SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Slidell Pathway

Gayle G. Sloan

Superintendent

Jackie Landry

Principal

October 2004

DISTRICT ASSURANCE

q  For schools in School Improvement, and for schools with CSRP models, I hereby certify that this plan was developed with the assistance of a District Assistance Team in

q  Collaboration with the School Improvement Team and/or School Support Team, as applicable.

q  I hereby certify that this plan was designed to improve student achievement, with input from all stakeholders.

q  I assure that the school level personnel, including subgroup representatives responsible for implementation of this plan, have collaborated in the writing of the plan.

q  I hereby certify that this plan has all of the following components as required in Bulletin 741:

q  A statement of the school's beliefs, vision, and mission

q  A comprehensive needs assessment, which includes the following quantitative and qualitative data:

q  Student academic performances on standardized achievement tests (both CRT, NRT) and performance/authentic assessment disaggregated by grade

vs. content vs. exceptionality

q  Demographic indicators of the community and school to include socioeconomic factors

q  School human and material resource summary, to include teacher demographic indicators and capital outlay factors

q  Interviews with stakeholders: principals, teachers, students, parents

q  Student and teacher focus groups

q  Questionnaires with stakeholders (principals, teachers, students, parents) measuring conceptual domains outlined in school effectiveness/reform research

Classroom observations

q  Measurable objectives and benchmarks

q  Effective scientifically-based methods and strategies

q  Parental and community involvement activities

q  Professional development component aligned with assessed needs

q  External technical support and assistance

q  Evaluation strategies

q  Coordination of resources and analysis of school budget (possible redirection of funds)

q  Action plan with timelines and specific activities

q  I further certify that the information contained in this assurance is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

______

Superintendent's signature Principal's signature

______

District Assistance Team Leader Chair, School Improvement Team

______

______

District Assistance Team Members

ASSURANCE OF FACULTY REVIEW OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

The following faculty members have reviewed the School Improvement Plan and have discussed their part in implementing it.

NAME / TITLE/POSITION / SIGNATURE
Mary Bartell / Project Success
Donna Boyea / Para educator
Willie Brice / Teacher
Willie Bullock / Resource Officer
Wanda Cassidy / Secretary
Raquel Davis / Teacher
Theresa Desselle / Para educator
Lynelle Ernest / Para educator
Leslie Eyles / Speech Therapist
Craig Fredin / Mental Health Provider
Clair Guarino / Teacher
Blanche Hammond / Para educator
Nicki Hebert / Mental Health Provider
Brenda Jackson / Para educator
Melinda Kloepper / Teacher
Jackie Landry / Principal
Marcus Lewis / Para educator
Sue Lindahl / Para educator
Dione McIntyre / Teacher
Christian Munson / Teacher
Harriet Panks / Para educator
Karen Paternostro / Teacher
Veronica Pichon / Para educator
Flo Ann Richmond / Para educator
Shannon Roberts / Teacher
Sandra Smith / Para educator
Jackie Sneed / Para educator
Rita Storey / Teacher
Anthony Ularich / Teacher
Jolene Wilson / Teacher

Slidell Pathways

BELIEFS STATEMENT

The staff at Slidell Pathways believes it is the school’s responsibility to assist students in becoming responsible and productive citizens in the school, community, and home.

The education program will address life skills, social skills, problem solving, conflict resolution, character development, and academics. Providing students with appropriate social skills will enhance their ability to return to a regular campus and achieve success in an inclusion program.

Slidell Pathways

VISION STATEMENT

Slidell Pathways’ vision includes a safe, secure, and accepting learning environment which is drug and violence free. A low pupil/teacher ratio will insure more individualized instruction focusing on academics as well as social skills, life skills, problem solving skills, conflict resolution, and character development.

At-risk students attending this school will benefit from social skills instruction and modifications to the curriculum suited to their learning styles. Parental involvement and communication with staff will be vital to the program’s success.

