Principal will document progress on MAP Descartes comprehension activities once a month. 


No 5/15/2012 deficiencies 3:50:05 have PM been identified from your most recent AYP Report. School Improvement Plan 2011 Page 37 of 52 





TimeLine 

Budget 

1 

2 


Students in grades 2-5 will use Connect Ed comprehension resources 

from Treasures Reading Series. These lessons will be completed during 10/03/2011 05/24/2013 During School Local Funds 0 


Students in grades 2-5 will complete comprehension, determined by 

MAP RIT scores, during reading workshop/station time and as 


homework. 





TimeLine 

Budget 

1 



lessons. 









TimeLine 

Budget 


1 Parents will attend curriculum education nights in Reading. 11/17/2011 04/14/2013 During School Local Funds 0 







• LAS/Reading Coach, Assistant Principal and Principal will analyze data to verify progress each trimester. 


Name 

Title 



3 Dona Davidhizar LAS/Reading Coach 





Objective 3 

Reading: Develop deeper understanding of literature to raise the reading MAP scores 10% each trimester for the students who did not Meet or Exceed standards on the 2011 ISAT. 


a. Staff Development: Staff will receive training on how to implement Treasures Connect Ed. resources by November 23, 2011. Staff will receive additional training on using the 


b. Student Strategies/Activities: 

1. Students will use Connect Ed literature resources from Treasures Reading Series at least 3 times/week. 

2. Students will complete individual literature activities, determined by MAP RIT scores, until meeting grade level benchmark in reading. 

c. Parent Involvement: Parents will receive training on how to use Treasures Connect Ed resources through an evening parent education workshop on November 17, 2011. They 

will also learn how to assist children with DesCartes reading homework activities. 

d. Monitoring: Classroom teachers will monitor student work by logging into Treasures Connect Ed weekly to check progress. LAS/Reading Coach, Assistant Principal and 

Principal will document progress on MAP DesCartes literature activities once a month. 








TimeLine 

Budget 

1 

2 


Students in grades 2-5 will use Connect Ed literature resources from 

Treasures Reading Series. These lessons will be completed during 10/03/2011 05/24/2013 During School Local Funds 0 


Students in grades 2-5 will complete literature lessons, determined by 

MAP RIT scores, during workshop/station time and as homework. 





TimeLine 

Budget 

1 



lessons. 








TimeLine 

Budget 


1 Parents will attend curriculum education nights in reading. 11/17/2011 04/14/2011 During School Local Funds 0 






• LAS/Reading Coach, Assistant Principal and Principal will analyze data to verify progress quarterly. 


Name 

Title 



3 Dona Davidhizer LAS/Reading Coach 




Section III - Development, Review and Implementation 

Part A. Parent Notification* 

This section describes how the plan has been developed and reviewed and identifies the support in place to ensure implementation. 

Parent Notification - Describe how the school has provided written notice about the school’s academic status identification to parents of each student in a format and, to the 

extent practicable, in a language that the parents can understand. (*Requirement for Title I Schools only.) 


Part B. Stakeholder Involvement 

Stakeholder Involvement - Describe specifically how stakeholders (including parents, school staff, and outside experts) have been consulted in the development of the plan. The 

names and titles of the school improvement team or plan developers must be identified here. 

Parents, school staff and outside experts (Cynthia Baranowski, West 40) have been consulted in the development of the plan through PTO meetings, parents on SIT, staff 

development meetings and School Improvement meeting at West 40 on Monday, November 7, 2011. 

Name 

Title 


2 Diane Conmy Teacher, Grade 3 

3 Kathy Hayes Teacher, Grade 1 and 2 

4 Elizabeth Chase-Vivas Teacher, Kindergarten 

5 Elizabeth Smith Teacher, Grade 5 





Part C. Peer Review Process 

Peer Review - Describe the district’s peer review and approval process. Peer review teams should include teachers and administrators from schools and districts similar to the 

one in improvement, but significantly more successful in meeting the learning needs of their students. As appropriate, peer reviewers may be teachers from other schools, 

personnel from other districts, Regional Office of Education staff, Intermediate Service Center staff, RESPRO staff, university faculty, consultants, et al., or combinations thereof. 

RESPRO staff serving on a School Support Team should not serve on a peer review team in the same district. The peer review should precede the local board approval and must be 

completed within 45 days of receiving the school improvement plan.For further description of the peer review process see LEA and School Improvement: Non-Regulatory 

Guidance, July 21, 2006, at http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/schoolimprovementguid.doc. 

Description of peer review process including participants and date(s) of peer review. 

The Peer Review team of the School Improvement Plan was made up of West 40 consultants from West 40 Regional Service Center No.2., parents, administrators and staff. The Peer 

Review Team used the ISBE monitoring prompt to review the plan. Ms. Cynthia Baranowski was the lead West 40 consultant during the peer review process. The peer review took 

place on Monday, November 7, 2011. 


Part D. Teacher Mentoring Process 

Teacher Mentoring Process - Describe the teacher mentoring program. Mentoring programs pair novice teachers with more experienced professionals who serve as role models 

and provide practical support and encouragement. Schools have complete discretion in deciding what else the teacher mentoring program should provide. 

Oak Park Elementary School District 97 has a state approved mentoring and induction program that provides first and second year educators with the training and resources they 

need to successfully transition into the teaching profession and become highly effective professionals. This program: 

• Includes release time new teachers and mentors can use for observations. 

• Enables teacher leaders for mentoring to visit classrooms on a regular basis. 

• Requires all non-tenured teachers to complete 60 hours of staff development during their first four years of employment. 


• Assigns one mentor per building who meets with first and second year teachers on a weekly basis.

need to successfully transition into the teaching profession and become highly effective professionals. This program: 


5/15/2012 • Includes 3:50:05 release PM time new teachers and mentors can use for observations. School Improvement Plan 2011 Page 44 of 52 

• Enables teacher leaders for mentoring to visit classrooms on a regular basis. 

• Requires all non-tenured teachers to complete 60 hours of staff development during their first four years of employment. 

• Assigns one mentor per building who meets with first and second year teachers on a weekly basis. 

• Requires building mentors to keep a log of all interactions they have with teachers. The log will include the date and time the interaction occurred, then name of the 

individual who initiated contact, and the manner in which the contact was made (e.g. one on one, e-mail, phone call, classroom observation or conference). 

• Requires teacher leaders for mentoring to conduct three classroom observations. 

• Provides three full days of professional development, including training on the evaluation process, for all new teachers prior to the start of the school year. The evaluation 

process for non-tenured teachers is based on a professional growth portfolio that targets the Illinois Professional Teaching Standards and applicable content standards. 

These standards are reviewed/discussed during orientation and are incorporated into ongoing staff development. 

• Requires all first year teachers to take the “Best Practices” class that meets once a month for nine months. Requires all second year teachers to attend five sessions of the 

“2nd Year Seminar” class during the school year and complete out of class assignments. 


Part E. District Responsibilities 

District Responsibilities - Specify the services and resources that the district has provided to revise the plan and other services that the district will provide toward 

implementation of strategies and activities. District technical assistance should include data analysis, identification of the school’s challenges in implementing professional 

development requirements, the resulting need-related technical assistance and professional development to effect changes in instruction, and analysis and revision of the 

school’s budget (NCLB, Section 1116). If applicable, identify corrective actions or restructuring options taken by the district. 

Oak Park Elementary School District 97 provides its staff with a variety of professional development opportunities that are aimed at helping them develop into highly effective 

educational leaders who excel both in and out the classroom. These opportunities include, but are not limited to: 

1. Contracting with West 40 Intermediate Service Center to assist schools with their school improvement process. 

2. Providing teachers with one day of release time to work on school improvement planning. 

3. Contracting with West 40 to provide school improvement teams with two days of data training. 

4. Organizing a half-day training session for school improvement teams that is run by the district’s teacher leader for student data analysis. 

©2011 

5. 

Illinois 

Contracting 

Interactive 

with 

Report 

a literacy 

Card, 

coach 

Northern 

to provide 

Illinois 

principals 

University 

and language arts specialists with multiple days of training on balanced literacy.

1. Contracting with West 40 Intermediate Service Center to assist schools with their school improvement process. 


2. Providing teachers with one day of release time to work on school improvement planning. 


3. Contracting with West 40 to provide school improvement teams with two days of data training. 

4. Organizing a half-day training session for school improvement teams that is run by the district’s teacher leader for student data analysis. 

5. Contracting with a literacy coach to provide principals and language arts specialists with multiple days of training on balanced literacy. 

6. Providing principals with data files that include multiple data points (ISAT results, Map scores, etc.) for every student. 

7. Hiring consultants to provide multiple training sessions on Common Core Standards, including sessions held in conjunction with the district’s August Institute Day. 

8. Providing staff with a variety of classes through University 97 that are designed to improve classroom instructional practices. 