Slidell Pathways

MISSION STATEMENT

The mission at Slidell Pathways is to provide opportunities for students to learn social skills which will facilitate their success in society. The goal of the faculty and staff will be to identify inappropriate behaviors which have caused problems for the students, teach skills that will be productive in confrontational situations. We believe that a student who is well adjusted socially and emotionally will function successfully in an inclusion program.

Reference appendices for stakeholder participants

SCHOOL DEMOGRAPHICS/CHARACTERISTICS

A

D
M / / Total # / # Certified / # Expected Vacancies / # in LA Principal Internship/Induction Program for SY 04-05

Principal: Jackie Landry

/

1

/ 1 / 0 / 0

T

E
A
C
H
E
R
S
* / SchoolNon-Title I /

Title I

/ Total % in School / % Change from 2003
School wide / Targeted Asst.

HIGHLY QUALIFIED**

/ General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed
# Highly Qualified Core Academic Teachers (Subtotal)
/ 7 / 70

NOT HIGHLY QUALIFIED

/ General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed
Non-Standard
*** (TAT) (OFAT) (TEP) (EP) / 2 / 20
Other / 1 / 10

Subtotal Not Highly Qualified

/ /

3

/ / / / / /

30

/ /

TOTAL TEACHERS (Highly Qualified and Not Highly Qualified)

/ 10 / 100% / 100%
P
A
R
A
S /

HIGHLY QUALIFIED**

/ General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed
# Highly Qualified Paras / 6 / 60
NOT HIGHLY QUALIFIED / General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed / General
Ed / Special
Ed
# Not Highly Qualified Paras / 4 / 40
Total Paraprofessionals / /

10

/ / / / / 100 / /

* Teachers include all teaching in core academic courses (English/Reading/Language Arts; Math; Science; Civics/Government; Economics; Arts; History; Geography)

** Highly Qualified: Has met all requirements as specified by the LA Board of Elementary and Secondary Education’s definition of “Highly Qualified” under NCLB adopted June 19, 2003.

*** Temporary Authority to Teach (TAT); Out-of-Field Authorization to Teach (OFAT); Temporary Employment Permit (TEP); Emergency Permit (EP)

School Support
Number of Related Service and Support Personnel and Areas (i.e., Speech Pathologist, Social Worker): (2) Mental Health Providers;
(1) Resource Officer; (1) Project Success Coordinator; (1) Speech Therapist; (1) P.E. Coach and APE; (1) Occupational Therapist
School Improvement Team Members/Position: Jackie Landry/Principal; Jolene Wilson/Teacher/Technology Coordinator; Melinda Kloepper/Teacher;
Dione McIntyre/Teacher; Blanche Hammond/Para educator; Harriet Panks/Para educator
District Assistance Team Leader and Contact #
(if applicable): 0 / Distinguished Educator and Contact # (if applicable): 0
Parish Homeless Liaison: (Contact Parish Title I Supervisor to get further information) Mark Graham / Parish Homeless Liaison’s Contact #:
(985)898-3360
Learning-Intensive Networking Communities for Success (LINCS) Information (if applicable)
Regional LINCS Coordinator: 0 / Content Leader(s): 0 / Content Area of Focus for School: 0
High Schools That Work (HSTW) Site Coordinator and Contact #: 0 / Making Middle Grades Work (MMGW) Site Coordinator and Contact #: 0
Leadership Team Members/Position at the School: 0
Federal/State Instructional Programs and/or Initiatives
(Place a check in the status area for each program implemented at your school)
Program List: (Include during and after school programs) / Currently Using / Proposed Program / Deleted Program
21st Century Community Learning Centers
Big Buddy
Career to Work
DARE
Early Reading First
HIPPY
INTECH
INTECH 2 Science
INTECH Social Studies
K-3 Reading/Math Initiative / X
La GEAR-UP
Federal/State Instructional Programs and/or Initiatives
(Place a check in the status area for each program implemented at your school)
Program List: (Include during and after school programs) / Currently Using / Proposed Program / Deleted Program
LaSIP
LEAD TECH
Learning Intensive Networking Communities for Success (LINCS)
LINCS/High Schools That Work (HSTW)
LINCS/Making Middle Grades Work (MMGW)
Louisiana Virtual School
Making Middle Grades Work
SAGE
School Tech
School to Work
School wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Support
The Louisiana Literacy Corps
The Multisensory Structured Language Program
The Strategic Instruction Model (SIM)
Other:
List the Supplemental Educational Services provided for your students (Title I schools, if applicable):
List the Distance Learning (i.e., web-based, satellite, etc.) courses provided for your students:
School Policies
Policies / Yes / No
Discipline Policy / X
Security Procedures (Metal detectors, etc.) / X
Safe and Drug-Free Prevention Activities / X
Student Code of Conduct / X
Crisis Management (Emergency/evacuation plan) / X
School Partnerships: (Place the name of each partner in the space provided.)
University:
Technical Institute:
Feeder School(s):
Community:
Business/Industry:
Private Grants:
Other:
Student Information
List the number of students in each area:
Total at School / # of grade 4 and above / Students w/ Disabilities / Gifted and Talented / 504 / Option III / LEP / Homeless / Migrant
44 / 42 / 44 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0
Number of Households Served by School:
Subgroups by Ethnicity
American Indian / Asian/Pacific Islander / Black / Hispanic / White
0 / 0 / 27 / 0 / 17
Poverty Profile
# of Free/Reduced Lunch Students: 39 / Percent of Free/Reduced Lunch Students: 89%

Note 1. Additional community demographics and capital outlay data are located in the appendices.

DATA COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY REPORT

Strengths and challenges were rank-ordered by evaluating the magnitude of the evidence in conjunction with its association with student achievement. Exogenous factors were eliminated from these results; however, they were included during the analytical phase as a contextual reference.

STRENGTHS / DATA SOURCE
1. Staff development and collaboration / School Faculty Survey, Faculty Needs Assessment, and Teacher Interview.
2. Leadership visibility and support / School Faculty Survey, Faculty Needs Assessment, and Teacher Interview.
*SUPPORTING EVIDENCE / DATA SOURCE
Strength 1. The school has a dedicated group of teachers who want to teach at Slidell Pathways. Staff gets together on a weekly basis to collaborate and support one another. / School Faculty Survey, Faculty Needs Assessment, and Teacher Interview.
Strength 2 The leadership provides opportunities for the staff to engage in professional development activities that promote pro-social behavior and sound instructional strategies, as well as offering guidance and support. / School Faculty Survey, Faculty Needs Assessment, and Teacher Interview
CHALLENGES / DATA SOURCE
1. To improve student proficiency in reading, analyzing and responding to text across academic areas.(ELA Standard #7) including applying reasoning skills to life experience, evaluating points of view, and generating inquiry. Parental involvement and student expectation/motivation continue to be our challenges. Getting parents to participate in the instructional program of their children is difficult and presents a challenge / Analysis of CRT and NRT Data from Spring 2004
School Faculty Survey, Faculty Needs Assessment, and teacher interview, student interview, Behavior Intervention Plans, and Community Group meetings.
2.  To improve student proficiency in measurement.(Math Standard #3)
Parental involvement and student expectation/motivation continue to be our challenges. Getting parents to participate in the instructional program of their child is difficult. / Analysis of CRT and NRT Data from Spring 2004
School Faculty Survey, Faculty Needs Assessment, and teacher interview, student interview, Behavior Intervention Plans, and Community Group meetings.
3. To improve student proficiency in the area of science as inquiry. (Science Standard # 1 )
Parental involvement and student expectation/motivation continue to be our challenges. Getting parents to participate in the instructional program of their child is difficult. / Analysis of CRT and NRT Data from Spring 2004
School Faculty Survey, Faculty Needs Assessment, and teacher interview, student interview, Behavior Intervention Plans, and Community Group meetings.
*SUPPORTING EVIDENCE / DATA SOURCE
Challenge 1.
1. Testing Data:
a. NRT Test Data: 75% non-proficient in 2004 in ELA “red students”
b. CRT Test Data: 100% non-proficient in 2004 in ELA
“red students”
2. Curriculum:
Strand Evidence: 46% incorrect responses in Strand #7 in ELA
3. Instruction-Lack of Instructional Strategies Utilized:
a. 100% of observed teachers showed no use of technology,
neither computer or non-computer in the classroom.