Corrective Actions taken by a district for a Title I school that failed to meet AdequateYearly Progress for a fourth annual calculation (Corrective Action Status) should be aligned 

with the strategies and activities of this plan. The district must take one or more of the following actions in such a school per NCLB, Section 1116(b)(7)(C)(iv). (Check all that apply.) 

gfedc 

gfedc 

gfedc 

gfedc 

gfedc 

gfedc 

gfedc 

Abraham 

Require implementation of a new research-based curriculum of instructional program; 

Extension of the school year or school day; 

Replacement of staff members relevant to the school’s low performance; 

Significant decrease in management authority at the school level; 

Replacement of the principal; 

Restructuring the internal organization of the school; 

Appointment of an outside expert to advise the school. 




Restructuring Options (allowed in Illinois) selected by a district for a Title I school that failed to meet Adequate Yearly Progress for a fifth annual calculation (Restructuring Status) 

should be aligned with the strategies and activities of this plan. The district must take one or more of the following options in such a school. (Please check all that apply.) 

gfedc 

gfedc 

gfedc 

gfedc 

Reopening the school as a public charter school, consistent with Article 27A of the School Code (105 ILCS 5/Art. 27A.); 

Replacing all or most of the school staff, which may include the principal, who are relevant to the school’s inability to make AYP; 

Entering into a contract with a private entity, such as a private management company, with a demonstrated record of effectiveness, to operate the school as a public 

school; 

Implementing any other major restructuring of the school’s governance that makes fundamental reform in: 

gfedc governance and management, and/or 

gfedc financing and material resources, and/or 

gfedc staffing. 


Part F. State Responsibilities 

State Responsibilities - Specify the services and resources that ISBE, RESPROS, and other service providers have provided the school during the development and review of this 

plan and other services that will be provided during the implementation of the plan. ISBE shall provide technical assistance to the school if district fails to do so. 

The West 40 consultants have provided support services during the development of this school improvement plan by providing technical assistances in writing the plan and locating 

a peer review team., Ms. Cynthia Baranowski, our West 40 consultant, has collaborated with us in the development of the school improvement plan. District 97 will assist schools in 

allocating resources to provide to support with staff development activities, parent programs, and the purchase of supplies and materials needed to carry out this plan. 




Name Title 

1 Dr. Albert Roberts Superintendent of Schools 

2 Dr. Felicia Starks Turner Curriculum Coordinator for Administratve Services 

3 Cynthia Baranowski West 40 Constultant 




Section IV-A Local Board Action 

DATE APPROVED by Local Board: 

A. ASSURANCES 

1. The district has provided written notice in a timely manner about the improvement identification to parents of each student enrolled in the school, in a format and, to the 

extent practicable, in a language that the parents can understand (NCLB, Section 1116(c)(6)). 

2. Strategies and activities have been founded in scientifically based research as required by NCLB, Section 1116(b)(3)(A)(i) and as defined in NCLB, Section 9101(37). 

3. Technical assistance provided by the district serving the school is founded on scientifically based research (NCLB, Section 1116(b)(4)(C)) as defined in NCLB, Section 9101 

(37). 

4. The plan includes strategies and activities that support the implementation of the Illinois Learning Standards and ensures alignment of curriculum, instruction, and 

assessments with the Illinois Learning Standards. 

5. The school will spend at least 10 percent of the funds made available under Section 1113 of NCLB for the purpose of providing teachers and the principal high-quality 

professional development. (Title I schools only.) 

B.SUPERINTENDENT'S CERTIFICATION 

By submitting the plan on behalf of the school the district superintendent certifies to ISBE that all the assurances and information provided in the plan are true and correct and 

that the improvement plan has been duly approved by the local school board. By sending e-mail notification of the plan completion from the Submit Your Plan page (Section IV-C) 

the plan shall be deemed to be executed by the superintendent on behalf of the school. 




Section IV-B ISBE Monitoring 

PART I - SECTIONS I and II OF THE PLAN 

ANALYSIS OF DATA 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

Have the areas of low achievement been clearly identified? [C] 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

Does the SIP include analysis of report card data that sufficiently clarify the areas of weakness? [C] 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

Is it clear that the areas of weakness are broad or narrow and whether they affect many or few students? [C] 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

Does the analysis, along with other optional data, provide clear direction for the selection of the objectives, strategies, and activities? [C] 

LOCAL ASSESSMENT DATA (OPTIONAL) 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

nmlkj N/A 

If included, is there evidence that the SIP team analyzed optional data to clarify the areas of weakness? 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

nmlkj N/A 

Do these local assessment results add clarity to the state assessment data? 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

nmlkj N/A 

Does the analysis, along with the other data, provide clear direction for the selection of the objectives, strategies, and activities? 

OTHER DATA (OPTIONAL) 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

nmlkj N/A 

If included, has the SIP team analyzed other available data to clarify the areas of weakness in order to target improvement strategies and 

activities? 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

nmlkj N/A 

Do the other data add clarity to the state assessment data? 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

nmlkj N/A 


IDENTIFICATION OF KEY FACTORS 


Have data or research been used to determine the key factors believed to cause low performance? [C]


nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

nmlkj N/A 

Do the other data add clarity to the state assessment data? 


nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

nmlkj N/A 


IDENTIFICATION OF KEY FACTORS 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

Have data or research been used to determine the key factors believed to cause low performance? [C] 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

Are the key factors within the district’s capacity to change or control? [C] 

CLARITY OF OBJECTIVES 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

Has the SIP team stated measurable objectives that clarify the present areas needed for improvement for the two years of the plan? [C] 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

nmlkj N/A 

Do the objectives address all areas of AYP deficiency? [C] 

ALIGNMENT OF STRATEGIES AND ACTIVITIES 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

Is there a clear relationship between the key factors believed to have caused low achievement and the strategies and activities selected? 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

Will the selected strategies and activities likely improve student learning and achievement? [C] 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

Are the strategies and activities measurable? [C] 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

Are the measures of progress for the strategies and activities clearly identified? [C] 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

Are expectations for classroom behavior and practice related to the objectives clear? [C] 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

nmlkj N/A 

Is professional development aligned with the strategies and activities for students? [C] 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

nmlkj N/A 

Do the professional development strategies and activities directly address the factors that caused the school to be identified in status or in 

special education non-compliance? 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

nmlkj N/A 

Do the parent involvement strategies clearly align with the strategies and activities for students? [C] 

Do these parent activities relate to the factors contributing to low achievement and will they engage parents in sharing responsibility for 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

nmlkj N/A 

©2011 Illinois Interactive Report Card, student Northern learning? Illinois University

Do the professional development strategies and activities directly address the factors that caused the school to be identified in status or in 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

nmlkj N/A 

special education non-compliance? Abraham Lincoln Elem School 


nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

nmlkj N/A 

Do the parent involvement strategies clearly align with the strategies and activities for students? [C] 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

nmlkj N/A 

Do these parent activities relate to the factors contributing to low achievement and will they engage parents in sharing responsibility for 

student learning? 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

Are timelines reasonable and resources coordinated to achieve the objectives? [C] 

MONITORING 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

Is it clear who will oversee progress of the objectives and take responsibility for ensuring implementation of the plan? [C] 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

Will the collection of strategies and activities, along with the monitoring process, provide sufficient direction for plan implementers? [C] 

PART I - COMMENTS 

PART II - SECTIONS III and IV OF THE PLAN 

PARENT NOTIFICATION 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

nmlkj N/A 

Does this plan describe how the school has provided written notice about the school’s academic status identification to parents of each 

student in a format and, to the extent practicable, in a language that parents can understand? (Title I Schools Only) [C] 

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

Does the plan describe how stakeholders have been consulted? [C] 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

Does the SIP team include a cross section of teachers, experts, parents, and other stakeholders to develop a plan on behalf of students that 

will best effect necessary changes? [C] 

PEER REVIEW 

Is the peer review process described and is there evidence that this plan has been subjected to rigorous review to ensure that it will have 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

“the greatest likelihood” of ensuring that all groups will achieve AYP? [C] 


TEACHER MENTORING PROCESS

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

Does the SIP team include a cross section of teachers, experts, parents, and other stakeholders to develop a plan on behalf of students that 

will best effect necessary changes? [C] Abraham Lincoln Elem School 


PEER REVIEW 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

Is the peer review process described and is there evidence that this plan has been subjected to rigorous review to ensure that it will have 

“the greatest likelihood” of ensuring that all groups will achieve AYP? [C] 

TEACHER MENTORING PROCESS 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

Is it clear how the school is ensuring that teachers are receiving the support needed for their professional growth and to retain them in the 

profession? [C] 

DISTRICT RESPONSIBILITES 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

Is it clear what support the district will provide to ensure the success of the plan? [C] 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

nmlkj N/A 

If applicable, is it clear what corrective actions or restructuring options the district is taking with this school? [C] 

STATE RESPONSIBILITES 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

Does the plan indicate what support outside providers have given in developing the plan and what support, if any, is expected for its 

implementation? [C] 

SCHOOL SUPPORT TEAM 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

nmlkj N/A 

Have the names and titles of School Support Team members been listed in the plan? Does the team appear to have the expertise to support 

this school in regards to the school improvement plan? [C] 

APPROVAL DATE OF LOCAL BOARD 

nmlkj Yes 

nmlkj No 

The plan indicates the approval date of this plan. [C] 

PART II - COMMENTS

School Improvement Plan (SIP) - Oak Park Elementary School ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?