4. Underlying Cause: Students have significant emotional problems that are interfering with their academic performance. Students come to Pathways significantly below in reading. Students’ expectations of themselves are low, encouraging and motivating them is difficult. / CRT and NRT Test Data from Spring 2004
Curriculum Data: content standard data provided by SIP Team , derived from student scores.
Instructional Data:
Teaching and Learning Snapshots (2003-2004)
Data to Support Underlying Causes :
a.  Review of student data and IEP information( FBA, BIP, Goals and Objectives) upon student entry to Pathways.
b.  Teacher Interviews/Faculty Survey results (Portfolio usage, GLE usage, etc.)
c.  Whole Staff Discussion regarding student issues.
d.  Collaboration with Mental Health Providers.
Challenge 2.
1. Testing Data:
a. NRT Test Data:76 % non-proficient in 2004 in Math “red students”
b. CRT Test Data: 43% non-proficient in 2004 in Math “red students”
2. Curriculum:
Strand Evidence: 54% incorrect responses in Strand #3
3. Instruction-Lack of Instructional Strategies Utilized:
a. 100% of observed teachers showed no use of technology,
neither computer or non-computer in the classroom.
4. Underlying Cause: Students have significant emotional problems that are interfering with their academic performance. Student come to Pathways significantly below in math. Students’ expectations of themselves are low, encouraging and motivating them is difficult. / CRT and NRT Test Data from Spring 2004
Curriculum Data: content standard data provided by SIP Team , derived from student scores.
Instructional Data:
Teaching and Learning Snapshots (2003-2004)
Data to Support Underlying Causes :
a. Review of student data and IEP information( FBA, BIP, Goals and Objectives) upon
student entry to Pathways.
b. Teacher Interviews/Faculty Survey results (Portfolio usage, GLE usage, etc.)
c.  Whole Staff Discussion regarding student issues.
d. Collaboration with Mental Health Providers.
Challenge 3.
1. Testing Data:
a. NRT Test Data:76% non-proficient in 2004 in Science
“red students”
b. CRT Test Data: 100% non-proficient in 2004 Science
“red students”
2. Curriculum:
Strand Evidence: 66% incorrect responses in Strand #1 in Science
3. Instruction-Lack of Instructional Strategies Utilized:
a. 100% of observed teachers showed no use of technology,
neither computer or non-computer in the classroom.
4. Underlying Cause: Students have significant emotional problems that are interfering with their academic performance. Student come to Pathways significantly below in math and reading which affect their performance in science. Students’ expectations of themselves are low, encouraging and motivating them is difficult. / CRT and NRT Test Data from Spring 2004
Curriculum Data: content standard data provided by SIP Team , derived from student scores.
Instructional Data:
Teaching and Learning Snapshots (2003-2004)
Data to Support Underlying Causes :
a.  Review of student data and IEP information( FBA, BIP, Goals and Objectives) upon student entry to Pathways.
b.  Teacher Interviews/Faculty Survey results (Portfolio usage, GLE usage, etc.)
c.  Whole Staff Discussion regarding student issues.
d. Collaboration with Mental Health Providers.

Note 1. Supporting evidence included both quantitative and qualitative data using a standardized triangulation method specifically designed for District Assistance Teams and School Improvement Teams. The supporting evidence does not imply causal relationships.